§ Mr. Humerose to present a Petition from certain inhabitants of South Shields, complaining of improper practices at the late election. The petition was numerously and respectably signed. It complained that, during the last election, the various parties who had signed the petition had been subjected to such influence as prevented them from giving an honest and conscientious vote for the election of Members to represent them in Parliament. They were persons whose situation in life did not enable them to brave the threats of certain individuals. They had been placed in danger of losing their employment if they voted in opposition to certain parties. Some parties had actually been subjected to a loss of property in consequence of their votes on the occasion of the election. It was his (Mr. Hume's) belief, that not only at South Shields, but at many other places, practices had been resorted to, which were perfectly incompatible with freedom of election. The petitioners prayed, upon these grounds, that the House would take into their consideration the means of preventing such intimidation, and such improper practices at all future elections.
§ Mr. Inghamsaid, he certainly could not support the prayer of the petition, although it came from the town he had the honour to represent in that House. It was said, that petition was numerously signed, and he did not mean to contradict the assertion, but he would venture to say, that it was not signed by any of the persons who took a part in the last election. In saying this he did not mean, in the slightest degree, to disparage the petitioners; on the contrary, he was one of those who thought every man entitled to the free exercise of his 766 opinions, and more particularly on a question affecting the freedom of election. He was, of course, present during the proceedings at that election; and he could boldly assert, that he did not encourage, countenance, or connive at, either directly or indirectly, anything bordering on intimidation, or calculated to affect the freedom of election. Having, through the courtesy of the hon. member for Middlesex, been enabled to make himself acquainted with the petition, he would venture to say the statements with respect to intimidation, and the undue influence of property having been carried to any extent, were untrue. It was stated, for instance, that a voter, having been canvassed by one of his best customers, had been unable to refuse his vote. This he supposed, was put forth as an argument in support of the vote by ballot. It was easy to make assertions as to the extent of intimidation, or the influence of property which had been exercised; but he appealed to the hon. member for Middlesex, whether more than three or four instances of the kind had been exercised? And was it, he would ask, extraordinary, that some circumstances of the kind should take place in a new borough, where there were so many candidates? He had seen a statement in the public papers, mentioning one case of a person having been discharged for the vote he gave on that occasion; but, after the best inquiry he could make, he understood that that person had been discharged for misconduct. With respect to that statement, however, he would say, that the party there accused was as much opposed to him (Mr. Ingham), as he was to the friend of the hon. member for Middlesex. That hon. Member having thought it right to send a candidate down to that borough, as he doubtless might do if so requested, that candidate had been defeated. This he believed would be found the hinc illœ lacrymœ of the petitioners. That gentleman, who wished, of course, to be the first, was not only not first, but not even second—he was last on the poll. This, he would venture to say, would, upon inquiry, turn out to be the true ground of the petition being got up. With respect to the subject matter of the petition itself, he meant its prayer for the vote by ballot, he must say that he considered that that system would open a door to bribery and corruption wider than any which at present existed.
§ Mr. Humeobserved, that it was out of deference to the feelings of the Hon. Member, that particular instances in proof of the allegations of the petition had been omitted. He had to complain of the use of certain expressions on the part of the hon. member for South Shields, which seemed directed against himself.
§ Mr. Inghamdisclaimed any intention of using offensive expressions.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, he was quite sure they were indebted for this petition to the circumstance, that the individual sent down to this place by the hon. member for Middlesex had been defeated by his hon. friend, whose uniformly honest and independent conduct had justly endeared him to the electors of that town, in the neighbourhood of which he possessed considerable property. He was certain that his hon. friend had not been privy to any undue interference with the freedom of election in this instance.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.