BOROUGH OF ST. IVES.

HC Deb 27 February 1833 vol 15 cc1183-7

Mr. Hawkins

had been intrusted with a petition to which he begged to call the attention of the House, because it involved a complaint of a gross interference with the freedom of election, and a determined violation of the privileges of Parliament. The petition contained a grave and serious attack upon the characters of two individuals—one a Member of that House, and the other a peer of the realm. The hon. Member referred to was now in his place, and he (Mr. Hawkins) hoped to hear from him a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances detailed in the petition, as if not, he should feel it his duty to move that it be printed, with a view to further proceedings. The petition was that of William Mackworth Praed, Esq., of the Inner Temple, barrister-at-law, candidate for the borough of St. Ives at the last election, and stated that at and previous to the late election, from circumstances which transpired, fears had been entertained that such persons as voted for the petitioner would, if labourers, lose their employment, and if shopkeepers, their customers; that in a mine in the neighbourhood of the borough, notice had been given, forbidding the miners employed therein from dealing with or holding any intercourse with the inhabitants of the town, on pain of being expelled the mine. The notice was set out at length in the petition, and purported to have been an order issued by the proprietors of the mine, and forbade all the labourers from dealing with those shopkeepers who were opposed to the interests of the mine, on pain of expulsion and the forfeiture of any wages then due, on proof of such dealing being made before two agents of the mine. Such was the system of intimidation carried on at the late election, and of this notice use had been made in the mine in question, which principally belonged to the Earl of Lauderdale, and the entire control of which had been delegated by his Lordship to the hon. member for St. Ives (Mr. Halse); by whose especial orders, the petition stated, the notice had been given—that it had been acted upon, and parties had been discharged from their employments. The petitioner alleged the conduct of the Earl of Lauder, dale was in direct contravention of the privileges of the House, and prayed that a prosecution should be instituted by the House against all those parties who might appear to have been concerned in the transaction. The effect of such a combination, he (Mr. Hawkins) was certain must be evident to every hon. Gentleman present, and the real meaning of the notice was equally manifest. Thus much he could add from his own acquaintance with Cornish miners, that the meaning that would be applied by labourers there would be, that it was intended to refer to parliamentary and election influence; such, however, was the interpretation put upon it by the miners, and by every person in the borough of St. Ives. He moved that the petition be brought up.

Mr. Halse

would answer the appeal made to him by the hon. Member on the presentation of this petition from Mr. Mackworth Praed. The resolution alluded to in the petition, with respect to the purchase of goods for the mine, was one that had been agreed to by the proprietors, in 1830; and, although printed then, or in 1831, had never been acted upon in any single instance. At a public meeting on the occasion of the recent election, this resolution was alluded to; and it was only then that he (Mr. Halse) recollected its existence. Among the circumstances which occurred at the late election which was the subject of the petition was a speech made by Mr. Praed, in which that Gentleman spoke of his property and income; including in the latter an average of 50l. per annum for poetry; 200l. a paternal allowance; and 500l. per annum for law. He could only say, God help the Gentleman's clients. He denied that the Earl of Lauderdale had used any influence at the election, and read a letter he had received from the noble Lord, which he (Mr. Halse) stated to be the only communication that had passed between them—in which letter his Lordship stated, that he had been applied to by a number of persons to exert his interest at the election, in favour of Mr. Praed, but had in every case declared it to be absurd to expect he could entertain any idea of doing so. This, he I would repeat, was the only communication he had had with the noble Lord. He would add, that the printed resolution upon which the principal weight of the charge appeared to hinge, was without date or signature; and that it was customary, when anything of consequence was ordered for mines, to have some resolution passed by the managers, authorising the purchase.

Mr. Hawkins

said, that with regard to the application made to Lord Lauderdale, he was instructed by the petitioner to deny that he ever applied to his Lordship about this business at all. He applied to him not to request his assistance, nor even to ask him to remain neuter, or to forbear giving expression to his own wishes in any way he might think proper; but simply to disclaim any participation in this notice, and to make a public promise that, so far as he was concerned, no person should suffer any loss of business, or sustain any inconvenience, in consequence of the vote he might give at the ensuing election. He again denied, that the petitioner ever asked his Lordship for his support. Upon this application being made, however, his Lordship distinctly refused to state what he was asked, or to promise what he was called upon for. The petition, however, was chiefly directed against the hon. member for St. Ives. He (Mr. Hawkins) had in his possession the affidavit of a person who had been the manager of the mines spoken of for upwards of two years, in which he distinctly swore, that this notice had been twice read in the mine by the desire of the hon. Member, and, that, upon one occasion, at least, he was present while it was read. He further swore, that the hon. Member and Lord Lauderdale were proprietors of the majority of shares of the mines. The petitioner having failed in the application, he (Mr. Halse) had stated he had made to Lord Lauderdale, then drew up a strongly worded declaration, pledging the candidates not to exercise any undue influence over the voters, and not to visit them with any species of persecution, in consequence of the votes they might give; which he called upon the hon. Member to sign, adding, at the same time, that if the hon. Member could prove, that he (Mr. Praed) had been guilty of any intimidation, either by himself or any person concerned foy him, he would give up the advantages he had, and at once withdraw from the contest. This declaration was signed by Mr. Praed, but the hon. Member opposite distinctly and positively refused to sign it; giving as his reason for such refusal—and to this he specially begged the attention of the House—that it was not for a man who had no property in the town to call upon him, who had much, to prevent him from exercising any influence which that property gave him, in the course of the election. At the same time, he repeated, that no undue influence had been used by the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner had taken every opportunity to use what influence he could with the persons whom the hon. Member called the "mob," to abstain from every thing improper. Such he (Mr. Hawkins) was instructed to say, were the real facts of this case. Whether it should be the opinion of the House that the refusal of the hon. Member and of the noble Lord to take the only course that, in the opinion of a Jury of twelve honest men, would absolve them from the imputation resting upon them, was more than he could say. The public would put their own interpretation upon the case; and so fully satisfied was he of the validity of the statements in the petition, that he should not only move, that it be brought up, but that it be also printed.

Mr. Halse

I must state most positively that the petitioner said, upon the hustings that he had applied for the interest of Lord Lauderdale, and added, "I confess I have failed." For my own part, I most solemnly declare, in answer to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that I was never present at the reading of the notice to which he alludes, except when it was read upon the hustings, nor was it, that I am aware of, ever read in the mine, except once in the year 1830. I protest, in a manner equally solemn, that I used no undue influence to procure my return. Indeed it was not necessary for me to canvass the borough after July or August, and at the close of the election I had upwards of 100 majority over Mr. Praed.

The Petition having been read;

On the Motion, that it be printed,

Lord John Russell

said, that he apprehended, according to the new rules of the House, the hon. Member could not move the printing of the petition. At the same time, should the hon. Member be disposed to bring the subject before the House in a regular way, without saying anything at present about the merits of the question, he should have his best assistance.

Mr. Harvey

said, that it was not right in any hon. Gentleman to state that he had affdavits swearing to circumstances which an hon. Member solemnly contradicted, without producing these affidavits.

Mr. Hawkins

In answer to the observation of the hon. member for Colchester, I beg to state that I have the affidavit in my pocket.