HC Deb 12 March 1833 vol 16 cc554-60
Mr. Edward Ellice

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to indemnify certain parties who might be called to give evidence relative to the circumstances of the last Election for the borough of Stafford. It had been ascertained, that an almost universal corruption prevailed in that borough during the late election: and a Committee had been consequently appointed by the House, to make inquiry into the subject, which was, he believed, to have held its first sitting on Thursday next. His object, in making this Motion, was to obtain a disclosure of the facts of the case, and to induce witnesses to come forward, in order that those guilty—if any—might be punished, and that the public might obtain the redress which was due to them in all such gross cases of corruption as that which appeared to have prevailed in this borough. If the Gentlemen returned did not defend their seats, no inquiry could of course be instituted, and no detection of the corrupt practices arrived at; but in this case, he understood the sitting Members were to defend their seats. From the representations made to him (Mr. Ellice), it would appear that at the Stafford election, a scene of such gross corruption and bribery occurred, as would scarcely be believed by the House, accustomed as they were to have cases of gross corruption brought before them. He held tickets in his hand which had been given to the voters as they went to the poll—some of which were sealed with a single seal, and others with a double seal. The single-sealed tickets were presented to those who gave single votes, and the double-sealed tickets were presented to those who gave plumpers.

An Hon. Member

said, that he thought the present an unfair proceeding on the part of the hon. Member, that such a statement made in presence of the judges who were to decide in that case, would necessarily prejudice the cause of the parties connected with it.

The Speaker

said, the hon. member for Coventry was quite entitled to make his statement, in order to justify the Motion which he was about to make.

Mr. Ellice

proceeded: He wished to state the extraordinary circumstances which induced him to move for the Bill. He had been informed by two individuals who had paid the money to the voters, that those tickets were issued to 524 out of the 526 voters who formed the majority in favour of the sitting Member. On one side of the tickets was marked the name of the party who voted and was entitled to the money; and on the other side was marked the sum to be paid to the voter. The sum varied from 4l. to 16l. When he said that 524 out of 526 of the voters who formed the majority had received such tickets, he thought he had made out a case which called for some inquiry. With respect to the means in which that inquiry should be pursued, in order to bring the case fairly before the House, he thought the present the best. If they were to proceed to examine it in a Committee of the House, without taking means for the protection of those who gave evidence, witnesses who were themselves implicated would be unwilling to come forward, for fear of being exposed to a civil action for bribery. He was aware that the course which he then proposed was unusual in such cases. Indeed he did not know that there was more than one instance of such a course having been adopted. In the case of the impeachment of Lord Melville, a Bill of indemnity was sent up by that House to the House of Lords, for the protection of the witnesses who might give evidence in it. In the Grampound, East Retford, and other cases of the same nature, a different course was pursued. In these cases some circumstances transpired before the Committee which induced the House to suspend its operations till witnesses were examined at the Bar of the House. He was aware that there was formerly a disposition not to investigate such cases too deeply; but as this was the first instance of the kind which came before the Reformed Parliament, the country would see whether the Reformed House was willing to grant the means of making a fair inquiry into such gross cases as this or otherwise. If it was referred to a Committee up-stairs, it must be evident that some of the parties might take an opportunity of slipping out, and that the public might in that manner be deprived of every remedy for so flagrant a grievance. He proposed the present plan as the most likely to bring the guilty persons to punishment, and had no other reason for making the suggestion. His object was, not to annoy or reprove any individual, or to expose those implicated to a civil action. His only object was, to adopt such measures as were most likely to bring the circumstances of the case fully and fairly before the House, and to leave it to the House to deal with it as seemed most advisable, under the circumstances when it was so brought before them. He had no doubt, that he should be able to prove forty or fifty cases; and as it was one of the grossest and most flagrant instances of corruption and bribery which had ever come before the House, he hoped the House would adopt measures to secure the public from such practices, and to redress an evil which was quite intolerable. If any other method appeared to the House more likely to have the desired effect, he had no objection to adopt it; his only object being to procure the enforcement of justice, as due to the House and to the public. He had only further to say, that he wished the Bill of Indemnity to extend as widely as possible, so as to protect all the parties who might give evidence, whoever they might be. He moved for leave to bring in a Bill to indemnify certain persons from the consequences of the evidence they might give before the Committee of Inquiry relative to the corrupt practices at the late election for the borough of Stafford.

The Motion being read from the Chair,

An Hon. Member

said, that before the House came to any determination on the Motion of the member for Coventry, be thought it might be well for him to take the opportunity of presenting a petition with which he was in trusted on that subject. The House would be able, when they heard the statement of the petitioners, to judge how far it might be proper for them to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member. The petition was from certain electors of the borough of Stafford, who stated, that Messrs. Chetwynd, Gronow, and Blount, were the candidates for the representation of that borough at the last election, and that they (the petitioners) were canvassed by the agents of—

The Speaker

interrupted the hon. Member. The petition which he was about to present, was in substance an election petition; but the time had gone by when the House could receive such petitions. As, therefore, it could not be received as an election petition, the only way in which the House could at all receive it, was, in connexion with a Committee already appointed to take the matter into consideration, and to that Committee the House could refer it. He therefore put it to the hon. Member, whether, if he persisted in presenting that petition, he would not be calling on the House to do indirectly what they could not do according to the general rules laid down in such cases?

Mr. Wynn

said, that if they were to enter into the discussion of an election, the merits of which were to come before them (otherwise, it was impossible but it must prejudice the case of the parties concerned), he could not but feel that the petition ought not to be received; at the same time, when an hon. Member moved for a Bill of Indemnity for witnesses who might be examined, and stated the grounds on which he made the Motion, he (Mr. Wynn) saw no reason why individuals might not be allowed to state that they were ready to bring forward such evidence as would render the Motion unnecessary. He did not see that in this case a Bill of Indemnity was necessary. He was decidedly favourable to the principle of the Bill; but he saw no reason why it should be limited to one borough; he saw no reason why the same principle which made such a bill proper as regarded Stafford, should not make it likewise proper as regarded Liverpool. He thought, that if a case of intimidation against any of the witnesses examined before the Committee were made out, the special report made by the Committee would be a sufficient ground for the House to suspend the sittings of the Committee. He wished for a general measure.

Mr. O'Connell:

If we cannot have a general law, let us have a particular law. Here we are asked to give leave for the introduction of a Bill of Indemnity to protect the witnesses who are to give evidence in a case, which, if proved, the borough should, and certainly will, be disfranchised; for it is idle to think that if such a case of gross and notorious corruption and bribery be made out, as that related by the hon. member for Coventry, that the borough of Stafford can remain in schedule C, or any other schedule but schedule A. The hon. Member says, that if the evidence is of such a nature as cannot safely be brought before the Committee, the House can suspend the operations of the Committee till an Act of Indemnity is passed. But, is it not better to obviate every difficulty by passing the Act just now? To be sure the member for Stafford may, perhaps, have some good ground for objecting to the passing of such an Act, because it may prejudice his case, but I understand that he means to offer no objection to the Bill. If such cases as these are passed by, what is the use of the Reform Bill? You take away by it the direct nomination by individuals, but you leave the electors exposed to a more dangerous and equally certain corruption of the temptation offered to them by wealth—and the only difference between the reformed and the unreformed constituency, will be, that more crimes will be now necessary to procure the same returns. It is, therefore, the duty of the House to take the very first opportunity of punishing bribery, in order to prevent such practices in future. This is called the Reformed Parliament; but it is not reformed, unless it takes measures to prevent Members from obtaining seats in it by corrupting the electors. We ought to have no cobwebs in the way; let us sweep them all before us. The hon. Member has stated, that 524 out of 526 of the electors were bribed—surely that is a case for disfranchisement. So, there were two in the majority who were not bribed! What an exemplary pair they must have been! Their names should be written in letters of gold. It should be handed down to posterity that there were two honest men in Stafford. Such a scene as this I never heard of. It ought to break down every barrier, and will justify the House in at once extinguishing the borough of Stafford, if that borough is really as guilty as it is represented.

Mr. Baring

said, that if reports were true, the corruptions of the borough of Stafford were the greatest which ever came under the consideration of the House. They appeared so gross and so notorious, that it appeared to him impossible for the House not to institute an inquiry into them, for the purpose of punishing the guilty, He did not, however, exactly see the object of the Hon. member for Coventry; if he understood it, it was intended to indemnify the very persons who were guilty of the bribery.

Mr. Ellice

said, that the information which he received was from two gentlemen, neither of whom were Members of that House.

Mr. Baring

But those gentlemen paid the money with which the electors were bribed to those electors. He certainly agreed with the hon. Member, that there were difficulties in the case which might prevent proof of bribery being brought home to those who were guilty, without such a Bill as that proposed; it might then be proper to adopt it; but to him it appeared that the Bill of Indemnity proposed by the hon. Member, was to cover the malpractices of the guilty, and to screen them from the effect of their guilt. He (Mr. Baring;) thought it was improbable, if corruption and bribery to such an enormous extent had been practised, that it would be at all difficult to prove it.

Mr. Ellice

said, that if the House thought there was any better way of procuring the evidence necessary, he would be willing to adopt it. His only object in making the Motion at all was to expose the most notorious and extensive system of corruption which had ever come within his knowledge. The corruption of the borough of Stafford had long been notorious. Even before Mr. Sheridan represented it, the price of a vote was 5l. In endeavouring to persuade them to adopt his opinion on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, that gentleman used to give them as an argument in its favour, that as they got 5l. then—

Mr. Wynn

rose to order. He begged to ask, whether it was fair to prejudice the Jury, who were to try the merits of the case, by such statements.

The Speaker

thought that the hon. Member was quite in order.

Mr. Ellice

No one could be influenced by a historical account of the elections of Stafford. Mr. Sheridan, to induce the electors of Stafford to become Reformers, used to say, "At present you get 5l. for a vote; but if yon obtain Parliamentary Reform, you will probably get 10l."

An Hon. Member

said, that if this Bill of Indemnity had any effect at all, it would be to protect the real delinquents. He could say, that the present members for Stafford had not been guilty of bribery, either directly or indirectly.

Question agreed to, and the consideration of the Stafford Election Committee postponed to the 16th of April.