BOROUGH OF WARWICK. (Hansard, 6 February 1834)

§ Sir Ronald Ferguson
moved, that the issuing of a Writ for the borough of Warwick be suspended until the 17th of March. He had not anticipated any opposition to this Motion until he had heard, unexpectedly, that it was to be opposed by the hon. and learned member for Dover. The course he was taking was similar to that which was pursued on the same subject last Session. He appealed to the House and to the Speaker whether it was not usual to suspend the Writ for any place whilst the conduct of its constituency was a subject of inquiry.

§ The Speaker
understood the case to be founded on these circumstances:—A Writ for the borough was suspended on the ground, that a Bill relating to that borough was to be brought into Parliament. That Bill, it was intended should pass, but it was cut short by the prorogation of Parliament. On the re-assembling of Parliament notice was given of the renewal of this Bill; but that circumstance in itself did not necessarily suspend the issuing of the Writ, which must depend upon an order of the House. As far, however, as he could recollect he knew no variance in the practice, which was, that the Writ be postponed until the House should form its judgment whether such Bill should pass or not.

Mr. Halcombe
said, that this course was one which inflicted peculiar hardship upon such of the constituency of Warwick (and they were the vast majority) as were perfectly innocent of all bribery and malpractices. The evidence taken before the Committee, even supposing it to be correct, only proved twenty-one cases of bribery; and surely that was no ground to deprive the whole of the inhabitants of Warwick of the right of representation. The fact was, no case had been made out against the electors of that place; and the object now was, to supply the deficiencies in the former evidence. The Report spoke of "gross bribery and corruption." Now 159 what did this gross bribery and corruption amount to? Twenty-one cases only were proved, and proved in every case by the very parties who had taken the bribes. But how were these alleged acts of bribery attempted to be brought home to the noble Earl of Warwick? They were sundry trifling bounties, conferred, to be sure, by subordinate agents of the hon. candidate, who was also the steward of the noble Earl. The receivers of these came from various parts of the country, from the Sister Kingdom of Ireland—and from that of Scotland also; and there were very good grounds to come to the conclusion, that these very parties were traitors, sent into the enemy's camp by the opposite party, for out of these twenty-one cases of bribery, ten were proved to have voted for Messrs. Tomes and King, only eleven supporting Sir Charles Greville. But as to the alleged interference of the noble Earl (the Earl of Warwick) in this election, what evidence bad the House? Had they not the direct testimony of Colonel Stewart and another gallant Officer to the fact, that so far from interfering, the noble Earl positively refused to interfere in any way? They had had instances also proved of persons voting against the noble Earl's supposed interests with perfect impunity, and without molestation. But, he would ask, what need had the noble Earl, or his brother, the hon. Sir Charles Greville, to resort to bribery? The hon. candidate was much beloved by the whole constituency; he had been returned for years without opposition. In 1831, he was opposed by a gentleman totally unknown to the neighbourhood, when the hon. Baronet refused to come forward unless called upon by a requisition from the electors. Such a requisition was immediately and enthusiastically adopted, and was signed by 600 individuals out of a constituency of 1,300. He was opposed by Mr. Tomes and Mr. King. Mr. Tomes was an attorney of that town, and Mr. King a total stranger. On the second day of the election Mr. Tomes, though second on the poll, gave in his resignation, and begged his friends to support Mr. King. Mr. King, it was proved, had paid 1,500l. into the Bank on account of Mr. Tomes. What bad become of that 1,500l? He must complain of the term "gross bribery." He must quarrel with the expression. Looking at this evidence 160 he could not support this expression of the Committee. He would not accuse the Committee of partiality; they were men of high honour and respectability, and, doubtless, used their best judgment in this case. But be did fear, that the Committee bad been unfortunately influenced by the attorney to whom he had already alluded, and who had jumped up to bring this case before the House. He meant to say nothing offensive of the Gentleman, whom he had known from his youth—he meant Mr. Joseph Parkes, the Secretary to the Municipal Corporation Commission, and the legal adviser to the Birmingham Political Union. The latter circumstance was in this respect connected with the present subject, for the members of the Union had been invited by an inflammatory placard to march into Warwick on the day of the election. He would now call the attention of the House to the recommendation of the Committee on this case. This recommendation was not to the effect, that the elective franchise of the constituents should be suspended, but merely that the recurrence of the alleged malpractices should be prevented for the future by enlarging the limits of the constituency. Now he could quote authority for the fact, that in such cases the House had never interfered to punish the innocent electors of the borough by depriving them of their constitutional and dearly-prized privileges. In the case of the Dublin election in 1831, where gross bribery had really been proved to a great extent, in this case he had the opinion of Sir Robert Inglis and Sir Henry Hardinge that the question of suspending the elective privileges of the constituency should depend entirely upon the recommendation of the Committee. He would now advert to another point in the evidence, which he did with infinite pain. It appeared from this evidence, that the Committee had compelled Mr. Greenway, the banker, to bring forward a statement of the noble Earl's private accounts. Every charitable payment, every private act of kindness, on the part of the noble Earl, was canvassed in the prosecution of this inquiry.

§ Sir Ronald Ferguson
, as Chairman of the Committee in question, begged to correct an inaccuracy in the latter statement. The private accounts of the noble Earl had not been examined by the Committee.

Mr. Halcombe
, in support of his assertion, 161 begged to refer to the whole of the evidence of Mr. Greenway. The private accounts of the noble Earl had been canvassed; and Mr. Brown, his Lordship's steward, had been questioned as to whether such and such sums had not been paid in such and such quarters. As to any sums of money lent to Sir Charles Greville, had not the noble Earl perfect liberty to lend money to his brother if he pleased? There was nothing wrong in that. He would not consult his own feelings only on this case; but he would put it to the sense of the House whether any interference in private matters of this kind were justifiable. Another allegation was, that profuse treating was carried on. Such an allegation should be fully substantiated, in order to warrant the extreme measure recommended by the Committee. But he would maintain, that there was no proof of this treating being carried on in violation of the statute after the teste of the writ, though he would admit, that it was practised before the writ, as was usual in former elections in Warwick and in other places. Where was the distinct proof of treating after the teste of the writ sanctioned or connived at by Sir Charles Greville or his Committee, which alone, be it recollected, would constitute the illegality of the act, and justify the Resolution of the Committee? He contended there was none. Much was said of the lavish expenditure of money by the agents of Sir Charles Greville. But were not 1,500l. proved to be deposited in a bank by the opposition party, for the purpose of their own treating and largesses? Open house was no doubt kept. But there was no evidence of such extravagance, or of the existence of the practice after the Writ, as would warrant such a sweeping visitation as that proposed. Look to the testimony. One of Sir Charles Greville's Committee was asked, "Did you, as a member of the Committee, put a stop to treating after the Writ was issued?" The witness answered distinctly, and he would say satisfactorily to every dispassionate man—" Yes." This was a fact, and a most material one it was, which the Committee seemed to have lost sight of. The illegality of treating was not proved. Treating, indeed, was proved; but it was only treating before the Writ, not after, which alone could constitute the illegality. There were open houses kept; but were they sanctioned by the Committee? It was proved they were 162 not. What did the publicans say? Why, that they kept their houses open merely on their own responsibility, not under the direction of Sir Charles Greville or his agents; and that they had only an expectation of being paid, but no legal claim. Why should the zealous interference of the private friends of a candidate, who were not his accredited agents, be brought forward in damnification of his interests? And more than that, why should he be held responsible for the acts of speculating publicans? No man in that House would be safe if he were held bound by the conduct of every one who chose to speculate upon him. He would next advert to the charge of riots. The Report of the Committee stated, that they originated in the introduction of strangers and day-labourers into the town by the Greville party. True, strangers came to the town. But why? To defend the voters in the interest of Sir Charles Greville, from the Political Unions, who were expected to march to Warwick, to assault and overawe the voters, and to trample under foot the freedom of election. And march they did, with flags flying, and in all the pomp of military procession, bringing terror on the townsmen. Did the Committee forget that fact? Those strangers, as they were called, met them, and an encounter ensued. Who were then the disturbers and the assailants? Was it not clear they were the Unionists, who came to dictate to the voters and control their suffrages? Riots were the ground of disfranchising the electors. Where, he would put it to the candour and justice of the House, did not riots occur? They occurred in Coventry; they occurred in almost every other town; and were those places to be deprived of their high constitutional privileges on that account? He considered it an insult to the common sense and to the justice of the House to found so serious a decision on a fact so customary. Did the Report affix any stigma on the personal conduct of Sir Charles Greville? Far from it. Hear the Report. It stated, that it did not appear to the Committee, that Sir Charles Greville had in any way participated in the proceedings which they condemned, that his character stood as high in their estimation as ever. Then the Report proceeded to say, that it appeared that bribery and the interference of the Earl of Warwick were of old standing. He would put it fairly to the House, 163 knowing their respect for the constitutional rights, not to say of the men of Warwick, but of the people at large, whether, if there was not any specific recommendation of disfranchisement, so severe a measure should be sanctioned by the House as the swamping of an entire constituency. Why should Sir Charles Greville be visited with punishment for transgressions which he did not sanction? Why punish the electors of Warwick in the face of the numerous acts of bribery allowed to pass by unpunished in other places? He would mention Dublin. One hundred cases of bribery were clearly made out in the instance of Dublin. He would quote Starfford. These cases were notorious, and clearly proved. Yet these places were to keep their Representatives, and Warwick was to be virtually disfranchised on imperfect evidence of criminality. If there was no extensive corruption carried on (and there was no authority furnished by the evidence for maintaining that there was,) why then should not the Members be suffered to take their seats to attend the investigation into the character of the borough? Certainly, if delinquency were to be punished, the punishment should begin with the greater delinquent, and it was monstrous to fasten on the constituency of a small town while a large one was suffered to riot in its criminality. The sanctioned impunity of one should not be made the condemnation of the other. It was said, the agents were guilty of bribery. Why then not punish the agents? Justice and common sense would point out the expediency of attacking the real criminals, and not making others the victims. If the agents were guilty, why should the Representatives be punished? There were only twenty-one voters in all who were brought within the range of all this corruption. Most of these got small sums to) relieve them in extreme destitution. One had lost his eye-sight, and could not work; the wife of another was just confined; the wife of another got some small thing to relieve her in her distress. Among these bribed voters there were four Irishmen, who it was alleged offered themselves to be bribed. Now, one of these said on his examination, that if he had declared he was bribed, it was a lie. This was the whole case brought before the first Committee. A second Committee was appointed, and yet no additional cases of bribery were made out. 164 Were these such grounds as would warrant the House in coming to a decision which in effect disqualified a whole town? He appealed to hon. Members as liberal men, as Reformers, as men who valued constitutional privilege, as men imbued with a sense of justice, to weigh well the whole amount and character of the evidence adduced, and not deprive on such flimsy proof an entire constituency of the valuable privilege of representation. As he had referred to the Earl of Warwick, he thought it right to say, that he had had no communication with the noble Lord. He was solely actuated by a sense of duty and justice. The hon. Member moved an Amendment, that a Writ be issued for the borough of Warwick forthwith.

§ Sir Samuel Whalley
said, that was not the proper time for inquiring into the delinquency of Warwick. A Committee had been appointed, and had reported; and it would be an insult to the Committee if the House were unwilling to suspend the Writ until the result of the proceeding set on foot were ascertained. If the hon. Member were not the advocate for the people of Warwick, he must say, that at least, he appeared so. It appeared, that it was not one party alone that was guilty of bribery, but all the people of Warwick. The hon. Member said, that 1,500l. were expended by the other party. If the people of Warwick had not a better advocate than the hon. Member, then he would say, Heaven preserve them from their friends.

§ Mr. Hardy
was surprised at the doctrine of the hon. Member. The hon. Member said, that as there was no proof of treating after the Writ sanctioned by Sir Charles Greville or his Committee, there was, in fact, no treating that came within the provisions of the law. But were not the houses notoriously open for those in his interest after the Writ? Could it be said, that was no illegal treating, when 750 electors were guzzling to the amount of 3,000l? Common sense would show, that this was treating, and illegal treating too. The Judges, and all conversant with law, knew such to be the fact, had over and over again pronounced this to be bribery. Whatever was done to influence electors was positive bribery. The statute of William discountenanced such a practice. The object of the law was not merely to prevent undue influence, but even expense, The electors should 165 go to the poll as they would to elect trustees for their children or property, and it was no mode of preparing them for the calm exercise of such a duty to cram them up to the throat with liquor, and madden them with intemperance. If the borough was to be enlarged, it should be so in consequence of the profligacy of the voters; and if it be done at all, it should be done at once.