HC Deb 12 June 1835 vol 28 cc727-33

The Speaker called upon the Serjeant-at-Arms to state if any of the parties were in custody against whom warrants had been issued?

The Serjeant-at-Arms replied, that John Bury Dasent, Esq. was in custody

The Speaker gave orders to have him brought to the Bar; but on Mr. Gisborne saying he had a Petition to present on behalf of Mr. Dasent,

The Speaker directed him to withdraw.

Mr. Gisborne

proceeded to say, that he had a petition to present to that House on behalf of the individual who had been at the Bar. The petitioner candidly stated what his conduct had been, and the motives for it. In the petition it was observed, that he stood charged with avoiding to give evidence before that hon. House. To this charge the petitioner submitted an account of his proceedings, and which, he hoped would show that if there had been a breach of privilege, and a violation of the authority of Parliament—a privilege and authority for which he entertained the highest respect, such breach of privilege was not intentional. He stated, that having been present after the last Ipswich election, and understanding that a petition would be presented against the return of Mr. Dundas and Mr. F. Kelly, and, being unwilling to be examined as a witness, and wishing to give the sitting Members the advantage of examining him, when the time would be suitable, he deemed it to be the most fitting for their interests to remain away, which he did of his own accord, and without receiving the suggestion of any person to do so. He did remain so absent until the petitioners had closed their case; but when he did understand from Mr. Kelly (one of the late sitting Members) that the petition had taken such a turn—that without his being present it was not likely that justice should be done, he (the petitioner) voluntarily and of his own accord, and influenced by no compulsion, but actuated solely by the dictates of his own honour, did return to his home. The petitioner appeared as a witness long before the Committee had decided upon the merits of the late election; and he was fully examined before them. Certain Resolutions had been passed by the Committee referring to bribery practised at the late election; but those Resolutions had been rescinded upon hearing Mr. Pilgrim's evidence, in which, he believed, no allusion had been made to him; yet, in the Resolutions passed by the Committee, the name of the petitioner was inserted, without drawing any distinction between his conduct and that of Mr. Pilgrim, he having come voluntarily forward; that an unfounded prejudice had been raised thereby against him, and, in consequence of it, the petitioner then stood at the bar. The petitioner hoped that these statements of facts, coupled with his entire ignorance of being guilty of a breach of privilege, and deep contrition for having fallen under their displeasure, would entitle him to their consideration. The petitioner also expressed a hope that the Members of the Committee would declare their impression of his conduct. He added, that immediately on the conclusion of the debate he appeared to submit himself to the pleasure of the House. The petition was signed "John Bury Dasent." He (Mr. Gisborne) should be glad to have found any excuse for the conduct of the petitioner; but he certainly had the merit of submitting to them a very candid statement. It appeared that he had volun tarily come forward. Probably some Members of the Committee would, declare the impression entertained by the Committee of the petitioner's conduct. If this course should not be considered satisfactory, probably the matter might be brought on again on Monday.

Mr. Patrick Stewart

said, that he had not heard what had fallen from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, but he supposed he had submitted a Motion that Mr. Dasent should be brought up and discharged from custody. For his own part, he would recommend the House to act with as much leniency as was consistent with its sense of duty, because it certainly was the opinion of every Member of the Committee, that his case was apart from those of the other persons against whom the Speaker had issued his warrant, although it was necessary to include him in the Report. He was the only one of the persons who had absconded, who voluntarily came forward to give evidence, and the manner in which he gave his testimony made a favourable impression on the Committee. If, under these circumstances, the House should think it consistent with its dignity to have Mr. Dasent recalled, reprimanded by the Speaker, and discharged, that would be gratifying to the feelings of every Member of the Committee.

Sir Hugh Campbell

stated, that the impression upon the minds of the Committee was, that the petitioner acted under the influence of another—it was at the suggestion of that person it was believed that the gentleman had left the country and returned to it.

Mr. Aglionby

remarked, that the conduct of the petitioner was, on his own showing, a gross violation of the rights and privilege of Parliament—as long as his presence might prejudice the sitting Members he remained away, and when he thought it might be favourable to them he appeared. He could see nothing in the petitioner's conduct which manifested sorrow for the offence of which he had been guilty,

Mr. Montague Chapman

thought the witness was entitled to considerable indulgence and favour. He did not, like the other witnesses, keep away till he was brought back by force, but freely returned from a high sense of honour, to disconnect himself from the sitting Members. Then he freely appeared when the other witnesses refused; and undoubtedly his case should be separated from that of the others, who persevered to the last in refusing to give evidence.

Lord John Russell

observed, that besides the other offences with which the petitioner stood charged, was that of being guilty of bribery; and yet it was declared that he came forward from a sense of honour towards the sitting Members, to acquit them of being connected with those transactions. They ought to put out of the question whether the petitioner had been guilty of bribery; but the fact which the petitioner made the ground of his merits was, that he felt more of honour and regard for the sitting Members, than he felt for the dignity of that House. Thus it was his regard for the sitting Members which made him abscond; but when he was informed that his presence could be useful to them, he came forward as a witness. Personally his conduct might be exceedingly honourable as between him and the sitting Members; but as regarded that House, his conduct had been such, that there could be no sort of justification for calling him to the Bar and dismissing him. He did not wish to see any severe punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. He should be glad if he was brought to the Bar upon Monday, and in the mean time they might determine what course it would be proper to pursue, and what line of conduct they ought to adopt consistently with a regard to their own dignity and the maintenance of their own privileges. He could only say that if they did adopt a lenient course towards the petitioner, one consideration at least ought to influence them in doing so, and that was the petitioner's extreme ignorance of the law.

Lord Stanley

was glad to find himself anticipated in the observations he had intended to make on this case by his noble Friend. He did think, that if a case of this kind were lightly passed over, it would be so far, in his opinion, an abandonment of those privileges which it was their duty to support, and of that purity of election which they should be so desirous to maintain. He was, however, afraid that the present proceedings were characterized by too much haste. When it was considered that they had ordered persons into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and yet when the first person was brought to their Bar, they were about to reverse their proceedings, and without further inquiry to discharge him, he submitted they were setting a precedent which must be most mischievous, and likely to be attended with the worst effects. The proceedings of that day proved the impolicy of their having taken the steps they had done, without a full and entire investigation. He was always willing to place confidence in a Special Committee's Report of specific facts; but he would not go the extent of leaving to their discretion to say, what the impression produced upon them was by the conduct of witnesses. There were not twenty Members in that House knew what was the evidence which affected the petitioner, and what the distinction between him and the other five persons against whom warrants had been issued. He wished to look at the evidence before he decided. He therefore joined in the recommendation of the Secretary for the Home Department, that the petitioner should be remanded into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. He hoped it would be possible, although he thought it hardly possible, to have the evidence by Monday. It would be much more desirable that they should take some time to consider, than that they should commit themselves for a third time by any hasty step. The noble Lord concluded by stating, he was in favour of the proposition for adjourning the further consideration of this subject to Monday next.

Mr. Gisborne

did not well understand the noble Lord. He seemed to think that many unnecessary steps were taken in this business; yet really only one step was taken, that of ordering the parties to be taken into custody. If no steps were taken till the evidence were laid on the Table, the ends of justice would be likely to be defeated, as the evidence would not, in all probability, be before the House for a month. Much of the general evidence tendered before the Committee was inapplicable to the present inquiry, that which referred to the scrutiny of the votes, for instance. Why, then, require the production of this mass of evidence, much of which was irrelevant, before coming to a conclusion? Would it not be better if the authority of the Committee were thrown overboard, and that the evidence was required as the ground-work of decision, that the part which referred to the conduct of the parties impeached, should be presented? In conclusion, he would say, in answer to the noble Lord's taunts, that he had not made any Motion that night, but merely threw out a suggestion to have the prisoner discharged, if it were agreeable to the House.

Mr. Patrick Stewart

thought there was no occasion for the evidence. The confes- sion of the prisoner, made before the House, that he evaded the warrant, was quite sufficient to enable them to come to a conclusion as to the extent of his guilt or innocence. There was punishment,—that of being taken into custody—already inflicted on the prisoner. What good purpose could the additional punishment of his being kept in custody till Monday serve? He could see none. He really thought the dignity of the House, and the ends of justice, would be sufficiently consulted by having him reprimanded.

Mr. Christopher Fitzsimon

said, all the other persons mentioned in the resolutions of the Committee were evidently engaged in a conspiracy to set the House at defiance, and foil the ends of justice; but the prisoner at the Bar was undoubtedly an exception, for he freely came forward, and declared all he knew.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he could not agree in the view taken of the prisoner's mitigated offence. The House should not sacrifice justice to this mock clemency. They could not dismiss him from the Bar without his atoning for his first absence, by his dis. closing all the cases of bribery he was guilty of, and his telling the House all the parties he corrupted, and all the money he paid away. But if he were a person who took advantage of the privilege and impunity the law gave him, and the law gave too much scope to such characters, by suppresssing important facts, lest he might criminate himself, and mar the objects of his friends or employers, the sitting Members, then his conduct was not such as the House should wink at. The prisoner was a lawyer, the tendency and bias of whose profession led him to support particular parties. He knew lawyers had these leanings. He himself was a lawyer, yet he would say, that he never leant to any party. This was a question that should be sifted. If it were not sifted, and that deliberately and rigidly, there could be no hope that the purity of election would be preserved. The prisoner was guilty of a grave offence, and to prevent the recurrence of such misdeeds, and inflict condign punishment on the parties implicated in the present transaction, it was positively necessary for the dignity of the House, and the defence of the freedom of election, that there should be a complete sifting of the case.

Mr. Hardy

said, as the party at the Bar was guilty of an offence that would subject him to a criminal prosecution in a Court of Law, at the suit of Mr. Wason or the Attorney-General, it would then be rather severe to send him to judgment with the brand of condemnation fixed on him by that House. He trusted the House would not act severely towards him, so as to raise a prejudice against him in any ulterior proceedings.

Dr. Lushington

said, the question was one of vast importance to the House, as affecting its privileges, and to the country, as affecting the right of the people to choose, without restraint or fear, their own Representatives. If it were a good that the purity of election should be preserved, then it was a good that any invasion on it should be punished. An invasion, then, was clearly proved to be committed in the present case, and the House, in its duty to the public, should not overlook it. Before the passing of the Reform Bill, bribery was so common and undisguised, that it might be thought, and was thought, an act of injustice to visit a few with the penalties of the delinquencies of the many. What was publicly practised was considered no crime, and the universality of the practice gave a shelter and impunity to the few who were detected. But this kind of screening of guilt should be put a stop to. It appeared to him that the question of the prisoner's guilt should be put a stop to. It appeared to him, that the question of the prisoner's guilt was not treated by some hon. Members with sufficient severity. Their leniency of conduct was unfair to the people of England, who looked to fair representation, and the rigid discharge of duty from their representatives. Was it because the prisoner was cognizant of his guilt, and anxious to screen himself from the consequences of it, that the House should now extend to him its indulgence, and so strike a blow at the existence of its own privileges? He (Dr. Lushington) was never so surprised as he was at hearing it maintained that, after a man was called to the Bar for a breach of the privileges of the House, he should be discharged, with no other punishment than a reprimand, and that after he had been avowedly guilty of a serious offence. Such a proceeding was a mockery of justice. The eyes of the people were now open— and if ample justice were not dealt out to those who violated the freedom and purity of election it would cause general offence and dissatisfaction throughout the country.

Case adjourned.