THE BOROUGH OF POOLE. (Hansard, 12 April 1836)

§ Mr. Poulter
rose, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill regarding the Municipal Elections of the Borough of Poole. The Bill did not proceed from anything like a mere afterthought, because, long before any petitions on the subject had been presented to that House, efforts had been made for the purpose of securing a free, fair, and open election in this borough. It appeared, by the evidence taken by the Committee, that mutilated and fictitious papers had been made use of by the defendant's party, and that persons not qualified to vote had been permitted to vote, and a false and fictitious majority had thus been created. The consequence of these proceedings was, that in the north-west ward nine of the common-councilmen were elected by the defendant's party. In the south-west ward two out of nine were elected. A majority in the common-council was thus secured, and this majority created the entire corporation. They elected the mayor—they turned out of office persons of the greatest integrity— and they conferred no less than twelve appointments by virtue of the power that they had thus assumed. There never was a case in which the proceedings had been more unfairly or more irregularly conducted. At the election the papers had been presented by one party in an unfolded state, by the other party in a folded state, and it was supposed that the fictitious and mutilated papers which had afterwards been discovered, were those which had been presented in the folded state. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to state several other instances of what he considered gross fraud, and that the case 894 altogether was one of the most fraudulent nature. He alluded to the case of a young man named James Parker, who had been brought up for the purpose of impersonating his father, a person named James Parker; but at the last stage of the proceeding, the man refused to go through with the impersonation, and this circumstance caused the returning officer to say that he considered the proceeding had been badly managed. He anticipated that an hon. Member might have some constitutional objection to his proposition. The only constitutional objection he could anticipate would be against dealing with a case which would more properly be cognizant before a court of law. He certainly admitted that they might eject the two councillors, as he trusted they would be able to do, by the Court of King's Bench; but, though they might do this, there was no legal proceeding which would enable them to get rid of the corporation which had been founded on those originally fraudulent proceedings. Besides which it should be recollected, by those who urged an objection on constitutional grounds, that there were many cases in which the high functions of that House were called into action, in which it was necessary that they should take cognizance of matters which, considered separately by themselves, were matters properly belonging to the jurisdiction of courts of law. He would only mention as an instance, the case of bribery at elections. The House of Commons had no jurisdiction over that offence looked at by itself; but when its highest powers were called into exercise in an Election Committee, it was compelled to investigate the circumstances attending that offence, which otherwise should be remitted to the courts of law. And again; last year it would be remembered, there was an unfortunate case of military interference at Wolverhampton; now, if that had not gone off happily with a satisfactory explanation, a Committee of that House would have had to take cognizance of, and to examine into, cases of riots, assaults, manslaughter, and even of murder, when at the very moment, perhaps, trials for all those offences might be pending in courts of law. He did believe that this was an exception, an extraordinary exception, to the general rule, and one which he believed had never occurred before; and it was upon these grounds, 895 and upon these principles, that he humbly moved "for leave to bring in a Bill to void all the late Municipal Elections for the Borough of Poole and to proceed to new elections."

§ Mr. William Wynn
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not removed the constitutional objections which he(Mr. Wynn) had expressed on a former occasion, to the principle of the measure which was proposed to be introduced. As the hon. Member had alluded to him particularly, he would refer to the two most striking arguments which had been urged by the hon. Gentleman, and which appeared to him to have been the only arguments that had been urged to vindicate this proceeding. The hon. Member had stated, that the House took cognizance of many proceedings which were cognizant in a court of law, and stated the case of bribery at an election for the return of a Member to serve in Parliament. There was, however, a considerable difference between bribery at a municipal election, or any other misconduct on such an occasion, and similar misconduct affecting a Parliamentary election. In the latter case, the privileges of the House were distinctly interfered with, and it was in that view that the House took cognizance of it. He contended, that such a course as that proposed by the hon. Member would be most dangerous. It would be objectionable, in the first place, as perhaps affecting any proceeding that might take place in a court of common-law. Independent of this, there was the other objection, that if once Parliament interfered in a case of this kind, and passed a Bill to remedy such a case as the hon. Member had alleged, supposing such a case to be established, they could not, in equity, refuse a Bill to apply to every other case that might be brought under their notice. He entertained great objections to the description of evidence which had been received in the Committee. In the Report to which the Committee had agreed, there were continual references to affidavits in the appendix, in support of statements contained in it. Now, on referring to the appendix, he could not discover one single affidavit; and even if they had been there, was that evidence which would be received in any court of justice in this kingdom? He ventured to say it would not; and then he asked, whether that House would proceed to legislate upon 896 such evidence? He must say, that he entertained great apprehension of danger from these new proceedings. He considered that if the principle of the interference of Parliament in cases of this description were once established, there was an end to the influence of the cognizance of such proceedings before the courts of law, and whether alone or supported by the decision of the House, he would protest against the proposed measure, which, in his mind, was calculated to open the door to every kind of oppression and inconvenience to the public. He did not intend of himself to press a division, but he should record his decided disapprobation of the proposed measure.

§ Mr. Poulter
begged to say a word, in explanation, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in respect to the evidence which was referred to in the Report. When the Committee met they found the greatest inconvenience and expense would arise from compelling persons to come up from Poole, and stay in London perhaps several days for the sole purpose of proving the manner in which they had given their votes; a point on which no question was raised by any person during the whole inquiry. It was for that reason, the Committee decided to receive the affidavits of those persons on that point not as legal evidence (for that he admitted they could not be considered) but as primâ facie evidence, with the consent of both parties to the inquiry. It was mere accident that prevented the affidavits appearing in the Report; it was quite evident they were intended to be introduced from the allusions which the Report made to them.

§ The Solicitor General
said, he should be governed in the vote which he intended to give, for the motion of his hon. Friend, by one principle shortly stated, easily understood, and consistent, too, with all the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. A petition had been presented to that House by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Blackburne), stating various matters of complaint relative to the late municipal elections for the borough of Poole. That petition, after great discussion, was referred to a Committee, composed of eleven Gentlemen, five of whom usually voted on the other side of the House; as fair a Committee as could be formed with an odd number: and that Committee was directed 897 "to inquire into all the circumstances attending the late election of the Municipal Council for the Borough of Poole." That Committee, having gone into evidence at great length, unanimously agreed to a Report recommending the adoption of some legislative measure as a remedy for the abuses into which they had been directed to inquire. Now, with such a recommendation from a Committee of that House, to tell his hon. Friend that the House would not permit him, as Chairman of that Committee, to act upon its Report, by bringing in a Bill to remove the fraudulently elected corporation was, he must say, a most singular course. He should give his cordial vote for the motion of his hon. Friend, reserving to himself of course the right of fully considering the details of the Bill which he asked leave to introduce.

§ Mr. Aglionby
said, he could fully corroborate the statement of his hon. Friend as to the affidavits being only received by the Committee as primâ facie evidence upon a question admitted by both parties. It might be satisfactory to the House also to know that though he (Mr. Aglionby) thought the case required a stronger remedy than that now proposed, the Committee were unanimous in their adoption of the Report which now laid upon the Table of the House.