MUNICIPAL COUNCIAL OF POOLE.

HC Deb 17 February 1836 vol 31 cc513-20

Mr. Blackburne

rose in conformity with the notice which he had given, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances attending the late election of the municipal council of the borough of Poole. If the circumstances which were stated in the petition which he held in his hand from a number of the inhabitants of Poole were heard before the Committee, he felt that he should be justified in asking permission of the House to bring in a bill to set aside the recent election of the corporate body in that borough, and to give the inhabitants the opportunity of another election. His present motion might, therefore, be considered merely as a preliminary proposition to ulterior measures. He trusted that if, in the opinion of almost every Member of the House, a case could be made out either of gross errors, or rather frauds, that had been committed in the municipal election in this borough, that steps would be taken to have them nullified. He might, probably, be told, that the proceedings which had been adopted in a court of Saw were sufficient for that purpose; but he trusted that he should be able to show to the House that a court of law would not afford a satisfactory remedy. He need not detain the House with any preliminary observations, but would at once proceed to state the facts of the case. The borough of Poole was divided into two wards, namely—the north-east and the south-east wards. The two wards were to elect eighteen councillors—nine for each—and these were to elect the six aldermen. The borough of Poole, as many other places, was divided into two parties—the one the supporters of the old system of the corporation, and the other who thought that great benefit would be produced to the inhabitants of the town by introducing a change of system and persons. Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that the inhabitants of the place were full of excitement to support the several interests in which they were engaged. Those who were anxious for a change suspected that those who were supporters of the old system, and who were in office, and who, consequently, had the management of the election, would pursue some unfair course towards them; they, therefore, determined to adopt certain precautions, and among other things, they had their election papers of the list of councillors printed in blue letters, and in a particular manner. A few days afterwards they found that the supporters of the old corporation had issued papers exactly similar with the exception of the names to those they had adopted. To obviate any unfair proceeding, which they supposed was intended, they gave notice to all their partisans, or persons entitled to vote, and who were supposed to be favourable to their interest, to go to a particular place in the town when they had voted, and for each to give in a duplicate of the voting paper he had used. Until the morning of the election, they thought that the papers they had put forth, and the other steps which they had taken, would have been sufficient to have prevented any frauds: but it turned out, by the contrivance of the mayor, that all their precautions were rendered null and useless. He presided in one ward himself, and another person sat for him in the other, and each of them chose to have the voting carried on in a small room. The mayor, as well as the person who presided in the other ward, had each of them a box before him, which was locked, and there was a slit at the top, through which the election papers were dropped; there was a constable placed at the door of each election-room, and immediately an elector had given his election paper to the mayor, he was turned out of the room by the constable. Some of the electors objected to the election being carried on in such small rooms; but their objections were overruled. There could be no doubt that it was the decided intention of that House that the elections should be open; but the mayor of this borough took care that they should be as little so as possible, and his excuse for not allowing the electors to remain was, that the room in which he chose to carry on the election was extremely small. By the Act of Parliament it was not incumbent on the person presiding at the elections to put any questions to the persons tendering their voting papers, unless he was required to do so by two of the burgesses present; he then had merely to ask whether the party presenting himself to vote was the person represented in the voting papers, and also whether he had voted before. On these questions being answered in the affirmative, the voting paper was taken. The burgesses were not at liberty, however, to do so in this case, in consequence of not more than one being allowed to be in the room at the time. At length they pressed the mayor on the point; and, on their urging him to put the questions to persons presenting themselves before him to vote, he refused to do so, on the ground that it was then too late in the election, that it had gone on too far, and was then greatly against their party, and, without looking whether the papers presented to him were signed or not, he put all into the box before him. When the election was over it became the duty of the mayor to see who were the successful candidates. The election took place on the Saturday, and he stated at the close of the poll that he would give the result on the Monday. He was then pressed to agree, that when the boxes were opened, that certain of the burgesses should be allowed to see the papers, so as to form a just estimate as to the state of the votes. He objected, however, to this, no doubt because he supposed that it would destroy the scheme that he had in view. On the Monday, also, instead of declaring the numbers that had voted for each candidate, he merely declared that certain persons, whose names he read, had been duly elected by a majority of votes. In one of the wards, that in which he presided, he stated that nine persons had been elected councillors, all of whom belonged to the party to which he was attached; and in the other ward, two out of the nine declared to be elected were of the same party. The consequence of this was, that eleven councillors were elected favourable to the old corporation, and seven of the opposite party, and the former, of course, had the preponderance in the election of the aldermen, and they thus added six more to their party. The mayor admitted that he had found several papers in the boxes having the same names attached to them, and apparently voting for both lists of candidates, and he stated that in such cases he had always chosen that list which suited him best, and supported the party to which he belonged. It appeared from an inquiry which had been made, that the two councillors of the old corporation party that had been returned for one of the wards, had not been voted for by the majority of the electors. If those two persons, therefore, had not been returned, there would have been an equality of voters, and much of what he had to complain would not have followed, as there would have been an equality of parties. If those two had not been returned as elected, he should not have been called upon to ask for Parliamentary interference; but as the body as returned as duly elected had the right to elect the aldermen, and also to expend all the funds of the corporation, he thought that he was justified in calling upon the House to institute an inquiry, with a view ultimately to set aside the election. What were the consequences of the steps taken in this election? The councillors had the election of all the officers of the corporation, and proceeded at once to choose those who were favourable to their party. This, however, was not the case in one remarkable instance. Although the town-clerk was one of the strongest friends of that party, they turned him out and appointed another of their partisans in his stead; and this they did that they might enable the former to obtain compensation for his office. According to the general rule (when compensation was to be granted under the Municipal Corporation Bill,) one-third of the council might object to the amount proposed to be given, and might appeal to the Lords of the Treasury; but in this borough things have been so managed, that just something more than two-thirds of the voters in the town-council were friends of the old corporation. Supposing the pay of the town-clerk was about 20l. a-year—and he believed that it was not much more than that in the present case—but then there was a large addition by the fees which were paid to that officer—what would the House say if the sum of 7,000l. was proposed to be granted to him as a compensation? and this he understood was the amount claimed. The income of the corporation of Poole was 800l. a-year, and if the amount he had stated was given as compensation in this instance, and a similar scale of expenditure was adopted in other cases, nothing whatever would be left to carry on the business of the corporation. From the register that had been kept, it appeared, that in the ward in which the mayor presided 189 burgesses had voted, and the persons who had signed the petition which he had to present to the House stated, that 100 of these burgesses declared that they had voted against the candidates of the old corporation party. In the other ward 160 burgesses had voted, and ninety of those who had signed the petition declared that they gave their votes also against the candidates on that side. Now, although he did not mean to say, that some of the petitioners might not have voted for the mayor's party, still all of them were so fully aware of the evil consequences likely to ensue to the town from the present state of things, that they had petitioned the House to set aside the election and give them the benefit of the Corporation Reform Bill. The House was aware that proceedings had been adopted in the Court of King's Bench against two persons in the latter ward, calling upon them to show by what right they held the office of councillors. But even if this was successful he did not think it was sufficient; but he thought they ought to vacate the election altogether. He now, having shortly stated the facts of the case, trusted he had said sufficient to induce the House to consent to his motion.

Sir Frederick Pollock

was not sufficiently acquainted with the business of the House of Commons to say, whether an hon. Gentleman was justified or not in making a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, because he might have heard something that had taken place at an election which appeared to him to be irregular. The House was not even aware of the contents of the petition, unless from the description of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He took it for granted that the petition would have been presented to the House and printed, that hon. Members might be aware of the facts of the case before being called upon to vote for a Committee of Inquiry. He did not intend to take any part in the discussion itself, or to vote on this question, as he had been professionally consulted by one of the parties who had been called upon to appear in the Court of King's Bench, and he had made the observation with which he had troubled the House rather on a point of form than anything else. He might add, that it was a general rule that he had laid down for the governance of his conduct since he had entered Parliament, never to take any part in the discussion of, or voting on, any question on which he had been professionally engaged. In this case an application was made on the last day of the last term, by his learned Friend the Attorney-General, for a criminal information for conspiracy against the parties alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. As it was not usual for the Court to entertain motions for criminal informations on the last day of term, his learned Friend postponed his application, but stated that he should renew it on the first day of next term. He trusted that the House would not interfere in a way which might prejudice the parties against whom the criminal information was intended to be applied for. He was not, however, prepared to say whether he would resist inquiry or not. He felt bound to say what he had, and he should leave the House.

Mr. Hume presumed

, as a matter of course, that his hon. and learned Friend might present the petition and have it printed; and he would recommend him to renew his Motion for inquiry on a future day, as the House was not aware of the contents of the petition. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had advocated a dangerous doctrine in saying he would not, as a Member of Parliament, give a free opinion, because he had been retained as counsel in the case. If such a principle were to obtain, how easy would it be for a party who feared proceedings might be adopted against him in this House, to retain five or six of the most eminent men at the bar who were Members of Parliament, so as to prevent them, taking any part against him. If the hon. and learned Gentleman entertained such an opinion, he had better vacate his seat; for, according to his notion, the duties of a Member of Parliament and an advocate were incompatible. If the rule was laid down that inquiry was not to take place in this House because the matter was then pending in the Court of King's Bench, nothing would be easier than for a party wishing to prevent such inquiry to get some person to take the case into Court.

Mr. Williams Wynn

concurred in the opinion that the petition should be presented before the debate was proceeded with, although there were cases in which inquiry might be justifiable, if an hon. Member stated facts which came within his own knowledge. He could not agree at alt in the observations made by the hon. Member for Middlesex with reference to his hon. and learned Friend. There were feelings of delicacy which would apply to every honourable mind, which would induce a person to abstain from taking part in the Parliamentary discussion of a case in which he was professionally engaged. An advocate was generally in the confidence of parties, and communications were constantly made to him which it would be contrary to every sense of justice for him to use elsewhere against his client. He thought, therefore, it was the more delicate course for a party who was engaged professionally in a cause to abstain from speaking or voting on it in the House of Commons. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it would be highly inconvenient to have an inquiry going on before a Committee of the House of Commons, white it was the subject of a cause before a court of justice. In extreme cases, such as high treason, it might be necessary to send evidence to a Committee of the House of Commons to take measures for the safety of the country.

Mr. Blackburne

would for the present withdraw his Motion. He would, however, lay the petition on the Table, and move that it be printed, and call the attention of the House to it on Monday next.

Mr. Tulk

wished to say a few words as connected with the borough of Poole. No less than eighty-eight affidavits had been made by burgesses of the west-ward in Poole, who stated that they voted in a particular way on the last election, and although they formed the majority of the burgesses of the ward, a return was made contrary to their votes. These had been filed in the Court of King's Bench, and had not been contested. He was sorry to say that the Mayor was his particular friend at two elections, and still more sorry was he to add, that he constantly refused the demand made to him by the burgesses for free access to examine the papers, and he persisted in his refusal till he was forced to comply by the Court of King's Bench. When they were examined it appeared that the majority had voted one way, although he had declared that they had voted another.

The petition laid on the Table; ordered to be printed.