HC Deb 06 April 1838 vol 42 cc455-65

Now, as he heard the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, cheer, he must say this, that he could assure the hon. Member her that what was stated did not take place. He could tell the hon. Member for Dublin, who had cheered, what did take place, and he wished to call his attention to the fact. They were called upon to strike off the name of George Mullins. Evidence was given before them; but then it was not sufficient evidence to invalidate the vote, and therefore they struck off the vote of George Mullins. He begged pardon, they retained the vote. The counsel, then, for the petitioners, the next day that they met, then tendered to them further evidence; that was more evidence against the votes than what they had in George Mullin's case. They then examined the revising barrister, and on his evidence they struck off the remaining votes, but they never struck off the vote of George Mullins. He believed that any lawyer would have acted as they had done on the first day; the only evidence they had was the letter of an overseer, which was afterwards contradicted by the writer, the letter went on to say— The revising barrister, a man of long standing at the bar, and of the same politics with the majority of the Committee, whose business it was to know the law and to act upon it, had not the grace to inform the Committee, according to the fact, that having departed hastily and before the conclusion of the day, he felt it his duty to return, at the request of the overseer, to perform the ministerial act of revising a list that was totally un-objected to, but declared that he knew nothing and could say nothing of the law, and begged the Committee to instruct him. The majority of the Committee, whose ignorance upon the subject was second only to their corruption, were thus enabled to put their decision upon the shoulders of this gentleman.

Upon one disputed point in the Committee, continued the hon. Member, the division was ten to one, and on another, that of considering the votes under the same class as George Mullins, as seven to four. He then proceeded with the letter:— The next main feature was this:—An overseer, a partisan of my adversary, had caused by his sole evidence four votes to be struck off from my poll, on the ground of nonpayment of rates. On the fifth case his oath was contradicted by two receipts produced in his own hand-writing; and I will venture to say that no judge who ever sat in Westminster-hall would have permitted a case to go to the jury for their consideration upon the evidence of a man so exposed and contradicted. My counsel of course applied for the restoration of the four votes: the Committee refused to allow it. In this way my majority was destroyed, and my seat as completely filched from me as ever a purse was stolen from a person on the common highway. Here, again, he could assure the House that this was a very great misstatement. Counsel had asked them to reverse their decision after they were convinced of the inaccuracy of a witness; and they were unanimously of opinion that they could not go into the case again. They had proofs of the man's inaccuracy, but that was not the time for going into them. He had now to come to the last paragraph, which the House, he was sure, must consider as most unfounded and most untrue:— I was unwilling to witness in person these disgraceful scenes; but I am assured that all the proceedings of a section of the Committee were accompanied by such external and convincing signs of partiality to my opponent and prejudice against myself as to excite the disgust of even casual spectators! Do not suppose, that the high-minded men who constitute a large portion of what is called the Tory party can approve of these things. I have reason to know, that they regard such criminal acts with the greatest disapprobation. It does seem to me that I have been made the victim of a degree of iniquity compared with which the irregular acts of all former Committees may fairly claim to stand excused. The remaining paragraphs he did not mean to trouble the House with, as they did not refer to the matter to which he wished to call its attention. They were, too, only the self-praises of Mr. Poulter himself. He would not now proceed further; but he begged to say that he should feel it to be his duty to call the printer of The Morning Chronicle newspaper to the bar on Monday evening, and also Mr. Poulter. The Gentlemen of the Committee whose conduct had been impugned had acted to the best of their conscientious belief, and what they considered to be the justice of the case; and he was sure that the hon. Member who under his own conscientious convictions had differed from them, would at least give them credit for being influenced by the same pure Motives from which he himself had acted. He concluded by handing in the letter containing the passages objected to.

The letter having been read at the table,

Mr. Blackstone

moved, that John Layer Poulter, Esq., of the Temple, the writer of the letter, and Martin Smith Metcalf, of 3, Savoy-street, Strand, the printer of The Morning Chronicle newspaper, do attend at the bar of this House on Monday next, the 9th of April.

Mr. Elliot

, as a member of the Shaftesbury Committee, felt bound to say a few words on the occasion, and he felt that he was the more particularly bound to do so, as he considered he was so distinctly alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. He had then no hesitation in saying, that, however much he might have differed from other Members of the Committee upon many material points, it never had entered into his mind, nor indeed did he think, that any Gentleman could suppose, that the hon. Members from whom he differed were influenced by corrupt motives. He said this although he had differed from those hon. Members upon almost every point—he did so honestly and openly. He gave them credit for doing the same. There appeared to him to be good feeling on either side, although it was his opinion that, on the part of a majority of the Committee, there was a perversion of justice. What he meant to say, was an honest perversion of justice. In his judgment there was a perversion of justice; in their judgment there was not. He did not presume to say whether he or they were in error. The hon. Member for Wallingford had alluded to the vote of George Mullins, and the vote which the Committee had come to respecting it. He did not think, that the hon. Member had properly explained that matter—he was sure the mistake fallen into was not intentional; but the fact was, that the counsel who opened the case informed the Committee that a single vote would be put before them for the purpose of deciding thirty-one votes. Then the thirty-one votes were to be decided upon the case of George Mullins. That was the understanding of the counsel upon both sides, and then they took the vote of George Mullins into consideration. They decided, then, that that vote was to be held good. During the discussion upon this subject the counsel of the petitioners were taxed with not having brought before the Committee, the revising barrister. It was said, that he was the only person who could give proper evidence in this case. To this the answer of the opposite counsel was, that it was not usual to summon a judge to give evidence upon a case which he had decided in his own court. It was out of courtesy, they declared, that they had refused to summon the revising barrister, and the counsel actually treated it as a thing which was quite out of the question. It was said it would be improper and indelicate to summon him after he had decided upon the vote. On their then deciding on the vote of George Mullins on the first evening, the counsel for the sitting Member said, that he supposed it was to be concluded that they had then disposed of that whole class of voters. The answer to which was, that they must not do that then, because they had other objections to offer. Now, his opinion certainly at the time was, that they were deciding and determining upon the thirty-one votes. The petitioners' counsel the next morning proposed to call the revising barrister, in order that lie might hear testimony to the thirty votes, respecting which upon the night before he considered they had decided, and to which votes George Mullins was the key. He was of the opinion of a portion of the Committee, that they had disposed of thirty-one votes—it was the opinion of another portion that they had not. He was sure that this was an honest opinion, and he was satisfied that hon. Gentlemen gave this opinion, because they felt that the petitioner was fully entitled to the opinion of the revising barrister. He was accordingly called in, and the decision came to on the vote of George Mullins was not held to be a right decision, because the evidence of the revising barrister went to overset the evidence on which the first decision was founded. He felt doubt himself whether they ought, after having disposed of thirty-one votes, to have opened thirty of them for fresh revision. That was the ground on which he raised an objection. With regard to the revising barrister's evidence, he must say, from observation that he considered it to have been fairly and honestly given. He considered that no imputation attached to that evidence; and whatever party that gentleman might be of, for he did not know, he considered that he gave honest and true evidence, and he regretted, that it had been called in question. With regard to the evidence of Bennett, whose credit was shaken, the circumstances were these. He declared, that a certain person had not paid his rates till after the election. He was questioned in every style possible with regard to the payment, and still declared that the rates had not been paid. A receipt was then handed in, which he admitted to be in his own handwriting, and which was for the July rates. The witness admitted the receipt, but said he had made a mistake in putting July instead of May. He was asked if he was sure that this was the case, and he said he felt sure it was. After asserting this pretty roundly, another receipt was handed in for the May rate, in the handwriting of the witness. The Committee retained the vote. There was another circumstance which came before the Committee—he meant the treating; but he was not sure whether the letter alluded to it or not. It appeared that there was treating in Shaftesbury, both before and after the election. It was proved, also, that the petitioner had sent money down to Shaftesbury, which was placed in the bank of Brodie and Co. A person of the name of Buckland, who was proved to be an agent of the petitioner drew out 450l. of this money, by paying it in checks in favour of the publicans where treating had taken place. There was quite sufficient proof that treating had taken place, and on that ground he did express a strong opinion. But he thought he ought to state the grounds on which the other Members of the Committee held a different opinion. It was first of all sworn by all the publicans that they received no orders to open their houses from the petitioner or his agents. They had opened them on speculation, but acknowledged that they expected to be paid by the petitioner, for in all former elections they had been paid by the person in whose favour they had opened their houses, and they expected the same on that occasion. It was, however, proved, that they had received no orders from the petitioner. There was, however, this peculiarity with regard to this letter, that they were all taxed and reduced by the agent of the petitioner. These reductions amounted in some bills to one-half, in others to a fourth, and in others to ten per cent, and so on, but no rule seemed to regulate the reduction. It was suggested by the counsel for the petitioner, that, probably, these reductions were made in consequence of the expenses incurred after the testing of the writ, such expenses being illegal. This suggestion was received by the members of the Committee as probable, but lie acknowledged that, in this opinion, he did not concur. He would state the reason; the treating had been carried on for twenty-five days—namely, five days beyond the testing of the writ. The deduction, therefore, in every bill ought to be the expense of the five days, or one-fifth. But this was not the case. Some deductions were as much as one-half of the bill; and, besides, the publicans themselves all swore that the reason why the deductions were made was, that they had charged too much; that the Committee of the petitioners had taxed the bills, and thought them too high. He (Mr. Elliot.) was of opinion, that treating was proved, but the majority of the Committee was of a contrary opinion. It appeared to him, that the Committee had decided contrary to justice and to the evidence, for so strong, in his opinion, was the evidence, that even in a case of murder he would hang a man upon it. He would add one other word. The witnesses called to prove the treating were very unwilling witnesses. They had been all employed in treating on the part of the petitioner, and, of course, they would all give as little evidence as they could; and, indeed, every member of the Committee was of that opinion. In proof of these facts, he could state one instance. There was one book of accounts which the Committee particularly required. The person to whom it belonged, notwithstanding he received orders to bring up the book, left it behind, and when, at length, it was produced, the leaves containing the particular account were torn out. Under these circumstances, he certainly did form a very strong opinion. With regard to the letter which had appeared, he must say, differing in opinion as he did from the majority of the Committee, he would be the last person in the world to attribute to them any but the most proper and honest motives. He was ready to bear his testimony that they were solely actuated by feelings of this description, however much he differed from them in opinion.

Captain Mathew

said, that in the very peculiar position in which he was placed he should be naturally expected to say a few words. The hon. Member who last spoke had not confined himself to the points referred to by the chairman of the Committee, but had entered into other matters which had occurred before the Committee. It had been said, that his being in that House was the result of a combination. He begged to deny this in the most explicit terms. If, indeed, by a combination it was intended to express the union of the greater number of those who had possessions in Shaftesbury, and also of the free and independent tradesmen there, he would acknowledge that he was in the House in consequence of such combination. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire had alluded to the subject of treating. He must admit that at the last election, as on all former elections, there had been exhibited in Shaftesbury scenes of drunkenness on both sides. He believed, that the hon. Gentleman who was opposed to him did not sanction such proceedings any more than he (Captain Mathew) did, for be could truly state that this treating was not only without his orders, but against his positive official notice. He had attended in the Committee room during the proceedings, but he called upon the hon. Member for Roxburghshire to state whether, during the time he was in the room, he had not sat close to that hon. Member, and removed from those who might be called his friends, and with whom he agreed in politics, but with whom he had never had any communication of any sort or kind, unless on going out of the Committee-room interchanging words of salutation. It had been stated, that the witnesses to prove treating had been unwilling witnesses. But they had heard that many of them were discontented at being paid only one-half of their claims, and one of them was proved in evidence to have become insolvent since the election owing to the expense he had gone to, and yet the same party had deposed that he had no claim against him for payment. He must say, therefore, that he thought he was justified in stating that these men were anything but unwilling witnesses; and when the House recollected what this description of witnesses was, and what scenes generally were exhibited at Shaftesbury during the time of an election, he was sure they would not consider, that this class of witnesses would object to anew election. Having stated thus much, he begged to express his deep regret at the matter before the House, and perhaps he might add his sincere wish that some means would be taken to put an end to it fairly and freely on both sides. He was perfectly aware that his opponent was most amiable and gentlemanly in his character, while he was of an anxious and excitable disposition. He knew that during the election he (Mr. Poulter) had suffered that degree of illness that obliged him to be confined to his room, so that he was unable to attend his canvass. He was aware that this arose from physical illness. Ho could not for a moment doubt that this letter had been written under those feelings; and though he might justly complain of having been put to the expense of a petition, and of having been for a time kept out of that House by illegal votes, still he would not do so, and he would only say that he was sure that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulter) had written this letter perfectly believing that it was true, however much he was mistaken. He hoped that the House would be of opinion that what had already occurred was quite sufficient without carrying the matter further.

Lord Worsley

said, that this was rather an inconvenient way of settling this matter. As the hon. Member for Wallingford (Mr. Blackstone) had given notice that he would move, that the evidence taken before the Committee be printed, he (Lord Worsley) would suggest the propriety of post-poning this motion until after the evidence was printed. He thought that they would then be better able to come to a right decision, when every member of the House, by reading the evidence, would be able to judge of the statements made on either side.

Mr. Blackstone

said, that it was with great pain he had taken the present course; but as this was a breach of privilege, he could not consent to postpone it. He did not think, that it would be becoming the dignity of the House to postpone the motion.

Mr. R. Palmer

said, that the question before the House did not in any way depend on the evidence taken before the Committee. The question was, whether they were prepared to let this subject drop. The gentleman who wrote the letter complained of, had been for some time a Member of that House, and must have known that if he presumed to use expressions in that House reflecting on the Committees, the Speaker would have called him directly to order. Not long ago the House had thought it its duty to take under considera- tion the conduct of a Member for speaking of the Committees in the aggregate, and the Speaker was called upon to perform a painful duty on that occasion. In the present case there was a letter reflecting improperly upon the conduct of a particular Committee, and he felt it impossible that such a proceeding could pass unnoticed by the House. He thought it exceedingly probable, that when the Gentleman who signed the letter came to the bar, he would express his contrition for using such improper expressions. Until this was done he could not see the propriety of postponing the matter.

Mr. O'Connell

would ask the House whether it were necessary to bring the printer to the bar of the House? He submitted to the House that Mr. Poulter was a gentleman of that high standing and respectability in society that he would not have allowed his name to have appeared from the morning to the present time if he had not written the letter, without informing the parties interested that it was a forgery. They had every reason to be quite convinced that Mr. Poulter had signed the letter, and until Mr. Poulter denied it he could not see why the unfortunate printer should be brought to the bar of the House. He would submit, therefore, that as far as that part of the motion went, it had better be omitted. He would not have spoken at all if the hon. Member for Berkshire had not alluded to his case. Now, what had that precedent to do with the present case? A bad precedent was not to be followed. He thought it most important that they should have the evidence taken before the Committee before them, and particularly after the statement that had been made on both sides, and the remarks that had been made upon the facts given in evidence. The hon. Member had not read that part of the letter that referred to treating. He thought this was a most important feature in the case. If the statements that had been made were proved in the evidence, he did not know how any man in his senses could have arrived at the conclusion which the majority of the Committee had arrived at. This was not the first time that Committees of that House had been charged with deciding from party bias, and he thought it absolutely imperative upon the House to set itself right with the public on this point. [Cheers from the Opposition benches.] Did that cheer mean approbation of the present system. [No, no!] Then it meant condemnation. As the system was condemned, why take an isolated instance and make a victim because he chose to express an opinion? They were going about a monstrous proceeding. It had been said, that Mr. Poulter, when he appeared at the bar, would make an apology for what he had said. If Mr. Poulter was in his senses, and made an apology, he did not think that lie would stand in a very enviable situation, after deliberately publishing the letter in question. That, however, was for Mr. Poulter himself, but he must protest against the printer being called to the bar at all. He must also protest against inflicting any censure upon Mr. Poulter until the evidence was printed, and all the facts were before the House. If it were necessary for that purpose, he should move, that the proceedings against Mr. Poulter, if he avowed the publication, should be suspended till the whole of the evidence was before the House, in order that they might judge whether there was any case to justify the publication of the letter.

Mr. Blackstone

had no objection to have that part of the letter read which referred to treating, but he did not think it was at all necessary.

Mr. O'Connell

moved, that the clerk at the table read the passage.

The clerk then read the following passage— We then proved a case of treating so extensive and decisive, that if any one should desire to state the sort of evidence by which such an allegation should be sustained, he might be content to take as an example what was substantiated before the Committee. Ample opportunity was afforded for establishing this part of the case, by the notorious fact that unlimited treating was the only mode an entire stranger could adopt of standing against one who did, and does at this moment, possess the affections and opinions of a large majority of your constituency. This proof was also treated with the same contempt as the rest of my just and righteous cause.

Sir T. Fremantle

said, he had no wish to put the printer to unnecessary inconvenience, but, consistently with the forms of the House, he thought that the printer's attendance must be required. If Mr. Poulter avowed the letter, the printer would not be called to the bar, and he did not think it was any great hardship in directing the printer to come down to the House. It might turn out that the letter was a fabrication, and he should be happy to find it so. Some individual, in the hope of attracting more attention to the subject, might have forged the letter, and in that case the attendance of the printer would be necessary.

Lord John Russell

said, that before the question was put, he wished to address a few remarks to the House. The House seemed, on a former occasion, to have come to a decision that cases of this kind ought to have precedence. He must say again, that he entertained a very contrary opinion, and he was convinced, and more convinced every day, that in cases of this kind the most prudent course that the House could adopt would be to allow the matter to pass unnoticed. With respect to the merits of the Shaftesbury Election Committee, he must say, as he did on all others, that he would never enter into the merits of any question that was decided before the Election Committees. These Committees were the regular tribunals to decide those cases. He supposed, that they decided according to conscience and according to evidence, and he would never make any remark as to whether they had decided right or wrong. With respect to the general question, he might have occasion again to detail to the House the line which he thought it most eligible for the House to adopt; but he would only say now with regard to Mr. Poulter, that he had no doubt himself that the letter was a genuine document, and was signed by Mr. Poulter. That gentleman, no doubt, was, as had been stated, of an anxious temper, and he conceived that there could be no doubt but that the expressions made use of had arisen from that anxious temper of mind; but he must say, seeing every day the anonymous charges made against Election Committees, accusing them, whether the majority of the Committee was composed of Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, or of the other side, of most corrupt, most nefarious, and most perjured conduct in their decisions, that his respect and regard for Mr. Poulter were increased and not diminished from his having had the courage to add his name to his letter instead of publishing it anonymously.

Motion agreed to.