HC Deb 13 April 1840 vol 53 cc1023-6
Mr. A. Sanford

appeared at the bar and stated, that he was directed by the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the merits of a petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Ludlow at the last election, to report that the Committee had determined that Mr. Alcock was not duly elected a burgess for the said borough, that the last election was a void election, and that neither the petition against the return, nor the opposition thereto, was frivolous or vexatious. He was further directed to state that the Select Committee had come to the following resolutions:— That it appears to the committee that Mr. Alcock and Mr. H. Clive were, by their agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last election for the borough of Ludlow, and that a general system of treating prevailed previous to and during the last election for the said borough.

Mr. R. Clive

said, that as the word "agents "was used in the resolutions in reference to bribery practised during the last election for Ludlow, at which his hon. relative was a candidate, he wished to ask his hon. Friend the Member for West Somersetshire whether the Committee intended to imply that any hon. Member of that House was concerned in the transaction.

Mr. A. Sanford

was sure his hon. Friend would excuse him for not answering the question. Though Chairman of that Committee, he could, if he were now to reply to the question, give only his individual opinion; and his hon. Friend must be aware that he should be transgressing the orders and rules which a Chairman of a Committee ought to lay down for his guidance, if he were to give an opinion as to the grounds on which the Committee had come to their resolution.

Viscount Sandon

thought he might be allowed to satisfy the natural anxiety of the hon. Gentleman. He could appeal to every Member of the Committee to confirm his statement, that the conclusion as to bribery come to by the Committee rested on a few cases—one on each side—and in neither of those cases was a Member of that House implicated. It perhaps, would have been better for the Committee before breaking up, to have come to some resolution as to the grounds on which they founded their report; but he appealed to every Member of the Committee as to the correctness of the statement he had just made.

Mr. Wakley

expected a great deal more information than had been conveyed in the answer of the noble Lord, and he was much surprised that the Chairman of the Committee had not moved that the evidence be printed. If a report of this nature were allowed to lie on the Table, as if it were a mere matter of ordinary and common occurrence, a degree of disgrace would be reflected on the character of the House which scarcely any future proceedings could remove. Was it possible that in this Reformed House no more should be heard of so extensive a system of bribery and treating, which was calculated to corrupt to the very vitals the system of representation? He should move, and he expected no opposition to the motion, that the evidence taken before the Committee be printed with a view to the suspension of the issue of the writ to a future period.

Mr. Holmes

begged leave to second the motion of the hon. Member, and he would state the reason why he did so. In the Ludlow Committee, the speech of counsel in opening the case of the returned Member was of a most extraordinary character, and it was attempted to be supported by the evidence of an individual, of which he was quite certain the Members of the Committee did not believe one word; at least, if they had done so, they would have been bound to make a special report. The cross-examination of the individual whose testimony alone applied to him (Mr. Holmes) convinced every Member of the Committee, he believed, of the intentional perjury of that man. He trusted the House would accede to the motion for the printing of the whole of the evidence.

Mr. A. Sanford

rose to exculpate the Committee from the charge, that they had any desire that the evidence should not go before the country. Such was by no means the case; but, as Chairman of the Committee, having received no instructions to move that the evidence be printed, it seemed to him to be his duty merely to present the report, leaving the House to deal with it as justice should dictate.

Lord J. Russell

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for West Somersetshire had very properly discharged his duty as chairman of the Committee, and he trusted it would not be inferred from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury that the House was ready, now that the report was made, to issue a new writ as a matter of course. He conceived that the House would wait for some time until an opportunity was afforded of properly considering the evidence. He presumed that, under the circumstances, a motion for a new writ would not be made without notice, and if it were he should certainly feel it his duty to oppose it.

Evidence reported, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Wakley moved that the issue of the writ for a new election at Ludlow be suspended until the 1st of June next. [" No, no."] He thought the matter of so much importance to the character of the House, that some proceeding ought to be adopted to mark the sense of the House on the subject.

Lord J. Russell

thought the hon. Member's motion premature. It might be concluded that no hon. Member would move the issue of a new writ without notice, and until the evidence was printed.

Mr. Goulburn

concurred with the noble Lord. It appeared that the Committee had only reported that a general system of treating had prevailed, and, therefore, it might be inferred that a general system of bribery did not prevail. It would not be proper on the mere statement of an individual Member to suspend the issue of the writ. He agreed with the noble Lord that with respect to a motion for issuing the writ, notice should be given.

Mr. Hume

said, that the hon. Member for Finsbury moved the suspension of the writ, not on his own mere statement, but on the report of the Committee. It was not possible that any hon. Member could read the evidence and form an opinion on it before the 1st of June.

Motion withdrawn.

Back to