HC Deb 01 June 1842 vol 63 cc1107-17

The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the reference of the case of Bridport to the select committee appointed to inquire whether certain corrupt compromises have been entered into, and gross bribery has taken place in the towns of Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn, and Falmouth, and Reading having been read,

Mr. C. Buller

said, he should not propose at that late hour of the night to go on with the motion he had made on last Saturday morning, if he were now to deal with the motion as he had originally proposed it, but it appeared to him, that he had now to do with an altered proposition, because the House the other night had decided the main principle, and left for to-night nothing but comparatively small matters of detail. He had acceded at once to the proposal to postpone the further consideration of the subject, in order to give time for deliberation as to the mode, merely in which the inquiry might best be carried into effect, and he should not trespass on the House at present, by going into any statements in reference to those explanations which he had been requested to make in contradiction to the charges which had been brought forward against Mr. Warburton. He would merely state the position in which he conceived the question now stood. The House, by a large majority, had passed this resolution, That an inquiry be made into certain corrupt compromises alleged to have been entered into for the purpose of avoiding investigation into gross bribery which had been alleged to have been practised at the election for the borough of Bridport in June last, and also whether such bribery has taken place in the aforesaid town: The House having thus determined that inquiry should take place, he presumed that they would not stultify themselves by their vote on the present occasion, and, therefore, he should proceed without any apprehension of the result to-night. He could not anticipate any objection to the proposition, that the case of Bridport stood on the same grounds—and on that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had the other night fully agreed—as those for inquiring into which the committee of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) would enter; nor was there any question that a corrupt compromise had taken place previously to the compromises brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend, nor that the bribery took place at the same time as in the other cases. Therefore, in point of consistency, the House should have taken this case of Bridport the very first of all the cases. He moved, therefore, that the case of the borough of Bridport be referred to the committee which had been appointed on the motion of his hon. and learned Friend. He adopted this course, because he thought it better that the case should go before them, than a new and separate committee; for the House had already got a good committee, which was one reason why he wished it to go before them; and in the next place, by making this reference, he should avoid any of those imputations of partiality in the formation of a new committee which had been made before, and might have been made again.

Mr. G. Bankes

must be allowed to say for himself and some other hon. Members, that they were not compromised by the decision which the House had come to the other night, with which he, for one, was not satisfied, and at which he had met with no one out of the House who was not surprised. In fact, he thought that a most dangerous precedent had been set. Not stopping at the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, they were now about to take a step to the results of which no one could look with certainty, all must look with apprehension. Henceforth, if they adopted this motion, whenever there was an unsuccessful candidate anywhere, who might not have thought fit to present a petition in the ordinary way, the door was opened for him to come forward at any length of time after the election was over, and demand an inquiry in this way. ["No,no."] He insisted it was so; and he knew not how, after this, they were to shut the door against any candidate in such circumstances who might find it convenient to come and demand a reference of his case to some unheard of committee to inquire into the truth of any allegations by which he might consider himself aggrieved. Why, an instance had occurred that very night; for it had been stated in a petition presented by the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), that the Member for Lichfield had obtained his seat by means of corrupt practices. But the petition had not been listened to as Mr. Warburton's was, because the names appended to it were those of people whose names were unknown there; and moreover, there was no one to take up their case; but he must be allowed to say, that that petition had as much right to be treated with attention as that of Mr. Warburton; and the House might depend upon it that if they allowed such petitions as that of Mr. Warburton's to be treated as his was, that they would find plenty of disappointed candidates who would follow up this course, which would have the recommendation of superior cheapness to the appointed method of going before an election committee. Observe the course that had been adopted. The petition of Mr. Warburton was presented by a Gentleman who expatiated on the wounded feelings of the petitioner, which he stated to be the reason why the petitioner came before the House; in fact, the hon. Gentleman stated himself to be a personal friend of Mr. Warburton. But he said, that these wounded feelings of an unsuccessful candidate, the House was not bound to follow, on the ground, that it was the case of a friend, who brought forward the case of his personal friend. Next, who got up to advocate Mr. Warburton's cause? Another personal friend, the late Solicitor-general, the most powerful advocate of the day, who was called up, not in defence of public justice, but as a private friend of the party, and as a friend he was heard, and as a friend the House respected his feelings. Nevertheless, he would say, that were not sitting there to listen to private feelings, still less, were they sitting there to hear charges of private spleen. The circumstances of this case had no reference to any public proceedings; it did not arise out of any public investigation, and there was the main difference between this case, and those which had been referred to the committee of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. For his own part, with respect to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member, he should have thought that the House would have acted more consistently with its usual desire to secure the respect of the public, if they had not come into the decision on the proposition with quite so much haste, considering how serious might be the consequences, and how powerful were the weapons which they were about to place in the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He did not dispute the decision to which the House had come, in granting the hon. and learned Member his committee, but for the considerations he had stated, he trembled at the idea of carrying out the principle any further. That principle was known to the House—it was founded upon peculiar facts—facts importing, that the decisions of those tribunals which were appointed by the House, for the peculiar purpose of judging questions relating to elections, had been contravened by means of certain corrupt compromises, as they had been designated by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. As he had already observed, he would have been better satisfied, had there been more deliberation applied to the question, before that committee was appointed; but still it was a principle, and he could well understand it. The application made in the present instance, however, was founded upon no principle, and he did see, that mischievous consequences might—nay, must—follow from the adoption of the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Liskeard, offered for their acceptance. There had been, already, a majority on this question, but there was also a minority on that occasion, whose views he had taken the liberty of stating. It was true, that the majority was large, but those who composed it, were very far from being of one opinion, either as to the results to be expected, or as to the course which ought to be pursued. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, stated, that he had no desire to refer this case to the committee appointed on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. ["No, no!"] He certainly was sitting near the noble Lord on that occasion, and he thought he rather heard him urge on the House, that this case should not form part of the inquiry before that committee. His right hon. Friend, at the head of the Treasury, did not express himself very exactly as to his ulterior views with regard to the subject. He stated, that he should feel some difficulty in supporting a bill of indemnity for witnesses; but, at the same time, admitted, that without such a bill of indemnity, the inquiry would be wholly nugatory. But what would be the consequence of including this case? Why, that the bill of indemnity would be made to apply to an inquiry, the motives of which were avowed to be not public, but private and personal. Was that a fit case in which to grant a bill of indemnity? The hon. and learned Member for Bath seemed to be surprised, when, a few moments ago, he spoke of the weapon which the House would place in his hands. Might not a bill of indemnity be described as a weapon of the most powerful kind — one which they ought not to intrust to any man except for the most important purposes, and certainly to no man in whom they did not feel a confidence that he would use it rightly? A bill of indemnity was a contravention of the known law of the land; it was to enable those to whom it was intrusted, to act contrary to those known principles of the law of the land, which all admitted, ought not in general cases to be adhered to. For if they ought not to be adhered to, why was there not a general indemnity bill to apply to all witnesses whatsoever? If the general principle, that a person should not be allowed to criminate others without being exposed to the legal consequences of his actions, was to be superseded—if a person in the confidence of others was to be permitted to betray that confidence,—why, a bill that would be universal in its operation would be the best mode of altering the law. But if it was right to grant this bill of indemnity for the purposes of the inquiry embraced by the committee of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and he went with him to that extent, surely the House would not go further and say that it was right as regarded this case of Mr. Warburton, which rested on avowedly different grounds. He, for one, never could concur in any bill of indemnity grounded on a demand which came forward as this demand of Mr. Warburton did, which proceeded upon complaints of private injuries, avowing motives of private pique, and urged upon the House by means of the claims of private friendship. He was justified in thus characterizing the motion, because the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard prefaced his statement by a declaration that he had been actuated by private and not by public motives in bringing it forward. He did feel that the hon. Member would, on reflection, feel that this was not a case in which he, with those legal and constitutional feelings which he so eminently possessed, would urge upon the House a course which must, of necessity, under such circumstances lead to this case of Bridport being included in the Indemnity Bill—without such a bill he must be well aware that the inquiry must be nugatory. Above all, he did not think the hon. and learned Member for Bath could wish this case to be added to his committee. He thought, too, the majority of the House would be of the same opinion, and if the motion were therefore negatived, it would then be for the House to consider whether they would refer the subject to a separate select committee. For his own part he should oppose the motion.

Mr. Brotherton

said, if hon. Members would bring on opposed questions at this late hour, (five minutes to one o'clock), he had no alternative but to move the adjournment. He could only teach the House a lesson in that way; and if the motion was seconded he should divide.

Dr. Bowring

seconded the motion.

Mr. C. Buller

granted he had offended against the rule, and that he was liable to the punishment threatened by the hon. Gentleman, but he hoped the House would allow him to state the additional reasons why he had brought forward this question at so late an hour. The case was this:—The hon. and learned Member for Bath had proposed a bill of indemnity, into the preamble of which bill he, notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, meant to persist in asking the House to introduce the name of Bridport. Now, that bill was to come on to-night. [" No, no."] Well, if not to-night, at all events very soon; and what he wanted was, to have his motion disposed of before the third reading of the bill came on for discussion, because, though the House of Lords, taking cognizance of the votes of that House, might insert it, he would rather it was inserted here. Should the House refuse to insert it in the preamble of the hon. and learned Member's bill, then he would have to apply for an indemnity bill of his own.

Mr. Roebuck

entirely concurred in what the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had said as to his having no desire that this case of Bridport should be included. The hon. Member, however, had said, that the House were about to invest him with great powers. He utterly disclaimed every thing of the sort. The House had constituted a committee to inquire into a particular matter of public policy, and it proposed to give that committee certain powers. He thought it rather hard upon him that it should be put in the invidious form that he was to wield a power which, in fact, the House shared with him. The simple case was, that the House had confidence in that committee of nine, and had given to it I certain powers for the purposes of the inquiries desired by the House. It was not a judicial inquiry. The House had determined to undertake the inquiry. He had suggested it as an inquiry into what he deemed to be an omitted case in the law of elections. He had declared to the House that he could show, from facts which had come to his knowledge, the means by which the desires and laws of J the House with regard to elections had been evaded and eluded by certain proceedings. For the purpose of making those facts known to the House he had moved for this committee, which the House from motives of public policy granted. What was the omitted case in the law of elections? It was that certain parties before the inquiries could take place before the regular tribunal had made what he called corrupt compromises—a phrase which had since been used to designate those transactions. If the hon. Member could withdraw the case of Bridport from the category, he should prefer it. He should recollect that he was arguing against himself for he did not want further inquiry. He thought the load already heavy enough for the committee to bear, and he therefore only pointed out things which militated against his own interest, but which he considered it fair and just to notice. Mr. Warburton was the private friend of the hon. Member for Liskeard, who brought forward the petition through feelings of private friendship, in which he sincerely concurred. But, putting aside those feelings, what were the facts? Why, that they had discovered, no matter how, and they could hardly have had a better mode of discovery than in the statement which had been presented to the House they had discovered by that statement that offenders there had been— that three gentlemen, Mr. Warburton, and the hon. Members for Bridport, had been, according to their own statement, guilty of a compromise. As far too as rumour was concerned, all parties were involved in the question of bribery, which was stated to have been resorted to by all. One of the hon. Members for Bridport spoke the other evening, when the question was being discussed, of the remark able absence of the Member for Bath Now, in the first place, he was labouring under severe indisposition an excuse, if excuse were necessary, sufficient to account for his absence; and, in the next, he was confident that the House did not mean to impose upon him the calamitous obligation of listening to all the nonsense that was spoken on the subject of bribery in the course of these discussions. It was somewhat hard, therefore, that he should, by having absented himself on the occasion alluded to, have been subjected to the charge which had been made against him by the hon. Member. It had been his fate, as counsel in a court of law, to have seen many of his countrymen sentenced by law to transportation; but he had never heard it made matter of charge by a criminal in the dock that a counsel who had prosecuted on Monday was not present at a similar prosecution, in which he was not concerned, on the following Tuesday. He mixed up no private feelings in the case; he knew nothing of his own personal knowledge; he had no concern in the matter, and, so far as his interest was concerned, he could only say, that if the House did not see any difference between the case now before it and those other cases which had been disposed of by a reference to the committee, and if it should think that committee a fitting committee for conducting the inquiry, he should deem it his duty to bow to that decision.

Mr. A. Cochrane

said, that he had no objection that the case should be referred at once to the committee, as proposed by the hon. Member for Liskeard. Indeed, he considered that discussions of this nature ought to be avoided, and that the sooner the case was so referred the better. He had not blamed the hon. Member opposite for absenting himself. [Mr. Roebuck informed the hon. Member he had not alluded to him as having said so.] The hon. Member for Bath had said, that there had been an admission of bribery on his part; but if the hon. Member looked to the petition he would find, not that he was charged with bribery, but that he had spent a sum of money which was unknown. With regard to the question of compromise, he was quite willing to refer it to the committee.

Mr. Darby

did not consider this at all a personal matter, and he had very great objections to refer it to the committee. He must say, that in a matter of this im- portance the hon. Member for Bath had pursued a course which was hardly justifiable, for he first produced one motion and then another.

Mr. Roebuck

rose to order. The hon. Member, he said, was introducing a question wholly irrelevant to that before the House.

Mr. Darby submitted,

that he was perfectly in order. The course of the hon. and learned Member, he maintained, was hardly justifiable, and had been objected to by the noble Lord opposite. The hon. Member's first motion did not include the inquiry into bribery in boroughs; it merely referred to the question of compromise. Both the noble Lord ((he Member for London) and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government said, that they could not consent to the inquiry into bribery, except so far as necessary to establish a corrupt compromise. The hon. Member, therefore, was not consistent in speaking of the defined powers of the committees, for he contended that those powers were totally undefined at the present moment. They were to have the power of inquiring generally, notwithstanding the objection made by the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. A motion was now made for inquiring into alleged bribery at Bridport. Before the case was referred to the committee, he wanted to know what the powers of the committee were to be. He was giving a reason why this debate should be adjourned. Until the powers of the committee were defined, he should object to the present motion; for he was convinced, if it were agreed to, the House would involve itself in an inextricable abyrinth.

Viscount Sandon

said, the House had agreed to refer the question to a committee, and the only point now at issue was, whether the committee was to be the same committee to which the other cases had been referred. The point they must decide was, whether or not the cases were at all parallel. There were alleged compromises for concealing bribery in the cases already referred. He made no charge against either of the sitting Members; but the late Member, Mr. Warburton, admitted the fact, that he did retire to prevent an investigation into bribery which had taken place in the borough of Bridport, and no one denied it. He thought, therefore, that Bridport fell pre- cisely within the category of those places whose conduct the House had already agreed to refer to the hon. Member for Bath's committee

Mr. Roebuck

really must be permitted to say a few words on the charge which had been brought against him, of acting unjustifiably by the House, and he did trust hon. Members would bear with him whilst he said a few words in his own justification. What was the charge? It was, that he had made a motion in terms complained of as not sufficiently definite. When he had heard that complaint made he immediately attempted to render the motion more definite. The motion as it was re-worded was also complained of. A third attempt was made, and the motion, with some alterations, was agreed to. Every Member was present at that time. They were there with their eyes wide open they were there with their ears erect—they were there with their minds clear to judge and to decide. One hon. Member who had taken part in that debate (Sir J. Walsh) had even specially spoken of the case of this very borough of Bridport. Now, the House being full, all attention being excited, no confusion prevailing, but, on the contrary, there being a perfect and clear understanding upon the case, how could he be said to have done anything that was liable to be styled unjustifiable? The right hon. Baronet had assented to the motion at the time, and he had never heard him say that he had found cause to quarrel with it since. No objection whatever was made to it, except by one hon. Member, the hon. Member for; he forgot where he sat for now, but formerly he was Member for the borough of Sudbury; therefore, he must say, that he thought he stood fully acquitted from this charge before both the House and the country. There were present the noble Lord the Member for London, and the right hon. Baronetߞthere were all those whom he now saw before himߞall clear-sighted and cautious politicians, and yet they said that he had not only obtained his committee unjustifiably, but that he had absolutely palmed it upon them against their better judgments. Really such an accusation as this he could not pretend to understand.

Mr. Darby

said, the hon. Member was rather too sensitive. He had not attributed to him that he had palmed anything whatever upon the House, but what he had taken objection to was his pressing forward his motion in an overhasty manner.

Sir J. Walsh

said, that in a previous part of the debate he applied the word "unjustifiable" to the hon. Member. What he had meant to convey by it was, that the hon. Member, when he brought forward his motion, changed the words very frequently; and he must be permitted to observe, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had been understood by many to object to the motion on the ground of its indistinctness. He really did not think the House was now prepared for another change, which, instead of more strictly defining the terms on which the inquiry was conducted, opened the door still wider.

Motion for the adjournment withdrawn, and the House divided on the original motion,ߞ That such inquiry be referred to the Select Committee appointed to inquire whether such compromises have been entered into, and whether such bribery has taken place in the towns of Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn and Falmouth, and Reading.

Ayes 44; Noes 16: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Layard, Capt.
Aglionby, H. A. Lincoln, Earl of
Baring, hon. W. B. Lowther, J. H.
Blackstone, W. S. Mangles, R. D.
Bodkin, W. H. Martin, C. W.
Bowring, Dr. Morgan, C.
Brotherton, J. Murphy, F. S.
Christie, W. D. Napier, Sir C.
Clerk, Sir G. O'Connell, M. J.
Denison, E. B. O'Conor Don
Dickinson, F. H. Pakington, J. S.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Parker, J.
Duncombe, T. Plumptre, J. P.
Evans, W. Gill, T. Roebuck, J. A.
Gill,T. Sandon, Visct.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Granger, T. C. Tufnell, H.
Greene, T. Wood, B.
Hervey, Lord A. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Hill, Lord M. Wynn, rt. hn.C.W.W
Hodgson, R.
James, W. TELLERS.
Jermyn, Earl Buller, C.
Knatchbull,rt.hn.SirE. Hawes, B.
List of the NOES..
Allix, J. P. M'Geachy, F. A.
Bankes, G. Manners, Lord J.
Escott, B. Neville, R.
Ferrand, W. B. Newry, Visct.
Henley, J. W. O'Brien, A. S.
Lockhart, W. Pollington, Visct,
Rushbrooke, Col. TELLERS.
Scott, hon. F. Darby, G.
Smythe, hon. G. Bagge, W.
Walsh, Sir J. B.

House adjourned.