DISFRANCHISEMENT OF SUDBURY. (Hansard, 10 May 1842)

§ Mr. Redington

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise the borough of Sudbury. In bringing this question before the House it was hardly necessary for him to do more than to call its attention to the general course of proceeding in this borough, in order to induce a belief that the bill of which he had given notice was necessary. He begged the House, however, to consider that he appeared there, not as the advocate of any speculative measure of legislation, but as the mouthpiece of the committee of which he had been chairman, and which had recommended for the consideration of the House a measure for the disfranchisement of the borough of Sudbury. He was satisfied that the select committee, in coming to the resolution which had been reported to the House, and which now appeared on the votes, had been well aware of the importance of the step which they had taken—that the franchise was most important to all Englishmen, and that it was a right which ought not to be taken away upon light or insufficient grounds. The House, he was aware, had always regarded it as of the most important character; but at the same time, it had always looked to see that its exercise was not abused by the prostitution of its usefulness to the purposes of its possessors. Acting on that view Parliament had always guarded its possessions most strictly, but at the same time had always visited with the severest displeasure any acts which had come to its knowledge of bribery or corruption. He did not think that in this case the House would be inclined to depart from that course, or that it would be indisposed upon this occasion to visit the borough of Sudbury with its severest displeasure. There was this peculiarity in the report of the Sudbury committee. It was true that even after election committees had recommended the disfranchisement of a borough the House had always been unwilling to 344 take away the franchise, without having first ascertained ail the facts in the fullest manner, and the report of the election committee had been referred to a select committee. Formerly it had been the practice of the House to receive evidence at the Bar, but that course was found to be inconvenient, and the course had been adopted of referring the petition back to a select committee. Not many years ago a measure had been brought in by the noble Lord, the Member for the city of London, for the repression of bribery at elections. In the debate on that bill the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had said, that what the House would require in every instance of bribery before proceeding to a measure of disfranchisement, would be to be well satisfied of the existence of the fact, and that the evidence required would be such as would not only be satisfactory to this House, but to the other House of Parliament also. The right hon. Baronet had also stated that, in his opinion, the committee for the conducting of any investigation on such questions, ought to be nominated by the Speaker; and that a bill, founded upon the report of the committee, should be sent up to the other House of Parliament. In the case of the borough of Sudbury, all these conditions had been almost literally complied with. The committee had been nominated under the provisions of the right hon. Baronet's own measure for the trial of controverted elections. So that it might be said to have been nominated by the Speaker, who appointed the committee of selection by which the election committee was chosen. The report of the committee therefore was the first report of the kind under the right hon. Baronet's act, and was of that nature that it did not require to be referred to a select committee. He would now proceed briefly to narrate to the House the circumstances which had occurred at the last election for Sudbury. The nomination took place on a Monday, and the election on the Tuesday following. Up to 6 o'clock on the preceding Sunday night neither of the candidates who were returned had made his appearance in the borough. One arrived on the Sunday evening, and the other on the Monday morning, and within thirty-six hours after their arrival they were both returned as the Members for Sudbury. In some cases of bribery certain corrupt individuals were employed, and they endeavoured to tempt 345 others into corruption; in Sudbury there was no necessity to have recourse to such measures. The votes were bought openly in the market. There were the hustings and two public-houses, which were engaged by the parties; and from the Black Boy to the hustings, from the hustings to the Swan could be easily traced the stream of voters, receiving an earnest at the first named place before they gave their votes, and at the last named house calling for and receiving the wages of their corruption. It was bribery of the most open and notorious character—the most extensive and general system of bribery which could be supposed to exist. Having alluded to this general nature of the case, he should now simply proceed to the evidence for the purpose of showing how many of the voters of Sudbury appeared to have acted in the manner he had pointed out. The first witness to whose evidence he should allude was a constable of Sudbury; and he stated what had occurred on the morning of the polling, but it appeared from his evidence that the virtue of Sudbury had been overcome on the night before. He was asked, Do you know the Black Boy inn? Yes.— That, we are told, is on the market-hill? Yes, it is.—Did you observe anything with respect to the Black Boy inn on that morning? I saw a number of people go in and out there.—. Did you see persons come from the Black Boy to the hustings? Yes, I did.—Did they enter the polling compartments and poll? Yes, soon after they came out.—Were you near enough to hear for whom they gave their voices? No, not all of them.—I am speaking of persons who came from the Black Boy; did you hear the whole or a portion of those give their votes when they came to the poll? Yes, I heard numbers of them give their votes. —For whom did those persons who came from the Black Boy vote, as far as came within your own hearing and observation? For Mr. Dyce Sombre and Mr. Villiers.—Having given their votes for Mr. Dyce Sombre and Mr. Villiers, do you no know where they went to? After they came out of the pound, I saw them go towards the Swan.—By the pound you mean the polling compartment? Yes.—What number of persons can you speak to? I do not ask you to ten or a dozen, but in round numbers; what number of persons can you speak to to persons that went into the Black Boy, and then came from the Black Boy to the pound, and then went on the Swan? I saw a great many, certainly; 1 saw some scores of them. He was subsequently asked generally as to the number of voters whom he had thus 346 observed, and he fixed the number at about 200. What occurred at the Black Boy? There a room was occupied by one of the candidates, and it was sworn that during the whole day the crush of voters upon the stairs was so great, that they were nearly being broken down; and when the chambermaid of the House asked one of the voters what he was doing there, he answered that he was going for his money. Another witness said that when he went to the inn he was asked his name and a list having been referred to, be got two sovereigns. It was sworn, with respect to the Swan Inn, that the money was handed out to the electors at that place by a person who had not yet been discovered, because nothing more was seen of him than his hands. The same crowd of people surrounded that hotel; they got tickets, and when they had got them, they were told to go to a certain place, and that there they would get money for them. These 200 voters, then were seen to go to one house, and to go into a room there; they were seen to go to the hustings, and heard to vote, and from thence again they were watched to the Swan; and he thought, that these facts being proved, there could be no doubt that the men who went to vote went also to the Swan for the purpose of receiving their money. William Dig by and other witnesses spoke to these facts, and proved that the voters had gone to the hotel to get tickets, and that when one of them had asked what he was to do with the ticket, he was referred to the window. James Bacon spoke to the same effect, and another witness said, that he was told of what was going on in the market—that it was an understood thing. And now, he thought, that he had shown distinctly that 200 voters had been bribed according to a gross and systematic course of proceeding at the last election. It was utterly impossible, that two candidates could have arrived on the eve of the election, and have found men so perfectly organised as the voters of Sudbury were, ready to go up to the poll next morning in batches of eight and ten, the leaders returning to take up other bodies of the same kind. Did the House suppose that this was a recent occurrence in the borough of Sudbury, or one of an unusual character? At the election of 1780, the grossest bribery was alleged; but the bribery of that period was carried on in the 1 darkness of night, while at present it was 347 not even so concealed. He would also ask the House to look at the evidence given before the commissioners appointed to inquire into the condition of the hand-loom weavers of Sudbury, in 1837, in which evidence was given at a time, and under circumstances more favourable for ascertaining the stase of the borough than the inquiry before an election committee. Dr. Mitchell, in his report, said— This is a borough to which it is notorious that, for a long period of time, gentlemen of property have brought their money for the purpose of presenting to the poverty of the voters temptations which, it was calculated, they would be unable to withstand; and thereby they would be induced to give their suffrages. The injury thus inflicted on the pecuniary condition, industry, and general morals of the weavers, appears to have been very great. Mr. John Crisp Gooday, governor of court of guardians, said, ' My opinion is, that the contested elections have done more to injure the morals of the working people in Sudbury, than all the preaching or precepts of all the ministers of the Gospel have done good.' How is that effect produced? One thing alone is sufficient—the bribery oath. Men openly receive money, and yet go up, and deliberately take the oath and-vote. Some seek subterfuges, as, omitting the word ' not;' kissing the thumb; while others seek no such solace, but deliberately perjure themselves. Again: — A general system of demoralization is produced by the vices and crimes consequent upon the drunkenness, debauchery, and bribery at the elections in this borough. Large sums I (the commissioner) presume are given at elections?—At the general election in 1835, the bribery was much more extensive than at any preceding or subsequent elections. I had the means of making an accurate calculation of the expense attending that election by all parties, and the result of my knowledge is, that the sums of money expended, if equally divided among all the voters on the register, would have come to from 30l. to 35l. a man. Of course, many respectable men were above taking money, and twenty-five persons did not vote; but if these voters had no money, the others had so much the more, so that the whole would have come to nearly, if not quite 35l. a head, as already stated. Is it not a most awful crime in the candidates and their committees, first, to offer miserable and poor men sums which their virtue is unable to resist, and to allow the bribery oath to be tendered to them, knowing, as they do, that the voters on both sides must take it, and that their perjury is certain? I have known nearly 400 voters, out of about 600, on the register, deliberately perjure themselves. Happily, however, at the last two elections, which were for one Member, 348 in consequence of vacancies since the last general election, both sides have agreed not to allow the bribery oath to be taken. Any two voters may demand that the bribery oath be administered. Are the voters of Sudbury friends to the system of voting by ballot? Not at all. When the brother of one of the candidates, at the general election in January, 1835, addressed the electors at the Bull Inn, he said to them in his speech, that his brother was a determined supporter of the vote by ballot, in order to put an end to bribery and corruption. There was an immediate cry all over the room, 'No ballot, no ballot!' They saw at once the effect of the system. It was ill-judged to seek to gain the favour of the men of Sudbury by holding forth such a sentiment as to the ballot." Again:— The party spirit (existing there) is not in reference to the general politics of the country; it is a contest of parties amongst themselves, as to which shall make the most money at elections. In respect to the general election of 1837, it was said:— This was a very poor election; no money expended on either side; but as the men had, from the commencement of the illness of the King, neglected their work, in expectation of large bribes, the result of the election involved them and their families in great misery and distress. Such is a picture of the elections of Sudbury. He wanted to know, therefore, whether any man could see that this system of gross bribery had been carried on without fully agreeing that some step was necessary to be taken to put a stop to practices so dangerous and so injurious to the reputation of Parliament? What was the evidence which had been given with regard to the general course of the elections for this borough? Samuel Shelley was asked, — Have you not received money for your vote at more elections than one? I am not able to tell you.—Have you or have you not? I cannot tell, for I forget.'—Upon your oath, do you mean to swear that you forget? T do forget.—Will you say that you have not received money for your vote at more than two previous elections? I forget; I have not a very good memory.—Your memory only carries you back to the last election? I never study things to keep them too long in my memory. — Will you swear that you have not received money for your vote at more than three elections? I cannot tell.—Will you swear that you have not at four? I cannot tell you.—At five? I am not able to say.—Can you point out one single election at which you will swear that you have not received money 349 for your vote? Yes.—What election was that? There was an election, but I cannot say when. That was the evidence of one person. The next witness, Francis Making, was asked— How long have you been a voter at Sudbury? I cannot tell you hardly.—You have seen a good many elections there? Yes.— And voted at them? Yes.—Which side have you generally upheld? The blue side I have generally voted for.—Sometimes for the other party? Not often.—But sometimes? Yes. —According to which paid the most, I suppose? Yes.—Then you have been paid? Yes, I havp.—At every election? Not every one, I think? I have lost money, by one.—Which was it? I lost 30s. by it? Which election was that? I forget now.—You have always voted for the party that paid highest, have you? Yes.—Have you taken the bribery oath at each election? Yes, I have. The witness next called was a man who had really given his evidence in a very straightforward manner. He appeared to have been brought up according to the system which prevailed, and that he, being a young hand, and now giving his vote for the first time, had got four sovereigns for it. Thomas Brown was also examined, and he stated that he had been a voter for thirty years. He was asked:— You always got paid for your vote? No. —Most times? Sometimes I did.—You had the oath put to you at the elections, whether you were bribed or not? That was at the election; if I did get paid, it was after the election.—So that you took the oath at the election, and you got paid afterwards? Sometimes.— What was it that you used to get after the election? Months after; perhaps half a year.—How much money? I used to have two guineas; I used to have two guineas from Sir John Hippisley. Charles King, another witness, was thus interrogated:— You have voted six or seven times on former occasions at Sudbury; did you get nothing upon those occasions? Travelling ex-pences.—You did not get 6l? No.—You did not get 3l.? No.—Two I got 6l. for travelling expenses; that was a regular thing.— That was the regular payment at Sudbury? Yes, I believe it was allowed by Lords and CommonSk—It was the custom at Sudbury to get 6l. a head at the elections? More, too, if they could get it at that time. He thought that it was high time for the House to interfere to check these proceedings, and to visit their originators with that punishment which they so well deserved. As regarded the last election, there was an instance of an honourable 350 exception to the corruptions to which he had alluded. He referred to Nicholas Cross, who had rejected a sum of 75l. for his vote. But what did he say? He was asked:— Have you had no conversation since the election occurred about the quantity of money that was given away? There were jokes about it.—Have you not often heard from voters that there was a great deal of money given at the election? Yes, I have heard a good many things about that matter, but I never troubled myself about anything of the sort.—Have you the slightest doubt that a great deal of money was spent at the election in the purchase of votes? It appears to me as if they made a regular market of it.—Do not you believe that at least 100 persons took money at the election? I cannot say anything about that.—Is not that your belief? It is ray belief.—And more than 100? And more than that.-—Do you believe that 200 persons took money at the election? I cannot say that.—You think upwards of 100 persons got money at the election? Yes, I do believe it.—In the form of bribes? I think some money was given. Having now stated what had occurred at the last election, and having, he thought, satisfactorily shown, that at that election, gross and systematic bribery had been carried on, he begged to remind the House, that the committee before whom this matter had been investigated was a committee appointed in the very manner in which the right hon. Baronet opposite had in 1834 suggested such committees should be nominated. It was a committee which had been chosen not without the utmost care, and the report of which, therefore, ought to be esteemed of the highest value. The report was unanimous—there was not the least difference of opinion—the facts represented to them could not be resisted. He would beg to call the attention of the House to this passage in the speech of the right hon. Baronet upon the motion of the noble Lord, the Member for London. He said:— I wish to aid the noble Lord in his object, which, I apprehend, is, first, to have satisfactory evidence as to the existence of general and systematic bribery in any place, and then with all possible despatch to make an example of bribery in that place. That was the exact course which he now asked the House to adopt, and which he was satisfied the country would look upon as the most desirable to be taken. In previous cases, various modes of dealing with the forfeited franchise, had been suggested to the House, but he thought 351 that here no other course of proceeding could be taken except that which he now proposed. He was satisfied that if the measure which he proposed was not adopted, all that hon. Members had been saying—all that they had been doing during the last few days, would be viewed with ridicule by the country. If the House did not now take some course which was firm and decisive, he believed that all their resolutions against bribery would be thought to have been founded merely in idleness and hypocrisy. If they refused to support the report of their committee, their professed horror of bribery would be looked upon as a mere mockery, and they would be viewed as the silent and secret abettors of those practices which in public they professed to disavow.