HC Deb 30 May 1842 vol 63 cc979-85
Sir John Easthope

begged to inquire of the hon. Member for South Hants, at what time he proposed to submit the motion of which he had given notice, respecting the petition which had been presented from Southampton, on the proceedings at the late Southampton election? This question had been rendered necessary by the course taken by the hon. Member for Lymington.

Mr. Fleming

intimated that he should present the petition immediately before the motion of the hon. Member for Lymington for the issue of the writ for Southampton came before the House.

Mr. T. Duncombe

had been entrusted with a petition upon this subject, which the House would perhaps think it would be convenient that he should present at once. It had been his intention to present that petition at the time when the motion of the hon. Member for Lymington came under discussion, but the postponement of that motion induced him to think that it was highly desirable that the petition should be printed with the votes, in order that its contents might be made known to all hon. Members; and he was convinced that when the allegations which it contained were made known to the House, there would be no hesitation in refusing to issue the new writ for this borough. The petition proceeded from John Wren, the witness who had been in custody, in consequence of what had passed before the election committee, and it stated a variety of circumstances, and pressed upon the House the necessity of a further and searching inquiry, in which the witnesses should under the protection of an indemnity, into the scandalous corruption which had taken place in the borough of Southampton. The petitioner further prayed, that the House would delay the issuing of the writ. He moved that the petition be printed with the votes.

Mr. Mackinnon

should certainly oppose the motion.

Mr. T. Duncombe:

Surely, upon a subject like the present, the House must wish to have all the information which they could possibly procure; and it was impossible that they could reject the offer of the witness, who came before the House and tendered his evidence.

Petition drawn up, and

The Speaker

intimated that it was not in accordance with the practice of the House that a petition, being thus presented, should be printed with the votes, but the petition must be referred to the committee on public petitions.

Mr. W. O. Stanley

said, that having read the petition, he thought that it was of the utmost importance that it should be printed, and that it should be in the hands of all hon. Members as speedily as possible. The petitioner declared that if he were granted an indemnity and examined, he should be able to disclose the circum- stances connected with a most extensive system of bribery, not only at the last, but at the two previous elections for the borough of Southampton.

Mr. Mackinnon

would beg to observe that this petition was from the very per- son who bad behaved so ill before the committee. He put it to the good sense of the House whether they would violate the common understanding of the rules of the House for the purpose of printing a petition which showed that the evidence which this very person had previously given was not to be believed.

Mr. Redington

said, that there had been a time when the conduct of this man, so far from its calling for animadversion from hon. Members opposite, had demanded their sympathy. But circumstances now seemed to be changed. The object of his hon. Friend in making this motion at the present time was to save the time of the House. He put it to the hon. Member for Lymington, whether he could bring forward his motion until the petition had been printed.

Sir Robert Peel:

As a motion was to be brought forward, and as it was distinctly stated that this petition had reference to the subject matter of that motion, the question was whether this was not a case which was exempted from the operation of the general rule of the House. If the hon. Member for Finsbury had given notice of his motion, it would have been competent to him to have moved that the petition be printed; but as the petition related to a motion about to be brought forward, he thought that the case was one in which the rule might be broken through. It was, no doubt, of great importance that the rules of the House should be adhered to, but this might be looked upon as a case which justified an exemption. Whether the character of the witness entitled him to credit was a question upon which they would be able to form a judgment on seeing the petition; but with reference to issuing the writ, as the allegations on the petition had a strong bearing on it, he should think that it was important that the motion should be acceded to.

Mr. O'Connell:

The misconduct of the witness when before the committee had consisted in his refusing to answer a question, lest he should criminate himself. He now came forward and said that if he was indemnified he would give evidence. It was obvious that he would be able to make some disclosures, because he had been one of the most active men at the election; and there was no doubt he knew all that had occurred.

Mr. T. Duncombe

had presented the petition merely for the purpose of saving the time of the House; for if he had not presented it now, he should have done so on Wednesday next, when a considerable discussion would no doubt have ensued. They would find in that petition, that so far from Wren not having spoken the truth, the charge was that he had spoken too much of the truth, and that he was now, in consequence, placarded all over Southampton as having betrayed his party; and the public were now cautioned against dealing with that individual, in consequence of what he had stated. The petitioner further said, that he had not mentioned one-tenth of the transactions which he knew to have occurred at the elections, and that he had a book in which the several sums of money expended in bribery were set down. If they resisted the printing of this petition, and would not receive the information which was now offered them through that petition, he wanted to know what the public would think of that transaction. The book to which the petitioner referred contained the entries relating to various sums amounting to 6,000l., and one of the pages of this book was stated by him to be signed by the returning officer. That was a very important point to be inquired into; and if the petition were printed, he really thought that no hon. Member would vote for the issuing of the new writ.

Mr. Fleming

said, that Mr. Wren had not only told all that he knew, but a great deal more. If the House wished to know the character of Mr. Wren, he would read to them a letter. The hon. Member was then proceeding to read a letter, when

Mr. T. Duncombe

rose to order. If that letter was to be read, the petition ought to be read first.

Mr. Fleming

had had a communication from the returning officer, whose letter, after what had been said, ought to be read. He had also a letter which showed the general character of this person Wren. The letter was addressed to himself, and the writer said, that having read the proceedings before the late election committee, and having observed that Wren had been represented as a respectable tradesman in the town, he considered it to be his duty to inform him, as the Member for the county, of a circumstance which had occurred to himself. He then stated that at an interview which he had had with Wren some time since, a conversation had sprung up respecting a person who was an insolvent debtor, and who was about to be heard in London before the commissioners. The writer of the letter remarked, that he did not consider the person referred to would get through the court if he spoke the truth; whereupon Wren said, that "he should not himself speak the truth in such a case; and that as for an oath, he did not value it, and that he would swear through thick and thin to get through the court," or words to that effect. [" Name, name."] The writer's name was Robert Tomkins, and he was a respectable tailor at Southampton.

Mr. G. H. Ward

rose to order. It was not in order when a person came before the House, tendering information, for any hon. Member to rise in his place to blacken the character of that individual by statements such as those that had been read. His belief was, that the hon. Member would have quite enough to do to defend his own conduct. [" Order."]

The Speaker said, that an hon. Member rising to order could hardly make such observations as those made by the hon. Member for Sheffield.

Mr. Henry Baring:

The hon. Member for Finsbury had gone into the case of Mr. Wren. There could be no objection, he should think, to have this petition printed; but with regard to Wren's character, as the hon. Member had chosen to state some of the allegations contained in the petition, his hon. Friend felt that he had a perfect right to say, that he believed that a greater vagabond did not exist.

Mr. Fleming

had also received a communication from Mr. Abraham, the returning officer. This letter was dated the 20th May, and the writer said, that the proceedings of the select committee having been laid before the House, he took the liberty of stating that the evidence given by Wren, with regard to the vote of a person named Whitmarsh, was wholly untrue; that Wren had spoken to him with regard to Whitmarsh, was true; but so far as Wren had sworn, he had had a private communication with him he denied, for he had positively refused to hold any communication with Wren on the subject, and had expressed his surprise at his mentioning such things to him, he being then the returning-officer. The writer added, that he had been in London several days during the sitting of the committee, in obedience to a Speaker's war- rant which had been served on him by the petitioners, and, had he been called, he should have stated these facts. They, how- ever, had not called him, and he had been compelled to take this course to make known the truth; he thought it due to himself to make this statement, and thus publicly to vindicate himself. This letter was signed "A. H. Abraham." By way of postscript, the writer added, that Wren had come to his House, and had stated to him that an agent of Messrs. Hutchins and Mangles had come to him, and in the presence of two persons, named Wood and Wilkinson, had offered him 300l. if he would give the agent some information with regard to the election.

Sir John Easthope

must make one re- mark upon this subject. It was very clear that this John Wren, whose character was so very strongly impugned by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and who was represented as one of the greatest vagabonds in the country, was a very great Conservative; but however great a vagabond he was, he had been admitted into their ranks for years, and great confidence had been reposed in him. It appeared now, how- ever, that they would be glad to get rid of him, whatever his former position might have been, and that they desired to shift from themselves the odium which might result from the disclosures which he might make.

Mr. Ward

thought, that the petition ought to be laid fully before the House, in answer to what had been said in the letters read by the hon. Member opposite and he begged to call the attention of the House and of the right hon. Baronet to the allegations in the petition. The petitioner said that he was in possession of a memorandum-book, not produced before the committee, which contained an ac- count of sums of money with which certain electors had been bribed, and containing also the signature of the returning officer, authorising the bribing of a certain elector, which elector was bribed accordingly. It was quite obvious that this petition must be printed and come before the House before they could pursue the proceedings with respect to bribery. Those proceedings would become an absolute farce, if, when a man was knocking at their door, and offering to produce such evidence, they should refuse to hear him.

Sir R. Peel

did not know why the hon. Gentleman should refer to him, because he had already said that there were fair grounds to warrant the printing of this petition. He thought that the issuing of the writ involved a question of a judicial character, and it was the duty of the House to see what evidence could be procured bearing upon it. His opinion was, that this evidence ought to be examined before the issuing of the writ was determined upon.

Petition ordered to be printed with the votes.