THE BRIDPORT ELECTION. (Hansard, 27 April 1846)

§ MR. CHRISTIE
wished to put a question 1078 to the hon. Member (Mr. C. Wood) who had been Chairman of the Committee appointed to try the petition against the return of Mr. Cochrane for the borough of Bridport. That petition charged grave and extensive treating, bribery, and corruption against Mr. Cochrane, and no less than ninety-six individuals who had voted for that Gentleman were objected to on the ground of bribery. When the Committee met, after some skirmishing among counsel, which was well adapted to prevent any suspicion of a compromise, it was agreed to postpone the cases of bribery, and proceed with the scrutiny. The inquiry began and ended with the transfer of one vote, and the matter was arranged, apparently, with much unanimity. An Act was passed in 1842, at the instance of the noble Member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell), in order to provide against compromises or arrangements to prevent cases of bribery from being brought under the cognizance of Election Committees. Now, the general impression, from the proceedings before the Bridport Election Committee, was, that a compromise had been entered into to prevent the Committee from investigating the charges of bribery. The first clause of the Act to which he had referred, provided that if charges of bribery and corruption alleged in petitions were not prosecuted before Election Committees, such Committees should be empowered to inquire whether the neglect to prove such allegations arose from any compromise, arrangement, or understanding, to avoid the discovery of bribery; and the Act authorized Committees in such cases to examine the sitting Member or Members, or candidates, or any parties they might choose to call before them. He wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Committee appointed to try the Bridport Election Petition, to institute any inquiry as to the circumstances under which the charges of bribery alleged in the petition had been abandoned; or to consider the propriety of recommending the House to make some further inquiry on the subject? He (Mr. Christie) might be permitted to state, that Bridport was one of those places which gave rise to the controversies that led to the adoption of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord.

§ MR. C. WOOD
acknowledged the courtesy of the hon. Member for Weymouth in giving him notice of his intention to put this question. He had not had an opportunity of commuuicating with the 1079 hon. Gentlemen who were his Colleagues on the Bridport Election Committee; but he was sure they would not object to his giving a full explanation in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Weymouth. It was true that, by a recent Act, Election Committees were empowered to inquire into cases of compromise; but he had always considered it the first and most important duty of such Committees to do impartial justice between the petitioner and the person against whom the petition was presented; and the Bridport Committee had acted on that view. The counsel for the petitioner against the return of Mr. Cochrane stated that he had a case of bribery, and he had also to demand a scrutiny; and he elected to proceed, in the first instance, with the scrutiny. It was proved before the Committee that Mr. Cochrane had been returned by a majority of one, and that this majority was attributable to the fact that a voter who polled for Mr. Romilly had been entered as voting for Mr. Cochrane. It was therefore clear, under these circumstances, that Mr. Romilly was entitled to be returned. Mr. Cochrane's counsel admitted this; and upon the single case he (Mr. Wood) had mentioned, the Committee determined that Mr. Cochrane was not duly elected, and declared Mr. Romilly to be duly elected. Mr. Cochrane's counsel stated that the scrutiny, if entered into, would occupy a considerable time, as 96 persons who had voted for that gentleman were objected to on behalf of Mr. Romilly. The hon. Member for Weymouth was, however, in error in supposing that the whole of those 96 were objected to on the ground of bribery. The objections taken to those voters were various. Some were objected to on the ground of bribery, and others on the ground that they were not legally qualified or duly registered. He must say, that when the Committee was appointed, he fully expected it would sit not merely for days, but for some weeks. It was considered by the counsel for the respective parties, that, under the circumstances he had mentioned, it was not worth while to proceed with the scrutiny; and the Committee, therefore, felt the only conclusion they could come to was, that Mr. Cochrane had not been duly elected, and that Mr. Romilly should be duly returned as the representative of Bridport. He now came to the question, whether the Committee ought to have prosecuted any further inquiry as to the circumstances under which the charges 1080 of bribery were withdrawn. He (Mr. C. Wood) considered that the Committee ought not to be influenced by anything which had come to their knowledge unconnected with the discharge of their duties. He did not attach the slightest value to the allegation in the petition that bribery had taken place. He had never yet had the good fortune to sit upon any Election Committee before whom bribery was not alleged. The petition against Mr. Cochrane alleged that extensive treating had taken place at the late Bridport election; but the first thing the counsel for the petitioner did, was to state that there was not the slightest pretence for saying that there had been any treating whatever, and that learned counsel did not allege that any systematic bribery had been committed. Now, as there was no evidence whatever before the Committee to show that any bribery or treating had taken place, and as no such assertion was made in the opening speech of counsel, he did not think the Committee were called upon to institute any further inquiry, or to recommend the House to pursue such a course. If any parties at Bridport had reason to suppose that extensive bribery had taken place in that borough, it was open to them to present a petition to the House praying for further investigation. He certainly did not think anything had transpired before the Committee which would justify them in recommending any further inquiry.

§ MR. G. BANKES
did not rise to complain of the Committee for exercising the discretion vested in them by Act of Parliament, and declining to prosecute any inquiry into the allegations of bribery. He was disposed to hope, for the honour of the county he represented, that Bridport was as immaculate as any borough in the kingdom. He wished, however, to ask the Members of the Committee whether they had not decided a point which was not contained in the record? He had read over the petition, and he did not find any allegations relative to a scrutiny—any assertion that a vote tendered for one candidate had been entered as for the other. This was, he understood, the point upon which the Committee had unseated Mr. Cochrane. He, therefore, felt disposed to move that the proceedings of the Committee be printed before Mr. Romilly be allowed to replace Mr. Cochrane as the representative of Bridport; for he presumed it was not competent for the Committee to take into consideration any matter 1081 not contained in the record or petition. This, at least, was the rule by which the courts of law were governed. He would therefore move, as an Amendment on the Order of the Day, that the proceedings of the Bridport Election Committee be printed. [The SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of the Motion.] He would, then, give notice that he would to-morrow move that the proceedings of the Committee be printed, with the understanding that the hon. Member who had been declared duly elected by the Committee should not take his seat.

§ SIR G. GREY
would suggest to his hon. Friend near him (Mr. C. Wood), and the other hon. Gentleman who had been Members of the Bridport Election Committee, the propriety of abstaining from entering into a discussion on this subject. The points which had been mentioned were strictly legal points, which might have been raised before the Committee; and which, for anything the House knew to the contrary, had been raised there, and decided by the Committee; and, if such questions were to be mooted in the House, they would be involved in almost interminable discussions. He hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. G. Bankes) would see, on reflection, that this was a question which ought not to be raised in the House. He (Sir G. Grey) saw no objection to the proposal of the hon. Member, that the proceedings of the Committee should be printed; and he could not conceive that such a suggestion would meet with any opposition; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would content himself with smbmitting that Motion to the House.