HC Deb 19 February 1846 vol 83 cc1167-88
MR. COLLETT

said, before offering to the House the few observations with which he should trouble it, he had to move that the Clerk at the Table should read the Standing Order embodied in the Motion of which he had given notice. Sessional Resolutions respecting Interference of Peers at Elections read, as follows:— Resolved—That no Peer of this Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament. That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom, for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the Election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively, where such Peer shall appear as a Candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament.

MR. COLLETT

then proceeded to say, that if on general occasions he was an advocate for short speeches, and for the propriety of Members not intruding longer than was necessary on the time of the House, he was sure that the present was not an occasion on which he should have either necessity or disposition to depart from so wholesome and so much to be encouraged a line of conduct. The task which he had undertaken he should much prefer to have fallen into abler and more experienced hands than his own—into those, for instance, of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe); but, as he had given no notice on the subject, as the crisis was urgent, and the occasion opportune—as infringements on the liberties and privileges of the Commons of England had of late been too frequent—as the interference of Lords of Parliament in bringing about vacations of Members, as well as elections of Members, had been too common, too open, too monstrous, and too notorious to be longer submitted to with impunity—he in default of a better man, considered it his public duty to call the attention of the House to the late infringements on its laws, its liberties, and its Standing Orders. The task which he had laid out for himself seemed to him neither difficult nor complicated. He did not intend to point out the deficiencies of the law, and to propose to remedy them by further legislation; on the contrary, he took and availed himself of the law as it was. He had commenced by calling their attention to the present state of it by getting the Clerk to read their Standing Order, recorded in the Journals of the 23rd of January last. He then, in his place in Parliament, stated his belief that this Standing Order had been infringed by four Lords of Parliament, whom he should mention to the House by name, and he should conclude by moving for a Committee of Privileges to investigate the circumstances, and to report to the House the result of their investigations. Under these circumstances he should leave to others to point out the defects and short workings of the Reform Bill—how the country was mocked and disappointed at not having obtained that which it had a right to—a full, fair, and free representation of the people, as promised by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London. Others would, he trusted, demand, before long, on the part of an outraged nation a remedy for abuses so little in accordance with the spirit and with the requirements of the age. He could not, however, help alluding to an argument so frequently in unreformed Parliaments brought forward in defence of this, even then, hardly to be tolerated system of rotten boroughs. It was this—that a few of those rotten, or, to use a more polite word, nomination boroughs, were supposed necessary for the purpose of securing seats in that House for men distinguished for ability and talents, but not rich enough to bear the expenses of contested elections, or of providing occasional seats for Members of the Government without local interest, whom it might be desirable to place there to explain and carry out such measures as might be considered of public benefit and importance. [The SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not read his speech.] The system was bad, but some might say, and more might think, it had its advantages. He could not say he was among the number of its admirers. In his youth he was instructed never to do evil to bring about good; and if it was not right by a bad system to return good and efficient Members of Parliament, how much less right must it be by a bad system not only to return inefficient Members of Parliament, but by that bad system to turn out of that House Ministers of the Crown, and good and efficient Members of Parliament? Her Majesty had been pleased to promote to an office of great trust and responsibility, no less than to that of the Secretaryship of Colonial Affairs, a Gentleman of great, known, and acknowledged talent and ability—one who had always been an ornament to that House—and one whose assistance would at that moment be so useful to the country, and to the right hon. Baronet in the great and enlightened measure for which humanity was indebted to him, and of which measure he might look for his (Mr. Collett's) sincere and cordial support—without taunt and without boast—for he was of no party, in or out of that House; his sole wish and object was to have good measures, by which to advance and to improve the liberties and the condition of the lower and of the middle classes, now so ground down and oppressed by those in possession of riches, power, and authority:— Merciful Heaven! Thou rather with thy sharp and sulphurous bolt Split'st the unwedgable and gnarled oak Than the soft myrtle; but man, proud man— Drest in a little brief authority— Most ignorant of what he's most assured, His glassy essence—like an angry ape, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven As make the angels weep. He asked the House and the country why they were deprived of the presence of that right hon. Gentleman? What had he done to forfeit the good opinion of the electors of Newark, whom he had efficiently served, and with whom he had been apparently on good terms during a period of fifteen years? Why did he not at least come forward as a candidate at the late election for Newark? Echo, and the voice of an outraged country replied, "The right hon. William Ewart Gladstone does not again come forward as a candidate for the representation of Newark, because he has joined the Government of the right hon. Baronet, and because the present politics of the right hon. Baronet are not the politics of Henry Pelham Fiennes Pelham Clinton, Duke of Newcastleunder-Line; ergo, it will be useless for the right hon. W. E. Gladstone to offer himself in opposition to the wishes of the Duke, whose agent is instructed to look out for a candidate more tractable and of a more proper way of thinking." Nearly the same occurrence had taken place in reference to the seats for Buckingham and Chichester, with this slight variation—that instead of having vacated their seats by fresh appointments, the late occupiers were both of them, on the 3rd instant, obliged to retire, because their Graces of Buckingham and Richmond, being of the same way of thinking as another noble Duke, already more than once alluded to, thought proper to require these vacations, and to appoint as Members for Chichester and Buckingham two inexperienced youths to oppose, on account of their nominators, the measures of the right hon. Baronet. The loss of the services of Sir Thomas Fremantle seemed to him almost irreparable at the present moment; because, having for some time been Irish Secretary, to him had been intrusted the management of several Bills relative to Ireland, all of which were introduced by the late Member for Buckingham; but which were now of necessity intrusted to other hands, because such was the decree, and the will and pleasure of his Grace the Duke and Marquess of Buckingham and Chandos. With these prefatory observations he should now call the attention of the House, first, to the present and past state of the law on the subject of the interference of Lords of Parliament; secondly, to cases and precedents on the subject; and thirdly, to those four boroughs, Chichester, Newark, Woodstock, and Buckingham, in the vacation and elections of which four Lords of Parliament, whom he should name, had concerned themselves. He should then read against each of these Lords a written statement of his charges; and lastly, he should hand in those written charges, and conclude by proposing the Committee of Privileges of which he had given notice. First, with regard to the state of the law: it appeared that the House on the 10th of December, 1641, came to the following Resolution:— Whereas, the House of Commons has received information that letters from Peers are directed to boroughs that now are to make elections of Members to serve in this Parliament, they conceive that all letters of that nature from any Peers of this realm do necessarily tend to the violation of the privileges of Parliament and the freedom of the elections of the Members that ought to serve in the House of Commons; and do declare that, notwithstanding such letters, all persons to whom elections of knights and burgesses do belong, ought to proceed to their elections with that freedom which, by the laws of the realm and of right, they ought to do; and do expect that if any such letters from Peers of the realm shall hereafter be sent unto them, that the parties receiving the same shall certify the contents thereof, or bring the letters themselves to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Again, on the 14th of December, 1699, in consequence of the Earl of Manchester having voted at an election for Maldon, the House of Commons resolved nem. con.— That no Peer of this kingdom hath any right to give his vote at the election for any Member to serve in Parliament. And this Resolution was repeated at the beginning of every Session, until the Union of Great Britain with Ireland. The following Resolution was passed by the House on the 15th of February, 1700, on a representation of an interference by a Peer at an election for the borough of Huntingdon:— That for any Peer of this kingdom, or any Lord Lieutenant of any county, to concern themselves in the elections of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of England. And this Resolution was made a Standing Order on the 27th of April, 1702. After the Union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland it became necessary to make some alterations in the Standing Orders of the House; and on the 30th of October, 1801, some Motions being made respecting the voting and interfering of Peers at elections, the debate was adjourned, and a Committee appointed to report. On the 17th of November, 1801, the Committee reported several Resolutions, which afterwards, on the 27th of April, 1802, were adopted and made Standing Orders of the House, and, as such, had been repeated at the beginning of every subsequent Session. He now came to the precedents. The first occurred in 1701, on the 29th of January, when the Earl of Peterborough having been mentioned in the evidence given at the bar in the Malmesbury election, and his Lordship desiring to be heard, it was resolved— That the Earl of Peterborough be admitted and heard. Whereupon his Lordship came in, reposed himself a little while covered, and then stood up uncovered, and was heard, and withdrew. The question was proposed— That Charles, Earl of Peterborough, is guilty of many indirect practices in endeavouring to procure Daniel Part to be elected a burgess for Malmesbury, in the county of Wilts. On a division the numbers were—Ayes 141; Noes 56. So it was resolved in the affirmative. The next case was Sir J. Pakington's charge against the Bishop of Worcester and his Secretary. Sir J. Pakington (ancestor of the hon. Member for Droitwitch) stated to the House this:— That the Bishop of Worcester sent for me to desist from standing for knight of the county, and to threaten, if I would not desist, to speak against me to his clergy. Secondly, he sent letters himself, and his secretary sent others, to the clergy, with directions to make what interest they could against me in their parishes; and where they could not prevail to vote for other candidates to desire them to stay at home; and in order to this the bishop sent copies of the poll of their respective parishes. Thirdly, he aspersed me to his clergy, branding me and my ancestors with vices, and at confirmation and visitation desired his clergy to vote against me, as unfit to serve in Parliament, and threatened them with displeasure if they did not vote against me. Fourthly, aspersed me and my ancestors to several of the laity, his tenants, and threatened if they did not vote against me never to renew any estate under him, and that he would set such marks upon them that his successors should not suffer them or their children to renew any more. Fifthly, Mr. Lloyd, the bishop's son, aspersed me and gave scandalous characters of me to several freeholders whom he solicited to vote against me, and told them I voted for bringing in a French Government. Sixthly, the bishop's secretary aspersed me to several freeholders in like manner, representing me as unfit to sit in the House, threatening them with the bishop's displeasure, and said they might as well vote for the Prince of Wales as for me. It was resolved nem. con. by the House that Sir J. Pakington had made out his charge against the bishop and his son, and that— The proceedings of the said bishop and his son and agents in order to hinder the election of a Member for the county of Worcester have been malicious, unchristian, and arbitrary, and in high violation of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of England. And it was further resolved that Her Majesty (Queen Anne) should be addressed to remove the bishop from his office of Lord Almoner to the Queen, and that the Attorney General should prosecute him. In 1710, on the 14th of March, after an inquiry, it was resolved— That it appears to this House that William Lord Bishop of Carlisle hath dispersed several copies of a letter pretended to have been received from Sir James Montague, in order to procure Sir James to be elected for Carlisle, and by concerning himself in the said election has highly infringed the liberties and privileges of the Commons of Great Britain. The House had divided, when there appeared—Ayes 156, Noes 136; and it was resolved in the affirmative. On the 2nd of February, 1780, it was in like manner resolved— That it appears to this Committee that James Bridges, Duke of Chandos, a Peer of Parliament, and Lord Lieutenant of the county of Southampton, has concerned himself in an election of knight of the shire for the said county. Also— That it is the opinion of this Committee that James Bridges, Duke of Chandos, Peer of Parliament, &c., has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House, and an infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of Great Britain. In 1779, on the 10th of December, complaint being made to the House that the Duke of Chandos, a Peer of Parliament, and Lord Lieutenant of the county of Southampton, had signed a letter with his own hand respecting the ensuing election for the said county, thereby concerning himself in the said election, in breach of the privileges of that House, and in infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of Great Britain, it was resolved nem. con.— That it be referred to the consideration of the Committee of Privileges to examine the matter of the said complaint, and to report the same, with their opinion thereon, to the House. Exactly the same complaint having been made respecting the Duke of Bolton, it was also referred to a Committee; as was another complaint respecting the Duke of Chandos, that he had signed several letters with his own hand respecting the election for the county of Southampton, thereby influencing the same election. Again, in 1813, on the 24th of March, a Committee having been appointed to try the Helston election petition, resolved— That it appears to this Committee that an illegal agreement has for some time existed between the most noble George Frederick, Duke of Leeds, and the greater part of the members of the corporation of the borough of Helston, in relation to the return of Members to serve in the Commons, &c., for the said borough, in violation of the freedom of election, and contrary to the Standing Orders of this House, and the laws of this realm, for the prevention of bribery and corruption. It was moved— That Mr. Attorney-General do forthwith prosecute George Frederick, Duke of Leeds, for his said offence;"— but the Motion was lost on a division: Ayes 52; Noes 55. Afterwards, on the same day, leave was given to bring in a Bill to secure the freedom and purity of election in the borough of Helston. This Bill passed the Commons in 1813, 1814, and 1815, but was lost each year in the House of Lords. In 1819, on the 1st of April, the Camelford Election Committee reported that John Chapman, a witness, had given false evidence, and that the Committee had committed him to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. It was ordered that John Chapman be, for his said offence, committed to Newgate. The real offence of John Chapman, he understood, was his having stated that he had received from a Peer some letters to influence the election of Camelford, which letters he could not or did not prove to be in the handwriting of the Poor. The Peer, therefore, was screened; and, the butt, John Chapman, underwent the farce of being sent to Newgate for having "given false evidence." This John Chapman was under-factor and agent of the Peer whose authority he pretended to have. He would now proceed to mention to the House some particulars relate to the four boroughs referred to in the notice he had given, He would begin with Chichester. On referring to a little book he held in his hand, called Dodd's Parliamentary Companion for 1846, which was a Parliamentary authority: on turning to page 101, he found it there stated, openly and unreservedly, "The interest of the Duke of Richmond preponderates in this borough." Now, on looking at the Members elected at the general election, he found them to have been (without opposition, of course) Lord Arthur Lennox and Mr. John Abel Smith. With Mr. John Abel Smith he did not intend to have anything whatever to do, because, however his election might have been brought about, he had no foundation for asserting, much less was he able to prove, that a "Lord of Parliament" had anything whatever to do with it. The election of Lord Arthur Lennox in 1841, was, however, he had good reason to believe, brought about by the "concernment" of a "Lord of Parliament" living somewhere in the neighbourhood; but of this 1841 election he should take no further notice on the present occasion. The next election for Chichester was in the autumn of last year, when Lord Arthur Lennox having been—no doubt in consideration of his talents and abilities—promoted to a clerkship of the Ordnance, his Lordship was re-elected without opposition. But whether this re-election was or was not brought about by the "concernment" of a "Lord of Parliament," he said not. All that he said was, that in the Journals of that House, on its meeting on the 22nd of January, was the following entry:—"New Member sworn—Lord Arthur Lennox, for Chichester." Now, this having taken place on the 22nd of January, one would suppose that, for a time at least, this noble Lord, who had deserved so well, would have been allowed to retain quiet possession of his seat; on the contrary, he found that on the 3rd of February another vacancy arose in the representation of Chichester, the reasons for which, as well as the subsequent and consequent election, were, he believed, accurately described in the following newspaper statements:— THE PREMIER AND HIS SUBORDINATES.—Lord Arthur Lennox resigned his seat for Chichester at the request of his brother, the Duke of Richmond, in consequence of having expressed his determination to vote for the alteration of the Corn Laws, and ultimately for their total repeal. When Lord Arthur Lennox acquainted Sir Robert Peel with the position he was placed in by the Duke of Richmond's request, he tendered his resignation of Clerk of the Ordnance, which Sir Robert Peel refused to accept, observing, 'that it was quite enough to forfeit his seat in the House of Commons without giving up his situation, and begged that he would attend to the duties of his office, and that he (Sir Robert Peel) would move the Ordnance Estimates in the House of Commons.' This act of kindness is highly commended by all parties. CHICHESTER ELECTION.—This miserable farce was enacted on Tuesday. Chichester is a cathedral town, and is completely under the influence of the Duke of Richmond; it was not, therefore, surprising if Lord Henry Lennox, the Duke's second son, should walk over the course. This young sprig of nobility is about as well adapted for a teacher of the Chinese language as for a legislator; and Chichester disgraces itself by allowing the Duke thus to dispose of its representation. Which he verily and sincerely believed; at any rate, that the Duke of Richmond was "concerned" both in the late vacation and in the late election. With respect to Chichester, he (Mr. Collett) now stated, in his place in Parliament, that he verily believed that the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom had been infringed by Charles Gordon Lennox, Duke of Richmond, a Lord of Parliament, having concerned himself in bringing about first the vacation of his seat in this House by the late Representative for Chichester, Lord Arthur Lennox; and secondly, the return for Chichester of one of its present Members, Lord George Charles Henry Gordon Lennox, all of which he verily believed, if the Committee he asked for were granted, he should be able to prove. He would now go to Newark. On again referring to Dodd's Parliamentary Companion, page 117, he found it stated openly and unreservedly, "The Duke of Newcastle has considerable influence here." In 1841 the Members returned were Lord John Manners and Mr. William Ewart Gladstone, which state of things continued up to the meeting of that House on the 22nd of January last, when a new writ was moved for Newark, "in the room of the right hon. William Ewart Gladstone, Secretary of State;" but, as he had asked before, why had not this Gentleman again offered himself; and why was the present member elected? This was explained in an address he would now read, which appeared in the papers, and which, although satirical, was full of truth:—

TO HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, K.G., G.C., &c. &c.

We, the undersigned, free and independent electors of the borough of Newark, beg to approach your Grace with those feelings of awful respect, which become us when we venture to address your august person, and humbly to offer to your Grace our heartfelt thanks for your gracious consideration, in sending down to us as your Grace's Representative in Parliament, a Gentleman, and one to whose name our virtuous Lord Chancellor has been pleased to add the appendage of Q. C. We are quite aware, that if your Grace had thought fit to select your under-butler, or a helper in your stables, the same high distinction must have been his, through the same medium of our unbiassed suffrages; and we feel deeply grateful to your Grace, for the tender care of our feelings exhibited on this occasion. We have been in doubt whether to address your Grace in terms of congratulation or condolence, on the sudden disappearance of the Gentleman whom you were pleased to elect, and continue in office for thirteen years as our Representative. We have sought for him in the House of Commons, but not having found him there, and being unable, from certain difficulties of grammatical construction, and involutions of phrase, to ascertain from a letter signed 'W. E. Gladstone,' what are the religious, political, and economical principles of our late Representative, we refrain from saying, or even thinking, more upon the subject, till we receive your Grace's orders thereupon.

With respect to Newark, he stated in his place in Parliament, that he verily believed that the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom had been infringed by Henry Pelham Fiennes Pelham Clinton, Duke of Newcastle-under-Line, a Lord of Parliament, having concerned himself during the last vacancy, and at the last election in causing the right hon. William Ewart Gladstone to desist from again coming forward as a candidate for the representation of Newark; and he verily believed, that if the Committee were granted he should be able to prove it. He stated also in his place, in Parliament, that be verily believed that the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom had been infringed by Henry Pelham Fiennes Pelham Clinton, Duke of Newcastle-under-Line, a Lord of Parliament, having concerned himself in bringing about the return for Newark of one of its present Members, Mr. John Stuart; and he verily believed, that if the Committee were granted, he should be able to prove it. He now proceeded to Woodstock, in which three elections had taken place during the last two years. On again referring to Dodd's Parliamentary Companion, page 131, he found it stated openly and unreservedly, "The Duke of Marlborough has influence here." Now, for this borough the hon. and learned Gentleman (now the Attorney General) was elected in 1841, by what influence he would not say; but he served as a faithful burgess till April, 1844, when promotion to the Solicitor Generalship vacated the seat. He did not, howeyer, offer himself again, but the Marquess of Blandford was returned in his stead—how, why, and wherefore, the following newspaper statement would explain:— Upon the accession of the present Duke of Marlborough to the title in 1840, his grace, unsolicited, and of his own free will, tendered to the hon. Gentleman his interest in the borough, with a promise of undisturbed possession until the Marquess of Blandford should attain his majority. The Marquess came of age some eleven months ago, notwithstanding which Mr. Thesiger has never been called upon to fulfil his engagement. A vacancy occurring, by reason of the hon. Gentleman's appointment to the office of Solicitor General, the Marquess of Blandford naturally offers himself to fill the seat. Such proceedings, therefore, ought neither to have been unexpected by, nor a surprise, nor disappointment to Her Majesty's Government, or the hon. Gentleman himself. This statement was believed to have been written by the Duke himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given, he understood, a very different account of the affair, and that he was "very hardly used by the Duke," &c.; but whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was used hardly or unjustly, the case was, he thought, established, that the Duke "concerned" himself in the election of 1844. He now came to the election in April, 1845, when the Marquess of Blandford was, at the dictation of the Duke of Marlborough, under the necessity of vacating his seat on account of the vote he had given on the Maynooth question, he being then informed by the Duke, that if he did not vacate his seat, "family and pecuniary arrangements might be disturbed." On this vacancy in April, 1845, was elected for the representation of Woodstock, entirely at the instigation of the Duke of Marlborough, in place of a son turned out, Viscount Loftus; but at, and during the whole time previous to his election, this young legislative nobleman was in the east of Europe, at such a distance from England that communication with him was impossible; in his absence, however, an election address was issued, in which pledges were given in his name, and of the contents of which it was impossible that he could have been cognizant. He now came to the last vacancy, on the occasion of Lord Loftus succeeding to a marquisate in December, 1845. When Mr. William Evetts proposed Lord Alfred Churchill in December, 1845, to the electors of Marlborough, he was credibly informed, and believed he should be able to prove, that, previous to the election, on this Mr. W. Evetts being solicited by Mr. B. Holloway, agent to the Duke of Marlborough, to propose Lord Alfred Churchill, Mr. Evetts was given to understand, that as a reward for so doing, his name would be inserted by the Duke as a magistrate in the commission of the peace for the county of Oxford: this much was certain, that shortly afterwards the said William Evetts was made by the Duke not only a magistrate, but a deputy-lieutenant of the county of Oxford; and that since the election his name had appeared in the London Gazette as deputy-lieutenant, for the county of Oxford. He was the last man to speak about rank or station; but still, to corroborate public opinion that the Duke of Marlborough had improperly and corruptly used the office of Lord Lieutenant for procuring his own ends and purposes, he might mention the common report in the neighbourhood of Woodstock, that although Mr. William Evetts was a respectable person, his standing in the country was not that from which gentlemen were usually selected to fill the office of deputy-lieutenant. After his election, and previous to the appointment, Mr. Evetts said to a gentleman residing in Oxford, "The Duke is going to mate me a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant." With respect to Woodstock, he (Mr. Collett) stated in his place, in Parliament, that he verily believed that the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom had been infringed by George Spencer Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, a Lord of Parliament, having concerned himself in bringing about—first, the return of the Marquess of Blandford as a Member for Woodstock, in April, 1844; second, the vacation of his seat in this House by the said Marquess of Blandford in April, 1845; third, the return of Viscount Loftus as a Member for Woodstock in April, 1845; fourth, the return of Lord Alfred Churchill as a Member for Woodstock in December, 1845; all of which he verily believed, if this Committee were granted, he should be able to prove. Buckingham finished his hopeful list. He again turned to Dodd, where at, page 99, he found it stated, openly and unreservedly, "The Duke of Buckingham has much influence in this borough." This borough so resembled the city of Chichester, that he should only refer to a return he held in his hand of Sir T. Fremantle having vacated his seat on the 3rd of February, 1846, and to another return, showing that the Marquess of Chandos was chosen for Buckingham on the 12th of February, 1846, in both of which, viz., the vacation and election, he (Mr. Collett) believed that the Duke of Buckingham was "concerned." He would only read the following:— Buckingham Borough Election.—This was another farce, the chief clown in which is a noble Duke. The Marquess of Chandos, son of the Duke of Buckingham, was elected on Wednesday without any opposition. The new representative is quite untried in political life, and, of course, knows no more of the affairs of the country than the ducal wisdom of his father has been able or willing to impart. It is monstrous that the aristocracy should thus be enabled to control the representation. But how did the farce end? Of course, with a kindred mummery. A car, trimmed with green, was prepared for his Lordship; and in that vehicle the new Member was carried round the town. And then he should say, that with respect to Buckingham he would state in his place in Parliament, that he verily believed that the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom had been infringed by Richard Plantagenet Temple Nugent Bridges Chandos Grenville, Duke and Marquess of Buckingham and Chandos, a Lord of Parliament, having concerned himself in bringing about, first, the vacation of his seat in this House by the late Representative for Buckingham, the right hon. Sir Thomas Fremantle, Baronet; second, the return for Buckingham of one of its present Members, the Marquess of Chandos; all of which he verily believed, if this Committee were granted, he should be able to prove. And now that he had made these statements and these charges, which charges he had reduced to writing, and delivered in to the right hon. the Speaker, he considered that he had done his duty, and that the matter was in the hands of the House. Sure he was that, with such a Standing Order on its books, and with such charges so deliberately made in the face of the country, the House would not stultify itself so much as to allow these charges to be made with impunity; on the contrary, he felt satisfied that they would receive the desired investigation. He concluded, therefore, by handing in these charges in writing, and by moving, as he had given notice, that they be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

[The following is the form in which the hon. Member's Complaint and Motion were entered on the Books of the House of Commons.] Complaint by a Member in his place, of the conduct of the Duke of Buckingham, a Lord of Parliament, for having concerned himself in the compassing and bringing about the vacation of a seat in this House by the late Member for Buckingham, Sir Thomas Fremantle, and for having concerned himself in the compassing and bringing about the election and return of the Marquis of Chandos for the said borough: Also complaint by the same Member of the conduct of the Duke of Richmond, a Lord of Parliament, for having concerned himself in the compassing and bringing about the vacation of a seat in this House by Lord Arthur Lennox, late Member for Chichester, and for having concerned himself in the compassing and bringing about the election and return of Lord George Charles Henry Gordon Lennox for the said city: Also complaint by the same Member of the conduct of the Duke of Newcastle, a Lord of Parliament, for having concerned himself, during the last vacancy, and at the last election, in causing the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone to desist from again coming forward as a candidate for the representation of Newark, and for having concerned himself in the compassing and bringing about the election and return of John Stuart, esquire, for the said borough: Also complaint by the same Member of the conduct of the Duke of Marlborough, a Lord of Parliament, for having concerned himself in the compassing and bringing about the election and return for Woodstock of the Marquis of Blandford, April 1844, and for having concerned himself in compassing and bringing about the vacation of a seat in this House by the said Marquis of Blandford, April 1845: Also for having concerned himself in the compassing and bringing about the election and return of Viscount Loftus for the said borough, April 1845: Also for having concerned himself in the compassing and bringing about the election and return of Lord Alfred Churchill for the said borough.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That it be referred to the Committee of Privileges, to inquire into the causes that led to the vacation of their Seats in this House by the Members lately representing in Parliament the city of Chichester and the boroughs of Newark, Woodstock, and Buckingham; also to make inquiries as to the Elections of the Members now representing in Parliament the said city and the said three boroughs, and to report whether or not in any, and if so in what cases, either as to vacation or election, the Resolution of this House, 'That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom, for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the Election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively, where such Peer shall appear as a Candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament,' has been infringed upon.

MR. WILLIAMS

said, that he had come down to the House not expecting to be called upon to speak, and still less to second the Motion of his hon. Friend. He had supposed that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Chandos) the Member for Buckingham, or the noble Lord (Lord H. Lennox) the Member for Chichester, would have been eager to come forward to second the Motion for inquiry. They must be anxious that these grave charges should be investigated against other noble Dukes, and still more against their noble fathers. He had expected also, that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would have attempted some answer to a proposition of so much importance, involving a deep stain on the character of the House of Commons. When a similar Motion was made by the late Mr. Maddox, charging that the House of Commons was to a great extent elected by the corrupt and coercive influence of certain Peers, the Minister of the Crown, the late Lord Castlereagh, stood up in his place in front of the Treasury bench, and contended that such a Committee was totally needless on account of the notoriety of the fact, that under the old borough mongering regime Members were returned by the interference of Peers; he boldly stated, that this fact was as indisputable as that the sun shone at noon-day. On the present occasion it seemed, that not a word was to be said by any Member of Government; and he (Mr. W. Williams) wished to know whether this silence was to be understood as an admission that Peers of Parliament did trample under their feet the most valuable privileges of the House, and the orders made to support them? Was it not, he asked, a stain and a taint on the character of the House of Commons, that Peers were allowed to send representatives into it to maintain their private interests, instead of attending to the general welfare of the nation? That was a charge which the House of Commons ought not to allow to be made without instant and searching inquiry. When, two or three years ago, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) made a statement similar to that now brought forward; when he said, in his place, that he believed certain Members were returned by the grossest bribery and corruption of the electors, a Committee was appointed, and the facts were distinctly proved in each case. Nevertheless, no ulterior proceeding was instituted, because it was understood that the matter should be carried no farther against the individuals implicated by that inquiry. He had been informed and believed that there was a compromise, but he might be mistaken; if he were not mistaken, and there were no such understanding, then he must say that, in his opinion, the hon. Member for Bath stopped short of what he ought to have done after such disclosures. The charge against the noble Dukes on the present occasion exceeded that formerly made by Mr. Maddox; they were accused of having, by their influence and power, demanded of Members of the House of Commons that they should resign their seats, because those Members felt it their conscientious duty to support the measures introduced by Government, which measures they believed would be conducive to the public good. These measures, it seemed, were opposed to the private and selfish interests of the noble Dukes; and they therefore ordered the Members to resign their seats. The charge of the hon. Member for Athlone was, that they procured the return of Members to support their own selfish and mercenary ends, in opposition to the national interest; and surely, if true, it cast the deepest stain of degradation on the House of Commons. He could not call to mind any accusation in borough mongering times which involved matter more derogatory to the character of Parliament. He insisted that the House was bound to inquire, and he believed that the charge affected persons whose personal characters alone would have been able neither to secure votes nor return representatives. That was his opinion; but he meant to express it without conveying the slightest offence to the noble Dukes. It was a well-known fact, that it was not owing to their personal qualities, but to the weight of their great estates, that these Peers were enabled to influence the return of Members of Parliament. The question was particularly important at the present time, when Government had brought in a measure of great importance and national interest, which the Peers in question had sent their representatives to the House, if possible, to thwart and retard, in order that their own selfish interests might be promoted. He was surprised at the merriment with which such grave charges had been received by hon. Members opposite; but he held that the House could not refuse to inquire into these circumstances without surrendering their dignity and character. The motives which had influenced the Peers charged were notorious; and they and their representatives had heaped every species of gross and calumnious abuse on the right hon. Baronet, imputing to him the worst of motives for having brought forward measures by which they considered that their own selfish interests were attacked. It seemed that they were determined to make the people buy the commodity which they sold at as high prices as possible—determined to do all they could to prop up the obnoxious Corn Laws. He was quite convinced that such conduct would not be tolerated in the country. A call would shortly be made for the further reform of that House—for the introduction of a new schedule A. He thought that it was due to the House of Commons and to the noble Dukes implicated that the matter should not rest here, but should be either proved or disproved.

SIR R. PEEL

Sir, much of what has been introduced by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, appears to me to have no proper bearing upon this question. I see no necessity for introducing into this debate the matter which has been tolerably well described in the debates of six preceding evenings—the question of the Corn Laws. I do not think it was fair in him to attempt to prevail upon the House to accede to the Motion, by raising a prejudice against any parties who may be concerned in the question, by imputing to them motives of a selfish and interested character, for their opposition to the Ministeral measure. And I must say, the hon. Gentleman completely mistakes my feelings if he thinks it possible that the course I shall feel it my duty to take, will be influenced, in the slightest degree, by the allegation he has made as to gross abuse having been heaped upon me. I am not aware of the fact that any such abuse as that to which he refers has been cast upon me. I am not aware of the imputations thrown upon me, of having been influenced, in proposing the measures referred to, by motives corrupt or interested. But I distinctly say, that, if I had been aware of the fact, no feeling of irritation under such imputations — knowing, as I must, that they would be utterly undeserved—would influence me in the slightest degree in the course I should take; and, therefore, I regret that the hon. Gentleman should have introduced these observations, and thus endeavoured to raise a prejudice against the parties referred to. The proper question for the House is, whether or not there be Parliamentary ground for instituting this inquiry. Now, to deny that Peers do exercise an influence upon elections would be perfectly absurd; and I hope the day will never come when the legitimate influence which they may exercise may be extinguished. But extinguish it, in fact, you cannot. Pass what laws you will — while the Constitution of England continues, and while the feeling of Englishmen remains what it is—you never can extinguish that legitimate influence of which I speak. Take the case, for instance, of a Peer of great property—the Lord Lieutenant of his county—having devoted his life to the performance of local duties—having been kind to the tenantry—having set an example of improvement in his neighbourhood—being at the head of the local society of his county, not by rules, but by character and station—to tell me that you can extinguish that legitimate influence to which I allude; why, it is out of the question. And God forbid that the day should ever arrive when the virtues of a Peer should not have their proper influence upon society! I do not, then, meet this question by denying the influence of Peers upon elections. I rejoice in the existence of it to that legitimate extent of which I am speaking. A legitimate influence will always exist, whether in Peers or Commoners, proportioned to their characters. You can never extinguish the respect which a tenantry will feel for a good landlord, whether Peer or Commoner, without any coercion on his part. However you may consider the influence "unparliamentary," the tenantry will respect his feelings as their landlord; and I will venture to say, that the less of coercion there exists—the less any attempt is made on the part of a highminded and virtuous man, to interfere with his tenantry's electoral privileges, the more desire will be displayed upon their part to consult his wishes—a desire, I repeat it, proportioned to the absence of all endeavour to coerce them. But the question in this case is, whether there be any evidence of the exercise of an illegitimate influence? The hon. Member refers to the cases brought forward by Mr. Maddox and by the learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), both of whom, however, had grounds for their proceedings which do not exist here. What are the grounds upon which the hon. Gentleman calls upon us to consent to this Committee? And the House should well consider, that if they are prepared on grounds of this description to appoint the Committee, there never will be wanting a demand for similar inquiries. The hon. Gentleman referred to what the hon. Member called a petition from the inhabitants of Newark, presented to a noble Duke, thanking him for having appointed a Gentleman their representative, whose name was distinguished by the addition of the letters "Q.C." Any one would have entertained the impression that the petition was a bonâ fide one. The hon. Gentleman did not state its origin; which, it was well known, was a fabrication—a mere fiction, appearing in a weekly newspaper, without any attempt to invest it with authenticity. Is the House prepared to institute an inquiry on such ground? If so, all I can say is, that we shall be much occupied in such matters. The hon. Gentlemen indeed said, solemnly, "I verily believe the truth of what I have stated." Sir, that is not, in my opinion, sufficient. He has not adduced a single fact, actual or plausible, on which he can found his Motion. He has not adduced one solitary act of interference. He has not adduced one particle of proof that there was conveyed to any of the late Members for the places mentioned, any intimation, direct or indirect, from any Peer, that their resignation was required, nor that any Peer induced any interference on the part of any constituent bodies. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman adduce one solitary fact to support his Motion. The hon. Gentleman, indeed, read extracts from newspapers. Now, without alluding to such paragraphs as are palpably and professedly fictitious—as the pretended petition referred to—really if you are to condemn a man upon what appears in the newspapers, God help him who may be subjected to such a species of censure! Sir, as to my right hon. Friend (Sir T. Fremantle) the late Secretary for Ireland, I regret that he should have felt it his duty to vacate his seat. I have had the fullest and freest communication with him upon the subject; and all that I can say is, that so far as I am aware, the sole cause which induced him to vacate his seat (for Buckingham) was a sensitive—perhaps, constitutionally, a too sensitive—feeling as to his private honour. I do not say whether it be right or wrong, in having been compelled to disappoint certain expectations, excited by certain assurances given at an election, on that account to vacate a seat. I have no right on my own part to question the propriety of such a course; for on one occasion I thought it my duty to afford to my constituents (of Oxford) such an opportunity of re-election. I think I was wrong. It is difficult, however, to resist the Feelings which prompt a man in such circumstances. I blame no man for being swayed by such impulses. Speaking in a strict, perhaps a technical, constitutional sense, I must say, we are sent here as free agents and not as delegates, and that if we act on a sense of constitutional duty, we should always resist such applications to resign. But I can well fancy cases in which the sense of private honour overrules the strict principles of constitutional duty; and I should be the last man to blame any one for following similar impulses. My right hon. Friend, however, the Member for Buckingham, had pledged himself (perhaps unwisely) to maintain during the tenure of his seat the existing Corn Laws without alteration. His constituents assembled—I believe not at the solicitation of any Peer (but acting on their own feelings on the subject of the Corn Laws)—and called upon my right hon. Friend to vacate his seat, and thus redeem his pledge. It may be said, perhaps with justice— that my right hon. Friend ought not to have given any such pledge—that he might have reserved the power of free action, declaring "I cannot give pledges as to any particular question. I must reserve to myself the full and free exercise of my discretion, and the liberty of acting on my own convictions. But my right hon. Friend has not taken such a course. He had given a specific pledge to sustain the existing Corn Laws; and, so far as I have any knowledge on the matter (and I have had the fullest and freest communication with him upon it), he yielded to his own feeling of honour, and to the sense of the great majority of his constituents, without their having been urged by any species of influence or intimidation. But I do not rest on that case alone. I say it is not right that Parliament should institute inquiries of this nature, without some positive proof—some tangible evidence of facts to support it. We cannot act on the mere statement by a Member that he believes something of what he has recently heard. At the same time I must say that in a case in which there was some direct proof of improper interference on the part of Peers, there might be no alternative but to institute an inquiry. But I do think that the less you institute inquiry into the free expression of public opinion in this country, the better. We live in an atmosphere of freedom. Peers have a right to express their own opinions in public, and in the presence of their tenantry to condemn the conduct of this or that Government; and if those who are dependent upon them, or who look up to them—hearing them holding such language—choose to follow them, I deprecate Parliamentary inquisition into the motives and intentions of those who may so have acted. Regardless of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman, I shall pursue the same course now as I should have done if the Peers referred to had continued to honour me with their confidence; and thinking this to be a most dangerous proposition, and a most objectionable precedent, I shall give it my most determined opposition.

MR. HUME

observed, that the right hon. Baronet, while he admitted that Peers had interfered at elections, had stated that there was no objection to such interference. Why, then, he would ask, retain the Standing Order forbidding the practice? With respect to the present Motion, he must admit that the hon. Member for Athlone had not brought forward facts which it would be advisable that the House should have before them before entering on such an inquiry as he proposed: under these circumstances he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the question. Let him bring forward better evidence, and then he (Mr. Hume) would support him. It was too evident that the Reform Bill had failed in rooting out the influence of Peers in elections. Members were nominated by Peers now just as in the old borough mongering days, but such instances as they lately had would compel the Government to interfere.

MR. S. CRAWFORD

thought he might expose himself to the charge of being indifferent to the subject, if he allowed it to pass without a word of comment. In his opinion the present question was an important one, for a charge had been brought by an hon. Member, involving the representatives of four constituencies. He had expected that some of the individuals alluded to would have rebutted the charge; but as none of them had done so, what was the House and the country to think of a charge which none of the Gentlemen implicated had attempted to disavow? The impression on his mind, and on that of the country would be, that the charges were well founded, or Gentlemen of character and high honour would have disavowed them. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had talked of the legitimate influence of Peers. He did not wish to abolish that influence; but he feared it was an interest that had been exerted in an improper manner. He wished not to detract from the influence of Peers; but while he wished to see legitimate influence held up, he desired to see illegitimate influence destroyed. He hoped the facts mentioned by the hon. Member for Athlone would have the effect of causing greater efforts to be made to carry reform into the House, which at present did not suitably represent the people.

MR. COLLETT

expressed his willingness to comply with the request of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and withdraw the Motion. He did so the more readily because his purpose in some part had been answered by the discussion which had taken place.

Forward to