HC Deb 28 May 1846 vol 86 cc1414-9

The Order of the Day read for the Adjourned Debate on the Bridport Election, upon which

MR. HENLEY

rose to move the following Amendment, to add at the end of the question after the word "Romilly"— And whether any means were resorted to by parties to the Petition, or others, for withholding from the consideration of the Committee matters contained in the allegations of the Petition having reference to bribery and treating. The hon. Member contended that it was evident upon the face of the proceedings of the Committee, that there must have been a compromise for the purpose of avoiding a disclosure of the circumstances complained of in the petition. The petitioners complained of bribery and treating, and that was the point referred to them to inquire into. Well, the Committee did not say that bribery had not been proved, but that they postponed the consideration of it, thereby giving no judgment on the point at all. If the House permitted such a practice as this to go on, the public would come to the conclusion that the Members of that House were careless of such charges, seeing that they did not avail themselves of the power which the law gave them to investigate charges of this kind; and the result would be that some other tribunal would be found necessary to exercise jurisdiction in such cases in room of that House; a result which he, for one, should grealy deprecate. The hon. Member also maintained that the Speaker, in giving his casting vote on this question in the previous debate, exercised a power not authorized by Act of Parliament. For those reasons, he moved the Amendment of which he had given notice.

MR. BANKES

seconded the Motion, and insisted that the House was bound to inquire into this case, in order to vindicate its conduct in the eyes of the public. It had been stated in the previous debate by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Gisborne), that the practice of "jobbing the votes" before Election Committees was quite notorious, If such were the case, that was another reason for inquiry, in order to see what amendment of the law was necessary to prevent this system being acted upon. It might be said that the Act commonly known as Lord John Russell's Act would afford a sufficient remedy. He denied that it would, for it could only be brought into operation if an elector of the borough would run the risk of subjecting himself to the forfeiture of 500l., which was the amount of his recognizances; and if he failed to prove his charges he was mulcted in that sum.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

felt it his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member, and, upon this simple ground, that a remedy was provided by the Act of Parliament introduced by the noble Lord the Member for London calculated ex- actly to meet the case, if any ground existed, for the Motion. From this Act it appeared that not only would a Committee be appointed with power to inquire, but it would be their duty to inquire whether extensive bribery had or had not been committed; and if it appeared that it had been committed, to report all matters relating to it to the House, which would take such steps against the parties committing the bribery as they should see fit. If, then, any elector or other person competent to do so had any real ground for bringing this matter under the notice of the House, there was a legitimate mode appointed by law for inquiring into it, and, therefore, he opposed the present Motion.

MR. DUNCOMBE

said, that the House had already agreed to an inquiry into this matter; and the question now before the House was, whether the Committee should not be required to carry it a little further, and endeavour to ascertain whether any means had been resorted to for withholding the consideration of bribery and treating alleged to have taken place. Well, what were the reasons for refusing it? It was said that Lord J. Russell's Act enabled him to inquire under certain circumstances: that might be quite true, but there was nothing in that Act to relieve the House from the responsibility of inquiring under other circumstances. It was the right of the subject that there should be such an inquiry. There had been a petition charging bribery and treating; but that was evaded by the Committee not going on with the inquiry. Was it intended to be laid down, that if Members of that House rose and made out a primâ facie case of bribery, the House was not to inquire into it? He maintained that they ought not to shrink from the subject, but that it was due to the honour of the House, where allegations of bribery had been so broadly made, that a Committee should be appointed, and he should vote accordingly.

SIR W. JAMES

should vote with the Government on this question, as he did not think any ground had been laid by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire. Rockett had only called on the House to inquire into the circumstances attending his own vote, and not into any more general matters; and in the absence of any such request, as the Act of Parliament was so decisive, he should vote against the hon. Member for Oxfordshire.

SIR D. L. EVANS

reminded the House that this was not the first or second time that bribery had been proved, or at least generally supposed to exist, in the borough of Bridport. The allegations of Members of that House were worthy of attention, and the question ought not to be blinked by means of a mere technicality of law. The public would believe that they wished to screen corruption.

SIR R. PEEL

said, the natural impulse at first was, of course, to accede to any proposition to inquire into alleged bribery and corruption; and the question now was, whether or no they should appoint a Committee to determine whether or no there had been bribery at the Bridport election. Fortunately in this case there was no party or personal feeling to interfere with the dispassionate decision of this case. But while they were naturally anxious to inquire into allegations of bribery, they should not lose sight of the natural tendency there was in a popular assembly to decide questions by party feeling, nor of the circumstances under which, in the time of Sir R. Walpole, the power to decide on disputed questions of the sort was given to Election Committees. He ventured to say, that if the House were to resume the right of jurisdiction, the time would soon come when the decisions on such questions would again be decided by party and political considerations, and not by justice. The House could not have forgotten the time when a regular canvass was resorted to in order to obtain a majority. It was to stop such proceedings that the House had divested itself of the power of giving the decision of such matters to Committees appointed pro hac vice, and had given it to Committees appointed under statute to decide judicially. He feared that the course now recommended by the hon. Member would establish an inconvenient precedent. An inquiry would by no means be precluded by their refusing to agree to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire. The Speaker, though he (Sir R. Peel) would by no means say that his opinion was necessarily conclusive, had said that under the 5th and 6th Victoria it would still be competent to any elector to present a petition praying for an inquiry into alleged bribery, on which the House would appoint a Committee, with power to examine on oath, and to decide judicially; and the vote of the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded on that ground, thinking, as he did, that the Committee then moved for would have no better means of deciding than the Bridport Election Committee had had. If such a petition were presented, and bribery were established by the evidence of a single witness, the question of compromise could not be excluded from the inquiry of the Committee; so that by the adoption of such a course the whole question would be legally decided by a Committee appointed under the Act known as Lord J. Russell's Act, the express object of which was to prevent inquiries of this sort, at the mere instance of individual Members, by Committees with no more powers than those of an ordinary Select Committee. Feeling, then, that the authority of the Committee must be maintained, and that no Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Halifax would neglect its duty, he should now give the vote which he considered he had substantially given on the former occasion, against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire.

MR. HUME

said, the right hon. Baronet had done all he could to draw the House away from the real question, which had nothing whatever to do with the party influence formerly exercised; because, whatever way the inquiry asked for might be decided, the seat could not be affected by it. The real question at issue was the credit and character of that House. The right hon. Baronet said, it was open to the electors to petition; but the time for petitioning expired on the 6th of June, and the adjournment for the holidays was until nearly that time.

MR. LAW

was of opinion that the Committee had had, under the Act, full power to inquire into the cause of the abandonment of the charge of bribery. Words which gave them that authority were introduced into the first section, and as industriously excluded from the fourth; but the Committee, instead of inquiring, as they were authorized to do, adopted the extraordinary course complained of in the petition of Rockett—they did not receive the evidence of the poll-clerk, which would have decided the question; but, acting on the evidence of a stranger to the record, they shifted the vote of Rockett from one poll to the other. He thought that the House should not allow this opportunity to escape of ascertaining whether there had been a compromise or not.

MR. S. WORTLEY

said, what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman appeared to him an additional reason why the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ox- fordshire should not be agreed to. The authority of the Committee ought to be supported. It was appointed under the Act known as Lord J. Russell's Act, by the first section of which specific tribunals were to be established for the purpose of deciding such questions. That Committee had exercised its discretion. No new evidence was afforded, no new petition had been presented, and he agreed with the Speaker in thinking that if a Committee were now appointed, they would have no better means of deciding the case than the Bridport Election Commitee had. The Committee now moved for would, in fact, be a court of appeal from that Committee. On the other hand, it was still open to the electors to petition, and a Committee might then be appointed which would have much greater power than a Select Committee of that House.

MR. WAKLEY

denied that there was no new matter before the House; but, after all, the real question was, whether the House desired to be left in ignorance of what their own tribunal had done. The character of the House was suffering through the conduct of the Committee. He gave them credit for the best intentions; but out of doors every one was laughing at the decision of the Committee. They were bound to inquire whether the tribunals they had established for the trial of election cases were efficient. If it turned out that the Committee in this instance had discharged its duty, the investigation would redound to the credit of the House.

The House divided on the Question, that the words proposed by Mr. Henley be added:—Ayes 48; Noes 80: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.
Ackers, J. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Allix, J. P. Halsey, T. P.
Armstrong, Sir A. Hamilton, J. H.
Benett, J. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Bennett, P. Hill, Lord E.
Bentinck, Lord H. Hindley, C.
Beresford, Major Hume, J.
Borthwick, P. Ingestre, Visct.
Bridgeman, H. Law, hon. C. E.
Broadwood, H. Lawson, A.
Brotherton, J. Marsland, H.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Morris, D.
Cayley, E. S. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Christopher, R. A. Newdegate, C. N.
Collett, J. Pechell, Capt.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Plumridge, Capt.
Duncan, G. Rashleigh, W.
Duncombe, T. Richards, R.
Etwall, R. Sheridan, R. B.
Evans, Sir De Lacy Spooner, R.
Floyer, J. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Fuller, A. E. Thornely, T.
Trelawny, J. S.
Trollope, Sir J. TELLERS.
Villiers, hon. C. Bankes, G.
Wakley, T. Henley, J. W.
List of the NOES.
Alexander, N. Humphery, Ald.
Archbold, R. James, Sir W. C.
Balfour, J. M. Jermyn, Earl
Baring, rt. hon. W. B. Jocelyn, Visct.
Bernal, R. Kelly, Sir F.
Bowes, J. Kemble, H.
Bowles, Adm. Kirk, P.
Bramston, T. W. Lincoln, Earl of
Brownrigg, J. S. Lindsay, hon. Capt.
Bruce, Lord E. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Busfeild, W. Mackinnon, W. A.
Butler, P. S. Mahon, Visct.
Cardwell, E. Marjoribanks, S.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Meynell, Capt.
Clive, Visct. Milnes, R. M.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. Morpeth, Visct.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Neville, R.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Northland, Visct.
Courtenay, Lord Pakington, J. S.
Cripps, W. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Damer, hon. Col. Peel, J.
Davies, D. A. S. Pennant, hon. Col.
Denison, E. B. Phillpotts, J.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Repton, G. W. J.
Drummond, H. H. Ricardo, J. L.
Duke, Sir J. Smythe, hon. G.
Egerton, W. T. Somerset, Lord G.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Stewart, J.
Forman, T. S. Thesiger, Sir F.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Trench, Sir F. W.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Granby, Marq. of Vane, Lord H.
Greene, T. Vivian, J. E.
Hamilton, W. J. Wellesley, Lord C.
Hamilton, Lord C. Wood, C.
Hawes, B. Wood, Col. T.
Hayes, Sir E. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Hope, Sir J. TELLERS.
Hope, G. W. Young, J.
Hornby, J. Baring, H. B.

It was then ordered— That the Petition of William Rockett be referred to a Select Committee, to be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances under which Joseph Welch gave Evidence before the Select Committee on the Bridport Election Petition, that William Rockett voted for Mr. Romilly.