NEW WRIT FOR DERBY.

HC Deb 17 April 1848 vol 98 cc402-13

MR. W. EVANS, pursuant to notice, moved that a new writ be issued for Derby, in the room of the right hon. E. Strutt and the hon. F. L. Gower, whose election had been determined to be void.

MR. E. ELLICE, jun., wished the House to understand the position in which it would be placed should this new writ be issued. The Committee upon the Derby election had reported that the most corrupt practices had prevailed in the borough, and had recommended that the freemen should be disfranchised previous to granting a new writ. The evidence taken in relation to the late election foe Derby pointed out a case precisely parallel with that of Yarmouth, and he hoped that the House would act upon the same principle in both instances. The evidence in the one case was nearly a repetition of that in the other, and the House would be guilty of the grossest injustice if it disfranchised Yarmouth and not Derby.

SIR J. HANMER admitted that no town was more entitled to be represented in Parliament than Derby. It was an ancient town; it stood on one of the great lines of railway communication; it was a very industrious and populous town; it had a great many manufactories, and stood within a large manufacturing district. After the case of Bewdley, he was not going to oppose the issue of a new writ for Derby; but he could not suffer the Motion to pass without calling the attention of the House to what he had stated on a former occasion. As the law now stood, if the House should persist in issuing writs to places tainted with corruption, and visited all the sins of the corrupt electors upon the heads of the gentlemen returned by them, and inflicted no punishment at all upon the electors themselves, the House would never get rid of that corruption which was a source of substantial danger to them at that moment. Mr. Strutt had declared in the most emphatic manner before the late election that it was his earnest desire and full intention, as far as he could, to obey the law of 1842, and to set himself against all corrupt and illegal practices; and no one in that House could doubt the sincerity of that right hon. Gentleman. What was the result? He was petitioned against, a Committee sat, and his election was declared void, on the ground of bribery. He called upon the House and the Government to turn their attention to this state of things. Derby contained many Chartists, and nothing was more likely to turn men to Chartism than seeing drunken electors rolling in the gutter.

MR. HUME considered it to be the duty of the Government of the day to endeavour to obtain as much purity as possible in the constituencies. There were standing orders of the House against corrupt practices at elections; and it was as much the duty of Her Majesty's Govern- ment as of any individual Member to maintain the rules and orders of the House. He had upon a former occasion submitted that, in all these cases, the writ should be suspended, and a Committee be appointed to inquire and report to the House. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had agreed with him in the principle, but did not wish to make it a general rule. This led to a different practice, and boroughs equally guilty were treated in different ways. The case of Derby was almost a parallel case with that of Yarmouth. The Derby Committee had reported that— A practice has existed in the borough of Derby, at the last as well as former elections, of placing freemen as Members on a nominal committee, and paying them for pretended services; and they believe that this practice has obtained very extensively in the said borough, and they consider it their duty to report it to the House. Why did they report it to the House? He considered that it was done in order that the House might visit the conduct of the parties in some manner, and mark its disapprobation of such practices by suspending the writ, and, he hoped, by disfranchising the borough. Yet a motion was now made to issue a new writ for Derby; and he asked the House to include all the offending boroughs in the same condition. The question was, whether the boroughs should be represented by men who bribed the electors? He should vote against the issse of the writ until inquiry took place.

The EARL of LINCOLN agreed with the observations made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Flint (Sir J. Hanmer) on this as on a former occasion, and he should, with the hon. Member for Montrose, oppose the issue of the writ. He acknowledged that it was unconstitutional to suspend a writ without having some specific object in view; but he supported the suspension of this writ, because he hoped the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would devise some mode by which justice could be done in this case. It would be doing gross injustice to pass a Bill to disfranchise Yarmouth, and take no notice of the long-continued practices at Derby. He admitted that there had been some appearance of caprice in their legislation upon this subject; and he hoped that whenever there was a report from a Committee stating that corruption had been found in a borough, and it was put prominently forward, measures would be taken to secure an uniformity of practice. If the House pursued a vacillating policy with regard to these cases, it would do more harm than good. Could they ever expect that any benefit would result from a policy which subjected a Member to punishment, and rewarded the guilty electors? The names of four candidates for Derby were published at this moment, and all of them were determined to abstain from illegal practices; but he dared say the individuals in that borough who had caused the avoidance of the election were rejoicing in their misdeeds, and that a report of a Committee of that House had given them an opportunity of renewing their practices. Numbers of witnesses examined before the Committee of the House testified to their own corruption; and one witness, who admitted that he had been paid, testified that he saw bags of money carried into the committee room, and as many as sixty-three persons go into that room; and the number of persons proved to have gone into the room was at least 200. In the case of Sudbury, the noble Lord had, previous to introducing a Bill, proposed an inquiry into the practices in the borough, and the result was a confirmation of the report of the Committee, and the borough was disfranchised; and he considered that the noble Lord would do a great public service if he would deal with this case in the same way. As he was locally connected with the county and borough of Derby, it was, perhaps, right that he should state that, in expressing an opinion on this subject, he was acting entirely on his own responsibility: no request had been made to him by any person in the borough of Derby that he would adopt the course he had felt it right to pursue; but he had been informed that it was the anxious desire of both political parties in that borough that the writ should be issued.

MR. CHILDERS (Chairman of the Committee on the Derby Election) was understood to say that nine cases of bribery were distinctly proved before the Committee, and there was reason to believe that nearly 400 out of 500 freemen had been bribed. There were, however, 1,500 10l. householders in the borough upon whom no imputation of bribery had been thrown; and, though the Committee were unanimously of opinion that the freemen ought to be disfranchised, they considered that it would be unjust to subject the householders to the same penalty.

MR. AGLIONBY conceived that, in such a case as the present, the House should support its Committee; and that by a measure of such severity as the facts might warrant, they ought to endeavour to secure for the House that respect which he thought it had lost of late years, in consequence of its conduct with regard to questions of this kind. It was evident that gross corruption had prevailed among the freemen of the borough of Derby; and, in his opinion, they ought no longer to be intrusted with the franchise. He believed it would invariably be found that the freemen were much more corrupt than the 10l. householders; and at some of the elections in the county of Cumberland he had seen them rolling about in a disgusting state of intoxication, and scarcely able to say for whom they would vote. He considered that the prosecution of these cases ought not to be left to accident or caprice, but that the House ought to appoint an officer whose duty it should be, when a primâ facie case of corruption was made out against any borough, to inquire into the facts, and ascertain whether there were grounds for proposing the disfranchisement of the electors. He thought that a searching inquiry ought to be substituted into the proceedings at the last election for Derby, and that—if the evidence justified such a course—the freemen should be disfranchised. He was ready to vote for the suspension of the writ, provided that the Government or any Member of the House would undertake to propose a further inquiry into the proceedings at the late election.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, it appeared, in this particular case, that several allegations of bribery were proved before the Committee, and that from the evidence given before them, they were led to believe that extensive bribery had prevailed among the freemen at the last election for Derby. It also appeared, that Mr. Strutt and the other Member for the borough were not themselves cognisant of this bribery; and that, finding that bribery had been committed by their agents, they very properly determined that they ought not to retain their seats. He could not agree with the noble Lord that such reports as that presented by the Committee on the Derby election would produce no effect upon the country, and that in the event of a new election the parties who had bribed at the late election would resort to the same practices again. He thought, that a very obvious and certain result of the reports made by Election Committees this year would be, that agents who wished to promote the interests of candidates would see that if they had recourse to bribery, instead of promoting the interests of those whom they wished to serve, they would only procure a return which would be set aside, and would thus defeat their own objects. He considered that the unseating of Members, under such circumstances, was a measure of great public importance, and would be attended with great public advantage. In this case it appeared to the Committee that very extensive bribery had existed among the freemen. He understood the hon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee to state that they had reason to believe that a very considerable proportion of the 500 freemen of the borough had been bribed, but that there were 1,500 10l. householders in the borough with regard to whom no taint had been proved before the Committee. Of course, if two or three cases of bribery had occurred among the householders, that would not be a reason for refusing the issue of a writ to a constituency of 1,500 persons. He thought, that as so much had been stated in the report of the Committee, and as they had very properly considered that it was not their duty to go into any further inquiry, it was fitting that some investigation should be instituted by the House with respect to the corruption of the freemen of Derby. In this view he was supported by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), who had referred to the general corruption of that class of voters. He must confess that he did not entertain a very favourable opinion of them, and both in the Reform Bill and in the Municipal Corporations Bill he had endeavoured to get rid of that class of electors. He could not, however, agree with the hon. Member for Montrose, or with the noble Member for Falkirk, that it was part of the duty of the Government to take up cases of this nature. In 1819, he, as a Member of that House, unconnected with office, took up a case of this kind—that of Grampound—which occupied a great deal of his time and attention. At a subsequent period he was enabled to devote some attention to the cases of other boroughs; but, with the weighty business of the Government upon his hands, if he were to engage to read through the whole of the evidence in the Derby case, with a view to ascertain what degree of criminality attached to the electors, he should undertake a duty he would not have time to perform. He considered that, if the noble Lord, or any other Member of the House, would take up this case, it would be far preferable to interference on the part of the Government. It was true that, a few days ago, he had brought in a Bill for disfranchising the freemen of Yarmouth, because it seemed to be the general wish of the House that such a measure should be proposed; but it had not been his intention, when he had previously spoken of the corruption which had existed in that borough, to take up the case himself. He thought that, until the House determined what course should be pursued in this particular case, it was advisable that the issue of the writ should be suspended; but, at the same time, it was a question for subsequent consideration for how long a time writs should be suspended under such circumstances. It might happen, that Bills for disfranchising portions of constituencies might go on till nearly the end of the Session, when they could not pass through the House of Lords; and it would be a public wrong, if, under such circumstances, the whole of the writs were to be suspended. He thought there was not the same reason in the case of Derby as in the case of Yarmouth for the immediate disfranchisement of the freemen; but he agreed with the noble Lord opposite that cause had been shown for further inquiry.

SIR R. PEEL had heard with much satisfaction the speech of the noble Lord, which confirmed the conclusion at which he had himself arrived. It appeared to him that it would be impossible for the House to consent to the issue of the writ for Derby without the opportunity of further consideration. He did not wish now to give an opinion with respect to the disfranchisement of that borough, or even as to the disfranchisement of the freemen. He considered that those freemen who had resisted temptation ought not to be visited with punishment; but he thought there were grounds for instituting an inquiry into this case, and he rejoiced that there was an opportunity of teaching this large constituency that the plan of dealing with small constituencies would be extended to it. If large constituencies relied upon their importance, and upon the difficulty there was in refusing the issue of a writ to large bodies of electors, he rejoiced that an opportunity was afforded the House of teaching them that if they were guilty of corruption, the writs would in their case be suspended until an investigation had been instituted. The Committee which had re- cently inquired into the Derby election had reported that a practice had existed in that borough, at the last as well as at former elections, of placing freemen on nominal committees, and paying them for pretended services; and the Committee expressed their belief that this practice had obtained very extensively in the said borough. Now, in 1842 there was a general impression that these practices—which were very ancient, which everybody was very unwilling to break through, and which there was great difficulty in breaking through—did not partake of the character of bribery. It was said, with regard to many boroughs he could name, "It has always been the custom to give a dinner to the electors, or to give them certain payments, called head-money; these are taken by respectable people; they are not regarded as bribery; and it is very hard to disfranchise men who yield to a practice which has been established and observed for a long period." But at the instance of the noble Lord opposite an Act was passed to abolish these practices. That Act provided that— Whereas a practice has prevailed in certain boroughs and places of making payments by or on behalf of candidates to the voters, in such manner that doubts have been entertained whether such payments are to be deemed bribery; be it declared and enacted that the payment or gift of any sum of money, or other valuable consideration whatsoever, to any voter, before, during, or after any election, or to any person on his behalf, or to any person related to him by kindred or affinity, and which shall be so paid or given on account of such voter having voted, or having refrained from voting, or being about to vote, or refrained from voting, at the said election, whether the same shall have been paid or given under the name of head-money or any other name whatsoever, and whether such payment shall have been in compliance with any usage or practice, or not, shall be deemed bribery. In the case of Derby it appeared to have been the practice to pay 5s. a head to the voters for sitting on a nominal committee, such payments extending over a period of five or six days, so that 25s. or 30s. were put into the pocket of each voter. That practice was very ancient, but the Committee considered that it partook very much of the character of bribery, and that it ought to be declared bribery. He placed great confidence in the view taken by that Committee. He might also state, that he had felt great satisfaction at the decisions of every Election Committee which had sat during the Session, and he could not help taking this opportunity to congratulate the House on the course which had been pur- sued by those Committees. He knew nothing more calculated to raise the House in general estimation than the manner in which the Committees on elections had done their duty, totally regardless of all party considerations. The Committee in this particular case had stated their belief that the practice to which he had referred had prevailed very extensively at the last election for Derby. It was true that this had not been actually proved, because, when the two hon. Gentlemen who had been returned found that, contrary to their express injunctions, they were liable to lose their seats for bribery, they felt no interest in vindicating the general character of the freemen; they at once retired, and the direct evidence proving that 200 or more freemen had been bribed was not brought before the Committee. He would give no opinion as to the course it might be advisable to adopt; but, for his own part, he would not vote for the disfranchisement of any elector until the House was in possession of further evidence on the subject. He was, however, ready to vote for the appointment by Bill of a Commission to go down to Derby and make inquiries; and if it should appear from their report that a very large proportion of the freemen had been bribed in pursuance of the ancient custom he had mentioned, he would consent that the same punishment which had been inflicted on smaller boroughs should be imposed on a portion of this larger constituency, and that they should be taught that they would not be allowed to violate the law with impunity on account of their numbers and supposed importance. He knew how overwhelmed the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) must be by public business, and he therefore did not wish to impose upon him the duty of wading through all the details of this subject; but he hoped, if the noble Lord felt a case had been established for further inquiry, that he would consent to the appointment of a local commission, such as was appointed in the Sudbury case, and that he would lend the authority of the Government to such legislative proceedings as might be necessary.

SIR R. INGLIS thought that the question was, whether the number found guilty of bribery in this borough formed such a large proportion of the constituency that not only the guilty, but the remainder also, ought to be disfranchised? He understood, that whatever might be the belief as to the amount guilty of bribery, the number really proved to be so was only eighteen. Under these circumstances he maintained that little ground existed for inculpating the great body of freemen in the borough, and still less for inculpating the great body of electors. He hoped, therefore, the House would concur in the Motion for the issue of the writ.

MR. STANTON, as a Member of the Election Committee, begged to say, with respect to the borough of Derby, that if the House disfranchised the freemen, the rest of the constituency would, in his opinion, be found to be such as the country might be proud of. Mr. Strutt's expenses were only 450l., and there were few Members standing a contest, where the constituency was numerous, who got off so easily.

MR. COLVILE wished to impress on the House the gross injustice they would perpetrate, if they any longer deprived the borough of Derby of the privilege of being represented in Parliament. He wished to call to their recollection the fact, that though the late Members had been unseated for bribery, out of a constituency of 2,000, the report of the Election Committee only showed that nine electors had been bribed. He would submit the offence they had committed was as little culpable as offences of this nature could possibly be; they had been bribed by being employed as messengers, in which it was possible they might not be aware they were doing any wrong. Great stress had been laid during the debate, on the injustice of punishing the Members by expelling them from the House, and at the same time allowing the offending constituency to go free. He did not see the force of that remark; he considered the person who, through his agents paid the bribe, more likely to know the law, and consequently much more culpable, than the ignorant elector who received it. He hoped, therefore, the House would not commit the great injustice of disfranchising so important a constituency for the sins of nine of the more ignorant of their body; for though the Chairman of the Derby Election Committee stated the Committee suspected extensive bribery had been committed in Derby, he begged to remind the House they ought not to act on suspicion, but on the report that Committee had laid on the table. Though he would be the last to encourage corrupt practices, he would not be a party to the attempt he saw hon. Members opposite were anxious to make to disfranchise all freemen; nor could he understand the meaning of hon. Members, for while on the one hand they clamoured for an extension of the suffrage, on the other they proposed to contract the suffrage by disfranchising that class which especially represented the working classes, and were the most ancient of all electors; but his chief object in rising was to ascertain from the hon. Member for Leamington (Mr. Mackinnon), what were the motives which induced him to withdraw the notice he some time since gave for issuing a new writ for Derby. It had been stated that the hon. Member had been actuated by sinister motives; he therefore thought it was due to the hon. Member and the borough, that he should offer some explanation.

DR. BOWRING said, that though, according to the hon. Member, only nine persons were bribed, yet upwards of 200 were proved to have been in attendance for the purpose of receiving the usual daily allowance.

MR. STAFFORD observed, that notwithstanding the House had heard from various Members many magniloquent declarations to the effect that corruption was a much worse thing than purity, yet almost every hon. Member had manifested a hesitation to take up the question himself and to deal with it practically. He could understand why the hon. Member for Montrose should decline this office, because, according to public report, he must have a great deal on his hands just now, being engaged in the formation of a party; and, considering the distracted opinions expressed by that party last Session, he could readily believe that the hon. Member must be greatly occupied in bringing it under any sort of discipline. However, the position of the right hon. Member for Tamworth was one of peculiar leisure, and therefore he hoped that that right hon. Gentleman would occupy some portion of his time in bringing forward a measure for purifying the corrupt but ancient borough of Derby. He should vote for the issue of the writ, believing that its issue would not prevent the House from hereafter punishing those guilty of bribery.

SIR G. GREY agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that any hon. Member having leisure (which the Government had not) would perform a useful duty in reading through the evidence given before the Election Committee, and in bringing a substantive proposition before the House on the subject. In now opposing the issue of the writ, he did so only in order to give time to those who were opposed to the issue of the writ, to read the evidence and come forward with some substantive Motion; and he wished to be understood as being not prepared to sanction an indefinite suspension of the writ.

The House divided on the Motion:—Ayes 43; Noes 199: Majority 156.

List of the AYES.
Alexander, N.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Anson, Visct.	Mundy, E. M.
Boldero, H. G.	O'Connell, M. J.
Bremridge, R.	O'Connor, F.
Coke, hon. E. K.	Ossulston, Lord
Collins, W.	Reid, Col.
Disraeli, B.	Repton, G. W. J.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Rufford, F.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Rushout, Capt.
Du Pre, C. G.	Seaham, Visct.
Farnham, E. B.	Smyth, J. G.
Forester, hon. G. C. W.	Somerset, Capt.
Fox, S. W. L.	Stafford, A.
Fuller, A. E.	Sturt, H. G.
Gardner, R.	Thompson, Ald.
Hamilton, G. A.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Henley, J. W.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Urquhart, D.
Hildyard, R. C.	Wall, C. B.
Ingestre, Visct.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	TELLERS.
Knox, Col.	Colvile, C. R.
Lygon, hon. Gen.	Evans, W.

List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N.	Clay, Sir W.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Clements, hon. C. S.
Adair, R. A. S.	Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Adderley, C. B.	Clifford, H. M.
Aglionby, H. A.	Cockburn, A. J. E.
Alcock, T.	Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Armstrong, R. B.	Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Arundel and Surrey,	Courtenay, Lord
Earl of	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Baines, M. T.	Crawford, W. S.
Barnard, E. G.	Currie, H.
Beckett, W.	Davies, D. A. S.
Benett, J.	Deedes, W.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.	Denison, W. J.
Bernal, R.	Devereux, J. T.
Birch, Sir T. B.	Dick, Q.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Dodd, G.
Bowles, Adm.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bowring, Dr.	Drumlanrig, Visct.
Bramston, T. W.	Drummond, H.
Broadley, H.	Duff, G. S.
Brotherton, J.	Duncan, G.
Brown, W.	Dundas, Adm.
Bruce, Lord E.	Dundas, Sir D.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Dunne, F. P.
Buller, C.	East, Sir J. B.
Busfeild, W.	Ebrington, Visct.
Campbell, hon. W. F.	Edwards, H.
Cardwell, E.	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Carew, W. H. P.	Evans, Sir De L.
Carter, J. B.	Evans, J.
Charteris, hon. F.	Ewart, W.
Childers, J. W.	Fellowes, E.
Clay, J.	Fitzroy, hon. H.

Foley, J. H. H.	Ord, W.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Oswald, A.
Glyn, G. C.	Packe, C. W.
Goddard, A. L.	Palmerston, Visct.
Gore, W. R. O.	Parker, J.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Patten, J. W.
Granger, T. C.	Pattison, J.
Greene, J.	Pearson, C.
Grenfell, C. W.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Perfect, R.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Pilkington, J.
Guest, Sir J.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Hall, Sir B.	Pugh, D.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F.	Rawdon, Col.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Ricardo, J. L.
Harris, hon. Capt.	Ricardo, O.
Hastie, A.	Rich, H.
Hastie, A.	Richards, R.
Hawes, B.	Romilly, J.
Hay, Lord J.	Russell, Lord J.
Hayes, Sir E.	Russell, hon. E. S.
Heald, J.	Rutherford, A.
Heathcote, J.	Salwey, Col.
Heneage, E.	Sandars, G.
Henry, A.	Seymer, H. K.
Heywood, J.	Shafto, R. D.
Hildyard, T. B. T.	Sheridan, R. B.
Hindley, C.	Simeon, J.
Hollond, R.	Smith, M. T.
Hood, Sir A.	Somerville, rt.hn. Sir W.
Hope, H. T.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Horsman, E.	Spearman, H. J.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Humphery, Ald.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Jervis, Sir J.	Stanton, W. H.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
Kershaw, J.	Sullivan, M.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Tancred, H. W.
Langston, J. H.	Tenison, E. K.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Lemon, Sir C.	Thompson, Col.
Lewis, G. C.	Thornely, T.
Lincoln, Earl of	Towneley, J.
Lindsay, hon. Col.	Townley, C.
Littleton, hon. E. R.	Trelawny, J. S.
Lockhart, A. E.	Tufnell, H.
Lushington, C.	Turner, E.
Macnaghten, Sir E.	Vane, Lord H.
Macnamara, Maj.	Villiers, hon. C.
M'Gregor, J.	Vivian, J. H.
Magan, W. H	Wakley, T.
Marshall, W.	Watkins, Col.
Martin, J.	Westhead, J. P.
Martin, S.	Williams, J.
Matheson, Col.	Williamson, Sir H.
Melgund, Visct.	Wilson, J.
Meux, Sir H.	Wilson, M.
Milnes, R. M.	Wood, W. P.
Mitchell, T. A.	Wrightson, W. B.
Molesworth, Sir W.	Wyld, J.
Morgan, O.	Wyvill, M.
Morpeth, Visct.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Morris, D.	Yorke, H. G. R.
Mowatt, F.	Young, Sir J.
Mulgrave, Earl of
Muntz, G. F.	TELLERS.
Norreys, Lord	Hume, J.
Ogle, S. C. H.	Ellice, E.