§ MR. STAFFORD moved— "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make cut a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Horsham, in the room of John Jervis, Esq., whose Election has been determined to be void." MR. HUME expresser his surprise at this Motion, considering the Bill of the 481 noble Lord the Member for London was on the table of the House, with a view of further inquiry, into the case of the alleged corruption at Horsham. He trusted this Motion would not, under the circumstances, and seeing the course that had been pursued in some other cases, be persevered in.
§ MR. STAFFORD said, that the opposition which it now appeared was to be offered to the Motion, rendered it necessary that he should let the House see clearly the way in which this borough stood. Every borough was entitled to a fair and candid hearing before the exercise of its franchise was interrupted; and it would be idle to disguise from the House that the question now raised on every occasion of a Motion for a new writ was one of great and increasing importance, both with themselves and the country. After the course the House had taken, and the Acts they had passed, and the proceedings of their Election Committees, he felt that they ought not to separate, even for so short a period as the Easter recess, without taking a subject of so much importance into their serious consideration. The hon. Member then proceeded to refer, at great length, to the evidence taken before the Horsham Election Committee. He found, he said, that when Mr. Hill was proceeding to open the case of the petitioners, Mr. Serjeant Wrangham got up, and said that, on the part of the sitting Member, it had been agreed to give up the case, and that the election should be held null and void; and two witnesses were then called in to prove, pro formâ, a case of treating against the borough. For the small offences they had before them in this evidence, it was now proposed to suspend this writ; but some curious rumours had got abroad on the subject of the Horsham election; and in consequence of those rumours, he presumed, and the extraordinary zeal the House had of late shown in regard to election matters, and in instituting inquiries in various cases, a Bill had been brought in by the noble Lord the Member for London, the preamble of which, among other things, alleged that, as the charges of bribery contained in the petition against the late Member had not been prosecuted, it was desirable to institute inquiry as to whether such bribery had taken place or not, &c. But the Committee had made no report on the subject of bribery; and he must say that he had always understood that if there was one thing more than 482 another for which they ought to stand up in that House, it was the reports of their Committees. Under such circumstances, however corrupt the borough of Horsham might be, it would still partake of the character of an ex post facto law if they were to suspend the writ on the present occasion. How had the House acted in the cases of other boroughs? In the instance of Kinsale, they had issued the writ without the slightest hesitation—though in that case there were three as strong reasons as possible upon the face of the evidence why inquiry should have taken place before they did so. The hon. Member here read some extracts from the evidence taken before the Kinsale Committee, with a view of showing how great had been the iniquity of the practices in that borough as compared with what had been proved in the case of Horsham. The House had issued a writ for Kinsale immediately after the election had been declared null; and he was not ashamed to say that he was the person who had moved that writ, because if a tribunal was once constituted, the best course was to abide by its decisions. If the House, after reading the evidence, should disagree with the opinions of these Committees, it might be a reason for reconsidering the law; but while the Committees acted, the most just and proper course was to stand by their verdicts. Let constituencies know, that with respect to bribery, as in the case of any other offence, they were to be tried by the law as it stood, and not by the law that might be about to be passed. The only principle that had been adhered to in these cases during the whole of this Parliament, was, that while the upper classes had been punished—often unjustly—and while it was proposed to punish the poor man who bad been bribed, Members had never had the courage or consistency to approach the real authors and instigators of this corruption, and who were of the middle classes— the lawyers and upper shopkeepers of the towns in which these practices prevailed. Members had not done this, because they all shrank from it in their several localities. The middle classes in these boroughs were the tempters of the poor; it was they who were most guilty, and it was upon them that the punishment should fall. When all these proceedings were generally known, the people would little sympathise with the congratulations of the right hon. Baronet as to the favourable impression that had lately been made upon the public mind, or 483 with the sentiments of those who would tinker up the present system, instead of striking at the root of the evil. While the House should in every case stand by the decisions of the Committees, it should at the same time take advantage of their proceedings, by studying the reports and evidence, and at the earliest possible moment bring in a measure which should grapple with the entire evil, without oppressing particular constituencies, or drawing distinctions between small and large boroughs. Personally he knew nothing of Horsham; he had never been in the place, and was acquainted with no person residing there, but he had taken the matter up because it was, he thought, desirable that the House, before separating for Easter, should consider the subject. He did not wish to evade or oppose the Bill of the noble Lord; but, as the House had issued writs to boroughs far more guilty than Horsham—as the Committee had made no special report—and as the preamble of the Bill assumed it to be a moot question whether or not bribery existed in this borough—he appealed to the House to issue this writ as an act of common justice, and not because he desired to defend corruption, or patronise pocket boroughs.
§ MR. AGLIONBY said, that one case after another had been brought before him in which there was primâ facie evidence of the existence of a far greater amount of corruption than appeared on the face of the evidence; and he, for one, pledged himself to hunt down corruption whenever he had the opportunity. When hon. Gentlemen talked of preserving consistency in their proceedings, it should be remembered that the other day a writ was suspended in the case of Derby. There was here a primâ facie case for further inquiry; and having yesterday voted against the issuing of a writ for Derby, he should feel ashamed of himself were he now to show any favour to Horsham. He called upon the Government to second the House in its effort to maintain its credit with the country; and the fair and proper course to take was to include all these flagrant cases in the one Committee of Inquiry.
§ MR. FITZROY represented a place (Lewes) in the neighbourhood of Horsham, and he thought it would be taxing human nature too much to expect that a constituency would exercise its privileges honourably and independently, if, within a few miles from them, there was allowed to prevail a system of the most undisguised cor- 484 ruption. It was not to be supposed that the Bill introduced by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) with reference to Horsham was a mere matter of form; and if it were not, it was a monstrous proposition to ask the House, in the face of the inquiry which was to be instituted, to issue a writ, and so defeat the only object which they could have in view in undertaking the investigation. The House would also be guilty of the most palpable inconsistency in proceeding to-day upon a principle which they had negatived yesterday in refusing the writ for Derby. The public would give them no credit for sincerity if they did not now reject the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire.
§ VISCOUNT COURTENAY, as Chairman of the Committee upon the Horsham election, desired to explain the circumstances of the case. As far as the charge of treating was concerned, the Committee considered that they were in a position to come to a decision; but they did not think that the evidence before them was sufficient to justify them to make a special report to the House upon the case. They had the agents of the sitting Members examined, and the Committee were unanimously of opinion that nothing had appeared in evidence to justify them in the belief that the course adopted by the parties was the result of a corrupt compromise. The Committee therefore left it to the pleasure of the House to adopt what course might seem the most advisable. Had the issuing of the writ been moved for before the notice of the noble Lord, he would certainly have voted for it; but now tie circumstances were materially changed, and he should now vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton.
§ LORD J. RUSSELL: The House having come to a decision yesterday to suspend the writ for the borough of Derby, and it being proposed that a Commission should issue to inquire into all these cases, I would advise the House now not to issue any of these writs. With regard to the Bill which I have brought in, I purpose that that should stand over in order that we may see the Bill of the hon. Member (Sir J. Hanmer); and if the Commission which he proposes will include Horsham, I am inclined to think that that may be the most desirable course of investigating the matter.
§ SIR J. HANMER said, that he would at once, by way of Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, move for leave to bring in a Bill to 485 appoint Commissioners to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at elections for certain boroughs. He proposed to follow the precedent of the Sudbury case, adding only a clause to give the Bill a permanent application, so that the House might, as cases arose, bring its provisions into force by a resolution of the House.
§ The EARL of LINCOLN observed, that he had only one single word to say, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He had understood the noble Lord to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint would include Horsham in the Bill of which he had given notice. Now he thought that this was a most questionable proceeding. In the cases of Yarmouth and Derby special reports had been presented, calling the attention of the House to a systematic course of bribery and treating in those boroughs; but no such proceedings had taken place with respect to Horsham. He thought, therefore, that Horsham ought not to be included in the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Flint. He requested the noble Lord at the head of the Government not to withdraw his Bill until that of the hon. Baronet had been brought before the House.
§ Original Motion negatived.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Bill to appoint Commissioners to inquire into corrupt practices at elections ordered to be brought in.
§ House adjourned at a quarter to Eight o'clock.