NEW WRIT FOR HORSHAM.

HC Deb 11 May 1848 vol 98 cc836-44

MR. GORING rose to move the issuing of a new writ for the borough of Horsham. In his opinion circumstances had very much altered since the House had consented to suspend the writ for that borough. His noble Friend who made a similar Motion upon a previous occasion, withdrew it, on the understanding that the First Minister of the Crown would immediately bring in a Bill upon the subject. The noble Lord took up the subject in such an energetic manner, that it was supposed that the Bill would have gone through the House without much opposition, and the writ was accordingly suspended. But what was the course which the noble Lord subsequently adopted, instead of proceeding with the Bill, which he pledged himself to introduce as regarded Horsham? The noble Lord awaited the introduction of the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Flint, and proposed to include in that the case of Horsham. He considered that a most unconstitutional measure. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth supported the proposition of the noble Lord, on the distinct understanding that no indefinite suspension was intended. He could assure the noble Lord that the electors courted, and by no means feared, the result of any inquiry which might be instituted. The hon. Member moved— That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out 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.

LORD J. RUSSELL: I certainly advised the House not to issue the writ for the borough of Horsham, because I thought it advisable that a full inquiry should take place into the facts of the case. After the proposal which had been made to the House, that inquiries in all cases of a like nature should be conducted by Commissioners, it did seem expedient to me that Horsham should be ranked amongst the other boroughs, and that the inquiries should take place together before a commission, rather than that I should proceed with the case by a separate Bill.

MR. HUDSON said, that the noble Lord had shifted the responsibility of the measure from himself upon a private Member of the House. With regard to the borough of Horsham, if a clear case were made out, there would be no objection to a Bill for disfranchisement; but if it were included in a general Bill, it would become a case quite of another nature, more important interests would be involved, constitutional rights would be called in question, and there would be a powerful opposition to the Bill. If the noble Lord did not speedily promote his measure, the constituency of Horsham would have a right to complain.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he never gave any intimation that if the House suspended the writ, he would take the matter into his hands. The House suspended the writ upon no pledge given by him. The noble Lord moved the issuing of the writ. The hon. Member for Montrose moved as an amendment that the writ do not issue. He (Lord John Russell) then observed, that it was a case of grave suspicion, and one which called for an inquiry. After the House had decided that the writ should not issue, he had been asked to introduce a Bill, to which request he assented.

The EARL of MARCH had understood the noble Lord distinctly to promise the introduction of a Bill, and upon that understanding he withdrew his Motion. As he remembered, the facts of the case were simply these:—He moved that the writ should issue; the hon. Member for Montrose moved as an Amendment that it should he suspended. The noble Lord, who came in late, got up and said that the circumstances of the case demanded inquiry, and therefore that it was necessary that the issue of the writ should be suspended for a time. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth inquired whether the suspension should be for an indefinite period? The noble Lord informed him that it should only be while the Bill was being brought in. Upon that understanding he withdrew his Motion. He considered that it would not be discreet in him to press his Motion after the opinions which had been given by the the noble Lord, supported as they were by the right hon. Member for Tamworth. He considered that by this postponement the electors of Horsham had not been fairly treated, and he would support the Motion that a writ do now issue.

MR. HUME considered that the establishment of a general Commission would be very beneficial, as it would save the expense to the boroughs of having to send up witnesses to London. The business could be done in a much cheaper manner by sending down two Gentlemen to make the necessary inquiries. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland might consider that it was very unimportant whether an inquiry should take place in one borough; but it certainly was a matter of consequence to the nation that these acts of bribery, which were of frequent occurrence in different boroughs, should be inquired into. It was his opinion that Her Majesty's Government were taking the proper course, and that the inquiry to be made before the Commission would be attended with the proper result.

MR. F. O'CONNOR was as anxious that abuses should be inquired into as any man, but he must protest against the proposal to select a few boroughs out of a number, in order to strike an average of the amount of corruption in each. The proposition of the Government resembled the fact of trying eight men, on the same evidence, for different offences, and then striking an average of guilt for each. He did not see how they could, in any justice, include the several boroughs in one indictment. There ought to be a separate inquiry for each.

SIR GEORGE GREY: The hon. Member is quite mistaken when he says it is the intention of the Government to include these boroughs in the one indictment; all we want to do is to establish one tribunal before which the different cases can be tried.

MR. MANGLES trusted that the House would not stop with the cases which had been brought before them. He hoped they would go further. Every Member of the House knew that in almost every small borough throughout the country, say of from 500 to 550 voters, about 220 voters were sincere and honest Tories or Conservatives, and the same number Liberals or Whigs; and there were between forty and fifty dishonest men who could turn the scale either way, and were disposed to sell the election to whatever party chose to buy. However they might shut their eyes to the fact, every person knew that it was the case, and that there was no chance of getting the election unless with the assistance of these men. It was very gross hypocrisy for hon. Gentlemen to appear so excessively shocked when a case of bribery was brought before them, for they were well aware that conduct such as he had described was pursued in almost every small borough. The hon. Member for Cocker-mouth shook his head, as if his borough was pure par excellence. He was willing to concede so much to him; but he earnestly hoped the Government would take measures for throwing the smaller boroughs into larger ones, thus enlarging the constituency, and thus preventing these men from selling the country.

MR. JOHN STUART wished to know whether the Government could either explain or justify the course which they had taken with respect to the borough of Horsham and the other boroughs involved in the Bill of the hon. Baronet. He contended that the course which was proposed to be taken was unconstitutional with regard to the House, and not creditable to the Government. If the Government meant to do justice in punishing the offences, they could not do so by inquiring all over the kingdom where similar offences had been committed, but by applying themselves to one case of gross delinquency when they found it out. The question now before the House related only to the borough of Horsham. He was persuaded that the House would consider the Bill most unconstitutional, and that the borough of Horsham had been treated most unfairly.

SIR R. H. INGLIS said, that they had received reports from seven Select Committees, more or less impugning the purity of election. In seven of these cases new writs had been moved for and granted, and he did not see in the case of Horsham, upon what grounds of justice they ought to refuse it. He trusted that his hon. Friend would divide the House in favour of the issue of a new writ; if he did so he would support him.

MR. STAFFORD did not see why they should suspend the issuing of the writ in consequence of some conversation which took place outside a tavern door. An ostler and a potboy had been summoned to prove a case of treating, and then the defendant resigned the seat. Who those mysterious persons were, the Committee did not determine. A sufficient case had not been made out for depriving the electors of their privilege of a representative, and he would support the Motion of his hon. Friend, especially as, should the case be suspended in order to its being included in a general Bill, there would be little chance of the question being decided for a long time. They were all aware that a private Member had very little chance, at that late period of the Session, to press on a Bill, especially if it were keenly opposed.

LORD J. RUSSELL said: I have been asked what is the course I intend to pursue with regard to this Bill. I shall wait until the discussion takes place upon the measure of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Sir J. Hanmer); if that measure succeeds and includes Horsham in its schedule, I shall accept it; but if otherwise, I shall go on with the Bill which I have proposed.

SIR J. HANMER was willing to bring on his Bill at any time.

MR. HENLEY observed, that if the hon. Gentleman intended to get his Bill through at all, his best course would be to withdraw it at present, and then to bring in a new measure. The people of Horsham were hanging between heaven and earth, between the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who would not go on with his Bill, and the hon. Gentleman opposite, who would not go on with his.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that with respect to the Amendments which had been introduced into the Bill, they involved no alteration in the principle of the measure, which involved an inquiry into all cases in which the House had reason to suspect that corrupt practices had prevailed, by means of a Commission, which was to be sent down; in each instance, to institute an inquiry on the spot. This was the principle of the Bill. The machinery by which it was proposed to carry out this system was complicated and delicate, and many suggestions had been made for its improvement. As these suggestions, however, refereed in great part, if not entirely, to matters of detail, he thought that the second reading might be taken now, and the Bill could be more particularly discussed as to detail, in Committee on a future occasion

SIR R. PEEL had great doubts as as to the propriety of suspending the writ for Horsham. He thought that the case was one into which they ought to make inquiry; but he had some doubts, from the nature of the report of the Committee, as to the suspension of the writ. When, however, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that in his opinion there should be further inquiry, he certainly considered that declaration on the part of the noble Lord as entitled to carry very great weight, and he had therefore consented to the suspension of the writ. This he had done under the impression that the noble Lord had so spoken, intending himself to institute an inquiry; and he must say that when the noble Lord the Member for Sussex asked whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government intended to institute an immediate inquiry, that he (Sir R. Peel) understood that such was the intention of the noble Lord; and the noble Lord the Member for Sussex had, he believed, withdrawn his Motion upon that ground. He would have had very great reluctance in consenting to a postponement in the issue of the writ, if the borough of Horsham had been left to be dealt with by the Bill of the hon. Gentleman, and if no day had been fixed for the consideration of that Bill. He understood, however, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give up Thursday next to the hon. Gentleman for the second reading of the measure. Still he feared that even this arrangement would fail to solve the difficulties which might arise upon the question. Many important subjects of discussion might be mooted in the Committee; for instance, the extent to which the inquiry should be carried, leaving the fate of Horsham undecided for a lengthened period. He was willing to consent to the further suspension of the writ for the purpose of inquiry; but what he would suggest, as the most desirable course, would be for the Government to undertake the conduct of the Bill by means of which the inquiry was to be made. This he recommended, feeling most strongly that the indefinite suspension of writs was a source of very great evil. Were the hon. Gentleman to attempt to carry through his own Bill, he would find that there were very great difficulties in his way, and considering that Wednesday was the only day on which the her. Gentleman could bring forward his measure, he did think that the hon. Gentleman would have great difficulty in conducting his Bill to any satisfactory conclusion. Considering then that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had already been consulted upon the Bill as to the drawing up of the new clauses, he put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would be any addition to his trouble were he himself, on the part of the Government, to undertake to bring forward the Bill and support its clauses, instead of allowing his arguments and information to be filtered through the hon. Baronet, who at present had charge of the Bill?

MR. J. E. DENISON said, that it would not be satisfactory to the House to leave the matter in the hands of any individual Member of Parliament. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham would not press the House to a division on the present occasion; but if after Thursday next some satisfactory conclusion should not be arrived at, he would not withhold his vote from the Motion for the issuing of the writ.

MR. GORING hoped that the House would not mete out to Horsham a different measure of justice from that apportioned to the other six boroughs the purity of which had been called in question, but for which writs had been issued.

House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 167: Majority 94.

List of the AYES.	Baldock, E. H.	Hope, Sir J.
Benbow, J.	Houldsworth, T.
Bentinck, Lord H.	Hudson, G.
Beresford, W.	Hughes, W. B.
Blackstone, W. S.	Ingestre, Visct.
Bolling, W.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Bowles, Adm.	Kildare, Marq. of
Bramston, T. W.	Lascelles, hon. E.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Lockhart, A. E.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Burroughes, H. N.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Christopher, R. A.	Macnaghten, Sir E.
Christy, S.	Mandeville, Visct.
Cobbold, J. C.	Masterman, J.
Colvile, C. R.	Meux, Sir H.
Conolly, Col.	Miles, P. W. S.
Cubitt, W.	Miles, W.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Napier, J.
Dundas, G.	Newdegate, C. N.
East, Sir J. B.	Newport, Visct.
Forbes, W.	O'Brien, Sir L.
Frewen, C. H.	O'Connor, F.
Fuller, A. E.	Prime, R.
Galway, Visct.	Repton, G. W. J.
Godson, R.	Robinson, G. R.
Greene, T.	Seymer, H. K.
Halsey, T. P.	Sibthorp, Col.
Hamilton, G. A.	Sidney, Ald.
Harris, hon. Capt.	Smyth, J. G.
Henley, J. W.	Somerset, Capt.
Herbert, H. A.	Stafford, A.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Stuart, J.
Hildyard, R. C.	Sturt, H. G.
Hildyard, T. B. T.	Taylor, T. E.
Hodgson, W. N.	Walsh, Sir J. B.

West, F. R.	TELLERS.
Willoughby, Sir H.	March, Earl of
Wynn, Sir W. W.	Goring, C.
List of the NOES.	Abdy, T. N.	Hawes, B.
Anderson, A.	Hay, Lord J.
Bagshaw, J.	Hayes, Sir E.
Baines, M. T.	Hayter, W. G.
Barnard, E. G.	Heywood, J.
Bell, J.	Hindley, C.
Bellew, R. M.	Hobhouse, T. B.
Bernal, R.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Blake, M. J.	Howard, hon. E. G. G.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Hume, J.
Bowring, Dr.	Humphery, Ald.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Hutt, W.
Bright, J.	Jackson, W.
Brotherton, J.	Kershaw, J.
Brown, W.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Buller, C.	Langston, J. H.
Buxton, Sir E. N.	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Carter, J. B.	Lewis, G. C.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Lincoln, Earl of
Charteris, hon. F. W.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Clay, J.	Loch, J.
Clay, Sir W.	Lushington, C.
Clements, hon. C. S.	M'Cullagh, W. T.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Maitland, T.
Clifford, H. M.	Mangles, R. D.
Cochrane, A.D.R.W.B.	Marshall, J. G.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Marshall, W.
Craig, W. G.	Martin, J.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Matheson, Col.
Dashwood, G. H.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Melgund, Visct.
Denison, W. J.	Mitchell, T. A.
Denison, J. E.	Monsell, W.
Divett, E.	Morris, D.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Moyston, hon. E. M. L.
Drumlanrig, Visct.	Mowatt, F.
Duncan, Visct.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Duncan, G.	Muntz, G. F.
Duncuft, J.	Norreys, Lord
Dundas, Adm.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Dundas, Sir D.	O'Connell, M. J.
Ellice, rt. hon. E.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Ellice, E.	Palmerston, Visct.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Parker, J.
Estcourt, J. B. B.	Patten, J. W.
Evans, W.	Pattison, J.
Ewart, W.	Pearson, C.
Fellowes, E.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Fergus, J.	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. J.	Perfect, R.
Foley, J. H. H.	Pilkington, J.
Fordyce, A. D.	Power, N.
Fortescue, hon. J. W.	Pugh, D.
Fox, R. M.	Rawdon, Col.
Fox, W. J.	Ricardo, O.
Freestun, Col.	Rich, H.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Richards, R.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W.E.	Romilly, J.
Glyn, G. C.	Russell, Lord J.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Russell, F. C. H.
Grenfell, C. P.	Rutherfurd, A.
Grenfell, C. W.	Salwey, Col.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Sandars, G.
Grey, R. W.	Simeon, J.
Guest, Sir J.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Hall, Sir B.	Smith, M. T.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F.	Smith, J. B.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Somerville, rt. hn.Sir W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.	Wall, C. B.
Stanton, W. H.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Strickland, Sir G.	Watkins, Col.
Stuart, Lord D.	Wawn, J. T.
Tancred, H. W.	Westhead, J. P.
Tennent, R. J.	Willcox, B. M.
Thicknesse, R. A.	Williams, J.
Thompson, Col.	Williamson, Sir H.
Thompson, G.	Wilson, J.
Thornely, T.	Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Towneley, C.	Wrightson, W. B.
Towneley, J.	Wyld, J.
Townshend, Capt.	Wyvill, M.
Traill, G.	Yorke, H. G. R.
Tynte, Col.	TELLERS.
Verney, Sir H.	Tufnell, H.
Vivian, J. H.	Hill, Lord M.

Motion negatived.