ST. ALBANS ELECTION. (Hansard, 7 April 1851)

HC Deb 07 April 1851 vol 115 cc1117-21 1117

§ MR. SPEAKER
acquainted the House, that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House bad a communication to make to the House.
Whereupon the Serjeant at the Bar informed the House, that on Saturday the 5th instant, he received into his custody the body of William Lines, by virtue of warrant from the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of St. Alban, on a charge of prevarication and misbehaviour before the said Committee, and with directions to keep him in custody till Twelve of the clock on Tuesday the 8th instant; and that he was this day served with a Writ of Habeas Corpus, requiring him to make a Return to the said Writ at half-past Three this day, to which Order he had made no Return, deeming it his duty in the first instance to ascertain the pleasure of the House; and he delivered in the said Writ and the Notice, which were read.

§ SIR G. GREY moved that the warrant under which the person alluded to had been committed, be read at the table, for at present the House was not in possession of the circumstances under which the committal had taken place.

MR. EDWARD ELLICE
informed the House, That William Lines had, on Saturday last, been guilty of great prevarication in his examination before the Committee, and that he had, by direction of the Committee, by Warrant under his hand, committed the said William Lines to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, to await the pleasure of the House.

MR. EDWARD ELLICE
further informed the House, that the witness, William Lines, had been brought before the Committee this day, in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, and had answered, to the satisfaction of the Com- 1118 mittee, all questions, which the Committee thought he was bound to answer.

MR. EDWARD ELLICE
further informed the House, that it appears on evidence taken before the Committee, that George Sealey Waggett, who is declared by the Counsel for the Petitioners to be a most essential witness for the elucidation of their case, has evaded all attempts to secure his attendance before the Committee; that a reward has been offered for his discovery, both in the Times and in the Hue-and-Cry publications; and that one John Hay ward has, in conjunction with one Henry Edwards, prevented the attendance of the said George Sealey Waggett, and that money has been given by the said John Hayward and the said Henry Edwards to the said George Sealey Waggett, to induce him to abstain from giving evidence before the Committee; the Committee have therefore instructed him to report the circumstances to the House, in order that the House may take such steps as may seem to the House to be proper and necessary.
With respect to William Lynes, who had this morning been brought up and answered the questions, although he had either prevaricated or refused to answer before, yet having now answered the questions satisfactorily, he moved that he be discharged from the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms.

§ Ordered— That William Lines be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, without payment of Fees.

MR. EDWARD ELLICE
then said, he had a Motion to make with respect to the other persons named—George Seeley Waggett, John Hayward, and Henry Edwards. It had been distinctly proved before the Committee that Waggett had knowingly abstained from giving evidence before the Committee, and had concealed himself for the purpose of avoiding the service of their summons. It had also been proved that Hayward and Edwards were parties to his concealment, and had conjointly given him money to induce him to absent himself. He therefore moved, in accordance with the precedent in the Shrewsbury case, that George Seeley Waggett, John Hayward, and Henry Edwards, be respectively taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending the House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly. Perhaps there might be some difficulty with 1119 respect to the case of the two parties who had given money to Waggett to induce him to absent himself. It might be a question whether the House should not vote them guilty of a Breach of Privilege. But with regard to Waggett there should he no doubt that he was wilfully concealing himself to avoid the service of the summons which had been issued.

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
said, he thought the House ought to pause for a day at least before agreeing to the Motion which had just been made by the hon. Member. He admitted in the fullest sense the accuracy of the statement which the hon. Member, on the part of the Committee, had made to the House. But still, he apprehended, it required written evidence—a Report of the Committee—to justify the House in interfering with the liberties of these parties. He did not understand that there had been a Report from the Committee.

MR. EDWARD ELLICE
said, the document he had produced was the unanimous Report of the Committee.

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
thought it had been simply a Motion.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that it was a Motion on the Report of the Committee.

MR. EDWARD ELLICE
said, he had brought up the Report of the Committee, and it was in pursuance of that Report that he had made the Motion.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, the question was, whether any power which the House possessed would be lost by a little delay. It was quite clear that this person ought not to be allowed to get beyond the jurisdiction of the House: and if that was not likely to be the case, he thought it would be desirable to have the Report printed. He would suggest the propriety of adjourning the further consideration of the matter until to-morrow, when the Report might be in the hands of hon. Members. He did not know whether the Chairman of the Committee concurred in that suggestion.

MR. EDWARD ELLICE
said, it was not for him to dictate to the House the course which it ought to take; but the Committee, not being lawyers, were placed in a very difficult situation as regarded the course to be taken with respect to these persons: it was for the House to decide. He had merely reported on behalf of the Committee the circumstances which they had thought it right to state to the House, and on which they had founded their instructions to ask for the apprehension of these parties. He believed the Speaker's 1120 warrant would have more effect than any summons issued by the Committee.

§ MR. T. GREENE
said, there could be no doubt that parties giving money to keep witnesses away, and prevent them from giving evidence which they were bound to give, were guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House, and that being the case, he could not see the necessity of abstaining from taking immediate proceedings.

§ SIR B. HALL
said, the Committee, after due deliberation, had decided that the proper course was to make a Motion, in order that the case might be taken into full consideration by the House.

§ MR. H. E. ADAIR
said, the evidence brought before the Committee was such as would convince hon. Members, if it were laid before them, that the Committee had done no more than their duty.

§ MR. SOTHERON
said, it appeared to him they ought without delay to vote that this was a Breach of Privilege. He moved that George Sealey Waggett, Henry Edwards, and John Hay ward have been guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of this House.

§ SIR CLERK
said, there could be no doubt that if these parties had been instrumental in keeping another party out of the way, they were guilty of a Breach of Privilege. In the case of the Ipswich election, in 1835, a great number of persons were charged with being instrumental in keeping others out of the way, and they were declared guilty of a Breach of Privilege. The only difference between the two cases was this—that the Ipswich Committee made their Report respecting the Breach of Privilege at the time they finally reported determining the merits. The present, he believed, was the first instance in which a Committee had felt called upon to make a special report in consequence of their inability to obtain witnesses. There could be no doubt as. to the propriety of the House declaring that persons instrumental in removing witnesses from the jurisdiction of the Committee were guilty of a Breach of Privilege.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
did not think there could be any doubt that parties instrumental in thus removing witnesses were guilty of a Breach of Privilege and contempt of the House.

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
said, that they were not only guilty of a Breach of Privilege, but of breaking the law of the land.

MR. EDWARD ELLICE
wished to remind the House that there was a difference 1121 the two cases. He thought the absent witness was in a different position from the other parties. There could be no doubt that the latter two had been guilty of a Breach of Privilege, inasmuch as they had induced the other man to disobey the orders of the Committee. With respect to the other party, he would leave it to others more experienced in the practice of the House to say whether he had been guilty of a Breach of Privilege.

§ SIR G. CLERK
said, that, in the Ipswich case, a person who had been induced by other parties to keep out of the way, was declared guilty of a Breach of Privilege.

§ Resolved— That George Sealey Waggett, having evaded all attempts to secure his attendance before the said Committee, and John Hayward and Henry Edwards having prevented his attendance before the said Committee, have been severally guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House. Ordered— That George Sealey Waggett, John Hayward, and Henry Edwards, having been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House, be for their said offence taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that, when the parties were taken into custody, of course they would be ordered to attend at the bar of the House.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, the first matter to which the attention of the House had been called was now comparatively unimportant, as the House had ordered the discharge of the prisoner. But some course must be taken in consequence of the issuing of the writ of habeas corpus. He would, therefore, move that the Serjeant-at-Arms be directed to make a return to the said writ, stating that he held the party by virtue of the warrant of the Committee of the House of Commons, and that he should annex the warrant to the return. As the proceeding had taken place under an Act of Parliament, and it was not a case of Privilege, there could be no objection to the return being made in the usual form.

§ Ordered— That the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House be directed to make a Return to the said Writ, that he held the body of William Lines by virtue of a Warrant under the hand of the Chairman of the Select Committee of this House, appointed to try and determine the merits of the Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of St. Alban, and that he do annex the said Warrant to this Return.