KINGSTON-UPON-HULL ELECTION. (Hansard, 5 April 1853)

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he rose, in pursuance of notice, to move an Address to the Crown for a Commission of Inquiry into the last and former Elections for the Borough of Hull; and although he did not anticipate any objection to his Motion, and that it would not be necessary for him to detain the House at any great length, he thought it was proper that he should in a few words remind the House of the circumstances under which the Motion was made. He was Chairman of the recent Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations in the petition impugning the last return of Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Hull. The result of that inquiry was a Report, which had the effect of unseating Mr. Clay and Lord Goderich. 597 The Committee stated in their Report that it was their unanimous opinion that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, not only at the last election for Hull, but at previous elections for that borough, and that the poorer classes of freemen, in large numbers, were bribed to give their votes at the rate of 30s. each man. In consequence of that Report, he felt it to be his duty to move the suspension of the writ, and he now felt it to be his duty to move for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate all the circumstances attending the last and former elections for that borough. It was most painful for him to make such a Motion, and the House would have a painful duty to discharge in deciding upon so important a town as Hull, containing 80,000 inhabitants, and about 4,000 or 5,000 voters. He thought that the House would agree with him, that, in a case where corrupt practices had extensively prevailed of the description to which he had referred, the magnitude and importance of the particular place should not be permitted to shield it from the discredit of such practices, and, if necessary, from the punishment that should follow. He felt satisfied that the House would not be deterred by the consideration of the great importance of Hull from agreeing to the present Motion. He had observed, in the course of the Session, the most perfect readiness of the House to support their Committees upon questions of this nature. He had no fear but that any one who had taken the trouble to glance at the evidence given before the Committee would be of opinion that they had not come to any rash or precipitate conclusion. The evidence, he admitted, was necessarily of the most superficial and imperfect character. As was usual in such cases, the inquiry was brought to a premature close by the sitting Members giving up their defence as soon as they saw that it was useless to defend their seats any further. The Committee were then left to come to the best conclusions they could upon the evidence they had already heard. If they thought that the termination of this inquiry had been anything like a corrupt compromise between the parties, or if they believed that the evidence then received did not give them abundant ground for applying to the House to ask for a more searching and thorough inquiry through the means of a Commission, he thought that the Committee, under all these disadvantages, would have felt it to be their duty to prosecute 598 their inquiry still further. They had, however, obtained abundant evidence to prove that corrupt practices had prevailed in the borough, not only during the last election, but at previous elections; and they felt that they were therefore fully warranted in asking the House to consent to an Address to the Crown for a Commission of Inquiry, which was a far more stringent and just course to take with a view to a searching investigation into all the circumstances of the case than any Committee of the House of Commons. It appeared, in the first place, that there existed at the last election for the borough, and at almost all former elections, a practice which was perfectly notorious, and which was avowed by all the witnesses, of giving a sum of 30s. to every one of the freemen, who regarded the receipt of that sum as a right which belonged to them. And it appeared that no candidate going down to Hull would have any chance whatever of being returned if he did not follow up this practice. The freemen, however, were not the only parties who were obnoxious to such charges; for amongst the poorer classes of 10l. householders bribery was also practised, though not of so systematic a character as amongst the freemen. Those poorer classes of voters, though they did not receive 30s. each, were, somehow or other, the better for the election. The payments were made to them under certain subterfuges. A committee-room was nominally hired at the houses of those electors, but was never used for such purpose, and the voters were paid a certain sum for apparently the use of such rooms. The evidence before the Committee was not of a very satisfactory character, though he might state that the principal witness was a man steeped in the double infamy of having first sold his vote for 50l., and then of coming voluntarily forward and exposing the transaction. It was also perfectly plain, by the evidence before the Committee, that a most lavish and extensive system of treating prevailed at the last election. He confessed that he was not a purist in matters of this sort, but he could draw a distinction between reasonable refreshment and a system of corrupt treating for the purpose of influencing voters. Public-houses were kept open at all hours. Treating went on in the most barefaced manner for the purpose of influencing the election for Hull. He thought it was highly desirable, as the evidence before the Committee was unsatisfactory and superficial, that a Com- 599 mission should issue in order to investigate upon the spot the whole circumstances of the case. He had reason to believe that it was the desire of the most respectable inhabitants of the town that such a Commission should issue; and if he had not given notice of the Motion, there would have been presented a petition, numerously signed, praying the House to take such a step. He had observed with great satisfaction the prcceedings of the House in regard to election petitions during the present Session. He did not believe that corruption prevailed at the last election to a greater degree than at former elections. On the contrary, he believed that corruption, on the whole, had been greatly diminishing of late years. But greater pains had been recently taken to develop those practices, and an alteration for the better had taken place in public opinion, and in the conduct of the House of Commons. The House, during the present Session, had done much to obtain and to deserve the public confidence. In his notice of Motion he had included the name of Mr. Carpenter Rowe, as one of the Commissioners; but he (Mr. Labouchere) had that day received a letter from that gentleman stating that his professional avocations rendered it impossible for him to serve on the Commission. He (Mr. Labouchere) therefore proposed to substitute the name of Mr. Solly Flood for that of Mr. Rowe.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he thought that the House should perfectly understand the grounds upon which this Commission should issue. The few Commissions that had already issued were issued under circumstances distinctly stated in the Reports of Committees. These circumstances were—first, that the bribery was extensive; and, secondly, that it was systematic. He thought, as a general rule, that those two principles should be recognised as their guide in the issuing of Commissions. In regard to the evidence before the Election Committee for the borough of Hull, he thought that the evidence was clear in showing that the bribery there was both extensive and systematic; and he observed that at the end of the inquiry, when the counsel for the sitting candidates gave up the case, he stated that he did so without any concert with the counsel on the other side; and the counsel on the opposite side stated that he had many more cases of bribery and corruption he could prove. He (Mr. Walpole), therefore, thought that this was a case in which the Commission 600 ought to issue. In reference to the necessity of giving the names of the Commissioners to be nominated beforehand, it appeared that one of them had, unfortunately, declined to act, and that the right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, compelled to substitute another name for the one he had first proposed. He thought that, under the circumstances, it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would give notice of the new name, in order that the House might have the opportunity of considering it. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman, if the House consented to the Address, that notice of the names of the Commissioners should be given before the House was called upon to agree to their appointment.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be most desirable generally to give notice of the names of the Commissioners to be proposed, and he had already given the House such notice; but he had only that day received an intimation that one of the gentlemen whose names he had given would not be able to serve, and it was under those circumstances that he had substituted the name of the other gentleman. If he were now to postpone the nomination of those Commissioners, he would be compelled to postpone his Motion altogether.

§ MR. BANKES
said, he understood that his right hon. Friend had made the observation respecting the necessity of giving notice of the names of the Commissioners, with a view of showing that if he assented to the Motion under the circumstances, such assent was not to be drawn into a precedent. He (Mr. Bankes) had no difficulty in assenting to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton. He thought, in respect to the names of the Commissioners, the rules of the House should be adhered to, as those gentlemen were armed with tremendous powers, and it was therefore most important that none but the most able and efficient men should be appointed.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not insist upon notice being given of the names of all those Commissioners, for the effect would be to postpone the Motion altogether.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he felt it would be putting the right hon. Gentleman to great inconvenience if he were to insist upon the usual notice being given of the 601 name of this one Commissioner; but he hoped that, by assenting to the Motion as it stood, it would not be considered that he was taking an inconsistent course if in future he objected to such a proceeding without due notice.