THE NORWICH ELECTION PETITION. (Hansard, 24 February 1853)

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, before pro-ceding to call the attention of the House to the subject of which he had given notice, he had a petition to present from Colonel Dickson, a candidate for the representation of Norwich. He would move that it be read by the clerk.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he now rose; to call the attention of the House to a breach of its privileges by the unauthorised withdrawal of the petition presented against the return of the sitting Members for the city of Norwich. He considered that the subject of which he had given notice was one which demanded the serious attention of the House, not only because it involved a contempt and a breach of the privileges of that House, but because it also involved an infringement of what had been always considered the sacred right of the people to petition that House for the redress of their grievances. If the House agreed to the Motion with which he would conclude, and called Colonel Dickson, the petitioner, and certain other parties to the bar it would appear, he believed, that a 550 breach of privilege and a contempt of the House had been committed.

§ MR. WILSON PATTEN
rose to order. He wished to take Mr. Speaker's opinion whether this question really involved a breach of privilege.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he also rose to order, because it was impossible to tell whether there had been a breach of privilege until he had made his statement. He (Mr. Duncombe) knew very well that an attempt would be made to strangle this Motion; and he hoped that the independent part of the House would prevent their Chairman of Ways and Means from using his ways and moans to swamp this petition, and to preclude him (Mr. Duncombe) from stating his case. He undertook to prove, by witnesses at the bar of the House, that not only a breach of its privileges but a gross fraud had been committed by a Parliamentary Agent—a person appointed by the House itself; and if he succeeded in proving that, if the House wished to retain one particle of public respect, the House must not only visit with its displeasure the guilty parties, but must grant redress to those who in the most constitutional manner—by petition—had laid their grievance before the House and claimed protection at its hands. He therefore appealed to the Chair to know whether he was to be allowed to proceed with his statement.

§ MR. SPEAKER
would say, on the point of order, that if the petition of the parties, which had been read by the clerk at the table, contained all the facts of the case, a breach of the privileges of the House was not involved in its allegations, although, no doubt, it alleged that the agent had acted acted most improperly in withdrawing the original petition. If, however, the hon. Member for Finsbury had any further facts to adduce, of course he (Mr. Speaker) could not say whether they might not involve a breach of the privileges of the House.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
continued: The petition did not contain all that he meant to bring before the House. He confessed that his attention had been drawn to this subject by an advertisement which appeared in the morning papers of Wednesday, which was as follows:— TO THE CONSERVATIVE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF NORWICH. Gentlemen—It was with the utmost astonishment that I observed by the morning journals that your petitions against the sitting Members for the city of Norwich had been withdrawn. it 551 is, however, highly gratifying to me to he informed that this act has been perpetrated without your knowledge or consent. I hastened to require Mr. Brown, the Parliamentary Agent, to explain this most unwarrantable proceeding, but all that I could learn from him was that he 'had done it for the good of the party.' Gentlemen, as a candidate for the honour of representing you in the Commons House of Parliament, I denounce this most scandalous and political piece of jobbery, thus compromising, as it does, your interests, and that of the party to which you belong. Be assured no effort on my part will be withheld to obtain the restoration of the petitions to their legitimate place, for the purpose of having them dealt with by a Committee of the House of Commons.—I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your most obedient servant, LOTHIAN S. DICKSON. 10, Stanhope Terrace, Hyde Park Gardens, Feb. 19. He (Mr. Duncombe) had put himself in communication with Colonel Dickson, to ascertain whether this matter might not be an electioneering hoax, but that gentleman informed him that it was a real bonâ fide case, offering at the same time to come to the bar of the House and prove, not only that a fraud had been committed, but that a breach of the privileges of the House had been perpetrated by the parliamentary agent who withdrew the petition against the return. The House was aware that the Act of Parliament allowed election petitions to be withdrawn, provided notice was given under the hand and signature either of the petitioners themselves or their agent. Now, he found by the Votes that on the 14th instant Mr. Speaker announced to the House that he had received notice from Messrs. Thompson, Debenham, and Co., that the petition against the return for the city of Norwich was not intended to be proceeded with, and consequently the order was discharged. Now, he (Mr. Duncombe) asserted that Mr. Brown was no agent at all; and was it to be permitted that any person could write to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and say that a petition was to be withdrawn without the knowledge or consent of the petitioners, and then go and boast that "he had done a good turn for the Members of West Norfolk by the withdrawal of the election petition for the city of Norwich, and that they had thrown over Dickson?" If this had been done, had no fraud been committed, had no contempt and no breach of the privileges of the House been perpetrated, and ought no redress to be granted to the petitioners? He, therefore, wished to have Colonel Dickson and Mr. Brown examined by the House on this subject, and he would now move, as a 552 first step, that Colonel Dickson be called to the bar.

MR. HUME
said, he quite agreed in everything that had fallen from his hon. Friend as to the necessity of inquiry; but he begged to suggest, as the House had not seen the petition, and had only heard it read by the clerk, that they ought to postpone the consideration of the subject till to-morrow, and that the hon. Member for Finsbury should move that the petition be printed with the Votes, in order that the House might learn the facts of the case.

§ MR. WILSON PATTEN
said, he entirely approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose. He wished to defend himself from the imputation of the hon. Member (Mr. T. Duncombe), that he wished to swamp the petition. The very reverse was his object. It was in order that the petition might not be defeated by improper means, and that it should be introduced with the best chance of success, he had interfered. The best course would be to refer it to the Committee of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) on Corrupt Practices at Elections. The case was clearly not a breach of privilege. The hon. Member said he would state something beyond the contents of the petition; but he had not adduced a single fact in addition to those read by the clerk.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
I will prove them at the bar.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he believed the best course for the House to take was that which had been recommended by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), namely, that the petition should be printed, that the House might have an opportunity of considering it, and then would be the time to consider whether the House ought to deal with the petition itself in the way which the hon. Gentleman proposed, or refer it to a Committee. But it was quite premature now to give any opinion on the question.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, that he had moved that Colonel Dickson be called to the bar.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he thought it would be establishing a very inconvenient precedent if a Motion of this kind were to be brought on as a question of privilege, merely because an hon. Member thought it a question of privilege. From the petition, as it had been read, it appeared to him that Colonel Dickson complained that the party who acted as his agent had withdrawn, without his knowledge or consent, his peti- 553 tion against an undue return for the city of Norwich. Now, the practice was for petitions to be withdrawn by the parties and their agents. Of course the party was bound by the act of his agent; and although it might be a very proper question to inquire into whether the agent had acted without authority, still, as a question of privilege, he did not think that any privilege of the House had been interfered with in the matter.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he was of opinion that the course for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe) to take, in accordance with the suggestion which had fallen from Mr. Speaker, was to move that the petition be printed, and then to give notice of any Motion which he might wish to found upon that petition.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, the question was, had or had not a fraud been committed upon this House?

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he would suggest that the question before the House was not as to whether an act of fraud had been committed, but whether the Motion which the hon. Gentleman had now made could take precedence of the notices of Motion upon the paper. By the Act of Parliament every Parliamentary agent had the power of withdrawing a petition; and, although it might be the duty of the House to inquire into the case, that did not make it a question of privilege. A dangerous precedent would be established if this Motion were allowed to proceed now, and it was one which might cause great interference with the business of the House upon other occasions.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he would not press his Motion now, if the House thought. it inexpedient, but would content himself for the present with moving that the petition be printed with the Votes.