CHATHAM ELECTION COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 10 March 1853)

MR. LOCKE KING
said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the above Resolution of the Chatham Election Committee; and to move, firstly, that the Attorney General be directed to prosecute the said Stephen Mount for wilful and corrupt perjury; and, secondly, that in all cases in which a Committee shall report there are grounds for believing a witness to be guilty of perjury, the Attorney General be directed to prosecute at once. It was a melancholy fact that there were many witnesses examined before Election Committees who took a solemn oath to tell the truth, but who entered the Committee-room with the fixed determination either to withhold the truth, or to say the very opposite. It had been truly remarked that it was easier to draw blood from a witness before an Election Committee, than the truth. He hoped the House would not allow such things to continue. Justice was now undermined by falsehood, and, unless some effectual check were devised, it would be said that they not merely allowed but almost encouraged perjury. He was on the Bridgenorth Election Committee, and a witness was produced who stated that he was a labouring man and often out of work, and that when at work his wages were 8s. a week; and yet that man was found to have gold in his possession during the election. He accounted for it by saying that when seeking for work he found a 5l. note several weeks previous to the election. He changed it, and kept it till the election. The fact was, that witnesses came into the Committee rooms blackened with bribery and perjury. With regard to the Chatham Election, he considered the House to be greatly indebted to the Committee for the straightforward way in which their Report was made. They stated that, in their opinion, "there were strong grounds for believing that Stephen Mount, in giving his evidence before the Committee, was guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury." The House surely could not require any stronger proof to warrant putting that man on his trial. It was not necessary to wait for the evidence to be printed. With regard to the other part of his Motion—that of directing the Attorney 1433 General, when a Committee reported that there were grounds for believing a witness to be guilty of perjury, to prosecute at once; his object in making that proposition was, if possible, during the time these Committees were sitting, to prevent the recurrence of perjury. If witnesses were certain that a prosecution would immediately follow the act of perjury, it would, in a great measure, check the offence. The question was so simple and clear that he would at once submit his Motion to the House.

§ MR. BRAMSTON
begged, as Chairman of the Chatham Election Committee, to second the Motion. He had not been authorised by the Committee to make a Motion that the witness, Mount, should be prosecuted; at the same time, having heard that evidence, be had not the slightest doubt on his mind, nor did he think any Member of the Committee had, that the man while giving evidence was telling very gross false hoods, and that in point of fact he was guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. He thought it was of very great consequence that the character and dignity of the Election Committees should be held up to the utmost by the House; and that the witnesses and parties should know that they could not come before these tribunals and wilfully tell what was false without incurring the risk of the same punishment as would be inflicted upon them if convicted before any Court of Record in the Kingdom. It was also of great consequence to show witnesses the distinction which existed between Select Committees of Inquiry upstairs, and Committees of the nature of Elect ion Committees, which, by virtue of certain Acts of Parliament, had power to try the issue brought before them, upon oath, and were constituted in all respects as judicial tribunals. They should be made to feel that if they dared to tell falsehoods they would be subject to the severity of the law. He therefore cordially seconded the Motion. At the same time, he very much doubted the expediency of the second Resolution of the hon. Member. He thought it was of great consequence that a Motion for prosecuting a witness for perjury should be made by the Chairman of the Committee, under the direction of the Committee itself, who had beard the evidence and were cognisant of the manner in which it was given. They ought not to fetter the proceedings of these Committees, nor those of the House, by any sweeping and general Resolution of the description proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. L. King). If any 1434 Committee should declare a witness guilty of corrupt perjury, and did not choose to prosecute, there was no doubt many Members would be ready to take the matter up. It was better, therefore, in his opinion, to leave that part of the subject to the independent consideration and decision of the Committees and of the House.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he wished in the first place, to express his most cordial concurrence in the opinion delivered by his hon. Friend (Mr. L. King) as to the fair and impartial manner in which the Election Committees bad performed their duties. It was impossible to do more than common justice to them in saying that they had acted with the greatest impartiality, and, what was still better, had acted with becoming promptitude. He attached as much importance as any man could possibly do to punishing, and thereby preventing, perjury before these Committees, because it was obvious, if witnesses who were brought before Election Committees were permitted to pursue that course of perjury which it appeared some witnesses had systematically pursued, the functions of the House of Commons itself would be entirely defeated, and all the purposes for which these Select Committees were appointed would be entirely frustrated. Therefore it was the duty of the House to visit with every possible degree of severity every case of perjury which could be established against any witness. He therefore entirely concurred with that part of the Motion which directed a prosecution in this case. He believed, according to the ordinary course, it would have been the part of the Committee to resolve that their Chairman should make that Motion. So far as regarded the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion (Mr. Bramston), that the second Resolution should be omitted, he entirely agreed. It would no doubt be right to make good the omission of the Committee in the present case; but with regard to all future cases he thought it would be better to leave it to the Committees to pursue what was the regular course, and not to take out of the bands of the Committees functions which properly belonged to themselves; reserving, of course, to! the House, the power of making good 1435 any case of omission by the Committees of that duty which properly, and according to the usual practice, belonged to them. He therefore would suggest to his hon. Friend to omit the second Resolution: to the first he was sure he would receive the unanimous assent of the House.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
begged to express his full concurrence in what had fallen both from the Chairman of the Committee, and from the noble Lord the Home Secretary. As a Member of that Committee, he regretted that the Chairman did not recommend a prosecution in this case, for there were several other circumstances connected with the evidence which made it appear to him one of the most aggravated cases of perjury that in all his experience he had ever become acquainted with.

MR. LOCKE KING
said, that after the suggestion which had been made to him, he of course should not press the second Resolution; but he could not help expressing his regret that it should be omitted.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he hoped in coming to this Resolution, the House would carefully avoid attacking small men, without at the same time being prepared to attack the great. Among the Sessional Orders he found two, one of which he thought applied quite as much to the man who was unseated for bribery as the other did to the case of the individual then before the House. The Sessional Order, referring to the case of perjury, stated, that if it should appear that any person had given false evidence in any case before the House or before Committees, the House would proceed with the utmost severity against such individuals. He also found it resolved that if it should appear that any person was elected or returned to the House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery or any corrupt practices, the House would proceed with the utmost severity against such person for such corrupt practices. His object was to express his hope that the House would proceed with evenhanded justice in this case; and that this latter Sessional Order would be followed up; and, as Sir Frederick Smith had been found guilty of bribing voters at the Chatham Election, he hoped the Committee would recommend the same course to be pursued with regard to Sir Frederick Smith as was now recommended in the case of Stephen Mount, and that he would be visited by the House with the utmost severity, according to 1436 the terms of the Sessional Order to which he had referred.

§ MR. BRAMSTON
said, the Committee appeared to have been guilty of more than one omission, for they ought to have stated in their report that the witness Mount was called by the petitioners, and not by the Member who was unseated. A misapprehension had gone forth in that respect. The sitting Member having been charged with bribery, and bribery having been proved against him, the evidence of the witness Mount might be considered to have affected him. But that was not the case. Mount's evidence was tendered by the petitioners, and did not at all affect the unseated Member.