HC Deb 15 March 1853 vol 125 cc233-46
COLONEL FORSTER

said, he would now beg to move that a new writ be issued for the borough of Bridgenorth. The discussion which had just taken place on the subject of the Blackburn petition had exhausted so many of the topics which similar questions were likely to originate, that he did not feel it incumbent on him to trespass at any length on the attention of the House. He would simply content himself with reading the Report of the Committee, which was to the following effect:— We find that Henry Whitmore, esquire, was duly elected to serve as a burgess at the last election for the borough of Bridgenorth. We find that Sir Robert Pigot was not duly elected as a burgess at the last election for the borough of Bridgenorth. We find that the last election for the borough of Bridgenorth was a void election so far as regards Sir Robert Pigot. We find that the said Sir Robert Pigot was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the said Election. We find that one Joseph Mason was bribed at the said election by a bribe of 10l., but that he was not so bribed with the knowledge of the said Sir Robert Pigot. The petition against one of the candidates was pronounced frivolous and vexatious, and not more than one case of alleged bribery had been proved, although many had been investigated. He hoped that the House would perceive the propriety of acceding to the Motion which he now made for the issue of the writ.

Motion made, and Question proposed— 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 Bridgenorth, in the room of Sir Robert Pigot, baronet, whose Election has been determined to be void.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, it appeared to him this case stood in a very different position to that of Blackburn. The electors, by petition, alleged that gross bribery and intimidation were carried on at the last and at previous elections for Bridgenorth, and that the public-houses were generally open at the last election, and "treating" was going on in every direction. He thought it would be of very little use giving time, if, when a petition was sent up to that House, they did not appoint a Committee to inquire into its allegations. The evidence in the Bridgenorth case was now before them. He had taken some pains to read it through. He did not know whether, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, it was a strong case or not; but it seemed, to borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Dorchester, that certain little frailties were exposed; and while at Cambridge the talismanic words were "all right," at Bridge-north "let me see you again" was pretty generally understood to imply a 10l. note. He thought that there was here a case made out for inquiry. The hon. Member for the borough (Mr. Whitmore) had told them on one occasion that Bridgenorth was perfectly pure and immaculate. Now, that might be the case so far as he was concerned; for all the witnesses agreed that such was the influence of his property that bribery on his part was altogether unnecessary. But Sir Robert Pigot was not in possession of the same influence. He was put to greater difficulty in obtaining a seat, and he had to resort to unfair means. It seemed, indeed, that at Bridgenorth there was a regular system of bribery, treating, and intimidation. As the House had given the borough an opportunity of petitioning, and as that opportunity had been taken by a portion of the inhabitants, he maintained that it was their duty to appoint a Committee to inquire into the allegations of that petition. He believed that the result would be found to be that Bridge-north was one of those little boroughs where one seat was always secured to a neighbouring proprietor, where the other was open to a contest, and where there was a party who, for the good of the people in general, and of the publicans in particular, always took care to bring forward a third man. He would, therefore, move the Amendment of which he had given notice.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider the allegations contained in the Petition from certain Electors at Bridgenorth [presented 10th March], complaining of corrupt practices at the last and former Elections at Bridgenorth,' instead thereof.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

seconded the Amendment.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that the discussion in the case of Blackburn had very much cleared the way for the consideration of the present case. It had been admitted on all hands, in the course of the previous discussion, that it ought to be laid down as a general rule that where a Member was unseated without a special Report from the Committee a new writ should necessarily be issued without further inquiry, unless some special circumstances were adduced to justify delay. The question, then, which the House had now to consider was, whether there were any special circumstances in the present case to justify them in making an exception to the general rule. He begged to say, as the Chairman of the Bridgenorth Committee, that in his opinion there was nothing whatever to justify them in making an exception to the general rule in the present case. Most certainly there was nothing in the evidence which had been laid before the Committee which would justify them in adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley). He might mention that the Committee were so anxious to extract the truth in this matter, that they brought forward a witness who had not been called by either of the parties in the case—he alluded to Mr. Charlton Whitmore, the brother of the sitting Member, and who represented the borough for twenty years. Mr. Whitmore was asked— In the course of your knowledge of the borough, are you aware whether there was any headmoney given to the freemen? He replied— I think not. I never heard of such a thing. As far as I know the borough, I may be allowed to say that, unless this eating and driking is to be considered in the light of bribery, I never heard of any cases of bribery in Bridgenorth, nor of any payments of money being demanded or made; and, during the twenty years I represented Bridgenorth, I was never, directly or indirectly, asked for money, except on one occasion. This testimony was substantiated, as far as it could be, by the other evidence which was brought before the Committee. Before resolving to appoint another Select Committee, as proposed by the hon. Member for Westminster, it would be well for the House to consider who was to prosecute the inquiry? where were the funds to be procured for its prosecution? who was to appear in opposition to it? who was to examine, and who to cross-examine the witnesses? for it ought to be remembered that a strong primâ facie case was not unfrequently knocked to pieces by a clever cross-examination by the counsel on the other side. So far as he could see, no party would be sufficiently interested in appearing before the Committee and taking up the case of the borough, and defending its rights. As far as regarded the allegation of bribery, it would be quite useless to appoint a Committee. No evidence whatever of the existence of treating had been laid before the Committee. It was quite true that, owing to a technical objection, the Committee was in the first instance precluded from investigating the charge of treating; but, though an opportunity was afterwards afforded to counsel of doing so, they did not avail themselves of it. And here, perhaps, he might take the liberty of suggesting that it was very desirable the Committee should have power to go into the question of treating independent of the question of agency. But the fact was, as he had said, that no evidence of treating was attempted to be submitted to the Committee, and he did not believe that any extensive treating had prevailed in the borough. And Mr. Charlton Whitmore, in his evidence, stated the reason why. With reference to the election of 1847 he was asked— Are you aware whether there was any treating or any open houses at that election? He said— I was then in a position to act upon my own responsibility, and I determined to stop the thing entirely—to brave the consequences; and, in order that there should be no mistake about it, I served those notices which you have heard of. Mr. Whitmore, it appeared, had issued notices that he would pay no public-house bills. He added— Bills were presented to me after the election, which I refused to pay, and they have never been paid to this hour. He was afterwards asked— Did that continue to a late period? He replied— It was curtailed at every election. I endeavoured to persuade those who had the power of stopping it to do so, and it was diminished election after election; and, when I had the power of acting solely on my own responsibility, I determined to brave the consequences and stop the thing altogether; and I succeeded. I am only speaking of myself, of course. He (Mr. Bouverie) believed that this was substantially the case. He believed that guzzling did exist in former times, but that since the passing of the Reform Bill, the practice had been gradually waning, and that now it had, if not altogether, at least very nearly, expired. So much for the fact. But there was a more material objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Westminster, and it was this, that supposing a Committee was appointed, and a Report actually presented to the effect that there had been a general system of treating in the borough, the House could proceed no further. They could not found a Motion upon it for an Address to the Crown to issue a Commission of Inquiry, inasmuch as treating was entirely excluded from the operation of the Bill of last Session. On these grounds he should support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Wenlock for the issuing of the writ.

MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH

said, the hon. Member for Westminster had, in the former discussion, used one unfortunate expression, when he talked of going beyond the powers of the Committee. On the present occasion he had used an expression still more unfortunate, when he said he wished the House to go beyond its own powers. He had no objection to this petition being referred to a Committee, but he could not sanction the suspension of the constitutional rights of the borough. He had gone over the evidence as attentively as he could, considering the short time it had been in his possession, and he had satisfied himself that there was no ground for the suspension of the writ. He had no hesitation in saying that, in his view of the case, the Committee ought to have found that the petition against the return of Sir Robert Pigot was frivolous and vexatious; and that, inasmuch as their decision was the reverse of this, it was not a correct decision.

MR. COBDEN

said, he wished to know whether there was a dozen of Members in the House really ignorant of the true state of the borough which was then under discussion? He held in his hand a little book with which they were all familiar, and which gave an account of the various boroughs in the kingdom, and under the head of "Bridgenorth" he found a description of that borough among the rest. He referred, of course, to Dod's Parliamentary Companion, which was an authoritative book among them. After stating that the borough returned two Members, and that there were 717 registered electors, Mr. Dod added, "in some degree under the influence of the Whitmore family." Now, that was the mild way in which Dod made up his genteel little volume. Should he (Mr. Cobden) remind the House of what was said of the borough before the Committee? He was astonished that his hon. Friend (Sir J. Shelley) had not quoted the passage he was going to read, for he observed he had marked it broadly enough. Mr. Cadogan, the unsuccessful candidate at the last election, having been sworn and examined, gave the following description of the borough:— I certainly shall not stand again, unless they assent to a Liberal being there. The Whitmore interest may get any one into the seat they please. They might return their own footman, if they liked. This was the description that had been given of the borough by an hon. Gentle- man who had canvassed it, but which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie), who presided over the Committee, had apparently forgotten. Now, he (Mr. Cobden) wanted to know whether the House considered our representative system a reality or not; whether they thought the people who lived at Bridgenorth had a right to send to that House anybody they pleased, or whether they were bound to send only those whom "the Whitmore interest" pleased—if it should even be "their own footman?" [Cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"] That was the question before the House, and they would not divide until they had discussed it. His hon. Friend who had presided over the Committee (Mr. Bouverie) seemed to be under great apprehension that, even if a Committee were appointed, no evidence would be obtained. Why, how was evidence obtained by every Committee? The House was, of course, put to the expense of procuring witnesses; the Committee, consisting of Gentlemen of all shades of opinion, examined and cross-examined them, and although a little clumsily, perhaps, he believed that a Select Committee was on the whole a very good ordeal for bringing out the whole truth. He held in his hand a letter from Bridgenorth, in which a hope was held out that ample evidence would be forthcoming if the House would only furnish the opportunity. The letter was written by a respectable person. [Cries of "Name!"] No, it was not necessary to give the name. He (Mr. Cobden) would give the statement on his own authority as a Member of that House. He says— Many reasons may be given why more names were not attached to the petition. In the first place, the time was short; in the second, the Whitmore tenantry were afraid to sign; third, the publicans are a numerous body in Bridgenorth, and few of them would sign for purity; and, fourth, we have many among us who hesitate to do anything that would expose the borough to disgrace. Then, depend upon it, there are many implicated who do not want to expose themselves. Can we expect the signatures of persons who in any way profit by the way in which elections have been conducted here? Surely the signatures of eighty electors, coupled with the fact that one of our Members has been ousted for bribery, ought to have great weight with the House. A man, a stranger to the town, was employed by us during the excitement of the canvass of the last election to ascertain if it was true that a certain number of the electors were open to bribes. This man had the names of the persons known to have been formerly bribed furnished to him, and, I believe, waited on them all; and, I believe, kept a book of the results of his interviews, with the ascertained price of each man ready to sell himself again to any buyer. You may depend upon it that plenty of evidence will be given to prove the need of a change for the better. We have one man, a native of the town also, who can tell a long tale of the bribery which has existed for a long, long time; and instances of intimidation will not be few—persons turned out of shops and houses because they would not give both votes to their landlord. Now, he thought his hon. Friend would see that there would not be the difficulty of obtaining evidence which he seemed to apprehend. He (Mr. Cobden) would pledge himself that evidence should be forthcoming if the Committee were appointed. With respect to the character of the petition, the letter which he had just quoted informed him that, besides other respectable persons, it was signed by the only two manufacturing capitalists of Bridgenorth, and that these two paid 150l. in weekly wages to their workpeople; so that it would be seen that the petition had not emanated from what was called "the rabble" of the town. He begged to remind the House, too, that the allegations in the petition referred not to one form of impure influence alone, as was usual in such cases, but to all the three known forms of it—namely, bribery, intimidation, and treating. They did not want to have Members in that House who were returned by Mr. Whitmore, and not by the constituency; and he considered that in this case they might, without the slightest risk of doing any harm to the constituency, suspend the issuing of a writ while they could inquire into the subject. He hoped, therefore, when the eyes of the country were so intently fixed upon them, and when the character of Bridgenorth was so notorious through the land, that a majority of that House would not uphold a system of corruption which, he thought, struck at the very foundation of the representative system.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) that the eyes of the public were fixed upon the mode in which that House might proceed with reference to questions of bribery; and if the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had not withdrawn his Amendment on the last Motion, he certainly should have felt it his duty to vote for that Amendment, and he believed his noble Friend the Member for the City of London would have done the same. He (Sir J. Graham) had not thought it necessary to trouble the House with the reasons which would have induced him to give that vote, because when the matter was first mooted he stated his impressions to the House, and he was prepared to have voted for a Resolution providing that in all cases where, upon the decision of Election Committees, Members of the present Parliament were unseated for bribery, a further inquiry should be instituted with reference to the conduct of the constituencies. To have given effect to that impression, he would certainly have voted with the hon. Member for Westminster in favour of the appointment of a Committee in the case of Blackburn, had not the hon. Baronet, agreeably to what appeared to be the opinion of the House, withdrawn his Motion. Inasmuch, however, as he thought it was of the last importance that they should act with the strictest impartiality and justice in these matters, and that, as the House had not withheld the writ in the case of Blackburn, it would be quite unjust to come to an opposite decision in the case of Bridgenorth. If the Amendment now before the House should be pressed to a division, he would vote against it and for the issue of the writ for Bridgenorth. Was there anything special in the case of Bridgenorth which removed it from the principle adopted by the House in the case of Blackburn? He admitted that in the case of Blackburn no petition had been sent from the borough pressing for inquiry. There was, therefore, some speciality in the case of Bridgenorth, because a petition numerously signed and praying for inquiry, had been presented from that place; but that petition—as had been distinctly stated by the Chairman of the Committee—contained no allegations which were not raised before that Committee. Those allegations, as he (Sir J. Graham) understood, were thoroughly investigated by the Committee, and time had been afforded to lay the evidence taken on the table of the House. In this respect there was a difference between the cases of Blackburn and Bridgenorth—namely, that in the case of Bridgenorth the evidence was in the hands of Members, who had had time to consider it. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had stated that a witness most competent to establish any corrupt practices, if they had existed in Bridgenorth, had been summoned before the Committee; that he gave evidence founded on a knowledge of the borough for twenty years in the most candid and explicit manner; he stated that the practice of treating had greatly diminished of late years, and was now all but stopped. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he (Sir J. Graham) did not think, the eyes of the country being fixed upon them, that they would act with justice if, after consenting to issue the writ in the case of Blackburn, they should refuse to issue a writ in the case of Bridgenorth.

MR. HUME

said, he fully concurred in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet who had last spoken, that in every case where a Member was unseated for bribery, a further inquiry should take place. He regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster had withdrawn his former Amendment, and believed he had done so on the understanding that it was contrary to the wishes of the Government. In this case of Bridgenorth, one of the witnesses stated that such influence existed as gave complete power to one family; and he (Mr. Hume) would like an inquiry to be made to show the real extent of that influence, because it would be one of the strongest arguments in favour of the ballot and of protection to the voter. It appeared to him that this was one of those cases into which the House ought to institute an inquiry, and he would therefore support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster.

MR. DISRAELI

said, that the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had stated that he based the whole of his argument upon one fact—the fact that the Whitmore family possessed not only a considerable, but a predominant, influence in the borough of Bridgenorth, and that Mr. Whitmore, whom the hon. Baronet had described as the patron of the borough, could return both Members —nay, more than that, that he could return, if he liked, his own butler. [An Hon. MEMBER: No, his own footman.] Well, whether his butler or his footman did not matter, for either result would show that that considerable influence existed to which the hon. Baronet had alluded, and the existence of which had been promptly confirmed by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose with that facility and frankness which always distinguished him, even upon subjects with which he might not be very well acquainted. Now, he (Mr. Disraeli) would refer to an authority which was open tó every one—to one of the public journals of the highest character, where he had happened to read a few days ago an account of the adventures of a candidate for the honour of representing the borough of Bridgenorth. The gentleman in question was one who, from his social position, his long experience in that House, of which he was once a most respected Member, and the eminent official station he had held, was entitled, primâ facie, to the confidence of any constituency. That gentleman, however, did not trust to his birth, his experience, his social position, or even the reflective lustre of past official station. He went to Bridgenorth as the friend of the gentleman who was described to exercise such an irresistible influence in that place. The candidate to whom he referred was Mr. Goorge Hope, formerly a much respected Member of that House, who not only went to Bridgenorth, but to Apley Park, as was stated in the newspaper, as the guest of Mr. Whitmore. Mr. Hope had the singular advantage, which even Mr. Cadogan did not enjoy, of being introduced to the people of Bridgenorth at a public meeting by Mr. Whitmore—Mr. Whitmore, the patron of the borough, according to the description of the hon. Member for the West Riding, whose statement was so freely endorsed by the hon. Member for Montrose. After having canvassed the town, however, Mr. Hope frankly confessed that he could make no way whatever, notwithstanding his being the guest of Mr. Whitmore, since the opinions he professed—opinions, as he (Mr. Disraeli) believed, very favourable to the present Government—were not at all those sanctioned by the electors of Bridgenorth. Now, he (Mr. Disraeli) really thought that, in the face of circumstances so authentic as these, to the accuracy of which he believed ninny Gentlemen in that House could bear testimony, it was rather too much that the hon. Member for the West Riding should get up in this authoritative manner to endeavour to make the people of this country believe that Bridgenorth was, in fact, the rotten borough of a family, and that the free exercise of the suffrage could not there take place. The hon. Gentleman had not the slightest authority for assertions which the statement to which he (Mr. Disraeli) had referred, and which had been published within a few days, proved to be so utterly void of foundation. What was the hon. Gentleman's authority? A book which stated that the Whitmore family exercised some influence in this borough, as unquestionably they did, and as probably they deserved to do; but, because they exercised some influence, the hon. Member for the West Riding said this family could return their footman to Parliament. What was the other authority to which the hon. Gentleman referred? The evidence of a disappointed candidate—a gentleman who, like all disappointed candidates, wished to account easily for a result which was not, of course, very pleasing to himself. This was the only appearance of evidence which had been adduced for the unqualified statement of the hon. Member for the West Riding—a statement which the hon. Member for Montrose, not pretending to have any further information, had assumed that no one could contradict, although the asserted patron and master of this borough had within a very short period in vain recommended to the suffrages of the constituency a gentleman who had every claim to represent that constituency, except that they did not agree with him in his political opinions.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that as he had been a Member of the Bridgenorth Election Committee, he was anxious to confirm the statement which had been made by the Chairman of that Committee, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). The real speciality of this case was, that a petition had been presented to the House stating that gross and systematic bribery and treating had been established before the Committee to have taken place at the last election for Bridgenorth. Any one who had read the evidence given before the Committee would be aware that this statement was destitute of all foundation. Twenty-five cases of bribery were alleged by the petitioners. This number was reduced to nine when they came into the Committee. Only one case was established against Sir Robert Pigot; and, with regard to that, the Committee was divided in opinion. He (Sir H. Willoughby) moved a Resolution, stating that the payment in that case was for the settlement of an old Bill, incurred by a previous candidate in 1847, when Sir Robert Pigot had no intention of being a candidate. He (Sir H. Willoughby) must say that, in his judgment, Sir Robert Pigot was, upon that case, unjustly unseated. He believed that any one who read the evidence carefully must come to the conclusion that the petition was planned long before the election. With regard to the allegation of treating, the evidence went to prove that there never had been such a dry election. Indeed, he believed it was an undoubted fact that treating had not existed at the last two elections for the borough.

MR. H. HERBERT

said, he thought that when the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) produced a book, which he called a book of authority, stating the paramount influence possessed by the Whitmore family in the borough of Bridgenorth, the hon. Gentleman would have done no more than an act of common honesty if he had stated that it appeared, from the evidence, that one reason of the influence of the present Member for Bridgenorth (Mr. Whitmore) was his extreme kindness to the inhabitants of the borough and the people in the neighbourhood. The hon. Member for the West Riding had laid much stress upon an anonymous communication. [Mr. HUME: Not anonymous.] Yes, it was to all intents and purposes an anonymous communication, if it was read by anybody who was afraid or ashamed to give the name of the writer. He (Mr. Herbert) could hardly imagine that he was speaking in an assembly composed of English gentlemen, when he found it necessary for a Member of that House to protest against the reception of a document the writer of which was ashamed that his name should be known. The bon. Member for the West Riding had stated that the public eye was upon them; and he (Mr. Herbert) thought the hon. Gentleman must have some ulterior object in making his statement on this subject. It had been said the age of chivalry had passed; but, however that might be, he believed there was still so much of the good old English spirit of fair play left, that a man who sought to gain an object would not influence the public opinion of England by means of anonymous communications.

MR. E. BALL

said, that having heard the evidence he was of opinion that it was fitting there should be an inquiry by a Committee, not so much into the matter of the Bridgenorth election, but that the Committee should specially inquire whether Sir Robert Pigot ought not to have another Committee to inquire into the matter of his election. He had heard that twenty-five charges were brought against Sir Robert Pigot, which were reduced to nine before the Committee. Eight of them were swept away by the Committee. and only one was considered by them, and that Sir Robert Pigot knew nothing of. Great injustice had been done Sir Robert Pigot by turning him out of his seat. He could not understand the reasoning of the hon. Member for the West Riding when he said that there must be another inquiry with regard to Bridgenorth, and yet he said that the Election Committees were the best means for ascertaining and sifting facts relating to elections. If that were the case, what was the use of appointing another Committee now?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 50: Majority 134.

Main Question put, and agreed to.