BERWICK-UPON-TWEED WRIT.

HC Deb 05 May 1853 vol 126 cc1125-42

Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [2nd May]— That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the room of John Stapleton, esquire, and Matthew Forster, esquire, whose Elections have been determined to be void.

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. PHINN

said, he was very desirous to call the attention of the House to the necessity of adopting some settled and uniform principle with reference to the issuing of writs in cases where Committees had reported bribery to have existed. He thought that the present was a convenient time, because the Berwick-upon-Tweed case afforded a strong exemplification of some of the abuses which had crept into the practice of Committees, and showed how before that tribunal justice might be prostituted to private purposes. It was obvious, from the course of proceeding prescribed by various recent Acts of Parliament, that the House had not in any way abdicated its common-law jurisdiction, and that it was still within the power of the House, as the grand inquest of the nation to institute any further inquiry, which, com the facts brought under its cogni- sance, might appear to be necessary. The certainty that in each borough and in every case the friends of the probably successful candidate would be clamorous for the issue of a new writ, to which those on the other side, also foreseeing the result, would object, was a sufficient argument against leaving unsettled a rule which should be decided and uniform; and as regarded inquiries subsequent to those of the petitioners, it was in the power, and it was the duty, of that House to institute further investigations, when those of the private individuals commencing the proceedings left "undiscovered the corruption of the borough concerned. It would indeed be very hard if public justice were to be evaded because the end of a private petitioner had been obtained—a difficulty provided against in criminal cases very simply, by leaving it to the complainant in them, as here, to commence proceedings, but, having allowed his personal motives to take him so far, placing him then under heavy recognisances to carry them on. But in cases where a borough was accused of corruption, there was no such safeguard for the public. They trusted all to the disappointed candidate, relying on him to bring his grievances before the House of Commons: they had petitions presented, not to promote, but to stifle inquiry; and they found the sham or interested petitioner, having induced others by his feint not to proceed, withdrawing his petition as it suited him, and making use of the forms of the House merely to extract money for himself, and without any worthy object whatsoever. This state of things was very well illustrated before the Berwick Committee, Berwick being, as they must frankly admit—for they could not shut their eyes to it—a place notoriously corrupt, and one to which they would all in ordinary conversation admit it would be madness for any man to go to get elected, unless he had a very large supply of money in his pocket. Since the last election, the two Members returned by this borough, which was as notorious as Sudbury or St. Albans, had been petitioned against. In the Berwick case the Members returned sat on the Ministerial side of the House. There was a petition presented containing the ordinary charge of bribery and treating, and the more general and sweeping one—that extensive bribery and corruption had prevailed at the last election. The ordinary lists of bribers and bribed were also handed in, and it appeared that one Member was charged with sixteen, and the other with ten, cases of deliberate bribery. Upon the first day of the inquiry, evidence against both the sitting Members was proceeded with. At the close of that day, the evidence appeared to be strong against one Member, Mr. Stapleton; and upon the following day he withdrew upon the ground that the charge of treating had been brought home to his agents. Immediately afterwards counsel stated that the petition had been throughout a fishing petition, and that it was not proposed to carry it further, or adduce any other evidence before the Committee. The Committee, however, cleared the room, deliberated upon the matter, and, after remaining in deliberation some time, they then declined to let the case drop, and required the counsel to proceed. Somewhat reluctantly he did so, but no evidence of any importance was adduced with reference to bribery. Still the Committee found that bribery had been committed by the agent of the Member, and fixed upon certain persons whom they named in their Report. That Committee was presided over by a most able and im-impartial chairman, and, in pursuance of their duty, they called in the agents upon both sides, and inquired of them whether any compromise had taken place. The answers to that inquiry—answers, by the by, which appeared to be given rather" by the card"—satisfied them that no compromise had taken place. But there was no investigation before that Committee, either by calling the sitting Members or their agents, into the practices of the borough. One or two things, however, the House must consider. Of course, in the present state of the law, private individuals had a right to prosecute these inquiries in the way that best suited them; and that way was by the calling of the fewest possible witnesses, and the incurring of the smallest possible expense. There was also another object frequently in view. If the petitioner had been a candidate himself, for example, his desire was not only to unseat the Member, but to preserve the good will of the borough; and if he probed the sores too deeply, it was probable that he would not succeed in this. In the present case, however, the abrupt termination of the petition caused a great deal of surprise out of doors, and rumours became rife. In fact, a journal, which he must say was most fearless in detecting abuses of all kinds, called the attention of hon. Members pointedly to the way in which the forms of the House had been abused, for the purpose of extorting money. The Times newspaper adverted to that inquiry in the following terms:— Surely the Members of an Election Committee would be not a little astonished if they discovered that the original purpose and ultimate end of the inquiry they were conducting was to put a large sum of money into the hands of a sharper—of a man who, in point of fact, is little better than one of those scoundrels who attempt to extort money by threatening prosecutions and exposure where no legitimate subject of exposure exists. The practice to which we would call attention is as follows:—There is to be an election for a borough; one, two, or more bonâ fide candidates present themselves for the suffrages of the electors. Another one then steps in, not with the idea of being returned, but simply with the view of placing himself in such a position that he can present a petition against the successful candidates. Of course, for the purposes of our argument, we must assume that these successful candidates do, in point of fact, come before the Committee with clean hands. Nothing, however, is more simple, under the present practice, than to make out a specious case against anybody. This is done. The next act of our adventurer is to cause an intimation to be made to the sitting Member that for a given sum—say 2,000l.—he will withdraw the petition. What is that Member to do? In the present state of the law the odds would lie heavily against any man who should attempt to maintain a disputed seat. The furnace is exceedingly hot. Shall he buy the rogue off? Shall he listen to the voice of natural indignation, and, conscious of the rectitude of his conduct, dare his adversary to do his worst? That is, no doubt, the heroic course, but yet a somewhat dangerous one, if the person attacked wishes to maintain his seat. Still, on the whole, there is no help for it. It will not do to compromise matters with rogues—for who could predict what the next step would be if a man should once, by his own act, put himself in their power? Go on, then, and lose your seat! This is no imaginary case. Within the last few days the trick we have described has actually been played, and, if we are rightly informed, the Members of a Parliamentary Committee have been made the participators of as arrant an attempt at swindling as was ever called in question within the walls of the Old Bailey. For obvious reasons, we cannot produce the names. We will only say, that a Member has just been displaced who might have retained his seat had he paid 2,000l. to the petitioner. The offer was made in several ways. The petitioner called upon the sitting Member's son, and offered to withdraw the petition upon certain conditions. He offered to make such a bet with the young man as must terminate in his own favour, so that, if the transaction should ever be called in question, there might be a colourable answer. This offer was rejected. Next he went to the house of a mutual friend, and sent word through him that he would withdraw the petition for exactly the sum of 2,000l. At that gentleman's house he waited for the answer, which was a decided and indignant negative. The case went on, and the Member was unseated. He had given positive instructions to his agent to call him be fore the Committee; but, in the opinion of the agent, and, we believe, of the counsel employed, an unfavourable result was deemed a matter of such wild improbability, that the sitting Member was—most unfortunately, as it turned out—not called. Thus the opportunity for relating to the Committee, with full particularity of name and circumstance, the incident, which we cannot describe more fully than we have done, was irretrievably lost. Now, he asked the House whether it was fit and decent that these proceedings should go unquestioned. It might be said that that statement did not necessarily apply to Berwick-upon-Tweed; but he thought he could show the House most clearly that it did. Some days after the article appeared in the Times, the Daily News went into the particulars of the case, and fixed the transaction upon the brother of a recent petitioner before a Parliamentary Committee; and, more recently still, an address to the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed appeared in the Berwick paper, signed by Mr. John Hodgson Hinde, who was a brother of one of the petitioners, which traced beyond a doubt these charges home to that borough. The House might say that this seemed to be a mere private negotiation; but he asked them to connect it with the subsequent withdrawal of the petition, alleging ten cases of bribery against one Member, and sixteen against the other. He was not speaking without hook when he said, that instead of there being only ten and sixteen cases of bribery respectively, it might, with much more truth, be said there were between 300 and 400. He made this statement, not upon indefinite authority, but upon the opinion of persons who knew what elections at Berwick were, and who said, "It is of no use going down to Berwick unless you are prepared to pay the freemen all round." What, then, was the course which the House ought to pursue under such circumstances? He asked them whether the notoriety of corruption was not a strong reason to induce the House to take some step in the matter? He had heard the speech of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) on a similar case the other night; but he (Mr. Phinn) was not one who believed that corruption had so deeply tainted either that House or the country as that hon. Member seemed to suppose. If the hon. Member's theory were pushed to the utmost, it would justify corruption even on the Bench. He (Mr. Phinn) believed that a large majority of the Members of that House had been returned without corruption; and, though he was opposed in politics to hon. Members opposite, he would say that he believed that most of the county Members had been returned without any corrupt pecuniary influences. But he asked the House whether the country would be satisfied with a partial crusade against corruption, and whether it was not their duty, whenever such circumstances as he had referred to were brought under the notice of the House, at once to institute a vigorous inquiry? He believed that the evil had reached such a height that the House would be justified in sending Commissions to every borough in the country. It would, perhaps, be said, that it was all very well for a member of the profession to which he belonged to make that proposal, because it would give employment to the barristers; but he would say, let the Commissioners be Members of Parliament instead of barristers, if they pleased, or let them be persons who were connected neither with the profession of the law nor with Parliament—let them investigate the corruption — let them look the evil in the face, and see what was its extent— and then deal promptly and vigorously with it. It might be said, also, that if they instituted roving commissions of this kind, it would procrastinate any attempt to reform the 'representation. But he would tell the House—and he spoke with some little experience—that the Commissioners would get at the bottom of the evil in four or five days—because, although St. Albans had occupied twelve or thirteen days, there was no necessity, in order to prove the sys-tem which prevailed, to go into each individual case of reported bribery, as was done on that occasion. All that would be necessary for them to do would be to summon the political agents of the borough, the bankers, and a few other persons, and the inquiry would be completed in almost every borough in about five or six days. But the House might depend upon it that so long as they allowed a mass of corruption to exist, any extension of the suffrage would only be prejudicial to the character of the House; and he believed that they ought to look the alleged evil firmly in the face before they attempted to deal with the reform of the representation. All other institutions were subjected periodically to inquiry and revision, and why should there not also be a fair inquiry into our system of Parliamentary representation? He would now conclude by moving that no writ be issued for the borough of Berwick-on-Tweed till Thursday, the 2nd of June.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'no Now Writ be issued for the Borough of Berwick upon Tweed before Thursday, the 2nd day of June next,' instead thereof.

MR. KER SEYMER

said, he had been anxious to hear on what grounds the hon. and learned Member for Bath, in the absence of any special report from the Committee, and not having himself moved that the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee should be laid before the House, justified the suspension of the writ. The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech had removed his anxiety. He could perfectly understand, now, why the hon. and learned Gentleman had not moved for the production of the minutes of evidence, because he depended, not upon that evidence, but on articles in the Times, Daily flews, and Berwick Advertiser. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also spoken of the notoriety of the corruption in the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed. He (Mr. Seymer) could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was not aware of the great notoriety of the borough of Berwick in that respect, for since he had the honour of a seat in that House, he did not think that the case of Berwick had ever before been brought before them; and he had not made it his business to inquire about the corruption of former days. He would say, however, as a matter of principle, that whatever might have been the character of the borough of Berwick in former days, any corruption that might have existed was condoned by that House when they issued new writs. He could not refer to the evidence which was taken before the Berwick Committee, because it was not in the hands of Members, but that was not his fault. He had abstained from moving for its production, because the Committee wore unanimously of opinion that the writ ought to issue, and that there was no occasion to print the evidence. He had himself always followed the principle of not moving for the production of evidence in cases of Election Committees, unless he was himself prepared to found some Motion on the evidence, and he thought that a sound and good rule. The hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn) knowing the Amendment he intended to move, would have done well, he thought, to move for the evidence before submitting his Amendment. But though he was unable to refer to the evidence, he (Mr. Seymer) might state briefly what took place before the Committee. The Committee met last Friday week, and proceeded to take evidence affecting the sitting Members, both as regarded bribery and treating. The case of treating by-agency against Mr. Stapleton came out so strong, that he (Mr. Seymer) was not at all surprised when next day that Gentleman's counsel said that he would not attempt to defend his seat. The Committee then cleared the room, and declared Mr. Stapleton unseated; but, on looking over the evidence afterwards, it occurred to them that there was a charge of bribery affecting Mr. Stapleton, and they accordingly called upon his counsel to answer that charge. That having been done, the Committee again ordered the doors to be closed, and after deliberating anxiously on the matter, they arrived at the conclusion that agency in the case of Mr. Stapleton had not been proved; so that they came to no resolution in regard to the bribery alleged against Mr. Stapleton. The counsel for the petitioner then stated that he would not bring forward any further evidence against the other sitting Member (Mr. Forster). It then certainly did strike the Committee that there was some appearance of a corrupt compromise in this, and they accordingly did what they were empowered to do—they called in the agents of the parties concerned, and examined them on the subject, and the conclusion the Committee arrived at was, that no corrupt compromise had been attempted. In these circumstances, they felt that their duty was merely to declare that Mr. Forster was unseated for bribery, and Mr. Stapleton for treating, and to report that Resolution to the House. The hon. and learned Member had alluded to an article in the Times, which he supposed to refer to the present case; and he (Mr. Seymer) thought it very possible it did, and he would tell them why. When the doors of the Committee room were closed, and the Committee were considering their Report, Mr. Forster rushed into the room in a state of considerable exeitement, and asked the Committee whether his counsel had made application to call him as a witness? He was informed that he had not; upon which Mr. Forster seemed much surprised and annoyed. He (Mr. Seymer) might state, that the impression of the Committee was, that Mr. Forster's counsel had exercised a wise discretion in not calling him as a witness, because it was probable that the first question that would have been put to him, on cross-examination, would have rendered very clear it was a Case of agency-about which the Committee entertained doubts. But, supposing all that had been said about a compromise to be true, he wanted to know how the right of the electors was affected by it? It was very possible that, supposing a corrupt compromise had been intended, a person might go to the sitting Member and say, "I have a clear case against you. I can prove that an agent of yours gave a man 5l. for his vote, and unless you give me so much money I will petition against you." But there might not be a single other case of bribery in the whole borough. This would not, therefore, prove a state of general corruption, or affect the right of the town to return Members to Parliament. He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit there were some pure electors in Berwick; but yet there had been no petition presented from them for inquiry. There were two modes in which an inquiry might be carried on after the decision of a Committee: one, the course pursued in the Rye case, where the Committee had reported that a further investigation ought to take place; the other where the parties presented a petition. But, short of such proceeding, he maintained there was no satisfactory way of investigating the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of a Commission; but he (Mr. Seymer) did not believe that the other branch of the Legislature would concur in an Address to the Crown, unless some legal evidence was adduced to show them the necessity of so doing. The hon. and learned Gentleman wished to send hon. Members to fish in the Tweed for corruption. He (Mr. Seymer) did not mean to say that if they went they would not find some sport. But what he did mean to say was, that they could arrive at no conclusion that would affect the right of the electors of Berwick. He understood that four Gentleman, believing from the Report of the Committee that a writ was about to be issued, were now busily engaged in contesting the borough. If Berwick was not immaculate, why expose it to a long canvass? If the hon. and learned Gentleman believed that the electors of that borough were thirsty souls, why put off the election till after the dog-days? He could not help thinking that there was some political motive beyond this and similar Motions. Perhaps hon. Members wanted to make out a case for an extensive Reform Bill. If so, he would not quarrel with them on that point. If they thought a reduced franchise a beneficial measure, they were quite entitled to their opinions. He only objected to their doing so by interfering with the just rights of the electors of Berwick.

SIR FREDERIC THESIGER

said, he would not have presumed to have interposed between the House and the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymers) with any remarks of his as to what had passed before the Committee; but the House would observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn) had made statements which involved serious imputations upon a gentle, man who had been for many years a Member of that House. And he thought the House would feel that, in fairness and justice, this gentleman should have an opportunity of stating to the House what were the circumstances connected with this petition against the late sitting Members, in order to remove, as far as he could, the impression which must necessarily be produced by an article which had appeared in the Times, and which there could be no doubt referred to the Berwick-upon-Tweed election, for the article had also appeared in the Berwick newspapers, and was in fact pointed at Mr. Hodgson, who had called his (Sir F. Thesiger's) attention to it some few days since; and, anticipating that the hon. and learned Member for Bath would bring the subject before the House, had requested him, on his behalf, to make a statement of the circumstances. He was now prepared to do so, and therefore asked for the indulgence of the House. Whatever might be the intention of the House as to the issuing or the withholding of the writ, he was requested by Mr. Hodgson to state, fully and fairly, all the circumstances so far as he was concerned, and he would do so, keeping back nothing. He begged to call the attention of the House for a short time to the charges contained in the article in the Times, for anything more serious than those charges were could scarcely be imagined. The article to which he alluded contained the following statement:— The practice to which we would call attention is as follows:—There is to be an election for a borough; one, two, or more bonâ fide candidates present themselves for the suffrages of the electors. Another one then steps in, not with the idea of being returned, but simply with the view of placing himself in such a position that he can present a petition against the successful candidates. Of course, for the purposes of our argument, we must assume that these successful candidates do, in point of fact, come before the Committee with clean hands. Nothing, however, is more simple under the present practice than to make out a specious case against anybody. This is done. The next act of our adventurer is to cause an intimation to be made to the sitting Member that for a given sum—say 2,000l.—he will withdraw the petition. What is that Member to do? In the present state of the law the odds would lie heavily against any man who should attempt to maintain a disputed seat. The furnace is exceeding hot. Shall he buy the rogue off? Shall he listen to the voice of natural indignation, and, conscious of the rectitude of his conduct, dare his adversary to do his worst? That is, no doubt, the heroic course, but yet a some what dangerous one, if the person attacked wishes to maintain his seat. Still, on the whole there is no help for it. It will not do to compromise matters with rogues—for who could predict what the next step would be if a man should once, by his own act, put himself in their power? Go on then, and lose your seat! This is no imaginary case. Within the last few days the trick we have described has actually been played, and if. We are rightly informed, the Members of a Parliamentary Committee have been made the participators of as arrant an attempt at swindling as was ever called in question within the walls of the Old Bailey. For obvious reasons we cannot produce the names. We will only say that a Member has just been displaced who might have retained his seat had he paid 2,000l. to the petitioner. The offer was made in several ways. The petitioner called upon the sitting Member's son, and offered to withdraw the petition upon certain conditions. He offered to make such a bet with the young man as must terminate in his own favour, so that, if the transaction should ever be called in question, there might be a colourable answer. This offer was rejected. Next he went to the house of a mutual friend, and sent word through him that he would withdraw the petition for exactly the sum of 2,000l. At that gentleman's house he waited for the answer, which was a decided and indignant negative. The case went on, and the Member was unseated. He had given positive instructions to his agent to call him before the Committee; but, in the opinion of the agent, and, we believe, of the counsel employed, an unfavourable result was deemed a matter of such wild improbability that the sitting Member was—most unfortunately, as it turned out—not called. Thus the opportunity for relating to the Committee, with full particularity of name and circumstance, the incident, which we cannot describe more fully than we have done was irretrievably lost. It remains to be seen if the House will pass over in silence so discreditable a transaction, now that attention has been thus publicly called to the fact. Now it would be seen that in this article his hon. Friend was treated as an "adventurer." How, was it proper to designate as an adventurer Mr. Hodgson, who had for ten years represented the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed in that House, and his brother had for seventeen years, and down to 1847, represented Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In 1847, his friend Mr. Hodgson was solicited to stand for the borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, his brother having resigned, and he consented to do so, although no opposition to his re-election at Berwick was contemplated. Last year at the general election he had been solicited to return to Berwick, and stand for it. Mr. Hodgson believed parties in that borough were almost equally balanced, and that the Conservative party had a fair right to one seat, and, therefore, he resolved that if the Liberal party should insist upon returning two Members he would allow himself to be put in nomination. Accordingly, when Mr. Stapleton was brought forward in conjunction with Mr. Forster, Mr. Hodgson issued his address and commenced his canvass. The result was well known. Treating and bribery had prevailed to a considerable extent at the election, he must conclude from the issue of the inquiry. Mr. Hodgson, at the time the poll was declared, intimated his intention to present a petition against the return of the sitting Members —he prepared his materials accordingly, and laid them before a barrister—a man of Liberal politics, and of the highest character. Upon looking through the evidence which Mr. Hodgson had prepared, the counsel expressed his opinion that the case was complete against the sitting Members, and, with the concurrence of Mr. Hodgson, he communicated with their agents, telling them that defence to the petition about to be presented was hopeless. Mr. Hodgson's desire was to secure one of the seats for a Conservative, and he was desirous of doing this without presenting a petition—partly because a petition was a very expensive proceeding, and partly because it would render him unpopular in the borough. Nothing, however, resulted from this communication, and Mr. Hodgson went down prepared to prosecute the petition. Mr. Hodgson had told him (Sir F. Thesiger) that there were no less than ninety witnesses whom he had intended to produce, and there were forty-four of the adverse party who had Speaker's warrants served on them—in short, no less than sixty witnesses were to be sent up to London upon telegraphic communication if their services were required. Mr. Hodgson, under these circumstances, called upon a Gentleman of great weight and authority, who sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and laid the whole of his case before him. Upon his advice, Mr. Hodgson sought an interview with Mr. Forster. He proposed to Mr. Forster first of all that both the sitting Members should vacate their seats;—and his next proposal was that one of them should retire, and that there should be no opposition offered to one Conservative candidate. It unfortunately happened that there was no union of feeling between the two sitting Members, so that arrangement was, according to the terms proposed, impracticable; but it was agreed upon that Mr. Hodgson should have an interview with Mr. Forster's son—Mr. Forster, sen., assuring him that his son was man of strict honour. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Phinn) alluded to the interview which had taken place between Mr. Forster, jun., and Mr. Hodgson. According to the statements that had been made to him, Mr. Hodgson said, "Now, we are within the four walls of this room, and let it be understood that neither you nor I shall repeat anything which passes between us. Your father distinctly stated that he does not wish to know what takes place at this interview, and, therefore, if you please, it shall be strictly confidential." And yet, notwithstanding this agreement, there appeared an article in the Times newspaper of the circumstances which took place at that interview, and which could only have been communicated by Mr. Forster, jun. The passage from the article in the Times was as follows:— The petitioner called upon the sitting Member's son and offered to withdraw the petition upon certain conditions. He offered to make such a bet with the young man as must terminate in his own favour, so that, if the transaction should ever be called in question, there might be a colourable answer. He would now give a statement of what really took place relative "to the compromise for 2,000l..," concealing nothing, and leaving the House to form its own judgment on the facts. It was proposed, as he had stated, that both Members should vacate their seats; but this was neglected because the sitting Members were not on amicable terms. The next proposal on the part of Mr. Hodgson was, "If I undertake to proceed with the petition against Mr. Stapleton alone, will your father give me a guarantee that there will be no opposition to my election at Berwick?" To which Mr. Forster, jun., replied, "What security would you have?" "Why," said Mr. Hodgson, "you may enter into a penalty in case I am not returned."["Oh, oh!"and "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members would, he trusted, hear him patiently—he was only discharging what he considered to be his duty. When the case was mentioned to him he expressly stated that he would not have anything to do with it unless he were allowed, in the most unreserved manner, to place before the House the whole of the facts. He thought he might venture to say, that, however the House might disapprove of what he had stated, it was very different from the version which had been given in the Times— very different from Mr. Hodgson's having "offered to: make such a bet with a young man as must terminate in his own favour, so that if the transaction should ever be called in question, there might be a colour able answer." But to proceed:—In reply to Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Forster, jun., stated, "That a bond of the kind proposed would be illegal;" upon which Mr. Hodgson said,. "I will lay you a bet, or in any other way you like." This was what Mr. Hodgson stated. And here he thought it right to-introduce a correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Staple-ton. He would not read the letter of Mr. Stapleton, but there were passages in the letter of Mr. Hodgson which he thought it was fair to Mr. Hodgson should be read to the House:— It was only, however, after consultation with my political friends in the borough, and under the conviction that the fullest inquiry cannot jeopardise the privilege enjoyed by Berwick of sending future representatives to Parliament, that I deter mined to nullify the last election. In this resolution I only vindicate the right of that large section of the electors, who concur with my political opinions, to their due share of representation. At the same time, I shall test the soundness of that opinion held by myself in common (I believe) with nine-tenths of the inhabitants, and not excluding either of the sitting Members, that on equal terms, namely, in a contest, either on the part of the candidates, entirely pure or universally corrupt, my election was a matter of certainty up to the eve of the poll. I disclaim altogether any right to justify the presentation of my petition by the imputation of motives or acts on your part, subsequent to the election, affecting myself personally. In fact, the question is not personal; and, as far as I am concerned, shall be tried with patience and perseverance, but without loss of temper…… I say with the utmost sincerity that it would have been more gratifying to me that the object in view had been attained without the presentation or prosecution of a petition; but it was incompetent in me to make any overture, except that a new election should take place by consent of all parties; and I had no reason to believe that this would have been accepted. In conclusion, I must, in candour, inform you that, in looking to the utter impossibility of a successful defence against the petition, my counsel will, at the opening of the case, lodge his claim for expenses incurred in its establishment, on the ground that opposition, under the circumstances, cannot be otherwise than frivolous and unfounded. Having stated this, I have only further to say, that I am perfectly willing that the evidence already prepared shall be submitted to yourself or to any friend of your own, professional or otherwise, with the proviso that, in the event of no opinion being entertained at variance With my own as to the nature of the case, I shall be spared the necessity of proceeding with my petition as against your return by your abandonment of its defence; and, so far as you and your friends are concerned, no impediment shall be interposed to my election; On the other hand, if my opinion be controverted, the documents submitted to be privileged, insomuch that, while you shall be at liberty to procure counter-evidence, the actual facts, and testimony, and names of witnesses shall be undivulged. I do not think a fairer offer, nor one more indicative of dependence on an adversary's honour can be made; but, being well aware of the personal consequences to yourself and others which must follow the proof of my allegations, I am unwilling to throw away the opportunity afforded mo by your communication to avert these, if possible. He thought that showed pretty clearly that Mr. Hodgson was not prosecuting the petition with any such disgraceful object as was attributed to him by this article. Mr. Hodgson went to Berwick a few days before the petition was heard, for the purpose of arranging for sending up the witnesses, and in his absence that communication took place which was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Bath—a communication on the part of Mr. Forster, to see whether there could not be an arrangement about the petition, so far as it respected himself. Mr. Hodgson had nothing whatever to do with that negotiation; he knew nothing whatever about it until his return to London, when a communication was made to him by his brother that there had been overtures on the part of Mr. Forster; but as Mr. Hodgson Hinde stated, no details were imparted to Mr. Hodgson, and he knew nothing about it. The Committee met, and on the very first day of the inquiry they heard from the Chairman there was no doubt whatever that the case was completely established against Mr. Stapleton on the ground of treating. There had been evidence given against Mr. Forster which certainly placed his seat in very great jeopardy. Under that state of things a communication was made on the part of Mr. Forster proposing that no further evidence should be produced against him, and that he would undertake that no opposition should be offered to the election of a Conservative candidate for Berwick. Mr. Hodgson being put to very considerable expense, stated that he would not accept of any offer at all but the seat with the costs he had been put to; and accordingly that offer was rejected, and in the course of the day an hon. Friend of his (Sir F. Thesiger) communicated with Mr. Hodgson, and expressed his regret that some arrangement was not come to, when Mr. Hodgson said distinctly, "The seat and the costs are my terms, and to no others will I agree." It was intimated that Mr. Stapleton would abandon the defence of his seat, on which Mr. Hodgson desired that notice should be given to him that an application would be made to the Committee for costs against him, according to the previous notice Mr. Hodgson had given him in the letter to which he (Sir F. Thesiger) had directed the attention of the House, on the ground that the defence of his seat would be frivolous and vexatious. The Committee met on the second day. Mr. Hodgson was communicating with his counsel as to the grounds upon which they were to press for the costs against Mr. Stapleton, when, to his surprise, he was informed that an arrangement had been made that Mr. Forster should pay the costs of the petition, and that neither he nor his friends should oppose the return of a Conservative candidate for Berwick, and that no further evidence should be produced before the Committee. He was stating the facts; the arrangement was to hold good, whatever the decision of the Committee might be with regard to Mr. Forster, on the evidence. It gave him considerable pain (he was bound to say) to hear from his hon. and learned. Friend (Mr. Phinn) that it had been proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that no compromise had taken place between the parties. The result was known. The Committee decided that Mr. Stapleton's election was void on the ground of treating, and Mr. Forster's on the ground of bribery. Whether the circumstance of there having been a compromise was a ground for the House saying that a writ should not issue, it was not for him to decide. But he confessed it appeared to him there would be very great difficulty, even after the knowledge of all these facts, in their saying the writ ought not to issue, because it appeared to him there were no circumstances which the House could avail itself of for the purpose of suspending the writ and instituting any effectual inquiry. Under the 5 & 6 Vict., it was quite clear the time was gone by for any petition. There had been no Report of the Committee that any further inquiry should take place. Then, how was it possible, under those circumstances, that they could fairly and properly suspend the writ and say that the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed should be deprived of their representatives for any time? The hon. and learned Member for Bath said, and truly said, that that House had what he called common law— not common law, but Parliamentary law— by which, if it thought right, without any Act of Parliament, it might suspend any writ, and direct any inquiry it pleased; but he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought it would be a very strong measure, when the House had consented to an Act of Parliament which provided for particular occasions on which—not that the writ should be suspended, but that an inquiry should be instituted where there had been a Report that bribery was conclusively proved, or that an improper compromise had taken place, or a petition was presented to the House within three months after the act of bribery was committed. For what did the Act of Parliament say? It said that, although the House directed an inquiry, and the Committee assembled for that purpose, it should have no effect on the issuing of the writ. Then, they were really going to assume a power beyond that which they had agreed should be given to them by Act of Parliament limiting and fettering their powers, if they had larger powers; and therefore, it appeared to him that it would be unjust to the constituency to suspend the issuing of this writ, although it might be desirable there should be a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with this charge against a Gentleman who was a Member of that House, and which reflected also on the late hon. Member for Berwick. He thought it would be desirable that a Committee should be appointed to institute such an inquiry, but that that ought not to have the slightest effect whatever on the issuing of the writ, because whatever might be the result of that inquiry on the Report of the Committee, it ought not to have the slightest influence in preventing the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed from having the advantage of representatives.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, that the evidence of all the attorneys who had been examined before the Committee went to show that there had been no compromise.

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

The House divided: —Ayes 218; Noes 60: Majority 158.

Main Question put, and agreed to. "Ordered —That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Berwick upon Tweed, in the room of John Stapleton, esquire, and Matthew Forster, esquire, whose Elections have been determined to be void.