HC Deb 10 May 1853 vol 127 cc137-48
MR. BENTINCK

said, he would now move for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which the petitions against the return of Mr. William Atherton and Mr. Thomas Grainger, for the City of Durham, had been withdrawn, and that the petition of certain electors of the City of Durham, presented to the House on the 20th of April, be referred to the said Committee. The circumstances of this case were as follows:—At the last general election, in July, 1852, Mr. Grainger, Mr. Atherton, and Lord Adolphus Vane, were candidates for the representation of Durham. The numbers at the close of the poll were:—Grainger, 576; Atherton, 510; Vane, 506. The two former were accordingly declared duly elected. Mr. Grainger died on the 5th of August subsequent to the election. On the 23rd of November two of the electors in the interest of Lord Adolphus Vane presented a petition complaining of the return of Mr. Atherton. At a late hour of the 25th of the same month, the last day for presenting election petitions, a petition, signed by two electors of Durham residing in London, and who voted for Messrs. Grainger and Atherton, was presented to the House complaining of the return of Mr. Grainger, who had died in the present August, and craving the scat for Lord Adolphus Vane. For this petition Mr. Davidson, who also voted for Messrs. Grainger and Atherton, was the sole security, and Mr. Coppock the sole agent. On the following day, the 26th, Mr. Coppock withdrew this petition, and the writ for a new election in the room of Mr. Grainger was issued. It might fairly be assumed that the petition was brought forward by Mr. Coppock, as the agent of Mr. Atherton, in the first place, to stay the issuing of the writ; and, in the second place, to induce the withdrawal of the petition against the return of Mr. Atherton. The election took place on the 2nd of December, and resulted in the return of Lord Adolphus Vane, against whom, however, a petition was presented. For this petition Mr. Davidson was the sole security, and Mr. Coppock the sole agent. On the 20th of April a petition, signed by five electors of Durham, was presented to the House, complaining of the withdrawal of the petition of the 25th of November, and praying that it might be remitted to a Select Committee. Such were the circumstances which had induced him to bring forward this Motion. He therefore submitted that a breach of privilege had been committed in the matter of the petition of the 25th of November, and that an attempt had been made to infringe upon the rights of the electors of Durham.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which the Petitions against the Return of William Atherton, esquire, and Thomas Colpitts Grainger, esquire, for the City of Durham, have been withdrawn, and that the Petition of certain Electors of the City of Durham, presented to this House on the 20th day of April, he referred to the said Committee.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he must oppose the Motion, on the ground that it would be a greater breach of privilege than that which it professed to correct. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), while stating that the petition against the return of Mr. Grainger was withdrawn on the 26th of November, forgot to add that the petition against the return of Mr. Atherton was withdrawn on the same day by Mr. Brown, the agent for the other party. Nothing was done between the 26th of November and the election on the 2nd of December, when Lord Adolphus Vane was returned; but immediately thereafter a petition was presented against the return of the sitting Member, and it was not until that petition had gone so far as to be on the eve of having a Select Committee appointed to try it that anything was heard of the present Motion. He believed that the Motion had been brought forward for the purpose of inducing the parties to compromise the petition that had been presented against the return of the sitting Member. It could have no other object, for they could not now go back upon the election that took place in July last, and the petition which had been withdrawn referred to that election. If the House assented to the course proposed, they would be lending themselves to the commission of a great breach of their own privileges.

MR. MILES

said, he thought that the conduct of the agents on both sides required to be looked into. He did not much care whether the appointment of the Select Committee was postponed till after the petition against the return of the sitting Member had been disposed of, or not; but the hon. Member for West Norfolk had made one statement, which assuredly deserved to be considered. It was to the effect that on the 25th of November, the last day for presenting election petitions, a petition, signed by two electors of Durham, residing in London, who voted for Messrs. Grainger and Atherton, was actually presented to the House, complaining of the return of Mr. Grainger, who had died in the previous August, and claiming the seat for Lord Adolphus Vane, without the slightest authority from the noble Lord. Surely this was a case full of suspicion, and one that demanded investigation. Their whole system needed revision, and he thought an inquiry should be made into the agency through which election petitions were presented to that House.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, he, as Chairman of the General Committee of Petitions, had seen with pain the privilege of petitioning abused in the present Session in a grosser manner than he ever remembered before. The Committee over which he had presided had been made a complete stalking horse for every kind of abuse by the agents on both sides. Petitions had been withdrawn or paired off, and the labours of the Committee of Selection had been set completely at naught. It would only be becoming the dignity of the House to take some notice of these transactions; but he questioned whether the present was a very fitting opportunity, inasmuch as a petition in it was now pending. He thought, however, that the House should take the first opportunity of marking its displeasure at these practices.

MR. HEADLAM

said, that if the House appointed a Committee on this subject, they must appoint a Committee to consider the withdrawal of every petition. The best way of checking the evil was by making the parties pay the costs. These petitions had been withdrawn with the consent of both parties, and he hoped that the present Motion would at least be postponed until the petition now pending was decided.

MR. MALINS

said, it was absolutely necessary that the Parliamentary agents should be kept in proper order, and that they should be taught to treat that House with proper respect. Every Court required that the practitioners in it should conduct themselves with fairness and propriety; and the House was bound to see that Mr. Coppock and Mr. Brown did not trifle with it. This matter was of the greatest importance, for it concerned the dignity of the House and the privileges of the electors, and, therefore, if hon. Gentlemen opposite were sincere in their desires to promote purity of election, he hoped that an inquiry would take place. The present was by no means a frivolous case, and he contended that it was time the House took the matter into its own hands, and taught these Parliamentary agents that it was not to be insulted with impunity. He was surprised that the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster had not risen in his place to support the Motion. What had become of all his professions? But no doubt it was with him as with other persons in the community—there was one rule for his friends, and another for his enemies. If the hon. Member could sit quietly by and tolerate such practices as these, he (Mr. Malins) could only draw a conclusion against his love of purity of election.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, if they were to proceed in matters of this sort with anything like judicial harmony, they ought to avoid the tone taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, and who had chosen to make a personal attack on his (Sir C. Wood's) hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley), simply to create a party feeling; and that was not the tone and temper in which the House ought to proceed in these matters. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lincolnshire (Sir J. Trollope), it would meet with no opposition from that side of the House. The system of presenting petitions and counter-petitions, for the purpose of pairing them off, was admitted by both sides of the House to be a gross abuse. He would not defend that side of the House, who had their share of Mr. Coppock's, as the other side had their share of Mr. Brown's, proceedings, which were not creditable to either side. In the case before the House, a petition had been presented against the return of Mr. Atherton on the 23rd of November, and a petition against Lord Adolphus Vane on the 26th, for the purpose of pairing them off. If any complaint was made, it ought to be against the withdrawal of the petitions. There was, however, something a little suspicious in the time of bringing forward this Motion, because if it was bonâ fide, as the matters to which it related happened in December, it ought to have been brought forward before this; and he thought it might be considered that the election petition which was now pending had operated to cause its being brought forward now. One or other of two courses ought to be pursued—either the question should be postponed until after that election petition was disposed of, or this case should be allowed to fall into the general inquiry into the question of the withdrawal of election petitions, a notice of Motion for inquiry into which now stood on the books, in the name of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) for the last day of this month. There was nothing in this petition to take it out of the whole inquiry, and he hoped the House would adopt that course. The House ought to go into the whole question of the abuse of the right to petition against the return of Members, which had, during the present Session, been shown to have led to gross and discreditable jobbing.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that the last observation of the right hon. Baronet was well worthy of consideration, for there could be but one opinion on both sides of the House with regard to the abuse which existed of the right to petition, and its having been made the means of discreditable compromises. He regretted that the hon. Member for East Surrey had not persevered in his Motion for inquiring into all the petitions and counter-petitions which had been presented. [An Hon. MEMBER: It stands.] He was aware of that, but it stood on the paper night after night. He was not sure that that was advisable, for the presentation of petitions might go on until the end of the Session.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that what he had stated was, that it would be unfair to bring forward this particular question on the eve of the appointment of the Election Committee to which the petition against the return of the sitting Member for Durham was to be referred. With regard to the Motion of the Member for East Surrey, he had another Motion on the paper that evening for returns which would form the groundwork of his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry; but it would be useless to bring forward the Motion for the appointment of that Committee, until after the withdrawal of all the petitions.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he had quite understood the right hon. Baronet. He did not object to the withdrawal of the present Motion until after the Election Committee had tried the petition against the return for Durham; but he meant to say that the hon. Member for East Surrey ought to have brought forward his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry on an earlier day. It was clear from what had occurred tonight that there would be no opposition to such a Committee of Inquriy, and he would suggest to the hon. Member for East Surrey to move at once for the Committee, so that they might inquire without delay into the withdrawal of all petitions, and the compromises which had been made. He would press on his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) to withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that the whole matter should be inquired into.

MR. LOCKE KING

said, that the reason he had not brought forward his Motion was, that he was told that there were so many Committees sitting, that it would be impossible to do so with effect, and that it would be opposed; but if the House was prepared to agree to it, he would move it now if he could do so.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that as notice of the Motion was given for a particular day, it could not be made before that day.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, that the appointment of the whole of the Election Committees would be finished by the last day of this month, for, unless any other petitions were presented, at this moment there were only eight to be provided for.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, having been so pointedly alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), he wished to say a few words in reply. It was a most unwarrantable attack made on him by the hon. and learned Gentleman when he was sitting by listening to what was said by Gentlemen opposite, and it required great powers of credence on his part to convince him that Gentlemen opposite were sincere in their desire for purity of election. It seemed to him that a miserable attack had been made on Messrs. Brown and Coppock, after their having refused to prosecute a Member of that House who was proved to have been guilty of bribery. It was high time that some other tribunal should be found to try election petitions, and he was sure the country would see that it was also high time to adopt some other mode of voting at elections. The attacks should not be confined to Messrs. Brown and Coppock, but extended to every agent in every town in the country. He would say that out of that House it was not believed that they were very anxious for purity of election, when on an occasion that a Member was found to have been guilty of bribery, only seventy-seven Members of that House supported a Motion to prosecute him. If he was to propose to prosecute Mr. Bremridge, who had been proved to have been guilty of personal bribery, would Gentlemen opposite support him? He would, however, test their sincerity by putting a notice on the paper of a Motion to prosecute Mr. Bremridge.

MR. WHITMORE

said, that the agent who conducted the petition against his own return for Bridgnorth had confessed that there was no case against him; so that he (Mr. Whitmore) had been made the butt of Mr. Coppock, but not his victim. He should be glad to support this Motion if it were carried to a division. He believed that there was as much party feeling on the other side of the House (the Ministerial) as upon that.

MR. W. O. STANLEY

said, he very much doubted whether the House was in earnest in their proceedings against corruption. There was a Sessional Order on the books which stated that "if any one was elected or returned to that House by means of bribery and corrupt practices, the House would proceed with severity against the persons concerned." He had already given notice of his intention to call attention to circumstances which tended to criminate a late Member of that House. Three cases of bribery by Members had been reported to the House during the Session, and one was reported to-night stronger than any of them. Would the House notice such a flagrant case? During the discussions in this Session on the subject of corruption, attempts had been made to palliate it, saying that both sides of the House were equally bad. He might perhaps be allowed to doubt if they were equally bad on both sides. ["Oh, oh!"] Constituencies were not corrupt in themselves, but if Gentlemen drew large sums from their bankers, and gave them to their agents, and then sat down in the House congratulating themselves that they were not guilty of bribery, what could be expected? The country would not believe that the House was sincere in its professions until they acted up to the Sessional Order. If the Reports presented to the House were to be only waste paper, it would be better to put an end to Election Committees, and proclaim that they meant to be corrupt and maintain corruption; but he hoped to see the House determined to take such measures as that no Parliament should ever again be returned by means of such corruption as the last was.

MR. E. C. EGERTON

said, that after the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed them, the sooner the House got rid of the discussion of these matters the better; for when an hon. Gentleman, in the position of a Judge, told them that corruption on one side of the House was greater than on the other, he said, for the dignity of the House, and the good consideration in which it should be held in the country, the sooner they had Judges who laid aside violent language like that, the better for all parties. He was not there to justify any corruption; he only wished that all cases should be considered fairly and impartially, and he thought the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) ought to be considered, for the proceedings of the last six months had tended to lower Committees of that House in the eyes of the country. He only rose to say that if Judges were to sit on those matters, their language should be of a different kind.

MR. W. O. STANLEY

said, he wished to explain that he had not accused one side of the House of greater corruption than the other.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, he thought that the less the House went back to rediscuss past and settled cases, and the less, likewise, that any attempt was made by any one portion of the House to fix a greater amount of guilt upon any other portion, the better it would be for the order of their proceedings. Since this question had been brought forward, Members representing the different sections of that House had spoken upon it, and they almost all concurred in this one opinion, that the subject to which his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk had called attention, was well worthy of the consideration of the House and of a Committee; but that there were suspicious circumstances attending, not so much the withdrawal, as the original presentation of the petition. The hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) had suggested that the consideration of this subject should be deferred till a Committee was appointed to inquire into the whole of these questions; and he (Mr. S. Herbert) thought that the fact that this matter had been raised just at the moment when the election petition was to be tried relative to the city of Durham, ought to induce the hon. Member for West Norfolk to accede to the proposed postponement, because, if this question was to be discussed by a Committee, it was desirable that there should not be even the semblance of a suspicion that they were influenced by party feeling. There being a Motion on the books for the consideration of the more general question, irrespective of place, or party, or any other suspicious circumstances, it would be better to get rid of the present discussion, and at a later period allow the origin of this particular petition, and its subsequent withdrawal, to undergo full examination before a Committee, which should investigate the whole of the cases of this description.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he did not think there was anything worthy of consideration in the Motion of the hon. Member for West Norfolk. It amounted to this, that, on 25th November, a petition was presented against the return of a dead Member, and that was complained of; then it was withdrawn, and that was complained of. It was not alleged that it was withdrawn without the consent of the petitioners, as in the case of Norwich, and that made all the difference. He would ask, had there been no petition now against the sitting Member for Durham, would this Motion have ever been heard of? If everything that was alleged was proved, what would be done to Mr. Brown and Mr. Coppock, who had only acted within the letter of the law? When the inquiry went further, and it was asked who instructed the agents, it would be found that it was a little coterie at the Carlton Club, presided over by the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite, who regulated the proceedings, and directed the agents whether they were to withdraw the petitions or not; and so Mr. Brown and Mr. Coppock were not so much to blame. In the Norwich inquiry, Mr. Brown was described as the legal adviser of the Carlton Club—that he was in the habit of sitting in one of the washing rooms there, or in some pigeon-hole, as the adviser of the hon. and gallant Colonel, and the late Secretary at War the right hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Beresford). Of course he submitted to them when a petition was to be withdrawn or presented; and let not all the indignation fall on the agents, but let some of it fall on those who pulled the wires, and it would be found on inquiry that they were pulled by Members of that House.

COLONEL FORESTER

said, as the hon. Gentleman had personally alluded to him, he wished to say a few words in explanation. The hon. Member stated that Mr. Brown was his legal adviser, and that questions as to the withdrawal of petitions were decided by him (Colonel Forester). It was unfair in the hon. Member, who sat on the Norwich Committee of Inquiry, to bring his name before the House, considering that he had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the Norwich petition until after it had taken place. The hon. Member now stated that he had given directions to Mr. Brown about it—[Mr. DUNCOMBE: No, I did not say so]—and that Mr. Brown consulted with him on the withdrawal of petitions. He had nothing to do with it. Mr. Brown was employed as an electioneering agent, and he received his orders from his client, and acted on those orders. With regard to Mr. Brown, he had certainly acted with him (Colonel Forester), and helped him with regard to elections previous to the presenting of petitions; but he (Colonel Forester) had nothing to do with petitions to the House; he denied having anything to do with them, and the charge made by the hon. Member was not what it ought to have been, considering that he had sat on the Norwich Committee of Inquiry, which he (Colonel Forester) attended.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had misunderstood him. He did not say that the hon. Gentleman directed Mr. Brown to withdraw the Norwich petition, but that he was the legal advisor of the Carlton Club, and that he had recommended the withdrawal of the Norwich petition.

COLONEL FORESTER

No Committee sat at the Carlton Club. I was the sole and responsible person.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he must express his regret that the discussion had taken a party tone. He thought there was a strong case against certain parties for a breach of the rules of that House, and an infringement of the rights of the electors of Durham. He must adhere to the opinion he had originally formed. The hon. and learned Member for Greenwich (Mr. M. Chambers) said the Motion was made in order to get a compromise of the petition against Lord Adolphus Vane; but the date of the notice of Motion, and the petition on which it was founded, was an answer to that. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam) said the petition was withdrawn on the 26th of November, by mutual consent. That was true; but why was it? Because it was necessary that the real and the sham petitions should be withdrawn before the writ for Durham, consequent on the death of Mr. Grainger, could issue. The fact was, that this sham petition had been withdrawn simply for the purpose of enabling the writ to be issued, and that the bonâ fide petition had only been withdrawn because its withdrawal was made the condition of the withdrawal of the sham one; and these were circumstances which he would undertake to prove if the Committee were granted him. With regard to what the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) had said of the agents, he quite agreed that agents were not the only responsible persons. They did their duty, whether or not that duty was contrary to the orders of that House; and he was not making war against them, but he was making war against fraudulent petitions, and against the whole system which permitted such things. He was sorry to divide the House, but he had pledged himself to various friends to test whether or not the House was in earnest in these affairs, or whether it was determined to deal with such a matter as a mere party matter, without reference to principles.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he had hoped the hon. Gentleman would have agreed to the postponement of a decision on this point. He did not deny that this might be a fit subject for inquiry, though he thought the inquiry ought more to have been directed to the causes which led to the presentation, rather than to those which led to the withdrawal of the petition. But he thought the proper moment had not been chosen for the proposition, considering, in the first place, the long delay in making the Motion after the presentation of the petition, and its subsequent withdrawal; and considering, also, that the Motion was made so immediately before the sitting of an Election Committee to inquire into circumstances intimately connected with the subject which the House had now been discussing. Apart from all this, however, he founded his objection to a decision, at the present moment, on the fact that an hon. Gentleman had that evening given notice of a Motion, fixed for the 31st of May, for a general inquiry into all cases of this kind; and, under these circumstances, he would move that this debate be adjourned to that day, and the inquiry in this instance then, of course, to merge into the general inquiry.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 74: Majority 33.

Debate adjourned till Tuesday, 31st May.

The House adjourned at One o'clock.