HC Deb 11 August 1854 vol 135 cc1539-43
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move that new writs be issued for Canterbury, Cambridge, Maldon, Barnstaple, and Kingston-upon-Hull. The wording of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had put upon the paper would appear rather to indicate a wish on his part that the House should delay indefinitely the issue of those writs than that they should adopt the ballot. There were a great many Members in that House who had great faith in secret voting. He confessed he (Sir W. Jolliffe) was not one of those gentlemen, for, on the contrary, he had the greatest faith in publicity. He was not there in any way to defend those delinquent boroughs; he regretted their delinquency extremely—it was most lamentable; and he thought it was the province of that House to apply itself to remedy the evil, and if possible to remedy it effectually. He might, however, remind the House that the issue of the writs in question had been delayed of late in order to enable the House to pass the Bribery Bill; and that Bill having now become law, it would come into operation immediately in the boroughs for which he now moved the issue of new writs. That being the case, it appeared to him the House had no other course left but to issue the writs. Besides, a constitutional question arose in the matter. It had always been held that that House should consist of 658 Members. Now, the effect of the course which had been taken with regard to these boroughs had been to deprive the House during the whole of the present, and part of the last Session, of ten English Members, and this, in addition to the four Members whose seats were not filled up, in the case of the disfranchised boroughs of St. Albans and Sudbury. That made altogether fourteen English Members of whose services the country was deprived, in addition to those who were absent from England in consequence of the war. Now, a limit should be put by the House to proceedings of this kind, and he hoped, therefore, the Motion of which he had given notice would be adopted. In conclusion, he would ask what would be said if the House were to attempt to keep vacant for any considerable period a large number of Irish seats or seats for the metropolitan boroughs?

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 two Citizens to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Canterbury, in the room of Henry Plumptre Gipps, esquire, and of the Honourable Henry Butler Johnstone, whose Election has been determined to be void.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, his hon. Friend (Sir W. Jolliffe) had exercised a wise discretion in not saying much in reference to these boroughs; for the least said respecting them was soonest mended. He would, however, endeavour shortly to supply the omissions of his hon. Friend. He had been asked by his hon. Friend if he would make such a Motion in the case of the metropolitan boroughs. He would tell his hon. Friend that should the occasion arise he would deal with them in the same way as the five delinquent boroughs. He wanted to have the experiment of the ballot tried upon these five cases, and he was certain it could never be better tested than by them, He would not go over the able arguments which had been used by his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Berkeley), and his right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth), in favour of the ballot. The House knew perfectly well how the question stood. Two Cabinet Ministers had spoken on the question of the ballot when it was last under discussion in the House. The one of them, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), said the ballot was a nasty, dirty, mean, and un-English proceeding—and declared it was all nonsense. The other said it was the only cure for the evils of which they had to complain. His hon. Friend (Sir W. Jolliffe) might have added to the list of Members of whose services the House was now deprived the name of one of the Members for the City of London (Baron Rothschild), who, owing to the bigotry and intolerance of hon. Gentlemen on the other side and the House of Lords, was obliged to take his seat under the gallery. He was like a person sitting in the porter's hall till my Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite asked him to come in. This was an insult to the citizens of London—it was degrading to the individual, and humiliating to the House of Commons, The Commissions for conducting the inquiry into these delinquent boroughs cost the country 30,000l., and all they were to have for the money was a trumpery Bribery Bill. The issue of the writ for Canterbury was the Motion now before the House. Canterbury was an archiepiscopal borough. The sooner the Archbishop changed the name the better. He would recommend to him the name of one of the metropolitan boroughs—Finsbury, for instance. Cambridge was an ancient seat of learning, and bribery "systematically prevailed" there for a long period. The same was the case with Hull. The ballot might be the means of recalling to the electors of Hull the times when they elected Andrew Marvel. It was the electors who paid his expenses. They "treated" him, and not he them—for they made him a present of a large barrel of ale, "of a quantity and quality enough to make a sober man neglect his duty in the House." It was a perfect farce to send these writs to these boroughs under the Bribery Bill. He had received a letter from the town clerk of Barnstaple, who said that the issuing of the writ would infallibly disfranchise the borough, the representation of it being in the hands of those who did not appreciate it except as a saleable commodity. One of the hon. Members for Devonshire presented what he called "a respectable petition" from 600 or 700 persons in favour of the issuing of the writ to Barnstaple. Now he was informed that of these only 317 were electors, and that 215 out of the 317 were in the Commissioners' schedule. Even though he should not carry his Amendment, he would oppose the issuing of the writs till they had an amended Controverted Elections Bill. He regretted that Her Majesty's Ministers were not present. He understood that the ballot was an open question with them. But there was a strong feeling growing up that this open-question system was but an ingenious device for screening what were called placemen. He supposed they left the question to be fought by his hon. Friend and himself. He should conclude by moving 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— Whereas Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of an Act passed in the 15th and 16th of Her Majesty, c. 57, intituled, 'An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,' and in compliance with the prayer of the joint Addresses of both Houses of Parliament, did appoint, under Her Royal Sign Manual, certain persons to be Commissioners, the the purpose of making such 'more effectual inquiry' into the corrupt practices alleged to have existed in the Election of Members for Canterbury, Cambridge, Kingston upon Hull, Maldon, and Barnstaple. And whereas the said Commissioners have reported to Her Majesty—That corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last Election for the City of Canterbury, and at previous Elections: That Bribery, Treating, and other corrupt practices have for a long period systematically prevailed at Elections for the Borough of Cambridge: That systematic corruption has uniformly prevailed at all the Elections in Kingston upon Hull to which their notice had been called. That corrupt practices in various forms had long prevailed at Elections for Maldon, and that open and direct Bribery was practised, at the last Election, to a greater extent than at any which preceded it; that the Bribery Oath was tendered to each voter as he came to the poll, and that it was freely taken by all, however recent, open, and unquestionable the bribe to them may have been, and this shamelessness was in some cases increased by their becoming witnesses before the Commission of the double fact of their own bribery and perjury; that a large portion of the Electors, consisting chiefly of the poorer class of freemen, had, in giving their votes, been influenced by considerations of money and other benefits to themselves, and that such influences had been habitually employed to corrupt them, hut that the blame of such corruption did not rest so much with them as with their superiors, by whom the temptation to it was held out: That corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last Election for Barnstaple; that, of the 696 voters who polled, 255 received bribes; that, in the majority of cases, those who received bribes came forward and admitted their delinquency, but in some instances the efforts of the Commission to elicit the truth were met with gross evasion, prevarication, and even perjury, but these instances were not confined to the lowest class of voters—men whose position in life ought to have placed them beyond the reach of corrupt influences attempted to screen their venality by denying it upon oath; and apparently decent and respectable tradesmen were induced to commit the crime of perjury, in order to preserve their position in the eyes of their fellow townsmen, and thus to hide the shame of their electoral corruption: It is expedient that, previous to the issue of any New Writ to either of the aforesaid places, provision be made to enable the Electors thereof to give their votes by way of Ballot,"— instead thereof.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 33: Majority 7.

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 32: Majority 13.