DARTMOUTH WRIT. (Hansard, 1 August 1859)

§ MR. PALK
said, he rose to move that a Writ be issued for the election of a Member for the borough of Dartmouth in the room of Mr. E. W. H. Schenley, whose election had been declared void.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, the notice he had given of a Motion that no new Writ should be issued in case of a return declared void on the ground of bribery, until the House should have considered the evidence given before the Committee had no reference to this or any particular case; but he thought it was the duty of the House to be cautious in issuing a Writ in such cases. He, therefore, moved that the Writ for the borough of Dartmouth should be suspended till the House had considered the evidence on which the decision of the Committee was founded.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
I understand that several applications for the Chiltern Hundreds are about to be made to the noble Lord at the head of the Government by hon. Gentlemen who have been petitioned against on the ground of bribery, but I trust that any applications on the part of persons who seek in this way to escape exposure before a Committee will not be acceded to. Some time ago the public were warned that great corruption had been practised by Gentlemen sitting on these the Opposition benches; but I am sorry to say that, by discoveries recently made, it has been found that corruption has taken place on that the Ministerial side of the House; and the remarkable feature of the case is, that noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen are sitting on the benches opposite in consequence; for I believe that pretty nearly the whole 840 number of their majority have been disfranchised since inquiries have been instituted, and that they have been disfranchised because of bribery. Why, Sir, the whole country was startled, "the isle was frighted from its propriety," by the statement which was made by the virtuous Gentlemen opposite. It was said that a noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman had subscribed, combined, and conspired for the purpose of bringing a majority into Parliament. Upon which side does the imputation rest now? Having warned the noble Lord of the applications which I am told are about to be made to him, I wish to make one remark upon the conduct of Committees of this House, who find that bribery has been practised by the agents of Members of this House. Now, I have no such faith in mankind as to believe, that out of mere charity or love for any human being, a man will spend £2,000 or £3,000 in bribery. I say, therefore, that our Committees are too cautious by half. When they discover that £3,000, or £4,000 has been spent in order to seat a Gentleman in this House, I think they would he quite safe in assuming that it is by the direction of that hon. Gentleman himself. ["No!"] No ! Is there anybody of such a soft disposition, with so soft a head and so tender a heart, as to fancy that there is a man in existence so wild in his charity as to give £2,000 or £3,000 in order to seat a Gentleman, that Gentleman knowing nothing about it? Why, the statements which have been made within the last ten days before Committees of this House are enough to shock the feelings of the country at the conduct of a party which calls itself Liberal, and a great number of whom I recollect in the year 1830, raising a great outcry against the corruption of the ancient Parliaments. Why, Sir, there was nothing ever done in the ancient Parliaments worse than has been done in this. I do say, then, that it behoves this House to take into its most serious consideration how it can by any possibility stop this evil, and I entreat hon. Gentlemen who are sitting on our Committees to have the courage to be honest, and not to add base hypocrisy to the horrible corruption which now prevails. I repeat, Sir, that it is base hypocrisy for any one to say he can believe that a man is seated at an expense of £6,000 or £7,000 without knowing that such money has been given for the purpose.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
remarked, that he had not heard any reason assigned by the 841 hon. and learned Gentleman why the Writ should not issue. The hon. and learned Gentleman might remember the St. Alban's case, when the House thought there ought to be further inquiry, and when a Commission was appointed. Subsequently to that, the 15th and 16th Vict, gave Committees the power of making special reports, and then, upon a joint Address of both Houses reciting the Report of the Committee that extensive bribery prevailed, a Commission might issue, which Commission was armed with the power of summoning witnesses and taking evidence on oath. In the present case, looking at the Committee's Report, he supposed they had reason to believe that extensive bribery did not prevail. In the cases of Wakefield and Gloucester, it would not be right to issue Writs without seeing the evidence, and then it would be open to the House to move an Address for the issuing of a Commission. With regard to the case of Dartmouth, however, even if the Writ were postponed until the evidence was before the House, the Committee having made no special report the House would remain powerless, unless his hon. and learned Friend brought in a Bill to authorize a Commission, armed with the necessary powers, to sit and inquire in this particular borough. If there were no reason to believe that the Committee had perpetrated a grievous error, which was only to be remedied by a special Act, the issue of the writ ought not to be postponed. The remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman were somewhat premature, for very few Committees had yet been appointed in which the seats on the Opposition benches were impugned, and it was not at all clear that all the corruption was on one side.

§ MR. LEFROY
said, that as Chairman of the Dartmouth Committee, he wished to make one or two remarks. Seven or eight witnesses had been examined, and it was proved that some voters absented themselves, or had accepted money—these cases amounted to three or four at the utmost. The Committee proceeded no further, all defence of the seat having been abandoned. No proof of general corruption, however, having been given, the Committee did not think it necessary to order the evidence to be printed. The House had the case before them, and the Committee did not wish to take an active part on one side or the other.

§ MR. PALK
said, he believed that no borough had been purer than Dartmouth hitherto, and a few isolated cases of bribery 842 ought not to interfere with the general character of the borough. The House were bound to pass laws that were plain and could be understood, instead of those complicated Acts which often rendered it impossible for a man not knowing a town, or its inhabitants, to escape the imputation of bribery. In the present the town had been canvassed by a young gentleman who, in consequence of his ignorance, had certainly done some acts which could not be defended, but there was certainly no reason why the writ should not issue. He hoped the hon. Baronet would persevere in the course upon which he had entered, but that he would select a better case than that of Dartmouth.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he agreed in thinking that the writ ought to issue. This was the first case since the Committees sat, and he hoped it would guide the House. The distinction made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was the only true and sound one, for it would be a serious evil if, in cases where there was no report that the bribery was general, the House should be troubled with these discussions. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had accused hon. Members, sworn at the table to do justice, of hypocrisy in not finding the Members themselves guilty of bribery. It was quite sufficient for any one to be accused of an offence for the hon. and learned Member to pronounce him guilty. An Election Committee, however, required proof of such a charge. The hon. and learned Member was too fond of accusing others, and too ready to believe them guilty. He believed that if any hon. Member stood up and declared the hon. and learned Gentleman to be guilty of acrimony, injustice, and unfairness, the hon. and learned Gentleman, however unjust the charge might be, would be ready to believe it of himself. He (Mr. Bouverie) thought it most undesirable to make the House a court of appeal against the decisions of Election Committees. The real source of the evil was the loose law of agency, by which persons often innocently committed acts which were deemed illegal, involving the sitting Members in the responsibility of those acts, although they might be entirely ignorant of them.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, that although the legal evidence might be deficient, he thought that the House was warranted in assuming that a great deal of bribery had been practised at the last election for Dartmouth. The Committee had been prevented from investigating the matter thoroughly by the 843 retirement of the Member, but the Committee spoke of large sums which had not been applied to the legal expenses of the election, and which, the presumption therefore was, had been applied illegally. That was sufficient ground for postponing the issue of the writ, and instituting a most searching inquiry into the whole case.

MR. WHITESIDE
said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had correctly laid down the rule, but that where there was anything tangible to show that a considerable amount of corruption had been practised, the House ought to oppose the issuing of the writ. He differed from those who complained that the law of agency was too loose. It ought to be loose. Where a number of agents busied themselves in an election they usually had good reason for being busy.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.