HC Deb 12 August 1859 vol 155 cc1391-6

MR. EDWIN JAMES moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:— Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Tour Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to try a Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the City of Gloucester, have reported to the House, that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last Election for the City of Gloucester: We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,' by the appointment of James Vaughan, esquire, Lucius Henry Fitzgerald, esquire, and Richard Griffiths Welford, esquire, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices: That the said Address be communicated to the Lords at a Conference, and their concurrence desired thereto: That a Conference be desired with the Lords upon the subject-matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, under the provisions of the Act of the 15th and 16th of Her present Majesty, c. 57; and that the Clerk do go to the Lords, and desire the said Conference. His Motion was based on the Report of the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the late election for the city of Gloucester, in which Report it was stated that the Committee had reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at that election; fifteen persons having been bribed with sums varying from £10 to £5. He might add that he had carefully read through the evidence which had been taken before the Committee, and that he made the present Motion with the sanction of the whole of its members. In agreeing to this Address the House would only be following the course it had adopted in the case of Wakefield.

MR. HADFIELD

should be glad to know what the expense of this Commission would be. Reports weighing no less than eleven tons had been made by similar Commissions, but nothing had been ever done upon them, nor had a single individual living ever read them.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, it was but too true that the inquiries of these Commissions did not produce the desired results; but he believed that was the fault of the House, and not of the Commissioners. In the Galway case the existence of extensive corruption had been clearly brought to light by the Commissioners, but a desire had been shown by Members on both sides of the House to screen the culprits. It was his conviction that the House was not sincere in its avowed determination to put down corrupt practices at elections, and until that was the case the issue of such Commissions as that which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone now moved would be found to be nugatory.

MR. O'BRIEN

thought that if this Commission was issued one Commissioner would be quite as good as three, which would be a considerable saving of expense.

MR. MELLOR

said, that with respect to the Galway case he believed the charge of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Griffith) was justified by the result, the House having managed in that instance to render nugatory the Report of the Commissioners. Inquiries of that description would be nothing better than a farce and a sham unless the House should resolve to give them practical effect, and until he saw better evidence than had yet been furnished of its determination to carry out its professions in those cases he should oppose the appointment of Commissions.

MR. BRADY

looked upon all these Commissions as a complete delusion, and no beneficial result could come from them. If the House really wished to put down bribery, let the Committees recommend that the persons bribed and the persons bribing should be prosecuted. The only object of the Commission appeared to be to give employment to three barristers during the long vacation.

MR. MALINS

said, that he also had a strong opinion against issuing these Commissions. There had been already fifteen inquiries of the kind, the results of which were embodied in fifteen blue-books, which he would venture to say fifteen persons had never read. It was hardly possible for poor people to resist the temptation of sums larger than they had ever possessed or even hoped to possess: but why did not the House proceed against the bribers? If they would resolve that when a Committee found that a person had practised bribery that person should be prosecuted by the Attorney General, they would be doing something towards putting an end to these discreditable practices. It was not the poor man who accepted the bribe that was most to blame in these cases, but the rich man who practised upon his poverty for the purpose of influencing his vote. They had already agreed that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the alleged corruption at Wakefield; but he regretted that he had not opposed the Mo- tion in that case, and he hoped that they would have no more of those ridiculous and expensive proceedings.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone, in bringing forward that Motion, was merely seeking to carry out the provisions of an Act of Parliament. There was a statute—the 15th and 16th Vict., c. 57—which expressly provided that when a Committee had specially reported that bribery had extensively prevailed in a county or a borough, the House might address the Crown, praying that a Commission should issue for the purpose of inquiring into the case, and the Commission when appointed had all the powers vested in it by the Act to ascertain whether bribery had existed and to what extent. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wallingford seemed to think that the Commissioners would only pursue the poor electors, who had accepted the bribes and that they left unnoticed the wealthy and the more guilty parties, who had thrown the temptation in their way. But that was not an accurate view of the matter. If the Commissioners should report who were the bribers, the House was surely not powerless to punish them, whatever might be their station. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that none of those inquiries ended in any good. Now, in the Galway case a Bill had been introduced for the purpose of disfranchising a particular class of voters who had been proved before the Commissioners to have been extensively corrupted. That Bill was generally supported by the party with whom he (Sir George Grey) usually acted; but it was opposed by the late Government and their supporters, and it had consequently been lost. The House had recently agreed that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the corruption practised at the election for Wakefield. Gloucester and Wakefield were the only two cases in which Election Committees had reported specially that bribery extensively prevailed, and it would be inconsistent to issue a Commission in the one instance and not in the other. If the Motion should be negatived there must be an end to any further inquiry into the corrupt practices which, according to the report of that Committee, had extensively prevailed at the late City of Gloucester election; and to morrow the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford would perhaps give notice that he would move the issue of a new writ for that city. [Mr. MALINS: Certainly not.] Well, but he (Sir George Grey) should protest against the suspension of a writ except for the purpose of some ulterior proceeding; and if the House did not contemplate any such proceeding it would have no right to suspend a writ indefinitely. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Had-field) asked what might be the expense of such a Commission. He (Sir George Grey) could not undertake to answer that question. But he believed it was not at all likely that the expense in that case would be as great as it had been in the Hull inquiry, from the very fact that such strong complaints had been made of the cost incurred in that latter case as would prevent the occurrence of a similar outlay upon any future occasion.

SIR HENRY DAVIE

said, that as he was then the only member of the Gloucester Committee in the House he felt it his duty to state that a grosser case of bribery could hardly be conceived than that which had been brought before them. He should himself have moved the appointment of a Commission in the case if he had not been anticipated in his intention by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone.

COLONEL SYKES

observed, that no less a sum than £768,000 had been spent upon Commissions. Last year no less than £33,000 was expended in that way, and he thought it was high time the House put a check upon such extravagance,

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, that looking at the precedent furnished by the Wakefield case, he should feel it his duty to Vote for the Motion, but he hoped that would be the last Commission of the kind that would be issued. These Commissions were perfectly useless. If they wanted to effect any good they ought to call upon hon. Members to come to the table to make a clear and distinct statement upon their honour that they had neither been guilty of bribery, directly or indirectly, and that they had not paid and would not pay any expenses beyond those properly certified by the Election Auditor.

MR. VANCE

said, that as a general rule Commissions of this kind were not attended by any useful result; in point of fact, that they were utterly futile. But then that was entirely the fault of the House of Commons itself. It had been suggested that Committees should order the prosecution of both the bribers and the bribed; but if the suggestion were acceded to it would be altogether impossible to obtain evidence upon which the Committee could reply.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

denied that he had any interest in the patronage of the appointment of the Commissioners who were to conduct the inquiry, and he indignantly repudiated the idea that the members of the Bar had sunk so low as to seek the appointment of such a Commission merely for the sake of the patronage. The Commission for which he asked was in strict accordance with the Act of Parliament, and if it should come to nothing, that was not the fault of the Commissioners, but of the House, which might decline to act upon it afterwards.

MR. BRADY

protested, that he had meant nothing personal towards the hon. and learned Member.

Question put,

House divided: —Ayes 59; Noes 21: Majority 38.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:— Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to try a Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the City of Gloucester, have reported to the House, that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last Election for the City of Gloucester: We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled 'An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,' by the appointment of James Vaughan, esquire, Lucius Henry Fitzgerald, esquire, and Richard Griffiths Welford, esquire, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices: Ordered, "That the said Address be communicated to the Lords at a Conference, and their concurrence desired thereto: Ordered, "That a Conference be desired with the Lords upon the subject-matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, under the provisions of the Act of the 15 & 16 of Her present Majesty, c 57; and that the Clerk do go to the Lords, and desire the said Conference.