HC Deb 01 July 1859 vol 154 cc541-8
MR. OWEN STANLEY

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the statement made by Mr. Dennis at a public meeting of the electors of Northampton, that an offer had been made to Mr. Gilpin by the agents of the late Government to influence his vote in Parliament; and to call upon the Secretary of the Poor Law Board to communicate the letters referred to by him, with the name of the person from whom they originated, to the House. He was happy to state that, since he last brought the question of which he had given notice for that day before the House, it would not be necessary to take the disagreeable course of summoning the innocent printer and publisher of The Times newspaper to the bar of the House. He might state that it was never his wish to interfere with the press, to which the whole community were under deep obligation for the accurate reports which they furnished of the proceedings at public meetings. In any observations he might make on this question he assured the he n. Gentleman whose name he should have occasion to mention it was not his wish to say a single word calculated to give him the least offence. The House was aware, no doubt, that the ques- tion which he intended to put to the Secretary to the Poor Law Board (Mr. Gilpin) was founded on a statement which appeared in the public press, and which was made by Mr. Dennis at a public meeting at Northampton. That statement was to the effect that a pecuniary reward of the most direct and gross nature had been offered to the he n. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) to induce him to vote in a particular way on a division of that House. Since the subject was last before the House he had taken the opportunity of writing to Mr. Dennis, stating that in anticipation of his again referring to it in the House it would be advisable that be (Mr. Dennis) should inform him whether the statement imputed to him in the press was correct. That Gentleman had accordingly furnished him with a corrected statement of his speech. The House would remember that the statement in question was reported to have been made at a meeting of Liberal electors at Northampton which had been convened by Mr. Dennis in anticipation of an expected vacancy in the representation. Mr. Dennis came up to London and had interviews with the two hon. Members for Northampton. In the first instance he saw the late Member for that borough, now Lord Lyveden, and, without troubling the House with what was no doubt amusing, he (Mr. Stanley) might say that a statement was made by that noble Lord to Mr. Dennis as to the reason why he had been removed from that House to the House of Lords. Mr. Dennis had also an interview with the other he n. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin), on the subject of the election about to take place there. The part of the statement subsequently made by Mr. Dennis at the meeting at Northampton, to which he (Mr. Stanley) wished to call attention, was as follows: — But he thought it perfectly right to state, as an illustration of the agencies that had been at work during the late struggle, that Mr. Gilpin read two letters which he had received from the agents of the Tory party, in which a direct attempt was made to corrupt Mr. Gilpin in the discharge of his duty as a Member of Parliament, and to influence him in giving his vote upon the late division, by offering him a consideration of the grossest and most direct character. He stated that at once, for the information of all people concerned, and for the consideration of the electors in case they thought fit to take up the matter. With what success the attempt had been made he need not there state, but he thought he was perfectly justified as an elector in exposing a transaction of so flagrant a character, and to tell the gentlemen who at their own hustings held up halfcrowns to show the poorer electors of the borough what they thought of them, that if this was done by the Government of the country it could not be wondered at that its followers should do the same. With regard to that statement he had received a letter from Mr. Dennis which he would read to the House:—

"Northampton, June 24, 1859.

"Sir, I beg to acknowledge your letter of yesterday's date. As regards the newspaper report of my statement referred to by you, I have to correct it in two not very material particulars. The word 'pecuniary' attributed to me, if used, was inapt, as the letters to which I alluded held out the temptation of an appointment, and not of absolute money. The letters were communicated to, and not 'read by' me. The writer's name was not communicated. I do not understand Mr. Gilpin as disputing the accuracy of the statement, but it must rest with him to produce or withhold the documents, as it obviously does not he in my power personally to pursue the matter further.

"I am, Sir, yours very obediently,

"WILLIAM DENNIS."

That letter was accompanied by the following extract from an account of the affair appeared in the Northampton Mercury of the 25th of June:— There is nothing so simple as truth. We believe, therefore, we shall be doing our valued Member, Mr. Gilpin, a good service, by stating plainly a plain tale as it has come to our knowledge. Some short time ago, a member of Mr. Gilpin's family formed a casual watering-place acquaintance with a lady of some position, whoso connections lay among the Members of the late Ministry. Shortly before the recent division on the want of confidence vote, which proved fatal to the Derby-Disraeli Cabinet, Mr. Gilpin, to his surprise, received a letter from this lady, urging various reasons why, as an 'Independent Liberal,' he should vote in favour of the Ministry, repeating the old story of a Radical Reform Bill looming in the future, and concluding by a statement that the Ministry were prepared to reward politicians who proved awake to a sense of their true interests. This letter having failed to produce the desired result, Mr. Gilpin was favoured with another communication from the same quarter, stating distinctly that in case of his voting in support of the Ministry certain offices, among others that which he now holds under the present Government, or a colonial governorship, would be placed at his disposal. It would be almost an insult to our representative to assert more about his reply than that it was what any man of honour and integrity would have made to such a proposal. The contents of the correspondence have been communicated to us, and we can confidently declare that their publication, if advisable, would only tend to increase the estimation in which Mr. Gilpin's character is deservedly held. This division came on, Mr. Gilpin voted in the majority. The Derby Government was thrown out, and Lord Palmerston assumed the task of constructing a Ministry. After the post of Secretary to the Poor Law Board had bean offered to Mr. Gilpin, and accepted by him—after, and not before—the letters in question were shown by him to his colleagues in the Ministry, and to those Gentlemen with whom he has acted in Parliament. By their advice, it was resolved, agreeably to Mr. Gilpin's own opinion, that no further notice should be taken of the matter. The grounds on which this Resolution was adopted were, we believe, the following:—First, that there was no good to be gained in stirring up ill blood now that the contest was over. Secondly, that any attack on a lady was in itself invidious; and, lastly, that there was a want of legal or indeed absolute moral proof that the lady in question had written with distinct authority from any of the late Government, or might not have exceeded her instructions. Under these circumstances it was considered only just to give the parties inculpated the benefit of the doubt. The decision was a wise one, and with Mr. Gilpin's wish the matter would then have dropped. Unfortunately, without Mr. Gilpin's knowledge or sanction, a somewhat garbled version of this story worked its way round into one of the London papers. Mr. Dennis communicated with Mr. Gilpin on the subject of this Report, and received the facts as we have told them. The matter had already attracted attention in the town, and at a meeting of the Liberal party, summoned on Monday last, for another object, Mr. Dennis very properly, in our opinion, made a statement to this effect. Now, he should have been very happy if the advice tendered to the he n. Gentleman had been followed to the letter, and if he had kept the letter entirely to himself. But the he n. Member had brought it upon himself if other Members thought that the affair ought to be properly noticed. It seemed that when an election agent came up to prepare for a new election for Northampton he was shown these letters. He was told the whole story, and when he returned he made political capital of it at Northampton. He said that he mentioned it for the purpose of exposure, and in order that the matter might be followed up. In his (Mr. 0. Stanley's) simplicity, he certainly thought it was the wish of the he n. Member that a public inquiry should take place, and that the party offending—he did not then know it was a lady—should be brought to justice. The House must remember the particular time at which this charge was made, and the nature of the situation in which the House at present stood. A dissolution had taken place, and a considerable number of seats had been gained by the late Government. When they came to count the relative numbers on the Motion of want of confidence it was well known that five or six votes taken from one side and carried to the other would have the effect either of leaving the late Administration in power or replacing them by their opponents. Rumours had been rife, and he himself knew, that every means were taken by the late Government to secure, if possible, a majority in their avour. He might, indeed, go further and say that some means were taken which were not greatly to their credit. [Cries of "Name."] He would not do so at present, but in all probability before the Session was over these things would come out, The House had seen every means taken to influence Members. Some were influenced by Galway contracts, others by the prospect of obtaining what they supposed to be the rights of the Roman Catholics. Had they forgotten the public meeting in London on the subject? ["Question!"] It was the question. At a meeting of the Roman Catholic nobility and gentry in London it was stated that then was the time to press Lord Derby, and that if he did not yield them what they thought right they would find a means of making him. Considering all they had heard and that the statement was brought forward in a public way, it was for the dignity and credit of the House that any replies to it should be made in that House rather than at Northampton at an election, and in the manner in which it had been done. It was only the other day that a book was handed round containing the rules of the House, one of which—the 419th, dated May 2nd, 1695—set forth that any offer of money or advantage to a Member of Parliament was a high crime and misdemeanor, and tended to subvert the British constitution. That Resolution was passed at a time when direct pecuniary bribery was practised, which later, in the time of Walpole, had got to such an extent that it was said, "Every man had his price." He hoped that such times would never return, and that the House, in framing rules to put a stop to bribery and corruption in constituencies, would themselves come with clean hands to the work. With regard to this transaction, although the he n. Member for Northampton told them he would not give up the name of the writer of the letters, yet he put it to him whether, after taking the part he had done, and after raising so serious a charge, it was not his duty to follow it up, and give the name, so as to allow the House to judge whether the charge were true or false. He did not require the name of the lady. It was a poor flimsy pretext, however, to keep back the name because it was that of a lady. The husband and those who had incited her to write the letters wore the real culprits. He believed the he n. Member for Northampton would tell the House that he had no reason to believe that the offer made to him was a he ax; and if the answer of the he n. Gentleman were read, there would be no doubt the he n. Gentleman thought it a bonâ fide offer. He had no power to compel the he n. Member to give up the name. It must rest with him, as a sincere Reformer, either to prosecute this matter further, or to take the responsibility of having gone so far, and now refusing to proceed. Feeling, therefore, that he was acting rightly, he would now call upon the Secretary of the Poor-law Board to communicate the letters referred to by him, with the name of the person from whom they originated, to the House.

MR. GILPIN

said, that when a short time ago the he n. Gentleman first brought before the House the subject to which he had again called their attention, he then without notice called upon him (Mr. Gilpin) to defend statements which he had not made, and to explain a speech which he had not delivered. That was, he considered, rather hard justice, especially from an he n. Gentleman sitting upon the same side of the House as himself; but upon the spur of the moment he made a statement which he could not do better than repeat—that letters were sent to him containing suggestions which, had they been acted upon, would have biassed his political course in Parliament; that he could not trace them, and did not trace them, to the agents of the Conservative party, and therefore he was not going to take any further steps in the matter. He did not know whether he stated then what had since become sufficiently notorious, that the author of those letters was a lady, but he presumed his he n. Friend was perfectly well aware that it was not the first time that ladies connected with political parties had exerted themselves in canvassing Members or constituencies. He confessed the thing appeared so utterly ridiculous that he had to look more than once at the notice of Motion, and to speak more than once to the he n. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. O. Stanley) before he could be quite sure that a Gentleman, as he undoubtedly was, would come down to the House of Commons and ask a fellow Member to give up the name of a lady. He was surprized that a Gentleman should think it right to make such a request, but he was quite sure it was a request which no Gentleman could comply with. [Mr. O. STANLEY: The language of the he n. Member is unparliamentary.] He hoped he had said what he had intended to say. He meant to say that he wondered he w a Gentleman should ask a question which no Gentleman could answer, but he had not meant to say anything unparliamentary or personally offensive. The he n. Gentleman has, however, put a notice on the paper, and it was his (Mr. Gilpin's) duty to reply to it. He had stated before, that inasmuch as that correspondence was not, as far as he knew, to be traced to the agents of any political party, he was not prepared to take any further steps in the matter. When the he n. Member had shown him on the previous day the terms of his Motion, they contained, he believed, no allusion to any demand for the name of the lady, and he was then prepared, if the House desired it, though he would venture to suggest that their time might be much better occupied) to place attested copies of the letters and his replies upon the table, but now that the he n. Gentleman had coupled with his question a demand for the name of his correspondent, he must tell that he n. Gentleman respectfully, but emphatically, that he declined to give it.

MR. PALK

said, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion; but the he n. Gentleman who first addressed them had made a charge against Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House which reflected not only on the members of the late Government, but on all those who had supported them during the time they were in office. The he n. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O. Stanley), if he had not misunderstood his language, had charged them with endeavouring to obtain votes by means which were not justifiable; and which, therefore, he supposed were discreditable to themselves and to their party. He, therefore, called on that he n. Gentleman, as one who was not in the habit of making charges which he was not prepared to prove, to name either on the present or on some future occasion when it might better suit the convenience of the House those particular members of the Government and those particular acts which he had called in question.

MR. CLAY

said, he considered that the question was one that ought not to have been brought before the House; it ought not to have been treated seriously; indeed, it was impossible to do so, for neither any power existing in that House or elsewhere, nor probably any tortures, would wring from his he n. Friend the name of his fair and somewhat indiscreet correspondent. The matter ought not to be treated seriously, because there was not one tittle of evidence, or any shadow of presumption, so far as he had been able to see, to connect any gentleman who had the power of carrying out the offer which the letter contained with the letter in which that offer was made. Nor had he understood the slightest charge to that effect to be made by the he n. Gentleman. Neither his he n. Friend nor any other person in his senses could have considered it possible that right he n. Gentlemen on the other side, when sitting on the Treasury benches, would have been guilty of such dishonest and exceedingly rash conduct; and even had they been inclined to do so, he doubted whether they would have pitched on his he n. Friend as the object of their blandishments. In common with many other he n. Members he had, from the first entrance into that House of his he n. Friend, admired his ability and straightforward conduct. They might have been somewhat awed by a little of the stern and Cato-like virtue which was apparent in his demeanour; and they had been certainly glad to find that he was the object of, and, perhaps, accessible to, other admiration than that of the House of which he was a Member. Having said this, and added very respectfully his advice, that in case any similar letter reached his he n. Friend the best course which he could adopt would be immediately to put it on the fire, he hoped, with deference to the House, that he had said all that it was necessary to say on this exceedingly trumpery matter.

MR. O. STANLEY

said, that referring to the statement that the correspondence had been shown to him, thought it right to say that the lady had written as the amanuensis of her husband.

MR. BRADY

said, that although on the occasion when this subject was last laid before the House, he had expressed himself as not being fully satisfied, having since been allowed to read the correspondence which had passed between the he n. Member and that celebrated lady, he must say that there was not a word in his reply which did not reflect credit on him as a man of honour.