MR. O. STANLEYsaid, that as the House was now about to adjourn for a week, he wished to call the attention of the House to a statement which appeared in a newspaper published that morning (The Times) gravely affecting the character of the House. It appeared under the head of "Election Intelligence," and set forth that a vacancy was about to be created in the representation of Northampton. It seemed that at a meeting of the electors a Mr. Dennis, who was represented to be a law agent, told them that on a recent occasion he had had an interview with one of their Members (Mr. Gilpin), and then followed these particular words, to which he (Mr. Stanley) wished to direct the attention of the House,—
As an illustration of the agencies that had been at work during the late struggle, Mr. Gilpin showed him two letters which he had received from the agents of the Tory party, and 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 last division, by offering to him a pecuniary consideration of the grossest and most direct character.The attempt referred to must have taken place a fortnight ago, and yet no notice had been taken of so flagrant an act. He knew nothing of the matter except what appeared in the newspapers; but the statement required explanation, and if the hon. Member for Northampton were not now in his place he would give notice that on the reassembling of the House he would ask him whether the statement were correct, and if the answer were in the affirmative, what steps he meant to take with regard to it.
§ MR. BLACKBURNthought, as the hon. Gentleman had brought this matter before the House, it would have been as well if he had called attention to the first part of the paragraph. It began thus:—
Mr. Dennis, the legal adviser of Mr. Vernon Smith, stated that he had had an interview with 442 the right hon. Gentleman, at which he was informed that, as a mark of Her Majesty's personal appreciation of Mr. Vernon Smith's services during his administration of the affairs of India, and in consideration of the gross scurrility, foul abuse, and most unwarrantable attacks that had been made upon him during his tenure of office, Her Majesty thought it right that some distinguished mark of her approbation of those services should be conferred upon him, and therefore Lord Palmerston informed him that his elevation to the House of Lords was a matter for his acceptance or rejection." That statement also required some explanation.
§ MR. HADFIELDthought that notice ought to have been given to the parties affected before the subject was brought forward.
MR. BOUVERIEpointed out that the two statements brought under the notice of the House were essentially different. That mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. O. Stanley) if it were correct, involved a distinct breach of the privileges of the House, and might bring upon the parties concerned the strongest condemnation of the House. The other statement referred to by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) related to a matter with which the House had nothing whatever to do.
§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the discussion ought not to be proceeded with until the parties concerned were present.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid it did not appear to him that the hon. Member for Northampton was the person to be applied to. The proper person was the person who published the statement; and he thought his hon. Friend would do well to ask the Speaker to issue his summons to the person who had published that statement to attend at the bar of the House and to ask them on what authority they had published it. If they asked the hon. Member whether he had been offered a pecuniary bribe for the vote which he was to give on a recent occasion, he had no doubt they would be told that it was all a mistake. He would therefore move that the editor be summoned to the bar, and asked on what authority he dared to make such a statement. That would bring the matter to a proper test. As to what the hon. Member for Stirlingshire had stated, they were two distinct subjects. It seemed to be a squib against the proceedings of the late Government, but had nothing to do with the privileges of this House, while 443 the other statement was a direct breach of them.
COLONEL DUNNE[thought that if the House took notice of all the statements made in newspapers, it would waste a great deal of its time. He himself spoke feelingly on the subject, because there had appeared in The Times newspaper on one or two occasions lately a gross accusation against himself, which was entirely destitute of foundation. It accused him of having gained his election under a false pretence, by stating that he had voted against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when, in fact, he had voted for it. He certainly had told his constituents on the hustings that he had voted against that Bill, and as certainly he had never voted in favour of it. He never had denied that he had voted for its introduction, and also on various clauses; but he had voted on these clauses as had many others, and in a manner which at least could not be displeasing to Roman Catholics, or inconsistent with opposition to the Bill: and, though it had been asserted, and his name certainly appeared in the division list on the Motion that the Bill do now pass—he did not believe that he had voted in that division. There was a mistake somewhere— how he could not tell; but he did not believe that he had voted as he was represented to have done. But he had actually voted against the Bill on Mr. Urquhart's Motion, which was the only one which was near destroying the Bill, and which attacked the motives of the Government in bringing forward the Bill as well as it principle. Was he likely afterwards to have voted "that it do pass?" It never was asserted that he had voted for the first, the second, or the third reading, but that after having voted against it, that he voted on the very unusual Motion that the Bill do pass. There had been much confusion in the House that night, and mistakes were likely to occur when the division was taken. Such mistakes occasionally occurred, and, if not corrected by a Member himself, his vote must remain. Neither were the exceptions made in the Amendments brought forward by Mr. M'Cullagh nor Mr. S. Crawford, as he thought, judicious, for by making exceptions they evaded the question of toleration which should be uniform in every part of the kingdom, and in voting against these Amendments he gave no approbation to the Bill. He was the more confirmed in this persuasion, because imme- 444 diately after the division, eight years since, he went to his constituents, who, on the ground of his opposition to that Bill, held a meeting to make arrangements to reject him and to choose another representative. But he was not alone in this conviction, for he had lately received from the electors of Portarlington two addresses. One from the Protestants, who had felt angry at his opposition to the Bill, stating their then intentions of seeking another candidate, and the remonstrance they had conveyed to him for it, and adding, that he had never denied that he had opposed that Bill as he might have done, but defended the vote he had given against it. The other address was from the Roman Catholics of the borough, who stated that they had approved of his opposition to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, of which they were convinced at the time. He therefore had asserted only what he felt convinced was the truth—and still felt convinced was the truth. He was quite sure that no one who knew him would believe that he was capable of the baseness of going upon the hustings and telling a deliberate untruth. He opposed the Bill at the time, because he held that it was not founded upon the principles of religious toleration which he had ever supported; and, therefore, he would not vote for it, though he was threatened, as he had stated, with opposition in consequence of his vote, and then, eight years since, never defended himself by saying he had voted for it. But at the late election there was no opposition against him worth the name; there was no candidate that was to be feared, and therefore he had not even an object in telling the untruth with which he had been charged. He begged pardon of the House for having occupied their time with such a question, but as The Times had lately reiterated the calumny, he thought he ought to put himself right with the House and the country.
MR. CLIVEthought it was impossible to proceed any further in this matter without a formal notice of a breach of privilege, and producing the name of the paper and of the editor. There was no accusation against the hon. Member for Northampton, and he thought the matter had better be allowed to drop.
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, that if there was nothing that affected the character of the hon. Member for Northampton, there was something that seriously affected the character of the House, and it should not 445 be allowed to drop. He suggested that the hon. Member for Finsbury should move that the writer of the charge be summoned to the bar on the next day that the House meet.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he himself was not prepared with the names of the paper and the editor, but he still maintained that that was the proper course to pursue. It was totally impossible that the matter could remain where it was, and the editor of the paper which had dared to publish this statement ought to be required to furnish his authority.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe question now immediately before the House is, that the House at its rising do adjourn until the 30th instant, and it would not be proper to introduce such a subject as this on a question of adjournment. If the House should be of opinion that any breach of privilege has been committed, or if any hon. Member should make any formal complaint of a breach of privilege, the proper course to pursue is to lay the newspaper on the table with the name of the editor, and on that the House may give such orders as it thinks fit. These are in-indispensable preliminaries to any further proceedings.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ House at its rising to adjourn to Thursday, 30th June.
§ [Afterwards.]
MR. O. STANLEYsaid, that as the hon. Member for Northampton was now in his place, perhaps he would at once answer the question, of his intention to put which at the next sitting of the House, he (Mr. Stanley) had given notice. The question was, whether there was any truth in the following statement, which, according to The Times, was made by a Mr. Dennis, the legal adviser of Mr. Vernon Smith, at a meeting of the Liberal electors of Northampton, held at that place on Monday evening last—namely,
While in London he had also had an interview with Mr. Charles Gilpin, their other representative, who had accepted the office of Secretary to the Poor Law Board. As an illustration of the agencies that had been at work during the late struggle, Mr. Gilpin showed him two letters 446 which he had received from the agents of the Tory party, and 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 last division, by offering to him a pecuniary consideration of the grossest and most direct character.
MR. GILPINsaid, that he should have been glad to have had notice of this question before being called upon to answer it; but as the question had been put, he could have no hesitation in replying to it. In the publication of this statement he had no part, directly or indirectly. He had had no opportunity of reading the Report in The Times, but, as far as he understood the gist of it, it was that he had shown letters to Mr. Dennis—who was a man of standing in Northampton, and quite able to answer for himself—conveying the impression that he (Mr. Gilpin) had received offers from the agents of the Conservative party intended to bias his vote in that House. Now, it was perfectly true that he had received letters, the tendency of which, if attended to, would have been to bias his vote in that House. Those letters he showed to certain of his friends, and he never thought of recurring to the matter. At the same time he was bound to say, in the most unequivocal manner, that he had no proof whatever—he never said that he had any proof whatever —and he was not prepared to say that he had any belief that these offers came from recognized agents of the Conservative party. They were made in the shape of suggestions, and in such a way that he should not have alluded to them in public. He hoped that the House would consider this as satisfactory an answer as he could give under the circumstances. Had he received notice of the question he might have entered into a fuller explanation.
§ MR. BRADYthought that the hon. Gentleman ought to state what were the propositions which were made to him.
MR. O. STANLEYsaid, that he would defer putting his second question until the next sitting. That question was, whether the hon. Gentleman intended to take any further steps with regard to this matter.
MR. GILPINsaid, that the House was the best judge, but he did not think that this was a subject which need occupy any more of its attention. As far as he was concerned, he was not prepared to take any further steps in the matter. On receiving the letters he showed them to those hon. Gentlemen with whom he was accus- 447 tomed to act, and asked whether, considering the peculiar circumstances under which they had come into his hands, he ought to take any notice of them. He received their advice that he should not take any notice of them. He had acted on that advice, and he intended to abide by it.
MR. O. STANLEYthen gave notice, that he should take time to consider what further measures ought to be adopted for the vindication of the characters of Members of that House.