HC Deb 02 February 1860 vol 156 cc483-95
MR. COBBETT

said, that in rising to move that the Attorney General be directed to prosecute Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor for bribery committed at the election for Beverley in April last, he did so as Chairman of the Beverley Election Committee, and it was with the concurrence of all the members that he now submitted this Motion. Their Report was presented at so late a period of the last Session that it was impossible then to move that the recommendation be carried into effect; in fact, the Report was presented on the 11th of August, and there was no time for printing and circulating the minutes of evidence before the prorogation. He would state, without any exaggeration, the grounds upon which the Committee came to the resolution to recommend this prosecution. These persons were proved to have committed bribery in nine several cases, which the Committee reported with all particulars to the House. They would find, if they looked through the minutes of evidence, that Mr. Daniel Boyes was a person of some note in Beverley, that at the last election, which took place on the 28th of April, Mr. Boyes was very active; that an empty house was hired; that in that house Mr. Boyes sat during the day previous to, and the day of the polling; that a gatekeeper kept the outer door; that voters were ushered in to Mr. Boyes one by one, who questioned them as to their wants and their votes; that in a few words a sort of bargain was made that the voter should have one sovereign for a single vote, or two for a plumper; that when it was settled Mr. Boyes said "Go on," and called out "one," or "two," as the case might be; that in a dark passage a hand was extended, and one or two sovereigns put into the hand of the voter; that the man whose hand paid the money was Robert Taylor; that Taylor said, "Pass on;" that the voter then went down another flight of stairs into the street; and that he was then walked, or put into a carriage and driven to the poll. Those were the plain facts of the case, and he did not think he need add to them. The Committee took evidence as to nine distinct cases of bribery, but as one case would illustrate the whole he would only read an extract from the evidence of one witness, James Stokell:— That is two sovereigns?—Yes. Upon that did you go to the room in the Toll Gavel?—Yes. Did you see Daniel Boyes there?—Yes, I did. Did you see Wilberfoss Herdsman at the door?—No, I cannot say that I did. Was there anybody at the door before you went into the room?—I should not like to say whether there was or not. I went into the room. You saw Boyes?—Yes. What time of the day did you go there?—Something like, may be, dinner time. One or two?—I cannot say; about twelve o'clock; eleven or twelve. On the polling day?—Yes, on the polling day morning. Did you get anything in that house?—Yes. Who gave it to you?—Robert Taylor. What did he give you?—Four half-sovereigns. Did they make up two quid?—Yes. Before you went in to Robert Taylor had you seen Daniel Boyes?—Yes. Did he say anything to you?—I went into the room with the understanding as to those two quid, and I said, 'I have come to see you, meister;' and I said, 'What do you please to want with me?' He says, 'Who is thou going to vote for V I said,' I expect you want me to vote for Mr. Walters and Mr. Glover.' I said that to Boyes, and he said to me, 'Oh, be damned to Glover; we have nought at all to do with him.' Then I said to him, 'Then I shall vote for Major Edwards and Mr. Walters.' He said then I should get a sovereign, and I called my words back again, and I said, 'Sovereign; that is like nought; I must have two, and then I will go the whole hog.' He looked at the book; I expected it was a poll-book that he had, and he said, 'It's all right; give him two. He is a good fellow; he is all right.' I went through another door through there, and Bob Taylor gave me four half-sovereigns, and then they had finished with me; then there was the cab concern next. Did you go the entire hog, and vote for Mr. Walters?—I went from there to the King's Head. Did you vote for Mr.Walters?—Yes, after a bit. For whom?—I voted for Major Edwards for principle, and for Mr. Walters for two sovereigns, and I told them so when I voted. Who did you say that to?—To the man that took the vote. Did you say it at the polling-booth?—Yes, and I showed them the money. Had you the two sovereigns in your hand at the time?—Yes, I had the four half-sovereigns. Was Mr. Walters there when you said that?—I do not know him; I never saw him in my life. I do not know him. You showed the money in the booth?—In the Corn Exchange. Had Mr. Walters asked you for your vote before?—No; I never saw the gentleman. That was the kind of evidence which the Committee received, and in each of the nine cases it was proved that the voter had gone up to the room occupied by Boyes, and that in a dark passage leading therefrom he received from a hand, subsequently proved to be that of Taylor, the one or two sovereigns, as the case might be. Nothing could be more clear than the proof of bribery in all those cases, and even the learned counsel who appeared for the sitting Member did not dispute it, but argued that there was no connection between Boyes and the sitting Member. When, however, the Committee found that bribery had been carried on so systematically, and by a man who was a leading character in Beverley, it felt that it would be wanting in its duty if it did not suggest to the House the expediency of ordering a prosecution against him and the person who had been his accomplice in the transactions. It appeared that Mr. Boyes was not only a leading character in the political circles of Beverley, but also filled the office of town councillor, and therefore ought to have been one of the last men to seek to corrupt his fellow-townsmen. Having thus explained the circumstances, he (Mr. Cobbett) had only now to conclude with the Motion of which he had given notice.

Motion made and question proposed:— That, in pursuance of the Recommendation of the Select Committee appointed to try the several Petitions against the Return for the Borough of Beverley, Her Majesty's Attorney General be directed to prosecute Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor for Bribery committed by them at the last Election for the said Borough, in April 1859.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

said, he had a strong opinion that the House of Commons would neither consult its own dignity nor general utility by resolving on this prosecution. He did not appear as the advocate or apologist of these men; but he contended that they ought not to stand in the pillory alone, and further, he believed that if the prosecution were determined on they would be acquitted. From criminals they would become heroes. He spoke with all respect to the recommendation of the Committee which was presided over by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett), but would observe that it comprised no lawyer acquainted with the practice in criminal courts. It was true that one Member of the Committee was a distinguished equity lawyer, but the fact of his being an equity lawyer proved that he could not be very well versed in criminal proceedings. Supposing that the House should order the prosecution of those two persons, he was certain no jury would convict on the evidence brought before them. Matters had been so managed in these cases that each person went in alone; so that the only evidence which could be adduced was that of the party who had received a bribe. But if he were put into the witness-box to prove it he would, with a look of impudent deference towards the Judge, demand, and would of course obtain, the protection of the Court. The rest would, of course, follow his example. Or even if they did answer, the Judge would tell the jury that, as when a receiver gave evidence against a thief it was the course of justice to require that evidence to he confirmed in some material portions, so in the case before them there ought to he some untainted witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. It must be recollected that each of the nine cases was separate and distinct, and the evidence in one could not be called in aid of another. He had looked through the evidence in the blue-book, and he asserted that there was not a tittle of independent 'credible testimony to support the statement of the parties who admitted they had been bribed. Besides, who were these men whom the Committee had recommended to be prosecuted? They were not of high social rank. Boyes was a man who kept a public-house in a back street, in the borough of Beverley, but who had at last worked himself into a place in the town council. Taylor was an ex-grocer, who having spent one-half of his life in adulterating the food of the electors, now devoted the other to the adulteration of their principles. Having commenced by dealing in West India sugar, he had now transferred his commerce to a more lucrative article, locally known as "Beverley sugar." But let the House look at the way in which the Committee had dealt with this whole matter. These men, who were Radicals in opinion, were singled out by the Committee for prosecution, but were they the only persons who were guilty? He found in the Report of the Committee that bribery had been carried on by men named David Ritchie, Jacob Wilkins, and James Baker, who had given or offered bribes, all of them men of greater social position than the two persons brought before the House, but they were on the Conservative side of politics, and the Committee did not recommend them to be prosecuted. The fact that the recommendations for prosecution should be confined to persons belonging to the party opposed to the majority of the Committee certainly required some explanation. He did not doubt that an explanation could be given, but without it conclusions might be drawn adverse to the impartiality of the Committee. But even this was not all he found in the Report of the Committee—two of the most glaring cases he had ever met with in his life—one a case of gross intimidation, the other of unblushing treating—were recorded there, yet a prosecution to punish the guilty parties was not recommended. Then the agent of the Conservative party had employed a whole force of three score runners at the rate of 22s. 6d., but the Committee contented themselves with finding that the practice was "objectionable." The House had had already some experience in prosecutions with regard to Beverley, and the result ought to be a caution. Not very long ago Mr. Glover was prosecuted for an offence which had not been uncommon before his time, though the offenders might not have been prosecuted. He was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, but the effect was to raise up a false but still extensive sympathy for him, and when he went down to Yorkshire at the expiration of his imprisonment he was received with a popular ovation such as a conqueror might have been proud of. The Old Bailey criminal drove into Beverley in a carriage and four, accompanied by one of the jury who convicted him, and surrounded by an applauding concourse of the people! He was, in fact, regarded as a victim to his own imprudence, and a martyr in a struggle against the unjust partiality of Parliament. The same reaction in public feeling might take place in this case if the House were not cautious how it proceeded. And let the House observe what was done at other places. The Election Committee at Hull reported that 487 persons were employed by Mr. Hoare's committee as runners, and 493 by Messrs. Clay and Lewis; that of those employed by Mr. Hoare 300 were voters, and that they were paid in all sums varying from 2s. 6d. to £3 5s., while the greater number of them were pursuing their ordinary avocations. Yet there was no recommendation to prosecute in that case nor in the case of Norwich, where the Committee reported that the high bailiff of the County Court of Norfolk was mixed up with corrupt practices. Now he did not see how they could undertake to prosecute a miserable hawker at Beverley whilst they could let men like the high bailiff of Norwich, pass unscathed. Then, take the case of Wakefield; it was clearly shown that Mr. Wainwright, the solicitor and agent of Mr. Leatham, offered a person £15 to induce him to procure the vote of another person for Mr. Leatham, while the honourable candidate was waiting in the adjoining room, and his carriage standing at the door! And there the money expended amounted to thousands of pounds, while at Beverley it was only showed that the amount expended in bribery amounted to £22, and £5 of that was given to one voter who came from Carlisle, and whoso expenses were £3 15s. Then there was the Glou- coster case, where the bribery was most unblushing, and the Committee in then-Report stated that Alderman Withom was one of the persons by whom the bribery was effected. The Commissioners in their Report, speaking of the election of 1857, said they did not find that Sir R. W. Carden or Mr. Price were privy to the bribery that was practised; but in reference to the election of 1859, they found that Mr. Price and Mr. Monk were not privy to the corrupt practices that prevailed at that election, but they observed an ominous silence as to the privity of Sir R.W. Carden. If the House wished to produce a salutary effect upon the community let them fly at higher game, and attack baronets, aldermen, magistrates, and lawyers who had been guilty of bribery. The entire sum proved to have been spent by Boyes and Taylor at the Beverley election amounted to only £22; and if they only should be prosecuted, he believed that the House, instead of punishing miscreants would be proclaiming martyrs. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving an Amendment, That, without at all impugning the judgment of the Beverley Election Committee, this House is of opinion that the inquiries before Committees of this House, and under the recent Commissions which have sat in various places, having clearly demonstrated that many persons of higher social rank have been involved in graver criminality, it would not be expedient to limit the direction to Her Majesty's Attorney General to the prosecution of Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor for bribery committed by them at the last Beverley Election.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "without at all impugning, & c.," instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. SELWYN

said, that he had intended to have simply seconded the Motion made by the Chairman of the Beverley Committee, because, although he was a younger Member than the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. W, D. Seymour), he had already seen the inexpediency of inflicting upon the House long and unnecessary speeches. After the direct attack, however, which had just been made upon him and the rest of his colleagues on that Committee, he could not be altogether silent. He did not wish the House to attach undue weight to the recommendations of an Election Committee; and when the proper time came for discussing the constitution of these tribunals, he should be prepared to contend that there could hardly be a more uncertain, unsatisfactory, and expensive mode of deciding the validity of an election. Meanwhile, however, he thought the House would attach some weight to the recommendations of such a Committee, especially when they were made unanimously, as in the present instance. Though the hon. and learned Member had read the Report of the Committee, he appeared to have entirely misconceived its spirit and object. The Beverley Committee did not think themselves warranted in inquiring into the social rank of the persons mentioned in their Report; but they did ascertain the position which Boyes held in the borough. He was a town councillor; at a meeting of the party to which he belonged he was elected chairman; and he was one of a deputation of two who were sent up to London to find candidates. A man who took this prominent part in local politics, and who on the eve of a general election came up to London professing to have two seats at his disposal, would probably have been found at that time to be much higher in social rank than his antecedents might have led one to expect. But the Committee did not inquire into what saloons he was admitted, nor from whose receptions he was excluded; they found that, in reference to this particular election, he was the man of most note in the borough. It was he who was the first to receive the candidate on his arrival, and to introduce him to the electors; he surrounded him with crowds of his partisans in the Market-place, and afterwards made addresses to them from the lodgings of the future representative. Yet it was sought to represent him as a man of no consequence—as a mere publican in a back street. The duty of the Committee, he believed, was to detect whatever persons had been guilty of direct, systematic, and unblushing bribery; they found that the payment of money in the place with which Boyes was associated was open and notorious in Beverley; and they unanimously arrived at the conclusions which were embodied in that Report. If the House were really desirous of putting an end to the practice of bribery, what better opportunity could they hope for than the establishment against a man possessing such political influence of the fact that he had been the real briber? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southampton said that the amount alleged to have been spent in bribery in that case was small, and that no court of law would convict. parties upon the evidence which had been brought before the Committee. But the truth was that the existence of the bribery had been so open and so notorious, that it had not been found necessary to enter into any detailed evidence in support of the case of the petitioners as far as regarded that fact. The Committee might, as was alleged, be destitute of experience on criminal points, but they had common sense to guide them in the inquiries which they had pursued; their investigations had not been made with any design of obtaining materials for a conviction against Daniel Boyes, for after the admission by counsel for the sitting Member that bribery at the election had been undoubted, open, and general, the only question remaining to be decided was, whether such practices had taken place with the privity of the sitting Member, or of any agent of his. All that the Committee recommended was, that Boyes should be put upon his trial; that all the evidence which could be obtained should be adduced against him, and that he should have the fullest opportunity of clearing himself if it were in his power to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that other persons had been guilty of bribery, and that no Motion had been brought before the House for putting them upon their trial. But the Committee had nothing to do with those other cases; their only duty was to consider what course the House ought to take upon the evidence which had been adduced in the course of their own inquiries. He might add, however, that if guilt had in their opinion been satisfactorily established against any other persons, they would have made a similar recommendation with regard to them. The hon. and learned Member had further indulged in a variety of insinuations against the Committee, and among other things he had suggested that they were influenced by party motives in the Report which they had made. He had had no opportunity of consulting the other Gentlemen who had acted on that Committee, but he believed he might say in their names, as well as in his own, that he would not condescend to allude further to such an insinuation. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the proceedings of other Committees, with which the Committee on the Beverley Election had nothing whatever to do, for it was one of the imperfections of the present system that particular cases were tried without the slightest opportunity of knowing what was going on in the adjoining Committee-room. In conclusion, he might mention—though he felt almost ashamed of the necessity for doing so—that the Committee by whom the Report had been made in the Beverley case consisted of three Gentlemen from the Liberal, and only two from the Conservative side of the House.

MR. COLLIER

said, it was his intention to support the original Motion for the prosecution of Boyes and Taylor as he conceived it to he no valid reason for postponing or abandoning the trial of those who had been shown to be offenders that a greater number had not been discovered. So far from joining with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr.D. Seymour) in the fear that the prosecution would not be successful, and that delinquents of a higher grade in society would thus be screened, he believed that the effect of the trial would be to render the case even more powerful against those whom the hon. Member was so anxious to bring to the bar of criminal justice. But if the prosecution were deferred till some comprehensive measure had been passed rendering everybody amenable who had been guilty of corrupt offences, the probable result would be that these men would escape and all the others with them. The fact that Taylor and Boyes were Liberals only made him the more anxious that they should be prosecuted. It had been suggested on their behalf that bribery could not be proved unless the money were given in the presence of half-a-dozen witnesses; but if no prosecution were to take place for bribery till cases occurred where bribes were thus publicly given, he was afraid that his hon. and learned Friend would have to wait a long time. However, in Boyes' case no less than eight witnesses were forthcoming to give direct or corroborative evidence of the acts of bribery in which he had been concerned. He wished to know, if the House declined to interfere in a case like the present, where the bribery had been extensive, systematic and notorious—where a Committee had reported the fact to the House, and had recommended that the two principals in that bribery should be prosecuted, and where, lastly, the Chairman of that Committee had moved that the recommendation contained in their Report should be acted on, under what possible combination of circumstances could the House ever again direct a prosecution? The practical effect of such a course would be, not as the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Digby Seymour) supposed, that criminals would be changed into martyrs, but the country would be led, and with some show of reason, to believe that the House was not in earnest in its professions of a desire to put down these offences; and Committees would for the future abandon the thankless task of making the reports to the House. If the existing constitutional checks were not applied when a flagrant case of bribery was exposed, it would be as well to put a stop to legislation on the subject altogether, to remove the existing barriers, and to trust for repression to what some hon. Gentlemen considered an infallible remedy—the Ballot. He believed that the Ballot would tend to restrain bribery, though it might not afford a panacea for all the evils which were complained of at elections. Whatever measure might be adopted with a view to future advantage, it was manifest that beneficial results must follow from the vigilant administration of the law in the present instance.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, it was a well-established principle of Parliamentary tactics, when a remedy which was clear, definite, and simple in its nature, was proposed for a recognized grievance, for some hon. Member to come forward and impeach the remedy upon the ground of its limited nature, and to recommend to the House some wide and comprehensive measure which was not likely to be immediately adopted, which would probably be postponed until the Greek Kalends, and which, by being impracticable, and substituted for that which was practicable, might defeat the measure which was proposed to the House. He did not accuse the hon. and learned Member for Southampton of resorting to any mala fide proposal for the purpose of defeating this measure. He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Member really felt fired with the indignation he had so eloquently expressed, and thought that it was incumbent upon the House immediately to take measures for the wholesale proscription and prosecution of persons charged with bribery. He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Member was perfectly sincere; but he must permit him (Sir George Lewis) to differ from him as to the propriety as well as the policy of the course he had recommended. It appeared to him that the duty of the House was alike plain and simple. The Committee appointed to inquire into the Beverley election found that two persons had been guilty of very flagrant and manifest bribery, and recommended that a prosecution should be instituted. The hon. and learned Member objected to the recommendation, partly on the ground that those persons were not of sufficient social eminence, and partly because the prosecution, if instituted, would fail. The latter objection seemed to rest on very uncertain conjecture. The object of the Committee who inquired into the case was not to get up evidence for the purpose of founding a prosecution thereon; they merely collected evidence to support the recommendation which they might make to the House, and there was no sufficient reason for doubting that if this case were put into the hands of the Solicitor to the Treasury, aided by the professional skill of the Attorney General, he would be able to obtain evidence upon which a prosecution might be founded with reasonable hope of success. The Motion proposed to order the Attorney General to institute a prosecution, and that was the received form in which this House usually instructed the Attorney General. But if the Attorney General on examination should come to the opinion that the evidence would not support a prosecution, and if he expressed that opinion to the House, he (Sir George Lewis) would venture to predict with some confidence that the House would not be so unreasonable as to insist upon the execution of its order. At all events, without pretending to anticipate that decision, he felt sure that it would give a patient hearing to any information which the Attorney General might think it would be his duty to give. That, he thought, was a sufficient answer to the doubts which had been thrown out with regard to the probable success of this prosecution. The remarks made with regard to social eminence and the amount of bribery had received a sufficient answer from the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Selwyn), but it seemed to him that if that House were in earnest with respect to the prosecution of cases of bribery, where the offence appeared manifest, it must begin by taking some few cases pointed out in the Reports of Election Committees. It was a strange argument to contend that, because one man was prosecuted, impunity was given to others, and as well might it be said in respect to the ordinary execution of the criminal law that because one man was indicted for petty larceny another could not be prosecuted for burglary. As far as the present case went, it was quite clear that it would be a precedent for the prosecution of others guilty of greater amount of bribery. If it were right that persons reported against by other Election Committees, or by the recent Commissions issued in respect of Wakefield and Gloucester, should be prosecuted, he was sure that the House, if those persons had not received certificates from the Commissioners, and if there appeared a prospect of success in the prosecutions, would listen to any hon. Member who should feel disposed to bring the subject under consideration. It was, therefore, a reason in favour of the present Motion that it established a principle applicable to all cases

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

wished to a correct misapprehension into which the hon. and learned Member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour) had fallen. He had represented Mr. Glover, the late Member for Beverley, as receiving a formal acquittal, and as having proceeded in a carriage and four through that town in a very triumphal manner. Now that was not a correct representation as far as regards the merits of the case. Mr. Glover received a mitigation of the sentence from the Home Office mainly on the ground that the law under which the offence was committed had been subsequently abolished. Indeed, so soon as it appeared to be the intention of the House to abrogate the law requiring a qualification for Members of Parliament, it was felt desirable that no person should remain in prison expiating a penalty for the disregard of an obligation, which the law had ceased any longer to impose.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That in pursuance of the Recommendation of the Select Committee appointed to try the several Petitions against the Return for the Borough of Beverley, Her Majesty's Attorney General be directed to prosecute Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor for Bribery committed by them at the Election for the said Borough in April, 1859.