MOTION FOR A JOINT ADDRESS. (Hansard, 1 May 1866)

§ MR. MOWBRAY

, Chairman of the Great Yarmouth Election Committee, rose to propose for that borough a similar Commission to that to which the House had agreed in the case of Totnes. The borough of Great Yarmouth differed in many respects from the borough of Totnes; but, although the former, instead of being a small, was a populous and rapidly increasing borough, the same atmosphere of corruption appeared to prevail in both. A Commission, however, for Great Yarmouth was emphatically necessary, because, as he should be able to show the House, corruption had prevailed in the borough ever since the passing of the Reform Bill. There had been repeated inquiries into the elections at, Great Yarmouth, and the House had even disfranchised a certain portion of the electors of 270 the borough—the freemen—but had failed to effect any improvement. The population of Great Yarmouth, according to the Census of 1861, was 34,810; and in 1866 it was computed at 36,959. In 1835 there were 643 £10 occupiers and 1,042 freemen; and in 1866 there were 1,640 £10 occupiers. By the recent Electoral Returns they learnt that of these voters 324 belonged to the working class, and the person by whom that estimate had been furnished had appended a note, which was not only curious in itself, but was peculiar to the return for Great Yarmouth. That note was as follows:— With reference to the number of the working classes on the register it is stated that a great many persons who came within that description occupy houses at and above £10 rental, whose wives let their houses or apartments to visitors in the summer months, living in some portion of the house, or managing to keep a room or closet to themselves, so as to keep on the register and possess the franchise, which in Yarmouth is considered of some importance. Abundant evidence had been adduced before the Committee in the course of the inquiry to show that in Great Yarmouth the franchise was rightly enough regarded as a matter of importance, for four cases of bribery were proved against the sitting Members, and seven against the defeated candidates, all of the latter seven voters, however, having either received or been offered money to vote for the sitting Members. He did not purpose calling the attention of the House to the evidence taken before the Committee, because that evidence was already in the hands of Members, but he would refer for a moment or two to matters connected with former elections for this borough. The history of corruption in Great Yarmouth dated, indeed, as far back as the Reform Bill. In 1835 a Select Committee was appointed to examine into a petition presented complaining that the sum of two guineas per head had after the election of 1834 been paid to many of the voters. That Committee reported that up to the passing of the Reform Act it was the invariable practice, or nearly so, to pay two guineas to each voter who applied for it on each side of the question, without reference to the success of the candidates. The invariability and impartiality of the payment was alleged to have divested it of the character of bribery. That payment was discontinued in 183. Still that election—the first after the Reform Bill— cost the successful candidates between 271 £5,000 and £6,000. In 1834 the election cost the non-successful candidates £3,300, and the successful candidates £5,620. £1,200 was paid to the voters for the successful candidates, above £900 to 450 freemen, and £300 to £10 householders. Considerable drunkenness and excitement prevailed. 6,000 half-crown and 2,000 five-shilling tickets were printed for the successful party. The next petition was presented in 1848, when Lord Arthur Lennox and Mr. Coope were unseated for bribery by their agents. On that occasion thirteen persons were proved to have received £3 each, and the Committee reported that gross, systematic, and extensive bribery prevailed at the last and at the previous election for Great Yarmouth among the freemen of that borough. The Committee expressed to the House their unanimous opinion that the freemen should be disfranchised, and that no writ should be issued until legislative measures should have been taken for the purpose of such disfranchisement. In accordance with the recommendation of that Committee the freemen were disfranchised; but little was done by that means towards checking corruption. In 1857 Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens and Mr. Watkin were unseated for bribery by their agents, and on that occasion four persons were shown to have been bribed with sums of £3, £5, £6, and £10. In 1860 Sir Edmund Lacon and Sir Henry Stracey were declared duly elected. It was proved to the Committee appointed to examine concerning that election that four persons were bribed with £13 and £15 and that one Spilling endeavoured to bribe one Crane by offer of a sovereign. He could well understand that any attempt to bribe a voter of this borough with a sovereign must be futile, because the price of Yarmouth bloaters appeared to have increased of late years something after the increase which had taken place lately in the price of oysters in London. Before the passing of the Reform Bill the price was two guineas a head. In 1832, as soon as the Reform Bill had passed, they rose to the value of £3 each. In 1852 they reached the value of £10 each. In 1860 the price ranged from £13 to £16, and in the last year, at the election, their value was something between £15 and £30 a head. In the late election, moreover, a new feature had been developed, for there were two gentlemen who stated before the Committee that they did not regard it as in- 272 consistent with their political morality to receive bribes from both sides, and in fact, one of them had received £15 from each side, and the other £10 from one side and £15 from the other. It also appeared that a practice prevailed in the borough of getting 10s. commission for obtaining these sums of £10 or £20 as bribes for voters; and the whole of the facts detailed before the Committee led to the conclusion that gross corruption had prevailed during the election. But the question might be raised as to whether a Commission would produce a more satisfactory result than a Committee; and to that he would reply that the Committee had been prevented from obtaining the evidence of several witnesses who could have supplied important information; and the Committee had, therefore, been unable to go fully into the case. A Commission, however, being on the spot, would be able to take much evidence which the Committee could not obtain, and he felt sure that the Commissioners would be able to lay before the House a much more complete picture of the state of things prevailing in the borough than it was possible the Committee could.