MR. TAYLORsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Mr. Churchward who has lately been nominated to the Magistracy at Dover is the same gentleman of whom a Committee of this House remarked, in their Report in 1859, that he had—
Resorted to corrupt expedients affecting injuriously the character of the representation of the people in Parliament,and of whom likewise it was reported by a Select Committee of this House, in 1853, that he had been guilty of bribery.
§ MR. WALPOLESir, since the hon. Member placed his Notice on the Paper I have communicated with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and I have also referred to the Report to which, I suppose, the question of the hon. Member alludes, imputing bribery to Mr. Churchward, I will read the exact words of that Report, which are contained in two distinct paragraphs, and I think the House will see that it is really not a fair thing to say that Mr. Churchward was charged with bribery in the sense which the question implies. The first charge relates to the election at Ply mouth in 1853. The Report says—
That it was proved that George Knapman was bribed by C.J. Mare, Esq., and by Joseph George Churchward by the promise to use their influence to obtain a situation in the Excise.That is the first Report, and the House will see that the case was one of promising to procure a place, and not one of bribery by giving money. I hope hon. Gentlemen will see that there was a very material distinction between the two things in the view of the Committee, whose opinion has never been challenged by the House. The Committee make this further Report—That a general belief appears to have prevailed at Plymouth both previous to and at the election in 1852 that it was not illegal for a candidate or his agents to obtain, or promise to obtain, situations or employment for electors who had previously pledged their votes1915 The Committee add—That the circumstances of the case are not such as to induce the Committee to recommend a further inquiry by Commission.These being the facts of the case, I will communicate to the House the answer which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has given relative to his appointment of Mr. Churchward as a magistrate—Mr. Churchward was a stranger to me. In the application for new magistrates for Dover he was recommended by gentlemen upon whom I felt myself justified in relying, and I was utterly ignorant until I was shown the Notice of the Question that he had over been suspected of being concerned in any irregular transactions connected with elections.That is the answer of my noble Friend.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEI wish to ask whether the noble Lord, now that the facts have come to his knowledge, has rescinded the appointment?
§ MR. WALPOLEThe hon. and learned Gentleman, if he asks such a question, ought to give me notice.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEThen I beg to give notice that I shall ask the question on Monday next.
MR. TAYLORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the part of his (Mr. Taylor's) Question which referred to whether Mr. Churchward was the same gentleman of whom a Committee of that House, in their Report in 1859, remarked that he had—
Resorted to corrupt expedients affecting injuriously the character of the representation of the people in Parliament?
§ MR. WALPOLEI thought I had answered that question. Mr. Churchward is the same gentleman to whom both branches of the hon. Member's inquiry refers.