HC Deb 20 March 1867 vol 186 cc212-5
MR. LEATHAM

I beg to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I make a personal explanation. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bagge) last night asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer— Whether Mr. William Henry Leatham is the same Mr. Leatham who was found personally guilty of bribery by an Election Committee of this House after the General Election of 1859, and ordered by this House to be prosecuted by Mr. Attorney General? Sir, my answer to that is that I was not found personally guilty of bribery by a Select Committee of this House. A Resolution directly the contrary was come to— That it was not proved that such bribery was committed with the knowledge or consent of the sitting Member. That paper I placed in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hoped that my honour was safe in his hands. However, he did not choose to refer to the letter which I had placed in his hands, but in a jocose vein answered the question of the hon. Member for West Norfolk. I had no opportunity, in the hurry of the moment, of stating what I wished to say on the subject, and I hope the House will excuse me if I come before it on this occasion, because the House was excited last night and passed a Resolution which may affect me personally in a different way. All I say is, that the only accusation made against me from the beginning to the end of all the persecutions and proceedings connected with the Wakefield election was, that I wrote a letter to my brother-in-law, in London, asking for money to be sent down to my agent. That was the only act I ever committed. That letter is now in my hand—or rather a copy of it—and I think it only due to myself to read it to the House. This letter, by a great misfortune, was torn in two by my brother-in-law, and it was only on one half of that letter that I was convicted at York. I think that a more unfortunate thing could not possibly have happened to a gentleman who writes a confidential letter to his brother-in-law in London than that such a letter should afterwards be published to the whole world. That brother-in-law, being a man of business, tore the letter in halves, and gave one half to his clerk, putting the other half into his pocket, expecting to find time to acknowledge the letter. He never could afterwards find that half of the letter. That gentleman was examined before the Commission at Wakefield. I was present on the last day of the Commission sitting at Wakefield. I was waiting expecting to be called to supplement that part of the letter which was not in court. I was not, however, called. The Commission was closed, and I knew nothing of the impression which that letter created in the minds of the Commissioners until I saw their Report. I wrote to the Commissioners begging to be examined. They declined to examine me, and the prosecution went forward. The writing of that letter was the only accusation against me. What I did I did under the best of all motives, and I do not regret that I wrote it, but I do regret that it was torn in pieces, and that I did not bring it before the Select Committee of the House. This has placed me under a considerable disadvantage. When the Committee sat I had resigned my seat. I saw what the election agents had done, and did not expect to be examined. The room was cleared, and I was sent for in a great hurry. Three or four questions only were put to me, but none of them referred to this letter. I said to Sir William Hayter in private that if I had been asked if my relative sent down money from London to the Wakefield election I should at once have said that he had. I was not there as a voluntary witness, the question was not put to me, and the matter did not come before the Committee. That is the only point I regret. It has placed me under a great disadvantage. But I cannot think that this House, with this explanation before the whole world, will receive it in any other way than as the explanation of an honest man, placed in circumstances over which he had no control. Taunts having been thrown out on the other side of the House to this side about personal acts of bribery having been committed, I declare that I never was in that position; and some of my nearest friends who are Conservatives have told me that I never was in that position. But because that letter was torn in pieces the Commissioners took an unfavourable view of the matter. One of them said I had made a clean breast of it, and deserved an indemnity; but the other two refused, and kept from me my certificate. The matter was talked about in the House and made public, and the Chief Commissioner, who is now one of the Judges of the land, said that, in his opinion, I had earned my certificate. After seven years of endurance I come before the House to state what I believe to be the truth. It is not for me to throw dirt upon my own party, but under certain circumstances I must say I was victimised. I do not wish to blame the agents. We know what they are when we have had experience of them. I had not before that time had that experience. I have now had better experience of them, and I took precautions at the last election which saved my election, and I will take the same precautions at every future election. My agent told me on the election in question that he was not a monied man, and that he wanted a sum of money to conduct the election. He told me about the number of watchers, clerks, and people about the place who would be required, and I arranged to supply the money. This is the letter I wrote— My dear Edmund,—I was glad to see your kind note this morning with good wishes for the election at Wakefield. I am obliged to find some money for ways and means immediately, and rather than draw the money out of the bank, where there are some clerks who might talk"— There were two clerks who voted for the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), who, at his first election, was returned for Wakefield. These clerks were Conservatives, and I did not wish them to know what was going on upon the Liberal side of the question. I respect these men, but I knew their opinions, and how they had recorded their votes for the hon. Member for Stamford when he came forward at Wakefield. The letter goes on to say— I have been thinking that you would not mind my asking you (that is O. G. and Co.) to lend me £1,000 for a short time, so as not to be known at Leatham, Tew, and Co's. If you see no Objection to meet my wishes I would thank you to send the money in four divisions, in registered covers, waiting the acknowledgment of each packet, in small Bank of England notes (£5, £10, and £20), to Joseph Wainwright, Esq., Solicitor, Wakefield. Let me say, having been a banker, that no man in his senses going to commit bribery would have sent for Bank of England notes, for every Bank of England note sent into Yorkshire is endorsed, and can be followed into every part of the country. There was clearly no intention at that moment to commit bribery. The letter goes on— This money is wanted for legitimate purposes, as my agent is not a monied man, as well as for"— There the letter is torn in two, but it went on— payments to watchers and runners, of a somewhat doubtful character. Mr. Gurney had no recollection of what followed. That is the whole of the matter, and I now leave it with the House. Before I sit down, let me say that the proof of the truthfulness of my examination before the Commissioners came out at the trial at York, and every word I said was proved to be as true as it possibly could be. If a Gentleman can go before Commissioners and be examined to the extent of 260 questions, and when the statements made by him on such examination are proved to be true before a legally authorized tribunal, no Gentleman has a right to taunt him with untruthfulness. There was a prejudice—an immense prejudice—against me. I have no business to defend what went on at Wakefield; I am not here to throw stones at others; but I think that after all this persecution it is rather hard that the House should come to a Resolution that every Gentleman who has been convicted of bribery before a Commission or a Committee of this House shall be removed from the commission of the peace. I thank the House for the kindness with which it has received this explanation. I thought it my duty to make this candid and free statement, and to leave it with the House, and I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will look with a little more charity on the acts of those who sit on this side of the House.