HC Deb 04 March 1869 vol 194 cc663-71

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bewdley, in the room of Sir Richard Atwood Glass, whose Election has been determined to be void."—(Mr. Noel.)

MR. MUNTZ

rose to move as an Amendment that the issuing of the Writ be suspended for twelve months. He could satisfactorily prove to the House that there were good reasons for taking such a step. Just before the Dissolution, the old House, in a fit of virtue, passed the Corrupt Practices Act, a very valuable measure, under the provisions of which there had been a trial at Bewdley. Mr. Justice Blackburn, who presided at the trial, stated that corrupt practices had prevailed extensively in the borough of Bewdley, and the result was that Sir Richard Glass, who had been returned as its representative in Parliament, was unseated. Now, if this had been the sole instance of corruption at Bewdley there might have been some reason for allowing a new Writ to be issued; but, in point of fact, it appeared that the normal condition of Bewdley was corruption and treating. In 1848, a Committee of that House unseated Mr. Ireland on account of corrupt practices and treating; and that Committee passed the following Resolution, dated the 17th of March, 1848:— That it has been proved before the Committee that the practice prevailed in the borough of Bewdley at the last Election, as well as at that of 1841, of carrying away and treating electors, and that in consequence of this system large bodies of men were employed on both sides for the alleged protection of voters; and that almost every public-house and beer-house in the borough was kept open during a week, and drink given away to a large extent. These charges, which were proved in 1841, and again in 1848, were once more substantiated in 1868, and the evidence given before Mr. Justice Blackburn would have been much extended, but for an apprehension that it might lead to the borough being disfranchised. In his opinion, it was clear that this incorrigible little borough did not deserve to have any representative in Parliament for the present. By suspending the Writ for twelve months, the House would assert its own dignity and its determination to preserve the purity of elections, while at the same time the electors of Bewdley would have leisure to reflect on the fact that the franchise was not conferred upon them in order that they might sell it for a glass of beer or a mess of pottage. The unseating of Sir Richard Glass had been no punishment to the borough. On the contrary, the electors were revelling in anticipation of new bribes and more beer. He (Mr. Muntz) had been informed that the respectable inhabitants on both sides were desirous of having the matter brought before the House, and he trusted that his Amendment would be passed as a terror to evil-doers. In conclusion, he moved that the issuing of a New Writ for the borough of Bewdley be suspended for twelve months.

MR. MUNDELLA

, in seconding the Amendment, said, he had been assured by respectable inhabitants of Bewdley that a fair and a free election could not be at present held in that borough, because the large outstanding claims of publicans would exercise great influence in the choice of a Member. The borough did not contain more than 7,000 inhabitants, and he had been assured that from time immemorial it had been notoriously corrupt. Another reason for postponing the issue of the Writ was that they might now hope to have a complete change in the mode of conducting elections, and he trusted that the House would not so far stultify itself as to issue the Writ immediately after the able speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Writ for the Borough of Bewdley be suspended for twelve months,"—(Mr. Muntz,)

—instead thereof.

MR. BREWER

said, he hoped that, in an aggravated case of this kind, the House would exercise severity; and that it would vindicate its own consistency by suspending the Writ. If it were at once to issue the House would be looked upon out-of-doors as not being so sincere as it might be in its efforts to put down corrupt practices.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I trust, Sir, we shall hear from the Attorney General what the views are which he entertains with respect to the issue of this Writ. I would, moreover, express an earnest hope that whether we decide on issuing or not issuing a Writ in any of the various cases on which the Judges may have reported, our decision will in no degree be influenced by considerations as to what political party is likely to gain the vacant seat, for it is most important to the character of this House, and. to the working of the new system of trying Election Petitions, that such should not be the case. I should wish to remind the House that, after having just issued a new Writ for Bradford, no sufficient reason can be urged why we should not take the same course with respect to Bewdley. Let me, for a moment, call the attention of hon. Members to the very strong Report of the Judge who tried the Bradford Petition with respect to the existence of treating in that borough. I find from that Report that Mr. Baron Martin arrived at the conclusion that, in one of its wards, corrupt practices on the part of the agents of Mr. Ripley prevailed to a great extent, and that upwards of 100 public-houses were open in his interest. The other Member petitioned against—the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education—was no doubt declared by the Judge to have been properly elected, but the evidence, even in his case, went to show that the extent to which public-houses were open in the borough was very great. Now, how do matters stand with regard to Bewdley? It appears that a practice prevailed there which we must all condemn—the practice of employing a number of voters as watchers. That practice has been very strongly condemned by the high authority of Mr. Justice Blackburn, and the gentleman who was returned at the head of the poll lost his seat, so that I hope a recurrence of the practice need not be much apprehended. In the last sentence of his Report, I may add, Mr. Justice Blackburn states that there was no reason to believe that bribery extensively prevailed at the late election for Bewdley, and in the face of such a declaration it would not, it appears to me, be in accordance with the usage of Parliament to suspend the Writ for that borough. I trust the House will see the propriety of concurring in this view.

MR. DIXON

said, that in the case of Bewdley the Judge had reported that there had been three distinct cases of bribery; that indirect bribery had extensively prevailed by means of the employment of watchers; and that treating was rife in the borough. Now, it was against the latter description of corrupt practice that the House had chiefly to guard, for while bribery appeared to be diminishing in this country, treating seemed to be on the increase. It had not been shown that treating existed in Bradford before the last election. In that case, indeed, he believed it was exceptional, whereas nearly every public-house in Bewdley had, if he was not mistaken, been thrown open during the election, and, moreover, the practice of treating had existed there almost from time immemorial. Indeed, so bad was the state of affairs that some of the more respectable of its inhabitants had expressed to him a wish that the borough should cease to be represented in Parliament. He was of opinion that the very least the House could do under those circumstances was to suspend the issue of the Writ for a year, while he also thought the Government might with great propriety be asked to issue a Commission. If the Writ, at all events, were not suspended the country would have much reason for supposing that the House of Commons was not sincere in its desire to put an end to corruption.

MR. YOUNG

said, he once sat for a large borough of 40,000 inhabitants (Yarmouth) which Parliament had disfranchised for corruption; and that, at the time, was regarded as a harsh measure. As Bewdley had sinned more than once, and had been reported against over and over again, he thought that to suspend the issue of the Writ for a year was a very mild punishment indeed.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

I very much agree, Sir, with what fell from the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington), to the effect that nothing can be of greater importance in these cases than that the House should proceed as far as may be judicially and consistently, without regard, or even the appearance of regard, to party interests. It is much more important that the House should do that, than that it should endeavour too anxiously to secure the credit of being sincere in its efforts to put down corruption; for I do not doubt the public will believe the House to be sincere in that respect, if it is consistent in the general tenour of the course which it takes with that object. I was, I must confess, very much impressed by the remark of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), that it would seem somewhat extraordinary to the public out-of-doors, if we were to refuse to issue a Writ for Bewdley immediately after assenting to the issue of a new Writ for Bradford. Although the Reports of the Judges who tried the two cases are not drawn up in exactly the same terms, there is no very serious difference in the substance of the two Reports. Each speaks of extensive treating by the opening of public-houses. At Bewdley, also, the Judge reports the improper employment of men called watchers, but the Report expressly says that the Judge was not of opinion that extensive bribery prevailed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Direct" bribery.] For my part, if I could have agreed in the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Muntz), I should not have agreed to the Motion for the issue of the Writ in the case of Bradford. But the issue of the Writ for Bradford was justified by this consideration, which, in my opinion, should chiefly govern the House in dealing with these cases. Some time ago it was more frequently than it now is the practice of the House of Commons to suspend the issue of Writs, when the House had no definite purpose of taking ulterior measures for the punishment of boroughs. It was felt, however, that the assumption by this House of an arbitrary power to keep a constituency out of its share of the representation for some indefinite period, without any intention of resorting to ulterior measures, was dangerous and in some degree unconstitutional; and I have always understood, that it was very much for that reason provided, that when a Committee of this House should report that extensive corruption had prevailed at a particular election, and that there was reason to believe this corruption to be habitual, a Commission should issue to inquire into the fact, in order that if it were judicially established Parliament might found upon the Report future measures for the disfranchisement of the borough. Now the question is whether, in the case of Bewdley or Bradford, the Report of the Judge was a Report of such a nature as, under the Act of Parliament, ought to be made the foundation of a Commission to inquire into the prevalence of corrupt practices. If so, then let the Attorney General, with whom the responsibility rests, move the House to issue such a Commission. Should that be the opinion of the Attorney General, I, for one, should be perfectly prepared to support the Motion; but if, in the exercise of his judgment and upon his responsibility, he is not able to inform the House that the Judge has made such a Report as, according to the spirit of the Act of Parliament and the practice of the House, would warrant the issue of a Commission, then I am not prepared to agree to the re-assumption by the House of the arbitrary power of inflicting punishment upon the constituency at its discretion, for a time limited by itself, without contemplating the kind of judicial inquiry which the law provides, and with no other purpose than that of issuing the Writ at the end of a year or so. Had the hon. Member moved for a Commission he would have been taking a perfectly constitutional course, and would have only had to satisfy the House that the facts were sufficient to justify such a course. I shall wait to hear what is said by the Attorney General, who has, no doubt, looked into the evidence more carefully than I have done. But looking only to the Report of the Judge, it does not seem to me to be of such a character as would justify, under the Act of Parliament, the issue of a Commission with a view to the possible disfranchisement of the borough. In short, if there is no case for disfranchisement the House will be taking into its hands a dangerous power, liable to great abuse, and liable to the suspicion, just or unjust, that it was exercised for party purposes.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that as he had been directly appealed to from both sides of the House, he would state in a few words the opinion he had formed upon the subject. He had thought it right that the evidence in this case should be laid upon the table, because the Report of the Judge was a special one. Having read that evidence very carefully, together with the judgment of the learned Judge in reviewing the evidence, he was bound to say it appeared to him that the Judge's Report and judgment were entirely in accordance with the evidence. As to the practice of the House, after careful inquiry, he had not been able to discover that a Commission had ever been issued upon a Report of a Committee corresponding to that of the Judge in the Bewdley case. No Commission had issued, except in cases where there was reason to believe that bribery had prevailed to a great extent, and where there was a strong primâ facie case for disfranchisement. Now, the effect of the evidence and the Report here was that there had been no bribery whatever—at least, no direct bribery. The Judge reported that there was a habit of employing watchers, which, although no doubt an objectionable practice, did not, in his opinion, amount to direct bribery. The Judge further reported that there had been extensive treating, but that it was confined to one side; and on the other side there was no treating. These were the facts stated in the Report of the Judge, and it was for the House to say whether, on such a Report, there was a primâ facie case for the disfranchisement of the borough. His opinion was that there was not such a case, and, that being so, there would ordinarily be no Commission. Then came the question—Ought the Writ to be suspended? Now, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), that Writs ought not to be suspended arbitrarily by way of punishing a borough. They ought only to be suspended—and in general they had only been—with a view to inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices. He did not, therefore, see his way either to the issue of a Commission or the suspension of the Writ. At the same time, he hoped it would not be supposed that the Government were indifferent to the prevalence of corrupt practices as disclosed in the recent inquiries. On the contrary, he had himself moved for the evidence in those cases, and he should probably oven have to move for the issuing of a Commission in one or two other cases; but he thought there did not exist in that instance sufficient ground for the issuing of a Commission or for suspension of the Writ.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

said, he thought that that was a question which ought to be decided on the broad principle of common sense, and not with a reference to mere legal technicalities. It had been assorted, and it was not denied, that gross bribery and treating had prevailed at the late election at Bewdley; that there was a party in the borough who were anxious for the issuing of the Writ in order that they might again resort to corrupt practices; and that the best and most respectable portion of the inhabitants desired that the Writ should not be issued. Under these circumstances he believed they should best consult the dignity of the House by not issuing the Writ.

MR. COLLINS

said, he hoped the House would act judicially in this matter. It was a condition precedent to the issue of a Commission that a Committee of the House of Commons should report that bribery had extensively prevailed. This was not like the case of Bridgwater. Here, the Judge had stated that he had no reason to believe that direct bribery had extensively prevailed. If questions of this sort were to be decided by catch votes of this House, and not upon the Reports of the Judges, the effect of those Reports would be materially weakened, and it would be said out-of-doors—though he did not assert that hon. Members were actuated by such feelings—that the House had issued the Writ in the case of Bradford, but would not issue one in that of Bewdley, because there was reason to believe that the result of the Election would be different in the two cases.

MR. BRUCE

said, the discussion which had taken place had satisfied him more than ever of the expediency of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the mode of conducting Elections. The Motion of to-night had arisen from the want of an appropriate punishment for offences like this. The Government had carefully considered the expediency of issuing a Commission in this case, and, after great hesitation and doubt, had come to the conclusion that, considering the statement of the Judge, that direct bribery had not prevailed at the election; considering, also, that one of the contributory boroughs—Stourport—was absolutely free from bribery or treating, which was confined to one party within the borough, who had thrown open twenty-five or thirty public-houses to the lowest of the population, the case did not seem to be one for a Commission with a view to disfranchisement. He should be glad to supply an omission in his earlier speech by stating that in his opinion some middle course might be taken in cases not so clear and strong as to justify the appointment of a Commission with the view of possible disfranchisement, and that was to throw the whole cost of the petition inquiry upon the borough, so that all its inhabitants should suffer alike, and in that way perhaps a public feeling against corrupt practices might be created. He hoped that suggestion would be considered by the Select Committee. In the mean time it did not appear to him that the middle course proposed to be taken in this case was a just or right one. He could easily understand a great difference of opinion as to whether a Commission should issue or not, but it did not seem to him that the suspension of the issue of a Writ for twelve months was a course consistent with the dignity of the House.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 65: Majority 63.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bewdley, in the room of Sir Richard Atwood Glass, whose Election has been determined to be void.

Mr. Collins