HC Deb 25 February 1870 vol 199 cc803-5
MR. PEMBERTON

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, inasmuch as no prosecution is intended to be commenced by the Attorney General against the hon. Member for Wednesbury, with reference to the Bridgwater Election, 1866, it is the intention of the Government to move any Resolution respecting that hon. Member, who appears by the Report of the Bridgwater Commissioners to have been personally guilty of bribery at that Election, and of whom the Chief Commissioner is reported to have said— That it was for this House to consider whether a Member holding his opinion, and having conducted himself as the hon. Member did, was any longer a fit Member of this House?

MR. F. WALPOLE

said, he would also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the hon. Member for Wednesbury was the same Alexander Brogden who was reported as having been guilty of corrupt practices and bribery at the Election of Great Yarmouth in 1865?

MR. GLADSTONE

With respect, Sir, to the question of identity, I have no means beyond those which the hon. Member himself possesses, and have no opportunity of furnishing any reply to it. With respect to the Question put by the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton), I must observe that in any answer I make to it I must distinctly waive the consideration how far it is becoming or desirable to raise a question of this kind simply by interrogatory, addressed by an independent Member, and which brings before the House matter of this character, without any opportunity being given by the rules of the House to the person principally concerned to take notice of it or urge anything he might think fit in answer. With regard to the Question itself I need only say that it was only brought under my notice this morning. I have no doubt the hon. Member considers it a simple and straightforward matter or he would not have put his Question at so short a notice. Further, the Question appears to imply that it was in the power of the Government to institute a prosecution against the hon. Member for Wednesbury, assuming the identity, under the Corrupt Practices Act. Now, that is not the case. The case that is here spoken of is not under the Corrupt Practices Act, and the passage in the Report of the Bridgwater Commission which refers to Mr. Brogden sets forth distinctly in the 28th page that it is not under the Act. The words are—"As to Mr. Brogden, the lapse of time renders him safe from any prosecution under the Corrupt Practices Act." I am desirous that the hon. Member and the House should understand that this is not one of those cases where it is simply for the Government or the Attorney General to consider whether they shall institute a prosecution under powers existing by statute. Then the Question of the hon. Member amounts to this, whether, independently of the Corrupt Practices Act, from which this case is distinctly excluded, it is the intention of the Government to move any Resolution respecting that hon. Member. With regard to that inquiry I must request the hon. Member to be good enough to give me and the Government a somewhat longer time for consideration than has been afforded us within the few hours since his Question appeared upon the Notice Paper. The evidence in this Commission has only been distributed to-day, and it would be desirable that hon. Members should have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with it. And, further, the case as it appears to stand before us, is not one, so far as I am aware, that is governed by any direct or absolute precedent immediately applicable to it. It is evidently a matter of very delicate, and at the same time of a very grave and serious character, and the Government would be extremely loth to arrive at any conclusion in respect to it, except after the opportunity of full consideration amongst themselves, and full consultation with those authorities to whose judgment they would be bound to look in such a matter. One of the first questions that would have to be examined, assuming that there is no doubt at all about the statement of the Commissioners as it affects Mr. Brogden in 1866, would be whether there are any other Gentlemen, Members of this House, who stand either in an identical or in an analogous position. The next question would be, what would be the steps most proper to be taken? and the third would be, with whom the initiative in these stops would properly rest? I am sure the hon. Member, though I have ventured to comment on the shortness of the notice given, will not suppose I intend for one moment to suggest that these are matters unsuited for the attention of the House. On the contrary, they require the gravest and most careful attention; but I wish to indicate that there is a good deal to be considered, and the House will feel with me that we should do well to inform ourselves thoroughly and supply ourselves with all the best means of arriving at a right conclusion before we announce any positive decision to the House.

MR. PEMBERTON

said, he desired to say a word in explanation. The right hon. Gentleman had commented on the shortness of his notice. He should not have put the Question, at all events yesterday, if he had not heard the notice given by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn), and inasmuch as it appeared to him (Mr. Pemberton) on a reference to the Act of Parliament, that the Gentleman referred to—["Order," "Chair!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now entering into a reply.

MR. PEMBERTON

Then I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House. With reference to the observation that the hon. Member for Wednesbury had been afforded no opportunity of speaking on the subject, it might be supposed that the question was one for the hon. Gentleman and not for the Prime Minister to determine. I certainly should have given the hon. Gentleman every opportunity of replying. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. Member could not make a Motion, having spoken to it.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he wished to give notice of his intention to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the reason why, in the Report of the Bridgwater Commissioners, the usual practice had been departed from of giving references in the margin to the evidence after every important finding, whether this omission was accidental, and whether he will state what was the first Report of the said Commissioners, and why it has not been laid before the House?