HC Deb 02 May 1884 vol 287 cc1196-220
MR. RAIKES

, in rising to call attention to the circumstances connected with the withdrawal of the Petition against the last Parliamentary Election for the City of Hereford; and to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the same, and to report thereon to the House, said, it was with regret that he found himself obliged to undertake the duty of bringing this matter before the House—a duty which he had hoped would have been assumed by the Attorney General, as it affected the Privileges of the House; but he had unsuccessfully appealed to the Attorney General to bring the matter forward. The circumstances in question occurred in the spring of 1880, and it was not until two years after that time that he was returned to the present Parliament. He would have preferred to leave the matter to those who were responsible for prosecuting offences against the Privileges of the House; and he did not feel himself compelled to move until the document, which was the foundation of the case, was cited in the House, as it was on the 7th of March last. So complete, however, was the publicity which this matter had attained, that the document setting forth the corrupt agreement had been posted on the walls of Hereford more than a year ago. He had no personal feeling in the matter, had received no offence, had no desire to give pain, and had not the honour of the acquaintance of either of the Members for the City of Hereford. It was generally understood that the election for the City of Hereford in 1880 was an expensive one to both Parties; and rumours were rife as to the enormous amount that had been expended on behalf of the successful candidates. In consequence of these rumours, a Petition was presented against the return. But before the Petition was presented, and while it was in the air, influential and eminent members of the Liberal Party in Hereford expressed to some of the Conservative leaders their extreme desire that no Petition should be presented, and their readiness to make a compromise. A gentleman, whom he would rather not name now, offered to one of the Conservative leaders that if they would withdraw the Petition that was threatened against the return, then the hon. and learned junior Member (Mr. R. T. Reid) would vacate his seat as soon as he had the opportunity of offering himself for a Scotch borough. That proposition was considered and discussed; but it was not accepted, and the Petition was accordingly presented. On the last day for the filing of the recognizances and affidavits the same gentleman met the agents for the Petitioners close to the Royal Courts of Justice in London, and entreated them to delay the filing to as late an hour as they could, because he hoped he would be in a position to make an arrangement which would be satisfactory to them. This second proposal was communicated to the Conservative leaders in Hereford in the course of the evening. It was to the effect that the hon. and learned junior Member should retire from the representation of the borough at the close of the present Parliament, and that he should not offer himself again. That proposition was also refused, the recognizances and affidavits were filed, and the decks were apparently cleared for action. About this time Mr. Sydney Myer, one of the principal ornaments and supporters of the Liberal Party, met Mr. Garrold, the Conservative agent, who was to conduct the Petition against the return; and Mr. Garrold advised Mr. Myer to put himself into communication with Mr. Ralph, an ornament of the Conservative Party. Mr. Ralph and Mr. Myer had a meeting at a tavern, and they could not arrive at a satisfactory agreement. It was determined that they should meet again, and on the 22nd of May, by an appointment made through Garrold, they met in his garden, approaching it through a back street and entering by a side door. Mr. Myer commenced business by exhibiting a roll of bank notes, and intimating that Mr. Ralph might have as many of them as he desired if by his influence the Petition could be withdrawn. Mr. Ralph was at the moment proof against the temptation, and said it would be impossible that he could use his influence unless satisfactory terms could be made for the Party. These terms he defined to be, that one of the sitting Members should apply for the Chiltern Hundreds about Easter, 1882, that the Conservatives were to be indulged with a walk over, and that at the next General Election the Liberals should bring forward only one candidate and allow the Conservatives to have the second seat. These terms Mr. Myer said he thought were hard, but he would see what he could do. He was told that a document must be drawn up, and that it should be signed by the leaders of the Liberal Party. Mr. Myers then went away, but happened to leave a roll of twelve £50 Bank of England notes on a beach in the garden where the con- versation had taken place. He further covenanted with Mr. Garrold that in the event of the Petition being withdrawn he would find a sum of money which should defray the costs of the Petitioners, both taxed and untaxed, which he (Mr. Raikes) understood were considerably in excess of the £600 deposited in the peculiar manner just described. Mr. Myer seemed to have had difficulty with his friends at first. However, after a short time, he communicated to Mr. Ralph the terms of the agreement which had been quoted in the House by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland). The following was the document which formed the basis of his case:— May, 1880. (1.) One of the present sitting Members for the City of Hereford to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds before Easter, 1882. (2.) If a vacancy occurs in the representation of the City of Hereford during the present Parliament the first shall be filled up by the Conservative Party without opposition from the Liberal Party, and each Party shall thus continue to have one Member in the present Parliament. (3.)"— he wished to call attention to the wording of this paragraph— At the next General Election the Liberal Party shall nominate one candidate only for the City of Hereford, and the Conservative Party shall nominate one candidate only, and both Parties pledge themselves to support the return of such two candidates only. The undersigned approve of the terms above written, and severally engage to use our best endeavours to carry them into effect. The following were the signatures attached to the document:—Sydney Myer, William Mason, M. J. G. Scobie, who had been appointed an Official Receiver to the Board of Trade, and was Secretary to the Hereford Liberal Association, J. B. Dillon, James Bowers, William Barker, J. L. Barling, Henry Lane, Henry Rogers, Robert Reay, O. Shellard, Thomas Cane, S. Packwood, a gentleman remarkable in the history of elections at Hereford, James Haim, William Prosser, F. H. Merrick, John Bowers, E. W. Fenton, J. M. Pearce, and Thomas Carless. Those were the names which were ultimately attached to the document. The transactions to which he had referred all took place in the last week of May, 1880. On the 28th of May proper steps were taken to withdraw the Petition. The necessary affidavits were put in by the two Petitioners, and affidavits in answer were signed by the two hon. Members for the City of Hereford. Those hon. Gentlemen, of course, disclaimed any corrupt action on their part, and the Judges before whom the affidavits came presumably had no alternative but to dismiss the Petition. He imagined that this transaction took place subsequent to the Gloucester Election Petition. The Report of the Judges upon the Gloucester Election was as follows:— In these circumstances we are not satisfied that the abandonment of the case against Mr. Monk was not the result of an arrangement made with a view to the withholding from us of evidence of the extensive corrupt practices which there is reason to believe prevailed at the election. The House of Commons, upon that Report, appointed a Committee to investigate the circumstances; but the case which he had laid before the House carried the matter a great deal further. The House, perhaps, would like to know where the bank notes were likely to have come from. Mr. Myer, who had possession of the notes, was the gentleman who first introduced the senior Member for the City of Hereford (Mr. Pulley) to the constituency. Some of the bank notes, of which he had the numbers, were dated the 16th of July, 1879, and the others September 16, 1879. They all bore the familiar signature of "F. May." He found that they were issued to the National Provincial Bank, with which the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Hereford had an account; and, as far as he could ascertain, they were again issued by that bank at the Hereford branch.

MR. PULLEY

May I ask the date?

MR. RAIKES

said, the date, when he first found them in circulation, was the 22nd of May, 1880. That was the day on which Mr. Myers handed them to Mr. Ralph. He thought that was an interesting circumstance in connection with this matter. In 1882 the persons who had made this arrangement on behalf of the Conservative Party became a little anxious as to its fulfilment. A letter was accordingly written to Mr. Scobie, who was then the Secretary of the Liberal Association, calling his attention to the agreement and claiming its fulfilment. In reply, Mr. Scobie wrote a letter, dated March 17, 1882, stating that the persons who had signed the agreement had no intention of de- parting from the future terms of the agreement. Mr. Scobie inclosed two letters which he had received, dated from the House of Commons. The first was from the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of Hereford, who stated that the agreement was not drawn up with his consent or knowledge, and that he should not apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. The other letter was from the junior Member for the City of Hereford (Mr. R. T. Reid), who also stated that he had no intention of applying for the Chiltern Hundreds, and that the agreement, to which he was not a party, was signed without his knowledge or consent. Both the letters were dated March 15, 1882. The Hereford Times, a Liberal paper, on the 20th of May, 1882, said— We learn that at a specially convened meeting of the Hereford Liberal Association, held at the Liberal Club Rooms yesterday, a letter was read from Mr. R. T. Reid, M.P., announcing his intention to retire from the representation of Hereford at the end of the present Parliamentary Session.

MR. R. T. REID

I never wrote any such letter; and a denial was posted all over the town within 24 hours after the paragraph appeared.

MR. RAIKES

said, the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of giving an explanation by and by. He had a longer extract from a Conservative paper, The Hereford Journal, saying that the statement referred to was inaccurate, but that what was meant was that Mr. Reid, when a Dissolution came, would not offer himself to Hereford for re-election. The hon. Gentleman would have to explain the concurrence between this modified statement, which he did not understand the hon. Member to contradict, and the statement of Mr. Scobie that the signatories were prepared to carry out the future part of the agreement, which was that one of the Members was to retire at the next General Election. He did not think that the facts which he had given presented so complete a case against those hon. Members as would warrant him in asking for an inquiry into their conduct; but he did think that he had presented as complete a case for inquiry into corrupt practices as had ever been brought before the House. There was a clause in the Corrupt Practices Bill of last year, against which he protested at the time, by which a future Royal Com- mission would be precluded from going into the circumstances or practices which had taken place at the previous election. But here was a case in which a gentleman in an official position had been concerned in a most deliberate and unblushing attempt to defeat the law with regard to corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections, and to evade the jurisdiction of the Election Court to which that House had intrusted discretion in such matters. If the House passed by a matter of this sort as light and inconsiderable, it would do a great deal more to encourage and promote corrupt practices than was done even by the unfortunate clause of the Act of last year. If this inquiry was given it would be necessary to press Mr. Sydney Myer for some information as to where he got the notes, and also as to the source of the sum of £1,100 or £1,200 which he paid to Mr. Garrold for the election costs. Mr. Myer was not a man who was able to pay them out of his own pocket, and was probably acting for someone who was well able to pay. As to the senior Member for Hereford (Mr. Pulley), he was content to leave the case there. With regard to the junior Member (Mr. E. T. Reid), he had listened with some regret to his observations when he questioned the Attorney General on the subject some time ago. The hon. Member appeared to take great credit to himself, not for his freedom from any complicity in this matter, but seemed to think it an act of heroic virtue that he should have profited by those nefarious transactions, and declined to pay the price. They must go back to the days of Joseph Surface for anything like it; for the hon. Member had placed himself exactly in the position of a man who, having made a settlement on some person which he found afterwards inconvenient to carry out, turned round and said it was obtained by an immoral consideration. The House would do well to be strict in preserving its privileges, and in dealing with corruption; but he hoped there was one thing which it prized still more, and that was the recognition of all honourable obligations. He thought he had made out a case which the Attorney General would find it impossible to confute, as far as the facts went; and he hoped he might appeal to the judgment of that House, as he was certain he might have done to the judgment of any House of Commons which preceded it, to show its jealousy of its own honour and its hatred of immoral practices, which could only be done by appointing the Committee for which he moved. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.

MR. PULLEY

begged to second the Resolution.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee appointed to investigate the circumstances connected with the withdrawal of the Petition against the last Parliamentary Election for the City of Hereford, and to report thereon to the House,"—(Mr. Raikes,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, the right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by saying that neither his Colleague (Mr. Pulley) nor himself had given him any offence, and that it was a source of pain and regret to him to have to make any charge; and yet he concluded, without having heard what he had to say or asking him for any explanation, by comparing him to Joseph Surface, and suggested what was even worse and more contemptible than corruption—swerving from the word he had given. Although he believed that the transactions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were dishonourable in the extreme, if he had directly or indirectly been a party to them he should have most strictly carried out even such dishonourable compacts. So far as he was concerned, he was very glad that his hon. Friend had seconded the Resolution. He stated in the most emphatic manner the fact that he had not been directly or indirectly a party or privy to any agreement of any kind relating to the representation of the City of Hereford, or the withdrawal of any Election Petition. That statement he had made before, and he repeated it. In 1880 an Election Petition was presented against his Colleague and himself. The right hon. Gentleman said that the election was expensive on both sides. Well, the right hon. Gentleman himself had some experience in that way. For his own part, he had not spent or paid a single shilling except for legal expenses, and he was perfectly prepared to prove it before the Committee if it were appointed. The Election Petition was not presented with any view to vindicate purity of election. The object was, if possible, to force one of the Members to withdraw in order to make room for one of the opposite Party, and he was the victim who was designated for sacrifice; and had it not been for his own conduct in the matter, and his determination to refuse to have anything to do with any such bargain, he should now have been a disgraced and a dishonoured man. He wished to say distinctly that a formal proposal had been made to him in the presence of a witness that the Petition should be withdrawn if he would consent to retire from the representation of the City of Hereford, and strong pressure had been put upon him from both sides to induce him to retire. To that proposal the answer he made was that he had nothing whatever to fear from the Election Petition, that he had absolutely obeyed the law, and that he would not retire from the representation of the city at any time before the Dissolution of the present Parliament, and that he would represent that city in as many Parliaments as it might please himself to stand and the electors of Hereford to choose him as their Representative. He was in a position to prove that by witnesses who were present when he made the statement. The right hon. Gentleman had said that some person had offered on his part that, he should withdraw; he, on the contrary, asserted that that statement would prove to be a falsehood when the matter came to be investigated before the Committee. He believed that he knew the gentleman to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, and he would say that he had never made such a statement in his life. He had communicated to his hon. Colleague the pressure that had been brought to bear upon him to induce him to retire; and he had declared to him at the same time that nothing would induce him to retire with the cordial approval of his Colleague. This determination on his part had been communicated to the Conservative leaders in the city. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman would find that in every daily paper in London there had appeared, on the 28th or the 29th of May, a statement that there was no foundation for the rumour that he intended to retire from his seat. Under such, circumstances, it was preposterous to suggest that the Petition was withdrawn in the belief that he (Mr. Reid) was about to resign his seat. At the time that the Petition was withdrawn, he believed that it had been withdrawn unconditionally. He desired to put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he really did mean what his words appeared to be intended to convey? He and his Colleague had, in the most perfect good faith, made affidavits in which they had sworn that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, no bargain whatever had been made in respect of the withdrawal of the Petition; and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman seriously intended to convey to the House that he and his Colleague had deliberately committed perjury in this matter? He would not for the world make any such suggestion about any man without the very strongest proof. He asked the right hon. Gentleman what proof he had that he (Mr. R. T. Reid) knew of the existence of the document containing the agreement referred to at the time that the Petition was withdrawn? He did not want to wait for the Committee—would the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as he had made a monstrous imputation, now rise in his place and, in the face of the House, state who was the man who, he said, had brought this document to his knowledge?

MR. RAIKES

said, he would rather not give any names, from consideration for the persons interested. The hon. Gentleman was going a little further than he went. He said the gentleman who professed to make the communication on behalf of the hon. Gentleman—he did not say it was made by the hon. Member—but that a proposal was made by a gentleman well known in the borough to the Conservative Party at Hereford.

MR. R. T. REID

Who is the gentleman?

MR. RAIKES

said, he would give the name if the hon. Gentleman really desired it, though he would rather not.

MR. R. T. REID

Certainly.

MR. RAIKES

Well, the gentleman who professed to make the proposal on behalf of the hon. Member was Mr. Gwyn James, the brother of the Attorney General.

MR. R. T. REID

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the ques- tion. Considering what he had said about the affidavits, he wanted to know who it was he suggested had informed him (Mr. E. T. Reid) at the time that the Petition was to be withdrawn on the terms that he should retire, or what proof the right hon. Gentleman had that he was in the smallest degree aware of the existence of the document in question?

MR. RAIKES

said, that the hon. Member appeared to be anxious to anticipate the decision of the Committee. It would be far preferable to leave the whole matter to be inquired into by the Committee. He had not said that he knew who it was that made the hon. Gentleman aware of it, and he did not know; but he did say that, inasmuch as the document in question had been signed by 23 leading members of the Liberal Party, it was not unreasonably supposed that they were authorized to treat on behalf of the hon. Member.

MR. R. T. REID

said, that he claimed the right, unless prevented by the Speaker, to extract from the right hon. Gentleman an answer to his question. The right hon. Gentleman either did or did not suggest that at the time he (Mr. E. T. Reid) made the affidavit in 1880 he was aware of the existence of the agreement. If the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he was aware of the agreement, would he say whether he had proof of it upon the statement of any respectable man, or whether it was merely a matter of inference?

MR. RAIKES

said, that he thought he had a right to ask whether the hon. Member was pursuing the course usual in these cases? He had brought forward a statement in that House which he was prepared to verify before a Committee. He asked the House to allow him to call his witnesses in verification of his statement, and not to allow themselves to be put in the place of the Committee.

MR. R. T. REID

said, the House would observe the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. He must say it was rather hard that he should be placed in this position—that he should not be told whether a grave charge was made against him or not. From the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman was withholding this information, the House would be able to judge of the weight that should be attached to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he had brought forward this matter with regret. The explanation of the document referred to was simple. There were persons on both sides of politics whose interest it was to cause the Petition to be withdrawn, and those were the persons who made the bargain in defiance of him, and for the purpose of coercing him. It was a secret agreement, and absolutely unknown to him in its inception, in its creation, and in its execution, and he never heard of it until after the withdrawal of the Petition. He was the person against whom the whole of the arrangement was levelled. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there should be honour among thieves; if he had been a thief, he should have acted in accordance with that honour, however low it might be. But the thieves in the matter were the persons in whose interest this Motion was made; and he (Mr. Reid) was the man whom they had attempted to rob. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of bank notes—he did not know what the right hon. Member meant by that; but he had not paid a single farthing beyond the legitimate expenses in connection with his election. That was what enabled him from the very commencement to defy the Petitioners. This matter was now four years old, and it was rather remarkable that it had not been brought forward earlier; but this was part of the same pressure put upon him at the time of the Election Petition. If the Motion proceeded from a desire for purity, the right hon. Gentleman would scarcely have waited for two years. He (Mr. Reid) had known for some time that a Motion of this kind would be made unless the Liberal Party consented to divide the representation of the city at the next General Election. This Motion was held as a terror over the heads of some men, to be used if it appeared that the representation was not going to be divided; and when it was found that the people of Hereford were not to be enslaved, and were going to contest both seats, this Motion was brought forward in the interests of those who had been disappointed. That was the plain account of the action of the right hon. Gentleman. He made no complaint of this Motion. It was better that the right hon. Gentleman should come forward and expose himself by such a Motion as this, rather than that he should pillage his (Mr. R. T. Reid's) character in secret by whispers in the Lobby. He courted with great satisfaction the inquiry moved for by the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman should hear of it when the Committee had reported. He should then request from the right hon. Gentleman an apology for the injury he had attempted to do him as public as the charge he had made against him.

MR. RANKIN

said, that, occupying the position of Chief Steward of the City of Hereford, he felt that he ought to make a few remarks to the House on the subject under discussion. Though he was sure the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had brought forward the subject from the purest motives, he very much regretted he had done so. In the first place, the time was most inopportune for the purpose. Hereford had now been allowed to slumber for four years without having had any Petition to disturb it, except municipal election petitions; and it would be a great pity for this inquiry, which was in the nature of an Election Petition, to be now held. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what good he imagined could come to either Party from the course he had taken? He (Mr. Rankin) had, of course, heard the rumours as to the bargain alleged to have been made between certain parties in the City of Hereford, and he had no word of extenuation to say on their behalf if they made the corrupt bargain as stated. Still, the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman could have no good result whatever; but it must create animosity, ill blood, and rancour very extensively. It would be bad for the City, and it could not be good for the Conservative Party, as he could positively say, knowing the city as well as he did. He hoped the inquiry would not be granted. He regretted very much that the City of Hereford should have been dragged into a debate of this description, and that it should have been made to occupy such an unenviable position. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was the inverse of that made in the case of the Cities of the Plain, and Hereford was to be destroyed because of five or ten unrighteous men who were numbered among its citizens. He hoped that the House would not grant the Committee asked for by the right hon. Gentleman, and that they should hear no more about this matter in the House of Commons.

MR. PULLEY

reminded the House that, having seconded the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought he had shown his readiness to meet the charges which he had made. He thought that if the Committee of Inquiry were granted it would show how absolutely without foundation those charges were. The agreement referred to had been sent to him two years after it was made. He did not know the terms of that agreement until it was received by him. He had certainly heard of the subject before that time; but he had no accurate information as to what the arrangement was until two years after it was made. He was aware that great pressure had been put upon his Colleague. Great pressure had also been put upon himself to use whatever influence he might possess with his Colleague to induce him to withdraw from the House before the Petition was presented. His Colleague had told the House how they had stood side by side to resist any pressure that might be brought to bear upon them to adopt the course suggested. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a report published in The Hereford, Times as to his Colleague retiring from Parliament after the then existing Session. He happened to go to Hereford the day following that on which the paper had been published. On reading it he was astonished very much at the manner in which it was worded. He took immediate steps to have the mistake rectified. The mistake arose in this way. The report had been mentioned to the editor of The Hereford Times, who went to his office, and, by a slip of the tongue or of the pen, used the word "Session" instead of "Parliament." That was the real history of the case, and he hoped it would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

MR. WARTON

said, if it was the intention of the Government to refuse this inquiry a very unfavourable inference would be drawn with regard to the hon. Members for Hereford, because their indignant denials would then be supposed to be made in consequence of the intention of the Government to refuse the inquiry. If the Government intended to refuse this Committee, their action would be on a par with that shelter which they always threw over corruption. A Corrupt Practices Bill had been introduced by the Government, and it was very amusing to think that the most corrupt Election of 1880 had been carried on by an enormous expenditure of money on the Liberal side. That was the reason why they had included in that Bill the whitewashing clause; and he maintained that the existence of that clause in the Bill was an additional reason why this Committee of Inquiry should be granted. If, however, it was refused, such a refusal would throw light on the real object of the whitewashing clause and the hypocritical pretence of the Government in coming forward to support this Corrupt Practices Bill. He thought the Government ought not to refuse this inquiry, on the ground that if it resulted in nothing everyone concerned would be rendered happy; and if the reverse was the case, and Liberal corruption was brought to light, then some good would have been done. The Government would not like this, it was true, and probably for that reason they would refuse the Committee. He had heard a great deal about the large sums of money paid during this Hereford Election; and he thought it was a curious fact that the senior Member for Hereford should have failed twice on his merits in being elected, and that on the third occasion he had succeeded by the power of his money. The Committee of Inquiry would be useful in this respect—that it-would bring out the fact that that election was a very expensive one indeed, especially on the Liberal side. It would not be to the honour of the Government or of the House to refuse a Committee of this kind. It was to the interest of the hon. Members for Hereford that inquiry should be made. They would stand before the world in a bad light if the Government sheltered them from an inquiry of this description. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was entittled to the respect of the House for having brought this matter forward. He believed he had no interest in the matter, his motive being quite pure and disinterested. The only objection to be found with the speech of the junior Member for Hereford was that he attempted to impute some motive to the right hon. Gentleman for having called the attention of the House to the subject. He felt quite sure that his right hon. Friend had brought this subject forward with the highest, the purest, and the best motives, and therefore he should support the Motion. ["Divide!"] As regards hon. Members calling out "Divide," he did not know how they could go to a Division until there were two sides to the question. He expected that the Government intended to oppose the Motion in consequence of their love of corruption, for they had introduced a Corrupt Practices Bill which contained a whitewashing clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had some delicacy in attempting to afford the House any guidance on the present occasion—first, because the constituency which had been referred to was that of his own native city; and, secondly, because the name of a relative of his had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this matter.

MR. RAIKES

said, he did not think the Attorney General was in his place at the time. The name was most unwillingly drawn from him.

MR. R. T. REID

wished to make an explanation. The name was volunteered by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked a question which had never yet been answered, as to what proof the right hon. Gentleman had of alleging his complicity in the agreement; and the right hon. Gentleman introduced the name of the gentleman in question in a perfectly different connection.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was perfectly aware of what had taken place. He did not wish to come in conflict with the right hon. Gentleman, for the right hon. Gentleman had shown him but scant courtesy of late in that House; and among his own constituents the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of him in a way in which he was glad to say one Member seldom spoke of another. If the right hon. Gentleman had given him Notice that he was about to make this charge, he should have been prepared to make some statement in relation to it. But, as he knew nothing about this election, he was unprepared to make any comment except this—that he could answer for the honour and the conduct of his relative as much as he could answer for his own. He passed from this subject in order to ask the House to consider what, apart from political and, he hoped, personal considera- tions, they ought to do. They were asked to appoint a Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which the alleged agreement was made. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to charge either of the hon. Members for Hereford with being a party to that agreement? If he did, let him say so. As he obtained no reply, he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's silence that he made no such charge. The House had jurisdiction over the conduct of its Members; but the right hon. Gentleman, by his silence, acquiesced in the statement that he had no charge to make, or that he had not the courage to make it. There was no suggestion that a breach of the Rules of the House had been committed by either of the hon. Members. Supposing it were found that 20 gentlemen signed the agreement, as seemed to be admitted, the House could do nothing. There had been no contempt of the House. No further proceeding could be taken; and a Committee would simply find that certain persons, without authority, entered into an improper agreement. At the end of four years after the transactions, without having power to punish or even to censure the parties to the agreement, they were asked to arrive at facts, which seemed to be admitted, and which could be carried no further. He would not enter into the question of the object with which this Motion had been made, or discuss why it had been kept in abeyance. It was asked why an inquiry into this matter should not be granted. Well, this was a question of precedent. If the House were to grant a Committee on the representations of men of strange conduct themselves, from whom the right hon. Gentleman had obtained his information, they would be going beyond any precedent. Moreover, the inquiry could have no Constitutional result. In the circumstances, he must ask the House to consider whether this was a case in which inquiry ought to take place. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport told the House that it was comical for the Corrupt Practices Bill to have been introduced by the Attorney General. Did the hon. and learned Member mean to say that he (the Attorney General) had ever, directly or indirectly, taken part in any corrupt practices in his life?

MR. WARTON

Taunton is a very corrupt place. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.

THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, his constituents could defend themselves. The question was, whether the hon. and learned Member for Bridport meant to charge that he had been guilty of corrupt practices? The hon. and learned Member for Bridport was a fitting supporter for the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject, and who hinted at charges he did not dare to make. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport asserted that the Government carried a whitewashing clause, so that there should be no retrospective inquiry; but he might point out that there was no such clause in the Government Bill, and that it was inserted at the suggestion of a Conservative Member of the House. In conclusion, he appealed to the House not to grant an inquiry, which would be without precedent and without result.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he thought the Government ought to grant the Committee, in order that the grave charges made by his right hon. Friend might be thoroughly investigated. If the House refused to grant the Committee the public would say that the Government were using their influence to shield the Members for Hereford, and that the Attorney General was seeking to cover the sins of his relative. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Oh!] The Home Secretary, of course, knew a great deal more about corrupt practices than he did. He wished to impress this fact upon Her Majesty's Government—that, however painful it might be for that House to give a vote against these hon. Members, still, if the Committee were refused, the public would disbelieve in all their protestations of their desire to put down corrupt practices at elections. It would be said out-of-doors that the Government were determined to screen the hon. Members lest many nasty things should come to light. When charges of this serious character were brought against hon. Members, they ought, in the interests of those hon. Members themselves, to be sifted to the bottom before a competent tribunal, with the view of their being either substantiated or disproved. He hoped that the Attorney General would see his way to alter his decision in this matter, and to consent to the appointment of this Committee.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, that it appeared to him that the only question for the House to consider in this matter was, whether the appointment of this Committee would be for the public advantage in checking those corrupt practices which they all so much deplored? A good deal might be said in favour of appointing this Committee if the inquiry before it would result in exposing corrupt practices that had not yet been brought to light; but all the exposure that was likely to result from the inquiry had been brought about by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that an improper agreement had been entered into with the view of making a bargain with an hon. Member in connection with the withdrawal of this Petition had not been contradicted, and the names of the persons concerned in that agreement had been given publicly. An inquiry before a Committee, therefore, would not bring to light any new facts. How were hon. Members to vote on this question? The view he took of the matter was this—if the right hon. Gentleman intended to impute that the two sitting Members for Hereford were guilty of being privy to this agreement, he should cordially vote for the appointment of the Committee; but if the right hon. Gentleman did not make that imputation he should vote against the Motion.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that having heard the opening speech he could bear testimony to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not given the name of the Attorney General's brother without considerable and most unusual pressure being brought to bear upon him by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. E. T. Reid), and then he had not given it with any great pleasure. The hon. Member for Hereford had acted throughout in a most unusual manner. It was a most extraordinary thing that while both the hon. Representatives of Hereford had expressed themselves as being most anxious that this inquiry should take place the Attorney General should refuse the Committee on the part of the Government. Of course, the hon. Member for Hereford, being a lawyer, did not know more of the matter than he wanted to know.

MR. R. T. REID

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in making imputations of this nature upon an hon. Member?

MR. SPEAKER

I hope that the debate will be conducted without the imputation of motives, and without personalities which are extremely painful.

MR. BIGGAR

, in continuing, remarked that the state of political morality in Hereford must be a singular one, seeing that 10 of the leading Conservatives of that city had believed that one of the Representatives of the constituency could be induced to enter into a bargain to retire from his seat after a specified time. He could conceive an instance in which two candidates holding the same political views agreed to contest a borough, one being a man of wealth and the other being a man of ability, on the understanding that the wealthy man was to find the ready money and the able man was to do all the talking. The real question before the House was whether the two hon. Members for Hereford, who had declared themselves so anxious for this inquiry, were to be allowed to clear their characters, or were to be forced to rest under the grave imputations which the right hon. Gentleman had brought against them?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that when he left the House the senior hon. Member for Hereford had seconded the Motion, and the junior Member had supported it, the first merely stammering out, "I second this Motion." The impression on his mind then was that the inquiry was practically granted; but he understood since that the Attorney General, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, had flatly refused it. Such a course on the part of the Government threw considerable doubt upon the sincerity of the hon. Members implicated in this matter.

MR. PULLEY

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether I violated any of the Rules of the House?

MR. SPEAKER

Had the hon. Member violated any of the Rules of the House I should have corrected him.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he would not go into that question; but what he wanted to point out was, that it was very difficult for those sitting on the Opposition side of the House, or any independent Member, to believe that the support given to the Motion by the hon. Members for Hereford could be sincere, on account of the extraordinary conduct pursued by the Government. What was to become of the reputation of the House of Commons if the Government—[ A laugh.] He knew that the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), and his protector, the Home Secretary, cared very little for the reputation of the House of Commons, and allowed its honour and character to be dragged into the dirt. ["Order, Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I hope the noble Lord will not introduce any fresh personalities into the discussion, which has been made painful by such personalities already.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, it was very difficult indeed to debate this question and keep absolutely clear of anything approaching to personalities. He was speaking of the honour of the House of Commons, when he was met with the jeers of the hon. Member for Stockton; and naturally his mind recurred to the extremely painful scene in which the hon. Member was engaged some time ago. He was asking what was to become of the reputation of the House of Commons if, in the course of one Session, Her Majesty's Government used their mechanical majority to prevent two inquiries that were demanded, one into a matter deeply affecting a Minister of the Crown, and the other into a matter affecting two Members of the Liberal Party. It was a great misfortune that the Front Opposition Bench was upon this occasion so tenantless. He did not know whether the election transactions connected with 1880 were matters about which they felt a little delicacy. Certainly, it was a most remarkable feature that when a question of great importance to the House of Commons was being discussed they should have taken themselves off. He did not think his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) need be disappointed at the attitude of the Government. Nothing could be more favourable to the cause which they represented than the obstinate and, he believed, the interested refusal which the Attorney General had made in this matter to the cause which they on the Opposition side had advocated—namely, electoral purity; and they should lose no opportunity of drawing public attention to the corrupt and dark practices which placed the Liberal majority in power.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not intend to follow the noble Lord into the personalities in which he had indulged; but it was always a consolation to the Government to know that, whatever hard words he might apply to them, he always said much harder things about his friends. But the noble Lord, not having heard the Attorney General, did not appreciate the position of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman did not make a charge against the Members for Hereford; and it was all very well for them to say "the more inquiry the better;" but the Government had to consider, irrespective of the hon. Members, what ought to be the action of the House of Commons. It had been pointed out that it was not for the House to enter upon an inquiry, not with reference to its own Members, but with regard to persons over whom it had no control and no jurisdiction. Such an inquiry would place the House in an entirely false position; it would lend encouragement to proceedings which were much better fitted for the anonymous columns of a society newspaper than for the transactions of a deliberative Assembly. He had never heard of the Hereford Election before. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes), and he was wondering the whole time when he was coming to any point which would justify the Motion he had made. To his infinite surprise, he sat down without even approaching anything that had any relation to it, or even of making out, a primâ facie case for inquiry by a Committee, and it was for that reason alone that the Government could not support the Motion.

MR. GORST

said, that having had an intimate acquaintance with the proceedings of political parties at elections, he could not share the noble Lord's surprise at the absence of the Leader of the Opposition or at the conduct of the Government. No doubt there was no charge against the Members for Hereford; it was only incidentally and in a secondary degree that their conduct was brought in, and no doubt they would come out of the inquiry with clean hands. A gross scandal had been committed by the local wire-pullers, who did not act on their own responsibility, but were intimately associated with, others, who kept carefully in the background in London, who kept within the limits of the law and were perfectly safe; and this was true of both Parties. If there were corrupt proceedings in a constituency, the House of Commons was justified in dragging them to light. In this case both Parties were involved. It was inconvenient that these things should be inquired into, and that was the reason the Front Opposition Bench was unoccupied, save by the right hon. Gentleman who had just come in (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was a county Member, and quite innocent in regard to what was done at borough elections. He was also equally certain that there were Gentlemen sitting on the Government Bench who would have imitated the example if they had dared, but being Members of the Government they had been obliged to be present and brazen it out. The course the Government had taken was deliberately to invite the House of Commons to stifle inquiry. The Government did not want the inquiry because they were afraid that matters would be brought to light which had long been kept secret, and which would be extremely inconvenient for some Members of their Party. A primâ facie case was made out as to an abominably corrupt bargain made by wire-pullers on both sides for the purpose of securing the withdrawal of a Petition. The Home Secretary said that inquiry would be fruitless; but it was precisely because it would not be fruitless that he opposed it. He was certain, whatever the decision of the House might be, the country would believe that the leading Members of the Opposition went away because they did not dare to face the inquiry, and that the Government tried to stifle the discussion because they could not sustain an open investigation.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he thought the House had seldom witnessed such a spectacle as that which had just been presented by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The hon. and learned Member had been the dispenser of the secrets of the Opposition side of the House. He knew what had been done so well, and he liked to dilate from time to time on all that had passed through his hands. He could not believe that the Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench were absent because they knew of infamous practices. He could hardly think that the hon. Member could have meant to charge a whole body of men with such improprieties, and he (Mr. Hopwood) should think that before morning came the hon. Member would be convinced of the imprudence of having made that statement and that attack. He thought the Attorney General had put this matter on its right footing; and as the right hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion had declined to aver that the two hon. Members for Hereford were mixed up with this transaction, he should vote against the Motion.

MR. MONTAGU SCOTT

said, he would be very loath to impute venality in election matters reflecting on either of the hon. Members for Hereford, with whom he was not acquainted, and against whom, consequently, he could have no personal grudge. Because that was so he took their part, and he should say for them, what he would say for himself, if charges of this kind were brought against him—"I am ready to meet them; if you persevere in your accusations, go on, and I will meet them." The hon. Members, it was true, might be entirely innocent of the grave charges brought against some of their constituents—persons supposed to be truthful. He did not know anything about them, or anything about Hereford, and he did not want to know; but it was rather suspicious that after the visit of Mr. Sydney Myers to the Conservative agent, a rouleau of £600 in bank-notes had been found lying on his table. Did anyone suppose that Mr. Myers, from philanthropic motives, had left there £600 of his own money? He only wished that he was acquainted with this gentleman, and that he would visit him in a similar way. He should like to be on the proposed Committee if it were only for the purpose of putting a few questions to this Mr. Myers. There had been a compact entered into by 20 reputed respectable men of the Liberal Party, and one of them wrote that they intended to act up to that compact. He appealed to the Treasury Bench, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and President of the Board of Trade, whether Mr. Scobie, the Secretary of the Liberal Association and Official Receiver of the Court of Bankruptcy, just appointed to the latter office by the President of the Board of Trade, was not a respectable man, and, therefore, to be believed before a Committee of the House of Commons? This Mr. Scobie wrote that he intended to carry out a certain compact with the Conservative agent. Why, therefore, should the Government, by shirking a Committee, seek to prevent his examination? When imputations were brought against Members of that House who sat on the Ministerial side of the House—or, indeed, in any quarter of the Chamber—it was absolutely cruel on the part of the Government to shirk this inquiry, knowing that they were backed up by a large majority, and feeling that they were expert enough to use it. "The whirligig of time brings its own revenges." Last Session they had the Corrupt Practices (Elections) Bill of the Attorney General, who, that night, attacked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) for personalities, and threw his pure robe of protection around both Mr. Myers and Mr. Scobie, out of goodwill to the hon. Members for Hereford. He (Mr. Montagu Scott) would not follow the example of their pseudo-Friends, but should vote for the appointment of the proposed Committee.

MR. WARTON

asked, on a point of Order, whether the senior Member for Hereford, having seconded the Motion, could not be compelled to be a Teller?

MR. SPEAKER

said, that there was no such obligation on the hon. Member.

MR. TOMLINSON

thought that the House would want some stronger authority than had been given for the doctrine that no Member of the House had a right to an inquiry unless a direct charge had been made against him.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 55: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 82.)

Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."