STAFFORD.—PREVENTION OF BRIBERY. (Hansard, 4 August 1836)

§ The Earl of Devon
was not surprised that the noble Marquess had forborn to go into any details upon the question, because the evidence, when analysed, would by no means bear him out in some of the assertions which he had made. If that evidence had been accurately examined it would have been found that this measure was fraught with the greatest injustice to many of that class of persons who were at one sweep deprived of their franchise; whilst, on the other hand, it left altogether untouched many upon whom, according to the evidence taken at the bar, the punishment and indignation of the House ought justly to fall. It was the principle of justice, and the principle of common sense, to punish only those who were proved to be guilty; but this Bill went to a much greater extent. Was it, then, to be charged upon that House that they were the abettors of bribery and corruption if they hesitated to punish the ignorant man alone, who had taken the bribe, having positive evidence before them, and well knowing, that A and B were the parties who offered that bribe? Those were the grounds upon which he felt it was their duty not to 887 agree to the second reading, but to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

§ The Duke of Wellington
My Lords, after the observations which I made on the former Bill, some few nights ago, in opposition to going into Committee upon that Bill, it is necessary for me to address to your Lordships a few words with respect to the course which I mean to take regarding the Bill to-night. My Lords, this is a Bill which puts forward some very curious principles; and, first of all, after reciting bribery and corruption in the borough of Stafford, it states, not that those who are corrupt shall be disfranchised—that would be a fair principle to act on—but it says the burgesses and freemen shall be disfranchised. I conclude, my Lords, that by "burgesses and freemen" it means the burgesses and freemen under the charter of impropriation, and not those who have become burgesses under the Corporations Act. I apprehend that it alludes to burgesses and freemen under the old charter granted to the town. Now, my Lords, it does seem to me rather a strange circumstance that those persons should be disfranchised by name, there being, with regard to some of them, no proof of their having been guilty of any corruption whatever; and that the burgesses and freemen under the Corporations Act should not be included in this Bill, against many of whom there were clear proofs of bribery and corruption. But this Bill, my Lords, contains another very curious principle. When the burgesses under the Corporations Act, or even the freemen under the Corporations Act, are disfranchised, according to the provisions of this Bill, they may be admitted into the freedom of the corporation over again, and be corrupt again or not, as they please—but they may again be admitted by taking out their freedom under the law as it now stands. This is what the noble Marquess calls a cure for corruption. ["No, no!"] Well, then, a punishment for corruption. But, my Lords, in the evidence which has been given at your Lordships' bar, there are certain proofs against those who, have been guilty of bribing the voters. Now, my Lords, there is not a line in the Bill against them—not a syllable in the Bill against them. They who hold their privilege of voting under Act of Parliament, whose right is confirmed by Act of 888 Parliament, are disfranchised, though nothing is proved against them; those who are disfranchised are allowed again to become freemen; and, lastly, there are others of whom, though proved to be guilty of corruption by the evidence given at the bar of your Lordships' House, no notice whatever is taken. Then, my Lords, we are told that if we do not pass this Bill the public will be convinced that we do not desire to prevent bribery. Now, I beg to say that I am prepared—and I have already shown myself to be so—for I believe I myself proposed to a Committee of your Lordships a measure which tended to bring to justice all offenders of this nature; that measure was, however, thrown out in another place—but I repeat, my Lords, I shall be ready at any time to vote for any measure which may tend to the punishment of that species of corruption, after proof shall have been produced at the bar. I am ready now to vote for any measure which will punish those who are found to be guilty of corruption, and upon whom punishment would justly fall. But, my Lords, I have a very great disinclination to vote at this period of the Session for a Bill the object of which is to carry out such principles as those which I have just enumerated to your Lordships. It is impossible for the House to adopt such a sweeping measure—a measure which goes to disfranchise all the burgesses and freemen of Stafford, and which in the same clause gives to the same burgesses facilities for again becoming free, and affords opportunites for the practice of bribery and corruption a second time. Under these circumstances, my Lords, I shall certainly vote against the second reading of this Bill.

The Bishop of Gloucester
wished to say a few words with reference to a misrepresentation that had appeared in the Morning Chronicle newspaper, respecting the votes of his right rev. brethren and himself when this Bill was before their Lordships on a former occasion. The writer in that paper asserted that the bench of Bishops voted against the measure, and that through their votes it was rejected; then in a strain of malignant invective he charged them with encouraging vice and profligacy, by granting impunity to persons guilty of corruption. Had the first assertion of that writer been proved—namely, that the votes of the bench of Bishops had effected the rejection of the, Bill-he did 889 not know that the circumstance could be considered as reflecting any discredit upon them, but it was not the fact. A considerable number of his right rev. brethren had attended on that evening because a Bill was expected to come on in which they were much interested; it did not come on, and only three out of the thirty remained. He was not amongst the three—he did not vote upon the Bill at all, for he had determined not to vote on it, not having heard the evidence. He confessed it appeared to him in the light of a judicial proceeding, and he thought, that in order to form a sound opinion on the subject, it was necessary to hear the evidence. What motives might have influenced others it was not for him to say, but those were the considerations which governed his mind, and he really thought it due to himself and the right rev. Friends near him to correct such a gross misrepresentation. As to the Bill, he looked on it as a one-sided measure, and not calculated to render that impartial justice which would be expected at the hands of their Lordships.

§ Lord Wharncliffe
said, if the Bill of the noble Marquess proceeded upon a fair principle of justice he would have found it his duty to have disfranchised all those who had been guilty of taking bribes, whether they were burgesses, freemen, or 10l. householders.

The Marquess of Clanricarde
replied. It was difficult to suit the taste of noble Lords opposite. When he had formerly brought in a sweeping measure to punish those who offered as well as those who received the bribe, he had been told, that if he brought in a Bill which would affect any particular class they might perhaps accede to it; though it was now argued in opposition to the Bill, that it punished only one class of offenders. If they went into Committee they might introduce a clause to spare those particular persons against whom there might be no positive proof of guilt.

§ Lord Lyndhurst
merely wished to correct an observation which fell from the noble Marquess, imputing to noble Lords on that (the Opposition) side of the House a disposition favourable towards bribery. Now, it appeared upon the face of the evidence, that at the election in 1826 the bribers were two Whigs; in 1832 the bribers were Chetwynd, Gronow, and Blunt, three Whigs—no bribery from a Conservative; 890 in 1831, Campbell (Sir John Campbell), I believe, said the noble Lord, he is a Whig. So that the bribery originated with their opponents, and the imputation of the noble Marquess was not sustained.

The Marquess of Clanricarde
could assure the noble Lord, that he had never intended to renew any of those ridiculous distinctions and bickerings between Whig and Tory: everybody knew there had been Whig borough mongers. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had not been one; but he wished he had had the good fortune, for they were very profitable. There could be no doubt that there were Whigs who bought boroughs, and Whigs who sold them; but, unfortunately, perhaps, for the country, there had been more Tory boroughmongers than Whigs.

§ Lord Strafford
would support any measure that went to punish those who had been proved guilty.

The Marquess of Salisbury
was inclined to think, that it would be better than proceeding by Bill to move an Address to his Majesty, begging him to instruct the Attorney-General to institute criminal proceedings against the offenders; but if they were to proceed by Bill, he would suggest to the noble Marquess, instead of pressing this measure forward to a Committee, to withdraw it, and introduce another more acceptable in its stead.

§ The Lord Chancellor
said, that if they deprived any town of the elective franchise, such a proceeding must prove injurious to some innocent parties. It was quite clear that there had in this case been gross corruption, at the same time that it would be most unjust to disfranchise by name persons who had no opportunity of stating their defence in person or by counsel. He was favourable to the principle of the present Bill, and thought that in Committee it might be so modified as to prove acceptable to their Lordships, and just in its operation; he should therefore vote for the second reading.