HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, April 7.
BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE
Mr. V. SMITH, after presenting a petition from inhabitants of Cambridge in favour of the appointment of a commission to inquire into corrupt practices in that borough, rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. It was so much a matter of course that a commission should follow such a report as that made by the election committee in this case, that he did not deem it necessary to trespass long upon the attention of the House. He believed he should have little difficulty in satisfying the House that gross and extensive corruption prevailed in the borough of Cambridge, though the inquiry before the committee was necessarily of a limited character, for, when the sitting members came before them and said they were prepared to give up their seats, the committee could proceed no further. The case of Cambridge was not new to the House. In 1840 Mr. Manners Sutton was unseated, and on that occasion the committee came to a resolution that an extensive and corrupt system of treating prevailed among many of the influential members of the constituency of Cambridge, but nothing followed upon this, and a fresh election took place. At the late election the brining was carried on chiefly by a person named Samuel Long, who, it appeared, had formerly been imprisoned for 12 months for having been guilty of a similar offence. In spite of this, however, Long made his appearance again in the same capacity, and certainly it must be said of him that he was a most efficient performer. He hired an inn, where he received all applicants, the words "All's right" implying that the sum of 10l. was to be paid. It appeared that Long was accustomed to say to the voters, "If you go and do right I will do right;" and never was there more unbounded confidence in a promise to pay. To make the thing more agreeable and fascinating, after a man had given his vote according to the "all right" system he was waited upon a few days afterwards by a lady with a fall over her face, who presented him with 10l., asked and answered no questions, and then left him. (A laugh.) Then, generally speaking, the amount was spent in drink and conviviality. (Hear, hear.) The system of giving 10l. was spoken of by every witness as a matter perfectly notorious; and he sorry to say that this bribing was not confined to the poorer classes, for they had it in evidence that the money was received by persons who were earning a good livelihood in the borough. There was a man named Mansfield, who had no knowledge of his having a vote, but, on being told that he had, he sold it for a bribe without asking any questions about the parties or anything else, his sole object being to make money by the transaction. One man voted at half-past 3 o'clock, though the members returned were then at the head of the poll, being more than a hundred above the opposing party. Another man stood out too long, and did not get his 10l. Consequently he appeared as a witness against the whole system, and got his revenge. (A laugh.) It was evident that some remedy was required to cure such evils as these, and he might observe, in passing, that he was strongly impressed with the imperfect nature of the law of agency, as laid down by that House. (Hear, hear.) A great extension of the suffrage had been spoken of by the hon. member for Finsbury as a cure for the evils of corruption; but, even in a constituency of 20,000, parties might be so evenly balanced that 100 votes would turn the day; and, in such cases, corruption could easily be brought into play. He was afraid the cause lay deeper, and he looked very much to an improvement of the moral tone of the people for a real and efficient remedy. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman then moved an address to Her Majesty to issue a commission to inquire into corrupt practices at elections at Cambridge—Mr. G. Wilmore, Q.C., Mr. G. Boden, and Mr. T. Tower to be commissioners.
Sir J. SHELLEY seconded the nomination; and the address was at once agreed to.
It was then ordered that a conference be desired with the Lords on the subject-matter of the address. Shortly afterwards, the conference having taken place,
Mr. V. SMITH reported to the House that the address had been communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence in it desired.
(House of Lords)
A message from the Commons by Mr. Vernon Smith and others, desiring a conference, was delivered at the bar. The Duke of Argyll, Lord Beaumont, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Colchester, and others, were appointed managers, and after a short delay, returned to the house, and the Duke of Argyll having stated the object of the conference to be that their lordships should agree to an address to the Crown for a commission of inquiry into the proceedings at the town of Cambridge election, a question to that effect was put and agreed to.
Only the final day of the Commission's proceedings seem to have been covered. Sir Fitzroy Kelly was by this time MP for Suffolk East.—Ed.
SIR F. KELLY'S ELECTIONS FOR CAMBRIDGE.
The Cambridge Election Commission terminated their proceedings (in Cambridge) on Saturday with the examination of Sir Fitzroy Kelly as to his connexion with the borough. It may be remembered that after Sir F. Kelly's election in 1843 an unsuccessful petition was presented against his return. The Rev. Dr. Bartlett (now of Hereford) stated that at that election the late Mr. Fisher sent him to the Golden Cross, Charing-cross, and that he there saw a stranger, whom he had never seen before or since; and the stranger gave him a packet "to contribute to Mr. Kelly's success." That packet was found to contain 1,000 sovereigns, and they were spent by Bartlett and Fisher in bribery and treating. Mr. Coppock, at his examination before the commission, handed in a brief used for Mr. Kelly's defence in committee, and which showed that it was intended to be shown that the expenses of the election were covered by 500l., which had been paid by Mr. Kelly into Mortlock's bank, but which was spent in addition to the 1000l., together with 300l., which Mr. Kelly was called on for afterwards. How Mr. Coppock came into possession of this brief is a mystery.
Sir F. Kelly being called, and examined by the President (Mr. Willmore. Q.C.), detailed the circumstance of his introduction to the borough in 1843, and then proceeded:—I did inquire of a number of persons the probable amount of the expense, and was told various sums, varying from 500l. to 1500l. The most specific information I received was from Mr. Alderman Deighton, bookseller, but he did not enter into minute details as to its application. The sum Mr. Deighton named I said was too large, and refused to give it, saying I did not believe it could be legitimately expended. He said there were expenses for publichouses, for night watching, and bringing voters to the poll, but his statements were of such a vague and general character that I was not satisfied. I forget the exact sum he mentioned, but I said I should require an assurance from the committee that the sum should not exceed 1,000l., and I told every gentleman on the committee, both in 1843 and 1845, that I should hold him to be my worst enemy who did anything of an illegal character. I had no communication with Sir Alexander Grant as to the expenditure of money, but only as to committeemen. I had had experience of these in the House of Commons, and was anxious to get those to act who could be relied on, and Sir Alexander was kind enough to mention five or six names to me.
President.—Sir Alexander Grant has stated that his experience taught him that it was the wisest course to abstain from all knowledge of what went on here. Did he give you any advice of that character?—No; nor should I have acted upon it if he had. I expended between 800l. and 900l. in 1843, independent of some small personal hotel expenses.
Were any vouchers with regard to the expenditure submitted to you?—Yes; I had a complete and detailed account of that, and I think I sent it to Mr. Adcock.
Did that account for all the money you advanced?—Yes, and more; and I handed over the balance. I paid no sum of money without a knowledge of what it applied to.
Had you reason to believe that the money was not applied as stated?—I had not the the least reason to believe that a shilling of the money was paid otherwise than as stated.
Had you any knowledge of the advance of any other moneys in 1843?—I had not, and have not now, notwithstanding what I have read in the newspapers. I was appointed Solicitor-General early in 1845; my appointment took place on Friday, and I issued my address on the Saturday. I was thrown into communication with Bartlett in 1843, but I never authorized him to act as my agent. He was represented to me as a member of the university, and was I believed, and still believe, in every way a gentleman, and I solicited his support and assistance as I did that of other gentlemen, but never appointed him my agent. It is only within these last few hours that I have learned he came into possession of 1,000l. in 1843, and that this sum was spent in securing my election by improper means.
Are you anxious to hear exactly what he said?—I have no objection to hear it; but I cannot say that I have any wish on the subject.
The President having recited Dr. Bartlett's account of his interview with the stranger at the Golden Cross, asked,—Were you at all privy to any transaction of that kind?—I never heard any such statement, or knew of any such matter until within these last 24 hours; and I assure you it was as much a mystery to me as it must have been to you when it was first stated.
Had you any knowledge of the quarter whence that sum came?—Not the slightest, and if it had not been reported by a gentleman, and now a clergyman, I should have looked upon the statement as an entire fabrication.
It did not come from funds over which you had any control?—I repeat most positively that it did not proceed from funds over which I had any control, or even knowledge of.
The same impression exists upon our minds as upon yours as to the character of Dr. Bartlett; and he having made the statement, there can be no doubt of the fact. Did you observe anything in the progress of the voting which led you to believe that improper influences were at work?—I though I should have had a larger majority.
Did you observe anything in 1845 to lead you to the conclusion I have stated?—My answer is as before; I expected I should have had a larger majority.
Are you not aware that at the close of the poll in 1843 there was a sudden change in your favour?—Yes, within the last hour; almost within the last quarter of an hour; and it was explained to me as the cause of it, that a number of voters who had been kept in confinement had been rescued by a body of undergraduates and brought up to the poll. That was told me by a number of people at the time. I found, much to my disappointment, that I was in a minority all through, till past 3 o'clock, and such a one, too, as made me despair of the election, and then I suddenly heard that a large number of voters had been brought up, and that I had been placed in a majority. It was stated to me that the voters had been rescued from confinement in Barnwell. Since the election of 1845 I have been applied to for payment of considerable sums of money, represented to have been spent in my election, but I was not informed how. I have no reason to suppose there was any illegal expenditure, but if those demands were well founded there must must have been.
What were the sums you paid in all?—In 1843 between 800l. and 900l.; in 1845 between 700l. and 800l. A considerable portion of the expense in 1843 was for chairing, which I considered very objectionable. There was none in 1845, and this would account for the difference between the two sums.
Who applied to you for money after the election of 1845?—I hope you will not press that question. It was a gentleman who has been dead many years. I replied, that I had paid all legal expenses, and a sense of duty would prevent my paying any more. The application simply stated that the money had been expended at my election, and it was hoped, now that I was returned, that I would repay it. No such demand was made on me in 1843.
Had you any other application in 1845 that that from the party you allege to be dead?—Yes, but it was for a much smaller sum, but I declined to pay that too; it was for one, two, or three hundred pounds. That was subsequent to the demand for the larger sum.
Is that party still living?—Do you require me to state who it was?
Yes?—Well, it was Mr. Brown, a gentleman formerly connected with the Cambridge Chronicle.
Was his made as part of the former demand of 800l., or as a distinct sum?—As a distinct sum; and there was not the slightest attempt at explanation as to what it was for. I have not the least knowledge that the money has since been paid. I have no sort of recollection of Newbery.
[The President here read to Sir F. Kelly Newbery's statement that he (Sir F. Kelly) sent him 20l. after the election of 1845, to repay that sum laid out by Newbery to induce voters to poll for Sir F. Kelly.]
Sir F. Kelly continued.—It may be true that I sent Newbury 20l.; but I do not recollect any circumstance of the kind. I did see Wagstaff at one election. I knew him because I had been concerned for him in a cause which excited some attention at the time.
Did you obtain the 20 votes said to be under Wagstaff's influence?—I don't know that I did; but that, too, may well be.
Mr. Wagstaff has said that for his sake he should be glad if you could state what passed between you?—I have no recollection.
Are we to understand you that you held out no promises or other inducements to obtain votes?—None whatever.
Do you recollect Newbery's application?—I had so many applications for money from Cambridge that I cannot recollect them all. They contained various tales of distress. I have no recollection of Scott (who stated he wrote to Sir Fitzroy in Newbery's behalf), and have no recollection of sending money to Newbery, but cannot undertake to say it did not take place.
(The President here read Scott's evidence, to the effect that Scott wrote to Sir Fitzroy to say Newbery had bribed three voters, and that unless the money was repaid Newbery would be compelled to go through the Insolvent Court, and "all would come out.")
Sir F. Kelly continued,—It is very possible I may have been told Newbery was likely to go through the Insolvent Court, but that any threat of the disclosures mentioned was held out I most positively deny. I will swear no such idea was communicated to my mind.
Scott has stated that he told you Newbery had borrowed 40l. to pay voters, and that he gave you to understand that the money must be repaid to avert Newbery's insolvency?—Certainly not; and I would not have given Newbery any money in connexion with an election claim.
Were the two sums you have mentioned all you were applied to for after the election of 1845?—Yes; except a small one by Mr. Mitchell, of "The Eagle;" and, though I held him to be an honourable and respectable man, I was so determined to pay nothing, except through the committee, that I left that unpaid for years; but, being at last well assured there was nothing illegal in it, I paid it. It was about 30l. The 800l. was applied for immediately after the election, and Brown's application was made about two months after that.
I believe there was a petition after the election of 1843?—There was.
Have you any recollection of the amount of the expenses stated before the committee to have been incurred in your behalf?—Not precisely.
Mr. Coppock has handed in papers to show that your counsel were instructed to show that your expenses in 1843 were something under 500l. Do you know how they came to be so instructed?—If my solicitor (Mr. Adcock, of Cambridge) so instructed them it may be accounted for in this way:—That was the sum I first proposed to pay, and to which I proposed to limit my contribution, but afterwards I advanced 300l. more. It is possible that, as the petition followed so immediately on the election, 500l. was the sum which had been expended up to that time.
But there was a prepared and detailed statement showing that the whole expenses did not exceed the sum mentioned. How do you account for that?—No; I only gave my solicitor 500l., as the sum I originally undertook to contribute, but that, as I have said, was afterwards increased by a most extravagant demand for the chairing.
I fear we must call upon you for the name of the person who wrote to you for the 800l.—I shall be very sorry if you do. It would be very painful to me to be obliged to give it. It was a gentleman of the highest honour and integrity, and who has now been some years in his grave. It was never intended it should be mentioned, and, but that I am under the obligation of an oath, never would have been. I trust you will not think the name essential to the purposes of justice.
I will mention a name to you already mentioned, and which is that of a gentleman now dead?—If you were to mention his name that would weaken my objection.
Mr. George Fisher?—No.
Mr. Alderman Deighton?—No.
I must have the name?—You require me to tell it?
Yes; but I will mention one more—Mr. Christopher Pemberton?—It was Mr. Christopher Pemberton. (Sensation.)
Had you any knowledge that he was actively employed in your behalf?—Never.
At neither of your elections?—Never.
Have you any statement you desire to make?—No; but I understand from you that a paper or papers have been placed in your hands by Mr. Coppock, and I think it due to myself, and Mr. Coppock also, that the way in which Mr. Coppock got possession of those papers should be explained. I believe the paper to be a brief drawn in my behalf in 1843, at the time of the petition, and placed in the hands of Mr. Cockburn, now Sir Alexander Cockburn and Attorney-General, and which was lost from the committee-room table on the third day of the sitting. How it came into the possession of Mr. Coppock, the solicitor employed against me—how a solicitor should come into possession of his opponent's brief and not immediately return it to its proper owner, must be explained hereafter; but as the brief is undoubtedly my property, I trust you will not think it unbecoming in me to ask that you will deliver it into no other hands but mine, when the objects of the commission shall be accomplished. I trust you will deliver it over to me, or, at all events, that you will not deliver it to any other person.
President.—I am afraid we cannot comply. I do not think we need detain you, Sir Fitzroy.—I do no more than publicly, and most respectfully, ask you to return that brief to it proper owner.
I repeat, I fear we can only return it to those who deposited it with us.—As it has been referred to in the questions put to me, have you any objection to produce and allow me to see it?
None whatever. Mr Coppock has stated it was the brief belonging to the other side, but the endorsement has been removed.—I can only say that it is a most strange proceeding, that a person pretending to the character of a gentleman, and a professional man, should be in possession of such a document, without instantly returning it to its proper owner.
The brief was sent for and identified by Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Adcock, his solicitor, and Sir Fitzroy then took his leave. There is no doubt of the institution of ulterior proceedings.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,—In the course of Sir Fitzroy Kelly's examination before the Cambridge Election Commission, reported in The Times of Monday last, Sir Fitzroy, in allusion to a brief which I had given to the commissioners, stated, "that he believed it to be a brief drawn in his behalf in 1843, at the time of the petition, and placed in the hands of Mr. Cockburn, now Sir Alexander Cockburn and Attorney-General, and which was lost from the committee-room on the third day of the sitting."
Whatever Sir Fitzroy Kelly might intend by this language, the inference clearly is, either that Sir Alexander Cockburn betrayed his trust by negligence of his papers, or that I surreptitiously obtained possession of the brief. Your report says, "there is no doubt of the institution of ulterior proceedings" to recover the brief.
In justice to Sir Alexander Cockburn and myself, allow me to state, through your columns, how and when that brief came into my possession. Some months after the petition had been decided, a person, who had been actively mixed up with Sir Fitzroy Kelly in the election and in the petition, gave me the brief and other papers to prove his ability to furnish information affecting parties who had been concerned in the Cambridge election. He offered me much more, but I declined to accede to the terms demanded. The brief remained in my possession until I produced it before the commission. The other papers shall be made public if Sir Fitzroy Kelly wishes them to be.
I am anxious to put Sir Alexander Cockburn right in this matter, and to negative fully any inference to his prejudice. As to myself, threats of ulterior proceedings, even by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, will never give me a moment's uneasiness. I can defend myself, and give further explanation, when the occasion requires it.
I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,
3, Cleveland-row, August 13. JAMES COPPOCK.
PREVENTION OF BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in rising to move for leave to bring in bills for the prevention of bribery in the election of members to serve in Parliament for the city of Canterbury, and for the boroughs of Cambridge, Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Maldon, said that in all those cases a manifest necessity existed for bringing the results of the commissions which had inquired into them under the consideration of the House, and, in endeavouring to do so, he thought in would be most convenient for him to state generally what were the provisions proposed to be applied to all those boroughs, without going minutely into the provisions applicable to each particular borough. The reports made by the several commissioners appointed pursuant to the provisions of the act passed in the 16th of the Queen had been for some time before the House, and no doubt most hon. members had made themselves generally cognizant of their contents; it was not, therefore, necessary for him to advert to details, or to do more than shortly call attention to those facts which bore a more immediate relation to the provisions of the bills which he was about to ask leave to introduce. The first case to which he would refer was that of the City of Canterbury....
He would now pass on to Barnstaple....
The next case, of which he had a short abstract, was that of the borough of Kingston-upon-Hull....
The next and the remaining case, the last but not least, to which he would call the attention of the House was that of the notorious borough of Cambridge. That borough contained a population of 28,000, of whom about 1,887 were voters; but as 150 of them never voted at all, being apprehensive that they should injure their interests by so doing, the number of the constituency was really between 1,600 and 1,700. Before the Reform Bill this was a constituency of freemen, and he was sorry to say that they here had a specimen of what 10l.-householders were liable to become when once corruption had been introduced among them. (Hear, hear.) It seemed that at first, after the passing of the Reform Bill, the electors had been proud of their franchise and had exercised it in a straightforward and honest manner; but four successive elections having resulted in the success of the same party, the other party—he would not say which—had then had recourse to corruption, and had organized a most complete system, of which he would give some details, for the purpose of tempting and corrupting the voters. Samuel Long, whose name was notorious in the annals of Cambridge bribery, and would long be remembered in that borough, appeared to have been the master mind of this system, and he was employed almost exclusively in tempting, or rather, at first, in sounding, the voters. He would go to publichouses, mingle with the poorer voters, lead them on to the discussion of political matters, and, when he had heard their opinions, he would suggest to them that it did not signify a rush which way or for what candidate the poor man voted, but it was his business to see what he could obtain by his vote. He this ascertained their sentiments and put down in a book the names of any person who he thought might conveniently be tampered with, when an individual, acting on his suggestion, took some convenient moment to sound the same man, and offered him a direct bribe at the first favourable opportunity. If the man swallowed the bait, his name was put down as that of a safe person, and Long entered into communication with him. So completely was the whole thing organized, that the commissioners reported that, after the first election, a mere look or gesture on the part of Long, on his calling upon a voter, or having his name mentioned, was sufficient to make the voter aware that his vote was counted upon by Long, and that, if he gave it as Long wished, he was sure of getting his reward for doing so at the proper time. The commissioners gave an account of several elections, and they reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the last election. They said
"We have also ascertained that an unbroken chain of corrupt practices, capable to a certain extent of direct proof in detail, has continued upwards until the election of the year 1839 inclusive."
At the election in 1840 upwards of 800l. had been distributed in bribery. In 1841, "treating," said the commissioners, "was carried on to a great extent, and Long distributed between 500l. and 600l. in direct bribery." In 1843, bribery was also carried on to a large extent, and a very curious incident then took place. A Dr. Bartlett received instructions to go to the Golden-cross, Charing-cross, where he would see a person who would probably deliver something to him. Dr. Bartlett went to the Golden-cross, and there came a mysterious individual who deposited with him a carpetbag, in which there were 1,000 sovereigns. He took it back to Cambridge and gave it to Long. Between 200l. and 300l. was also obtained in a similar manner, so that, in addition to the legitimate expenses of the candidates, about 1300l. had been spent in bribing the voters at that election. It seemed that the candidates at that election had clearly established before the commissioners that they had nothing to do with the bribery that took place, but again an individual had taken 800l. to Cambridge, every farthing of which was spent in bribery. The commissioners stated—
"This election (1845) seems to have been most hotly contested, and up to a very late period in the polling the majority was in favour of one candidate. Within the last hour a majority was suddenly obtained for the other candidate, who was eventually returned. We were able to ascertain the means by which this change was accomplished. A number of voters were assembled at a publichouse, the Star and Garter, and refused to vote unless money were paid down to them. Some time elapsed before anything was done. At last Long was despatched to secure their votes. He took with him money, and an assistant named Stearne. This man he posted in a room where was a window with part of a pane out and the blind down. The names of the voters were called one by one, and the assistant was supplied with a sum of money (10l. in all instances save one, where it was 12l.). This he handed out to each individual as he came forward. The hand came through the hole in the window, no other part of the person was seen. Some were bribed at so late an hour that, though they ran all the way, they did not arrive in time to poll. On this occasion Long spent as much as 1,000l., and stated—what, no doubt, was the fact—that without his intervention the election would have been lost."
The next election took place in 1847, when, in consequence of the excited state of feeling that prevailed with reference to the question of the corn laws, the chances upon one side were so bad that there was no hope of turning the scale by bribery, and no corruption was resorted to. Then came the election of 1852, when 1,000l. was contributed by the candidates who were returned, in addition to which 1,250l. was supplied from local sources for the purposes of corruption, and out of that sum 800l. was paid by Long in direct bribery. The number of voters polled was 1,546, of whom 111 had been directly bribed. The commissioners also made a statement with regard to the utter uselessness of the bribery oath, which was frequently administered at the elections at which bribery had been practised, and was always taken with one exception—that of a man who was known to entertain conscientious scruples against taking an oath at all, and was not suspected of bribery; but he had refused to take it. The commissioners went on to say:—
"From the best information we were able to obtain, the number of bribed voters throughout the whole constituency never exceeded from 150 to 200; but this, in Cambridge, where the parties are nearly in a state of equipoise, of course enabled the party possessed of the bribed votes to gain the election; and the opinion accordingly seem to have prevailed among well-informed persons, that it would always have been in the power of Long to secure the return of those candidates in whose behalf he might have been returned. This opinion Long himself also stated with very great confidence. We arrived at the conclusion that the main body of the constituency were themselves not only innocent, but ignorant, of bribery, except by general report, and that they reprobated and deplored its existence. Some of the bribed voters examined stated that they had no political opinions at all, they were no scholars, they hardly knew which was which, but voted according as they were directed by the person to whom they sold their votes; that 10l. was of more service to them than the members were, and, therefore, that they always sold their votes if they had a chance. Many, it was stated to us by the principal bribing agent, would not take the trouble to vote at all unless paid for their votes. Out of 111 voters, bribed at the election in 1852, who received their expenses after examination before us, upwards of 30 signed their receipts with a mark, from inability to write."
These were the most important parts of the reports which he had considered it necessary to bring before the House, and he thought it would be quite clear that the state of these constituencies was a reproach and a scandal, not only to themselves, but also to the country at large and to this House (hear, hear); and that if anything could be done to purify them from venality and corruption it was the duty of the House to do it. (Hear, hear.) Then came the question, what course ought to be pursued? It might be said that general legislation might be relied on, and that they might trust to acts which now existed or which it was now proposed to pass through Parliament. He owned that he could not bring himself to that conclusion, for he believed that no general legislation on the subject of bribery and corruption would cure the mischief. They had been legislating for the purpose of preventing it for nearly two centuries; they had accumulated statute upon statute, they had added oath to oath; they had multiplied penalty upon penalty, forfeiture upon forfeiture, but with what result was announced by the last election of 1852. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord, the leader of the House, it was true, in a bill now before Parliament, proposed to make every payment illegal except certain payments which were authorized; and the hon. member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) had also introduced a bill upon the same subject; but how could any such legislation as that touch such a case as the borough of Canterbury? It was true that they might attach penalties to sitting members if they deviated from the rules which they laid down; but how could they prevent friends and political or local partisans from finding money with which corruption might be carried on? He would take the case of Cambridge as an illustration. In 1852 1,239l. had been supplied from local sources. The two candidates, on that occasion, had every disposition to keep strictly within the limits of the law and they had taken every precaution to prevent abuses of this kind being practised. One of them, a friend of his, Mr. K. Macaulay, being most anxious to protect himself and to prevent anything improper from being done, had paid only a certain sum which had been agreed upon, together with a further amount for additional expenses; but what was the result? That gentleman, who was rising rapidly to high distinction in his profession, and who would have been an honour to this House if he had remained in it (hear, hear) believing that he had been returned by fair and lawful means, took his seat, but upon a petition being presented against his return he had the mortification to discover that his friends had committed a breach of the law, for which he was to be made liable. This was a lamentable position for a gentleman to be placed in, and some means ought to be adopted to put a stop to such a state of things. He did not believe that this could be done by general legislation, although it might me good as a preventative, to prevent the introduction of bribery into constituencies, or to stop it where it had not gathered to a head; but when once the mischief had taken root, when a large proportion of a constituency had become corrupt, he did not believe that general legislation would effect a cure. They must, in such cases, have recourse to special legislation, and either by partial or total disfranchisement rescue the borough from the corruption into which it had fallen. What, then, ought to be done with regard to these cases? They had not to deal with such simple and easy cases as those of Sudbury and St. Albans, in which the whole, or, at all events, a large proportion of the constituency was corrupt, and there was not a sufficient number of honest electors to induce them to allow the constituency to remain in existence, for, in these cases, even if 1,000 or 1,100 voters were corrupt, there still remained 3,000 or 4,000 honest persons; and therefore he thought it would be highly inexpedient to disfranchise such places as Hull or the county towns of Cambridge and Canterbury. He would not allow any considerations of justice to intervene in the view he took of the question, as this was not a question of whether they were acting justly or unjustly towards a constituency, for, if it were, they would not have been justified in sacrificing the innocent electors of St. Albans and Sudbury. They must only look to what was consistent with the commonweal—with the national good, as regarded the representation of these constituencies—(hear, hear)—and he thought it would be for the interest of the country to maintain those constituencies that already existed, in which there was a sufficient number of honest voters to constitute a good constituency. But in some cases such as these, a small and corrupt portion of a constituency, who sold their votes at the market price, exercised a great influence in elections, and therefore bribery and corruption would always be resorted to so long as they were permitted to vote. He thought they could deal with these cases in a very simple manner—viz., by removing the corrupt portion and leaving the sound residue (hear, hear), by casting away the diseased and cankered limb, and preserving what was sound. It appeared to him that if we were to do anything we must pursue this simple and obvious course. We should, fortunately, have no difficulty here, so far as related to the knowledge of who had been guilty of corruption at these elections; for the reports of the commissioners named the individuals who had been guilty of bribery, and also those who had been bribed. He proposed to deal with both these classes. Our knowledge did not rest on the evidence taken before the commissioners implicating these parties, for we had their own statements. The commissioners, before they reported against any man, had thought it their duty to give him an opportunity of defending himself, and he believed that in every instance in which individuals had been brought before them they had admitted the fact of their having received bribes. He really did not see why they should hesitate to deal with persons who, upon their own admission, were unworthy to exercise the important functions of electors. But he was told that a difficulty, which he, however, did not feel, here presented itself. It had been suggested from a quarter for which he entertained the most sincere respect, that we could not deal with those electors who had been reported guilty of bribery, because they had been examined under the promise of an indemnity. (Hear, hear.) He quite understood the cheers of hon. members, and he fully admitted that, if such an indemnity had been actually given by the terms of an act of Parliament, or virtually by any terms which Parliament had held out, however grave, however serious, the mischief with which we had to deal, it would be a less evil that corruption and venality in its present disgusting form should exist in these boroughs, than that Parliament should give an example of a breach of faith, even to the lowest and most contemptible individuals. But, looking to the statute, he did not believe that there was the slightest difficulty about this matter, and he would call the attention of the House to the words which it used, as it seemed to him that all it gave to these parties was an indemnity from personal penal consequences. (Hear.) This was not only the construction which as a lawyer he put on the terms of the act, but it was also the construction which Parliament itself had put upon similar statutes; because, in the cases of St. Albans and Sudbury the act contained the same indemnity, and yet the whole of those constituencies had been disfranchised. The 9th section of the act, authorizing the appointment of commissions, provided that any person "who is examined as a witness, and gives evidence touching such corrupt practice before the commissioners appointed under this act to make such inquiry, and who, upon such examination makes a true discovery, to the best of his knowledge, touching all things to which he is so examined, shall be freed from all penal actions, forfeitures, punishments, disabilities, and incapacities, and all criminal prosecutions to which he may have been or may become liable or subject at the suit of Her Majesty, her heirs, or successors, or any other person, for anything done by such person or persons in respect of such corrupt practice." What did this mean? Did it apply to the penal consequences then existing, or did it divest Parliament of its power and authority to legislate penally with reference to such cases as these? He entertained no doubt that it had the former limitation, because it was impossible that an act should have been passed which contemplated anything else. An act might grant an indemnity in respect of penalties incurred under the law as it then stood, but the Legislature could not bind the hands of future legislators with regard to future legislation. The terms employed were, that the witness should be "freed from all penal actions, forfeitures, &c., to which he may have been, or may become liable or subject at the suit of Her Majesty of any other person." It was quite clear that the words "at the suit of Her Majesty or any other person" must override the whole section; and, as a lawyer, he should have no doubt whatever as to the mode in which the act should be construed. A subsequent section provided that the witness, upon the production and proof of the certificate, should have protection against—what? against "any action, information, or indictment which might be preferred against him." He could have no question, therefore, that the act only applied to protection against criminal informations. He did not wish, however, to look at this matter in the narrow view merely of a lawyer, because, if he thought that Parliament held out expectations to these people that they should not be made to suffer in any way in consequence of their deeds, he should grieve to lead the House to sacrifice its faith to those people. He could only know, however, what Parliament had done by the acts which it had passed; and he denied that they held out any such expectations. But what right had they to grant, under this statute, a degree of immunity which they had not granted under former statutes, and what, he asked, had Parliament done upon former occasions? The act appointing the commissions in the St. Albans and Sudbury cases was precisely similar to this. Then, where was the distinction? Corruption was proved here of the minority, as it had been proved there of the majority, and, if in one case the argument was good for the disfranchisement of the borough, surely here it was sufficient to disfranchise a portion of the borough. (hear, hear.) If the House had not intended to apply this remedy if it should have become necessary, what, he asked, was the reason for appointing the commissioners at all, and directing them to report the names of all the individuals whom they had found guilty of bribery? Surely, the reason for such a course must have been to enable Parliament to deal with those particular persons. (Hear, hear.) These were the observations which suggested themselves to his mind, and he felt that he should have shrunk from his duty if he had not expressed them openly to the House. At the same time, if the House should come to the conclusion that, either directly by the terms of the act of Parliament, or indirectly by any other means, they had entered into a compact with these persons not to deprive them of their franchise in the event of their giving full information to the commissioners, he should be the last man to interfere with their political rights. He did not believe, however, that that was the case. They had a great evil to grapple with, and it was the duty of Parliament to grapple with it by means of special legislation adapted to the better judgment of the House, feeling that he had done his duty in asking leave, as he now did, to bring in these bills for the prevention of bribery in the election of members to serve in Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CAIRNS opposed the motion. The Attorney-General had said very properly, that he did not wish the question to be considered as one of mere legal construction, but upon the broader ground of the intelligible meaning of the words of the statute to which he had referred. As they all knew, the House had the power upon a joint address to issue a commission. Suppose, then, that there was no act of Parliament to provide an indemnity for the witnesses before such commission, what would be the consequence? The commissioners would go down to the borough and call their witnesses; but the witnesses would at once say, "the questions which you ask us tend to criminate us—we are not bound to give you an answer, and we refuse to do so." There would be an end then of the inquiry of the commissioners. (Hear, hear.) ...
Sir J. HANMER also opposed the motion. The House ought in the first place to remember the extraordinary composition and character of the commissions. Of the names of those gentlemen, who were appointed in a great hurry, many hon. members had, perhaps, never even heard,and yet powers had been intrusted to them which were unknown to Westminster-hall, unknown to the judicature of the country, and such, even, as the Lord Chief Justice of England, if he wished to exercise them, might wish to exercise in vain. He contended, therefore, that the House ought not to bear too hardly upon persons who had been reported to be guilty of offences against the law by such exceptional tribunals. (Hear, hear.) ...
After three columns of further debate:
The House then divided:—
The numbers were:—
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
Mr. WALPOLE said, that after this division, he would not oppose the other bills of which the hon. and learned Attorney-General had given notice.
On the motion of the Attorney-General leave was then given to introduce bills for the prevention of bribery in the election of members to serve in Parliament for the boroughs of Cambridge, Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Maldon.
Transcription in progress
Transcribed by Keith Edkins 2009. Original reports believed to be in the public domain due to their antiquity.
Return to: Cambridge elections of the mid-1800s