Abbildungen der Seite
[ocr errors]

himself already done ? He had struck was wholly unnecessary. It certainly Wisley Common out of the Schedule. was not a measure which should be unBut had he done so upon the represen- necessarily extended to any portion of tation of the poor people ? Not at all; Great Britain-it was, in fact, an extenbut because there appeared to manyhon. sion of the Game Laws, and that with a Members to be what had been sometimes severity unknown hitherto, at all events, designated "a gross job.” The Secre- in Scotland. It placed a great variety tary of State for the Home Department of birds practically in the game list, and had said that no complaints had been enacted various penalties, ranging from made; but how were these poor people £1 to £2 and upwards, for infringements to make their complaints heard at the of the Act. In addition, one of the Home Office ? What was the hurry in provisions of the Bill gave power to any this matter? Was the right hon. Gen- person to demand the name and address tleman afraid that something else would of anybody else who he might think was be found out ? He hoped that the de- attempting to infringe the Act; and if bate would be adjourned. He submitted such person refused to give his name and that the judgment of the Commission- address, and was afterwards convicted, ers ought not to be accepted as conclu- he was liable, in addition to the other sive. The Commissioners had sent the penalties, to be mulcted in a penalty of Bill to that House; and unless they £2, one-half of which went to the inwere to stultify themselves, they would former. Now, this was a provision pronounce an opinion upon it.

which was not to be found even in the MR. GLADSTONE said, it would no Game Laws. It was, in fact, a bribe to doubt have been desirable that the de- policemen and gamekeepers to enforce bate should have closed; but, under the the Act. Another provision of the Bill circumstances, the Government would proposed to extend the jurisdiction of offer no opposition to the Motion of his justices of the peace. Now this was hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. directly contrary, not only to the general T. Hughes). But if they were to adjourn feeling of the people, but to the wishes the debate, they had better adjourn it at of the justices of the peace themselves.

And the Bill gave this extension in the Debate adjourned till Monday next.

most objectionable form, for it empower

ed the justice to convict on any evidence SEA BIRDS PRESERVATION BILL, he might think proper to admit. Even (Mr. Sykes, Mr. Clay, Mr. Ward Jackson.; the Game Laws bound the justices to con

vict on the evidence of “two or more cre(BILL 59.] CONSIDERATION.

dible witnesses, or other legal evidence.” Bill, as amended, considered.

Then after the justice had convicted the MR. SYKES moved, after Clause 7, offender, the Bill provided no machinery to insert the following clause :

for enforcement of the penalty-in fact, “Where any offence under this Act is com- it was quite evident that the Bill had mitted in or upon any waters forming the boundary between any two counties, districts of not been drawn by a lawyer—it was of quarter sessions or petty sessions, such offence such a nature as to be practically inopemay be prosecuted before any justice or justices rative in ninety-nine cases out of 100, of the peace in either of such counties or dis- and oppressive in the hundredth. Such tricts."

being the character of the Bill, he said Clause added.

that it should not be extended to ScotMR. FORDYCE moved that the Bill land, without very good reasons being be re-committed, in order to exclude shown. Now, had such reasons been Scotland from its operation. He would shown to the House ? Had it been assure the House that, in making the shown to the House that the number of Motion, he was not actuated by any feel- sea birds in Scotland was on the deing of hostility towards sea birds; but crease ? It had not; and he believed he entertained a strong conviction that that evidence to that effect could not be the wholesale destruction of these birds, adduced. He believed that hon. Memwhich, according to the promoters of the bers from Scotland would agree that the Bill, was so common in England, had number of sea birds remained very much never extended to Scotland, and there- as it was. It certainly had not been fore to extend the provisions of the mea- asked for, for only one Petition had sure to that part of the United Kingdom been presented in its favour, while ten



times as many had signed the Petitions fine himself to such parts of the judgagainst it.

ment as were material for consideration.

The learned Judge reportedMotion made, and Question, “That

“ That the number of persons who were proved the Bill be re-committed for the purpose at the said trial to have been guilty of corrupt of excluding Scotland from its opera- practices was one hundred and four, and that their tion,”—(Mr. Fordyce,)-put, and nega- names are written in the Schedule hereunto antived.

nexed. And, in further pursuance of the said Act, Bill to be read the third time upon that there is reason upon the evidence before me

I report that corrupt practices did prevail, and Monday next.

to believe that they did extensively prevail, at the said Election."

The learned Judge gave an outline of BEVERLEY ELECTION.

the leading features of the election ; MOTION FOR ADDRESS.

and the three concluding paragraphs of THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, the Report of Mr. Baron Martin were he rose to move that an Address be


as follow : sented to Her Majesty, praying for the “I was perfectly satisfied upon the whole of appointment of a Commission to inquire the evidence that more than 800 Parliamentary

Electors were bribed, and what several witnesses as to the prevalence of corrupt practices stated to have been said to them by the persons at Beverley during the last Election. who bribed them — namely, that the bribes were Before entering upon the question he for the Parliamentary Election as well as the desired to supplement a statement he Municipal Election was the truth. The persons had made respecting the Norwich Elec- who were alleged to have made these statements

were all named, and not one of them were called tion, to the effect that a number of half

to contradict it. The excuse alleged for this sovereigns had been laid out upon a bribery was that the Liberal party were doing the table at the bank. The cashier had same. It was stated by Mr. Norfolk that his readenied this, and said he had given the son for drawing out the money on the Monday was,

that he was told the Liberal party were paying half-sovereigns to the who applied

person for them. It would, however, be for the Messrs. Maxwell and Trollope, who were at that

twenty-five shillings a vote with money supplied by Commissioners to say which of these time in the Borough as candidates. I had no stories was correct. In the case of the means of investigating this matter as it was not Beverley Election he proposed to confine in issue in the Petition before me, nor did I himself to the Report of the learned think it right of myself to continue the exami

nation of the witnesses called beyond the exami. Judge, for he agreed with the opinion nation and cross-examination of the learned expressed by the late Secretary of State counsel. The only witnesses called for the Refor the Home Department (Mr. Gathorne spondents were Mr. Norfolk and Mr. Wreghitt Hardy), that the House should act upon Lowther or any of the other persons who paid

and the Respondents themselves, neither Mr. the Report of the Judge, who above all the bribes were called. If be thought right to other persons was

most competent to have the condition of this Borough with regard form an opinion on the case he had to the general prevalence of bribery and corrup. tried. Not only had the Judges heard tion thoroughly investigated it can only be done the evidence and marked the demeanour by a Commission issued in pursuance of the of the witnesses in the cases which had 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57.” come before them, but they were emi- The flimsy pretext was made that the nent public functionaries of great learn- corruption practised was intended solely ing, who had devoted their lives to the to influence the municipal election, and hearing of evidence and the sifting of had nothing to do with the Parliamentestimony. If the House entered upon tary election, but the learned Judge inan inquiry as to whether the decision vestigated that allegation, and he came arrived at was just, it would inevitably to the conclusion that it was a mere prelead to interminable and fruitless de- text, that the bribes that were given at bates. He would content himself by the municipal election were intended to calling attention to the Report of the cover the Parliamentary election, and learned Judge. If the case of Norwich in fact did so, and that the giving of was a bad one, and if that of Bridg- these bribes was the cause of the return water was possibly somewhat worse, the of the sitting Members. It appeared to case of Beverley was much worse than him that the House would hardly take both put together, for there was more upon itself to say that the Judge was corruption at Beverley than there was wrong in the conclusion he came to. As at tho other two places. He would con- to the excuse alleged for the bribery,


" that the Liberal party were doing the practices. In one paragraph the learned same," he thought that highly probable, Judge saidand it only made the case for a Commis- "It appeared that Sir Henry Edwards first sion all the stronger. Far be it from came to Beverley as a candidate in the year 1857, him to say that all the reported bribery upon the invitation of a Mr. Wreghitt, a draper

in the town, on behalf of himself and others. was on one side; and if 800 voters were

Sir Henry Edwards was then elected. Shortly bribed by one party and more were after that time Sir Henry became the chairman bribed by the other he should like to of a Company carrying on its business in the Boknow how many were not bribed. The rough, called the Beverley Waggon Company, learned Judge intimated as strongly as Limited. Of this Company a Mr. Norfolk hereit would be respectful in him to do that inafter mentioned was manager, and a Mr. Usher

the secretary. From and after the year 1857, this was a case for a Commission. Hav- and continually until the present time, Mr. ing read the evidence, he thought it en- Wreghitt has been and is the confidential agent tirely bore out the Report of the learned of Sir Henry Edwards for the purposes and maJudge.

nagement of his Parliamentary interest in the

Borougb, and during this period, and from time to Motion made, and Question proposed, time, he remitted to Mr. Wreghitt sums of money

to be expended by him in support of it.” “That an humble Address be presented to Her If it had appeared to the Judge that the Majesty, as followeth : “ Most Gracious Sovereign,

money was to have been used for the We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal benefit of Sir Henry Edwards, one would Subjects, the

Commons of the United have expected he would have inquired Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parlia- how it was expended. What did he say ment assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that Sir Samuel Martin, knight, in the next paragraph ?one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, “ It appeared that no detailed account of the and one of the Judges selected for the trial of expenditure of this money was ever given to or Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary asked for by Sir Henry Edwards, and although Elections Act, 1868, has reported to the House of both he and Mr. Wreghitt were witnesses at the Commons, that corrupt practices did prevail, and trial, neither of them were examined as to what that there is reason, upon the evidence before amount of money was so remitted and received, him, to believe that they did extensively prevail or how it was expended, beyond some general at the last Election for the Borough of Beverley questions, which were answered by a statement

“ We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that that money was paid for charitable purposes, and Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause for a subscription to an agricultural association." inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth What struck him on reading that parayear of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, 'An graph was that the Judge did not conAct to provide for more effectual inquiry into the sider it necessary to ask for any specific existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for statement of the sums expended, he beMembers to serve in Parliament,' by the appointment of Michael O'Brien, esquire, Serjeant at lieving that they had nothing to do with Law, Thomas Irwin Barstow, esquire, Barrister bribery, but that they were for the usual at Law, and Homersham Cox, esquire, Barrister purposes and for subscriptions to chaat Law, as Commissioners for the purpose of ritable objects. So far as this went, he making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt could not see that it brought home a practices.”—Mr. Attorney General.)

charge of corruption to Mr. Wreghitt, SIR LAWRENCE PALK said, he Sir Henry Edwards, or any of the canquite admitted that, under ordinary cir- didates. He admitted at once that there cumstances, a recommendation such as was considerable bribery by Mr. Wreghitt the learned Judge had made in this case for municipal purposes; and having adought to be accepted indisputably by the mitted that he came to this point. The House. So long as the trial of election Judge said, petitions was delegated to the Judges,

“Sir Henry Edwards and Captain Kennard the representations of a Judge ought came to Beverley the following day, the 3rd undoubtedly to be submitted to and sup- November, and there was no evidence that from ported. But in this case there were that day any bribery took place, and Sir Henry

Edwards stated that until the trial he never was special and exceptional circumstances told or heard of the bribery and corruption which which the House ought to consider. had taken place at the Municipal Election, as it The learned Judge reported that “ was proved that Mr. Lowther and others who corrupt practice was proved to have been were directly engaged in this bribing canvassed committed by or with the knowledge or with him during the ensuing fortnight, it is obconsent of any of the candidates," and, November, which must have been notorious in the

vious that the Municipal bribery of the 2nd of therefore, the candidates-Whig or Tory Borough, was of purpose and design concealed were not implicated in the corrupt and kept back from him.”


Therefore, at that time neither of the Mr. Baron Martin observed to Mr. Sercandidates was cognizant of any bribery jeant Ballantine—“It seems to me that or of any intention to bribe, as far as this arises out of your cross-examination. they were concerned. He now came to It may be that this beer-drinking may the paragraph quoted by the learned be municipal beer-drinking and not Attorney General, in which the Judge borough beer-drinking.” He should be said 800 Parliamentary electors were glad to learn why municipal beer-drinkbribed, but there was no evidence to ing should in Bradford be regarded as show that that bribery was for Parlia- harmless, while in Beverley it was to be mentary election purposes. The voters visited with these penal consequences. were, no doubt, bribed for municipal He thought, too, that under the present purposes. The hon. Member for Brighton circumstances, with a Committee which Mr. Fawcett) must be aware that most had been appointed on the Motion of municipal elections throughout this coun- the Secretary of State for the Home Detry were carried by the aid of the gross-partment, and which was now sitting est bribery and corruption, and he did upstairs, it would not be fair to accede not believe that even Brighton itself was to the Motion of the Attorney General, an exception. He was perfectly willing and to throw upon Beverley the heavy to acknowledge that great corruption expenses which would necessarily attend had prevailed at the municipal elections; such an inquiry as that now proposed. but not only had no bribery or corruption He would therefore movem been traced to Sir Henry Edwards or his “ That the issue of a Commission be deferred agents, but no corruption had been until an opportunity be afforded for an inquiry by proved to have occurred in connection the Select Committee on Parliamentary and Muc with the Parliamentary election. He nicipal Electious now sitting.” did not, therefore, see that they were

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE, in sejustified in visiting Beverley with so conding the Amendment, said, that in a severe a punishment, and although he, certain sense the system under which for one, regarded the new mode of con

the House had abandoned its jurisdicducting election inquiries as perfectly tion with regard to election petitions successful, and believed the decisions was as much on its trial as the particugenerally to be very satisfactory, he lar case now under consideration. He thought that the House might fairly thought the discrepancies in the decimake an exception in this particular sions of the Judges were a serious matinstance.

ter, and he was not sure they might not MR. BREWER said, he was at a loss lead to a resumption by the House of its to understand how any Member could privilege of trying election petitions. have read the evidence and the Report At all events, he thought that during in relation to the late election at Bever- the present Session the House ought to ley, and not have come to the conclusion deal generously and gently even with that there had been for the last eleven / peccant constituencies. At the end of years in the borough an organized sys

the Session the decisions in all the cases tem of bribery, carried on, too, at the might be laid before the Judges, with instigation of the gentleman who desired the view of seeing whether a fixed code to represent the borough in Parliament. of laws relative to election cases might

COLONEL STUART KNOX said, he not be laid down. did not desire to cast any imputation on Amendment proposed, the learned Judge who had tried this

To leave out from the word “ That" to the petition, but would leave him to the end of the Question, in order to add the words verdict of the country. He believed “the issue of a Commission be deferred until an that, in this instance, the Members for opportunity be afforded for an inquiry by the Beverley were made to suffer for faults Select Committee on Parliamentary and Municipal which were not their own.

Elections now sitting.”—Colonel Stuart Knox.)

He could not see what difference there was be

Question proposed, “That the words tween the cases of Bradford and Bever- proposed to be left out stand part of the ley; and yet in these two cases the same

Question." Judge gave different decisions. At MR. W. E. FORSTER said, as a reBradford, when evidence was being ad- ference had been made to Bradford, they duced to show that there had been a might as well put an end to inquiries by good deal of drinking in the borough, the Judges if, on occasions like the pre



sent, evidence given in another case was

IRELAND-SLIGO ELECTION. quoted and relied on, although the Judge himself had decided that it was not worthy of consideration.

THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR MR. VANCE said, that if elections IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) moved for a were to be voided, as in this case, al- Royal Commission in the case of the though there was no proof of corrupt borough of Sligo. Mr. Justice Keogh practices by the Member or his agents, had reported that corrupt practices exno candidate would be safe, because he tensively prevailed at the last election might be unseated for bribery committed for that borough. The learned Judge by his enemies.

had also reported that intimidation had MR. BRUCE said, this case was even likewise prevailed at the Sligo Election, a stronger one for a Royal Commission though not on the same side as the corthan if merely the candidate or his agent rupt practices; but it would not be was proved to have committed bribery; competent for him, under the Act of because, where an election was voided Parliament, to make the intimidation a for bribery by an individual, there might subject of reference to the Royal Comperhaps have been only one case of that missioners. corrupt practice, while the case alleged against the borough of Beverley was

Resolved, That an humble Address be pre

sented to Her Majesty, as followeth : that there had been wholesale bribery.

Most Gracious Sovereign, As many as 800 persons were proved to have been bribed, and there was reason Subjects, the

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal

Commons of the to believe that that was not the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, number of the bribed. Why, then, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to should not the inquiry be made ? Sim- represent to Your Majesty, that the Right ply on the flimsy pretext put forward, of the Court of

honourable William Keogh, one of the Justices

Son on Pleas in Ireland, that the bribery was not practised at the and one of the Judges selected for the trial Parliamentary, but at the municipal of Election Petitions in Ireland, pursuant to the election ? But they knew that the for- Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, has reported mer followed almost immediately the to the House of Commons, that corrupt practices latter election, and that the sums of for the Borough of Sligo.

have extensively prevailed at the last Election money given to the voters at the munici

We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that pal contest were far in excess of what Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause was ordinarily given.

inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth said, that, while he thought the decisions Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the

year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, " An of the Judges should be respected, it existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for appeared to him that the House were Members to serve in Parliament," by the appointgoing beyond the lengths to which they ment of Denis Caulfield Heron, LL.D., one of went under the old system.

Her Majesty's Counsel, John Alexander Byrne,

A Royal esquire, Barrister at Law, and William R. Bruce, Commission did not, as a matter of esquire, Barrister at Law, as Commissioners for course, follow a strong Report of a Com- the purpose of making inquiry into the existence mittee. The question whether such a of such corrupt practices. Commission should issue was debated.

Address to be communicated to The Lords, and He must also remark that he thought General for Ireland.)

their concurrence desired thereto.-(Mr. Attorney the observations made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Brewer), to the effect that corrupt practices had existed for years in Beverley, was an unfair one

Resolutions reported ; to Sir Henry Edwards, whose absence to Her Majesty, the Duty of Customs now charged

(1.) “ That, towards raising the Supply granted from that House many hon. Members on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on regretted. At the same time, he would and after the 1st day of August 1869 until the recommend his hon. and gallant Friend 1st day. of August 1870, on the importation (Colonel Stuart Knox) not to press his thereof into Great Britain and Ireland : yiz.

8. d. Amendment.


the lb. 06." Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (2.) “That it is expedient to amend the Laws Main Question put, and agreed to.

relating to the Inland Revenue.”

Resolutions agreed to : - Bill ordered to be Address to be communicated to the brought in by Mr. Dodson, Mr. CHANCELLOR of Lords, and their concurrence desired the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. Ayrton. thereto.


« ZurückWeiter »