BRIBERY, &c., BILL.

HC Deb 17 July 1854 vol 135 cc342-58

Order for Committee read; House in Committee.

Clauses 22 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 (No person to pay Expenses of Elections except to Candidate or Election Officer).

MR. H. T. LIDDELL

said, this was a clause that he had opposed in the Select Committee, which was very nearly divided in opinion as to its propriety, and he also intended to oppose it on the present occasion. The restrictions and regulations with regard to election expenses, with which, by this Bill, candidates were to be surrounded, were justifiable up to a certain length; but he called upon the Committee to pause before carrying that species of legislation too far. Suppose that an independent man promised to give his support to a candidate, and undertook to get the electors together in a certain district, and in the course of the proceedings gave some refreshment to them, he would be liable to the penalty under this clause if he did not make a return of all that he had expended to the election officer. It was ridiculous jealousy on the part of the Legislature to say that there was any harm in such a thing; he had done it himself, and would do it again. He did not wish to shield any man who had been guilty of bribery or improper conduct, but some respect ought to be shown to that independence and freedom which were dear to all Englishmen. There was no harm in public dinners at which the general political feeling of a county was expressed, all who were present paying for their own tickets; but a man would not be able to make a present of tickets to his friends without being guilty of a misdemeanor according to this clause, unless he sent in the Bill to the election officer. But would this clause take away all opportunities for electioneering demonstrations? No. They would have flower-shows or cattle-shows, and the proceedings would terminate with a dinner, at which the health of the favourite candidate would be drunk. He thought that, although the Bill itself would be a great advantage, this clause was of an arbitrary and tyrannical nature, and he should therefore move that it be expunged.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, there were various cases to which it was very difficult to administer an exact measure of justice. A candidate might be a person who had no money to spare, but was supported by some great proprietor, who would put down 5,000l., or that sum might be put down by his friends in the county in order to carry his election, and in that case none of the clauses which applied to the candidate would have any effect with regard to the expenditure of that money, and they would lose all the advantages which were derived from the appointment of an election officer. But, while he quite agreed in the necessity of inserting a clause of this sort, he did not see the necessity for imposing so severe a penalty; and in a case in which the expenditure had not corrupted any elector the penalty might not be enforced. He should therefore propose that the word "misdemeanor" be omitted, and that a person offending in the manner named in the clause should only be subject to a 50l. penalty. If this were found insufficient, Parliament might hereafter increase the severity of the punishment.

MR. G. BUTT

said, he would recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell) to accept the clause with the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord. If the clause were altogether expunged, all the preceding provisions with respect to the appointment of an election agent would become perfectly nugatory.

MR. GROGAN

said, that cases of very great hardship might occur in Ireland under the operation of that portion of the Bill. Landed proprietors in that country frequently found it necessary to give shelter to their tenants at the approach of an election, in order that those tenants might not be violently carried away, and deprived of the power of recording their votes. It would manifestly be most unreasonable and unjust to render landlords, who had thus protected their tenants, liable to the penalties of the law.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR

said, that the object of this Bill was to obtain publicity fur election expenses, and he could not see how that end was to be attained without this clause, but at the same time he felt that it would be better so to word the clause as to admit of the fine being mitigated in some cases. Let the wording of it run that the fine should not exceed 50l.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he would put a case which, in his opinion, would show how unjust might be the operation of that portion of the Bill. A number of electors might resolve on supporting some favourite candidate without entailing on him any expense; and for that purpose they might treat one another, or pay one another's coaching expenses. It was clear that in such a case those persons ought not to be made liable to the penalties of the law. He believed that the Bill as it then stood would form one of the greatest possible restrictions on the freedom of election,

MR. W. J. FOX

said, he suspected that what the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) meant was this—certain rich electors conveyed certain poor electors to the poll free of expense, besides paying for their refreshment, and that appeared to him to be nothing more nor less than treating for a corrupt purpose. Unless this were put down, the interference of that House would be of little use, and they would be quite as much in the dark as ever as to the nature of the expenses. He thought the penalty ought to be considerably increased, in a case where thousands of pounds might be spent.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he should support the clause. If any expenses whatever were allowed to be paid, except through the election officer, they opened the door to the greatest bribery. A person might spend 2,000l. or 3,000l. in that way if he chose, if he were allowed to spend 2l. or 3l. in bringing up voters. It would be unwise to fetter the exertions of independent electors; but the clause provided for this by allowing any person to pay any amount he chose towards the expenses of the election into the hands of the election officer. A man might wish to bring up fifty or 100 of his own tenantry as voters; and lie had only to obtain the authority of the election officer to allow him to do so. It was true an emergency might arise where a person wished to bring up voters on the spur of the moment, to save the election, and had not time to apply to the election officer; and he would suggest an alteration in the clause to meet this case.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

regretted that the noble Lord had consented to withdraw the word misdemeanor. In these cases parties did not mind about money; he thought the only thing to deter them from bribing was the punishment of misdemeanor. The alteration would render the Bill much less effective.

MR. HILDYARD

said, he believed that any person subscribing money towards election expenses would be liable to indictment for misdemeanor under this Bill. They were passing clause after clause without considering their effect, and adding new traps and pitfalls to those already existing.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he thought the alarm of the last speaker was unnecessary. Hitherto the provisions against bribery had proved wholly ineffectual; now it was proposed that no money should be spent except for lawful purposes, and to secure that the money was only to be paid through an appointed officer. Parties might still subscribe towards the election expenses of candidates, but it must be done through the officer; otherwise the Act would be wholly inoperative. Each man might pay his own expenses at the poll; and if a number combined from motives of economy, such a proceeding would not come within the clause at all. The omission of the punishment of misdemeanor was complained of, but the penalties of themselves he considered were sufficiently high.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he feared that the clause would be difficult to carry out; but without some such provision they might as well leave the law in its present state. Even with this enactment he doubted whether bribery would be effectually prevented.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether the fact of voters clubbing their money together would not compel them to give an account of their expenses to the election officer? He thought the clause would destroy the independent action of the constituencies.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, every man was entitled to pay his own expenses, and the mere fact of his joining with another voter in the payment of their common expenses would not bring him within the meaning of the clause. The sole object of the clause was to prevent his expenses being paid by another person without the knowledge or sanction of the election officer.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, he thought that this was one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill. It was necessary for the protection of the honest voter, would enable them to secure purity of election, and was of still more importance as a protection to the candidate himself.

In reply to a question from Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR,

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he would undertake to propose a clause to this effect—that if, upon the trial of an action to recover these penalties, it should appear to the Judge that the payments bad been made without any illegal intention, it should be competent for him to reduce the penalties to any sum not less than 40s.

The Amendment proposed by Lord J. RUSSELL was then agreed to.

MR. H. T. LIDDELL

said, he still objected to the clause, as interfering with the freedom of election. They had attempted to do a great deal by the present Bill, and he warned them against trying to do more than they were able to accomplish.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 26: Majority 89.

Clause 27 (Election Officer to render an Account of all Moneys paid by him or by his authority on account of Election Expenses).

MR. HENLEY

said, he would suggest that, as the candidate by a former clause was required to return an account of all claims made on him, the election officer should also make a return of the sums so claimed.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the claimants by this clause were directed to send in to the election officer all charges and claims which he or they bad against the candidates, and the election officer was then to make out a return or account of all such claims and charges as should have been paid, or should have been disallowed and not paid. He thought it would be desirable to make the clause more distinct.

MR. HENLEY

said, he did not think the clause would properly bear such a construction. What he wanted was, that an account of what had been claimed as well as paid should be returned.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, if his right hon. Friend wished, the clause might be amended by inserting the words "of all sums claimed, although the same shall not be allowed or paid."

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he would suggest that the election officer should be required to account for the money belonging to the candidate which he had not disbursed, as well as the money he had paid away. If, as the clause stood, the candidate paid the election officer 1,000l. towards the expenses of the election, and that he paid away of that 200l. or 300l. as election expenses, he was not required to give any account of the balance—that was to be a matter of private arrangement between the candidate and himself; and he thought, to prevent any collusion or fraud between the parties, the clause should contain a proviso, directing the election officer to give an account of how he had disposed of the balance.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he had no objection to the Amendment suggested.

MR. WALPOLE

said, all the sums were to be paid by checks, and might easily be traced, but there was no objection to the introduction of the words suggested by the hon. Member.

MR. ELLIOT

said, among the sums which were to be returned were those paid into court, or for which judgment had been obtained. If they had to wait until judgment were given on some claims, he was afraid delay might take place, and as there was to be a supplementary account, he would suggest that such sums should be included in it.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that all such sums as were paid, or for which judgment was recorded within three months, in which the return was to be made, might be included in the general account; but those obtained after the lapse of three months might be placed in the supplementary account.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 (General Account to be kept at some convenient place for the inspection of Voters).

MR. HENLEY

suggested that, as this clause seemed to imply the necessity of keeping an office for the purpose of depositing the accounts and returns, and as the next clause provided for the publication of such accounts in the newspapers, the object, which was publicity, might be obtained by the advertisement of the general account alone.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, that in some cases a considerable length of time might elapse before the accounts could be completed, and it might be necessary, for the purposes of justice, that the accounts should be inspected long before they were published. It might be advisable, therefore, that the accounts should remain in custody where they could be readily inspected, before they were deposited with the clerks of the peace or town clerks.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that the officer who was responsible for the custody of the accounts should be required to take care that persons who were permitted to take copies did not play tricks with the original documents; for men with sharp knives and free consciences might easily remove leaf after leaf, and so mutilate the accounts as to render them valueless.

MR. G. BUTT

said, he could refer to a case which had occurred under the Municipal Corporations Act, where persons who were entitled to inspect the polling papers at a municipal election, such documents being kept in the custody of the town clerk, had abstracted half the papers, and consequently the election became void. He thought that measures ought to be taken to prevent any equally improper proceedings under this clause.

MR. M'CANN

said, he would suggest that three copies of the accounts should be provided, and that one of them should be kept in safe custody for reference, in case of necessity.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29 (Election officer to publish Abstract of such Accounts).

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR

begged to ask, by whom the expenses of this advertising was to be borne? He put the question, because, in his own case, he found the expense of advertising at elections for the county he had the honour to represent (Middlesex) extremely heavy.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he feared he could not flatter the noble Lord with the hope that the expense would be borne by any one but the candidates. This was, he considered, a necessary part of the expenses of an election.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, the clause provided that abstracts of the accounts should be inserted in two newspapers, published or circulating in the place where the election was held; but in many parts of the country there was not a single newspaper published, and he wished to know what was to be done in such cases?

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he had not prepared this and several other clauses in the Bill, but he thought there could scarcely be any place in the country where newspapers of some kind or another did not circulate.

MR. GROGAN

said, that the advertisements might be inserted in the Times, but the charge for such insertion would cause considerable expense to candidates.

MR HILDYARD

said, he could not conceive what reason there was for throwing upon candidates this expense for advertising. In the neighbourhood in which he resided (Dorsetshire) there were three places returning Members to that house—Lyme, Bridport, and Honiton—in none of which was a newspaper published. It was said that advertisements might be inserted in the Times newspaper. Why, they might even be inserted in a newspaper published in the Orkneys, and a great deal wiser people would be.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, there were no penalties inflicted for non-publication of these accounts. The election officer was merely directed to do so; but, supposing that he chose to have nothing to do with such nonsense, there was no mode of compelling him to act or of punishing him for neglect. The clause, however, was a specimen of the Bill:—a set of learned Gentlemen got together upstairs to make up a Bill, and this was the good-for-nothing stuff which they brought down.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

could assure the noble Lord that the clause which seemed to excite so much of his disapprobation had not emanated from him, nor from any one else who came under the denomination of "learned Gentlemen." It was originally proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), and it was inserted in the Bill with the entire approval of the Committee upstairs. Its object, he believed, was to give publicity to the election accounts, and more particularly to the names of the persons who made claims on the candidates. With regard to the number of advertisements, he thought one would very likely be sufficient, and he would therefore propose to substitute for "two newspapers," the words "some newspaper," and also to meet another objection which had been made—to add the words, "published or circulating within the place or county."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HILDYARD

said, the object of the clause was to give publicity to the delinquents who made claims on the candidates; but by this clause the claims which were allowed were to be published, but not those which were disallowed. Such an oversight might have been excused in the hon. Member for Manchester, but his hon. and learned Friend ought to have known better. Although intending to take the sense of the Committee on the whole clause, he would still move an Amendment by inserting the words, "or disallowed," and, "if disallowed, by whom claimed."

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, the word "account" in this and in the two preceding clauses would include the publication of the charges disallowed. Still, if this interpretation was objected to by his hon. and learned Friend, he would not oppose the introduction of words to the effect he desired.

MR. HILDYARD

said, he totally differed from this interpretation of the three clauses. The words in the clause were, "admitted to be correct;" and was it possible that that would include the claims which had been disallowed?

MR. BRIGHT

said, he must advise the Committee to view the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven with suspicion. The question whether the accounts to be published should include Bills, both paid and unpaid, was discussed in the Committee, and it was understood that the object was to give an honest account of the expenses of the election, and not what persons might have attempted to cajole out of the candidate. It was the actual expenditure of each candidate, and that being done, all the check that was desired was obtained. No good would be derived by putting into the papers a string of bills which never could have been paid, and were merely fabulous and dishonest. The clause as it stood was, he thought, sufficient.

SIR JOHN WALSH

said, the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk and the hon. Member for Manchester were entirely at issue upon the meaning of the clause. He (Sir J. Walsh) thought there was a great object to be attained by the words proposed—namely, the stoppage of those fraudulent claims so frequently made for the purposes of intimidation at elections.

MR. BENTINCK

supported the Amendment. Though great good, however, might be attained by publication, a great evil would be created also. The principal objects of the Bill would, in his opinion, be attained by making the accounts accessible for three months after the election; after that they should be closed, and with them the chance of vexatious litigation, He should wish to move the substitution of the words "three months" instead of "one year."

MR. WALPOLE

said, he thought the Amendment would create the evil it was intended to meet. The candidate would lie under the imputation of not paying the claims against him in the mind of the public. He was of opinion that the publication of the claims allowed would be sufficient, without the publication of those which had been rejected.

MR. HILDYARD

said, he could not accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He should, therefore, persevere in his Amendment.

MR. MASSEY

said, he thought the reasons adduced were conclusive against the retention of the clause in the Bill. Every object of publicity was attained by the 28th clause; and nothing but scandal could arise from the clause in question.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it struck him that the clause was open to great doubt. With reference to the scandal of publishing disallowed claims, he would remind the Committee that by the 28th clause any elector might go to the election officer, and obtain a copy of all the claims allowed and disallowed, and publish them if he chose to take on himself the responsibility. He thought the publication of the accounts by the election officer was one of the most important features of the Bill. He did not, however, see the necessity of publishing disallowed claims; but if the Committee thought this ought to be done, he had no objection to the proposition.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, the object of the clause was to invoke public opinion to shame persons from making improper claims. He had no doubt the clause would be beneficial, and he trusted that hon. Gentlemen would not be so carried away by ridicule as to throw out one of the most valuable portions of the Bill.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR

said, he did not see the necessity of the Amendment, as any elector could get a copy of the claims on application. He rose, however, to call attention to the fact that it was not stated in the clause who was to pay the expenses of publication. As the object was to reduce election expenses, he thought it would be better to pay them out of the borough or county rates, and he should move the insertion of words to that effect.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

thought it would be advisable to have all claims published. He objected to compulsory publication in newspapers, as the charge for such advertisements would be excessive. The publication by printed placards, which would be inexpensive, might answer all the purpose.

MR. HILDYARD

said, be had reconsidered the Amendment, and having had the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk, would state the exact words he wished to have inserted in the clause. He proposed that the words, "all claims and objected to," be inserted, and at the end the words, "or by whom the same have been claimed respectively."

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, it certainly was an omission that no provision was made for paying the expense of publishing the accounts. He objected to the proposition of paying the expenses out of the rates, as such payment involved an important principle. If the payment was to be so made, it ought to form the subject of a separate clause, or even a separate Bill, and not be introduced at the end of a clause. He considered that the matter might be made clear, as far as the payment by the candidate was concerned, by few additional words.

MR. DEEDES

said, he was at a loss to understand the principle of putting the expenses on the borough or county rate.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he believed from his experience of newspaper proprietors there would be great competition to get hold of these accounts and to publish them. They would prove an interesting item of intelligence, and he should be quite content to have no provision with regard to payment for publication. It would be greatly advantageous to the public as well as to the candidates that publication should take place; the public would be great gainers by the publication; and he was quite satisfied to allow the question of publicity to settle itself.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he agreed in thinking the newspapers would compete for the publication, but that argument was conclusive against the clause, as a preceding clause provided for one authentic copy being exhibited, from which the newspapers would make publication.

MR. HILDYARD

said, it was quite clear the Committee would be guilty of a great constitutional mistake if it cast any burden on the particular body or district which returned Members. The constitutional law was that they were Members, not for the benefit of this or that place, but for the benefit of the nation. If the expense was to be borne by the public, it must come out of the public purse, for whose benefit they sat there, if they sat there for the benefit of anybody, which people out of doors doubted. To throw any expense on a particular place would be recognising that the Member for that place was bound to look exclusively to their interests.

Amendment withdrawn.

On the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill,

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that this was one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill, and he hoped that the Committee would adopt it. It was possible that there might be a competition amongst newspapers for the publication of the accounts; but would any one say that there should not be an authorised publication, or they might not have the accounts correctly given. if the publication was left entirely to the newspapers, one party would publish one statement, and the other party another. For those considerations, he believed the clause would be of great benefit, and he should support it.

MR. HILDYARD

said, the Committee must understand that the printing of these accounts would be attended with very heavy expense. He knew from his experience in revising the list of voters of a division of Yorkshire, in which there were thirty-nine polling places, and he had no doubt every county Member knew so too, that there were an immense number of charges for lists that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred were never looked at, and he believed that the expenditure would be a pure waste of money.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 94: Majority 84.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 30.

Clause 31 (All Moneys and Documents to be handed over to the Election Officer).

MR. BENTINCK

said, he must complain that no precaution seemed to be taken as to the character of the person who was to be appointed as election officer. There was no restriction whatever. Any person in the country, let his character be what it might, was eligible for appointment. Now, supposing a person holding this situation absconded with whatever money or documents happened to be in his possession, what means were there of recovering such property?

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, that if the election officer committed such an offence, be would incur the ordinary penalties of misdemeanor, and might be proceeded against. He would remind the Committee, however, that, as originally framed, this measure proposed to appoint a barrister to this office. If the Committee had agreed to that proposal, they would have had in the character and position of such a person an ample security that he was a fit and proper person to be intrusted with the duties of the office. But he found that as soon as a proposal was made that the appointment should he conferred on a barrister, it was met by almost universal disapprobation.

MR. BENTINCK

must say that he did not see much use in indicting a man who had gone to America, or who was not forthcoming. But another difficulty presented itself to him. A man appointed as election officer, and to whom documents and money were handed over, might die; it might be very necessary that those documents, and that that money should be in the possession of the candidate in a short time, and yet it might be competent for the heirs of this man to retain possession.

MR. J. BALL

suggested there should be a power of appeal against the nomination of an improper person.

MR. HILDYARD

said, he thought that security should be given that the person who was appointed should not be a person who was capable of absconding, and thereby preventing an investigation into the practices that had taken place.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 (Candidate to declare to Election Officer the name of his Agent or Agents).

LORD SEYMOUR

said, the clause required the candidate to give to the election officer in writing the names of his agents. He wished, however, some definition of the word "agent" to be given. Did it include every one who in any way assisted the candidate? It was also stated that current expenses might be paid "by the authority of the election officer;" but the election officer could not be present at all times when payment of money might be necessary. Then, how was his authority to be obtained?

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, it was proposed to omit the words "by the authority of the election officer." As to the agents who were appointed, the candidate would give in their names to the election officer at the time the appointment took place, and he did not see that it would be necessary to define them more particularly.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was afraid that the difficulties stated by the noble Lord the Member for Totness had not been met. If they asked a candidate to name his agents in writing, the candidate was surely entitled to know exactly what was meant by the term. What was the definition of the word "agent?" Did it include persons who might be employed for general purposes, or merely those who were intrusted with the payment of money?

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, the word "agent" as employed in the Bill, meant an agent for the payment of money, and not a person who might be employed for general purposes. It meant one who would manage and direct the expenses of the election.

MR. BECKETT DENISON

said, he thought that if the term "agent" meant only one who paid money, it should be so stated in the Bill. As it now stood, it might include every person who did any thing whatever for a candidate. How, in such a case, was the noble Lord to state the names of all his agents in the City of London? It would be impossible to do so.

MR. HENLEY

said, that it was rather hard to ask the Committee to pass a clause directing a candidate to make a declaration, when they did not know what he was to declare. He thought that they should have some more precise definition of the word "agent" than was contained in the clause. He did not see how this clause could be carried out in the case—not a very unfrequent one—in which a person was nominated without his knowledge. He would then be a "candidate," and as such would, by this clause, be compelled to inform the election officer of the name of his agent, although in fact he had none, and knew nothing about the matter.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he would suggest that the words "if any" should be inserted after the word "agent." He did this in order to meet the case of a candidate not having an agent.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

said, that some provision should be made in this clause to meet the case, in which, in the absence of a candidate, or of his being put up without his consent, some party might be made responsible; he would suggest that such a responsibility be borne by the proposer and seconder of a candidate?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he thought that some provision should be inserted to enable some one, in the absence of a candidate, to do what he might and ought to do if present, otherwise the current expenses could not be paid.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he also thought that some provision was requisite to meet the case of a candidate nominated without his knowledge. It would, however, be impossible to insert words with that object in the present clause. He would undertake to frame a clause which, if assented to, might be inserted on bringing up the report.

LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPEST

said, he wished to move the following Amendment—

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 8, at the end of the Clause, to add the words— and no person being a candidate at any Election, or having been elected, who shall have made the declaration required by this Act, and shall in all things have well and truly conformed thereto, and shall not have been guilty of any contravention of this Act, shall be liable civilly or criminally, nar shall his Election be avoided by reason of any illegal act done by any other person than his agent or agents named and notified to the Election officer, according to the provisions of this Act, unless such illegal act shall be proved to have been done by or with his authority or sanction: Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of a Select Committee of the House of Commons over any Election which shall be shown to have been obtained by bribery or any other illegal act or acts or practices.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he must oppose the Amendment, the effect of which would be to make the law less instead of more stringent than it was at pre- sent, and to introduce an innovation into the law and practice of Parliament. It had hitherto been held that a candidate was responsible in a Parliamentary, although not in a criminal, sense, for the acts of his agent; and if that law were altered a wide door would be opened to bribery and corruption. He was convinced that the law with regard to questions of fact as to the existence of agency was at present well administered by Parliamentary Committees. A candidate who wished to commit bribery would never name an agent for that purpose, and the great check upon bribery now was, that the commission of that offence by a person between whom and the candidate a Committee believed the relation of agency to have been established, was sufficient to unseat a Member. If direct authority from the Member was required to be shown before he could be unseated for the acts of an agent, there was scarcely an instance in which the law might not be evaded. He did not believe that, under the present law, many hon. Members unduly lost their seats; on the contrary, where the hon. Member lost, a great many retained their seats unduly, as, notwithstanding bribery might be clearly made out, it was always very difficult to prove agency.

MR. BENTINCK

said, before the House passed the Bill now before it, he thought that they were bound to attempt to apply some remedy to the very anomalous state of the law upon this subject of agency. At present the case of agency rested solely upon the caprice of Election Committees. He did not wish to make any invidious remarks, but he could quote cases in which the most unaccountable decisions had been come to in respect to agency. He knew, for instance, of one case, where a gentleman was unseated solely upon the ground that a man was seen in the same room with him who had been proved to have paid money as a bribe. There was not a tittle of other evidence against the candidate. Now that, he (Mr. Bentinck) submitted, was an anomalous and absurd state for the question to be left in. Under such circumstances, he thought that the Committee were bound, as a matter of justice, to meet the difficulty suggested by the provision of his noble Friend. If the Committee were not prepared to adopt the Amendment of his noble Friend, he hoped that some other clause would be proposed to deal with the difficulty.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he doubted whether the hon. and learned Attorney General was right in opposing this clause. The proviso proposed by his noble Friend (Lord A. Vane Tempest) did not say that the party guilty of the illegal act shall not be called upon to answer for his offence, but that before the candidate shall be made responsible for this act of the alleged agent, it must be proved that he had given authority for the act, or that he had sanctioned it after it had been done. He (Mr. Walpole) did not think that the proposed Amendment. was the introduction of any new law, but the revival of an old law which had been permitted to fall into a state of ambiguity.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he thought that the Amendment would open the door for much fraud; and candidates would indirectly obtain all the advantages of bribery and corruption, without incurring the responsibility.

MR. AGLIONBY

also opposed the clause, but expressed a wish that some words could be introduced into the Act of Parliament which would more clearly define the meaning of agency.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he should support the Amendment, on the ground that the seat of a successful candidate ought not to be avoided by the act of a person who might be a complete stranger to him, or, perhaps, even an enemy in disguise.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he must oppose the Amendment, since there would be great difficulty in proving bribery, if it were to depend upon the admission that direct orders to bribe had been given to the agent or attorney by the candidate.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 143: Majority 32.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed; Committee report progress.