§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 33 (Declaration of Member).
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he proposed to substitute for the declaration originally contained in that clause the following—
I (A B) do solemnly and sincerely declare, without any equivocation or mental reservation whatever, that I have not knowingly made, authorised, or sanctioned, and that I will not at any time hereafter knowingly make, authorise, or Sanction any payment on account of my election otherwise than through the election officer, save as excepted and allowed by the 'Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854:'446 The first object of the alterations which had been introduced into the declaration, by the insertion of the words "now or hereafter," was to prevent a candidate, some time after his election, repaying money which had been expended—perhaps without his knowledge—for purposes of corruption, by a friend or partisan. The other alteration was in the insertion of the words "otherwise than through the election officer," instead of "other than allowed by law." The object of this change was to make it more clear that the candidate or Member would not make any payment except through the election officer. Then, if he abided by that declaration, he could not bribe except through the election officer, which was of course out of the question.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he did not see any material difference between the two declarations, except the word "hereafter," inserted instead of "now." Neither did he see any necessity for a second declaration, of which he found notice was given.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the intention of the word "hereafter" was to render subsequent payments, even years after an election, impossible. If the party adhered to that declaration he could not, consequently, bribe at all, except he bribed through the election officer, which would be impracticable.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the Committee had two questions to decide in reference to this clause. First, whether they should sanction the principle of calling upon a Member to make a declaration at the table of the House that he had been guilty of no misconduct at his election, the consideration of which might be postponed until they came to decide finally upon the clause. And the other question was, if they decided that there should be a declaration, what the form of that declaration should be. In his opinion, if they had a declaration at all, the one proposed was most inadequate for its purpose. Take the case of a candidate who was opposed by the son of a peer, or wealthy commoner, a declaration from his opponent that he had paid no money, except the legal expenses, would not secure him against the exercise of undue influence by the wealthy relations of such opponent. The declaration, to be of any real value, should be considerably wider in its application than was proposed by either of the forms suggested; it should go to the extent of de- 447 claring that no payment had been made either by the candidate himself or by any person on his account.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the case suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was expressly provided for by another clause, which rendered it illegal for any person, whether friend, relation, or stranger, to pay any money whatever towards the expenses of any election except through the election officer.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was anxious to have the opinion of the Chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Walpole) on the Amendment. He concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) that it would not be well to extend the declaration so as to make the candidate declare that he did not know of any payment being made by others. He thought if they had a declaration, it should be as simple as possible—such as a man could make without doubt or hesitation, and, therefore, he preferred that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) to the one suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk. He admitted that there were difficulties in the way of any declaration whatever; but as he believed it would tend to prevent the extension of corrupt practices at elections he should support the clause.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he should have preferred the declaration as it originally stood in the Bill to the one now suggested. When this question had been previously mooted, it had been always said that any declaration must necessarily be vague, inasmuch as the law was not defined. Now they had defined the law and limited the expense to certain payments recognised by the law, and the candidate was required to declare that he had not knowingly made, authorised, or sanctioned, nor would he thereafter make, authorise, or sanction, any payment on account of his election, other than that allowed by law and paid through the medium of the election officer; that was, that he had not done, authorised, or sanctioned, and would not do, authorise, or sanction, any act of bribery, or any act that could come under the title of undue influence. In this way they had the means of ascertaining every payment made, and this was the object of the declaration. His only doubt was, whether they should adopt the declaration in the form proposed, or in the more limited form of simply declaring that no payment had been made by the candidate except through 448 the election officer. For his own part, he objected to making a man make a declaration as to any act done by other persons, of which he might know nothing.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would suggest a verbal Amendment in the declaration—instead of "any payment other than that," to insert "any payment other than those," which was agreed to.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, he thought the declaration should be confined to facts, and that the candidate should not be required to declare upon a matter of law, which he must do if called upon to say that he had paid only the legal expenses. It might so happen that a candidate making a payment in full confidence that it was legal, had afterwards reason to suppose that it was not legal, it would be hard to call upon him under such circumstances to make a declaration at the table of the House in the form proposed.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that, according to the clause, this declaration was to be taken twice—on the day of nomination and at the table of that House. Now suppose a Member were abroad when elected, or that he was elected for two places, how would it be possible that he should make this declaration on the day of nomination? Then with respect to the words "authorise or sanction any payment on account of my election," their interpretation must depend entirely upon the conscience of the man taking them. There was no doubt that a county Member, in that capacity, paid many subscriptions and contributed to many objects. Having done so, he could not, if a man of conscience, come and take this declaration. But he feared that the effect of imposing it would be to harden men's consciences, and that Members would be obliged to come to an understanding amongst themselves that these payments should not be considered as made "on account of my election," although there could be no doubt that they were made with a view to strengthen the position of a candidate or Member at his election. Now he thought that such an understanding would be quite discreditable, and would be injurious to the character, not only of that House, but of every gentleman in the country.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to know who was to tell what were the payments to be made on account of an election? There was no definition of these payments. He preferred the amended declaration to the original one, as it contained more certain- 449 ty; but that declaration would, nevertheless, preclude from any payment except through the election officers, though such payments were authorised in another part of the Bill. The great difficulty in the case, however, was the definition of what were payments on account of an election.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had no wish to press words of his own; all he wished was to get the best form of words; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment as more to the purpose than his own declaration.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he was opposed to any declaration whatever; but he certainly thought that the amended declaration was still more objectionable, because more stringent and more difficult to take, than the one originally inserted in the Bill. He must say that he thought it very impertinent to put the words "without any equivocation or mental reservation whatever" to any Member of that House. It amounted to making him say, "I declare so and so, and upon my word I am not telling a lie." The fact was, that these words were originally inserted in oaths in order to guard against the effect of certain opinions supposed to be held by Roman Catholics, but from which he did not think there was now the slightest danger. No one would think of asking or making such a declaration in private life. If the opinion of the House was with him, he would move the omission of these words.
§ MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, that a common mode of corrupting voters was to lend them money, or to promise to lend them money, and this practice ought to be met by the declaration, if indeed, which he doubted, it was desirable to have any declaration at all.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought that the Amendment was more specific than the original declaration, and was therefore preferable to it. He certainly thought that when they imposed a bribery oath upon the electors they would not persuade the country that they were in earnest unless they also called upon the elected to purge themselves. If they had a declaration, he thought it ought to be made as solemn as possible, and therefore he saw no objection to the retention of the words "without mental equivocation or reservation." He thought, however, that the words "on account of my election" were fairly open to objection, because it was difficult to say whether many payments that hon. Members were called upon to 450 make were or were not "on account" of their election. He would, therefore, propose to alter them to "on account of the expenses of my election." Those words could not be held to cover the subscriptions which Members were called upon to pay, or the other expenses which they incurred during the continuance of a Parliament.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he did not think that the words "without any equivocation or mental reservation" added any sanction whatever to the declaration. He thought they were simply insulting, and that it was quite sufficient to call on hon. Members "solemnly and sincerely" to declare. He should persist in his Motion for the omission of the words in question.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, he also thought that it was desirable to omit the words in question. He considered that this Bill was not framed as if they were legislating for gentlemen, but on the supposition that, unless language of the most stringent nature was employed in every part of it, Members of that House would be always exercising their ingenuity to evade the obligations imposed on them by law. He must say he did not think it wise in the House to hold itself up to the country in such a light.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not think it was open to them to object to the retention of these words on the grounds stated, namely, that because the House had already, on another occasion during the present Session, determined to retain them in the oath administered to its Members. He thought, however, that the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), that these words were originally introduced into the oath as a measure of precaution against persons who held certain doctrines, and that there was now no necessity for their retention, was well founded. He did not think that an inclination to make mental reservations was one of the prevailing sins of our times. Persons might break their oaths knowingly, but he did not think that any sect entertained the opinion that by a mental reservation they could make a false statement with a safe conscience. He thought it was quite sufficient to make a man say that he "solemnly and sincerely" declared.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, that the words "without equivocation or mental reservation" were not in the oath taken by Members generally. They were only a 451 part of the oath taken by Roman Catholics, who held the doctrines against which they were intended as a security.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLreplied reading, amidst considerable laughter, the oath taken by Members generally, Protestant as well as Catholic. It concluded by a statement that it was taken by the deponent "without equivocation, mental evasion, or any reservation whatever."
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, he never objected to the omission of these words from the general oath. He only wished to retain them in that taken by the Roman Catholic Members.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that both himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) were quite ready to consent to the omission of these words.
§ The words, "without equivocation or mental reservation" were accordingly struck out of the declaration.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he must urge on the Committee the necessity of defining the legitimate expenses of an election before proceeding further with the Bill. Unless that was done all discussions on the question were only so much lost time.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would suggest that payments excepted in the schedule of the Bill, as made under a penalty less than forfeiture of the seat and invalidation of the election, should be referred to in the declaration.
§ MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he regarded the words "at any time hereafter," as surplusage. The candidate swore "I will not make," and that was sufficient.
§ The words "at any time hereafter" were then struck out.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not like the insertion of the words "on account of the expenses of my election." Bribery was not one of the expenses of a Member's election, and this addition to the declaration would be no protection against bribery.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, it was notorious that Members incurred considerable expense in providing for the registration. These were expenses "on account of a Member's election," and so were subscriptions to charities, races, &c. What Member subscribed to these objects before he became a candidate, or when he ceased to be a Member? And to make such a declaration would require a great deal of mental reservation and equivocation. Unless a Member determined not to give one far- 452 thing which he would not otherwise give towards election expenses, charities, and races, he could hardly say that he had not and would not pay any money "on account of his election." It ought to be clearly understood whether such contributions as he had described were to pass through the accounts of the election officer.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that in consequence of some doubts of the nature expressed by his hon. and learned Friend, he had framed a provision, of which he had given notice. That provision was to the effect "that no expenses of or relating to the registration of electors, or any subscription or contribution made to or for any public or private or charitable purpose, shall be deemed election expenses."
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he viewed with the greatest apprehension the effects of agreeing to such a declaration as this. Its effect would be, either to keep out all scrupulous men from seats in that House and to let in men of easy consciences, or else it would introduce a generally lax mode of taking this oath, which would have the worst possible effect on public morality, and lower the tone of that House as the first assembly of gentlemen in the country. The declaration was full of ambiguity. If they asked a man of honour to take an oath, they should take care no two men of honour could differ in the construction of it. But would any man say that any man of honour and conscience would not take that oath as it now stood in fear and trembling? This was a position in which no conscientious man ought to be placed. If the Amendment to insert the words "the expenses of" before the words "my election" were agreed to, then the oath would be nugatory and would open the door to a wide field of bribery. If the words "on account of my election" were retained, then he did not know what they meant, and they introduced ambiguity where the Committee were bound to avoid it. A Member of the Government usually had some little patronage at his disposal. Suppose he gave some little places to those who had voted for him. Was that bribery or not, or was it "on account of his election?" Payment by means of places was as much bribery as the payment of money, and was a Member of the Government who had procured a place as a messenger or some small place in the Customs for one of his supporters to be told he was a perjured man? Would not a Member who was 453 asked for a place ask himself, if this declaration were agreed to, "Why do I give this place to this man?" Members commonly acted from mixed motives. They knew the voter, perhaps, to be a worthy man, and they believed he would discharge the duties of the situation in an efficient manner. But would they not ask themselves, "Am I sure that I should give this man a place if he did not happen to be a voter of the borough or county that I represent?" This was only one of a hundred questions of this character, and he protested against putting men of honour to the moral torture of coming to the table and swearing that they had not done, and would not do, a quantity of things that it would require a casuist to say they were not doing. He had been too long a Member of that House, even if there were no other motive, not to be very anxious about its character. The character of the House of Commons was one of the most precious possessions of the people of this country. But there was no better mode of degrading the character of Parliament than by passing a declaration which would have the effect of keeping out men of scrupulous consciences. He doubted very much whether the declaration would have any effect in preventing bribery. The subject had been a good deal discussed in that House, but all former Parliaments had invariably shrunk from imposing a stringent oath of this character upon Members coming to the table of that House.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not know a more efficacious mode of maintaining the character of that House than by preventing Members from taking their seats who had been guilty of bribery, nor did he know any better mode of accomplishing this object than by imposing a declaration like that in the Bill. An honest man would have no objection to take it, and, if it kept out those who had been guilty of bribery, so much the better. He could not understand how the declaration could keep out any scrupulous man who knew he had been guilty of no corrupt practices, and, as a Member of the Government, he certainly could not read the clause in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed them. Was it the opinion of any man who understood the English language, that payment on account of an election meant getting a man a place? Both were equally corrupt, but inasmuch as there were mixed cases, where the corruption was not the same, 454 where the degradation of the voter was not the same, where the public service was to be done, there should be mutual concession, and Government should be allowed to distribute its patronage among those who did the work, unless, indeed, they used it in the manner of direct influence. It certainly was not included in the declaration. There might have been some difficulty with regard to the money expended in registration cases and charities, but that was to be removed entirely by a clause which it was proposed to introduce, and, although it was extremely desirable they should look closely into the terms of a measure of this kind, yet they ought not to be over-scrupulous, but leave everything to a fair remedy. He was astonished to hear his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) take the course of argument he had against the declaration, for he (the Attorney General) believed there were scores of men who would have little hesitation in committing bribery if there were no such declaration, but who would hesitate to do so if they had to come to the table of the House and make such a declaration as that proposed. They might feel little remorse for practising bribery, but if, after having resorted to corrupt practices, they should come to that House and make a solemn declaration which should afterwards turn out to be untrue, they would find they would lose the esteem of society, and that consideration would prevent them from becoming guilty, as it would enable them to make the declaration boldly and without fear of contradiction.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had not been successful in disposing of the powerful observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere). He did not understand that speech to be directed against the whole principle of a declaration, but in opposition to a vague and uncertain one. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not convinced him that there ought not to be a declaration, for he believed, unless they did have one, this Bill would lose its value entirely. But he had conclusively established that it should be so clear and specific that men of honour could take it without danger to their consciences. He (Sir J. Pakington) had endeavoured to correct one objection, but after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he would not press the adoption of the words the insertion of which he had 455 moved, but would suggest to the noble Lord the President of the Council that, as it was so important they should come to some decision as to what course they would take, it would be better to withdraw the present terms of the declaration, to which so many objections had been taken, so as to reconsider its form and decide upon it on bringing up the report. By adopting that course they would see whether the declaration could not be directed specifically against bribery, and at the same time put in terms to which every conscientious man might assent, after which they might add words to the effect, that they would not pay the legitimate expenses of the election except through the election officer.
§ MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he understood the right hon. Member for Taunton to object to the premature introduction of a question upon the declaration at all, and to suggest that they should first of all amend the clause, and then put the question whether the declaration should stand or not. It seemed to him the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had completely misunderstood the whole scope of the right hon Gentleman's argument, as in his (Mr. Aglionby's) opinion that right hon. Member objected most strongly to any declaration whatever. For his part, he hoped that in any Amendment of the declaration they would make it as clear and specific against bribery as possible, but he must express a strong opinion that, unless they insisted that a declaration should be made by Members of Parliament, the Act would not be worth a rush. They had most stringent clauses with respect to bribery and treating, and it would be a total dereliction of duty if they shrank from introducing the test of a declaration, which he considered absolutely necessary. An hon. and learned Member had asked, what was to be done with respect to registration expenses and subscriptions to local charities? The hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) said, he thought that objection was completely answered by the exception of such expenses, but, in his opinion, nothing could be more inconclusive. There was nothing to prevent people making use of those registration expenses and charitable subscriptions as a means of securing their election, He considered such a practice would be wholesale bribery; the introduction of the proviso was, in his opinion, the worst part of the Bill, and rather than have it he would vote against the measure altogether. At the same time 456 they were bound not to criticise words too minutely, but to do everything which would tend to put down the pernicious system of bribery and treating. After all the arguments they had heard, and the many difficulties they experienced in their attempts to put down bribery by enactment, he ventured to say that, sooner or later, hon. Members would come to the conclusion which he had formed long ago—that the only true remedy for bribery and its concomitant evils was vote by ballot.
§ MR. J. BALLsaid, as the Bill stood there was a simple test which it was very undesirable to remove, in order to substitute another which would prove a trap for consciences. With regard to what had been said of charitable subscriptions, he really did not think the practice of subscribing to a Member's plate, at the county or borough races, would be so important or so universal as to interfere with purity of election.
§ LORD LOVAINEsaid, he considered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton unanswerable. They were told they were to make this declaration, and not to view it with too much astuteness; in fact, he supposed they were to view it by the light of a lawyer's conscience. Every speaker on the question had given a different interpretation of the clause, and he disliked quite as much a lawyer's cauistry as any other. In his opinion, if they adopted it at all, they should make the form of the declaration as positive as possible, leaving no means of equivocation; but it would be far better to take the advice of the right hon. Member for Taunton, and discard it altogether.
§ MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that if they were to admit a very large expenditure connected with the registration, racing subscriptions, charitable gifts, and matters of that kind, the declaration might assume a very doubtful and uncertain character, but otherwise he did not conceive it would have any particular bearing upon such cases. It was clear that the many noble institutions spread all over the face of the country ought not to suffer through a declaration of this character, and it was impossible for any one to represent a place out of the metropolis without entering into what might be termed local interests. But the question was by no means settled, whether the clause itself would be adopted, and it would be time enough to consider any Amendment after the principle had 457 been affirmed. He believed their differences on this question were irreconcilable, that it was no mere quibble upon words, but a substantial difference of opinion. They must either take the declaration in its strict sense, or not at all; otherwise, it would be a great burden upon their consciences, occasioning them much trouble and distress of mind, such as no one had a right to inflict upon hon. Gentlemen in that House.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was rather sorry that the principle of the clause should have been so much argued, before the clause itself. At the same time, an important question had been raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), and he could not refrain from replying with some feeling of misgiving to the objections urged by his right hon. Friend, as he had himself for many years been opposed to the introduction of any oath or declaration with respect to this subject; and that objection was a good deal founded on the nature of our laws regarding bribery. But when he heard the objections that had been made, he was obliged to ask the question whether the House of Commons, in passing a Bill of that kind, carefully considering all its provisions, really intended to make a law which should be effective or not? Because, if it was intended to be operative and effective, any Member of the House who should come in, having obeyed its provisions and conformed to its enactments, could have no difficulty in subscribing to a declaration of this kind. He would not have knowingly violated the law, or knowingly have been guilty of contempt of an enactment, to which, perhaps, he himself might have been opposed. But if, on the other hand, it was not the intention that any candidate or future Member should obey the provisions of this law, they ought not only to abstain from passing this law, but rather take the course of repealing those which now existed on the subject. If, however, their intention was to punish men who received bribes, which, perhaps, they intended to apply to the wants of their families, insufficiently clothed and fed, was it not inconsistent to say that Members of Parliament or candidates who bribed should not be subjected to penalties provided by the law for such an offence? Still, a declaration or oath which it was intended persons should take should be one that was capable of being clearly understood, and one which should be in confor- 458 mity with the general sense and conduct of those who were to take it. For instance, the declaration it was formerly incumbent on officers of the Army to take, that commissions should not be sold or purchased below a certain price, was generally understood as not necessary to be observed. That was imposing a declaration which never ought to have been imposed, and he considered that it would be useless to enact the present law unless it were to be effective. But, it appeared their intention was that expenses incurred in elections were to be paid in conformity with the law, and that when a candidate believed certain payments were for bribing and treating, he should not make such payments, they being in direct contravention of the law. The proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) was a very specific proposal, because it went directly to the effect, that all payments made on account of an election were to be made through an election officer, who was to declare whether or no such payments were payments which he authorised and was ready to pay, or whether he did not allow them. It appeared to him to be a declaration which every man, as far as in his power and according to his conscience, who went into that House, obeying the law, could safely make, and, indeed, he did not see how any person who had obeyed the law could object to make such declaration. There could be no doubt that a general impression existed throughout the country that the expenses of elections had been the great means of corruption, and that there had been practices very scandalous and degrading, and injurious and derogatory to the character of the House, which ought not to be persisted in. It was very true that men might get elected in consequence of bribery and in violation of the law; and perhaps there never was a law passed yet but some men tried to evade it: still that would not be the case with men of any influence and character who were worthy Members of that House—they would be able to take the declaration with a safe conscience. They were told the character of the House would suffer if this declaration were imposed; but they might depend upon it, nothing could be worse for the House than when they came to question whether or not they should pass severe penalties against voters, and attempt at the same time to exempt the Members of the House from any inconvenience. He quite agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) that the 459 words proposed by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) "expenses of the election," were open to objection; and it did seem to him that, in order to specify as far as possible what it was they intended, it would be better to keep to the language in the former part of the Bill, which defined the expenses the candidate might pay, and provided for the sending in of the accounts to the election officer. With regard to what had been said about subscriptions to county balls, races, and charities, those charges were clearly not referred to in this clause; but, certainly, it would be in the power of an Election Committee of that House, upon a petition presented to them and an examination of the facts, to decide how far payments on that account could be considered bribery and corruption. He did not, however, think that the present declaration would have reference to such charges so as to prevent a Member from conscientiously taking it.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, when he first spoke he had put a question to the hon. and learned Attorney General with respect to certain payments, and he was told that they were to be excepted from the operation of the clause. In his simple judgment, they had by such a course not only rendered nugatory the whole operation of the Bill, but had actually pointed out to the electors how it could be evaded. He now came to another matter. The hon. and learned Attorney General had told them that the declaration would not apply to giving places corruptly. That was a very ominous statement, coming as it did from a Member of the Government and one of the law officers of the Crown. If it was necessary to have a declaration to put an end to corrupt practices, why did it not embrace that particular case? On looking to Clause 3, they found a definition of bribery, which included the agreement or contract for "any valuable consideration, office, place, or employment, before the election;" but, in the next section of the clause, which had reference to the receiving of the bribe after the election, those words were left out; and now the Attorney General said this declaration was not to include them; so that, in point of fact, while they made the declaration operative against every one else, it was to be ineffective against the great bribers, the Government. He challenged his hon. and learned Friend to point out any provi- 460 sion affecting them in the Bill, and, although it might be said that, if the patronage were taken away the Government could not be carried on, the hon. and learned Attorney General admitted it would be as base to bribe by means of an office or place as by money. If they were to have such a declaration, let it sweep the decks clear and include the Government. In order to test the opinion of the Committee upon this point, he should move the addition of such words as would carry out his view of this part of the question.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 21, after "1854," to insert the words—
And have not knowingly given nor will give any office, place, or employment to any voter or any other person in consideration of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any Election.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not think the part of the clause was reached where the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member could be proposed. The Committee was discussing a declaration which all admitted was not right in its present form, and yet no one had proposed anything which could render it more comprehensible. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that no declaration should be put that the House did not understand. He denied, however, the noble Lord's further statement, that penalties were not imposed upon Members as well as upon voters; on the contrary, penalties, or rather oaths, were taken off voters, and were proposed, in the form of this declaration, to be placed upon Members. With all due deference to the noble Lord, he thought the words proposed by the noble Lord would be more objectionable than those of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) which had been withdrawn. He did not think the clause should be persevered in without further explanation.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he thought the time was come to decide upon the principle of the declaration. He denied the proposition of the noble Lord that there were no penalties on the candidates. There were, on the contrary, not only pecuniary penalties, but disabilities enough to terrify any man. Let them look not only at the pecuniary penalties, but to the disabilities they incurred. The first time the Member contravened the Act he was subjected to exclusion of seven years, and the second time for life. On a comparison of penalties, he found that there was an enormous 461 difference against the candidate, as contrasted with the voter. But they were arguing the question of declaration, and not of penalties. He contended that the declaration would be utterly useless and futile for any good purpose, and would be only the means of placing the Member in a very invidious position, if, after having made the declaration, a petition, which might after all turn out groundless, were presented against him. Time was when it was usual to take the word of an hon. Member who rose in that House for the truth of his statement, but now, he supposed, the next thing would be that their time would be occupied in receiving and discussing petitions, accusing hon. Members of having spoken falsely. It was intolerable that they should waste so much time in discussing Amendments to a declaration which no one would adopt. The declaration itself was nothing more than the stringent oath embodied in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), but dwindled and refined down to such tenuity that it might easily be taken by any person possessed of what the noble Lord had once happily termed "a robust conscience."
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to remind the Committee that the making of the declaration was similar to a plea of "Not Guilty" in criminal law, and merely signified that the accused wished to be put upon his defence. If, therefore, a Member conscientiously refused to make the declaration, it would be tantamount to preventing him from properly defending himself before the courts, should any claim be made against him. It would, therefore, operate most unjustly.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he would propose that the Committee should decide at once whether the declaration was to be adopted: verbal Amendments could be made afterwards, if deemed necessary. He thought legislation on the subject of election expenses would be idle unless it was accompanied by a declaration. A pecuniary penalty would be willingly paid in cases where candidates would willingly in submitting themselves to the risk of prosecution for misdemeanor.
§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, he agreed that the most expedient course would be to decide as to the declaration. He should vote against the declaration without hesitation when the time arrived for taking the opinion of the Committee on the subject.
§ MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, he 462 thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven fell short of the fact. He should support it, however; but he thought it ought to comprehend all offences included in Clause 2 of the Bill,
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 128: Majority 8.
§ MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, he would now move to add to the clause the following words—
Nor have done, nor will hereafter do, any act contrary to the provisions contained in Sections 2 and 4 of this Act.He had reason to believe that many hon. Members who voted against the last Amendment would have supported it had it had a more extended operation. He believed, however, that the wording of the present Amendment was sufficiently large to include everything against which it was desirable to obtain the declaration of an hon. Member.
§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he must appeal to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment, because, if the Committee should determine to retain the declaration at all, he would have two other opportunities of moving Amendments upon it.
§ MR. COBDENsaid, he had voted against the last Amendment because it only applied to the case of Members of Government who gave places. but did not extend to the case of Members of that House who procured places. The present Amendment, however, seemed to include both, and he should therefore support it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 119: Majority 19.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The House resumed.
§ Committee report progress.