Lord Brougham,in moving that the House resolve itself into a committee on the Bribery at Elections Bill, said that, as he had more than once stated its objects and provisions, he should now be extremely short, and he should simply state, that he had great doubt whether he ought to carry his measure beyond those committees for which it was originally framed, in consequence of what had recently occurred elsewhere, and which appeared in the votes of the other House of Parliament. His first impression was, that they ought to leave the measure as it was originally framed, and that they ought to leave it to the House of Commons to make the addition which they considered necessary. He was, however, now disposed to add those words which would embrace the committees of the same nature which appeared to have been appointed by the other House of Parliament—namely, not only committees to enquire into bribery and corruption at particular elections, but committees to inquire into any corrupt compromises which had been made in relation to those elections. He should move an amendment on this point, either on the bringing up of the report, or on the third reading. He must now express his hope that the result of the measure, and of the inquiries which it would cause to be instituted, would be such as to meet the satisfaction of the country. One thing he did most earnestly desire, and that was, that in the conduct of the inquiries in both Houses of Parliament, all parties and all persons would cordially and impartially unite. They might depend on it that it was a matter in which all parties and all persons had an equal, and he might say an identical interest. It was not an equal, but the self-same interest; and he would fain hope, in conducting these inquiries— of such immense importance, and of such very great interest as he knew they could not fail to excite all over the country— anything like party feeling, or violence, or personal motives, would, on all hands, and by all parties, be most studiously kept down and avoided.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he did not rise to object to his noble and learned Friend's motion. He wished merely to 472 suggest to him whether he thought it would be wise to carry the measure to the extent to which he now proposed, after the notice which had appeared in the votes of the other House.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the other House had only begun this subject after his bill had been read a first time and printed.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the question which he wished to put was this— whether the other House would not think that their Lordships were interfering with matters which specially belonged to the House of Commons to decide—namely, the election of Members to serve in Parliament? He merely threw out this in order that his noble and learned Friend might consider what aspect his bill might have in the other House.
Lord Broughamsaid, that his bill did not at all interfere with election matters. It was merely an interference with the law touching bribery, and the perjury which might be committed in election committees of the other House, which was decidedly a breach of the law though committed in committees of the other House. He was desirous of including the subject of corrupt compromises, because he thought it would be a convenience to the other House to do so. If the bill went down with that provision, it would enable the House of Commons at once to deal with the subject.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he did not think that the House of Commons could imagine that this bill infringed on its privileges. It only showed the anxiety of their Lordships to co-operate in putting down one of the greatest evils which now existed, and, which, in itself, was a frightful source of immorality and perjury. He thought that the House of Commons, and the constituency of the country generally, ought to feel grateful to his noble and Learned Friend for having brought forward this measure. He rose, however, principally to say, that he did not consider that the amendment which his noble and learned Friend intended to propose would be an improvement.
Lord Campbellwould co-operate cordially, candidly, and zealously, with his noble and learned Friend in any attempt to put down the alarming amount of bribery which was so much and so justly deplored. At the same time, he had little expectation of any good from this bill, and he had been rather disappointed, that with his great talents in legislation, his noble 473 and learned friend had not produced something more likely to prove effectual. The bill could do no harm, and, therefore, he supported it; but that it could produce any great good, he was not sanguine enough to hope. It had been said, that it would not apply to election committees, and one of his objections to the bill was, that it would not give power to election committees to examine candidates and sitting Members, and all persons coming before them. Another objection to the bill was, that it would not operate in a compulsory manner on witnesses, nor compel them to give the evidence required of them. This omission, he understood, was intentional, on the ground that a witness might object to answer a question which if it did not positively incriminate him, might degrade his character by forcing him to confess to the commission of practices that society condemned. It might be very well not to force witnesses to give testimony that might have the effect of degrading them; but his noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, would bear him out when he said, that such was not the practice of the courts of law, where men were not only liable to be called on to answer questions that might subject them to censure, but also those that might expose them to punishment. The bill sent up last June compelled the candidate and the sitting Member to give evidence, and that was the only effectual way to prevent bribery, for by that means only could they ascertain whether a man was returned by a fair election or by improper practices. It was only by rendering bribery unavailing that they could hope to succeed in putting it down, and only by compelling a witness to answer, and indemnifying him against the consequences, would they ever be able to get at the truth. The bill sent up last June contained a provision compelling sitting Members and agents to answer questions. If a party bribed a borough, he might defeat inquiry, without such a compulsory power, indemnifying the agents: whereas, under this bill, a party might answer or not, as he pleased. The second clause in the bill was somewhat extraordinary; it gave to either House of Parliament a power of pardoning—a power quite new. A committee of either House might report in favour of a person who had not been examined, but whose name had been mentioned, but who had made no disclosure, 474 and that person might be allowed to go scot-free. This power seemed to him to be quite unconstitutional, and likely to be much better exercised by the Crown than by either House of Parliament. For these reasons he thought that the bill would be ineffectual, and he recommended his noble and learned Friend to exert his talents in framing a measure of a more extensive nature. At the same time, if his noble and learned Friend believed the bill would do any good, and was likely to be adopted by the other House, he had no wish to oppose it.
Lord Broughamsaid, if the bill had contained a provision for compelling persons to answer, it would undoubtedly have given the measure a more efficient character; but he entertained the greatest repugnance to introducing such a provision. Let their Lordships see how the present measure worked; if greater powers were wanted, Parliament might be applied to for them. He would state at once his objection to a compulsory clause. If the natural feelings of mankind ran so counter to a compulsion, that they considered that a witness, if put upon his oath, was not to accuse himself,—if a man so examined felt that it was not a fair mode of questioning him, that it was rather a tyrannical proceeding, and almost amounted to torture, compelling him to become his own accuser,—if men's minds were so imbued, depend upon it if the power of compulsion were bestowed, he would, in self-defence (glossing it over in this manner in his own mind), commit the still more grievous crime of perjury. With this view of the matter he had abstained from introducing such a power.
§ Bill went through a committee.
§ Bill reported.
Lord Broughamgave notice, that on the third reading he should move the insertion of these words, "or any corrupt compromises in the case of any elections." He also moved that the third reading should take place on the next day.
§ Viscount Canterburysaid, he would suggest to his noble and learned Friend, whether it would not be better to omit this amendment, as the House of Commons had already indicated its intention of taking some steps on the subject of these compromises.
Lord Broughamsaid, that his only object was to make the bill ancillary to the inquiry of the other House of Parliament. 475 He would, however, bow to his noble Friend's instinctive sense of what was likely to happen there, and would withdraw his notice.
§ Bill to be read a third time.
§ House adjourned.