LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he would solicit the attention of his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby) to a Bill for removing what he (Lord Brougham) thought was a great omission, through an oversight, in the statutory laws, touching the assembling of Parliament by proclamation of the Crown. Their Lordships were aware that, partly by usage and partly by statute, a period of fifty days must now elapse between the issuing of a proclamation for summoning a new Parliament, and the day fixed for its assembling. The 22nd Article of the Treaty of Union with Scotland required fifty days for the assembling of the first Parliament—twenty-five being necessary for the election of Scotch Peers; hence the former period required by statute, as well as by the common law, of forty days, had been extended to fifty; but since the Act of Union passed, the twenty-five days for the election of Scotch Peers; had been reduced to ten, namely, by an Act of last Session; and it followed almost as a matter of course that thirty-five days would now be quite sufficient.
§ The EARL of DERBYwas understood to ask the noble Lord if he proposed to make the shorter interval compulsory?
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, by no means. The Bill he was about to present would save a fortnight of the interval now required between the proclamation and the assembling of Parliament, but would not limit that interval to thirty-five days-—it might be fifty or sixty days. It very often did not signify whether Parliament assembled thirty-five or sixty days after the proclamation of the Crown; but he could conceive circumstances might arise which would render the difference between thirty- 1405 five and sixty days not only a matter of great convenience to Parliament and the country, but of the greatest possible importance in the transaction of public business; for example, it might make all the difference between very important measures being possible to be passed, and not. His reason for interposing to lay this Bill on the table of their Lordships' House, between his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby) and his noble Friends behind him was, that they could hardly, in their positions, propound such a measure without giving rise to all sorts of conversations and rumours, that they had some immediate object in view; but no such suspicion could attach to him, and entirely with a view to purposes of public convenience, he felt it his duty to lay the Bill before their Lordships.
§ The noble Lord then presented a Bill to shorten the time required for assembling Parliament after a Dissolution thereof.
LORD BROUGHAMproceeded to say, he could not mention the subject of the dissolution of Parliament without imploring the attention of their Lordships (not for the second, third, or fourth time, and he feared not for the last, of times without number), to the absolute necessity of taking immediate, stringent, effectual measures, if possible, to put down the bribery and corruption practised at elections. He had called their attention to this important matter before and after the two last general elections. There was now once more the prospect of a general election. He need not remind their Lordships of the scenes which took place at the last, to the disgust of all observers, to the injury, almost the irreparable injury, of the character of this country; to the spread, to the grievous spread, of immorality among the people; and to the great mischief of debasing the elective franchise in the eyes of its possessors, and even rendering its exercise of doubtful advantage to the State. He hoped some effectual measure might at length be brought forward and adopted by the other House of Parliament, as well as by their Lordships, for putting a stop to this crying evil. It was not merely the political corruption and the personal corruption of the voter who took a bribe, which was the consequence of the prevailing practices; but a worse crime still was intimately connected with it, and gave a deeper colour of guilt to the transaction. No voter took a bribe without committing, morally, the guilt of perjury, 1406 because every voter knew when he took a bribe that he was liable, to have, and might very possibly have, and in all cases of keen contest would most probably have, the bribery oath administered; and even if it should not be administered, he incurred the moral guilt of perjury, because in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, he received the bribe with the firm determination to take the bribery oath, to forswear himself, and knowingly and wilfully to commit perjury if the oath was administered to him. He committed perjury as much, morally speaking, even if he escaped, or fancied he should escape, by the accident of the oath not being tendered to him, and he had the guilt of perjury on his conscience as much, morally speaking, as the highwayman had the moral guilt of murder upon his conscience when he went out determined to attain his object of taking the property of his victim, by taking his life, if need be, cither to accomplish his fell purpose, or to prevent, if recognised, the discovery of his offence. He hoped and trusted the only effectual remedy which was applicable to the case, would be at length applied—he meant, not only the giving increased facilities to the investigation of complaints, by compelling persons examined to answer questions tending to criminate themselves, and, if it should be needful, protecting them against all legal consequences of their disclosures; but beside that, his firm belief was, they would never put an end to the practice until they had, of necessity and compulsorily, from each Member, before taking his seat, a stringent, thorough going, sifting declaration, that he had, neither directly nor indirectly, participated in, or known of, or believed or suspected that any bribery had been practised, or anything in the nature of bribery, on his behalf. He (Lord Brougham) would not require the declaration upon oath, but upon honour and conscience, which no man would dare to make colourably, if any voter could convict him of it, because afterwards no such man could hold up his head in society. That was, he believed, the most effectual remedy, and at the same time it was not open to the objections which justly applied to tests in general.
§ The EARL of DERBYsaid, with regard to the first question mooted by the noble Lord, there could be no objection to the Bill being laid before their Lordships; and he thought the shortening the period necessary between the dissolution of Parlia- 1407 ment and its reassembling, might be a matter of extreme importance. With regard to the second subject, he did not wish to enter upon the general discussion for preventing that which all of their Lordships must be desirous of preventing—namely, the extended, and, he feared he must add, the most rapidly extending system of bribery at elections. He quite concurred with his noble Friend that the attention of Parliament could not be better directed than to providing a remedy; and a Bill for that purpose had been introduced by Her Majesty's late Government into the other House of Parliament. That Bill, in all its essential provisions, had been adopted by Her Majesty's present Government, and was now under the consideration of the other House of Parliament.
§ The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEobserved, that the noble and learned Lord had stated to the House the great evil of the present practice, and that too stringent a punishment could not he inflicted on the persons corrupted by it. In his opinion the corrupter was a far greater culprit than the corrupted, and their Lordships could not do better than give their attention to that point. A severer punishment ought to be inflicted on those who induced the poor to sell their privileges for money, than on those who sold them. The man who gave money as a bribe, was far more guilty than the man who received it.