ELECTIONS EXPENCE BILL. (Hansard, 29 March 1814)

Mr. Douglas

rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the more effectually preventing charge and expence in the elections of members to serve in parliament. The hon. member, in a tone of voice scarcely audible in the gallery, proceeded to explain the nature of the measure he was about to introduce. His object was, to restrict, or rather to prevent, the payment of their expences to what were called out voters, not resident in the borough when the election took place. He thought that some apology was in the first instance necessary for having ventured to undertake a subject of such great importance to all classes of the community—It not unfrequently happened, that while the older and more experienced members of parliament were fully em- 378 ployed upon questions of political economy that affected the immediate interests of the state, younger and less able hands were in a situation to propose some alternation in less obvious and momentous, though not ultimately less important subjects of legislation. From particular circumstances that it was unnecessary to detail, his attention had been particularly directed to the question now before the House; and from his connection with individuals for whose judgment he entertained high respect, he had been able to procure opinions of considerable value, which, he hoped he might add, would have no little influence on the House itself. Ill-fitted as he was to accomplish the task, he had devoted his utmost attention to perform it; and he could not avoid taking this opportunity of expressing his gratitude to many gentlemen with whom he had communicated, for the facilities they had afforded him; for the assistance they had given him, by their opinions and advice; and by the indulgence they had shewn to his comparative incapacity, which had emboldened him to endeavour to become the organ of this amendment of the law. There was one objection which would be likely to indispose many from giving him their aid in the accomplishment of his design; he meant the unwillingness that they felt to innovate upon established practices.—All speculative rashness in the pursuit of some doubtful good, or in the correction of some glimmering of abuse, he was most anxious to disclaim: such an imputation could not be laid to his charge; but there was a species of reform, which was often the very opposite to innovation: grounded upon old and established principles, it proceeded with caution, never venturing to move without calculating upon the consequences, whether it would tend more to renovate the old and excellent system, or to encourage and augment the corruptions which had crept into it. Such a reform must, of necessity, be accompanied by the good wishes and assistance of all friends to good order. It was no insignificant undertaking, thus early in his political life, to commence the reformation of the House of Commons, although he certainly was no advocate for what was vulgarly understood by the words Parliamentary Reform. By the improvement he was about to suggest he was in hopes of securing many important advantages, without incurring the danger that must 379 necessarily attend the sweeping reforms countenanced by some other members. In bringing this question under the notice of parliament it would be his duty, first, to prove the existence of the abuse he proposed to remedy; and then to state that remedy, and to shew that it would be effectual. The hon. member then noticed the proceedings of parliament on former occasions in the repeal, and virtual repeal, of some of the laws relating to the expences of elections. He referred also to the increase of the internal commerce of the country, and to the enlargement of the metropolis, and of the trading towns of the empire, which prevented any danger of rendering the number of electors too limited, by excluding the out-voters: it seldom, however, happened during a general election, that the scale was not in some instances turned by the weight of the out-voters, brought in by the members, frequently at enormous and ruinous charges. He was aware that he was now touching upon the most plausible and popular objection to his plan; since it would be urged, that he was virtually, if not openly, disfranchising a number of electors: if this were the fact, this plan would never have been proposed by him, or have received his vote if suggested by another. The truth was, that such a suspicion was founded upon exaggeration: he then proceeded to refer to the question, whether in fact the out-vote, when procured, was worth the expence at which it was necessarily obtained; but whichever way it was directed, it could not counterbalance the attainment of a great ultimate advantage. There was another much more serious grievance, existing by custom, and not by the constitution, originating in the electors, viz.—that the represented had no opportunity of looking round and selecting the representative who they thought would be most likely to guard and maintain their interests. It was not necessary for him to state any instances of this kind, since every general election supplied them; there were many cases likewise where, whole families had been reduced to poverty by vain attempts to obtain a seat in parliament which the ancestor had held, and to which ancestor the House was frequently indebted for much of its present consequence and dignity. It was impossible, as the House would see, to open the doors of parliament to some individuals, without excluding others; but those who would be 380 principally shut out by his Bill would be those to whom parliament was generally least indebted. He did not wish to retain those individuals, who, to use a trivial phrase, might be said to form the ready money interest of the country, who by means of their influence, or by the length of their purses, procured seats in the House. The hon. member then, in an almost inaudible voice, directed the attention of the House to the former statute made upon this subject, and to the previous resolution of parliament, that no elector for his expences should be allowed more than the sum of 10l. This resolution had been always evaded, and the result was the passing of the Act he had referred to. If terms were ever unequivocal, those employed in that statute must be so considered: the title was "An Act to prevent charge and expence in the Election of Members of Parliament," nearly similar to that which he had adopted. It was there stated as fully and clearly as possible, that the payment of any part of the expences of any elector shall be unlawful; and it was utterly impossible that in such a Bill exceptions should be included which would defeat the very object that the measure had in view. In the year 1783, when lord Mahon presented a Bill containing the same or similar provisions, it was rejected, chiefly on the authority of lord Mansfield; and that great authority opposed it solely on the ground, that the law, as it then stood, without this addition, was adequate to the purpose. So confirmed was he in this opinion, that he objected to a clause proposed respecting the mere conveyance of the voters, because he said it might lead to endless corruption. This decision was strengthened by the opinion of lord chief justice Eyre, in a case which he decided upon this important subject. The same judgment had been given by eminent lawyers wherever the question was brought before them, but the determinations of committees of the House had not been conformable to it. The first committee before whom the point was in issue, was in the case of the Worcester Election in 1775; where it was decided, that to pay a reasonable sum for the expences of out-voters was not bribery. The next cause was that of Mr. Cater; where it was contended, that the most palpable bribery had been committed, under colour of defraying needful charges. Another case still stronger, was that of Barnstaple. The consequence of this dis- 381 crepancy was, that an opinion now generally prevailed, though directly in the teeth of the positive enactment, that the payment of expences was legal. This notation had been acted upon at every general election; and as it was possible that many elections might take place before a court of law could decide again upon the point, it was fit that an enactment should pass the House of Commons, to set the subject in a distinct and indubitable point of view. This sentiment had been entertained by many persons who had at previous times taken in hand this subject: lord Mahon, who, in consequence of it, brought in his Bill in 1783, carried it through the lower House. The next attempt to regulate and restrict this practice, was made by an hon. friend of his, in 1807, in whose hands he wished the present measure; but that was a declaratory measure, while the one he (Mr. Douglas) suggested was an enacting Bill: his friend's plan extended to counties as well as to boroughs; yet, in considering this question, although he (Mr. D.) deemed it equally illegal to pay the expences of voters at county elections, if it could be avoided, yet several reasons had induced him not to include that subject in the measure he now proposed. He did not think himself justified in interfering with the rights of freeholders who might be resident on their estates in distant parts of the county, and who had besides such sort of establishment there, as generally not to be influenced so much by corrupt motives. Having thus endeavoured to prove the policy and necessity of this measure, he should say, little more than to express his surprise how it was possible that many individuals, who were inclined to support the Acts against treating, could disapprove, as he had heard they did, of the Bill he wished to introduce. The other statutes were passed to prevent charges upon the member, and influence upon the voter; and why should they not second this attempt to reader them more effectual? Did they imagine that this new law would infringe the privileges of electors? but, however sacred they might hold them, they could not allow those privileges, falsely so called, to destroy and corrupt the great sources of the liberty of the nation. Do they think that the representation would be more free and unbiassed by the payment of the electors? if so, they ought to be the enemies to all kinds of restrictions on bribery. This measure only 382 carried a little further a principle which had been often recognized. When his Bill should be before the House, and the provisions were known and duly appreciated, he did not despair of the support even of the decided enemies of the treating Acts. The great object he proposed to himself was, the removal of the uncertainty that at present existed—and certainty being the main end of all civil policy, he should feel it his duty, if he was defeated in this attempt, to follow the victorious steps of some distinguished leader, who, rather than leave the subject dubious and vague, as at present, would bring in a Bill to declare the payment of expences to out-voters necessary and legal. He concluded by moving for permission to bring in a Bill, for the more effectually preventing charge and expence in the elections of members to serve in parliament.