Lord John Russellrose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice. It would be of no use, he was aware, during the present Session of Parliament, but he would move it as a notice of his intention the next Session of Parliament. His Lordship accordingly moved the following Resolution:—"That all persons who will question any future return of Members to serve in Parliament, upon any allegation of bribery or corruption, and who shall, in their petition, specifically allege any payment of money or other reward to have been made by any Member, or on his account, or with his privity, since the time of such Return, in pursuance or in furtherance of such bribery or corruption, may question the same at any time within twenty-eight days after the date of such payment; or if this House be not sitting at the expiration of the said twenty-eight days, then within fourteen days after the day when the House shall next meet."
§ Sir Charles Wetherelladmitted that the object proposed by the noble Lord was a fair one as the subject of an experiment, but he doubted its success. As the proposition 1291 was of so wide a nature, he should certainly enter more into it in the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, the distribution of money in the way of bribe, long after the election took place, was more common than some supposed. He recollected seeing public advertisements calling on electors to attend and receive 5l. or 10l. for their votes. He approved of the course pursued by the noble Lord, though he did not think he went far enough. With respect to election petitions, it would be better in future if Committees reported that there was or was not probable ground, in place of the usual mode of finding not frivolous or vexatious. He could see no real difficulty in what was urged upon a former occasion by his hon. and learned friend (Sir Charles Wetherell) respecting acts done merely. A Committee would of course declare such grounds of petition vexatious.
§ Colonel Sibthorpwished to know what the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) meant precisely by the word "reward." Were Members, on account of some act of charity, to remain from one election to another, for six whole years or more, with a charge of bribery hanging over them.
Lord John Russellsaid, this Resolution would apply only to future elections. He thought it right that Members should be in some degree protected from vexatious petitions, by the difficulty and expense of disturbing the return. It was desirable, at the same time, to open the House as widely as possible to complaints. He thought the Resolution might render voters less liable to accept bribes, seeing that the distribution might be so long deferred. He feared, however, that charging the unsuccessful petitioners with costs might produce a disinclination to petition.
§ Mr. Hudson Gurneyfeared that when these two Bills were passed they would have the effect of inundating the House with petitions. It would be better to bring in a Bill defining accurately what bribery was. All they could hope in the present state of human nature was to prevent gross bribery.
§ Resolution agreed to.