§ Sir George Greyrose to move for the Committee, of which he had given notice, to inquire into the most effectual method to put a stop to Bribery at Elections. It was not, he observed, necessary for him at that hour, to go into details as to the object of his Motion. It was well known, that there still existed in many boroughs a disposition to bribery, and it was necessary for the character of the House, that they should take an early opportunity of passing a Bill to prevent. corrupt practices as much as possible. The hon. Baronet, after adverting to the history of the Bills which had been introduced on this subject in the last four years, and to their not having been successful, observed, that he could not hope for the success of any measure introduced on the subject, until it had been submitted to the consideration of those who had attended to the question. He regretted, that in the last three or four years, they had made no progress in any measure for the prevention of bribery; but he was glad to have heard in the previous discussion a suggestion thrown out and receive the almost general concurrence of the House, of a measure which would go far to strike at the root of the evil—he meant the limiting the polling at elections to one day instead of two. That, he thought, would be going far to correct the evil. The other branch of election matters, to which the Motion was directed, was the subject of intimidation, with respect to which there were no statutes applying a punishment save and except in cases where riots should actually ensue; but, for intimidation during and previous to the poll, the House possessed no power to interfere, or punish the offenders. Now, it would hardly be denied when the occurrence of numerous cases of intimidation of various kinds was not to be questioned, after the experience of the last and previous Sessions, that it was the duty of the House to provide some remedy which, if it might not succeed in preventing the mischiefs which arose, 874 might, at least, lessen the evils arising from such a system. It ought to be made equally criminal to have recourse to threats and menaces to prevent the conscientious exercise of the elective franchise, as to have recourse to bribery, and these or the exhibition of placards or emblems, threatening personal violence, affecting the return of a Member, ought to be restrained by punishment. It was the duty of the House, or of such a Committee as that for which he now moved, to inquire and investigate whether or not it would not be advisable to enable an Election Committee to deal with a specific case of this kind, when submitted to it. Another species of intimidation, perhaps less flagrant than the previous classes to which he had alluded, though not in his judgment less criminal, because it was calculated to withdraw men from the independent exercise of a right—nay, he would say a duty they owed to their country—was the intimidation exercised in some cases, he would assert to a great extent, by persons of property, and by individuals holding official situations. To these instances the attention of the Committee would, of course, be directed with a view to their remedy. On that Committee it was his intention, that the friends of the Vote by Ballot should be represented, and he therefore thought it would ill-become those who advocated the introduction of that measure, as a means of prevention of these evils, to oppose the appointment of this Committee—a Committee, one of the objects of which would also be to provide a remedy for the intimidation practised by persons of influence over those who derived their daily sustenance from them, and who occupied their tenements. He should be glad to see some mode to cure these evils, and to check intimidation adopted, before recourse was had to the Ballot. If the efforts of the Committee should prove ineffectual in this respect, then at least the advocates of the Ballot would acquire considerable strength in that House. He only hoped those Gentlemen would enter upon the Committee without prejudging the question. The evils which he pointed out tended to demoralize the country, and to render the franchise rather a curse than a blessing, and no greater benefit could be conferred on the country than their removal. It might be said, that though there were no laws calculated to check intimidation, yet Resolutions had been 875 passed, and still remained in force for that object; but he must remind the House, that those Resolutions were valueless, because scarcely any case could be brought forward, by which the return secured by intimidation could be effected. With regard to the evidence to be taken before the Committee for the appointment of which it was his intention to move, he should guard himself against the possibility of prejudging any case to be submitted to any Election Committee shortly to be appointed, by not entering at all upon those cases, so that parties, who were likely to be put upon their defence in a short time would not be affected. A benefit, however, would arise from now appointing the Committee—namely, that sitting with the Election Committees, it would be able to call before it the agents attending thereon, and then in town, who, doubtless, would be able to communicate facts, from which much information, and no evil to individuals would arise—he meant important general facts, from which the extent of the evils of which there existed such just grounds of complaint, could be ascertained. He need not detain the House at this late hour further, as he understood the Motion would not be opposed; he should therefore conclude, by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the most effectual means of preventing bribery, corruption, and intimidation in the election of Members to serve in Parliament.
§ Mr. Hardysaid, that though he had given notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill on this subject; yet he rejoiced the onerous and irksome duty of providing a remedy for the evils so justly matter of complaint and reproach, had been taken upon himself by the hon. Baronet opposite, and the Committee which he sought to have appointed. He (Mr. Hardy) thought, however, that this Committee could not, even after a long investigation, come to any other conclusion than the Committee which had been appointed on his (Mr. Hardy's) Motion last Session, and to which the right hon. Gentleman now in the Chair had afforded his valuable assistance. With respect to treating, the Committee must not confine the criminality of that offence to a particular period after the issuing of the Writ, and between that period and the time of the Return, as was now the law, but must rather consi- 876 der and provide for the animus with which the treating was given. The great mischief had been (and it was the reason why treating had attained its present height), that by Election Committees, the seat of the Member was regarded as sacred, and regarded as a sort of "taboo," which in the South Sea Islands was not to be touched. Let the seat, however, be easily affected, and an end would speedily be put to bribery, treating, and other means of corruption.
§ Sir Edward Codringtonmost cordially seconded the proposition of his hon. colleague. From what he had lately witnessed, he was convinced not only that such an inquiry was necessary, but that from it the greatest possible good would arise.
Mr. O'Connellconcurred in the objects of the present Motion, and particularly in that portion which referred to the subject of intimidation. He thought it should be at once fully understood, whether or not this House considered that a tenant's vote was his landlord's property, and whether or not the franchise given to an individual for his benefit ought to become, as it were, a portion of his landlord's rent, and if it were not so, that the House would visit as delinquents, those who used other men's consciences for their own purposes. He trusted the investigation would be followed up, and the matter sifted to the bottom, because a protection should be thrown round those unfortunate tenants who were by intimidation ground down by those possessing authority over them. He had seen a man come up conscientiously to record his vote, when his landlord took an oath, that if he voted in a particular way he would not only refuse to renew the tenant's lease, of which only seven years had to run, but he (the landlord) would also secure the property, that after his death his son should not have the power of renewing the lease to that individual. The worst of the evil was, that the men who used this species of intimidation were the first when an appeal was made to public sentiment and public duty, when a voice was raised to appeal to public opinion, to calumniate those who took any means to bring public opinion to bear upon each individual case. He was glad that a Committee was to be appointed, but he thought eventually it would be found that the Ballot was the only remedy to check the evils which were now complained of.
§ Sir John Campbellsaid, that he had seen so much of intimidation practised, that great as was his reluctance to the adoption of the Ballot, he was afraid, that unless some means were devised to make intimidation inefficient for its object, the Ballot would become actually necessary. If so, he should ever consider it a necessary evil. The franchise he should always hope to see exercised boldly in the face of the whole community, and every Englishman, Irishman, and Scotchman, ought to have the means of so exercising it without any apprehensions whatever. If a punishment could be secured for parties guilty of such practices, the Committee would confer a lasting benefit upon the country. Should they, however, fail in their means of prevention, then to the Ballot he should be obliged to yield.
§ Mr. Robert Steuart,as a Scotch Member, and having witnessed much of intimidation at the recent elections in that country, felt bound to give his support to the Motion. Unless some means were devised to check this evil, the Ballot would be the only resource to which the elective portion of the community could resort in order truly to express their opinions and sentiments. He trusted some plan would be effected by which the tenantry would be left to the free exercise of their votes, and he had no hesitation in saying, that if such protection had now existed, very different results would have been obtained in Scotland in some cases from those which the last fortnight of the elections there had produced.
Mr. Forbessaid, that he implied from the last observation, something like an expression against the landlords of Scotland. Of that body, so far as he was acquainted with them, and from all he had seen, he must say, that they behaved well during the late contests. He however felt obliged to the hon. Baronet opposite for submitting this Motion to the consideration of the House.
§ Mr. Robert Steuartsaid, that in anything he had said, he did not mean to apply it to the hon. Member for the county of Stirling.
§ Mr. Sheilsaid, that two instances of intimidation of a different kind had come under his observation during his contest for the county of Tipperary, in 1830. He had applied to a man of the name of Brian for his vote, but on learning that by doing so he would incur the displeasure of 878 his landlord, he desired him not so to dispose of it. The man voted against him accordingly, but on his way home he was waylaid, beaten, thrown into a bog, and left for dead. The other instance was that of a man named M'Donnell, who came to him of his own accord, and promised his vote. He (Mr. Sheil) told M'Donnell, that he understood, as to voting for him, his landlord was adverse to his doing so, and entreated him not to vote. M'Donnell, however, voted in his favour, was subsequently ejected from his farm, turned into the public streets, and with his family was now starving in the town of Dundalk. These instances showed, in the one, intimidation on the part of the people, and in the other, intimidation on the part of the landlord, and he would ask the hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey), how he could prevent this, except by the adoption of the Vote by Ballot.
§ Mr. Groteexpressed his satisfaction at the present Motion. Though he entertained strong opinions upon the efficiency and necessity of the Ballot as a means of protection, yet he should go into the Committee with the fullest disposition to entertain any other means which the sagacity of other hon. Gentlemen might suggest, and should be ready to adopt any efficient remedy they might propose. He hoped, however, that Gentlemen who entertained preconceived opinions unfavourable to the Ballot would, if they found the remedies proposed to check these great and grievous evils inefficient, follow the example of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, and get over any scruples and objections to the Ballot which they might have previously entertained.
§ Mr. O'Dwyermentioned a case of intimidation, in which the landlord seized the book immediately after it had passed from the lips of a tenant who voted contrary to his will, and swore by the contents of that book, to turn him out of his land the first opportunity. He stated another case, in which a landlord, who was a Member of that House, gave notice, that any tenant or dependant of his, who voted against his friend, should be instantly turned from the land. One of his dependants, however, greatly to his credit, said to him, "Sir, your conduct is so unconstitutional, so tyrannical, and so ungentlemanlike, that you shall never have my vote."
§ Mr. Anthony Lefroyhoped the Com- 879 mittee would be able to put an end to that system of intimidation which had led to so much disturbance. He could, if it were necessary, produce instances in which landlords had told their tenants, that they might exercise their franchise as they liked, and the tenants said, they were desirous to exercise them according to the wishes of their landlords, but that they could not do so except at the risk of their lives. He expressed his fervent hope, that the hon. Baronet, and the Committee, would be the means of procuring for the people of Ireland the free exercise of their opinions, and they would thus confer one of the greatest benefits that could be bestowed upon that country.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that nothing could be better than the Motion now before the House. A more important constitutional step had never been taken by the House than the appointment of a Select Committee under the care and superintendence of his hon. and learned Friend. This Committee went to establish a new and distinct principle; and all who had one common object in view must concur in the propriety of it, whether they were friends of the Ballot, like his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, or whether they had, like him (Mr. Spring Rice), considerable doubts on that subject,—whether they supported the Ballot in order to prevent intimidation, as his hon. Friend did, or whether they agreed with him (Mr. Spring Rice) in wishing to see intimidation prevented by some other means, because they doubted that the Ballot would be effectual.
The Motion was agreed to, and the Committee appointed.