BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. (Hansard, 14 June 1837)

§ Mr. A. Trevor
protested against the cruel provisions which the Bill contained, one of the penalties for an Act of bribery was, that the individual proved to have been guilty of it should for ever after be deemed unfit to hold any civil office. That punishment far exceeded the amount of guilt. He believed that bribery would continue to exist as long as Parliaments existed in England, and the constituencies remained in their present state. That splendid measure—the Reform Bill—had opened wide the door to bribery. He thought so, because it had introduced to the enjoyment of the franchise a great number of persons whose circumstances laid them open to temptation. The Bill was very unjust, and he should therefore move, that it be read a second time that day six months.

§ Colonel Sibthorp
seconded the amendment. He wished to know why the proposer of this Bill had not brought in one which should tell directly against the practice of the hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Treasury benches, for they were guilty of the most bare-faced bribery. He repeated the words "barefaced bribery;" and he was not aware that he was out of order in using them, or guilty of any disrespect to those hon. Gentlemen. They must have faces of brass if they could deny what he said. There was an old saying—"A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse." That might suffice, but he would ask, whether it was not customary for the hon. Gentlemen opposite, during the elections, to send down to Woolwich and other dockyards, and to adopt a system which might be described in the homely, though appropriate, language—"Scratch me, and I'll scratch you." He should wish to hear bribery properly defined. He was in the habit of giving coals to the poor amongst his constituency, and never passed the sick chamber of a man who had voted for him without leaving some relief, and he thought it would be a hardship if this subjected him to the imputation of bribery.

§ Mr. Baines
, far from agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Durham, only objected to the Bill, not because it went too far, but because it did not go far enough. There was no provision in it against the payment of 1459 head-money, which in his opinion was a gross offence against the law and constitution.

§ Mr. Hardy
was regardless of the insinuation thrown out against him by the hon. Member for Leeds, for he considered there was as much difference between bribery and head-money as between it and the Greek loan. Head-money was paid by each candidate immediately after the election; it was an old custom to pay two guineas to every voter, and if the hon. Member for Leeds would refer to the hon. Member for Pontefract, he would discover that the practice still existed. It did not at all affect the election, as the money would be paid if there was no opposition; then every elector would receive two guineas from the Member, whereas in a contest each candidate would only pay his immediate supporters.