BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. (Hansard, 13 July 1848)

§ LORD J. RUSSELL

rose and said: I rise with the view of stating the course which I propose to take with respect to the two Bills which stand first on the Orders, viz., the Borough Elections (No. 2) Bill, and the Horsham Borough Bill. What I propose to do, in the first place, is to discharge the orders for these two Bills, and to state the outline of the measure I intend to propose in their place. I have endeavoured in this measure to avoid some of the objections which were stated to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for the Flint boroughs (Sir J. Hanmer); but, certainly, I cannot hope that I have succeeded in obviating all of them. The House is aware, that in the Act of Parliament which I had the honour of carrying in August, 184:2, entitled "An Act for the Better Discovery and Prevention of Bribery and Treating at the Election of 471 Members of Parliament," it is provided that in all cases where charges of bribery shall have been abandoned, or where there is any suspicion entertained of a compromise having taken place among the parties, or where any other charge of bribery shall have been made, whether in support of the original petition or by way of recrimination, the Election Committee shall have power to examine into the circumstances, and report whether further investigation is needed. If the Committee shall recommend further inquiry, the House shall then instruct them to consider what were the grounds for abandoning such charges, and to prosecute the matter further. I have now to state the general alterations in that law which I propose to introduce. I propose to extend the provision just alluded to, and to provide that in all cases where charges of bribery and corrupt practices are made—whether in the original petition or by way of recrimination—the Election Committee shall proceed to investigate such charges; and if they shall find, as is frequently the case, that the parties do not proceed to bring forward evidence of such charges so as to enable them fully to investigate the case, they shall have power to proceed to report to the House that in their opinion further investigation is needed with respect to the corrupt practices, in order to ascertain whether such corrupt practices have extensively prevailed; they shall also report further their opinion whether such inquiry should be made by the same Committee, or whether it should be made on the spot by Commissioners appointed under the Act. In case they shall recommend that the same Committee should investigate the charges, the Committee shall reassemble within fourteen days, according to the powers given them in the Act of the 5th and 6th Victoria, cap. 102, in the same way as if the charges of bribery had been abandoned, or there was reason to suppose that a compromise had taken place. In that case also the Speaker shall appoint an agent to conduct the investigation before a Committee. Supposing the Committee should take the other course, and recommend that the inquiry should be made by the Commissioners upon the spot, then the Speaker shall notify to the senior Judge of assize going the circuit, who has authority to appoint revising barristers, that the House of Commons have determined that an inquiry shall be made into the corrupt practices in 472 such a borough, within such a county or district, and that he shall nominate two barristers—not Members of Parliament—to investigate the matter. I propose to refer the appointment of these Commissioners to a Judge of assize, because it would then be impossible to say that there were any political motives in making the appointment, and because all suspicion would thus be avoided, by placing such appointments in his hands. These Commissioners shall then, within a certain time, investigate on the spot all the circumstances relating to the charges of bribery and corrupt practices, and report to the House whether the bribery and corrupt practices were casual or general in the said borough. Having made that general provision, whereby bribery and corrupt practices will be investigated in future, I propose to apply the principle of the Bill to those boroughs concerning which inquiries have already taken place before Election Committees, and the Members of which had been unseated in consequence of evidence of corrupt practices having been given. This has occurred at least in one case (that of the borough of Leicester), if not in more. The House will have to decide whether new writs should be issued with respect to those cases, or whether they should be suspended with a view to make further inquiry before such writs issue. In some eases, it is true, the writs have already been granted, but in others they have not. It seemed to me that the general impression of the House, in respect to most of those cases, was that some further inquiry should be made. The principle upon which I proceed is this: assuming that such a Bill as that of which I have just stated the outlines had been in force, in that case the Election Committee would have reported whether any further investigation was required; and if, upon their statement, it appeared that further investigation was required, you then would have proceeded under the powers of the Election Act to appoint a Select Committee, or Commissioners, according as the one or the other should be adopted by the House, to carry on the investigation. What I think to be defective in the Act of 1842 is, that the Committees have been necessarily obliged (with the exception of the case of Leicester) to stop short in their inquiries, and had not the power to proceed with a view to ascertain, in such a manner as would enable them to state it in their report, whether the cases required to 473 be further investigated—whether, in fact, bribery and corruption had been practised in a few instances only, or whether those practices had been general and extensive. This defect will be remedied by the Bill which I propose to introduce. I likewise intend to introduce a clause giving indemnity in certain cases to witnesses examined before such Committees or such Commissioners; also providing that such witnesses shall not be called upon in any penal or criminal proceeding. It has always appeared to me necessary to give an indemnity of some kind to witnesses in cases of bribery and corruption, although I know that many eminent lawyers, Members of this House some five or six years ago, whom I consulted upon the subject, were of opinion that it would be far better to repeal all the laws which fixed any penalties on parties guilty of acts of bribery, and leave such parties subject only to the punishment of the loss of their votes, or of their seats in this House. They were of opinion that that course would be much better than giving an indemnity to witnesses, and continuing the present state of the law. I did not, however, at that time concur in that opinion, although it was given on very high authority by eminent lawyers on both sides of the House. I did not think it advisable to proceed so far as to repeal all penalties on parties guilty of bribery and corrupt practices at elections. I believe that if we were to do so, it would lead to great misapprehension, and, although it may be more efficient in the end, yet I think in the first instance it would occasion a great increase in the practice of those offences. I now beg to move— That the Orders of the Dar respecting the Borough Elections (No. 2) Bill, and the Horsham Borough Bill, be discharged, and that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the purpose of instituting Inquiries as to the existence of Bribery and Corrupt Practices in certain Boroughs, and also for the Prevention of Bribery and Corruption at the Election of Members of Parliament.