EXPENSES OF ELECTIONS BILL. (Hansard, 6 July 1853)

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he always had opposed Bills of this description, and he always would, as he considered them Bills of pains and penalties. He did not wish to say anything offensive to any hon. Member, bat he did not think he was using too strong expressions, when he said it was a mean, dirty, shabby, disgraceful Bill. It was a Bill to degrade both the candidate and electors. He had had twenty-five years' experience in that House, and he did not think the Members were so good as they used to be. What they might turn out, time only would show; but he thought it was impossible for them to get worse. By this Bill, a candidate might come down to a constituency—say to the city of Lincoln —and make the constituency the finest professions in the world; but fair words, they all knew, buttered no parsnips; hut, as to giving them even a glass of brandy and water, he would cloke himself under this Bill, when, perhaps, the real fact was, that he had not a shilling in his pocket. Then, they were told, there were to be no 1326 flags at the hustings, and no band, and no ringing of bells. He wondered if the town crier was to be prohibited from using his bell to cry a sale of fish, or whether they meant to stop the dinner bell. He was told that this Bill was brought in by two Members, one of whom was a Liberal, and one a Conservative; but he did not like it the better on that account. It was stated that this Bill was intended to save expenses; but, for his part, he would enact that no man should be allowed to sit in the House who did not pay his election bills, or who did not treat the electors, whose favour he courted, with the common feelings of humanity. Why, such a state of things would be contemptible to the British House of Parliament and the country. He protested against being prohibited in treating his constituents with that hospitality which they deserved; and any man who was mean enough to shrink from the exercise of such hospitality, did not deserve a seat in that House, or in any Christian assembly. He had exercised (he thanked God) those hospitalities, and, in the face of the British House of Commons, he declared his intention, as long as he lived, to continue those hospitalities, in spite of their fanciful fears of bribery or corruption. He would be ever willing to lend a helping hand to a fellow-creature, even at the risk of Being turned oat of that House; and if it did so happen that he was turned out for this practice, he would consider such a proceeding an honour rather than a disgrace. He protested against such trash and trumpery as this Bill was composed of—such a gross violation of the common feelings of humanity towards their fellow-creatures. It was his intention to oppose this measure in every stage; he should now move that Mr. Speaker do not leave the Chair until this day three months [Laughter.] He did not mean to impose any long severe duty upon Mr. Speaker, and would amend his proposition, that the Bill be committed this day three months.

§ MR. BARROW
seconded the Amendment. He never saw so absurd a piece of legislation. Was he to be liable to penalties if any person held a flag out of a window? The imprudence of an accidental voter, over whom he had no control, might deprive him of the great civil right of sitting in that House as the choice of free-and independent electors, and all because some Gentlemen wished to button their pockets closer than they did now. The 1327 House had to consider whether they would disfranchise not only the Member but the constituencies, who might be deprived of a Member whom they wished to represent them, by the imprudent act of any person not an authorised agent of the candidate.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he thought that this measure would prevent much mischief, and do much good, and he regretted that the objections of the hon. Members who had moved and seconded the Amendment had not been made on the second reading of the Bill. It was a well-known fact that a system of great disorder and treating was carried on at elections, by means of different bands going about in support of the different candidates, and meeting at the different public-houses. He believed that there was nothing which occasioned more bribery than the employment of flags and bands of music. It was true the persons so employed were not voters, but then they were all the connexions of voters, and they afforded the pretext for running up large bills at public-houses, where voters were treated ostensibly by these parties. At the last election for Cirencester he determined to employ neither flags nor bands, and he sent a letter announcing his intention to the candidates on the other side. He expected they would have followed his example; but on the day of the nomination two or three bands entered the town, and paraded the streets, in the interest of the popular candidates; while seventeen or eighteen flags and banners were waved in the faces of all who were on the opposite side. The bill for one of these bands amounted to 28l. For himself, he had not paid a shilling, except upon the legitimate expenses of the election, which amounted in all to 95l. He. The returning officer called upon him to name twenty special constables, but he refused to do so, thinking it was the duty of the returning officer to keep the peace of the town. The consequence was, that while the other candidates named their special constables, the returning officer named twenty for him, and those twenty obstructed his voters more than all the rest of the people. There was an item of 25l. charged against him for the hustings, and another item for refreshment for the police. The total amount 1328 of this bill was 104l. 15s. In a second bill he was charged for the expenses of the returning officer; for the steward, and bailiff, for stationery, poll-books, &c, amounting in the whole to 73l. 1s. 11d. In a third bill he was charged for the indenture of return, for the return of the precept, and for the sheriff's fees, &c, amounting altogether to 220l. Now, he resisted the payment for the special constables, and the result was that his wife and children could not walk the streets with perfect safety, as the police were unwilling to protect them. Indeed, in consequence of those proceedings, he was determined to retire from the town to a place some miles distant. If this system were persevered in, he would certainly make his bow to the electors altogether, and retire from public life. He had modelled his Bill from the Irish Statutes, where the provisions of his Bill were for some years the law of that country. He therefore hoped that they would be permitted to go into Committee.

§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, he concurred with the hon. Member for Cirencester in the desire—in which the House had shown by its proceedings that it participated—to put down bribery and intimidation. But that House ought so to legislate as to carry with it public opinion. He invited consideration to the Bill as it stood, and to the animus in which it had been drawn up. The hon. Gentleman would be himself the first to confess that it had been drawn up under feelings of rather a peculiar nature. It was, indeed, drawn up in a spirit of great exaggeration. Of two parties, one might adopt an oak leaf, the other a laurel leaf, as symbols of distinction; but if a candidate "knowingly allowed to be borne any banners, flags, symbols," or if he passed them by without making any objection, he would lose his seat by the Bill, and could not be returned for the same borough during the existing Parliament. Those exaggerations did a great deal of harm, prevented the accomplishment of the object which it was desired to promote, and turned the feelings of the people against the legislation of that House. By attempting to enforce such rules, restrictions, and limitations as those to which he had alluded, the House would turn public feeling against them; and, holding such opinions, he should vote against going into Committee on the Bill.

§ MR. ELLIOT
said, he thought the wording of the first clause was extremely ob- 1329 jectionable. According to the third clause, if a drunken or stupid elector, coming in from the country to vote, was met by a man who placed a riband in his buttonhole, that voter was liable to the penalty of 10l., which might be recoverable from him by the very man who had induced him to wear the riband, or by any other person. Surely this was a most monstrous provision. Further, he (Mr. Elliot) could not for his part see upon what principle of the liberty of the subject a man should be prevented from playing a fiddle, or a flute, or any other instrument he pleased, in the street on the day of election the same as any other day, provided he was not paid or employed by any other person so to do. Upon these grounds, then, if such a provision were to form part of this Bill at all, he should propose that, instead of 10l., the penalty should be altered to 10s., and that the amount should be applied to the benefit of the poor. Should that alteration not be adopted, he would vote with the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) against Mr. Speaker leaving the chair.

MR. GREENE
said, that the observations they had just been listening to were more fitted for consideration in Committee than now, and that the most advisable course would be to reserve them until they came to discuss the details of the Bill.

MR. H. BERKELEY
said, he concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member (Mr, Greene.) As regarded the principle of the Bill, however, he thought the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) was entitled to much credit for having brought forward a measure which existing practices rendered so necessary. The hon. Gentleman had been charged with making exaggerated statements to the House; but he (Mr. Berkeley) could bear his testimony, and so could many other hon. Members, to the fact that his statements were under rather than over the mark. He himself represented a large constituency, and the scenes of violence which occurred between the two rival parties at elections there, with their display of party emblems, and their bands of music, were perfectly disgraceful to a civilised community. The Bill might not be complete in all its details; that, however, might be remedied in Committee; but to the principle of the measure he could not believe that any hon. Member would offer an objection.

§ MR. MICHELL
complained of the Bill 1330 as being imperfect, on account of its not containing a clause against the hiring of mobs for the intimidation of electors.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he had as great and wholesome a horror of bribery and corruption as any Member in that House; and in the opposition he was about to offer to many of the provisions of the Bill, he was not prompted by any anxiety for his own seat, but rather by the desire to enable the constituencies of the country to be represented in the House of Commons by the men whom they wished to honour with their confidence. But he must contend, that the punishment provided by this clause—namely, disqualification for a seat in that House, was a criminal punishment; and he denied that any man ought to be so punished until the criminal act had been proved to be committed by his order and direction. What he now proposed to do, therefore, was to omit certain words from the clause, for the purpose of limiting the responsibility of the candidate to the acts which were done by himself. The words which he proposed should be omitted, were—"by himself or by his agent, or by or with any person, in any manner directly or indirectly."

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he must object to the omission. They were taken from the Bribery Act.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he was of opinion that the acts referred to on the clause ought to be shown to have been committed by the direct authority of the candidate, and that it was not right to subject him to penalties of such a severe nature for the unauthorised act of a too zealous partisan.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he did not understand why the words "agents directly or indirectly" should be struck out, hut he was in favour of the omission of the other words.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he must repeat that the objection which he entertained to the clause was the criminal punishment — for criminal he maintained it was, which could be inflicted by it. It was not right that any man should be subjected to such a punishment for the act of an agent, without proof that it was committed by the 1331 order and authority of the principal; and he entertained a stronger objection when he considered the loose manner in which agency was sometimes established.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he had so strong an objection to the measure altogether, that no Amendment could in the least reconcile him to it. The words proposed to be left out might be the words employed in the Bribery Act, but the clause would not the less infringe upon the rights and liberties of the people. His maxim was, let every man do what he liked with his own. If other people did not like to spend their money, it was nothing to him; but he objected to be interfered with in spending his. "Let the galled jade wince, his withers were unwrung."

MR. MASTERS SMITH
said, he believed the Bill would be entirely inoperative. If a measure were passed upon the subject, let it at all events be one of a good and efficient character—not such a one as this, to which he must say he was surprised to see attached the name of a Gentleman remarkable for his business habits and intelligence. If the Committee divided, he should certainly rote for the Amendment.

§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, he did not think the Bill would accomplish the object its promoters had in view; but he deprecated the discussion of the principle of the measure upon this clause.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, that as the clause was at present worded, if any gentleman accepted an invitation to a dinner in the borough for which it was intended that at some future time he should come forward as a candidate, the fact of his having done so might hereafter be brought against him, and disqualify him from sitting in that House.

§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, he would suggest that the clause should define some period—say a certain number of days before the election took place.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, that music was very often played, and bells rung too, at elections., and no harm done. But because that model of purity, the city of Bristol, got into scrapes, he did not see why other boroughs and cities should be wisited with the consequences.

SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he would be glad to know how far the prohibition against bellringing was to extend? As he read it, if he happened to go down to see his constituents at any time, and they rang the bells, as they were apt to do, that very 1332 circumstance might deprive him of his seat in that House.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
Ringing parish bells! Well, I believe parish bells do often ring, and I hope will long continue to ring. The ringing of bells can do no harm. On the contrary, I think it is rather cheering in every sense of the word. Respect is shown to the candidate or representative. The ringers are paid for their trouble, and they have a chance of enjoying themselves in a manner which but for that they would not have had.

§ MR. R. PHILLIMORE
It was competent to the clergyman at any time to refuse the use of the parish bells; and, in spite of what the hon. and gallant Colonel said, he thought that in any borough where a fierce party spirit prevailed, the clergyman would be exercising a wise discretion if he refused to allow the bells to be rung on either side.

MR. GREENE
said he must contend that the clergyman ought to be relieved from the responsibility of preventing the ringing of bells. Parties might break open the belfry, and ring against his wish. Indeed, he understood this had been the case at some contested elections.

§ VISCOUNT GODERICH
said, he would mention that in one instance which had come under his notice, where the clergyman had refused permission for the bells to be rung, the ringers had struck and refused to ring on the following Sunday.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he considered the penalties inflicted by the measure far too severe. It was hard that a constituency should on account of a slight indiscretion be prevented from returning to Parliament the man of their own free choice.

§ VISCOUNT DRUMLANRIG
considered that the loss of his seat was the only proper penalty which could be imposed on a candidate placing himself within the operation of the measure.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought that legislation in this direction had been satisfactory in its results. It bad been the practice to distribute ribands at elections, but that had now been done away with. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, according to his experience, the practice had ceased.

§ MR. PHINN
said, he did not consider it fair to subject a candidate for a trifling imprudence to the same penalties as for bribery and corruption.

§ MR. HENLEY
was of opinion that the loss of a seat would not be too severe a penalty, but he did not think it ought to 1333 be carried further. He would move as an Amendment, to leave out the words after the word "shall" to the end of the clause, and insert the words "be deemed not duly elected, and his election void."

§ VISCOUNT DRUMLANRIG
would suggest that the effect of the Amendment might be, that if there were two candidates, and one of them was declared not duly elected on account of one of the transactions specified in the clause, the other might be declared elected.

MR. HEADLAM
said, he considered that such would not be the case.

§ MR. MULLINGS
considered that the loss of the seat was the fitting penalty. A pecuniary fine would not be felt by a rich man, while the loss of a seat would.

§ MR. BECKETT DENISON
said that it ought to be clearly stated whether the contingency to which the noble Lord the Member for Dumfriesshire, (Viscount Dumlanrig) had referred, could possibly concur.

§ MR. MULLINGS
was of opinion that it could not.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he could only denounce this clause as most unmanly. If a lady should wave a blue, pink, or red handkerchief from a window, she would be fined 50l. An election was worth nothing without the ladies. Could men be found to vote for such a clause as this?

MR. VERNON SMITH
thought the clause as it stood would have the effect of putting a stop to all musical performances in Westminster during an election. The Bill was "most unmusical, most melancholy" as it was; but if this clause were not altered, it would render an election time doleful indeed. Under the clause as it stood, the ringing of bells on the occasion of a marriage, or the hiring of music for a theatre, if at the period of an election, might be brought under the penalties of this Bill.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he held that the words clearly applied to the purposes of the election.

MR. VERNON SMITH
rejoined that he should be satisfied if the words "for the objects of such election" were introduced.

§ MR. VANCE
urged that before they passed this clause they should define what an "agent" was. In Election Committees they carried the meaning of the word "agency" a great deal too far, and made it applicable to persons who, in common law, could not be held to be agents.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he would admit that the wording of that part of the Bill might require some alteration to confine it to the object he had in view, namely, to put down processions, with bands of music, banners, and all their attendant evils.

§ MR. BECKETT DENISON
believed the clause would be inoperative. If a person desired to have a band and a procession, he might have them, but he would have to pay a penalty of 50l.

§ Mr. HENLEY
said, that the object being to put down processions, the most effectual course of proceeding was to make the penalty apply to those who took part in them.

§ VISCOUNT GALWAY
said, he concurred with the view taken by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Dennison) in thinking that a penalty of 50l. would not put down processions when they might be thought desirable.

Mr. HUME
suggested that the penalty should be increased to 50l. a day.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, that in a subsequent clause every person who took part in the pro-cession was made liable to a penalty of 10l.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he thought it would be monstrous to make any person who, within ten days of an election, might hire a band, liable to a penalty of 50l.

Mr. VERNON SMITH
said, he held that the effect of the clause, as proposed to be amended, would be to stop all amusements of every kind during an election, or within ten days of it. He thought it desirable that the promoters of the Bill should agree to the form of the clause before they were called upon affirm it.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he had objected to that part of the clause which imposed a penalty of 10l. for exhibiting "any banner, emblem, flag, or symbol" at an election. This paltry sort of legislation could only create annoyance, without improving their election law. In many bo- 1335 roughs old tattered flags were preserved like household gods, and exhibited on election and other occasions, and he thought it was really going too far to prohibit such innocent manifestations. Even women and children would sometimes hang out a flag during an election, and surely it would be absurd to talk of subjecting such persons to a penalty of 10l.

MR. MILES
said, he thought the prohibition should he retained, for it was well known that persons paraded banners at elections without the consent of a candidate, trusting to the chance of being paid in the end.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he believed it would be impossible to carry this clause into effect. It was usual after an election to have a dinner, and on such occasions the room was generally ornamented with flags; but by the clause this mode of decoration would he prevented. Then, how could they expect to recover penalties for hanging an old flag—it might be a pocket handkerchief—out of a window?

§ MR. HENLEY
said, the exhibition of music and banners in the streets frequently led to riots, and therefore it ought to be suppressed; but perhaps his hon. Friend would confine the prohibition to the bearing of flags in the highway, or in public places.

§ MR. MULLINGS
would insert the words "in any street or highway, or exhibited from any inn, public-house, alehouse, or beerhouse." This would obviate the objection which had been raised, and would, he considered, entirely meet the right hon. Gentleman's object.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
said, that at Brighton the popular candidate was sure to have his flag at the masthead of all the vessels. How would they deal with that case?

§ MR. BARROW
said, the penalty proposed by this clause was enormous, looking at the class of persons to whom it would apply. He was surprised to hear such anxiety on any side of the House to put down every demonstration of popular feeling.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he must again denounce the Bill as a "dirty, shabby measure," which ought not to be entertained by that House.

MR. HUME
said, the first thing to look to was to preserve order, and prevent bribery and treating; and all the provisions of the Bill had that object.

§ MR. WILSON PATTEN
thought the penalty of 10l. wholly unreasonable. He 1336 moved, as an Amendment, to substitute the words "ten shillings."

§ MR. PHINN
would make the penalty "not exceeding 40s., "to be recovered before any two justices of the peace.

§ MR. MULLINGS
consented to adopt the latter Amendment, which was inserted in the clause.

MR. HUME
contended that no expense whatever ought to fall on candidates; the whole ought to be borne by the community sending him to Parliament. At a future stage of the Bill he should move clauses to that effect. The expenses he referred to would include the fees of sheriffs and other officers. He would therefore suggest the postponement of this clause, which went to legalise some of these expenses.

§ MR. ELLIOT
said, it was a common case for sham candidates to be put in nomination, and to proceed no further. If their liability for expenses were removed, there would be a poll in every case, at the expense of the county or borough.

MR. HUME
said, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that nobody but rich men were to be candidates at elections.

§ MR. PHINN
said, he quite approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and thought a more extended clause necessary. To meet the objection of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), it might be provided that only those who were returned should be exempt from the expenses.

§ MR. BECKETT DENISON
said, it was certain that, if this provision were introduced, there would be a contest at every election; in many places there would be as many as ten candidates.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he had had a hill submitted to him for 220l. for expenses connected with his return; but, knowing what were the legal charges, he taxed the bill accordingly, and only paid a small portion of it.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
thought the clause required more consideration. It was essential that some legal provision should be made to check these exorbitant expenses; and if returning officers could legally make no charge at all, it was unwise to legalise such charges, as was done by this clause. He would suggest that the clause should be omitted.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he should never cease to complain of the false eco- 1337 nomy and the "gagging" mode of proceeding of this measure. It would encourage a parcel of fellows, with scarcely a shirt to their back, in going down to boroughs and trying to force themselves into Parliament solely by their fine speeches. He would oppose the Bill in every stage; it was trash, trumpery, and humbug.

§ MR. PHINN
said, he thought this clause ought to follow the fate of the preceding one. The sheriff was charged with the peace of the county, and if he incurred any expense he might charge it on the Exchequer. This clause would give people the notion that the charge was a legal one, and under it a great number of persons might be unnecessarily employed by an adverse sheriff.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he objected to the clause, for he did not see how any specific sum could be fixed upon for the payment of special constables, who might be engaged in some places at 3s. 6d. per day, whilst in others it would be impossible to obtain them for less than 5s. or 7s.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he did not think special constables were appointed generally with the view of keeping the peace. He considered the employment rather as an indirect way of bribing the voters.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he also objected to the clause, which would tend to legalise the charge to the extent of 3s. 6d. per day. The real remedy would be to provide that no candidate should pay any portion of the charge.

§ MR. BARROW
said, the effect of the clause would be to enable the sheriff to employ any number of men, provided the payment of each did not exceed 3s. 6d. per day. The clause, in his opinion, ought to be omitted.

§ MR. CRAVEN BERKELEY
said, he must say that right hon. and hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House were doing all in their power to uphold the present state of things, while they expressed anxiety to provide a remedy.