BRIBERY, ETC. BILL. (Hansard, 3 April 1854)

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
, in moving that the House should go into Committee on this Bill, said it would be convenient if the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Kelly)—the Bribery Prevention Bill—which stood third on the Orders, should be taken before the Controverted Elections Bill, because there was some relation between the two Bills to which he had just referred; and it was, therefore, desirable that they should be considered one after the other. He did not think that there were more than two or three clauses in his (Lord J. Russell's) Bill 337 which interfered with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and these he should be quite ready to postpone until that measure had been considered.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he fully agreed that it would be more convenient if his Bill were allowed precedence of the Controverted Elections Bill. The clauses to which both Bills related were the 2nd and 3rd, imposing an oath against bribery, and his Bill would supersede the necessity of the 7th clause in the Bill of the noble Lord.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he rose to propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. If he was successful in that Motion he should afterwards make a similar one with respect to the Controverted Elections Bill and the Bribery Prevention Bill. He made the Motion, not with any intention to shelve this Bill, but in order to ensure its dispassionate consideration, and prevent the discussion upon it degenerating into a mere party debate or personal recrimination. The circumstances under which this question came before them were these:—owing to the corruption which was shown before the Election Committees to have prevailed at the last election, a sudden spirit of hostilty to the offence of bribery was aroused, and a Bill for its prevention was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), in the last Session. He (Mr. V. Smith) regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not reintroduced it in the present Session, but the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Kelly) had each brought forward a measure on this subject. There was also another measure, which was quite as important, with relation to the same subject—the Controverted Elections Bill; because to make the proceedings on controverted elections cheap and certain in their results would be the most effectual means of suppressing bribery. Now, these three Bills could not be considered together in a Committee of the whole House, because if during the discussion of one any Member referred to another, he would be immediately called to order by the Chairman. That, however, could be done by a Select Committee up stairs, which might come to some conclusion as to the best mode of suppressing bribery. This course would be at once most consistent with the convenience and honour of the House. 338 The 10th clause of the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) created a perpetual forfeiture of the right of voting at an election, or of sitting in that House, upon lawful conviction of the offence of bribery; and by the Controverted Elections Bill a somewhat similar penalty would follow upon a report of bribery from an Election Committee. These provisions, therefore, showed the necessity of considering the Bills together. In the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) there was a provision for checking bribery by means of voting by papers. No mention was made of that in the Bill of the noble Lord, and yet he considered that it was a question highly deserving the attention of the House. There were other questions also raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst in his Bill of last year, one of which was as to calling Members to the table of the House, and making a declaration that they had not been guilty of bribery, which was not touched upon by the Bill of his noble Friend, and yet was a question well worthy of the consideration of the House; so that it seemed to him impossible to consider the Bills apart. A most important topic, totally omitted in the Bill before the House, ought to be considered by a Committee upstairs, and that was the conduct of the legal agents of the candidates—those persons who were notoriously the highest criminals in the whole transactions of an election. They were the real promoters of the system of bribery and corruption practised in this country. But it was not proposed, either by the Bill of his noble Friend, or by that of the hon. and learned Gentlemen, to fine or punish them in any way. If the Bills were discussed in a Committee upstairs, they might have testimony as to these points from the officers of the House, which could not be had in a Committee of the whole House. He therefore considered that they were not in a condition to consider the Bills in the House, but that they ought to be considered in a Select Committee. His noble Friend had said that such a mode of proceeding would amount to nothing, because the Bills would, after all, have to be discussed by the House itself. But, surely, after the Bills had undergone the scrutiny of a Committee, they would be much fitter for discussion by the whole House than they were now, and legislation on the subject would be greatly expedited. He thought the honour of the House was concerned in taking the question of bribery into consideration without evinc- 339 ing any violence or enthusiasm on the subject. He believed that there prevailed an opinion out of doors that the strong feeling professed to exist in that House against bribery partook somewhat of hypocrisy, for the public heard of many Members being unseated by acts of their agents, but not by their own acts. Now, the public were not nice to discern the distinction between bribery being committed by the agents of candidates and bribery committed by candidates themselves. He did not believe that in the course of the present century there had been more than one or two Members convicted of wilful bribery. Would it, then, be possible to carry out a law inflicting permanent disqualification to sit in that House upon every man who had been reported by an Election Committee to have been guilty not even of personal bribery, but of bribery by his agents? It would clearly be a great hardship to disqualify for life a young man who might have been imprudent at the age of twenty-one, at his first election. Besides, although no doubt the influence of party feelings on Election Committees had been much diminished, there was still always three of one side to two of the other on an Election Committee, and it was possible that if party feelings were violently excited, this provision might be made use of in a very oppressive manner. It was too absurd to enact such a law as this, at the very time that they were admitting that the present penalty of 500l. against bribery could not be enforced, but must be mitigated. Besides, who was to be the prosecutor? Where would they find a man who would wish to disqualify a person from sitting in Parliament for life? He would warn hon. Members not to proceed with a violence which might hereafter recoil and defeat its object. It not only became the convenience but the honour of the House to proceed cautiously. A great deal might be done by candidates themselves to put an end to bribery. The House should remember as a caution in legislating upon this subject that they were not backed by any strong public opinion. No one, on reading the evidence before the Commissioners, could fail to be struck with the total apathy of the electors on this question, if they proceeded to legislate violently against this crime, before the public mind was awakened from the lethargy that now prevailed, their efforts would be unavailing. His noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had drawn a distinction between bribery and treating, but it was one which could hardly be discerned; for, whether a man gave a 340 voter a sovereign, or expended on him the same amount in guzzling, appeared to him to be a matter of very little difference. As to undue influence, that was the most difficult thing in the world to establish. No man could tell what was due influence. These considerations ought to teach the House to pause before they proceeded rapidly in the discussion of these Bills. Therefore, he proposed to the House to refer the present Bill to a Committee upstairs, and also the other Bills he had mentioned, to the same Committee, where they might be consolidated, in order to put an end to a system which had become revolting to the mind of the whole country.

§ MR. DEEDES
, in seconding the Motion, said, that ever since the introduction of these measures he had felt great difficulty in seeing how they were to be dealt with. No hon. Gentleman who had sat upon any Election Committee could have failed to perceive the extent to which the evil to be dealt with by these Bills had recently spread, or to recognise the necessity of putting an end to this state of things as soon as possible. He believed that if the Select Committee was fairly and properly formed, if the subject was properly placed before them, and if they discussed it with a determination to make the measure as perfect as possible, the House would afterwards apply themselves to the subject with greater advantage than if they now proceeded to discuss it. As it was desirable to give the best possible consideration to this Bill, he hoped that the noble Lord would accede to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he felt disappointed at the course taken by his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith); for, if the Motion which he had made where successful, it would be equivalent to postponing the Bills to another Session. There would be no practical difficulty in considering the Bills in the way in which he had proposed. The hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk had pointed out that two or three clauses in two of the Bills referred to the same subject; and that the 7th clause in the Bribery Bill, relating to the appointment of agents, had reference to the same subject as treating in his Bill. His right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) was quite correct in saying that it would be 341 inconvenient to discuss provisions of that kind in detail in the whole house. But he was ready to postpone every one of the clauses to which his right hon. Friend had referred until they had gone through with the other clauses, when he should move that the Chairman should report progress, so that they might proceed to consider the provisions of the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly). In the clauses to his Bill there were several subjects which were also contained in the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but they were separate, and the House could have no difficulty in dealing with them. His right hon. Friend near him (Mr. V. Smith) said that there were several suggestions not in either of the Bills, and that suggestions made by competent persons might be introduced. The House should consider what a large field that would open up. His right hon. Friend objected to many of the provisions in his Bill; but, if they were referred to a Select Committee, it could not be expected that every Member of the Committee would agree with the right hon. Gentleman, because on this subject so many of the Members of that House had settled opinions. There would, therefore, be all the provisions at present in the Bills—all the provisions of which he disapproved, more especially, as well as those provisions which might be suggested—all would have to be considered, so that they could not hope to get their Bills back from the Committee till late in May or the middle of June. The discussion of these Bills after that in the whole House, in which were so many Members well informed with the proceedings of Select Committees, would, no doubt, take considerable time, and would not be completed till a very late period of the Session. It was well known that Bills sent up to the other House at a late period were in great danger of being put aside. The real question, however, was, whether the House was disposed to entertain these Bills. His right hon. Friend said that there were several propositions in them to which he entertained objections. The House, in Committee, could entertain these objections. If the penalty for bribery was thought too severe, that surely was a question which the House could consider in Committee of the whole House, and which the House might also afterwards consider and decide. In going through the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he thought that the House was competent to deal with it, and 342 that there would be no practical difficulty in proceeding with the Bills. On the other hand, if the Bill was sent to a Select Committee, he should not be able to attend that Committee, and could only deal with it when it came back to the House. For the reasons which he had assigned, he hoped that the House would consent to go into Committee upon the Bills under consideration. The provisions of the existing laws with reference to bribery were tolerably well understood. He proposed to consolidate those laws; and with respect to the alterations in them which he sought to introduce, he was of opinion that the House was perfectly competent to arrive at a sound decision, and by that decision he was perfectly willing to abide.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, it would be remembered that he had upon a former occasion asked the noble Lord whether he did not deem it advisable that the Bills before them should be referred to a Select Committee. The noble Lord had then expressed his unwillingness to take that course upon the ground that it would tend to postpone the consideration of the Bills on the part of that House to too late a period of the Session. He (Mr. Walpole) had then been of opinion that great advantage would result from the plan which he had suggested, but he nevertheless felt bound to say, that after what had fallen from the noble Lord that evening he bad come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable that the House should give its assent to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. The passing of the Bills in question might, as the noble Lord had observed, be postponed to next Session, if they should now be referred to a Select Committee, and he (Mr. Walpole), for one, should not wish to give his approval to a course which would appear to have for its object the postponement till next Session of those Bills. But for that, he would have been of opinion that great advantage would arise from a full discussion of this subject before a Select Committee. On the whole, however, he thought it would not be advisable to press the Amendment, and that for several reasons. The first and strongest reason was that which the noble Lord had given last—that he would not be able to attend that Committee. Considering the active part which the noble Lord had taken in all measures that had passed of late years for the prevention of bribery and corruption, he thought that any considera- 343 tion to which these Bills might be subjected, if the noble Lord were left out, would not be satisfactory to the House. Then with regard to another objection of the noble Lord, he must say that, for his part, he should be unwilling to do anything to prevent a good measure from passing this Session, and still more unwilling to introduce into the Bill any objectionable matter which might bear the stamp of a party character. A third reason was, that he thought the noble Lord had taken the fairest possible course in proposing that the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) should be brought on second, and in proposing to postpone the controverted clauses in his own Bill till the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend was considered. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had adverted to a measure for the prevention of bribery which had been introduced by him (Mr. Walpole) last year, and had expressed his regret at its not having been brought before the House during the present Session. The reasons why he had abandoned that Bill were perfectly well known to the noble Lord, who had stated last year that the Government were about to introduce a Bill for the suppression of bribery and corruption, and who had asked him whether he might make use of the suggestions which the consideration of his (Mr. Walpole's) Bill might afford. He (Mr. Walpole) deeming that a measure of that character could be dealt with more successfully by the Government than if it were to be introduced by himself, had, of course, assented to the proposition of the noble Lord, and he was sure the House could not fail to be of opinion that in doing so he had taken that course which, under the circumstances of the case, it was most advisable to adopt.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he had as much objection to bribery as any person in that House, but after being a Member for six and twenty years, he was still unable to understand what bribery really and truly was. The noble Lord in one of his Bills had attempted to define it, but he (Colonel Sibthorp) did not subscribe to that definition. The Bill was neither more nor less than an attempt to prevent a humble individual like himself from doing that which it was his duty to do in the station in life in which he was placed, and which he owed to those who sent him there. That which the noble Lord railed against so much was done every day by those who had the 344 honour to sit upon the Treasury bench. It was but the other day that the noble Lord—the pure Lord—the spotless Minister of the Crown, chose to give an appointment to a gentleman against whom it had been decided by a Committee of that House that he had been guilty of bribery. There was a pretty specimen of the purity of the Treasury bench! Thank God, he had no seat there! He thought that, as the Ministers were going to war, they would have had their hands full without engaging in matters of this kind. But it now appeared that they had been asking the aid of the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole). There was a kind of understanding which he did not understand between the Tory and the Radical bench. He protested against these proceedings altogether. There was the whole amount of the secret service money to be disposed of by Ministers in bribes, while if a candidate offered a glass of wine to an elector, if this measure passed, he would never be allowed to sit again in that House. Talk of the cruelty and oppression of the Emperor of Russia! Why, the Emperor of Russia would never oppress any one so much as the noble Lord proposed to oppress the poor voter, who, though not a lord, was perhaps as good as himself. He would oppose going into Committee; and if unsuccessful in that, he would oppose the Report; and he would also oppose the third reading of the Bill.

§ MR. PHINN
said, he regretted that the noble Lord was against referring these Bills to a Select Committee. He (Mr. Phinn) was aware that the strongest reason against taking that course was the personal one; in every other point of view he considered that it would be preferable to consider the question in a Select Committee. The Bill now before them proposed to repeal wholly or in part no fewer than ten Statutes, but many of the clauses which had given rise to questions of the greatest difficulty and nicety were still retained in the new Bill. Thus, in the section relating to treating, the noble Lord had taken clauses from the Statute of William, and the 5 & 6 Vict., both of which had raised many nice points, and had welded them together. The Committees of that House had given varying decisions upon these Statutes, the Committee which sat last, upon the Dungarvan Election, had interpreted them with more strictness, perhaps, than any former Committee, and he believed that no lawyer 345 would venture to interpret those Statutes. But the noble Lord re-enacted them almost verbally. Now, what the House wanted was, as he thought, to have an opportunity to review those decisions, to see where they conflicted together, and then to come to a clear and plain conclusion; and that, he thought, could only be done in a Committee upstairs, where, though they could not obtain the attendance of the noble Lord, they might have the assistance of the two highest authorities next to him—he referred to the late and the present Attorney General. But the noble Lord said if they referred the Bill to a Committee upstairs it would endanger its passing this Session. Now, he would remind the House that when this Bill went to another place it would be sure to be subjected to a select Committee, if that were not done here; for it was well known to be the invariable practice of the other House, whenever a measure came before them repealing other Statutes, to send it for consideration before a Select Committee.

MR. PIGOTT
said, he hoped the noble Lord would persevere in his resolution not to send the Bill before a Select Committee. The House could never be better prepared to discuss the question than they were at present, and the fact of the noble Lord's inability to attend the Committee was itself decisive of the question. Every hon. Member who had watched the proceedings of the Election Committees of last year must have felt the necessity of immediate legislation on this subject, and it would be matter of great regret if the House did not show that it was in earnest in its endeavours to put down bribery and corruption.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he would leave the question in the hands of the House.

§ MR. ROLT
hoped the right hon. Gentleman would persevere in his Motion. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the noble Lord (Lord J Russell), but he had not touched the real point of the question, which was, whether this Bill would be better discussed before a Select Committee or a Committee of the whole House. Referring the Bill to a Select Committee would not stop the passing of it this Session; but suppose it did, the question remained whether they should have a bad Bill this Session or a good one the next. It was proposed to repeal ten Statutes which had proved inadequate to their purpose; and this, he thought, ought 346 of itself to be a warning to them against crude and hasty legislation.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said he thought the observations which had been made by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London upon the subject under their consideration did not at all apply to that which was the real question for their decision—namely, whether the Bill would be likely to be made more efficient by being submitted to the deliberation of a Select Committee, than it could possibly be by being merely discussed in that House? If the Bill were even to be postponed to next Session, in consequence of its being referred to a Select Committee, he was of opinion that that circumstance would not afford a sufficiently good ground for refusing to take, with regard to it, the course which was advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. It would be much better, in his judgment, to pass a good Bill next year for the prevention of bribery, than by hasty legislation to enact an imperfect and inefficient measure during the present Session. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.

§ MR. NAPIER
said, he would have had no objection to send the Bill to a Select Committee; but as the noble Lord was opposed to that course, he would not offer the least obstruction to the arrangements of the Government. It was true that ten Statutes were proposed to be repealed, but only two or three of them referred to the principal subject under discussion. The proceedings at the Dungarvan Election Committee, of which he was Chairman, had been referred to in connection with the stringency of the construction he had put upon the 5 & 6 Vict,; but he had the happiness to say that one of the highest legal authorities had confirmed him in the view he took of that Statute.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he hoped the right hon. Member for Northampton would press his Motion, which he would support on this ground, that if they once got into Committee on this question they would never get out. If they were to proceed, he wished to ask the noble Lord this question—what should he mean by the oath proposed in the Bill, that an elector was to swear he had not asked or received, directly or indirectly, any office, place, or employment? Did he mean to say that no Government was in future to give office for political reasons? If so, 347 how far was that to extend? If there was to be an examination for all sorts of civil officers, then let the House know distinctly how far it was to be carried out.

§ MR. CROSSLEY
said, he did not believe that any very good results would follow from the enactment of any of the three Bills which they were asked to consider in Committee. The Government, he felt assured, must finally arrive at the conclusion that the only real remedy for bribery and corruption was to be found in the ballot.

§ MR. PACKE
said, he should support the Amendment. There was one clause in the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) which related to treating, and with reference to that particular subject he should take the liberty of suggesting that it would be highly advisable that during the hours of polling at elections restrictions should be laid upon the sale of intoxicating liquors in the localities in which those elections were taking place.

§ LORD HOTHAM
said, he should vote for the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He thought that, according to the noble Lord's definition of bribery, every one of his Colleagues must be open to that charge every day, although the noble Lord himself might escape, as he held no office. There was generally what was called a "Patronage Secretary" connected with a Government, and it was perfectly notorious that out of ten pieces of patronage which a Government disposed of nine were, and must always be, disposed of for political purposes. There was a paragraph in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech at the commencement of the Session to the effect that an entire alteration was to take place in the appointment of persons to civil offices, and that paragraph was interpreted by a publication which was generally considered to be the official organ of the Government to mean that political patronage was henceforth entirely to cease, and that the Government intended to throw all patronage open to public competition. It had occurred to him that the definition of bribery contained in this Bill had been framed in reference to that intention, but it had since been stated by a noble Lord in another place that the Report of the Commissioners upon the subject of patronage was not to be abided by, but only to be adopted in part, and that it was not true that the whole patronage of Government was to be thrown open. If that were the case, when this Bill was passed every one of the noble Lord's Col- 348 leagues must be perpetually violating the law. The matter was of so complicated a nature that it could not be satisfactorily investigated otherwise than by a Select Committee. The great objection to that course was the inability of the noble Lord to attend a Committee, but, as he was not now burdened with the duties of an office, he hoped that if a Committee should be appointed the noble Lord would find time occasionally to give it his valuable assistance.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said it seemed to him that that clause would bring within the offence of bribery cases in which no bribery had in reality been committed. It would make it an act of bribery to give, or procure to be given to a voter, any place, office, or emolument, although the gift might have been made irrespectively of any vote at an election. He would propose that that portion of the clause should be amended by the addition of the following words:— With intent to induce any voter to vote, or to refrain from voting, at any election, or on account of any such voter having voted or refrained from voting. By the insertion of those words the penalties of the law would only attach where a gift was made to a voter with a criminal intention. There was another point on which it seemed to him that the measure would require to be amended. By one of its clauses they would repeal the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, which declared that the giving of head-money should be deemed bribery, and he did not find that by any subsequent provision in the Bill they would supply the place of that Statute. There was a third defect, as he considered, in the measure. By a former Act of Parliament it was provided that a candidate should not give any place, office, or emolument to the "kindred or affinity" of a voter, with a 349 view to influence his vote; but that provision was omitted—and, in his opinion, improperly omitted—from the Bill then under their consideration.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he thought that the first objection of the right hon. Gentleman was met by those words in the clause which made the giving of a place to be an offence when the voter was "about to vote." With regard to the giving of head-money, it was proposed that by a subsequent provision that practice should be declared to be bribery. And finally, with reference to the third point to which the right hon. Gentleman had adverted, he had to observe that both lie and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had not thought it advisable to introduce into that Bill the words "kindred or affinity" contained in a former Statute, because they considered that they would by that means be adopting a useless distinction, inasmuch as other parties might be able to influence a voter quite as powerfully as his immediate relatives.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he wished to know the meaning of the words "authorised in that behalf?" The clause said, "every person who shall directly or indirectly, by himself, or any other person authorised in that behalf." Many persons had been deemed guilty of bribery through their agents from particular circumstances; but surely these words meant some person directly authorised by the candidate, in which case there would be great difficulty in proving bribery. It was most essential that the clause should define who was an agent, and also the meaning of his being "authorised in that behalf."

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he could not think it was the intention to include the case of agents in this clause. The intention of the clause, as he understood it, was to render persons punishable criminally who committed the offences here provided against. It would, however, be much clearer if the words were "authorised by him in that behalf"—that was, by the candidate.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that this clause was what might be called the criminal clause. It was not intended to apply to cases of constructive agency, which had caused such great anxiety and some opprobrium. Criminal punishment should only be attached where there was a directly criminal intention, and therefore he considered the clause rightly worded. The agent must be an agent to commit 350 the offence. The object of the clause was to strike at the malus animus. Unless there was a malus animus, there would be no offence.

§ MR. G. BUTT
said, he should support the view which had been taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly). The hon. and learned Solicitor General had stated that the words "by him (the candidate) authorised" were implied, but why leave to implication what might be so easily expressed?

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, that these Bills were claptraps in every sense of the word, and he should oppose all three. He pronounced them to be full of subtlety, fraud, and danger.

§ MR. PHINN
said, he understood that the object was to distinguish between such an agency as was sufficient to unseat a Member and such as should involve him in a criminal charge.' Why not retain the words of the old Act, "any person employed by him" (the candidate)?

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, that as the clause stood, it was clear that the agent must be a person directly authorised to commit the crime of bribery; and it was quite proper that it should be so, because it would be monstrous that an agent appointed for ordinary purposes should subject a principal to a criminal offence. At the same time care should be taken, in confining the criminal offence within proper limits, not to alter that wholesome law which unseated a Member on the ground of bribery committed by his agent.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that the clause was most ambiguous. He did not think the meaning of the words, "on account of such voter having voted, or refrained from voting, or being about to vote, or refrain from voting," was quite clear.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he would propose to omit the words "or being about to vote or refrain from voting."

§ MR. AGLIONBY
thought it was better to leave the clause as it stood.

§ MR. MALINS
said, it appeared to him that by the clause as it stood a Member would be subject to the penalties of bribery who had procured a place for a voter two years after the vote had been given, though no promise of place or reward had ever been made.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he would refer the hon. and learned Member to the words in the 40th line, namely, "in order to induce such voter to vote."

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, that if it were only intended to confine the penalty of bribery to a person who had induced a voter to vote or refrain from voting, the clause was downright absurd, for in another portion it declared that a man would be guilty of bribery if he had conferred any advantage upon the voter after the party had voted.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
thought that the clause required alteration so as to make it intelligible. He would also suggest that some more comprehensive words should be introduced than the words "on account."

§ MR. NAPIER
said, that the words found in the 5 & 6 Vict. were much more intelligible than the words referred to. The words used in the former Act were, "for the purpose of corrupting any voter."

§ MR. G. BUTT
recommended the postponement of this portion of the clause, with a view to its further consideration.
[After a few words from Mr. I. BUTT, it was understood that this portion of the clause was to be postponed for further consideration.]

§ LORD HOTHAM
said, it appeared to him the clause was a great deal too undefined. As it struck him, a candidate giving any valuable consideration of any kind whatever to a person who had exerted himself to procure his return, might be deemed guilty of infringement of the Act. Thus, for example, a Minister of the Crown who might happen to give a place to a person who had taken an active part to secure the return of that Minister, might be held to be thereby committing an act of bribery. He thought some explanation ought to be given on that point.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that the Act of George III., which declared the existing law, went even further than the measure now before them proposed to do; for the introduction of the word "corruptly" very much diminished the stringency of the present law, and would explain away the difficulty raised by the noble Lord.

§ LORD HOTHAM
said, he agreed that the introduction of the word "corruptly" might be of service in removing his difficulty if the questions raised under the Act were to be decided before a uniform tribunal, such as the law courts; but, as their decision would rest with Committees of that House, which were not constructed upon any uniform principle, the case was quite different.

§ MR. G. BUTT
said, he must maintain 352 that the Bill went a great deal further than the 49 Geo. III., and he apprehended that the introduction of the word "corruptly" would not in any way affect the clause at all, and, therefore, the objection of the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) still remained.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the Committee should remember that they were dealing with a penal clause, and, therefore, the decision on such questions would not rest with that House. The third clause pointed out that any one infringing the Act would be liable to a penalty of 1001.; now it was not within the province of that House to punish cases of misdemeanor, and, therefore, the word "corruptly" would be construed uniformly.

§ MR. G. BUTT
said, he was very much surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend say that only the courts of law could take cognisance of questions arising under this Act. The clause now before them defined bribery, and if a candidate bribed, a Committee would have to consider what was bribery; and therefore the duty of construing the clause would devolve equally on them as upon a court of law.

§ LORD HOTHAM
said, he really wished to know whether a Member of Her Majesty's Government who conferred an office of any kind upon a person who had supported him at an election, would come under the definition of bribery, as specified in that Bill?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Yes, if it was done corruptly.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought that the Bill would make out any one guilty of bribery who employed an agent. They ought to have the meaning of the word "corruptly" strictly defined.

§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMER
could not see how mere agency could be included under the provision of the Act—that point was regulated by the Act of George III.

§ MR. HENLEY
Yes; but you are now re-enacting, and therefore your definitions ought to be more precise.

§ MR. WALPOLE
proposed that the fine under the Act shall not exceed 50l. instead of 100l. Their object ought to be not to punish pecuniarily, but to inflict upon parties infringing against the Act such a punishment as would operate to prevent their voting again. Besides that, there were many cases where a fine of 50l. would be recovered, when it would not be attempted if the penalty were so high as 100l.

§ MR. MASSEY
said, he thought it would be better to omit the pecuniary penalty altogether, and punish the party for a misdemeanor at common law by imprisonment. The old penalty of 500l. had been practically inoperative, and be believed the penalty now proposed would be equally so. If an agent should be convicted in such a penalty the candidate would feel himself bound to pay it, and it would, in fact, be considered a part of the election expenses. The punishment of imprisonment, on the contrary, would be inflicted on the really guilty party, the corrupt agent, and would be more effectual than any pecuniary penalty.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he would not press his proposition.

§ MR. PHINN
said, he would suggest that a proviso should be inserted at the end of the clause, giving costs to any person who might prosecute to conviction.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the suggestion was an exceedingly valuable one, and he was himself desirous of adopting a proviso of the sort with a view of overcoming the disinclination which now existed to bringing forward charges of misdemeanor in matters of this kind.

§ MR. HENLEY
hoped the hon. and learned Solicitor General would well consider the subject before he made up his mind to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Philip). Such a proviso would act as a temptation to parties to institute proceedings. They would go on with the prosecution without risk to themselves, and the public would have to pay all the costs. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: Not the public.] Then he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean to throw the costs on the counties; for one or the other, the public or the counties, must bear them. The proviso would operate in this way also—that parties would institute a prosecution, and 354 then, after proceedings had been carried to a certain extent, endeavour to effect a compromise.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, he would recommend that such prosecutions should be conducted at the instance of the Attorney General.

§ MR. PHINN
said, that in all cases of misdemeanor the costs were at the discretion of the Court, who, if they saw that the prosecution was not properly carried on, withheld them. With that protection he thought the public interests were sufficiently guarded.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, he must contend that the defendant should be bound to pay the costs, and that to make them payable by the county would be a most serious objection to the clause.

§ MR. PHINN
said, he merely proposed to place the misdemeanor of bribery on the same footing as other misdemeanors.

§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR
said, he begged to ask the noble Lord whether there were in the definitions of bribery in this Bill any words which made illegal the payment of travelling expenses, which in his experience had often been made the means of corrupting electors? He saw no reason why a candidate should pay either these expenses or those of the hustings, and thought that if they were not included in this Bill of the noble Lord the measure would be very incomplete.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, such expenses came properly under the head of expenses paid by the agent, and the matter would be dealt with either in this Bill or in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he wished to call attention to the latter portion of the clause, which declared it to be a misdemeanor to ask for, receive, or accept of any reward, office, or place on account of having voted at the last election. Supposing some supporter of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London asked for a place to be given him which he was quite competent to fill, as he (Mr. Walpole) read this clause, if the person so asking the noble Lord for such place or employment did so within a year after the election had taken place, he would be liable to the penalties of bribery, and be disqualified from ever voting again for the whole of his life.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he could assure his hon. and learned Friend that it was not a very difficult thing to find out who wanted a place. A wink was as good as a nod, and though he had no hesitation in saying that there were persons on the Treasury bench who were anxious to serve their country, and for whom he entertained the highest respect, yet he repeated that a wink was as good as a nod, and he had known cases in that House where not only a wink had been given, but also a nod. The whole of these Bills were intended for neither more nor less than to undermine the fair and legitimate influence of the possessors of property, the aristocracy of the country, and to keep the noble Lord the Member for London in place, surrounded by his creatures and satellites.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, his present impression was, that the words had better be left out.

§ MR. AGLIONBY
said, that there was as much malus animus in asking for a place as in obtaining it. He thought that this clause would have no effect, as you would never be able to obtain a conviction under it. When a Member of Parliament asked for a place, it was always for some one who had befriended him; but it would be impossible to prove that the place was asked for on account of the person for whom it was sought having voted for the applicant. If they sometimes did prove it, the mischief would be still greater, for one man would be convicted while one hundred and fifty would escape. The clause appeared to be a frightfully stringent one, but after all it really amounted to nothing, because they would never be able to convict under it.

§ MR. HILDYARD
said, he wished to know if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to say that the enormous patronage at their disposal was hereafter to be dispensed honestly, sincerely, and truly, without regard to the mode in which the person who received it had voted? If the right hon. Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hayter) would enter into that pledge—if any Member of the Government would say that it was prepared to instruct that right hon. Gentleman so to deal with the patronage, let the Committee by all means pass the clause. It was a matter of notoriety throughout the kingdom that Government patronage was invariably dispensed to the supporters and friends of the Government, be it of what party it might. 356 How, then, could they declare that it should be a misdemeanor to ask for, receive, or accept place or office on account of the person having voted at the last election?

§ MR. MALINS
said, the clause held out a flattering prospect to that (the Opposition) side of the House. The place of the Secretary for the Treasury would henceforward cease, and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would not only be obliged to dispense his patronage equally to all parties, but, lest his motives should be misconstrued, he would be bound to turn his back on his own friends, and give everything to the Opposition.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, that during the twenty-six years he had been in that House he did not know that he had ever asked any place for any person; but he, opposing the present Government, had always received every courtesy from them. He would always pursue an independent course.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that the object of the Bill was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to bribery. Hon. Gentlemen had spoken as if he had introduced a Bill which, for the first time, inflicted penalties on persons for receiving bribes by money or employment, forgetting that there were at present on the Statute-book laws of this description. The chief object of the clauses under discussion was to reduce the 500l. penalty, imposed by the Act of Geo. II., to 100l. It was true that some of the words of the clause went beyond the existing law; but was the House prepared to repeal these laws, and assert that there ought to be complete licence in transactions of this nature? He was prepared to reconsider the wording of the clause if it was now agreed to; but he did not think the clause could be made to apply to a person who merely said to a Government candidate returned that he was qualified to fill an office, and asked that one should be conferred on him. He did not think, however, that an election should be a scene where votes should be sold for money. The object of the Bill, he must repeat, was to consolidate the law, and make it clear to the country.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, there were some laws which it would be better to repeal altogether than to consolidate. He thought, however, that by leaving out the last two lines of the clause many of the objections would be got rid of. By omitting the words 357 "on account of having voted or refrained from voting at any election," one difficulty would be met.

§ SIR WILLIAM CLAY
said, he thought that a simple remedy for bribery would be to make the constituencies larger.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he would remind the hon. Baronet that between 1833 and 1853 the elections declared void had been chiefly those of the larger boroughs. A return which he held in his hand showed that of seventy-six elections declared void in England and Wales, twelve places had less than 500 electors, a great number between 500 and 1,000, and that twenty-two had above 1,000 electors. Since 1853 the elections told the same tale, and it would be well for the hon. Baronet, when the Reform Bill came on, to remember that it was the large and not the small constituencies in which these practices were principally proved.

§ SIR WILLIAM CLAY
had meant to refer to applications for places, and not to bribery.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, in reply to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), he would be willing to alter the phraseology of the 6th section to make it correspond with the first part of the 5th section.

§ MR. BOOKER
said, as a plain country gentleman and a county Member, he felt bound to denounce this Bill as the most flagrant piece of humbug he had ever seen. He would move that the Chairman report progress.

§ MR. V. SCULLY
said, he thought this and the last clause were so valuable that they ought to be printed in letters of gold, if it were only for the purpose of being sent as a circular to every elector who made application to his Member for a place.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, it would seem that the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Booker) desired to uphold bribery. He trusted that, as the clause had been fully debated, it might be agreed to, as it would be open to modification on recommittal.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he would consent to the passing of the clause on the understanding that another opportunity would be afforded for modifying it.

§ MR. BOOKER
said, he must repudiate the insinuation that be would abet bribery. He protested against a system which would 358 make the constituency, and not the candidate, responsible for the bribe.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he should like to see the Bill referred to a Select Committee.

§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
would suggest the postponement of the clause, as it was admitted by the noble Lord that an important modification was contemplated in the measure. To press it would be like hasty legislation, under these circumstances.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he had passed several Bills of great importance in the same manner.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, it was preposterous on the part of the Government to press a Bill on which they had not made up their own mind.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, the proceedings of the evening were of a most remarkable character. First, there was the postponement of the preamble, then the passing of the first clause, repealing several Acts of Parliament, of which he believed not five Members of the Committee knew anything—then the postponement of three other clauses, and the passing of the fifth pro formâ, with an admission that every line of it must be altered. The clause now under consideration—making it a misdemeanor to ask for a place in consideration of having given a vote—must have been framed by some Member with a large constituency, and some Government influence, who was determined to punish his constituents for asking him for places too frequently. It was hardly to their credit, as a representative assembly, that clauses should be thrown on the table in such a shape, to be passed as a matter of form. He would therefore suggest a postponement for a week, and a mature consideration of all the provisions of the Bill.

§ MR. WARNER
said, he considered it would be much better to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as had been proposed, in conjunction with the other two Bills on the same subject.

§ MR. BOOKER
trusted that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would see the sense of the Committee was against him, and would spare him the necessity of pressing Ins Motion to a division.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
assented.