BRIBEBY, &c., BILL. (Hansard, 14 July 1854)

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he begged to move to leave out certain words in the clause relative to the appointment of election officers; namely, that, in case the candidates or their agents not being able to agree upon a person to act as election officer, the returning officer should before the nomination appoint such election officer himself. He considered that if this provision remained part of the Bill, there was nothing whatever to interfere with the power of the returning officer to appoint any one he pleased. By the 19th section of the Bill, all claims were to be sent in to the candidate or his agent, and by the subsequent clause the candidate was to make a declaration to the election officer of the correctness of the claims, and that he had paid no expenses except advertising and personal expenses. The candidate must not pay a single farthing beyond those expenses which were legalised by the Bill, except through the election officer; he was to send in all bills and charges to the election officer within a month, or be liable to a penalty of 501., and 20l. for every week of his default. The result of this enactment would be, that the candidate would have to go through all the accounts sent in to him, and if he made any mistake or paid what were considered not legal expenses under the Act, he would be liable to a heavy pe- 269 nalty. In point of fact, all the expenses of the election would have to go through the hands of an irresponsible and, perhaps, partisan election officer without security at all, who would be enabled to put a veto on any particular expense, and expose the candidate to actions at law, which, by the subsequent clauses of the Act, were not allowed to be settled without the consent of the election officer, and if decided by the Court, a copy of the judgment was to be sent to him. Considering, therefore, that such election officer might be a partisan, it showed considerable want of care in the preparation of the Bill to invest him with such powers over the candidate. He (Mr. V. Scully) objected also to the payment by each candidate of a fee of 10l. to the election officer. How were they to define the word "candidate?" It very often happened that half-a-dozen gentlemen came forward at an election when not more than two or three went to the poll; yet by this Bill every one who addressed the voters might be termed a candidate and made to pay the fee. He thought if an election officer were appointed at all, he ought to be invested with something of a judicial character, and certainly not appointed in the way proposed. He therefore wished to omit that portion of the clause which enabled the returning officer, be he partisan or be he not, to nominate the election officer, be he competent or not competent, partisan or otherwise. He was willing that there should be a judicial officer appointed to discharge the duties of election officer, and after the omission of the words which he desired to exclude, he was prepared to move the insertion of words which would constitute the election officers on what he considered to be a proper and sound basis.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he also had an Amendment to move in the same clause, which, as it came before that of the hon. Member who had just sat down, was entitled to be taken first. He considered it extremely desirable, when they were making provisions which would so stringently affect candidates, that the word "candidate" should be properly defined. Was a candidate a man who had been regularly proposed and seconded on the hustings, or one who had merely addressed the electors through the medium of a newspaper? He should move to substitute the word "after" for the words "previous to" the nomination, in the 4th line of the clause.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, that the strict legal meaning of the word "candidate" applied, no doubt, to a person who had been duly proposed and seconded; but popularly, it embraced the wider sense of any person who presented himself to a constituency for election; and it was in this latter sense that the clause was to be understood. Its effect was, that, whenever an election was approaching, the candidates might meet together and agree upon the individual to he appointed as election officer some time even before the actual election.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he thought that after the nomination the gentlemen who intended to go on as candidates bonâ fide could arrange how they were to carry on the business of the election.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he attached great importance to the part of the Bill in question for which the House was indebted to the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly). If that part of the Bill which related to the appointment of an election officer was carried out in an efficient manner, it would be an important step taken to putting an end to bribery, by rendering it impossible hereafter to bribe. The more this was the feeling of the House, the more he was convinced of the importance of appointing a person of the kind, and the more important it seemed to him how that officer should be appointed. The plan recommended by the Select Committee, however, appeared to him to be open to some serious objections. In the first place, knowing the heat and warmth of a contested election, and how every man was open to suspicion of undue bias, it seemed to him highly improbable that all the candidates should concur in the nomination of one individual; it was, on the contrary, far more likely that they would fall out on the subject. The nomination would then devolve upon the returning officer. He (Sir J. Pakington) had asked an hon. Friend, a Member of that House, who had been a Member of the Committee, what were his views as to the person to be appointed, and he had answered that he thought the man to be appointed should be an impartial, clever, gentlemanlike attorney. It had been his fortune to know, in his time, a great many clever, and a great many gentlemanlike attorneys; but an impartial attorney, more especially in election matters, he considered a man not so easy to be found. He could not help thinking, therefore, that if the plan turned upon 271 the appointment of this officer, it would be extremely difficult to work. He objected, therefore, to the plan in that respect. The officer in question should be, in his opinion, appointed upon some intelligible principle, and his duties strictly defined, otherwise there would be as much variety in their views and in their practice as there were returning officers for the whole kingdom. He could not, for his own part, see why election officers should not be appointed in the same way as revising barristers—a plan which had been in operation for twenty-three years, without the slightest imputation of partiality against those appointed. He felt much disposed to offer an Amendment to bring that suggestion to the test; but if the Committee was not disposed to adopt it, why not appoint an officer to name to all these appointments? That would give something like uniformity, and certainly it would be far preferable to the plan proposed in the Bill. He (Sir J. Pakington) should, however, prefer the appointments to be in the hands of the Judges, or some person of high station, duly qualified, as were at present those of the revising barristers. He thought it was important to have an officer whose position should be above supicion.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that the Select Committee to which the Bills of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) and of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) had been referred, and of which he (Mr. Walpole) was chairman, had come, after much deliberation, to the conclusion that it was not advisable to appoint from sixty to eighty barristers, with judicial powers to determine the various delicate questions that would be litigated before them in the several boroughs and counties where elections took place. They thought that the adoption of such a plan would, in the first place, lead to great expense; and that, in the second place, it would not be satisfactory that the decision of a single barrister should be taken as conclusive upon the various questions that Would be brought before him. At the same time the Committee did think it right that all bills should be paid through a public officer, by which means an easy method of detecting corrupt practices would be provided. He did not think it probable that the plan embodied in the present clause would produce partisan appointments; or that in consequence of it the chances of either party at an election were likely to be affected by any party feelings on the 272 part of the election officer. For the Committee must remember that if the candidates did not themselves appoint him, he could not be named by the returning officer until the night before the nomination, since it could not be ascertained until then who were the candidates. It was a mistake to suppose that the election officer could be or could act as a partisan. His duties were chiefly of a ministerial character, to receive money and to pay the accounts. The clause, when read carefully, would not be found so objectionable as asserted. He could not help expressing an opinion that the clause was well drawn, but, if any better person than the returning officer could be suggested, he should have no objection to the alteration.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentlemam opposite that the hon. Members who had opposed this clause had entirely mistaken the object with which this officer was to be appointed. The Select Committee had unanimously determined that it was not desirable to have a judicial officer, but simply a ministerial one—a trustworthy person to secure due publicity in the payment of the accounts. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) still seemed to cling to the idea of appointing barristers as election officers. But he would ask the Committee whether they were prepared to let loose 400 barristers upon the constituencies of the country at every election? Who was to appoint them? The right hon. Baronet said the Judges were to undertake that duty; but he felt sure that if 400 barristers were to be appointed, they would not have the duty so well discharged as if the officers were appointed by the candidates, as the Bill proposed. It was said that the candidates were not likely to agree with respect to the appointment of such an officer; but he really thought this improbability was very much exaggerated, and both parties would very frequently concur in some respectable person in whom both had confidence. But even if they did not, he did not see any objection to intrusting the returning officers with these appointments. The election officer was not likely to display partiality, for his duties were strictly limited to the reception of bills designated for payment by the candidates, and to the publication of an abstract of the election accounts of both parties in the newspapers. They would not have half so many opportunities of displaying partisanship as were possessed by the returning 273 officers; and yet we very seldom beard any complaints of partiality against them. He could not see that legal knowledge would be at all requisite on the part of these election officers. In fact, their duties would be better performed by a banker's clerk with a good knowledge of accounts, than by most lawyers, who seldom combined a good knowledge of arithmetic with their other qualifications.

§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, without reference to the party who should appoint the election officer, he would only ask the attention of the Committee in respect to the time of the appointment of this election officer. It was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that the officer should only be appointed on the day of nomination, but in county elections it was necessary to canvass the electors, and to incur considerable expenses by agents weeks before the election took place. Now, any payment, even for a postchaise, would be an illegal payment. It would thus be seen the great inconvenience of not having an election officer appointed from the period when expenses commenced. If not appointed till the nomination day there must be a series of running accounts, which would create confusion when they came to be presented for settlement. If it was decided that the election officer was to be appointed on the day of nomination, that would be found an insuperable difficulty. It was essential that the election officers should be appointed in time sufficient to meet expenses as they arose.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the candidate was allowed to pay personal expenses, which in the interpretation clause were defined to mean— the reasonable expenses of such candidate in travelling to and from the place at which such election shall take place, and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere during the time of his residence at or near such place for the purpose of, and in relation to, such election. He knew the hon. Gentleman would reply that this said nothing of agents' expenses, and he agreed that the excepted items of expenditure ought to be made more extensive than they were. The 32nd clause, however, provided that the current expenses of the election might be paid by the agent of the candidate under the authority of the election officer.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, there were two questions at the present time 274 before the Committee—when was the election officer to be appointed, and by whom? Now, with respect to the first point, he thought that, so far as the objections of the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. Denison) referred to the personal expenses of the candidate, that difficulty might easily be met by extending the wording of the interpretation clause, which permitted such personal expenses as those described to be paid without reference to the officer. Still, it was impossible not to see that there were many expenses necessarily incurred in the conduct of an election contest which it was absolutely necessary to pay forthwith, and for which credit could not be obtained; and he therefore thought it was desirable that the election officer should be appointed at a considerably earlier period than the day of nomination, in order that his authority for the payment of such expenses might be obtained. He thought it was desirable that his appointment should be vested in some one free from local influence, for he put entirely out of the question the idea that it could be made by the various candidates. If you gave the power of electing such officers to the sheriff, or to the returning officer, then parties incurring expenses would be able at once to apply to the proper quarter as to payment. With reference to these parties to be appointed, seeing that for twenty-three years the revising barristers had done their duty without reference to party feeling, and with satisfaction to the public, he thought to this class of gentlemen the appointments might with advantage be confined. But as this appeared to be distasteful to the Committee, he would not press the matter on their consideration. His opinion was, that there should always be some public officer, and that public officer be required to appoint election officers. He certainly thought it would be better to select some other officer less open to the charge of partisanship than returning officers for the duty of appointing election officers. However, if some hon. Gentleman would raise that question the Committee would no doubt determine it at once, and thus the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. Denison) would be entirely obviated.

§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
said, he thought the person having the appointment should have no local bias. If they adopted the clause, he did not think that in the majority of instances the candidates would agree as to the person to be appoint- 275 ed. He thought as other hon. Members had that a respectable banker's clerk would be a very proper person. He entreated the Committee to have no person having a local bias; and he thought the appointment might properly be in the last revising barrister, or the last Judge of assize.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, they were told that if the candidates concurred, they might appoint the election officer. But had any one looked at the definition of a "candidate" in the interpretation clause? The words of the clause were dangerously wide—"all persons who have been, or are about to be, nominated or proposed." The next question was as to the time when this officer should be appointed. His hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) had demonstrated that not only must this election officer be appointed before the election, but that he must be always in existence. His right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Walpole) maintained that it was of no consequence who the election officer was to be, that he had nothing but ministerial duties, which any banker's clerk could discharge. [Mr. WALPOLE: I said, chiefly ministerial.] Nevertheless some of those duties were amongst the most difficult which could devolve upon any man. You could not compound an action for election expenses, or suffer judgment to go by default, without the consent of this election officer. Then, see how the provision would work in promoting corruption. What more easy mode of corruption would there be than for a man to say, "I will pay nothing, bring your action?" It would be a good deal more profitable for an attorney to have the defence of 100 actions than to have a sum of 100l. given to him. Yet the party must rely on the discretion of the returning officer in order to make these transactions safe.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that every Member of that House was aware of the wonderful acumen which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) always brought to bear upon the clauses of a Bill, and he had now exercised it con amore in pulling the present clause to pieces. There could be no doubt that the object of the Bill was a most laudable one, and that every one should do his best to overcome the difficulties that presented themselves. The mode of proceeding laid down in this Bill would, he believed, be more advantageous in stopping direct bribery than all the penal laws they could enact—the fact that payments could only be made through 276 a responsible officer, and were immediately afterwards to be proclaimed to the world, was the most effectual check that could be placed upon bribery. He had felt the difficulty that existed as to the appointment of that officer. His own view, however, was, that the appointment ought to be made independent of the candidates. Three parties had been named who might appoint him—the revising barristers, the Judges, or the sheriff of the county. With respect to the revising barristers and Judges, the great objection to them was, that they really had no local knowledge, so as to make the best selection; they were not always on the spot. and could not know the circumstances sufficiently. It seemed to him that they were driven to make a choice between the sheriff of the county and the returning officer; but the sheriff could not have the same amount of local knowledge as the returning officer. It was said that the returning officer might be a partisan, but the same objection might be made to the sheriff. There might be individual cases in which they forgot their duty to the community, but, on the whole, it was his opinion that they discharged their functions exceedingly well. He would prefer that the proposed officer should be styled election auditor, as that would be a more appropriate designation. The only case in which there would be a departure from simple ministerial action was, where the candidate was not disposed to pay the amount demanded of him. The cases would be exceedingly few where the intervention of the officer would be called for, and then all he would have to do would be of a very simple nature and requiring no amount of legal knowledge. They would do wisely and well to leave the appointment of this election officer to the returning officer, and there could be no room for doubt that the appointment should be made as soon as any expenses were incurred, which would be as soon as the proceedings of the election commenced.

§ MR. MASSEY
said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in some of his observations, but he doubted whether bribery could be prevented by penal enactments. He was convinced that if there was one man willing to give a bribe and another ready to take it, no legislative contrivance of a penal nature would prevent them from coming together. He thought the solemn and unequivocal declaration proposed to be made by Members at the table, that they had not been guilty, 277 directly or indirectly, of any undue practices to procure their return, would be the only effective provision against corruption that could be devised; and if he received any encouragement from the Committee, he would move the omission of the clause.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he was inclined to regard the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General as an improvement on his own. He thought that having the public officer, who should have all the election expenses brought under his view, and should be afterwards bound to declare them, would be a check on bribery greater than having an agent of the candidates. The objections made had been chiefly to the time of the appointment, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had exhausted his ingenuity in pointing out the difficulties that would be created by the wording of the clause; but he thought that, taking the view of his hon, and learned Friend the Attorney General, there would be no difficulties in the course proposed. It appeared to him that the returning officer, if it were decided that the nomination be vested in him, should make the appointment as soon as possible after being appointed himself.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he did not see the necessity of the returning officer making the appointment immediately after being appointed himself. He would propose, in substitution of the words in the clause, other words to the following effect— That once in every year, in the month of August, the returning officer of every place returning a Member or Members to serve in Parliament should appoint an election officer, to be called 'Auditor of Election Expenses,' to act at every election during the year.

§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, that there was no security required in the case of this officer. It might be expedient to provide some security to protect the candidates who had paid the money.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, that the attention of the Committee had already been called to that difficulty, and various proposals had been made to meet the case, none of which had been adopted except one, which would be found in Clause 21, which indirectly, but yet with certainty, protected the candidate, as it enabled him to pay to a banker of his own choice all the money with which the election officer had to deal, and through that banker alone the charges were to be paid by the election 278 officer with cheques, countersigned by the candidate.

§ MR. GROGAN
said, he doubted whether there was any necessity for this officer at all. In small boroughs the legitimate expenses of the officer who was expected to do such wonderful duties would be so exceedingly trifling, that if a candidate wished to get in by bribery his simplest method would be to bribe the officer himself, Again, in a large borough the percentage allowed to the officer would amount to a large sum, and the arrangement would then not be characterised by that economy which it was one of the declared objects of the Bill to enforce. He thought that the best security against bribery would be the oath which every Member would be required to take at the table of the House by the 33rd clause. He should vote for the rejection of the present clause if any Motion to that effect were made.

§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNON
said, he thought that the election officer, instead of being, as suggested, nominated in August, should be appointed at the period when the returning officer was appointed, otherwise a returning officer might have serving under him for a portion of the year an officer for whose appointment he was not responsible.

§ MR. HILDYARD
said, that they ought to take care in considering this clause, for it provided that any payment made by the Member, otherwise than through the election officer, would be illegal. That might lead to the candidate being petitioned against, on the ground of some informality in the appointment of the officer. He must say that he never read in his life a Bill in which such especial pains had been taken to lay so many traps for the candidate; and, in his opinion, they should be extremely cautious in exercising their ingenuity in such a manner as to devise means by which the elections of Members returned to sit in that House might be rendered void.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, he believed that there was no necessity whatever for the appointment of the officer in question, and that they might easily have recourse to some more simple plan for the purpose of effecting the object which they professed to have in view. He saw no objection, for instance, to the introduction of a provision into the Bill, declaring that when any man became a candidate at an election he should nominate an agent, due notice of that nomination being given to the public 279 that all payments should pass through the hands of that agent, and that within one fortnight after the election had taken place both the agent and the candidate should be bound to furnish an account of all payments made by them in connection with the election; should verify that statement, and in case any payment should be concealed by them then that the election should be declared void, or some other penalty inflicted. In his opinion, a provision of that nature would secure the attainment of the object which they had in view more efficaciously than the cumbrous machinery necessarily connected with the appointment of an election officer. He should not vote against the clause, though he did not think it would be of any benefit, for it was his intention to vote in favour of every Bill proposed to prevent bribery, and when all those measures were found to be fruitless the House would come round to the conviction that there was only one way to check bribery and corruption, and that was by the ballot.

MR. BENTINCK
said, he very much doubted whether this or any other clause that could be framed on the subject would be effectual in attaining the desired object, and whether it would not tend to complicate rather than remove the difficulty connected with this subject. It must be patent to every Gentleman in that House that election expenses were very complicated matters, and that there was a great deal of trickery and fraud incident to them, to prevent which required the closest examination and the greatest care. He contended that there were few men in any county or borough competent to enter minutely into the very complicated question of election expenses; and he thought the best course would be to appoint a permanent officer, who would be thoroughly conversant with the subject, and against whose ability, at least, no possible objection could be raised. He would also suggest that, instead of remunerating such an officer by a commission of 2l. per cent upon the amount of the election expenses, and thus holding out a direct premium to increase the expenses, he should be paid in the inverse ratio, or just as he diminished, and not as he increased, the expenses of the election.

§ MR. BONHAM-CARTER
said, he objected to the clause as it now stood, for he thought that if an election officer were appointed at all, he should not be appointed annually, but, as the candidature continued 280 for the whole of the election, there was no reason why the person through whom the expenses would pass should not be appointed for the same period. The 21st clause stated that any payments made in connection with an election by the authority of a candidate, except through the election officer, should be an illegal payment, and, upon proof thereof, the election of such candidate should be void. Many Members were called upon to contribute towards registration expenses. and he wished to know whether, such payments being certainly in connection with the election, they were to pass through the hands of the election officer? He thought the extraordinary machinery of this part of the Bill was likely to lead to a great deal of mischief, and that it would place power in the hands of those to whom it ought not to be given. His own impression was, that that and many other clauses of the Bill deserved far more consideration than they were likely to receive in Committee, if their legislation was really to have the effect of maintaining purity at elections of Members to that House.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he must maintain that the provisions of the Bill with respect to what might and what might not be considered legal expenses were so vague, and laid so many pitfalls for the candidate, that Members would, under their operation, be constantly liable to have their honour assailed, and would be exposed to the risk of a prosecution, because it might be demonstrated that they had defrayed some expenses whose payment was not sanctioned by the Act. All the registration expenses, for instance, were expenses connected with the election; and, in fact, every shilling which a candidate or his agent might spend from the commencement to the close of the election might be classed under that denomination. It was, therefore, perfectly manifest that the candidate could never be certain as to whether, in making certain payments, he was or was not acting in violation of the law—a state of things which all must admit it was by no means desirable should exist. He must also add that he felt disposed to regard with the greatest suspicion the appointment of an election officer, inasmuch as he saw no reason why the returning officer should not be able to perform all the duties for whose discharge it was proposed that a new officer should be appointed, and also inasmuch as the responsibility, which ought, if possible, 281 to be confined to one, would thus be shared by two individuals. To the entire of the latter provisions of the Bill, in short, he was altogether opposed.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he thought the discussion had established the propriety of the returning officer appointing the election officer, and he was, therefore, not disposed to press any further the view which he had stated when the question was first introduced. He confessed, however, that he was not satisfied of the wisdom of refusing to introduce a barrister of experience into the matter. He concurred in the remarks which had been made that this was the appointment of a very important officer, in whose hands the character of the candidate would be, to a great extent, placed, and that there was no security proposed for his responsibility. The scheme of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) gave a better security; for it proposed to give judicial power to revising barristers, and to enable them to tax the bills sent in. If that had been agreed to, there would have been an officer responsible to public opinion, in whom they would have had a guarantee that no improper expenses would be allowed. By the present Bill, however, there was no security for the responsibility of the parties to be appointed, and no security for the expenses to be incurred.

§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR
said, he was sorry to be obliged to add his voice to the almost unanimity of dissatisfaction with which the clause had been received. There was so much force in the remarks which had been made in the course of discussion, and especially by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Bonham-Carter), that he confessed he thought the adoption of the clause would add to the numerous difficulties which had already been experienced in knowing how to interpret the law as applied to election proceedings. If the Bill were to be incumbered with these clauses, he was afraid there was no hope of its becoming the law of the land this year, and he therefore hoped his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) would consent to the withdrawal of these clauses, and that the House would then endeavour to frame such a Bill as would attain the objects they had in view.

LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPEST
said, he had strong objections to the introduction of this clause into the Bill. An hon. Member returned to Parliament frequently had bills laid before him which he 282 refused to pay as illegal, but he was now given to understand that unless he paid them he would never be returned again, and would inflict ruin upon the cause. Hon. Members were, therefore, obliged either to pay the bills laid before them or to lose all chance of representing the place again. He thought the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk was far more beneficial in its objects than the Bill now before the Committee. If a gentleman, on becoming a candidate for any borough or county, were required to state to the returning officer who his election agent really was, and if a declaration were required to be made on oath by each Member when he took his seat, all that was required would be attained. If these clauses were agreed to, however, every candidate standing for a borough or county would be open to prosecution and snares of every description; and, unless something in the way of protection were afforded, it would be impossible to induce hon. Gentlemen to risk a contest.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he feared there would be some difficulty in passing the clause from the opinions that had been expressed. All parties were agreed on two points, that they ought to get rid of the scandals at elections, and that the subject was a very difficult one. He thought, however, that all those Members who had voted against the ballot were particularly bound to agree to conditions of the most stringent character for the purpose of lessening the evil. The noble Lord the Member for London and the other Members of the Committee had made every exertion to render the Bill as perfect as possible. The appointment of a public officer was taken from the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly); but as his character was changed, he (Mr. Bright) did not think it necessary to have a legal person. The Bill, so far from opening new pitfalls for the candidate, would place him in a much better position. He thought it advisable that the candidate should be disconnected from all pecuniary transactions both before and after the election. The officer to be appointed was not to decide on the propriety of any particular payment, but to pay all charges and expenses that the candidate admitted were sanctioned by him. This was a better mode of establishing the precise amount then expended, than to leave it to the declaration of the agents. He knew if that were done, the result would 283 be that a candidate would look for an agent who was not troublesomely scrupulous. It was no objection to say that the officer might be a political partisan; the returning officer might now be so. In the borough of Rochester the returning officer since the Reform Bill was a decided Tory, yet the Liberal Members for the borough bore their testimony to his impartiality and fairness. If the question came to a division, he would support the clause as it stood. If the clause was withdrawn, the whole force of the Bill was gone; it became a mere consolidation of the bribery law, with a clause on the subject of undue influence. If the clause was rejected, he did not see any use in going on with the Bill. He was anxious to render the Bill as efficacious as possible, although he thought the ballot would be the only sure means of putting a stop to bribery. The passing the Bill would not prevent the annual discussion. They should endeavour to make both candidates and electors feel that the law regarded bribery as a disgraceful and infamous offence, and that it would not receive the same indulgence as before. The clause was an attempt to apply a new remedy. Some elections were now at hand, and they would have an opportunity of testing it. If the Bill passed, he was sure the noble Lord the President of the Council would not object to issue the suspended writs; if the plan failed, they would next Session be able to discuss the subject to more advantage. He was not very sanguine as to the successful operation of the Bill, but he would support it in every way.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought the more the clause was discussed the greater was the difficulty that presented itself in reference to it and the more unintelligible it became. The hon. Member who last spoke said be understood the clause, but it was clear that all the Members of the Committee were not agreed upon its precise effect and bearing. They had had no consideration of who this officer was to be, or what were to be his qualifications when the election began, and the liability of the candidate was to commence—that liability which might disqualify him altogether. It might be well to have the election accounts published, but the difficulty was how that was to be done, and how were they to ensure that they would be published accurately. One hon. Friend of his behind him had suggested that it would be easy for a candidate who wished to evade the law to bribe the election officer, and that 284 probably would be the best way—at all events they by no means appeared to be agreed upon any one point in reference to this clause, and he would suggest, therefore, that the better course would be to defer it for the present Session. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had hinted that those who opposed the ballot should support this clause, but that the ballot would be the most satisfactory remedy. He differed from the hon. Member. He believed that with the ballot there would be more bribery than now, and he did not see, that, as an opponent of the ballot, he was bound to vote for this clause. The hon. Gentleman had further said that they would probably have the opportunity of judging of the effect of this proposal in the elections for the boroughs, which by the suspension of the writs were now unrepresented; but he (Mr. Henley) did not attach much value to that experience. He believed, with the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor) that the effect of the clause would be to surround the candidate with traps and pitfalls, and he hoped, therefore, it would not be persisted in.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said he would remind those hon. Gentlemen who considered that the effect of this clause would be to surround the candidates with traps and pitfalls, that there were traps and pitfalls existing as the law now stood. Last year they had more than a usual number of charges of bribery at the previous general election, and more than the usual number of Members were unseated on that ground, many of whom he would venture to say had not the least intention when they became candidates of securing their seats by corrupt means. But the position of things was such under the existing system, that a candidate honestly desiring to confine himself to the strict legal expenses, might find, six months after his election, that, unknown to him, large sums of money had been expended on his behalf in bribery, and might lose his seat in consequence. This was no unusual occurrence, and he thought it would be a great security, therefore, if, by any plan like that provided in these clauses, they could be sure that all the legal expenses incurred at the election should be published, and that the person who expended the money should know that, if the published amount were exceeded, he would not be entitled to recover it from the candidate. A gentleman concerned in an election not long ago complained to him of the bribery committed by the opposite party, but admitted that he had spent 285 6,000l. or 7,000l. in maintaining the purity of election. The worthy man said it was difficult to account for the spending of so much money on such an object. He could not but think that the end to be obtained by this clause was important; namely, that the expenses of elections, which they knew to be now enormous, should be limited to the strict legal charge; and he believed that if candidates and those who were concerned in elections were to agree to place the accounts of each election in the hands of an officer appointed for the purpose, and that those accounts should be published, and open to the inspection of every elector, a very considerable check would be placed upon corrupt practices. Whether they called such officer an election officer or an auditor of election expenses mattered not; the proposal was the same. But by means of that person publicity should be given of all the election accounts, and he could not but consider that the effect of such publicity would be that the expenses of elections would be greatly diminished in amount, and rendered much less objectionable and corrupt than they now too frequently were. But it had been urged that under this clause many questions of great difficulty would arise, and that, for instance, it would be very difficult to say where an election began, or where the candidate's responsibility commenced. No doubt there were questions of this kind that might require much debate, and if they were called upon to settle every one of them in the present Bill, he admitted they would not be likely now in the month of July, or even if they were at the beginning of the month of February, to pass the Bill in the present Session. Practical men would be able, he apprehended, to solve those questions tolerably well when they came before them; and if it were contended before an Election Committee that a gentleman, because he might have exhibited great hospitality and great liberality in the borough or county five or six years before, bad done so as a candidate, and with a view to influence the electors, he thought the Committee would very soon dispose of such an allegation. He hoped, for the reasons he had stated that his right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Committee, would not be a party to the withdrawal of the clause.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, that as his objection to the clause was with reference to the appointment of the election officer by the candidate, and as he understood the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was 286 about to move a proviso to prevent that, the difficulty he had felt in the matter was removed. He believed the ballot was the only effectual remedy for bribery at elections, but be felt bound to unite with those who thought differently when they proposed a measure which they considered would cure the evil.

§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
said, he would propose that the election officer should be appointed, not by the returning officer, but by the revising barrister in England and the assistant barrister in Ireland.

§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNON
hoped the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would persevere in their view, and that the original suggestion of the noble Lord would be adopted in allowing the returning officer to appoint his own officer.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, it was a mere question whether it would be better that the appointment of the officer should be made a fixed and permanent one, or whether the appointment should be from year to year. He considered the clause, as it stood, would effect the object they all seemed to have in view. It would be very desirable that the election officer should be a fit and proper person, but it would be difficult to define the qualifications of this officer more minutely, and it would be undesirable to introduce prohibitions into the Bill. It would be better hereafter to introduce a clause imposing upon the election officer the necessity of making a declaration that he would well and truly perform his duty, and imposing penalties for any wilful breach of duty.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he thought the returning officer ought to be made responsible for the acts of the election agent.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, it would be impossible to make the returning officer responsible for the conduct of the gentleman whom he might appoint. They might take all the securities they pleased from the officer appointed.

MR. BENTINCK
said, he would move that the further consideration of this clause be postponed.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member could not make this Motion at present.

MR. BENTINCK
said, he would then move that the clause be negatived. It was indispensable, before they proceeded to the appointment of an officer of this descrip- 287 tion, that two precautions should be taken —one, that the appointment should be placed in such hands, that a fit and proper person should be selected; and secondly, that the Bill should state what were and what were not legitimate election expenses. Until this was done, it would be dangerous to appoint such an officer.

§ MR. CAIRNS
said, he thought it desirable that the clause should be negatived unless some understanding was given that it would be brought forward in a different form. If the election officer was to have any control over the expenses of elections, care should be taken to place the appointment in the hands of some person independent of the candidates. As the clause stood, the election officer had no discretion over the expenses which were to pass through his hands. What, then, was he appointed for? It might be said that the object was to secure publicity to all expenses at elections, which was, no doubt, a good object. But at present candidates appointed their own agents, and if you could obtain that publicity by some such plan as that proposed by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) in his first Bill, it would be desirable. That plan was, that each candidate should pay to his agent the sums required for his expenses, which should all pass through the agent's hands, and the agent was bound to make a return of the expenses, and he and the candidate were to be compelled to declare on oath that these were all the expenses incurred. If some such plan were adopted, you would have gained all the objects required by the clause, and there would be no questions about appointment or fitness, or any of, those points which had been now discussed.

MR. HEYWORT
said, he should support the clause. He should wish to see those expenses which properly belonged to the community, such as polling-booths, paid by the public.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said that, as a Member of the Select Committee, he could state that the Members were unanimously of opinion that some such election officer as the one proposed in this clause should be appointed, and that this clause was regarded by them as the keystone of the Bill. The question was started and thoroughly canvassed, whether they should give the power to these officers of declaring what were legitimate election expenses, but it was abandoned as impracticable. They, therefore, relied upon the 288 force of the publicity to be given to these accounts, and they thought that that of itself would go far to shame the constituency out of bribery. He would only add that, if the Committee should not agree to this clause, he should think it would hardly be worth the while of the Government to go on with the Bill.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he wished to say a few words before the Committee proceeded to a division. This clause contemplated the appointment of an election officer, to whom, and through whom, and whom alone, the whole of the election expenses should be paid. When the evil to be remedied was considered, he thought the Committee would approve of the clause. The evil was grievous and enormous in this country; and, notwithstanding legislative and other remedies, bribery had of late increased until it assumed a magnitude discreditable in the highest degree both to the Constitution and people of this country. how was it now proposed to remedy the evil? At present a gentleman, after being elected, might take a stringent oath that, to his knowledge, or with his sanction, no money had been spent in bribing voters at the election. Yet the bribery might have been practised to a great extent without his knowledge. The custom was for the candidate to pay large sums of money to his agent, with directions that they should not be misapplied, and that only legitimate expenses should be paid; and yet, when the election was over, it turned out that bribery to the amount of thousands of pounds had been carried on, and Members were unseated by the acts of those over whom they bad no control. In his opinion, the only way to overcome the evil was this—to appoint one individual into whose hands the whole of the expenses of the election should be given. They were told that the system was a complicated one; now he considered that it was simple in the extreme. The whole of the candidates were to pay all the possible expenses of the election into one man's band, and he did not see how it was possible that any bribery could take place, unless that officer should himself consent to it. All the candidates had to do was, to take care not to pay one shilling of money for any matter connected with the election, except what he paid into the hands of this election officer, and he would be perfectly safe. If the law they now sought to carry into effect had been in existence for the last twenty-fire years, the 289 thousands and tens of thousands of pounds which had been paid by the candidates, much of which doubtless was expended in bribery, would not have been expended at all. The system proposed would give the only protection that could be afforded to the candidate himself, and that was a point well worthy of the consideration of the Committee. No man, however pure his motives and his conduct might be, could deem himself safe, as he might, although duly elected, be unseated by the acts of others, with which he had nothing whatever to do. He knew of no more effectual protection to the candidate than his being enabled to make a declaration of all the money he had paid, and the dates and objects of such payments, and he did not know how it was possible, under these circumstances, that any bribery could be committed. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would approve of the clause, which put the matter in the easiest and simplest form under the control of a public officer. One of the objections to the clause was, that it was full of snares and pitfalls. He utterly denied it, and he did not think that bribery could be put down in a more simple and effectual manner.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he felt considerable hesitation in opposing the clause, but having listened to the long discussion that had taken place, he must say that he felt now, as throughout, insuperable objections to it. He could assure hon. Members that he was not actuated by any desire to perpetuate the existing unfortunate state of things, or to countenance the bribery which so extensively, and he regretted to say so generally, prevailed. He was desirous that every effort should be made to adopt practical means of repressing it, but he did not want to fetter the candidate with undue restrictions, or place him in a position of difficulty and danger, to which no man ought to be exposed. He contended, however, that the candidate got no protection whatever—there was merely to be a publication of the account of the expenses attending the election. There were certain expenses connected with elections which were inevitable; and let them legislate as they would they could not put a stop to them. Hon. Members not having any local connection with a borough were applied to for subscriptions to races, to public balls, to blanket clubs, and coal clubs. It was well known that these subscriptions were paid to strengthen the influence of the candidate in the borough. 290 Was the election officer to be called upon to pay these subscriptions? Again, the candidate was liable to be sued for any election expenses incurred, notwithstanding the appointment of this public officer. He could not settle this demand, nor could he, by payment of a small sum, get rid of the cost and vexation of the action without consulting the public officer. Be believed there was not a gentleman behind him who was not prepared to vote against this clause, and there were many hon. Gentlemen on the other side who were also opposed to it. Although all were desirous of preventing bribery at elections, he hoped they would not give their assent to any such a clause.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he considered the clause as the very essence of the Bill, and, if the Committee rejected it, it would he plain to the country no desire existed to put an end to the system of bribery and corruption which had become a scandal and a disgrace to it. He believed the whole objection to the clause was the publicity it would occasion; its intention was simply to enforce the payment of election expenses and enable the public to know what they were.

MR. BENTINCK
said, the inference was, that the opponents of the clause were in favour of maintaining and perpetuating bribery at elections; but if the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member would frame a clause, no matter how stringent, that would secure publicity to all the payments made by candidates it would have his support; this clause he maintained would not do so.

§ MR. HILDYARD
said, he wished to move that the respective periods should be "three months" and "two months."

MR. BENTINCK
supported the Amendment. If an agent died, or was guilty of misconduct, it would be rather hard to call upon the candidate to send in his bills within one month.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, there could be no doubt that the accounts should get into the hands of the election officer as soon as possible, even for the sake of the candidate himself; but at the same time they should give the candidate proper time to examine the bills and satisfy himself that they were correct.

§ MR. HILDYARD
said, he thought that before proceeding further they should settle the question whether refreshment tickets were to be legal or not.

§ WR. WALPOLE
said, he should be prepared to discuss that question fully upon a subsequent clause.

§ MR. HILDYARD
said, he must complain of the numerous penalties contained in the clause, and he would propose that they should be struck out.

MR. PIGOTT
said, he thought the penalty of 50l. very severe, because the candidate would be liable to it if by some mistake he omitted to send in one particular bill. There was also to be a cumulative penalty of 20l. for every week of default during which the bills and claims continued not to be sent in to the election officer after the time specified for doing so.

§ MR. ELLIOT
said, he also considered the penalties very heavy, as the bills and statement of charges might not be sent in merely from accident or excusable oversight. He, therefore, thought notice should be given to the candidate that the time for sending in the claims had expired, and allowing him an extension of the period for doing so—say a week longer.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he thought, as the object of the penalties was merely to secure the sending in of the bills and claims, that the continuing penalty need not he retained.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that if the continuing penalty were omitted from the clause, the candidate might pay the first penalty, and then afterwards defy the law with impunity.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he would not object to the cumulative penalty being reduced from 20l. to 10l.

§ SIR JOHN WALSH
said, he hoped he might be allowed to point out the necessity of clearly defining every term employed by the Bill. Thus, for instance, it would be well to know whether travelling expenses and refreshment tickets would come under the same heading. In the case of the Southampton Election Committee it had been decided that travelling expenses were 292 lawful, and by that means the seat of the Attorney General was saved, though numerous contradictory decisions were on record.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he could not express his opinion too strongly on the point to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted. There was an absolute duty imposed upon Parliament, finally, and he hoped satisfactorily, to settle the question of travelling expenses. It would be better to have the Bill rejected than that it should be passed leaving any part of that question unsettled.

§ MR. MASSEY
said, he wished to know whether any of the penalties under the Bill were recoverable before the county courts?

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that the Select Committee had drawn this distinction—that all penalties for bribery and treating should be recovered in the county courts; while all offences involving the consequences of disfranchisement or disqualification were made recoverable only in the superior courts of law.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to know whether it would be lawful for a person to pay a bill after a month had passed by. No doubt many cases would occur by which, from some mischance or other, candidates would be debarred from paying legitimate expenses during the period marked out by the Act. Now, there could be no doubt that, to sensitive and honourable minds, it would be a severe affliction to feel that they had incurred obligations which could not be discharged. For if their seats in Parliament were jeopardised by their defraying those charges, it might end in their remaining due altogether.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, that if a tradesman from inadvertence had omitted sending in his bill within the month, although under the Act it would be unlawful to pay it, yet, if it were a fair and reasonable bill, there would be no objection whatever to the candidate paying it.
In answer to Mr. EVELYN DENISON,

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that if a bill were paid except through the election officer, it would be illegal, and in consequence the election of the sitting Member might be declared void, but it would be only so declared by a Committee of the House; the question could not be at all brought before the county court.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he wished to know to what period before the election this prohibition referred? Did it extend to the payment of expenses incurred in the registration of voters?

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that registration expenses formed totally distinct payments, and had nothing whatever to do with the election. The Committee were now coming to the clause enacting that no payments were to be made except through the election officer, so that any breach of this provision might make the election void. The payments which would form exceptions to this rule would of course be contained in other clauses of the Bill. That would give rise to questions as to what you were to include under the head of personal expenses, and what you were to allow the agents to pay as current expenses. He wished, however, now to say that he was willing to admit on both of those points—both as regarded current and personal expenses—that a larger interpretation ought to be put upon them than was put in the Bill. He was willing to allow that these exceptions should cover every legitimate expenditure which was likely to be incurred prior to the election. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the words, "having any connection with the election," as the retention of those words would extend too widely the operation of the clause.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, that the Bill altogether surrounded candidates at elections with a perfect network of penalties, which there would be the greatest possible difficulty in avoiding. In this clause, however, they arrived at the culminating point. If after the election it turned out that a money payment, unauthorised by the election officer, had been made by the candidate or by the authority of the candidate, this fact, if proved before a Committee of the House, would make the election void. Now, was there any necessity for such a provision? The payment might be to the amount of but 5s.; it might be a perfectly honest one, free from any imputation, and a just and legal payment; and yet, because not made through the appointed officer, the election was to be void. He could not sanction a provision of this sort, and should therefore move that these words "upon proof thereof the election of such candidate shall be void "be omitted, and that these words be inserted instead, "and upon proof thereof such candidate shall be subject to a penalty 294 of 10l., to be recovered by any person who shall sue for the same."

LORD SEYMOUR
said, he thought that it would be advisable to insert words into the clause, stating before what tribunal it was necessary that proof of illegal pay, went should be brought.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, that as the loss of a seat was involved, proof must necessarily be brought before an Election Committee.

§ MR. HILDYARD
said, he doubted if an Election Committoe would have jurisdiction if words were not introduced, more clearly defining the tribunal before which the proof was to be taken. It seemed to him that it would be necessary to exclude registration expenses under this Bill, because agents might be bribed indirectly in that way. He believed that a great number of election petitions would be presented under the hope of hitting the Member through the operation of this clause. He hoped, however, that the Committee would consent to the Amendment.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
had no objection to strike out the words which involved the loss of a seat, but he considered that 10l. was too severe a penalty for an accidental payment.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Lord.

§ MR. COBDEN
said, that by Clause 33 the Member was required to make a declaration on taking his seat to the following effect— I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely declare, without any equivocation or mental reservation, that I have not knowingly made, authorised, or sanctioned, and that I will not knowingly make, authorise, or sanction any payment on account of my election, other than is allowed by law under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1854. Now, if the Member who had taken his seat after that declaration, and who had violated the law, was subjected to a penalty of only 10l., it might appear that they were dealing in a different spirit towards the Member and towards the electors, whom by previous clauses they struck off the lists. In assenting to the Amendment they should take care that they were not acting inconsistently and more leniently towards themselves than towards the electors.

§ Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE
said, the hon. Member for the West Riding did not appear to understand clearly the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis's 295 Amendment. The object of the was Amendment was not to avert any consequences of having made a corrupt payment "knowingly." It was to avoid the extreme penalty in cases of accidental payment that the Amendment was proposed.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the question was this—was it intended to assign a time for payments at election time within which the provision was only to operate?

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, that the Committee, before imposing penalties, ought to define legal and illegal expenses. There were many expenses which, though not necessary, were sanctioned by custom, and were not corrupt. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) to prepare a schedule of expenses which were to be permitted to be paid. Unless this were done the candidates would be at the mercy of the election officer.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he thought that no one except the hon. Baronet would think it necessary that the Committee should define whether every expense was legal or illegal before legislating upon this subject. The payments declared to, be illegal were not so in themselves, but only if they were made in a particular manner. All corrupt payments had been defined, but others remained exactly as they were.

§ MR. HENLEY
said. he thought the question of the bon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had not been clearly answered. As payments were made illegal on account of the time and manner in which they were made, it became of the first consequence to define the time. He hoped that those Gentlemen who had charge of the Bill would throw out something to guide the Committee, in order to arrive at a sound opinion.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he thought that it would be as well, in order to avoid all illegality, to require that all expenses should be paid through the election officer. It was evident that before the election began, it was necessary to incur various expenses. When a person proposed to stand as a candidate, he (Sir F. Kelly) did not see any reason why he should not be required at once to announce his determination, and to pay whatever expenses were necessary through the election officer. When they came to consider the exceptions, he presumed that those who had charge of the Bill would listen with atten- 296 tion to every suggestion offered in respect to the description of payments which might be fairly made before the election.

§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR
said, he viewed the clause with great apprehension. He considered that, as the clause was framed, an innocent person might be compelled to suffer by the act of a guilty individual. As to the publicity of the accounts, he could not understand how the accounts would be made more public by this clause than they would be if it were not passed.

§ MR. COBDEN
said, that it had been stated that they were under this clause legislating as to a particular mode of payment, and not for a corrupt payment, but he begged to remind the Committee that they might be dealing with both under one head. This clause had been carefully considered, and he should be sorry to see a relaxation of the stringent provisions of the Bill made only in favour of the candidate. Were they to agree to the proposed alteration, they would destroy the moral effect of the law and render themselves liable to the imputation of not being in earnest with the subject.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, that the relaxation which he proposed referred not to payments that were in themselves illegal, but solely to payments illegal in respect to the hand by which they were made. His object was simply to protect a Member from losing his seat because the payment was made by an illegal hand.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he concurred with the hon. and learned Member as far as this—that he thought they should not declare the election void because a payment was illegally made. He thought, however, they had better not fix any penalty then, but limit the present clause to a declaration that any payment not made through the election officer should be deemed an illegal payment.

§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
hoped that the clause would be postponed, inasmuch as he did not think that the Committee were aware of what its effect would be. By this clause any trifling payment, such as even 5s. to the postboy for driving the candidate in respect to the election, would be sufficient to forfeit his seat.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he must remind the Committee that personal expenses included travelling expenses. The question as to what were to be considered personal expenses was, however, a subject for dis- 297 cussion when they came to another portion of the Bill.

MR. PIGOTT
said, he also thought there was a difficulty in deciding what were election payments. For instance, candidates were often called upon to contribute towards the repair of a church or to a race fund, and he wanted to know if those subscriptions were to be taken as payment incident to the election.

§ MR. WALPOLE
had no hesitation in saying decidedly not.

§ MR. HILDYARD
said, he must still contend that all this legislation was useless, because bribery would be carried on under the guise of the subscriptions which the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Pigott) had suggested. Suppose a coal fund were established in a borough, and one candidate subscribed 1,000l. to it, while the other declined to contribute anything to it, could the Committee have any doubt in deciding which canditate would be returned?