§ Order read for considering the Bill as amended.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he would beg to move to insert, instead of Clause A, Section 10, the Clause of which he had given notice. Clause (If any person shall, either during any election of a Member to serve in Parliament, or within six calendar months previous to such election, or within fourteen days after it shall have been completed, be employed at such election as counsel, agent, attorney, poll clerk, flagman, or in any other capacity, for the purposes of such election, and shall at any time, either before, during, or after such election, accept or take from any such candidate or candidates, or from any person whatsoever, for or in consideration of or with reference to such employment, any sum or sums of money, retaining fee, office, place, or employment, or any promise or security for any sum or sums of money, retaining fee, office, place, or employment, such person shall he deemed incapable of voting at such election, and his vote, if given, shall be utterly void and of none effect, and shall render him liable to forfeit the sum of fifty pounds to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full costs of suit), brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he did not propose to offer any opposition to his hon. Friend's clause. He believed there were only two questions which might lead to much difference of opinion—one of which was the vexata quœstio as to whether there should be an allowance for refreshment expenses, with respect to which a clause would be introduced when the present was disposed of; the other question arose out of an Amendment which was to be moved. As far as the other Amendments were concerned, they were rather Amendments to other clauses, than as asserting any new or disputed principle; and he would suggest that this, as well as those relating to allowances for refreshments and travelling expenses, be taken on the recommittal of the Bill, and that at the present stage they should dispose only of those Amendments which were unopposed.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, he considered this another instance of the anxiety of some hon. Members to import 50l. penalties into every clause. By the present clause, persons acting as special constables would be liable to a penalty, and when he mentioned that to the hon. Member for Liverpool, he told him that that would be rectified by another clause, which, on examination, did not effect the object.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the question was, whether or not they would adopt the clause of the hon. Member. At present, although persons coming under the description there given were restricted from voting at an election, it was notorious that such persons did vote, and, as no remuneration ought to be given to a voter, it was obvious some alteration of the law was required; the Select Committee were of opinion that no person who was an elector should be employed in any capacity. With regard to special constables, they were persons employed by the mayors or returning officers at elections, merely for the purpose of keeping the peace.
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, he considered that the clause would prevent all persons who were employed at elections as poll clerks, or in any similar capacity, under the direction of the sheriffs or returning officers, from exercising the right of voting, and would also subject them to penalties. He thought it was desirable that such a clause should receive more full discussion than could take place in the House, and, with that view, he would move that the Bill be recommitted.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that such a Motion could not be made until the clause now before the House was disposed of.
§ MR. BANKESsaid, he was astonished by the proposition which should make voters subject to a penalty of 50l., which might come upon them as a surprise. He thought the Bill required very full consideration, and he regretted the readiness with which the noble Lord's proposition to take Amendments and additional clauses had been acceded to last night. He feared they might by this compliance allow legislation to proceed at a dangerous speed. He did not particularly wish the Bill to be recommitted if the noble Lord could point out any other way by which the object of the Motion could be attained.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he understood the right hon. Member did not object to the whole clause, but only to a part 499 of it. He thought the best course would be to pass the clause, and move that the words be omitted.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, that on his side of the House it was thought that there was an understanding that the Bill was to be recommitted, and on that understanding he withdrew his Motion last night. He called on the noble Lord to act according to that understanding.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must deny that there was any such understanding; what he had proposed was, to take the report of the Bill that evening.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was under the same impression as his noble Friend behind him, and he urged on the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) whether it would not be better to allow the Bill to be recommitted.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) wanted to have a long talk over another clause, and that was why he wished to make the Motion for recommittal. Gentlemen opposite knew perfectly well that unless the Bill was reported tonight it could not become law this Session, on account of the Standing Order of the other House, and the whole of this proposition was for the defeat of the Bill. There was evidently a great unwillingness to part with the system of bribery and corruption to which so many of them owed their seats in that House.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, it was all very well for the hon. Member for Lambeth, who had said he was the only pure person in the House, to say "put an end to bribery;" but the real question was the passing of a good Bill. The House of Lords, in their Standing Order, said they would not read any Bill a second time after the 25th of July, unless in case of emergency; and this was a Bill which might fairly come under the exception, and ought to be considered so by the other House. It was not the fact that if it was not reported to-night it could not go up to the Lords in sufficient time. It could be sent up in time, but still it ought to be thoroughly discussed, and that could only be done by its being recommitted. The Bill had been reprinted, and put wet into their bands as they came into the House, and there had been no opportunity of considering it in its present form. Explanations of the clauses could only be given in Committee, and he therefore urged his noble Friend to consider only the perfec- 500 tion of the Bill and to consent to its recommittal.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLbegged in the first place to state that he had never said a word against the recommittal of the Bill. All he had said was that he did not consent last night to that course. If by the recommittal they were to argue all the questions raised on the Bill over again, as if they knew nothing of what had been done in the last six days, he thought the Bill ought not to be recommitted; but if it was intended by the recommittal merely to make the discussion of the new clauses more easy, and it was conducted with such despatch as to enable the Bill to be reported to-morrow, he had no objection to the recommittal, and the clause now under discussion might be withdrawn and brought on again in Committee.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he would withdraw the clause, in order that the Motion might be made for recommitting the Bill.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Lambeth ought to be content with explaining the grounds of his own vote, without imputing motives to others, who were quite as free as himself. The hon. Member had accused them on that side of making a number of long and unnecessary speeches. The hon. Member had probably had an opportunity in Committee of saying his say. At all events the hon. Member ought to have been the last person who should have made such a charge; for no one made more long winded harangues than the hon. Member was in the habit of doing on questions within his peculiar province.
Order for recommitting the Bill read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to. Clause 10.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that this clause rendered it illegal for candidates to give cockades to voters at elections, but it left entirely untouched the more important question which had been alluded to in the course of the discussion with reference to the expenditure for chairing, bands of music, flags, and banners. He proposed, therefore, to add to the clause words which would prevent that expenditure.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
And all payments made for or on account of any chairing, or any bands of music, or flags or banners, shall be deemed illegal payments within this Act.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid he should oppose the proposition, on the ground that hereafter it would have a tendency, together with other enactments in the Bill, to give to elections the appearance of funerals. He thought that music and flags at elections were but the natural expressions of good humour and hilarity on the part of the people, and he should be sorry to see such ceremonies conducted, as in America, in sober silence and in a virulently factious spirit.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that the effect of them would be that the candidate could not lawfully make any such payments, either before, after, or during the election. He had introduced the Amendment principally at the suggestion of hon. Members behind him.
§ MR. IRTONsaid, he would suggest that, to complete the thing, the hon. and learned Gentleman had better include the ringing of bells.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, he, for one, should oppose the introduction of the proposed words, as being, in his opinion, worse than unnecessary.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that no doubt large sums of money might be spent in an objectionable manner for music, flags, and chairing at elections; but he had doubts whether the words did not go too far.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not withdraw the words. He spoke from experience when he said that fights were often occasioned by the meeting of the rival bands.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would remind his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) that this proposition had been deliberately discussed in the House last year, and rejected; and after that he thought it should not have been renewed without notice, seeing that it took the Committee rather by surprise.
§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he should support the Amendment, seeing that in the borough which he represented bands of music and banners had been dispensed with at the last election at the express wish of the authorities, on the ground that on previous occasions they had ever more or less led to the disturbance of the public peace.
§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, his 502 experience had led him to the conclusion that the breaches of the peace at elections ascribed to bands of music were referable, in almost every case, not to the conduct of the men employed in the bands, but to that of the people usually employed to protect the bandsmen on either side.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to know whether the Amendment was intended to apply to the purely spontaneous welcome in the shape of music which the people often gave to a candidate? For example, he might mention that in almost every one of the colliery villages in Northumberland and Durham the miners had a band of music, which, at election times, always turned out to welcome the candidates on either side. What he desired to know was, whether such men would be liable to penalties, because, now and then, they might be found playing a cheerful strain at an election?
§ MR. BOOKERsaid, he objected to the Amendment, and also to the clause itself, expressly on the ground that they were meant to suppress the ebullition of party feelings at elections. He thought party feeling was of the very essence of our political constitution. The present Ministry were attempting to carry on the Government without party feeling, and see what was the result.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he thought it was due to the importance of this subject that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) should have given notice of his Amendment. He hoped, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman would now withdraw his Amendment; for he (Mr. V. Smith) did not think they had any right to put down all the old ladies' music parties in a town during an election.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, he had taken part in elections in Ireland, where, by an old Act, music and flags and banners were prohibited, and in England, where these manifestations of popular feeling were permitted; and he had no hesitation in saying, that music appeared to him decidedly more calculated to produce good humour and order than was the absence of music.
§ MR. MANGLESsaid, at the last election for Guildford a tremendous riot arose out of the use of bands, which led to the serious maltreatment of the police, some of whom were left on the field almost for lead. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not give up his Amendment; with regard to "chairing," it was 503 a most fruitful source of bribery, corruption, and confusion.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, he would remind the Committee that they had some experience to go upon in this matter. In Ireland, bands were not allowed, in England they were, and yet in Ireland there was no end to rows and riots during contested elections.
§ MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, he thought that if the opposing candidates agreed on all occasions to have only one band, there would be an end of the fighting.
§ MR. E. BALLsaid, his experience had taught him that the employment of bands of music at elections was a frightful source of bitterness and dissension, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would have the courage to persevere with his Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 57: Majority 49.
Words added to the Clause, which was ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he would now beg to move the insertion of the following additional Clause—
Be it further enacted, that, after the passing of this Act, no returning officer, or whom he may appoint, shall permit, after a poll is once opened, any candidate or other person on his behalf, under any pretence, or in any capacity whatsoever, to be present within or about the hustings or booth where such poll is proceeding, any law, custom, or practice to the contrary notwithstanding.He did not mean to say this clause would be so effective as the ballot in the prevention of intimidation, but he believed that, next to the ballot, it would assist the freedom of action on the part of the voter. He thought no one whatever ought to interfere between the voter and the returning officer. Under the present system, the agent of the candidate, or of the landlord, was in the polling booth, and the elector was either thanked for his vote, or, if he had not voted on the side he was wanted to support, he was put down in the black book at once. The provision he suggested would make the Bill more effective, and would be well worth a trial.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to know how any returning officer, or any one appointed by him, could refuse permission to 504 persons who claimed to be present, and with what authority the hon. Member for Finsbury would arm him? But, setting this aside, one very substantial objection to the hon. Member's proposition arose out of an abuse which prevailed at contested elections, more particularly in seaport towns —namely, the personation of voters. The law now enabled, and almost enjoined, the candidates to appoint persons to verify the identity of those who came to poll. If there was no one in the booth besides the returning officer, or his representative, to speak to the identity of persons who came to give their votes, how were these frauds to be discovered?
§ Mr. ELLIOTsaid, he would point out, as an additional objection to the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. T. Duncombe), that many would-be voters were disqualified, and had to be objected to at the time when they presented themselves. Besides this, in preventing the attendance of other persons, you took away a check upon the polling clerk himself, who certainly required as much check as anybody.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there were strong and insuperable objections to the Motion. Many of these poll clerks, if left quite to themselves, being most likely friends of one or other of the candidates, would communicate to that candidate how the election was going on, while the other party might be left in ignorance on the subject.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, the effect of the words would be to prevent even the candidate and his friends from attending at the poll to give their votes.
§ MR. BANKESsaid, that referring generally to the Bill, he saw clearly that the consequence of its passing would be to introduce a new kind of voting. We must come very soon throughout the country to the parochial mode of voting. If Parliament prohibited, so strictly as it proposed to do, the payment of travelling expenses and a reasonable sum for refreshments, it was not to be supposed that in a county election, for example, a man, in addition to the forfeiture of a day's wages, would walk many miles to a polling booth, and then return home without any refreshment whatever. This would render necessary a system of parochial voting like that which existed for poor law guardians.
Clause negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 (Appointment of an Auditor of Election Expenses).
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYproposed that the clause should be omitted, for the purpose of substituting a clause providing that the election officer should be appointed once every year in the month of August, and that he should be reappointed as often as the returning officer should think fit; and also containing a declaration to be made by every election officer so appointed, any act contrary to such declaration being considered a misdemeanor. As he understood that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. G. Vernon) intended to propose some Amendments to the clause which he wished to insert, he would suggest to him, when the subject came under discussion, to move the omission of the words "once in every year, in the month of August."
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would also suggest that the clause should be struck out, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman should bring up the new clause at a subsequent stage.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that the Committee had decided that the election officer should be appointed by the returning officer; but when the hon. and learned Member (Sir F. Kelly) brought up the new clause, it was his intention to move that the appointment be made by the county court judge.
Clause struck out.
Clauses 17 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 24 (No person to pay expenses of Elections except to Candidate or Election Officer).
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYproposed the following proviso—
Provided that, if, upon the trial of any action for recovering any such penalty or penalties, it shall appear to the Judge who tries the same that any such payment shall have been made, or agreed to be made, by inadvertence, and without any corrupt or improper intention, such Judge may, if he shall think fit, reduce such penalty or penalties to any sum not less than 40s.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, that few payments were made inadvertently, whether the intention was improper or not. He would suggest, therefore, that the words "by inadvertence and" should be omitted.
Words "by inadvertence and" were accordingly struck out, and the proviso, as amended, was ordered to stand part of the clause.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, the Bill authorised actions to any extent by men of straw. When party feeling rose high, a large number would be brought unless they took some steps to protect the parties liable to 506 be harassed by them. The hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) had told them it would be impossible to frame a clause to protect innocent men against every pettifogging vagabond that might bring an action; if that was so, he hoped the House would pause before it accepted the Bill.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he willingly admitted that it was most desirable to protect those who acted from inadvertence, but as the House had laid down the principle that all payments should be made in one way, namely, through the hands of the election officer, it was necessary, in order to enforce the rule, that a penalty should be inflicted on all who transgressed, no matter how inadvertently.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, he should repeat his complaint, that by this Bill, as it now stood, men who never transgressed the law might be sued by pettifogging vagabonds, and subscriptions might be raised for the purpose when party feeling ran high; yet the innocent man was afforded no means of getting his costs from the man of straw, who might sue him. The Bill, he maintained, was capable of being perverted to the very worst purposes.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he had already stated to his hon. Friend that he considered it would be impossible to frame a clause to give costs to a defendant who had innocently violated the Act. In all cases where a penal action was given at the suit of a common informer, parties were liable to vexatious actions, but the evil could not be remedied. He would, however, on bringing up the report, propose a clause to the effect—
That in any action under this clause a Judge in chambers might, if he thought fit, order the plaintiff to give security for costs.He would now beg to move an addition to the clause relative to expenditure.Amendment proposed, in page 10, to add at the end of the Clause the words—
Provided also, and be it Declared and Enacted, That no expenses of or relating to the registration of Electors, and no subscriptions or contributions bonâ fide made to or for any public or charitable purpose, shall be deemed Election expenses within the meaning of this Act.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, such a clause would be a most excellent addition to the Bill, and he would give it his most cordial support; but he was opposed to the proviso now proposed to be added to the Bill, which he considered 507 would be very mischievous. If they meant to say that they would have a permanent officer, and that all election expenses should be paid through that officer, he thought they would be doing great good, but if registration expenses and subscriptions and contributions to public or private or charitable purposes were to be taken out of the category of election expenses, it would open the door to gross corruption. He thought the House of Commons would do a great deal better if they were to put an end to the payment of contributions of every description whatsoever.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought that the opinion expressed by the Attorney General would interpose a serious stumbling-block in the way of the declaration which it was proposed Members should take. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill, all contributions which Gentlemen might make to charities or to defray the costs of registration would be election expenses, and must be paid through the election officer.
§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he had also heard the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman with astonishment and dismay. In the whole course of the discussion such an interpretation had not been put on the words "election expenses." If it were to be adopted, no man of honour could take the declaration. He had agreed to the clause containing it, because he felt that it would be easy for him to distinguish in his own mind between those expenses which were connected with the election and those arising out of his general connection with the town or county he might represent. If this interpretation was to be adopted, he hoped the House would reject not only the declaration, but the Bill itself.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that payments on account of registration expenses were clearly within the words of several clauses of the Bill. He could not object to public contributions to charitable purposes, but to retain the word "private" in the clause would, in his opinion, open the door to the most wide-spread corruption.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he did not hesitate to assert that contributions to the expenses of registration in any county or borough were not election expenses at all. If they considered what the expenses of registration were, the hon. and learned Attorney General must himself admit that 508 they could not be considered in any sense of the word election expenses. In many cases they were paid by the country gentlemen, and he should view with great alarm any attempt to make them election expenses, inasmuch as, although the election might not take place for five years, all the payments made during these five years might be set down as election expenses paid by the candidate. He had introduced the word "reasonable" before the word expenses, and he thought that would meet the objections that had been raised, and that the Committee would agree that they could not be considered in any sense of the word election expenses within the meaning of the Act.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALhad no objection to allow the word "reasonable" to be introduced; but he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not object to strike out the words "or private."
§ MR. GEACHsaid, he would call upon the Committee to observe how this Bill would work from an incident which had occurred to himself within a day or two. A man in great distress called upon him, and he gave him a small sum to save him from starvation and help him on his road home. This he did without the slightest reference to election considerations; but at the same time the man would never have come to him, nor would he have relieved the man, if he (Mr. Geach) had not been Member for Coventry. [Laughter.] Any gentleman would have done as he did, and he did not envy the feelings of the man who would avail himself of a Bill like this to drive a starving fellow-creature from his door. The Bill was a perfect absurdity, and ought not to be suffered to pass.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, the observations of the hon. and learned Gentlemen on either side of the House had created a great deal of doubt in his mind. It was difficult to define what were reasonable and what were unreasonable expenses. He feared the result of the proviso would be to involve the whole question in doubt and uncertainty.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Geach) as to the absurdity of the Bill. He feared, however, they were now falling into a pedantic purity which would defeat its own object. In his own case, he subscribed to every public and private charity of the town, and he would continue to do so, whatever the law was. 509 How was he to discriminate between his contributions as a country gentleman and his contributions as the Member for Northampton? The hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk said registration expenses were not election expenses, if they were not, they were, at all events, the expenses that won the election. The late Sir Robert Peel recommended to his followers to "Register! register! register!" and here was now his law officer saying they were not election expenses. He believed no one could define what were reasonable, and what were unreasonable expenses. After these niceties, no man of sense would think of signing the declaration.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, the Committee, by the course it had adopted, was attempting to do more than it could hope to effect. They were in the ridiculous position of the boy in Esop's fable, who got his hands into a narrow-necked jar filled with filberts, and could not draw it back. There were good suggestions in the Bill, which might be usefully acted upon if they were divested of a great deal of the minuteness with which they were surrounded. He was convinced, however, that the measure ought not to be sent up to the House of Lords in its present shape this Session. It required more consideration than there was time to give it. Great good had certainly resulted from its introduction; but he trusted that the Government, seeing the objections made to it from all sides of the House, would consider whether it was possible to send it up to the other House this Session in a shape to do the House of Commons any credit.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he could not certainly deny that, if they attempted to define everything that was meant by bribery, they would get into difficulties; but he did not think they were showing too great harshness in the manner in which they were endeavouring to deal with it by this Bill. The great difficulty was in defining those cases which did not come within the term "bribery." Happily, there were already laws against bribery, for, if there were not, he should not be very sanguine that a great part of that House would ever consent to impose any penalties at all upon it. But penalties were imposed by existing laws more severe in some respects than those imposed in the early clauses of this Bill. For instance, the law was relaxed with respect to the giving of money to persons for a vote. But the difficulty in the present instance arose solely from 510 Gentlemen ingeniously raising a vast number of cases—which they might just as well raise with reference to the existing law—as to whether certain things were or were not bribery—cases which were some of them just upon the narrow confines of that which was and that which was not perfectly pure, and which the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk had attempted to define. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was attempting to press too severely, although he might be attempting to define too narrowly; but, at the same time, these difficulties having been raised, be quite agreed in the necessity for the proviso, leaving out the words "for any private purpose." It was quite clear that the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Coventry would come under the definition of a charitable purpose, and that subscriptions to racing and matters of that kind were public purposes. If a gentleman had obtained such a character for hospitality in the county in which he lived that all his neighbours wished him to be a Member for that county, the expenses which he incurred were not election expenses, nor had they been incurred with a view to his election, although his election had been carried in consequence of the character which by means of them he had obtained. No one could say they were corrupt expenses, or that they had been incurred for the purpose of securing his election; but, at the same time, there was great difficulty in defining each particular case in the Bill. The Bill had passed through the ordeal of a Select Committee, in which all these points had been discussed by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; and he could not think that the result of their labours had been a parcel of absurdities. But when hon. Gentlemen said that every case ought to be defined precisely and accurately, it was evident that they could easily imagine cases to which no language could apply. He was quite ready to vote, at least, for this proviso, and it would be time to consider the other propositions when they came before the Committee.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, the noble Lord had not put the case at all fairly. It was not a question of bribery, but as to a declaration that Members had not spent anything in expenses of elections except in certain specified instances. Then, on this 511 the inquiry had been naturally made whether expenses of charities, &c., came within the terms of the declaration? The hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk had told them, with reference to the declaration they were to be called upon to make, that registration expenses could not be considered election expenses, while they had since been informed by the hon. and learned Attorney General that in his opinion they were election expenses. After these different statements from two such high authorities, in what position was a candidate placed who was called upon to make the declaration? It was very common for Members to subscribe a guinea or two to a registration fund, but the professional gentlemen employed considered that they had a right to expect to be retained in the conduct of the elections. This was an instance of the difficult questions which would arise. So again as to charities — the question of what was reasonable would prove impracticable. The hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk proposed a proviso to remedy the declaration plan, and then the noble Lord the Lord President declared that the attempt to define was impossible. But how could parties take so unintelligible a declaration? Whether it was worth while to go muddling on it was not for him to decide, but for those who had the conduct of the Bill.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the difficulties raised as to the declaration were solved by the proviso of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly). It was quite clear they all desired to compel the payment of election expenses through particular channels; but then it was said there were certain classes of which it was difficult to say whether they ranged themselves under the head of election expenses or not, and they divided themselves into three sorts — registration expenses, public contributions, and charitable contributions. That he believed embraced the whole category, and the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), who seemed the most strenuous opponent of the stringent provisions of the Bill, although a Member of the Select Committee, could discover no such description of expenses which were not included in that division. Those three classes were provided against by the enactment of his hon. and learned Friend. The Bill, as originally framed, contemplated that the election officer should be appointed for the 512 purpose of a particular election, and should not go beyond the expenses of that election. When the provision was introduced making him a permanent instead of a changeable officer, it struck him that, as under the head of registration there might be colourable and corrupt expenses, it would be very desirable to have that particular expense passed through the election officer. If it was thought better to introduce a proviso regarding registration expenses, it was perfectly clear the enacting that registration expenses formed no part of election expenses would relieve candidates of any difficulty on that point in making the declaration. The other two heads, public purposes and charitable purposes, were both included in this provision, and, therefore, the candidate would be also relieved as to them, because the Act would explain in the clearest terms that neither public purposes nor charitable purposes were included in the declaration. The category was exhausted. All three classes were provided for. His great objection to this clause was, that under the vague and ambiguous words "or for any private purpose" they were using a term, under which any species of corruption might have been introduced, but if these words were struck out, and the exceptions were limited to registration expenses, and to bonâ fide and reasonable subscriptions to charitable or public purposes, he then considered that they should meet every case which it had been suggested as proper to exclude from election expenses, and, at the same time, they would shut the door on corrupt practices. It had been said that the introduction of the word "reasonable" would create a difficulty; he had, however, no objection that the word should not be inserted, as the law would always imply that such payments must be reasonable. It had been said that it would be difficult for Members, in making their declarations, to say whether such subscriptions or payments had been reasonable; but he thought that it was impossible for this difficulty to arise, as no hon. Member could say that he did not know whether such expenditure had been bonâ fide for public and charitable purposes, or whether for the purposes of corruption. If they were determined to throw obstacles in the way of the passing of this Bill, by raising difficulties as to the most important part of it—the declaration required from hon. Members—the ingenuity of man might do anything. He hoped it would not be said that lawyers 513 brought lax consciences to this subject, for he believed that when the declaration was trenched round by the present proviso, no difficulty would arise in making it. The election officer being permanent, he should have preferred to have brought the subject of registration under his cognisance; but if that was not the opinion of the Committee, then this clause relieved them of all ambiguity.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, difficulties were forced upon the Committee, and by no person more than by the Attorney General. The result of this discussion would probably be fatal to the Bill, and if it were, it would be owing almost entirely to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had commenced the discussion by opposing the proviso of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly), and now eagerly resorted to it, in order to escape the difficulties of his own construction of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not denied that without the proviso the declaration would include charitable contributions, and for his own part he (Sir J. Pakington) hoped that in its present form it would not pass. He and his Friends were seriously anxious to repress bribery, and believed that the Bill would tend to that object; but it must not be carried too far or it would defeat the object, and in his opinion, if the law of the Attorney General were accepted, it would be impossible to pass the Bill.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, it was too much cookery which had created the difficulty. The Bill was aimed against corrupt, and not against innocent acts, and the first sixteen sections amply provided against corruption. This proviso was not only unnecessary, but positively mischievous, because, by stating that certain reasonable expenses were not election expenses, it implied that if those expenses were unreasonable they then became election expenses. The previous clauses provided against unreasonable expenses for registration, or public or charitable purposes, and therefore the proviso was unnecessary. It did not render the Bill a bit clearer, but, on the contrary, if it declared contributions for private purposes legal, it would wholly vitiate their legislation.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would suggest that the clause should be adopted exactly as it was printed, without the word reasonable, in order to obviate the objection which some hon. Gentlemen had raised, that if that word were retained unrea- 514 sonable expenses on registration might be deemed election expenses, whereas reasonable expenses would not be. He had before stated his opinion that he did not think the clause was required, as it merely amounted to a declaration of what he believed to be the law already; but inasmuch as doubts had been suggested, he thought it was as well to remove those doubts by introducing it.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, his objection to this proviso was, that it would, to some extent, and under certain forms, legalise bribery. He felt called upon to defend his conduct in reference to the Bill both in the Committee and in the House from the observations made by the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he must declare that there was no hon. Member more sincere in his desire to suppress bribery than he was; he must also complain that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) should have said that, if there were not a law against bribery already, he should have despaired of being able to carry one.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he believed that, throughout the discussions on this Bill, a majority of the Members of that House had shown themselves anxious to put down bribery; but he thought there were some Members who had made so many difficulties, that he had said, with respect to them, that if there had not existed a law against bribery, he should have despaired of inducing them to agree to one.
The question that the words "or private" be struck out was then put and agreed to.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, it appeared to him that the whole force of the declaration depended on the terms of the proviso. If they were to make a solemn declaration, they could not, in his opinion, be too minute or careful in marking the sense in which they were to make it, and he thought it was not fitting that the noble Lord the leader of the House, in answer to such an inquiry, should tell them not to be too particular or too precise about the meaning of the words. The difficulty of such a declaration was, that it must, almost of necessity, be either too precise or to lax. If they made it too lax, and the exceptions too large, they left almost every one out; and if they made it too precise, without any proviso at all, it was almost impossible that any man who had been long connected with any town could take it. He should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East 515 Suffolk whether, if a gentleman connected with a town, by being its representative in Parliament, but not otherwise locally interested in it, should give a donation of 1,000l. to a public library, that was a payment which would be fairly covered by this proviso, and which the law would consider reasonable?
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he had no hesitation in saying that any such payment as a contribution to a library, or to a church, or to any other salutary public purpose, would be perfectly legal.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was necessary that he should trouble the Committee with a few words, in consequence of the observation of his noble Friend behind him (Lord Seymour), that it was not fitting that he (Lord J. Russell), when asked with respect to the declaration, should tell them that they ought not to be too precise or too minute as to the meaning of the words employed. Now, what he had said last night—and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) had correctly interpreted his observations—was, that any declaration to be made by Members of that House ought to be intelligible, and ought to be understood by those who took it. It was quite a different question, he considered, whether they should endeavour to provide, with extreme minuteness, for every possible case that might occur. There was scarcely any form of words that could be devised with respect to which some persons might not make a difficulty. Nothing could apparently be more clear than the terms of the oath administered to witnesses in courts of justice, to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Yet he had heard it suggested that a witness interpreting that oath strictly, and being told by counsel to sit down when he had answered one or two questions, might refuse to leave the witness-box until he had detailed every minute particular connected with the case which was within his knowledge, because he had sworn to tell "the whole truth." Yet such cases did not happen, because everybody understood that the obligation to tell the whole truth did not amount to an obligation to tell, at all events, every word the witness knew.
§ MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he was opposed to those subcriptions for apparently charitable objects, at a time when a candidate was seeking for the representation of a place.
§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, he wished to afford the noble Lord an opportunity of explaining the words that had just fallen 516 from him. If he (Mr. Goulburn) understood the noble Lord aright, he said that a witness who takes an oath to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was not bound to tell the whole of what he knew about the transaction, if he but answered the simple questions that were put to him.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the case he meant was this:—A witness having taken the usual oath, was examined in respect to transactions that had been already stated by several witnesses who had gone before him. The circumstances of the case were fully known. The counsel having asked one or two questions of this witness, was perfectly satisfied, and desired the witness to go down. But the witness, taking the literal meaning of the oath, might insist upon entering into a statement which would probably be a refutation of what had been elicited by several of the witnesses that had been examined before. Now, this he (Lord John Russell) considered would be a refinement of conscientiousness.
MR. FITZWILLIAM HUMEsaid, he wished to ask whether the declaration would include votes given by hon. Members for the building of bridges and the repair of roads in their counties; for it was not very long since he had been canvassed by an hon. Gentleman opposite to give his vote in favour of the building of a bridge in a particular barony in the county which he represented, and it was at the same time hinted to him that, if he did not, he need not expect the support of the voters in that barony?
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he wanted to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) in reference to the answer which ho had given to the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) with respect to the sum of 1,000l. given as a subscription to a library in the town of which he was a Member. If that was perfectly legal, he (Mr. Malins) contended it was also legal for a candidate to do any act in the way of subscribing money that tended to secure his election. The noble Lord the Member for Totness had himself founded a mechanics' institute in the town which he represented. It was no disparagement to the noble Lord to say it was probable that he would not have founded that institution if he had not been chosen as representative of the place. Nor, on the other 517 hand, possibly, would the electors have voted for the noble Lord if he had not subscribed for this work. In the contest in his (Mr. Malins') own borough the great difficulty he had to contend against was, that his opponent was the son of one of the richest commoners in England. The more they considered this question the more the Committee would find that they could not legislate upon those minute matters. He was exceedingly happy to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), sitting as he did on the Ministerial side of the House, so sensible of the difficulties imposed by the clause; and he trusted that the Committee would yet become so well aware of the impossibility of Gentlemen making the declaration it enjoined, that they would unanimously agree to overthrow it. He would even go further, and say that the inevitable result of the discussion with regard to the declaration must be to prevent the Bill from becoming law at all. The Bill was utterly impracticable and utterly improper. And when they had such a statement before them as that made by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) that a subscription to the most unlimited amount given by a candidate for the purpose of providing a library, a mechanics' institute, or an almshouse, in the boroughs whose representation he was contesting, must be held legal, such a statement furnished so satisfactory a proof of the uncertainty attending the whole question of bribery, that he considered it became impossible to pass such a Bill as this. He would then put it at once to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General whether he concurred in the declaration of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk that the expenditure of a sum of money for founding a charitable institution or a public library by a Member in the borough which he represented could not be considered as coming within the intent of the declaration?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his answer was simply this—if a person representing a particular place bonâ fide contributed a sum of money for public purposes, that was not bribery; and to whom did it ever occur that it was? [Laughter and "oh, oh!"] It might be his fault, but he could not quite understand the meaning of that cheer; but the restriction was this—if any one contributed a sum of money with a view of influencing an election, no one could doubt that that was bribery; but if, on the 518 other hand, it was done for the purpose of accomplishing some great public object—[cheers and laughter]—hon. Gentlemen cheered him, but the question put assumed the perfect bonâ fide nature of the contribution — the answer, then, to his hon. and learned Friend was, that if it was a contribution for a charitable purpose, made without any view of influencing the election, it would not come within the terms of the clause; and in the propriety of that he cordially concurred.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he wished to put the case of his desiring to exchange the representation of Marylebone for that of Wallingford. Suppose he thought proper, under those circumstances, to give 1,000l. to establish a library at Wallingford, would it not be nonsense to say that money given in that way was not intended to corrupt the electors? It was as complete bribery as any other mode.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he would put it to the common sense of the Committee— acting upon the rule that a man's acts bespoke his motives—whether a subscription on the part of a Member to a race fund, a ball fund, or to a charitable institution in a borough which he represented, was not given with a view of retaining his seat.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 234; Noes 16: Majority 218.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 25 to 30 inclusive.
Clause 31 (Declaration of Member.)
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the objections which he originally entertained to this declaration had assumed a tenfold force after the discussion of that evening. The whole of the debate since six o'clock had turned upon this declaration, and provisions had been introduced to make it as nearly as possible what might be swallowed by any Gentleman on entering that House. It was, however, still his impression that it was such a declaration as should not be put to a Member, and that it was calculated to produce greater evils than those it was intended to remedy. He thought it had been clearly shown that it would gradually become a mere conventional and formal declaration. It would be interpreted not to mean this thing and not to mean that; it would be taken in a sense understood amongst men of honour, and it would not have the effect intended. Although, no doubt, it might be in the first instance a stumbling-block to scrupulous persons, yet 519 in the end it would be regarded in the same light as the oath taken by Members not to disturb a succession that no one thought of disturbing, or not to assert that which no one in their senses dreamt of asserting; or it would be treated like the declaration which was taken when it was necessary to have a freehold qualification in order to occupy a seat in that House. He believed that the same freehold had been held successively by Sir James Mackintosh, by Sir Samuel Romilly, and by Mr. Horner, and was given back by each as soon as he had taken the declaration. How could any one be willing to take a declaration which had received so many different interpretations in the course of the debate, and that, too, after the Bill had been before a Select Committee of which the most eminent lawyers in the House were Members? Why, it was clear that every man of honour must feel the greatest difficulty about the matter, and that it was only unscrupulous persons who could take it with ease. He thought, too, that the imposition of such a declaration would have a tendency to impede the administration of justice by Election Committees, since the Members of these tribunals would feel the greatest difficulty possible in deciding that a Member had been guilty of corrupt practices when he had solemnly declared that he had not. Besides, the declaration was really unnecessary, because all the acts against which it was directed had been rendered punishable by other parts of the Bill. He most decidedly objected to expose Members to such a degradation as was involved in the declaration; and he felt so strongly upon the question that he would be willing to divide the Committee against it again and again. He believed it was a fatal defect in the Bill, of which it did not originally form part, though it was now declared by the hon. and learned Attorney General to be its mainstay and prop. He believed the division taken upon this clause on the previous day was sufficiently close to justify him in taking another, and he should, therefore, now oppose the passing of the clause.
Question put, "That Clause 31 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes l28; Noes 120: Majority 8.
Clause agreed to.
The House resumed.
Committee report progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will this day, at Twelve 520 o'clock, again resolve itself into the said Committee."
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "will" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday next," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That this House will to-morrow, at Twelve o'clock, again resolve itself into the said Committee.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "to-morrow, at Twelve o'clock," in order to insert the words "Monday next," instead thereof.
Question put, "That the words 'this day' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 64: Majority 80.
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 51: Majority 81.
Committee to sit again to-morrow at Twelve o'clock.