§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would now move the insertion of the following Clause—
And whereas doubts have also arisen as to whether the giving of refreshment to Voters on the day of nomination or day of polling be or be not according to law, it is expedient that such doubts should be removed; be it Declared and Enacted, that the giving, or causing to be given, to any Voter on the day of nomination or day of polling, on account of such Voter having polled or being about to poll, any meat, drink, or entertainment by way of refreshment, or any money or ticket to enable such Voter to obtain refreshment, shall be held and be taken to amount to bribery or treating, as the case may be, within the meaning of this Act.Clause brought up, and read 1°.Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
§ MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, that as the Bill stood at present, it was illegal to give refreshment to voters for corrupt purposes, but by the present clause, which was extremely general in its nature, it was proposed to make it illegal to give refreshments to any one about to vote or who had polled. At the time of the North Cheshire Election Committee the noble Lord expressed himself to the effect that the law intended to punish only those who gave refreshments for the purpose of corruptly influencing the electors, and he seemed to think there could be no objection to issuing refreshment tickets to a moderate extent, but not with any view of corrupting the electors. He (Mr. Freshfield) would suppose that 4,000 fourpenny tickets were issued. If they were divided between thirty and forty houses, those places would become depâts for the electors to meet, just as a turnpike or a mile- 592 stone might. That seemed to be the opinion of the noble Lord in 1840, and Sir Robert Peel agreed with him, that the gist of the whole matter with which they had to deal was the intention, but now they were prepared to say that every kind of refreshment given to voters must necessarily be given corruptly. He hoped the House would not affirm the clause.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought this clause went much too far, as, by it, if any person not having the slightest concern in the election gave a voter a pint of beer he would be liable under it. He thought the treating clause in the Bill quite sufficient, and could not understand why they wanted to carry the law further. The hon. and learned Attorney General knew as well as any one that when voters came together there was a great deal of what was called good fellowship; what was termed a dry election was unknown, and, do what they would, they would not be able by an enactment to introduce a change in the habits of the people of the country. He believed that by making the law so stringent it would remain a dead letter, and they could not commit a more absurd mistake than to imagine that the more severe the law was the more efficacious it would be to put down corruption. If the present clause was adopted, the 4th or treating clause would be all moonshine, and had better be struck out. The only result of enacting such laws as this, which visited innocent hospitality with the same penalty as corrupt treating, would be, that while the great fish would slip through the net, the little fish, whom every one thought should be let go, would be caught. He believed that if they agreed to this clause they would have such a shower of qui tam actions after the next general election, that they would be obliged to pass another Act to stop them. He thought it would be far better to leave the law as it stood, and should certainly vote against the clause.
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to know whether if a voter had travelled 100 miles, and either before or after the election received a glass of beer, that was to be considered bribery?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, without hesitation, that the clause passed on Saturday rendered the payment of any expense whatever connected with travelling by the candidate, except the actual expense of locomotion, illegal. With regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), they 593 were all aware that a person giving meat and drink for the purpose of corrupting the voter was guilty of treating, but there was another question not legally decided as to whether the giving of refreshment to a man coming a distance to the poll could be termed "corrupt treating," and it was of the utmost importance to Committees of that House that that question should be decided. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire seemed to think it would introduce breaches of hospitality, but he (the Attorney General) did not know why. If a man met his friend or neighbour at market and asked him to come home and dine with him, it was not because he came to market, but because he met him away from home, and so it would be when a man went to the poll and met his friend who entertained him, that entertainment would not be on account of his voting. But, with respect to the candidate and the voter, he thought it ought to be decided by the House whether voters should have refreshment given them or not. He was of opinion that they ought not, because it would be well to encourage in voters a feeling of independence, so that they should feel they were under no obligation to the candidate, and that they gave their vote in the exercise of a duty and a privilege which the country conferred upon them. The system of refreshment tickets might lead to many abuses, as some voters might have come to the election with their minds not quite made up, they might meet with persons who would entertain them by means of refreshment tickets, and thus influence them. He was strongly of opinion that refreshment tickets should be made illegal, but he considered that the House ought to decide the whole question.
§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, the principle of this clause seemed to be that the candidate's friends should not be allowed to do by means of refreshment tickets that which the candidate himself was precluded from doing, and so far he agreed with it: but he considered the clause, and the penalties embodied in it, far too severe. What the different Election Committees wanted to know was the opinion of the House respecting the legality or otherwise of refreshment tickets, and, if they were legal at all, to what extent? He should vote for the second reading, of the clause, but he hoped, when it came to be considered in detail, it would be modified so as to lessen the penalties; for he quite agreed with the right hon. 594 Member for Oxfordshire, that as it stood, the clause regarding treating was quite superfluous and had better be struck out.
§ MR. BANKESsaid, from the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, it was clear that the legal ingenuity of the hon. and learned Gentleman only enabled him to step out of the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). He thought the clause ought to be so worded as to effect its purpose without doing injustice and attempting impossibilities.
§ MR. MORRISsaid, he wished to inquire of the hon. and learned Attorney General whether a person would not be allowed to give refreshment to a voter after the election was over, when it could not be said that he was under any influence in consequence of refreshment?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALAccording to the construction of the clause, it would be treating, and, consequently, illegal.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, he would put the case of a Member going down into the country to give an account of his stewardship, and his friends assembled together at dinner—would it be legal, he asked, to contribute towards the payment of any portion of the expenses connected with such dinner? If they might pay the expense in the one case and not in the other, their legislation was absurd. Nothing could be more common than a landlord calling his tenants together and explaining to them his political views, and he (Mr. Hildyard) did say that it was a most desirble thing that a representative should have frequent opportunities of calling his constituents together—of explaining his conduct and satisfying them that he had acted honestly and uprightly. Hon. Gentlemen had very arduous duties to perform, and it was of the utmost consequence that they should stand well with their constituents, and be able to remove any misapprehension that might have existed in their minds. Were they to stigmatise a man who chose to pay a portion of such expense as a person who bribed? He believed some most stringent penalties inserted in the clauses were placed there and contended for, not so much on account of hon. Members desiring purity of election as to save themselves expense. No doubt, if persons distributed refreshment with a view to influence their election it was corruption, but not so when that refreshment was issued indiscriminately as an act of hospitality. 595 He did not deny that much corruption had existed, of which it was the duty of that House to prevent a recurrence; but he believed there were many instances in which that corruption could be traced to publicans. Nine times out of ten they were at the bottom of the secret; in a large number of cases the charges of the publican were for ten times as much as had been supplied, and much of that which had been supplied had been consumed by those who were not voters. He very much regretted that the proposition which had been made at an earlier stage of the Bill, for the supply of moderate refreshment tickets, had not been acceded to. He felt convinced that a considerable number of the independent voters would not avail themselves of them; and, while they would secure the poorer classes of voters against actual loss in consequence of their attendance at the poll, they would form a salutary check against the charges of publicans, and the Legislature would slowly and gradually, assisted as it was by public opinion, be enabled to strike at the main evil. But the present clause, from its generality, interfered with those with whom the Legislature never intended to interfere. Her Majesty's Attorney General said, he saw nothing in the clause which prevented a man inviting home a voter whom he met to take some refreshment with him; but how would it be if it were served in the servants' hall, and how fine would be the distinction between giving a man luncheon in the servants' hall and allowing a publican to supply it! He thought, on the whole, it would be far better to let the Bill stand without this clause, and restrict penalties to those who gave refreshment with corrupt intentions. If, however, they were determined to retain this clause, the better course would be to legalise the issue of such moderate refreshment tickets as to the Legislature might seem necessary.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, if the House would consider the position in which the question now stood, they would see that the Bill already provided severe penalties against persons who gave meat, drink, or entertainment to any voter with a view of corruptly influencing him. What formerly applied, under the Act of William III., to a particular period, now applied to the period previous to, during, and after the election. But a question also arose as the giving any sort of entertainment to a Voter on the day of nomination and election, and whether or not the House would agree 596 to a clause imposing all the penalties which referred to corrupt treating during the election. That being the case, he thought it necessary that they should consider whether or not such refreshment tickets were prohibited by law; and they all knew there had been many cases before Election Committees where candidates had been unseated on account of having given such entertainment, while there had been other cases in which all the candidates agreed to give moderate refreshment to voters. That state of the law was very inconvenient and incongruous, and it was very desirable the House should decide the question. It had been proposed by Sir Edward Buxton and others, to give a limited amount of refreshment, not exceeding 2s. in value; but the objection to that was that they could not well limit the amount of refreshment to be given in that way, and it would be attended with this inconvenience—that every voter who came up could put in a claim, and thus a general system of treating would arise. Now, it did not seem to him to be very unreasonable that about once every three years there should be two days when it should not be lawful to give meat or drink to persons about to vote. Many poor men went out to their work, taking their food with them, and after staying all day returned home in the evening, and many persons in a higher sphere of life were accustomed to pass a much greater number of hours than the period of the day when an election was taking place without taking more refreshment than they could conveniently carry with them; and therefore he did not see the force of the argument about the inability to attend from want of refreshment. On those grounds he certainly thought they might safely adopt the provisions of the clause, but, as to the amount of the penalty, he did not attach very great importance to it. Their object was to declare, by Act of Parliament, whether they would allow or prohibit that mode of entertainment; and, if they determined to prohibit it, he should not object to the course of attaching a smaller penalty.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he fully agreed that it was quite necessary to settle the law by a decision of the whole House, and the only question was, whether they would adopt the clause with or without modification? He considered that to give refreshment tickets to voters would be nothing more nor less than to legalise a general system of treating, which it was one of the objects of the Bill to put down; 597 and he therefore opposed any system of the kind. There seemed to be some reason why a smaller penalty should be substituted, but he trusted that the House would allow it now to pass, and at some further stage see whether some modification could not be introduced; there would be abundant opportunity of moving for a reduction of the penalties.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the noble Lord the President of the Council would make an election time a fast, but the hon. and learned Attorney General's construction was totally inconsistent with that of the noble Lord, and he must say he could not draw the fine distinctions which the Attorney General entertained, and thought, if they imported the clause into the Bill, it would have to be construed strictly.
§ MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, it was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to sneer at going without one's dinner, but how would they like it themselves? He would appeal to Mr. Speaker whether he had ever seen 100 Members in the House between the hours of half-past seven and half-past nine. He should support the proposal for allowing moderate refreshments.
§ MR. WINN KNIGHTsaid, he believed, if the voters were not allowed any refreshment whatever, the Bill would have the practical effect of disfranchising a large number of voters who could not afford the expense of attending the election.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he considered that the hon. and learned Attorney General had done much by his answer to the question which had been put to him that evening to render the question still more complex and difficult than it was before. He (Lord A. V. Tempest) wished to see bribery and corruption put down as much as any one, but he could not consent to the introduction of a clause by the noble Lord which rendered hospitality illegal. [The noble Lord then continued, amid loud cries of "Divide!" to speak until the hands of the clock pointed to ten minutes to four, when he observed that he believed by the rules of the House a division on the subject could not take place that day.]
Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at twelve o'clock.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would take the third reading in the evening.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood the third reading was fixed for Thursday.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Oxford University Bill stood for that night, 598 but he had no objection to fix the third reading of this Bill for Friday. He regretted, however, that the Bill had not advanced as he expected, and as it would have done but for the obstructions thrown in the way.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, the noble Lord was not justified in making that statement, as there had been no disposition shown by him or those who sat near him to obstruct; indeed, if they had chosen, they could easily have prevented the Bill advancing a stage on Saturday, instead of which he had suggested a course which might save time.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not wish to cast any imputation on the right hon. Gentleman of waste of time.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether he meant that expression to apply to him? If he did, he was much surprised. He entertained conscientious objections to the Bill, and, therefore, while he was in the House he should not be deterred by the observations of the noble Lord, or any hon. Member on that side of the House, from expressing his objections.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas understood to say there was no objection to the noble Lord's expressing his objections so long as he confined himself to the question.