§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, that in expressing his disapproval of this Bill, he hoped the House would not suppose that he approved of the practices which the Bill was intended to prevent. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) wished to encourage murder because he disapproved of capital punishments. During the passage of this Bill through Committee, it was asked on two or three occasions by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) what the people would say if hon. Members did not sanction this or that clause. And it was more emphatically stated on another occasion by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), that if any obstacle were offered to the Bill in that House the people would be convinced that there was some foundation for the prevailing opinion, that there were important advantages to be gained by becoming a Member of that House—advantages which they, as Members, were unwilling to part with. Now his (Lord Hotham's) belief was, that there was nothing in this Bill at all calculated to dispel that belief; but, on the contrary, he thought that much had passed in the course of the discussion upon this measure which was rather calculated to strengthen and confirm such an impression. There were other matters about which the public wanted a more satisfactory answer than was contained in any provisions involved in this Bill. He had frequently heard it said, "You Gentlemen of the House of Commons profess great anxiety for political purity, freedom, and morality, why don't you mend your own manners and look a little more at home?" Why were hon. Members to be freed from arrest—why did they not either pay their just debts or take the usual consequences of not doing so? When it was seen that all the virtuous indignation of the House was expended upon the receipt by a poor man of a small sum of money, while Members of their own body were allowed to be remunerated by thousands a year, the people would not believe in the sincerity of the course which they were pursuing—would not place confidence in this one-sided legislation—and would come to the conclusion that the question which the House really had in view was what the late William Cobbett quaintly called the question of the breeches pocket. He objected to this Bill on account of the numerous class of new offences it created, 912 and on account of these offences being so described as not to be intelligible, he ventured to say, to one in 500 of those who read the Bill. If there was a measure which ought to have been put forward in a plain and intelligible manner, it was this; and yet, in spite of all the care bestowed upon it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), he had never seen a measure passed through that House with respect to whose provisions there had been greater difference of opinions than had prevailed among hon. and right hon. Gentlemen upon both sides. The House had created a number of new offences, which he was quite confident the country would not go along with them in considering offences. It was only the other day that the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council had been asked whether, in the event of a gentleman, residing in a town where he was proposed for election, giving a breakfast to a number of his personal friends during the election, that would come under the definition of bribery and treating. The noble Lord, he understood, answered unhesitatingly that it would. Now, if such a thing as this were to be considered objectionable and wrong, and were to be made penal, he wanted to know how it could be otherwise than penal for the noble Lord, or any gentleman occupying his position, to give an entertainment—which every one in his position did give—to those who sat behind him in the House of Commons? Things ought to be called by their right names. You might call this only hospitality between gentlemen, but he wanted to know, if a Member was to declare that no entertainment which he might have given, or have partaken of, should have been given in consequence of or on account of his election, why the same restriction was not to be placed upon the noble Lord, or upon gentlemen in his position, when the entertainments they gave referred not to electors, but to Members of that House? Another still greater objection which he entertained to the Bill was, that no satisfactory tribunal was provided for the trial of offences which might be committed under this Act. If the noble Lord had contented himself with clearly defining the offences of bribery and treating, and had affixed to those offences any penalties he chose, he (Lord Hotham) should care not how stringent they were, and, if there had been appointed for the 913 trial of such offences any tribunal which could by possibility command the public confidence, there would have been no individual in that House more ready than he would have been to go along with the noble Lord. But this was not the case in the present instance. Election Committees of that House, it was well known, decided frequently one way and another a different way, so that the public were inclined to place no great confidence in their decisions; and the question was often asked, to which party belonged the three Members who constituted the majority upon those Committees, with a view thereby of arriving at a conclusion as to what would be the probable result of their inquiry. For his own part, he should prefer to have questions connected with offences committed under the Bill referred to the Court of Common Pleas, inasmuch as he thought that a more satisfactory conclusion would thus be arrived at. Looking at the measure as a whole, he considered that it had been exceedingly well described by an hon. Friend of his, a Member of that House, who said that it would be a very good Bill if all the world consisted of Walpoles, but as that, unfortunately, was not the case, it would be utterly useless. Some persons would feel some hesitation in making the declaration required by the Bill, while others who possessed what the noble Lord opposite had very aptly termed "robust consciences" would take it, and pursue the even tenor of their way. For these reasons he could not give his consent to the third reading of the Bill.
§ SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding seemed to have an impression that accusations had been cast on hon. Members opposite, for the course they had taken upon this Bill. He (Sir J. Walmsley), at least, imputed no improper or interested motives to those who had introduced the Amendments, which had so mutilated this Bill. But he was bound to say, that the effect of those Amendments had been to legalise bribery. They had introduced a clause to render travelling expenses legal —one of the most fruitful sources of corruption, and which would render it difficult for any but rich men to obtain a seat in that House; and they now sought to introduce a system of reasonable refreshments, which meant neither more nor less than reasonable bribery. The history of our legislation on this subject had been one tissue of blunders—a mere pretence.
914 We had denounced bribery in the abstract, but provided no remedy but that which we knew would not work. The result of our legislation had been to punish the innocent with the guilty, by disfranchising whole constituencies. The present Bill, on its coming out of Committee, was calculated to reach the evil, and appeared to be introduced with a bonâ fide desire to secure purity at elections; but it was now of little, if of any, use for its professed purpose, and some of its provisions were absolutely injurious. The noble Lord had asked whether it was on pecuniary considerations that Liberal Members desired to prevent expenses, and intimated that it was simply a breeches pocket consideration. He now had to tell the noble Lord that it was a question of elevating or demoralising the constituencies, and lie would ask the noble Lord upon what principle of right or justice those who were sent to this House by their fellow-men to represent their interests, and who did their duty, labouring almost night and day to serve their country without fee or reward, could be asked to pay for bringing voters to the poll, or treating them when they were there? He must repeat that he regarded the introduction of the clause to legalise travelling expenses, the payment of cabs, and the attempt to introduce reasonable refreshment, as fatal to the intention of the good working of the Bill, and as such he should not regret to see it defeated.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) had no doubt with the utmost sincerity declared the reasons why he was not disposed to vote for the third reading of this Bill, but, at the same time, the course of argument which he had pursued was the course which was usually pursued by those who did not wish offences to be punished. It was usual to say, "If you are sincere in wishing to punish offences, why don't you take some other offence, there are many others which might have been selected without choosing this particular offence;" and that was precisely the course of argument pursued by the noble Lord. One statement made by the noble Lord was, that the public would not believe that the House of Commons was sincere in the endeavour to put down bribery and corrupt practices, because Members of that House enjoyed, among other things, the exemption of freedom from arrest for debt. The reason for that exemption was not on account of ancient privilege, but because it had been thought dan- 915 gerous that the power of arrest should be given to any adversary, or, indeed, to any Minister of the Crown, for, if such power were to be given, then on occasions when it was expected that at some approaching division the numbers would be very close, an adversary or a Minister might inquire into the private circumstances of any Member who was likely to vote, and, even although he might not enforce his arrest, still he might by threats of arrest drive him away, and so prevent him from giving his vote. There was, he believed, great force in that argument, and he had never been able to consent to any proposal that Members of that House should be rendered liable to arrest. That was a subject, however, which might be brought forward at any time, and the noble Lord was at perfect liberty to introduce a Bill on the subject if he thought that privilege injurious, or one which ought to be abolished. There was no reason, however, why, because this privilege was not proposed to be abolished by the measure now before the House, this Bill for the prevention of bribery and corrupt practices should not be allowed to pass. With regard to the present Bill, the noble Lord had treated it as if it were a new attempt at direct legislation against the offence of bribery; whereas, in reality, a great part of the Bill was a mere consolidation of existing laws, and an attempt had been made in several clauses to define in clearer language than had hitherto been employed offences which were at present punishable under the existing law. On what ground could the noble Lord, then, find fault with him for proposing a Bill, which had for its object the consolidation of existing laws and the defining of offences already punishable by law? The Bill had been most carefully considered by a Select Committee of Gentlemen, of whom it could not be said that they were not sincere in their wish to put an end to bribery and corruption. The noble Lord had also stated that the public would say that the measure was an unjust one, that it did not mete out equal justice to the rich and to the poor, that the poor would be most severely treated by it, and that the rich were not dealt with in the same manner. That, however, was not the ease. By the present Bill more penalties were placed upon the rich than had before existed, while those already placed on the poor were not in any way aggravated. There were two provisions in the Bill which applied especially to the candidates. One provision 916 was with regard to undue influence and intimidation, which was an offence not likely to be committed by the poor, but, on the contrary, by the rich and powerful; and, for the first time, that offence was dealt with by the present Bill. Another part of the Bill provided that a declaration should he made by every Member of Parliament; whereas, up to the present time, it had been customary to require the bribery oath from voters—so that by the present measure the obligation was removed from the poor voters and placed upon a higher class of society—that was to say, upon those who sought and obtained a seat in that House, and, therefore, the Bill was not liable to the objection made by the noble Lord. With regard to the general merits of the Bill, he had already stated that by it the offences of bribery and treating were defined and existing laws consolidated, but there were also one or two alterations of the existing law of considerable importance, and for which the House was indebted to the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly). Every one knew that laws against bribery and treating were in the Statute-book, and that they were applied to a certain degree in certain instances, and it had happened that perhaps some thirty Gentlemen had lost their seats, and some fifty or sixty persons had been punished, while perhaps 200 other persons who were equally guilty entirely escaped. The hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk had proposed a clause which provided that all the expenses of an election should be regularly accounted for, and that an officer should be appointed to defray those accounts and to publish them. All persons had heard accounts of such enormous sums as 10,000l., or even 15,000l., spent in a contested election; but by having an account kept of all the expenses, in the manner proposed by the Bill, the public mind would be brought to bear on corrupt practices where they existed. Would the noble Lord assert that that would be an evil? Would the noble Lord say that in a small borough, where perhaps 6,000l. or 7,000l. had been spent in a contested election—and to spend such a sum there must be either bribery or enormous treating — it was not a fair enactment, that the money spent should be accounted for; or did he mean to say that the publication of the accounts would not act as a check upon corrupt practices? He would not argue the question with regard to the declaration required 917 from Members of that House, and all he would say for the Bill was, that at the last election complaints of bribery and corrupt treating were general, and a great many Gentlemen had lost their seats on being petitioned against. That being the case, was it not right that the House of Commons should endeavour to afford some additional remedy? He hoped that the House would remember that he had endeavoured to deal with the subject of jurisdiction in election matters, but that, as it had been impossible for that Bill to pass through the Select Committee this Session, it had been deferred until next Session. With regard to the statement which had been made, that, when an Election Committee was appointed, persons immediately inquired on which side of the House the three Members of it sat, and on which the two, and from that generally anticipated the decision of the Committee, he could only say that such might be the case with suspicious persons, but he felt convinced that in general the statement was quite unfounded. The first instance he could remember was that of the noble Lord himself, who had, as Chairman of an Election Committee, felt no hesitation in voting for the unseating of a Member of his own party, in a case where corrupt practices had been proved. Would any one believe that the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) would be biassed in his decision by the fact of the Member petitioned against holding the same opinions as himself? He should be very sorry to see jurisdiction in election matters transferred to the Court of Common Pleas; for, if that course were adopted, he felt convinced that within two years imputations would be cast upon the impartiality of the Judges. The Bill was an attempt to correct an admitted evil, and there never had been a measure brought before that House which had undergone more discussion in detail, and, although the noble Lord might say that he was sincerely desirous of putting an end to bribery and corruption, he thought that if the House rejected all practical attempts to remedy the evil they would not get much credit for sincerity from the country. He trusted, therefore, that the House would consent to the third reading of the Bill.
§ MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, that no one in that House could feel more anxious to put down bribery than he did; but, at the same time, he must observe that the subject appeared to him to be one with 918 which it was extremely difficult successfully to deal. He must also say that he thought the framers of the Bill had gone somewhat too far in declaring that the voter should not be allowed to receive any money for the purpose of defraying his travelling expenses, of procuring refreshment, or by way of remuneration for the loss of time which, in going to the place of polling, he must necessarily incur. There were some entirely new provisions in the Bill—he referred especially to those relating to the appointment of an election officer—and all its details were of a very complex kind, calculated to lead parties into the unintentional commission of offences. It was very questionable how the Bill would work, and he thought it would be advisable to make it an experimental measure. He would suggest, therefore, that a clause should be inserted at the end of the Bill continuing it till the month of August, 1855, or till the end of the next Session of Parliament. The effect of that would be to ensure the reconsideration of the subject. There were certain elections pending which would probably take place shortly after the passing of the Act, and if they made the Bill temporary they would have an opportunity of trying its effects in boroughs upon those cases. It was more than probable, also, that there would be s county election before the end of next Session, so that they would have an opportunity of seeing how the Bill would work in counties as well as in boroughs. He was not inclined to oppose the passing of the measure altogether, because, after so much had been said upon the subject of bribery and corruption, he could not but feel that they would expose themselves to the charge of a want of sincerity if they did not at least make an attempt to abate the evil.
§ MR. COBDENsaid, he rose to make a suggestion, which, he hoped, would be approved. Many of the objections which were entertained to the Bill as it now stood would be redressed, if some of those Amendments, of which notice had been given, were carried. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) had announced his intention to move an Amendment to the effect that payments for travelling expenses should not be allowed. Now, speaking for himself, if that Motion were agreed to, it would remove many of the objections which he had to the Bill in its present shape; while, on the contrary, if the Motion were not adopted, 919 he was not sure that he should vote for the passing of the Bill. Again, the objections entertained to the Bill by many hon. Gentlemen opposite had reference solely to the declaration contained in the Bill, and if the Amendment of which notice had been given with respect to that point were agreed to, the probability was, that those who objected to the declaration would vote for the passing of the Bill. Considering, then, that the proposed Amendments amounted to nearly six pages of print, he did not think they were in a position to take the sense of the House upon the general merits of the Bill, and he would, therefore, suggest to hon. Members that they should agree to the third reading, discuss the various Amendments, and take the sense of the House upon the Motion that the Bill do pass.
§ COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he would tell the hon. Member for the West Riding, who had just sat down, that old birds were not to be caught by chaff. For his part, he would offer to the Bill every opposition in his power. He believed it was a mere claptrap measure, brought forward by a Treasury Bench, which would require to purify itself before it undertook to cleanse other people, and at the same time it was a most disgraceful and uncharitable one. If doing a man's duty to his fellow-creatures was bribery, he had been guilty of it, and he should be guilty of it again, whatever were the laws they might pass. He was as opposed as anybody to bribery, and the employment of improper influence at elections, and he could assure the House that he had never controlled the votes of any tenant of his; but he decidedly disapproved of a measure such as that, which would interfere with the charities of life and the liberty of the subject.
§ Bill read 3°.
§ On the Motion that the Bill do pass,
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDrose to move several new clauses, the effect of which would be to render unnecessary the appointment of an election officer, and simplify the details of the Bill. He objected to the appointment of an election officer, because he would, in almost every instance, be a partisan, and would favour and throw all his weight and influence into one scale —because his duties were not very clearly defined, and would be of little use save in one particular—and because it was not advisable to create a new paid functionary, if they could by any possibility dispense with his nomination. Every advantage 920 which could be obtained by the nomination of an election officer would be secured by the simple plan which he proposed. He understood from the Bill as it now stood, that the sole duty of the election officer would be to receive money from the candidates, and to pay such accounts as the candidates should admit to be due. Now, in place of that officer, he proposed that every person on his becoming a candidate —and the period at which he becomes a candidate was defined—should nominate an election agent to be his election agent for the payment of his election expenses, and should forthwith advertise such nomination in the newspaper of the county or borough where the election was held. By another clause he provided that every candidate should pay all his election expenses through his own agent. He further proposed that the agent should be required to keep a book, to be called the "Election Expenses Book," and upon the receipt or payment of any sum, should record it in full in such book, stating from whom received, and for what purpose—to whom paid, and for what purpose—and giving in every instance the date of each payment. Another clause provided that the agent should, at the expiration of one month after the election, furnish to the returning officer a copy of the entries in his Election Expenses Book, together with all the receipts and vouchers in his possession, and accompanied by a declaration as to its accuracy. He further proposed that the candidate himself should, at the expiration of two months after the election, furnish a detailed account of his expenses to the returning officer, accompanied by a declaration to the effect that, according to his knowledge, information, and belief, no payment had been made which was not to be found in the account so furnished. He likewise proposed to oblige the returning officer to publish that account in the newspapers circulated in the place where the election was held, thus securing the only thing which the Bill did secure—publicity to the election expenses of each candidate. He would conclude by moving his first clause.
§
Clause—
Every candidate, immediately after he shall have become such, and before he shall pay or agree to pay any part of the election expenses, shall, by writing under his hand, appoint some person to be his agent for the payment of such expenses, and such candidate may at any time by writing under his hand dismiss such agent, and appoint another in his place; and it shall be the
921
duty of such candidate immediately after such appointment to give notice thereof in writing to the Returning Officer, and in such notice to state the name, description, and residence of the agent, and within one week after every such appointment to cause such notice to be inserted in some newspaper circulating in the place where the election is held; and no other than the agent so appointed shall have authority to pay or expend any money for or in respect of the election expenses,"—
§ brought up, and read 1°.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he trusted the House would not at this stage of the measure be induced to assent to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It would be perceived at once that the first object of that proposal was to sweep away the whole system of the appointment and action of the election officer. Now, it should be remembered that the principle on which the election officer should be appointed, and the nature of the duties to be imposed, had received the most serious consideration from the Select Committee, had been unanimously adopted by them, and subsequently approved by large majorities of that House. It was quite true with regard to the declaration considerable difference of opinion had prevailed, and that the majority which had approved the declaration had not been so large as when the general principle of an election officer had been adopted. But he could not suppose that, after the question had been so well considered by the Select Committee and by the House, the House would be induced at that late period of the Session to adopt an entirely new and unconsidered system. The objections to the clauses of the hon. and learned Gentleman lay even on the surface, for, instead of appointing an election officer, independent of the candidates, he proposed to vest the powers of the Bill in individuals appointed exclusively by the candidates themselves, and, of course, under their control. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed a single agent to transact all the business of the election, and pay away the moneys of the candidates, instead of an election officer, who would receive the assistance of as many agents as the candidates found to be necessary. There were other objections quite as obvious. As the Bill stood, the election officer was to see to the application of the whole money, and it was absolutely impossible, without something amounting morally to perjury, which would be severely punishable, for candidates to apply funds 922 in an illegal manner. But if these clauses were adopted, bribery might be practised on as large a scale as hitherto, thousands of pounds might be advanced for corrupt purposes by any one who knew they might get repaid by the candidate after all accounts had been verified; or money might be deposited for the use of secret agents. In truth, there would be no security whatever against the application of money in bribery and corrupt practices. He therefore hoped the House would reject the proposal of the hon. and learned Member.
MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, he did not wonder that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the House was very anxious for the passing of his favourite clauses. But he (Mr. Egerton) could not understand the objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and should, therefore, support the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis.
§ MR. J. BALLsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not persevere with his clause. Its practical result would be to substitute for an impartial agent a man who was identical with the very men through whose agency every description of corruption had existed in this country. It would be going back to the old and corrupt system which had prevailed at Cambridge, Canterbury, Maldon, and other places. Wherever corruption had existed it was by means of election agents, and yet these were the men to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. D. Fitz-Gerald) affected to look as the faithful protectors of the purity of election.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood the object of the proposal clause to be to get rid of third persons, who were, according as the Bill now stood, to be appointed as election officers. The agent by this Amendment was not required to give any opinion as to the legality or illegality of any payment; he was simply to be the machine for paying the expenses of the candidate, and for examining the accounts. He did not see that there would be any additional security in requiring a declaration that the money had been handed over to an election officer; the only difference that he could see would be that the candidate would in the one case have to pay 50l. or 60l. less than in the other.
§ MR. MURROUGHsaid, he was opposed to the adoption of the clause on the ground that it rendered it compulsory on the candidate to employ an agent. There were many boroughs, the constituencies of which 923 were almost all operatives, and in which it would therefore be difficult to find a person competent to act as an agent.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he thought the hon. Member who had last addressed the House paid the operatives a bad compliment when he said that a candidate would be unable to find one among them whom he could trust with his money. For his part, he had not so bad an opinion of his countrymen of any class, and he believed that, even in the smallest boroughs, many persons could be found to whom candidates might safely intrust their electioneering arrangements. The clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) had this advantage over the one which stood in the Bill—that, while it secured publicity, it gave candidates a voice in the disposal of their money.
§ MR. MURROUGHsaid, he must protest against the unfair construction which the hon. and learned Member had put upon his words.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he considered it impossible to obtain an election officer in Ireland who would not be a partisan; and as all the advantages to be derived from that officer being appointed would be equally derived by appointing the agent of the candidate to perform the duties, he hoped the House would agree to the clause.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, the objection of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that the candidate would be put to an expense of 50l. or 60l. for the election officer was met by the fact, that the same amount of money must be given to the election agent proposed to be substituted. He preferred the original clause, because he thought the whole matter would come before the public with far greater appearance of reality and truth if it came through the hands of a public officer intended to be, and assured to be in a majority of cases, an impartial administrator of the duties which devolved upon him. A candidate was by this clause forced to appoint an agent whether he wanted one or not, and if any corruption was intended they knew precisely what sort of agent would be likely to be chosen. He thought an election agent as existing in this country was an animal not of the cleanest character, and where a candidate required unscrupulous conduct he would select one of unscrupulous character. Although he was quite willing to admit, whatever conclusion was arrived at as to this appointment, it would 924 not answer effectually for the object in view; yet, as the adoption of the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis would be fatal to the project of carrying the Bill this Session, and as he was quite sure the public would be better satisfied with the provisions as they stood, he trusted the House would not agree to the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:Ayes 51; Noes 89: Majority 38.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that, after the decision just arrived at by the House, he would not proceed with his other clauses.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, the clause he now begged to propose he had moved on a previous occasion, and then the hon. and learned Attorney General made a statement which showed that, under the existing law, candidates might be made responsible for the acts of unauthorised persons. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that, at one of his elections, he was asked to sanction the payment of the expenses of out-voters. To this the hon. and learned Gentleman demurred, because doubt prevailed in his mind as to the legality of such payments; and, although he was disposed to think them legal, he was determined to incur no risk. The hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, refused to sanction the payment, but it had been made by a friend, and the Committee had held that it was legal. He would now ask whether, if they had held it to be illegal, the hon. and learned Gentleman would not have been held answerable for the act, although he had disowned it? A gentleman who had conformed to this Act, and taken the declaration, might afterwards be held liable by a Committee for a proceeding of one of his committeemen, a rash friend, or an enemy in disguise who wished to injure him. This was not a position in which any hon. Member ought to be placed. Since he had last brought this question under the notice of the House, he had been favoured by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), who was Chairman of the Dungarvon Election Committee, with a copy of the judgment he had delivered in favour of the sitting Member. It had been contended that the act of one of his committeemen was sufficient to unseat him, but the Chairman of the Committee said he did not 925 think a single act of corrupt treating committed against the authority of the candidate, and not sanctioned by him, ought to have the effect of unseating him and preventing him from representing that constituency again in the same Parliament. He (Lord A. Vane Tempest) had suffered at an election from the act of a man which he had neither authorised nor sanctioned; but if this Bill were passed, and hon. Members were required to take the declaration it contained, they ought only to be held answerable for their own acts and the acts of their certified agents.
§
Clause—
Every Candidate, or in his absence, the persons proposing and seconding such person, shall, before or at the nomination, or as soon after as conveniently may be, make and subscribe before the Returning Officer the following Declaration:—
'I, A. B. [or we the Proposer and Seconder of A. B.], do solemnly and sincerely declare that I [or we] have given a true and faithful Return of every Agent or Agents authorised or sanctioned by me [or us] to make any payments of money or monies, previous to or at my [or his] Election, and that no other than such Agent or Agents so named have had, nor shall in future have, authority or sanction by me [or us] to expend any money or monies, or incur any expenses of or relating to the Election aforesaid; and that I [or we] have faithfully adhered to the requirements contained in Clause 32 of this Act.'
No person being a Candidate at any Election, or who shall hereafter be elected, who shall have made the Declaration required by Section — of this Act, and have conformed thereto, and who shall not have appointed or given any authority to any agent or agents save according to the provisions of Section — of this Act, and who shall in all things have well and truly conformed to the provisions herein contained against bribery and all other corrupt and unlawful practices, shall be personally liable, civilly or criminally, nor shall his election be avoided, by reason of any illegal acts done by any other person than himself or his agent or agents, named in writing and notified to the Election Officer, according to the provisions of this Act, unless such illegal act shall be proved to have been done by his authority or sanction: Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to make valid any Election which shall be proved to have been obtained or effected by means of bribery, or any other corrupt or illegal practices,"—
brought up, and read 1°.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the effect of the noble Lord's clause, which had been discussed and negatived on a previous occasion, was, that, whereas at present if the agent of a sitting Member committed any act of bribery, the sitting Member was held responsible for it, and lost his seat in consequence, the candidate should only be responsible for the acts of the agent whom he had acknow- 926 ledged. The object of the House in passing this Bill was to make the law against bribery more stringent than it had hitherto been, but the noble Lord's proposition, if adopted by the House, would have an exactly contrary effect, and would make the bribery laws more lax and open the door to a greater amount of bribery than was at present practised. When he had adverted to the case of his owu election, he had not done so with respect to the law of agency, but with respect to that of travelling expenses. The noble Lord had charged him with ignorance—with not knowing the law. He did not know any one who professed so much modesty as the noble Lord. He was constantly begging the House to excuse his presumption, but he must say that he knew no one in that House, young or old, who was so apt to charge others with presumption and ignorance as the noble Lord. This was the second time the noble Lord had thought proper, without any provocation upon his part, to attack him personally and individually with reference to his election. If the noble Lord had examined the matter, he would have found that there had been numerous conflicting decisions upon it, and, although the balance of authority had been that travelling expenses were legal, yet, as there had been contradictory decisions—and he also, upon general principles, entertained serious doubts as to the legality of the practice—he thought it right, not only as a public man whose character was before the country, but also for the sake of not invalidating his election, to desire that the voters in question should not be fetched to the polling place. They were fetched notwithstanding, but it had never occurred to him to say that he was not responsible for that act, for he knew that by the law of Parliament a candidate was responsible for those who were held by the Committee to be his agents. Although there had been many conflicting decisions as to what constituted agency, all Committees had proceeded upon the principle that where general agency had been established, it was not necessary to prove direct authority from the candidate for any particular act. He hoped the House would not recede from the decision at which it had already arrived upon this point, as, if they required direct authority to be proved for each particular act of corruption, they would have bribery committed without a possibility of its being brought home to the candidate.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could not allow this debate to go on without noticing the attack which had just been made upon his noble Friend the Member for North Durham (Lord A. Vane Tempest) by the hon. and learned Attorney General). He (Sir John Pakington) had heard nothing fall from his noble Friend which could be construed in the nature of a personal attack, and the sneers which had been directed against him by the hon. and learned Attorney General were most uncourteous and uncalled for. Perhaps he could not better express his impartial opinion on this matter, than by stating that he had turned round to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Suffolk, and was remarking to him how good and agreeable was the tone of his noble Friend. [Laughter.] He maintained that that was an impartial opinion, for he could not anticipate that this attack was about to be made. Certainly he heard no attack made upon the Attorney General. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The noble Lord charged me with ignorance of the law.] He had not understood his noble Friend to make such a charge. He must say, however, that the complaint against his noble Friend for having twice brought forward substantially the same question came with singularly bad grace from a Member of the Government who had very recently on the Oxford University Bill taken the sense of the House on propositions which the House had before rejected on two different occasions. With regard to the clause of his noble Friend, it appeared to him to be strictly just. It might in some degree Open the door to bribery, but that would be as nothing compared with the settlement of the present state of the law.
§ MR. J. BALLsaid, he was much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who had often acted as Chairman of an Election Committee, should support a clause like the one under discussion, the effect of which would be that no amount of bribery would vitiate an election unless it was connected directly with the candidate. [Cries of "Divide!"] He thought after the display of pugnacity they had had among the English Members, they might allow an Irishman quietly to discuss the Bill. He should oppose the clause.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he thought a very reasonable meaning could be put upon the clause submitted by his noble Friend. He must deny that it was 928 intended to legalise any election where corrupt practices were committed, either by the candidate or any other person not connected with or authorised by him. If, however, it should be shown that any single elector had been bribed by any party who had no connection whatever with the candidate, he thought it would be most unfair to visit that upon the candidate, who might have been returned by a majority of upwards of 100. He agreed that it would be extremely inconvenient if a candidate at any election, who had employed an agent, and had given him a general authority, should not be held civilly responsible, and also responsible for his seat, for the acts of that agent, although he had not authorised him to do any of the illegal acts which might have been committed by him. In practice, the candidate was held responsible, and justly so, for the acts of his agent; but what right had they to visit upon the candidate the offences of a man with whom he had no connection? All he asked was, that the House should throw its shield over innocent persons, because it too often happened that Committees, puzzled by the speeches of counsel, had come to very harsh and unfair decisions in these cases.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, if this clause were agreed to, one great check which at present existed to prevent bribery by overzealous partisans would be taken away. He knew two cases—in one, the brother-in-law of a candidate gave a voter 10l. to leave the town—in the other, a friend gave a voter 5l. to vote for a particular candidate, and, in both cases, he believed, without the knowledge of the candidates. The only check which at present existed on such proceedings was the knowledge, on the part of the partisans, that such acts would jeopardise the seat of their candidate. If the seat were not voided by them, then there would no longer be any inducement to search out such cases, and thus a great avenue to bribery would be opened up. He was sorry to vote against the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly), who had shown himself most anxious to put down bribery, but he could not support the present proposition.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he considered the clause to be necessary on account of the provisions of Clause 35. Having by that clause made it incumbent upon candidates to give the names of their agents, they ought to be protected from the acts of other persons.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he disclaimed any intention of having for a moment intended to charge the Attorney General with ignorance of the law. Had he done so, he should, indeed, have been worthy of the very severe observations which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made with regard to him.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 114: Majority 35.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYthen moved the following clause—
If any candidate at any election, or any Member hereafter returned to serve in Parliament, shall, before the passing of this Act, have paid any money for or in respect of any election hereafter to be held, or any expenses thereof, such person shall, to the best of his ability, deliver a full, true, and particular account of such payment or payments to the election officer, and may thereupon, instead of the declaration hereinbefore contained, make and subscribe the declaration following:—'I [A. B.] do solemnly and sincerely declare that I have not knowingly made, authorised, or sanctioned, and that I will not at any time hereafter knowingly make, authorise, or sanction, any payment on account of my election, otherwise than through the election officer, save as excepted and allowed by the "Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854," and other than the payment or payments mentioned in a certain account called "Reform Act Account," delivered by me to the election officer, nor have knowingly done, authorised, sanctioned, procured, or promised, nor will hereafter knowingly do, authorise, sanction, procure, or promise any act, matter, or thing contrary to the provisions contained in sections 2 and 4 of the said Act;' and any person who shall make and subscribe any such declaration knowing the same to be untrue, or, having made and subscribed such declaration, shall, at any time thereafter, knowingly make, authorise, or sanction any payment contrary to the true intent and meaning of such declaration, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland of an offence punishable with fine and imprisonment.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he considered that the preferable course would be to treat all payments made before this Act as innocent payments; and the case might be better met by inserting in the declaration the words, "since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act."
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he also thought that the simplest plan would be not to make the Act retrospective, but to let the declaration merely be, that the candidate had paid no money since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he thought that it was indispensable that the 930 clause should be inserted in its present form.
§ MR. CRAUFURDwould suggest that if the present clause were passed, and the clause containing the declaration, notice to omit which had been given, did not pass, they would then be placed in a strange position.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYreplied that, in the event of the declaration clause not being passed, he would then, with the permission of the House, withdraw the present clause.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. PHINNsaid, he would now beg to move the insertion after Clause 38 of the clause of which he had given notice. The clause had been taken from the previous Acts against bribery and treating, the only alteration made being that the Member should not sit in the then Parliament; but if it were desired, he should have no objection to the clause being limited as to the place for which the election was declared void.
§
Clause,
If any Candidate shall be declared by any Election Committee guilty, by himself or his agents, of bribery, treating, or undue influence at any Election, such Candidate shall be incapable of being re-elected for the place for which his Election shall have been declared void during the Parliament then in existence.
§ Brought up, and read 1°; 2°.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would consent to the insertion of the clause, as its object was to keep the law as it had hitherto stood with reference to this subject.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsuggested, that after the word "elected" should be inserted the words, "for the place for which his election has been declared void."
MR. BENTINCKmoved the insertion of the words, "with his cognisance," after the words "or his agents."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, be must oppose the addition, because he considered that by the present law a Member guilty of bribery by his agents, with or without his cognisance, was disqualified from sitting for the same place in the same Parliament.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, he thought the Member should be disqualified from being returned in the same Parliament for any place, otherwise there would be merely an exchange of seats.
§ Mr. PHINNsaid, the Member might be unseated for the acts of his agent, of which 931 he had no cognisance; and it would be too great a penalty to disqualify him entirely for the whole duration of the Parliament.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Clause amended, read 3°, and added.
§ MR. MULLINGSsaid, he had now a clause to bring forward which he trusted the House would adopt.
§
Clause—
On the trial of any action for recovery of any pecuniary penalty under this Act, the parties to such action, and the husbands and wives of such parties respectively, shall be competent and compellable to give evidence in the same manner as parties, and their husbands and wives, are competent and compellable to give evidence in actions and suits under the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter ninety-nine, and 'The Evidence Amendment Act, 1853,' but subject to and with the exceptions contained in such several Acts: Provided always, That any such evidence shall not thereafter be used in any indictment or criminal proceeding under this Act, against the party giving it.
§ Brought up, and read 1°; 2°; 3°.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would not object to the propositions involved in this clause, that parties proceeded against for penalties under this Bill should be allowed to come forward as witnesses, and to give what evidence they could in their own behalf; but, of course, there ought to be reciprocity, and they consequently should be liable to be called upon the other side as well as competent to be heard upon their own. He must, however, own that he had felt some reluctance in admitting the clause, because it would be an exception to the general law of the land, for it was not the law of the land at present that the parties proceeded against in a penal action might give evidence in their own behalf. At all events it was a doubtful question, inasmuch as in the Court of Exchequer, in which the question had been raised, the Judges had been equally divided in opinion. He thought, therefore, that any legislation on the subject should be general rather than exceptional, and he should propose a clause in the Common Law Procedure Act with that object, which, if the House should agree to it, would render this clause superfluous. If the House should not agree to it, he owned he should have some hesitation in admitting the principle in an exceptional case. At the same time he quite agreed that if even under any circumstances parties were entitled to be heard in their own behalf, they were so entitled in cases such as 932 these; and he should not oppose the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, he saw no reason why different rules of evidence should prevail with respect to cases arising under this Act from those which were applicable to any other penal proceeding. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General intended to apply the principle involved in this clause to all penal actions, of course his objection fell to the ground; but then the best way would be to do it by a general enactment, for he thought it very objectionable to apply different rules to different cases of the same class.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, he wished the House to consider whether this clause might not be the means of compelling timid Members, who did not like to undergo the ordeal of examination in a court of justice, to compromise penal actions against them. In a recent case, a friend of his had told him that he would rather pay 1,000l. than be "badgered by the lawyers," but he had appeared upon his advice, and those who were proceeding against him had immediately retired.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he agreed very much with the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) that exceptional legislation was unwise. He would much rather let it rest upon the general law.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYhoped the hon. Member for Cirencester would persevere with the clause. Before Election Committees parties were competent witnesses, and might either be compelled to give evidence or give it voluntarily; and there was no reason why the same rule should not be extended to other proceedings under this Act.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he approved of the clause, but disapproved of dealing with the subject exceptionally. He wished to know whether the parties would be compellable as well as competent to give evidence.
§ MR. MULLINGSsaid, be would insert the word "compellable" in addition to the word "competent."
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYWould you compel a man to give evidence, and make him criminate himself?
§ Question put, "That the clause be added to the Bill."
933§ The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 107: Majority 11.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would now move, in page 3, line 37, after the words "and of none effect," to insert the words, "Provided always, that such treating shall have taken place within a period of six months, either previous or subsequent to an election." He thought the clause as it stood much too stringent against all persons mixed up in an election. He did not think that treating for corrupt purposes would ever take place at a period distant from the election, it being more than probable that it would take place either a short time previous to, or subsequent to it. Having now many years' experience in Parliamentary proceedings, he must say he never knew of a single instance of a candidate habitually treating or corrupting his would-be constituents. With a view, therefore, to prevent actions being brought against Members or their agents during an unlimited and indefinite period subsequent to an election, for acts which might or might not have been done with a corrupt intention, he should move the foregoing Amendment.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman, by putting a wrong construction on the Act, had come to a false conclusion. The law in reference to the clause as it at present stood went quite as far on the subject of corrupt practices as the clause proposed; and the new Bill would no more make the giving of a glass of beer penal, unless it was given with a corrupt intention, than the present law.
§ MR. ARCHIBALD HASTIEsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would still agree to the Amendment, for unless it were accepted he should feel bound to vote against the declaration.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that, on the contrary, he hoped the noble Lord would not agree to the Amendment. If the hon. Member for Paisley would read the clause, he would find it only applied to the case of persons giving refreshments in order to corruptly influencing a constituency. If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bentinck) were agreed to, the effect would be that candidates would tell the electors, "If you only elect me, I promise you a first-rate feed at the end of six months." So that all the difficulties consequent upon treating would be thus easily surmounted.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
934§ The House divided:°Ayes 78; Noes 153: Majority 75.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, he would beg to move the omission of the words at the commencement of the 6th clause, which imposes certain disabilities for bribery, for the avowed purpose of expunging that clause from the Bill. He considered the 6th and 7th clauses most objectionable. He did not propose to expunge these clauses when the Bill was in Committee, because he thought it desirable to discuss them in the presence of Mr. Speaker, as they materially affected the privileges of the House of Commons. Every Member convicted of bribery under the 6th clause, or of treating and undue influence under the 7th, would forfeit his seat. The question of transferring the jurisdiction over seats had been over and over again discussed in that House, and one great statesman, now no more, had contended that it was absolutely essential to the independence of the House to retain that jurisdiction; but by these two clauses the House was about to transfer it collaterally and incidentally to a petty jury in an assize town. When these clauses were discussed the Committee were under a misapprehension, believing that the law of the land was what it would become under these clauses, and that the 2 Geo. II. imposed a penalty of 500l., and forfeited the seat of the Member who might be convicted. That Act, after imposing the penalty, said—
And also shall be for ever disabled to hold, exercise, or enjoy any office or franchise to which he or they then shall or at any time afterwards may be entitled, as a Member of any city, borough, town corporate, or cinque port, as if such person were naturally dead.But this clause did not apply to Members. It merely deprived capital burgesses, &c., of any franchise which they might possess. Several actions might be brought against a Member under this Bill, and though he should be acquitted in ten cases out of eleven, by a decision against him in the eleventh case he would be deprived of his seat. Let them consider what the effect of such a measure would be in Ireland, if hon. Gentlemen on one side of the House were tried by a Papist jury, and hon. Gentlemen on the other side were tried by an Orange jury. Party feeling, however, was so bitter in that country, that he was afraid hon. Gentlemen on both sides would seek to retain this power as an instrument of mutual obstruction; but, surely, the House did not wish that it should be so 935 used, and he trusted the noble Lord would consider whether be should persevere in passing a clause which would produce such an effect. Might they not have introduced into England, by a clause of this kind, something of the same sort? The result, also, might be that guilty persons would compromise such actions, whereas in other cases it might lead to the conviction of innocent persons. By expunging the clause they would not subject themselves to any difficulty, for they could, if necessary, expel a guilty person, as had been done in a particular case in 1812. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had said, on a former occasion, that if a verdict were unsatisfactory the Judge would certify the fact, and there would be a new trial; but he concluded that such a clause would be most mischievous in excited times. Did they think that the Judges would wish to place themselves in a position of hostility to that excitement, and expose themselves to the abuse of the newspapers as persons screening corruption? The Judges would leave the case to the jury in nine cases out of ten; and was it to such a tribunal they were going to transfer their privileges? With this view, he proposed that the words should be omitted, considering that, if the House assented to his Motion, the two clauses would ultimately be withdrawn.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he would second the Amendment, because he thought that the effect of the clause, as it at present stood, would be that which the Lord President had, on a previous discussion, greatly deprecated, namely, to transfer these political questions to the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and to make these courts the arena of political discussions. Resort would be had to these actions after a hotly contested election in order to unseat the successful candidate; a man might have forty successive actions brought against him, and it was rather hard to say that if one of them should succeed—and it must be remembered that in these civil cases juries were bound to decide according to the weight of evidence, and could not give the benefit of a doubt to the accused party—he would be incapacitated from taking his seat in that House. It might happen, too, that the jury would be actuated by political feeling. There was every reason to believe that these proceedings would be made not unfrequently the instruments of political animosity, and he certainly thought they ought to remove 936 the temptation to institute them which would be found in the fact that a successful action or prosecution would be a political triumph. It must not be forgotten, too, that this clause would alter the constitution of the House by transferring to another tribunal—and that too of a common jury—the power of determining who were and who were not to sit in that House. He believed that such a course would be destructive of the independence of the House, and he warned the puritans—or he might call them the would-be puritans—of that House, that, by adopting the clause as it stood now, they would be striking a deadly blow on its constitution, its safety, and its character. He was perfectly willing to confess that the arguments used against this clause would apply with tenfold force against its operation in Ireland. In that country he was sorry to be obliged to admit, there existed much ill-regulated political animosity, which, as had been shown in the course of this Session, would not hesitate to use any means to injure a political opponent, without stopping to inquire whether they were honourable or just. If this Amendment were unsuccessful, ho should certainly feel it his duty to move that Ireland be exempted from the operation of the Bill.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that although he could not participate in the apprehension that jurymen in England could ever become political partisans, there was really so much weight in the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down respecting the clause, and also in what had been urged by the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Hildyard), that he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the noble Lord opposite to the effect of those clauses as they then stood if adopted. These clauses, when considered in connection with the whole Bill, would be found objectionable. The clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn), providing that where an Election Committee declared a candidate guilty of bribery, he should be incapable of sitting in that House during the same Parliament, was a perfectly consistent clause; but by the clauses now under discussion, if a penal action was commenced against any candidate, not for bribery, but for the most insignificant offence under this Bill, he would, if judgment was given against him, be disentitled to sit and vote during the remainder of that Parliament. Now the difficulty was, that there 937 was no machinery provided by this Bill for giving effect to any such decision—there was no penalty attached to his voting or sitting in that House, and no authority in the hands of Mr. Speaker, or otherwise, to prevent his doing that which the law declared he was not entitled to do. Under these circumstances, and seeing that in the other clauses of the Bill there were ample punishments attached to the different offences mentioned in the Bill, he would suggest to the noble Lord President that he should consider the propriety of striking out these two clauses altogether.
§ MR. PHINNsaid, he must confess that he felt the force of some of the objections which had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had spoken on these clauses. As to there being no machinery for giving effect to decisions of the courts of law against Members of that House, the transmission of copies of such decisions to Mr. Speaker would render it necessary for that House to expel such Members. No machinery in such cases was necessary; the usage of Parliament was sufficient to meet the exigency. If a Member of that House was guilty of forgery, or declared insolvent, he must, ipso facto, be expelled. As to the danger of loose charges being got up against Members by common informers, that was guarded against by the clause introduced by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings). With regard to the case of conviction on indictment, the penalty of disability, if severe, was limited to the duration of the existing Parliament.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he owned that the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), and the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Hildyard), appeared to him to have such weight in them, that he could hardly ask the House to go on with these clauses. There was certainly a case that he (Lord J. Russell) had not considered, namely, that a Select Committee of that House, appointed to try the question of the validity of an election, might find the sitting Member not to be guilty of bribery by himself or his agents, and award the seat to him; and it might happen that an indictment might be got up by persons with strong political feelings the other way, and there might be a conviction on which it would be almost incumbent on that House to expel the Member. Then it might be a question for the House whether 938 it would follow the decision of its own Committee, which had tried the case and heard witnesses upon oath, or whether it would be satisfied with the verdict of a jury. Certainly the general principle was against giving to juries the power of deciding on the right of Members to sit in that House; and on the whole, although he would not say that these clauses could not be defended, yet he felt that there was so much difficulty attending them that he thought it would be better that the House should expunge them.
§ MR. SOTHERONsaid, he thought the noble Lord was quite right in abandoning these clauses.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to explain that there was some objection to agreeing to these clauses in the Select Committee, and it was only the positive assertion of the noble Lord that the exclusion of the Member should last during the continuance of the same Parliament was the existing law (which was now shown to have been a misconception), that had reconciled the Members of the Committee to their insertion. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk was not only fatal to these clauses, but, in his belief, fatal to the whole Bill, because it showed that there had been a want of consideration of the bearing of its different provisions until the House had adopted its clauses.
§ Clauses struck out.
§ Clause 18 (Appointment of the Election Officer).
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Suffolk, on a previous occasion, whether there should not be a clause for the immediate appointment of the persons who were to be election officers for the boroughs of which the writs were suspended. The hon. and learned Gentleman then said, he thought this might be best done by the Secretary of State writing to the returning officers of those places, to say that the election officer ought to be immediately appointed. This, however, he (Lord J. Russell) thought would not be a regular or a constitutional way of effecting this object, and he wished to suggest that immediately after the words, "Be it enacted," in this clause, these words should be inserted—"That within six days after the passing of this Act the returning officers of Maldon, Barnstaple, Canterbury, Cambridge, and Kingston-upon-Hull" — and 939 then the clause would run on—"once in every year in the month of August" should appoint an election officer.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYnext proposed that the nomination of the election officer be not vested in the returning officer, as he considered that officer was open to undue influence. He thought the judicial officer both in Ireland and in Scotland would be a fitter person to nominate than the returning officer. He proposed to give the power of nomination to persons not open to influence— to the senior county court judges in England, who were barristers, and who had a large income from the country. In Ireland, to the assistant barristers; and in Scotland, to the sheriff's substitute.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words "the Returning Officer of every," and to insert the words "in England the County Court Judge, or, if more than one, the senior County Court Judge in order of appointment; in Ireland, the Assistant Barrister; and in Scotland, the Sheriff's Substitute, having jurisdiction for or in any," instead thereof.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not think the alterations as proposed in any way desirable. To vest such a power in judicial officers would be very impolitic, and might, and probably would, in many instances, give rise to suspicions which it would be very unwise to associate with any judicial office. Hitherto, we had always endeavoured to keep our Judges free from political bias or influence, and to infringe upon so healthy a rule would be highly injudicious.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he did not think, as far as Scotland was concerned, that the alteration in favour of the sheriff's substitute would be a desirable one.
§ MR. J. BALLsaid, he considered that in Ireland, as well as elsewhere, the returning officers might often be strong partisans, and would suggest that it would, therefore, be advisable to admit of an appeal being made, under certain circumstances, to the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Various verbal Amendments were then agreed to.
§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENORmoved an Amendment on Clause 26, the effect of 940 which was to render the payment by a candidate of the travelling expenses of a voter illegal. He hoped that the noble Lord the President of the Council, considering the great difference of opinion which existed on the subject, would not oppose the Amendment with the weight of the Government. If the Amendment were agreed to, it was his intention to propose an addition to the clause, attaching a penalty for the payment of travelling expenses.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 33, after the word "shall" to insert the word "not."
§ Question put, "That the word 'not' be there inserted."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 147: Majority 79.
§ MR. CAYLEYmoved the following proviso to the end of the travelling expenses clause—
Provided always, that unless the distance of the voter's residence to the nearest polling booth exceed one mile and a half, the conveyance of a voter to the poll shall not be a reasonable and legal expense within the meaning of this Act.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. A person of infirm health might live at a less distance than a mile and a half, and he thought that, on the whole, it was better to retain the clause as it stood.
§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he regarded the clause as it stood as highly mischievous, while it settled nothing as to what the present state of the law was. The effect of it would be, to compel every candidate engaged in a contest to convey every voter to the poll.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to observe, with respect to the declaration required by the 37th clause to be made by every candidate, and also by every Member, that it imposed upon hon. Members what he believed no hon. Member could conscientiously undertake to pledge himself to. The declaration went back for sixty years, and went forward for 1,000 years. It was a declaration that they never had done, and never would commit, any one of 736 offences. [Loud laughter.] Yes; there were no less than 736 offences of bribery, which might be, either directly or indirectly, committed. Now he, for one, would never consent to make a declaration with respect to anything that he did not under- 941 stand. Without any further remark, therefore, he should move that this clause be struck out of the Bill.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 29, to leave out from the word "Candidates" to the words "I [A. B.] do solemnly," in line 37.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that a most unusual course had been taken in their proceedings that night. They ought first to have decided upon the principle whether there should be any declaration or not, before they were called upon to say what that declaration should be. He could not assent to the declaration, which he confessed he could not understand. Nothing should ever induce him to take it as it was now worded. How did they know what the second and fourth sections of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act contained?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) had put upon the paper, and intended to move, appeared to be preferable to that now in the Bill, and, therefore, it should have his support in the event of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) being negatived.
§ MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, that, as the author of the words in the Bill, he had no objection that they should be omitted in favour of those proposed by the right hon. Baronet.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 126: Majority 40.
§ On the Question that the Bill do pass,
§ MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, that, as he had been unable, from the rules of the House, to move a clause limiting the operation of the Bill to one or two years, although he thought it extremely desirable that it should only be a temporary measure, he should wish to know whether the noble Lord would agree to make some arrangement for the introduction of a clause for that purpose?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had previously stated, that he had no very great objection to the hon. Gentleman's proposition, but, of course, he could not pledge himself as to what shape the Bill might take after it had been disposed of by that House.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he should now 942 move an Amendment that the Bill do pass on that day three months.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he wished to observe, before strangers were ordered to withdraw, that, although the declaration had been left out of the Bill by a Vote of that House, yet he considered it was of very great importance in the first place, that they should consolidate into one Act the various laws relating to bribery and treating, and in the next place, not assuming any credit or merit to himself or the Government for what had been done, that they should make the experiment of an election auditor in the manner proposed by this Bill. He did believe that more would be done to restrain the expenses of elections by the appointment of such an officer than by anything that bad ever been done before, and therefore he should be extremely sorry to see the Bill lost, and should certainly oppose the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that, although he had supported the Bill in its first stages, and, although he concurred with the noble Lord as to the effect of the appointment of an election officer, as he believed the Bill in its present shape would open the door to endless means of bribery, he could not now vote in its favour.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill do pass."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 100: Majority 7.
§ Bill passed.
§ The House adjourned at Three o'clock till Monday next.