PAPERS MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 6 May 1858)

§ MR. PEASE
said, he wished to move for a Message to the Lords for a copy of the opinions of the Judges on the 15th day of February last, in the case "Cooper v. Slade." He had no doubt that every hon. Member was aware of the decision in the case of "Cooper v. Slade," on the subject of payment of the expenses of a voter in going to the poll to vote. Great injustice was done to thousands of electors by delaying the promised Reform Bill, and by not making some provision with regard to the expenses which voters were put to in travelling to the poll to record their votes.

MR. SERJEANT DEASY
said, he could not admit that the law, as laid down by the learned Lords, was in accordance with the opinions of that House or of the public at large. By the decision of the House of Lords an interpretation had been given to the Corrupt Practices Act which was entirely different from that intended by its framers. Before the Act was passed there was very little doubt, if any, as to the legality of payments of travelling expenses 217 of voters. The point had been decided by that house in the Southampton case, by Lord Lyndhurst, when Chief Baron, and by the late Lord Chief Justice Tindal; but, in order to remove all doubt, when the Corrupt Practices Act was under consideration, the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) proposed in Committee to introduce a clause declaring that such payments were lawful. It was objected that the clause might encourage exorbitant demands on the part of voters, but the then Secretary of State for the Home Department said the clause was in strict agreement with Lord Lyndhurst's definition of the law. The late Attorney General was also of opinion that candidates might lawfully pay the travelling expenses of voters. The clause was introduced, but was struck out in "another place," for some reason which he did never understand, and the noble Lord the Member for London, in recommending the House to agree to the omission of the clause, said it would only leave the law as it then stood. How had that expectation been justified? In the very same Session a new writ was moved for Cambridge, then under a cloud, as Galway was at the present moment. A distinguished Member of the English bar, Mr. Slade, became a candidate, and, believing on the opinion of those high authorities that he was justified in paying the travelling expenses of voters, issued circulars bearing the significant postscript, "your railway expenses will be paid." Some person then chose to bring an action against Mr. Slade to recover £100 penalty, under a section of the Corrupt Practices Act. The action was tried before Mr. Baron Parke (now Lord Wensleydale), and he directed a verdict for the plaintiff. Exceptions were taken to the charge of that learned Judge, and the question came before the Exchequer Chamber; when all the Judges present, with the exception of Mr. Justice Williams, decided that the direction of Mr. Baron Parke was incorrect in point of law, and that the verdict ought to have been for the defendant. In the meantime the question had been raised on several occasions before Committees of that House, and the universal and unanimous decision of those Committees was that payments for travelling expenses made bonâ fide were lawful. An appeal from the decision of the Exchequer Chamber was lodged, and came on for hearing in the House of Lords, and there that decision was reversed by Lord Cranworth and Lord Wensleydale, the 218 latter being the Judge whose ruling had been appealed from in the first instance. Whether or not that was a proof of the satisfactory constitution of the court of ultimate jurisdiction he would not then take upon himself to say. He wished, however, to call attention to the effect of that decision, both as to the past and the future. With respect to the past, it was clear that every candidate who had paid travelling expenses of voters, or who had provided carriages or been in any way a party to the conveyance of voters, had been guilty of bribery within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Act, and was liable to fine or imprisonment. Such would be the case with many Members of that House, were it not that, fortunately for them, twelve months had elapsed since their elections. It was necessary that some measure should be adopted which would relieve many hon. Members front the predicament in which they were at present placed. Perhaps the recollection of their own position would induce hon. Members to deal leniently with the Galway freemen. With respect to the future, it was, he conceived, absolutely necessary to pass some legislative enactment to relieve Members, candidates, and constituents, from the present difficulty. The practical result of upholding the recent decision would be to place the elections, in counties especially, in the hands of the voters residing upon the spot, and virtually to disfranchise the poorer voters residing at a distance. There were but two remedies—either to arrange the polling places so as to enable the humblest voter to have the power of recording his vote, or by legislative enactment to reverse the decision of the House of Lords. He would not say which course should be adopted, but the matter was one of such pressing urgency that he hoped the Home Secretary would take the subject into his earliest consideration, and introduce in the present Session sonic measure to prevent the serious inconveniences which he had pointed out.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he thought it desirable that the opinions of the Judges on the case in question should be in the hands of hon. Members, in order that the House might know the reasons on which the decision proceeded. He would not have troubled the House with any further remark on this subject, except for the observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned Serjeant, so pertinent to the matter in hand, and for which the House ought to feel indebted to him. The hon. and learned Serjeant had treated the 219 question in two points of view, with reference to the past and to the future. As he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, a year having elapsed since the last general election, there was now no fear of any hon. Member being prosecuted for a misdemeanour in respect of any infraction of the existing law at that election. Hon. Members might, therefore, feel pretty comfortable on that score. With regard to the future he (Mr. Walpole), might state that the question of the Corrupt Practices Act was now under the consideration of the Cabinet. One of two courses was open to the House. That Act would have either to be simply renewed this year, or it might be brought in with such amendments as the experience of last year in election Committees might enable the Government and the House to make. Now, simply to propose its renewal in its present shape, with so many palpable defects upon the face of it, would be a piece of clumsy legislation. He was now engaged in collecting information as to the decisions under that Act, and as to any defects that might have been pointed out in it; and he thought it best, after receiving that information, to move for leave to bring in a Bill embodying such Amendments as experience in the working of the Act might have suggested. He need scarcely tell the learned Serjeant and the House that the decided opinion he (Mr. Walpole) had formed on the question under consideration was that travelling expenses at elections, unless paid with the view of corrupting the voter, were as legal as any other payment. He thought, at all events, the time had arrived when the question must be settled one way or the other, and he hoped the House would think the course he had suggested was the best way of dealing with it.

§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, he wished to express his satisfaction that this question was to be finally settled. He recollected when the noble Lord the Member for London brought in the clause in question, and he had stated his objection to it as being merely declaratory of the state of the law. In legislating in 1854, the House proceeded on the assumption that they were not interfering with the then existing law. The ease of "Cooper v. Slade," however, was one that arose out of the Corrupt Practices Act entirely, and therefore he confessed that he felt gratified that the Act was to be amended. It was certainly his opinion that when travelling expenses were bona fide it was legal on the 220 part of the candidate to pay them, and if it was desirable in England to allow a candidate to pay the bona fide travelling expenses of electors, much more so was it in Ireland where the polling places were at a greater distance, and the electors not so rich as in England.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he wished to point out that if the law was to be altered, it would be expedient to bring in the Bill to which the right lion. Gentleman had alluded as early as possible, because election Committees might sit in the interval, in which the decision of "Cooper versus Slade" would naturally have great weight. As the question had been opened, he would ask whether the right hon. Gentlemen would not introduce a clause extending that Act to municipal elections, the present Act respecting which was so loosely worded that it was impossible, in the event of their being made a medium of bribery for Parliamentary elections, to convict the persons engaged in that bribery.