§ Order for Committee read.
§ Moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. LYGONsaid, there were certain clauses in the Bill which involved principles of great importance, and he therefore trusted it would receive a very full and searching examination. In the first place, he objected to the manner in which the Bill proposed to deal with the right of agents to vote. The Act of 1854 had justly done away with the disqualification upon agents being allowed to vote, and he did not see how those who were anxious for the extension of the franchise, and maintained that every person had a right to vote, could insist upon the exclusion of any one class of the community. The experience of the last few years showed that no harm had been done by doing away with the restriction. He also believed that a good deal of confusion existed in the minds of people on the subject of bribery, and that they had not sufficiently distinguished between the commission of bribery as an offence against the law cognizable by the ordinary tribunals, and bribery as it affected the possession of seats in that House, to deal with which belonged exclusively to the House. He believed that the bribery laws would never be in a satisfactory state until the proof of bribery in the ordinary courts was made precedent to the institution of proceedings in that House. It was said that bribery was a serious offence and ought to be severely punished; but experience had proved that it was a mistake to impose on an offence a punishment disproportionate to its magnitude. He believed the best way to deal with the subject was to define clearly in what the offence consisted, to refer it to the ordinary tribunals, and to attach to it a punishment proportionate to the sense of its seriousness which was entertained by the coun- 1002 try at large. It also appeared to him that the eighth clause was a departure from the wise, just and merciful principle of law, that no one should be compelled to criminate himself. By that clause the witness before a Committee or a Commission was bound to answer every question, and it was left to the discretion of the Committee or Commission to give a certificate of indemnity. If witnesses were to be compelled to answer questions which might tend to criminate themselves, there ought to be no option, and the certificate ought to be given as a matter of course. With regard to the form of the certificate, he would suggest that it ought not to be that the witness had made a true disclosure of all things upon which he had been examined; because it was impossible for any tribunal to pronounce that certain answers were true, but that the witness had answered fully the questions which had been put to him. He trusted that either the Bill would be very much amended in Committee, or that on a future occasion the whole subject would undergo full revision.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the points which the hon. Member had adverted to would be very proper points for the consideration of the House in Committee.
§ House in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Disqualification of Agents).
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he should move the substitution of the word "such" for "other" before the word "capacity." His object was to prevent the disqualification from voting of persons employed incidentally in an election—as, for instance, the publisher of a newspaper in which the advertisements of the candidate appeared.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. PULLERsaid, the object of the clause was to disqualify persons who were employed as agents, canvassers, pollclerks, and messengers. Such disqualification was by no means unnecessary, as he knew cases in which there were about 150 committee-rooms engaged by the candidates with no other view than that of using them as means of influencing electors to vote for them. He proposed to add to the list persons of whom committee-rooms were hired, and also persons who were paid for furnishing meat, drink, or entertainment on the order of any candi- 1003 date, or any agent of any candidate, for the purpose of influencing any person to vote for such candidate. He would, therefore, propose in line six, after the word "void," to insert—
And if any voter shall at any time before, during, or after any election, agree for or accept any payment for or in respect of the hire of any room used as a committee-room or otherwise for promoting the election of any candidate, or for or in respect of any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision furnished by him to any person on the order of any candidate, or any agent of any candidate, for the purpose of influencing any person to vote for such candidate, or to abstain from voting at such election, or on account of any person having voted or promised to vote for such candidate, or refrained or promised to refrain from voting at such election, he shall be incapable of voting for such candidate at such election, and his vote, if given for such candidate, shall be void.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, the Bill was fast becoming a. Bill for the wholesale disfranchisement of electors. The existing law made it an offence to furnish meat, drink, and entertainment for the purpose of influencing any person to vote for a particular candidate. The latter part of the Amendment was therefore unnecessary, He was at a loss to understand why a man was to be disqualified for letting a committee-room to a candidate for a small consideration.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that the Amendment would compel candidates to embark in a sea of uncertainty from which no one could extricate himself. It might, perhaps, be possible to obtain a legal definition of a "committee-room," but what was to be said of a room used as a committee-room, "or otherwise for promoting the election of any candidate"? There was no end of the ways in which a room might be used for promoting the election of a candidate. A letter might be written, an address might be drawn up, a speech might be composed in a room, and each of those acts might be said to be an act for promoting the election of a candidate; but was the owner to be deprived of his vote for allowing his room to be so used? He came to the next part of the Amendment, which was perfectly bewildering. It provided that if A gave drink to B, in order to induce C to vote for D, then A was to be disfranchised. Why was A to be disfranchised for a process which ended such a long way off? He thought that such a complicated machinery could not be made to work, and that under the shelter of such provisions a great deal of real 1004 bribery and corruption might be practised with impunity.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was afraid that it would be impossible to give effect to such minute regulations as those proposed by this Amendment. Its words would seem to apply to the keeper of the hotel where any candidate might be staying, and where he might see his friends or talk over the arrangements of the election. The result would probably be, that the candidate would go to an hotel kept by a warm partisan of his opponent and thereby cause him to be disqualified. The other part of the Amendment, relating to treating, would be hardly more practicable.
MR. LYGONsaid, as he read the Amendment, butchers, bakers, and everybody who furnished anything on the order of a candidate or his agent, would be disfranchised.
§ MR. PULLERsaid, he did not contend that in all cases contemplated by the Amendment the publican necessarily did anything corrupt, but that, on the whole, to preserve the purity of elections, it was essential to watch jealously all pecuniary arrangements between candidates and voters. When a candidate went to canvass a publican, in nine cases out of ten the publican said, "I have not made up my mind; I don't think I shall make it up till the last day." They all knew pretty well that this meant, that if the candidate would open his house, he would vote for him; or if he would not open it, he would vote for the man who would. Nobody had suggested any better remedy for this than by making it not the interest of the candidate to employ his money in that manner.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, the unfortunate borough which he represented (Harwich), having no supply of water, had, in consequence, an unusual number of publicans; and if that proposal were agreed to, a very great number of his constituents would be disfranchised. If voters were to be prevented from acting as poll-clerks, messengers, and the like, they would get their friends and relatives employment in these capacities, so that the object of the Amendment would be frustrated.
§ Amendment negatived.
MR. PAGETsaid, he would propose the insertion of words making it a misdemeanour for a person who had been hired by a candidate as an agent, attorney, 1005 poll clerk, messenger, door-keeper, &c., to record his vote al the election.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Select Committee had certainly recommended that such an act should be made a misdemeanour; but on consideration he had thought it better to declare that the vote should be void. It was, however, for the Committee to decide the point.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought it would be sufficient to impose a penalty of £5 or £10 upon such persons.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYasked, whether the persons prevented from voting would be capable of enforcing their pecuniary claims against the candidates?
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that under the clause as it stood at present the person hired would be entitled to claim remuneration, but would be deprived of his vote. If the Amendment were adopted, which made the offence a misdemeanour, of course he would not be entitled to claim remuneration.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he should support the Amendment, which he thought would make the clause more efficient.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. CAVEsaid, that he opposed the clause with some reluctance, because he fully admitted the magnitude of the abuses at which it was levelled; and when they heard of twenty-five solicitors employed on each side in a small borough, and changing sides with their retainers, it could not be doubted that such a state of things ought, if possible, to be put an end to; but the question was, whether this enactment would have the desired effect. He very much doubted it. Why were these solicitors paid? Was it for their own vote, or for those they could command? If, then, you struck off their vote, would you destroy their influence? If a man could bring fifty votes, would he be much less valuable with forty-nine? By the present law the procuring of votes for a fee is bribery, as much as voting for a fee, so that no new enactment is required. He quite admitted that the influence of solicitors over voters might be most oppressive, but the law already provided for this, and at any rate you did not prevent it by depriving the agent of his vote, or obliging him to act gratuitously. Was employing a solicitor or other agent for a fee bribery in itself or was it not? If it was, let them prohibit it, and make it fatal to the seat. If it was not bribery, 1006 but merely liable to abuse and extravagance, let them adopt the Irish law under the Acts 35 Geo. III., c. 4, and 1 & 2 Geo. IV., c. 58, and fix the number and the fees (as in case of polling clerks). This was recommended to the Committee as working well in Ireland. If this were objected to, then leave the law as it is, with the votes liable to be struck off on scrutiny; and let the Election Committee determine on petition whether the number employed is too great or fees too abundant; (this was done in the Oxford case when Mr. Neate was unseated); and especially let them inquire whether the agents have been in the habit of changing sides. His own experience was that agents were chosen in the same way as bishops and judges, not to buy their support, but on account of their declared opinions. He had never seen respectable solicitors accepting retainers from the opposite side, and it seemed hard to cast upon them the slur of disfranchisement and stigma of bribery and corruption. The result would probably be to throw the candidates into worse hands. Since he had given notice of this Motion a proposal had been made to him to amend the clause by striking out "agent attorney," and he admitted there was a broad distinction because it would be difficult to employ an attorney who was not a voter, and therefore a stranger might be brought down, and the House knew that the grossest cases of bribery had been by stranger agents. Still, he thought it unconstitutional to deprive the humbler voters of their franchise for no fault of their own. Unscrupulous people would easily evade the law by the payment of relations, as widows were put into post-offices to gain their sons' vote. An attempt was made to prevent this by 5 & 6 Vict., c. 102, but the law could not be carried out. Again, the fee to solicitors for looking after the registration might be increased on the tacit understanding that they acted as election agents gratuitously. And by this clause a candidate might disfranchise his enemy's voters by employing them as messengers. If they aspired to protect the candidate, let them not saddle him with the charges which ought to be borne by the public. In other respects no one could protect the candidate but the candidate himself. There was no doubt he ought to pay nothing, and in former days when there was, as we read, as much disinclination to serve as Member for a county as 1007 there is now to be sheriff of a county, this was so. Things were much changed now, and where there were a few bridges and crowds pressing over them the tolls would be high, and when they heard of £600 a year paid by a distinguished statesman for a borough in the West of England, they could hardly wonder at the opinion prevalent among the poorer electors that Parliament was a lucrative appointment, to some of the crumbs of which they were entitled. Legislation on these points had been constant, spasmodic, and not successful; and when legislators themselves conspired to make legislation abortive, the case was exceedingly hopeless. It was for these reasons, that while fully admitting the evils which this clause was intended to meet, yet because lie was afraid that it would not meet them, but would impose disabilities on honest men which the unscrupulous would evade, and because the same rule on this point could not hold good in constituencies widely differing in extent, and because he considered that an inoperative enactment was worse than none at all, that he ventured to move the omission of this clause, which was only a revival of the clause in the 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 37, which, on account of its unsatisfactory working, had been repealed by subsequent Acts.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, it was coming to this, that hon. Members must go down to their constituencies and be returned free of cost, solicitors, agents, and messengers, giving their votes and their services into the bargain; but they were really pushing the matter too far. He employed a respectable solicitor, and his Colleague, who sat on the Treasury Bench, did the same; and if he were in a solicitor's place, he would not like to manage an election and be either unpaid or disfranchised. The clause would lead to the employment of a clerk instead of his principal, and of a voter's son instead of the voter, so that the legislation proposed was mere subterfuge and sham.
LORD HENLEYsaid, he wished to diminish the employment of poor voters at election times, but at the same time he thought the clause severe, in depriving solicitors of their votes for managing an election. The management of: elections was as much the part of attorneys as the drawing up of a conveyance. He would omit the words "agents and 1008 attorneys" from the clause, and retain the rest of it.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYbelieved that political principle extended from agents down to the lowest person employed, and therefore he would support the omission of the clause. He trusted they would deal with the question as men of common sense, and not be led away by the desire to obtain a reputation for purity. Persons were employed at elections for their political principles, and it was for a Committee to decide whether there was corruption or not. Why deprive them of their votes because they were doing something to earn a livelihood in the vocation to which they were called? Was it to be expected that attorneys and agents would give up their regular businesses, and employ their clerks and others without receiving remuneration? It was sheer absurdity to expect it. However strong their political principles, they must naturally, if they gave up the regular work of their office, receive remuneration. The principle applied to all persons employed: if they did work, they had a right to be paid for it; and unless they were paid in such a manner as showed that they were paid with a corrupt purpose, their votes ought not to be struck out.
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Cambridge)observed, that the provisions of the clause had been enacted by Lord Althorp; but having been found inoperative, were afterwards repealed. They would inflict injustice on parties, and tend to degrade the character of the electors. They would introduce the elements of uncertainty in every case, and make a petition almost inevitable. One curious difficulty would arise from the clause. A petition must be presented within a certain number of days, while a longer period was allowed to elapse before the payment of election accounts, and thus petitions would be presented upon the chance of some ground for them being found in the accounts to be subsequently published.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, he thought that the Government had brought forward the measure rather out of deference to the decision of the Select Committee than from any particular opinion of their own. His own experience of elections was, that high political principle was not confined to persons of high station, but was much oftener exhibited by those in a lower station of life. The clause was intended to disfranchise any one who accepted money from the candidate. The clause would be 1009 evaded, and by passing the clause they would add hypocrisy and evasion to the other crimes attendant upon elections. He considered that the law, as it at present stood, was amply sufficient to punish overemployment.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, if that clause were struck out, the others would be of no use. If lawyers and political agents were expunged from the clause, it would be a great injustice on others. Lawyers were the great source of expense at elections. He once had the misfortune to canvass the city of Worcester. He employed fourteen solicitors—to whom he paid upwards of £500, and he lost the election. He now had the honour to represent a borough where he employed no lawyer and no paid agent, but trusted simply to the good common sense of the electors.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped that whatever course the Committee adopted with respect to the clause, it would deal out even-handed justice. It would be most unfair to disfranchise the humbler men who were employed at elections, and leave the attorneys and the higher class of agents in possession of their votes.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. F. S. Powell), had referred to the 7 &8 Geo. IV., c. 37, in which a similar clause existed, and which Act had been repealed. It was true that the House declined to renew the Act until the whole subject had been inquired into by a Select Committee. A Committee did sit during two Sessions, and they reported that the repeal of the Act 7 &8 Geo. IV. had been prejudicial to purity of election, and it was proved that since the repeal it had become the practice to employ large numbers of voters, not only as professional agents, but as doorkeepers and messengers, who, under the guise of payment for their services, actually received payment for their votes. All that the Legislature could hope to do in reference to the matter was to make bribery and corruption as difficult and their detection as easy as possible, and it was no valid objection to any provision suggested with that view that it was open to evasion. The Committee on which both he and his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. G. Hardy) had sat, agreed in recommending the clause. He had not himself been present when that decision was come to, but his hon. Friend was there.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that though he attended the meeting of the 1010 Committee on the day in question, he was not present when the vote to which the right hon. Gentleman referred passed.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that at all events those of the Committee who were present were unanimous in favour of the clause; and that being so, he felt that he was bound to propose the clause in deference to their opinion. The evil which it was intended to meet was clearly proved before the Committee, and since the Bill was printed he had received letters from persons in different parts of the country, who said they attached great value to this clause, because the practice extensively prevailed of giving colourable employment at elections to persons who were really paid for their votes.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 110: Majority 7.
1011| AYES. | |
| Atherton, Sir W. | Gurney, S. |
| Ayrton, A. S. | Hadfield, G. |
| Aytoun, R. S. | Handley, J. |
| Baines, E. | Hankey, T. |
| Baring, T. G. | Headlarm, rt. hon. T. E. |
| Beale, S. | Henley, Lord |
| Black, A. | Hutt, rt. hon. W. |
| Blencowe, J. G. | Ingham, R. |
| Bruce, H. A. | Kinnaird, hon. A. F. |
| Buller, Sir A. W. | Knatchbull-Hugessen, E |
| Bury, Viscount | Layard, A. H. |
| Butler, C. S. | Langton, W. H. G. |
| Buxton, C. | Lennox, Lord G. G. |
| Caird, J. | Levinge, Sir R. |
| Cardwell, rt. hon. E. | Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C. |
| Carnegie, hon. C. | Lewis, H. |
| Childers, H. C. E. | Lindsay, W. S. |
| Cobbott, J. M. | Locke, J. |
| Colebrooke, Sir T. E. | Lowe, rt. hon. R. |
| Cox, W. | M'Mahon, P. |
| Davey, R. | Maguire, J. F. |
| Doulton, F. | Marjoribanks, D. C. |
| Duke, Sir J. | Martin, J. |
| Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D. | Mills, J. R. |
| Egerton, E. C. | Mitchell, T. A. |
| Enfield, Viscount | North, F. |
| Evans, T. W. | Packe, Colonel |
| Fenwick, H. | Padmore, R. |
| Fermoy, Lord | Paget, C. |
| Fortescue, C. S. | Paget, Lord C. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. | Palmer, Sir R. |
| Gilpin, C. | Palmerston, Viscount |
| Gladstone, rt. hon. W. | Peacocke, G. M. W. |
| Glyn, G. G. | Pease, H. |
| Goldsmid, Sir F. H. | Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. |
| Greene, J, | Pilkington, J. |
| Gregson, S. | Potter, E. |
| Grenfell, H. R. | Pritchard, J. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Puller, C. W. G. |
| Gurdon, B. | Robartes, T. J. A. |
| Gurney, J. H. | Robertson, H. |
| Russell, A. | Vivian, H. H. |
| Scott, Sir W. | Weguelin, T. M. |
| Scourfield, J. H. | White, J. |
| Seely, C. | White, L. |
| Seymour, H. D. | Wickham, H. W. |
| Sidney, T. | Williams, W. |
| Smith, A. | Wood, W. |
| Staniland, M. | Wyvill, M. |
| Stirling, W. | |
| Stuart, Colonel | TELLERS. |
| Sykes, Col. W. H. | Mr. Brand |
| Thompson, H. S. | Sir W. Dunbar |
| Villiers, rt. hon. C. P. | |
| NOES. | |
| Addington, hon. W. W. | Kinglake, J. A. |
| Baring, A. H. | Knatchbull, W. F. |
| Bathurst, A. A. | Lacon, Sir E. |
| Beach, W. W. B. | Laird, J. |
| Beecroft, G. S. | Lawson, W. |
| Bentinck. G. W. P. | Leader, N. P. |
| Bentinck, G. C. | Longfield, R. |
| Blake, J. | Lygon, hon. F. |
| Bramley-Moore, J. | Malcolm, J. W. |
| Briscoe, J. I. | Malins, R. |
| Brooks, R. | Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. |
| Browne, Lord J. T. | Martin, P. W. |
| Buckley, General | Mitford, W. T. |
| Burghley, Lord | Moffatt, G. |
| Burrell, Sir P. | Montagu, Lord R. |
| Butler, J. H. A. | Montgomery, Sir G. |
| Cecil, Lord R. | Morris, D. |
| Clifton, Sir R. J. | Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R. |
| Clive, Capt. hon. G.W. | Mundy, W. |
| Cochrane A D R W. B. | Mure, D. |
| Codrington, Sir W. | Northcote, Sir S. H. |
| Cubitt, G. | Packe, C. W. |
| Dalglish, R. | Parker, Major W. |
| Dawson, R. P. | Peto, Sir S. M. |
| Disraeli, rt. hon. B. | Pevensey, Viscount |
| Dodson, J. G. | Powell, F. S. |
| Dunne, Colonel | Ridley, Sir M. W. |
| Egerton, hon. W. | Rowley, hon. R. T. |
| Ewart, J. C. | Salt, T. |
| Ewing, H. E. Crum- | Selater-Booth, G. |
| Farquhar, Sir M. | Selwyn, C. J. |
| Farrer, J. | Smith, S. G. |
| Fellowes, E. | Somes, J. |
| Ferrand, W. | Stackpoole, W. |
| Gard, R. S. | Stanley, Lord |
| Gaskell, J. M. | Steel, J. |
| Getty, S. G. | Stuart, Lt.-Col. W. |
| Gore, J. R. O. | Talbot, hon. W. C. |
| Gower, G. W. G. L. | Taylor, Colonel |
| Graham, Lord W. | Tollemache, J. |
| Gray, Captain | Torrens, R. |
| Grogan, Sir E. | Trefusis, hon. C. H. R. |
| Haliburton, T. C. | Turner, C. |
| Hardy, G. | Vance, J. |
| Hardy, J. | Vandeleur, Colonel |
| Hay, Sir J. C. D. | Vansittart, W. |
| Hennessy, J. P. | Walker, J. R. |
| Heygate, W. U. | Warner, E. |
| Hodgson, R. | Watlington, J. W. P. |
| Horsfall, T. B. | Western, S. |
| Hotham, Lord | Whitmore, H. |
| Hubbard, J. G. | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Humberston, P. S. | Woodd, B. T. |
| Hunt, G. W. | |
| Jervis, Captain | TELLERS. |
| Kelly, Sir F. | Mr. Cave |
| King, J. K. | Mr. J. J. Powell |
§ Clause 3 (Authorized Agents for Payment of Expenses).
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would move the insertion of the words "or cause to be made" after "make" in line 8, and after "payment" the words "advance, loan, or deposit." The object of the alteration was to meet any possible case, colourable or otherwise.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would then move the insertion in line 10, after the word "election," of the words "before, during, or after such election."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to; as was also Clause 4.
§ Clause 5 (Publication of Statement of Election Expenses).
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he objected to the length of time allowed for publishing election accounts. The period specified in the Bill was three months; and sometimes when Committees were inquiring into election proceedings, and a desire was expressed that the accounts should be produced, they were met by the statement that the time had not expired. To prevent such a state of things in the future, he proposed that the time be limited to two months.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would venture to suggest that for all practical purposes the legislation which was going forward might as well be carried on out of the House. The conversational tones of the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Durham (The Attorney General) prevented Members below the gangway from hearing a single word.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLobserved, that the returning officer was to publish the statement "as soon as conveniently may be." A very wide scope for discretion was thereby given, and he suggested that some definite time should be named.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that the fixing of any definite time—say one or two months—would be accepted as the period within which publication was to be made, and would retard, instead of accelerating, the publication of the statement.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he would move that "fourteen days" be inserted.
§ Motion agreed to.
1013§ Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 6 (Section 14 of Corrupt Practices Prevention Act extended to Misdemeanors, &c).
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of the object of the enactment.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was intended to get rid of a difficulty which had been found by the Court of Queen's Bench in construing a clause in the Corrupt Practices Act.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he desired to ask whether it was intended to apply a limitation of one year to prosecutions under that Act, and to place no limitation at all to prosecutions for offences at common law that might be committed at the same election.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it would be inconvenient to introduce into a Bill of that kind a limitation of the period during which prosecutions might be brought for common law offences, such as bribery. The Bill was not intended to interfere with the common law.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he thought it undesirable to leave a vindictive person the power either of prosecuting within a year under this Act, or beginning a prosecution at common law three or four or five years afterwards.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (General Allegations sufficient in Indictments) agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Evidence of Witness on Election Committee and before Commissions).
MR. LYGONsaid, he proposed to move the omission of the first part of the clause, which enacted that no person called as a witness before an Election Committee should be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer might criminate himself.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, to leave out from the words "No person," to the word "himself," in line 40.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that witnesses frequently refused to answer questions before Election Committees, and the Committees in consequence were unable to get to the bottom of the questions referred to them. It was then necessary to address the Crown for the appointment of a Royal Commission, by which considerable expense 1014 was incurred. If the power in question could safely be given to three gentlemen sitting as Commissioners, it could surely be safely exercised by a Committee of that House.
MR. LYGONsaid, he objected to the employment of the power either by a Committee or a Royal Commission. The principle sought to be established was a very dangerous one, and he should prefer to see it restricted rather than extended. He should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the subject.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was bound to admit that it was a departure from the ordinary rules of English law that persons should be bound, whether they would or not, to answer questions which might criminate themselves. But the proviso at the end of the clause laid down that no statement made by any person should, except in cases of indictment for perjury, be admissible against him. The clause was therefore disarmed of its sting. The Committee was aware of the almost insuperable difficulty there was in detecting corruption in the cases to which the Bill meant to apply, and it was therefore necessary to have recourse to such a provision as that which was now the subject of discussion.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had in Committee opposed the Resolution upon which the clause was formed, and he had still greater objections to the clause itself, because it was wider in its scope. The Resolution of the Committee was to the effect that no one should be allowed to refuse to answer a question which might tend to criminate him on the subject of bribery; but as the clause stood no one could refuse to answer any question on the ground that it would tend to criminate him. He contended that was too large a power to put into the hands of either a Committee or Commission. The Committee could not be called to account for giving or refusing a certificate, no matter how truly a witness might have answered. Prosecutions had been instituted in the Gloucester and Wakefield cases, and convictions had been obtained; but the feeling of the House and the country was against the proceedings, because it was felt that the persons had been trapped into an admission of guilt. It was true that the admissions were not actually employed as evidence against the gentlemen in the Wakefield case, but they were used in procuring testimony against them. The 1015 power which the clause would give he would riot intrust to the Judges of the land, still less would he intrust it to a Committee or Commission. The provision was, in his opinion, more corrupt than corruption itself.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought the power which the clause would give too large, because according to it a witness might be cross-examined on any point whatever. It would be necessary, therefore, to restrict the provision to cases of bribery. Then it was not compulsory on the Committee to give a certificate, it was only said it should be lawful for them to do so. Therefore, while the witness was compelled to make a disclosure, there was no guarantee that he should be protected. The effect of the clause would probably be that election agents would commit every possible offence; and if they could not keep everything hidden, they had only to make a full disclosure, and they would get an indemnity. The clause was so loosely drawn that the Committee could not pronounce an opinion upon it.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that a good deal of misconception pervaded the minds of hon. Members from their confusing two subjects—the extension of the power proposed in the clause to Committees, and the retention of it in Committees who already possessed it. He was bound to say, that if they took away the power of sending down Commissioners to certain places where extensive bribery and corruption had existed, armed with authority to compel evidence to be taken subject to whatever indemnity they chose to give, they were screening bribery in the most effectual way they could. Their object ought to be, not only to make bribery as difficult as possible, but to afford all due facility for its detection. He did not believe that in recent cases the bribery would have been detected unless the Committees had been armed with the power of compelling evidence.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that the words in the clause were so large in their application that the sitting Member whose election might be under investigation by a Committee would be bound to answer any question put; and if the answer led to the loss of his seat, the proviso at the end of the clause would afford him no protection.
§ MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he thought it ought not to be left to the discretion either of a Commission or Committee to give an indemnity. The grant of the indemnity 1016 should be obligatory; and if the person receiving it had not spoken the truth, he should be liable to an indictment for perjury.
§ MR. BOVILLsaid, he did not regard bribery as a greater offence than larceny or murder, and the principle of the clause ought, in consistency, equally to apply to the latter crimes. If the Committee affirmed by legislation that persons answering all questions with respect to bribery should be protected, where could they stop? It was difficult to say, from the wording of the clause, whether those who would be compelled to answer would be certain of obtaining a certificate. Of all tribunals the least fit to be trusted with a discretion on such a point would be Commissions and Committees.
§ MR. J. J. POWELLremarked that the clause merely effected the extension of a provision which had been in operation in this country for some time, and had produced most beneficial effects. His hon. and learned Friend appeared to forget the distinction between the cases of trial for larceny, murder, or other criminal offences, and the proceedings before these Commissioners, because while in the former case a particular individual was charged with a specific crime, in the latter there was no allegation of specific offences against individual?, but the Commissions were distinctly and essentially Commissions of Inquiry. All that was required from the persons summoned before the Commissioners was that they should honestly tell the truth. He thought these Commissions of Inquiry had done great good. In the case of Gloucester, he could testify to the good wrought to the borough by the Commission lately held there; but unless persons were compelled to answer questions, it would be of no use to send these Commissions into the country.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he thought that the granting of certificates ought to be imperative upon the Committee in cases in which witnesses had made a full and fair disclosure.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYpointed out that the part of the clause now under discussion did not raise the question to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that the whole of the clause ought to be struck out.
§ Question put, "That the words 'No person who is called as a witness' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 96: Majority 8.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday.