HC Deb 21 June 1864 vol 176 cc36-47
MR. H. BERKELEY

said, that in asking the House to agree to the Resolution he rose to propose, he had taken a different course from that which he usually followed, because it appeared to him that the approach of a General Election gave him an opportunity of making some remarks which were certainly called for, and which he trusted hon. Gentlemen would take to their hearts. They had heard of Earl Russell climbing an exceedingly high mountain, and finding on the top of that mountain an inscription which advised him to "rest and be thankful." No doubt he did rest, and, no doubt, he was thankful; but why the noble Earl should insist upon all Parliamentary reformers also resting he could not understand. He could understand the noble Earl asking them to be thankful, and, indeed", he thought the reformers of England were very thankful to the noble Earl for his brilliant exertions in the cause of reform. When, however, the noble Earl asked the reformers in that House to rest, it appeared to him to savour of absurdity. Were there no longer any abuses to redress? Were there no evils to be got rid of? Had they become so perfect and so pure that no reform of the political system was required? Were they arrived at the Ultima Thule of reformation? Had England become Utopia? Had they nothing left to do but to enjoy themselves and be happy? An examination of the existing state of things would prove diametrically the contrary. Was there any Act of Parliament at that moment which interfered with intimidation, put down bribery, or prevented other corrupt practices? He would be a bold Member of Parliament who would say that any such Act existed. An Act, it was true, existed which had superseded others having a like object, and which was called the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. But did that Act put down any of these evils? Why, it was laughed at from one end of the country to the other by every attorney's clerk. The House would permit him to go back for u moment to the formation of the Committee which produced the Report that was laid hold of by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary and converted by him into an Act of Parliament. That was shortly after an election of more than ordinary enormity which took place during the Earl of Aberdeen's Administration. Corrupt practices so largely prevailed at that election that the Earl of Aberdeen, from whom no one had a right to expect much reform, declared that no one could be enamoured of our electoral position. Thereupon a Committee was formed. But how was it formed? Almost all the legal talent of the House was engaged upon it. There were the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, ex-Attorney Generals and ex-Solicitor Generals, and hon. Gentlemen from both sides of the House learned in the law, were likewise joined in that focus of law. After a short time that Commit- tee, which was a kind of mountain of law, did as other mountains did—fell into labour and produced a mouse, a most insignificant little vermin, as its offspring. The Home Secretary framed a law upon that Report, and said here is a law that will cure all your evils—there is now an end to all further complaints. There were certain provisions in the Bill that enlisted the sympathies of a great number of Members. It did away with processions, ribands, bands, and other sources of expense which fell upon candidates. Accordingly, Members swallowed the rest of the Bill, which from end to end was perfectly inadequate, if not mischievous, because it guarded candidates at the poll, and fixed all the responsibility and all the punishment upon the electors. When the Bill became law it was reviewed in The Times by a man now no more, but who knew more about elections than probably any other man in England. He referred to the late Mr. Coppock. He wrote an analysis of the Bill, which The Times endorsed, saying it was evident that it was a "pompous profession meant to be inoperative." He would call the attention of the House, not to Mr. Coppock's analysis, but to the article in The Times. The writer showed that the great object of the Bill appeared to be not to unseat candidates, because they were carefully protected against danger, and unless they were personally in fault they might laugh at all the attempts made to turn them out. The candidate was to name certain persons as his agents, and if they committed bribery his seat was lost, but the subordinate agents, who were not appointed, might buy votes by the dozen without affecting the seat, although they would themselves be liable to proceedings. As to intimidation, if a man discharged his tenant or his servant, or ceased to deal with his tradesmen on account of his vote, it would be an unconstitutional act, but although the fact might be undoubted, there might be no means of proving it, and the consequence was that the clause would be totally inoperative. The late Sir Robert Peel in the case of the late Duke of Newcastle, defended his Grace, who had turned out some seventy of his tenants, on the plea that he considered he had a right to do as he liked with his own. Sir Robert Peel did not defend the propriety of the action, yet he said it was impossible to touch it by law, and if they attempted to do so, they would plunge into a course of legislation which was anything but desirable. That was the opinion of Sir Robert Peel. It was likewise the opinion of Lord Macaulay, who, in a speech at Edinburgh, stated that, as for making any law to prevent a man from turning out one of his tenants at will, or discharging one of his tradesmen, it was an absolute absurdity. Well, that kind of legislation had been resorted to in that Parliament, and, of course, the Act became inoperative. As they were approaching the period of a General Election, he trusted the House would permit him to point out what had been done, could be done, and would be done again under the Act. Taking, for example, some large commercial or manufacturing town, he would describe a few of the events which occurred at the time of a contested election. The first thing that was done by the partisans of a candidate was to secure certain persons called "Men from the Moon," that was, persons known to nobody—who came, stayed a short time, and disappeared. Now, a "Man from the Moon" descended upon one of those boroughs, took up his position at some hotel, and next morning went to some licensed victualler and says, "On this day week I shall require forty breakfasts." The "Man from the Moon" was generally accompanied by some mysterious person, perfectly well known to the licensed victualler, but who said nothing. The licensed victualler said, "My price is so and so," to which the "Man from the Moon" replied, "Oh, certainly." He then paid visits to other licensed victuallers, until he had ordered breakfasts to the amount of £400 or £500, and then retired from the busy scene. There might be twenty, thirty, or forty voters at one of the large shipyards or factories of the boroughs, and on the morning of the polling these voters went to breakfast, then to the poll; and after that, hung about, forming part of that crowd which applauded or expressed disapprobation, or assisted in bringing up electors to the poll. That must be hungry work, and about the middle of the day the men, by sixes and sevens, proceeded to certain houses, not completely finished, and there get beef, beer, and spirits, which had been conveyed there over night. At whose expense? Why, everybody knew at the expense of the candidate; but who was to prove it? At the end of the week the men went to receive their wages, but not having been at work on the day of polling, they should not get wages for that day, but they got paid full wages for it after all. Those were facts which could be easily proved. There, then, was treating in the first place which was declared illegal, and there was bribery in the next, for if paying a man who did not work a day's wages was not bribery, what was? How could the only Act which they had to stop bribery interfere with such a case as he had mentioned? The breakfasts were not paid for by the "Man from the Moon," but when the time within which petitions could be presented had passed, another descended and paid the Bills. He had said nothing about the bribery which took place between two and four o'clock, when £5 notes changed hands, and when persons who never had a pound in their possession before paid away large sums in corrupting others. Although these men, when found out, were liable to be punished, the candidate remained untouched. Now, could it be supposed that any of these bribers had such a strong affection for their candidate that they would borrow money to secure his election? If they did not receive it from the candidate in some way or other, from whom did they receive it? He had shown that corruption and malversation flourished malgré the Act of Parliament. He would next suppose the Bill in operation, and applied to the case of such a borough as he had described. In the first place no "Man from the Moon" would be needed, no breakfasts required, otherwise a man might have his opponent's voters devouring his tea and toast. For the same reason no dinners would be placed in empty refreshment houses, and what would become of the holyday when no wage would be paid for it, for a man would not be inclined to give away money, which might go into the pockets of his opponent's supporters? He had shown fair reasons for believing that the ballot would supply the deficiency in our present law, and all he asked was that it should get a fair trial. He knew he should be met by the bare contradiction, "Oh! but the ballot won't do this;" but to that he replied that assertion is no argument. He would show that the ballot bad done that. Let them turn to the Australian colonies, and they would find that a perfect reformation had been wrought. When the ballot was first proposed there, it was met by arguments a vast deal more able than had been used against it here, but it was supported by that irresistible logic of which Mr. Grote was the author. And what was the result of this adoption? The original opponents of the Ballot in Australia were now its warmest suppor- ters, and it was remarkable that the only class of persons who were opposed to it there were the Roman Catholic priests. Now, in this country and in Ireland the priests were to a man in favour of the Ballot, and it had been stated over and over again by the Irish landlords, that if they got the Ballot it would not be fair play because the vote would be concealed from them, but would be known to the priests. A gentleman in private conversation had said to him, "Don't tell me you can invent any box of which the priest cannot get to the bottom." He had produced an argument from Australia to show that that was not the case. He had on a former occasion shown that they had witnessed the break-down of the greatest democratic republic in the world, and various elements appeared in that chaos, but the Ballot in that wreck of institutions held its own, and appeared destined to restore order. What said a correspondent of The Times? That "if the forms of American liberty last as long as Mr. Lincoln's time of office, the agency of the ballot-box will consign that unlucky functionary to private life, and elect some other president in his stead." Probably so; but how would it be if there were open voting in America? Need he ask any man of common sense what chance any man would have against Abraham Lincoln and his hordes of mercenary cut-throats? Well, were they really become so virtuous—were the constituencies become so pure that the Reformers in that House might rest and be thankful? He thought not. He would ask the House to allow him to compare the account of our political virtue as given by old Andrew Marvell in 1678, and the account given by Bishop Burnett in the History of his Own Times; and then he would like to conclude with a comparison with the political virtue which they then possessed as pictured by a gentleman well known to that House — Mr. Erskine May. Andrew Marvell said— It was not to be expressed the debauchery and lewdness which upon the occasion of elections are now grown habitual throughout the nation, so that the vice and the expense are risen to such a prodigious height that few sober men can endure to stand to be chosen upon such conditions. What said Bishop Burnett? He said that all laws which could be made would prove ineffectual, because to cure so great an evil till there came a change and reformation in the morals of the people would be impossible; and till the candidates became men of other temper and other principles than then appeared. Let them now see what happened in their own days, according to Mr. Erskine May. It appeared that at Canterbury 155 electors were bribed at one election, and 79 at another. At Barnstaple there were 255 electors bribed, and at Cambridge 111. At one place the sum of £26,000 had been spent in three elections. In 1858 a Commission reported that 183 freemen of Galway received bribes. In 1860 there were strange disclosures affecting the city of Gloucester. This place had long been familiar with corruption. Indeed, in 1816, a single candidate spent £16,000. It appeared that at the last election in 1859, no less than 250 electors were bribed, and 81 persons were guilty of corrupt practices. Up to that time the places which had been distinguished by such malpractices returned members to Parliament prior to the Reform Bill, but in 1860, a perplexing disclosure was made that bribery had also extensively prevailed in the populous and thriving borough of Wakefield, where 86 electors were bribed; and such was the zeal of the canvassers that no less than 98 persons were concerned in bribing the corrupted. He would ask the House whether, when such was the case, they ought to "rest and be thankful." The time was approaching when the great electoral Saturnalia would be present, and then intimidation would produce as ever its reign of terror, bribery would corrupt, and inebriety would demoralize. That state of things would exhibit itself in a form hardly ever witnessed before on account of the great struggle which would take place between the two great political parties. On that occasion there would be seen all those horrors which he had been in the habit of describing, and the screw would be turned on the country by hosts of attorneys, who well knew how to put the strain on the point which told upon the condition of the elector. Surely, then, it was not too much to ask, seeing that there was no existing remedy for that state of things (for the present Act had proved a dead failure), that the votes should be taken in a manner which had proved successful elsewhere. Consequently, bethought that he was entitled to move the following Resolution:— That, as a General Election is impending, and it is notorious that our electoral system is defective and corrupt in practice, and as we have no law which can put down the intimidation of voters nor prevent bribery, it is therefore expedient that a fair trial shall be given to the vote by Ballot.

MR. LOCKE

said, he rose to second the Motion. He would not detain the House long as he did not presume to think for a moment that the Motion would be carried, but he thought thanks were due to the hon. Member for bringing the subject before the House, because at no distant period Gentlemen opposite would have an opportunity of experiencing those evils which his hon. Friend had so ably described. He thought the thanks of the House were due to his hon. Friend for having afforded to each of them an opportunity of ascertaining whether or not they had retrograded on the question of the Ballot. It was just as well, having reference to the day which was not far distant, that they should register their opinions upon such a question for the consideration of the British public. The usual objection to the Ballot was that it could not be carried out; but he would call attention to what took place on a former occasion. On a former occasion when there was a long debate on the question, an hon. Gentleman who had since become a Member of the Government—he meant the hon. Member for Pontefract—speaking for the first time in the House, described the working of the Ballot in Melbourne so as to convince many Gentlemen that if the system were adopted here it would be a great improvement on the present state of things. The hon. Member removed one of the chief objections urged against the Ballot by showing that at Melbourne a scrutiny could take place in as effective a manner as in any Committee-room of the House of Commons. An argument which was much in favour with the noble Lord at the head of the Government was that the Ballot was un-English; but if its tendency were to prevent intimidation, bribery, drunkenness, and other evils, then every man who wished well to his country ought to vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, especially as a General Election was understood to be impending.

Motion made and Question proposed, That, as a General Election is impending, and it is notorious that our Electoral system is defective and corrupt in practice, and as we have no Law which can put down the intimidation of Voters, nor prevent bribery, it is therefore expedient that a fair trial should be given to the Vote by Ballot.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, I assure the House that there are many circumstances and (pointing to the clock) a warning-hand which bid me to be brief; but I am anxious to state, in as concise a form as I can, the reasons why I shall, as usual, oppose the Motion of my hon. Friend. I can only say to my hon. Friend personally that I hope the result will not make him feel so comfortable in his present position [Mr. Berkeley was seated on the Opposition Bench] as to induce him to make it permanent. I should be exceedingly sorry to see him continue where he is now. Nothing can be more honourable to any man than steadily adhering to the cause or party which he has adopted; and the more the cause or the party is going down in public opinion, the more honourable is the devotion of its supporters; and I think my hon. Friend will himself confess that the plan advocated in his Motion is not so strong in popular sympathy as it has been formerly. I object to the Motion because it is founded on an erroneous assumption. The hon. Member deals with the right of voting as if it were a personal right, which an individual was entitled to exercise free from any responsibility, whereas I contend that the vote is a trust to be exercised on behalf of the community at large. Even if the franchise were ever so extended—even if we had a manhood franchise, if every man arrived at the age of discretion were entitled to vote, it would be only a trust, because there would still be a large portion of the community, women and minors, affected by the laws, by taxation, and so on, whose interests would be committed to those who had votes. Indeed, our legislation is based on the understanding that a vote is a trust, and not a right. If a vote were a purely personal right, would not a voter be entitled to ask on what principle of justice you should punish him for exercising it in the manner which he thinks most for his own individual advantage? But you attach a penalty to the man who employs that right of voting in a way at variance, as you deem, with the public interest, for bribery or any other such consideration. I say, then, that a vote is a trust, and I maintain that every political trust ought to be exercised subject to the responsibility of public opinion. The whole political framework of civilized nations rests on the principle of trust. The interests of the community are in various degrees, more or less important, committed to a selected few who are charged with duties, in regard to particular things, on behalf of the people at large; and their action in fulfilling that trust ought to be subject to responsibility towards those on whose account they exercise it. But I contend that the Ballot as proposed is intended to withdraw the voter from that responsibility which the public exercise of the trust confided to him would impose, and in that respect I think it would be a political evil. We have been told about the system in other countries— in America, for instance. But in America, as everybody knows, ballot voting is not secret. It is ticket voting. A man votes for a great number of officers at a time, and he sticks his ticket in his hat, and is proud of the party and the cause he espouses; he does not think of concealing the members, judges, governor, or other officers appointed by public election in the United States for whom he gives his voice. The Ballot, then, I hold, is founded on a mistake in principle, and is at variance with the fundamental assumption on which all our political institutions are based. Well, would it be effectual for the purpose for which it is proposed? I deny that. In this country, I maintain, that a man is proud of his party. He may be thought right or wrong by his neighbours, but I do not believe that when he has been enlisted under the banner of one candidate or the other he is not proud of the side he has taken. So far from wishing to conceal his vote, or sneaking with it to the ballot box, he tells all his friends what he is going to do, and is rather anxious than otherwise that the whole community to which he belongs should know it. If you shrink from a public investigation of the voting, it follows that you must also do away with canvassing committees. You must forbid canvassing. You must make it penal for a man to tell beforehand how he is going to vote. Generally every man has a political bias—a partiality for one party or the other—and it is next to impossible that a majority of electors should vote even by-Ballot without their votes being known. Would the Ballot assist those who may desire to conceal their votes? The hon. Member spoke of the protection it would give to the man who was now afraid if he did not vote in a certain way that his landlord would take away his farm, or a customer withdraw his patronage. But would it do so? In the first place the landlord or customer who intended to punish his tenant or tradesman for giving a vote against his wishes would canvass him beforehand, would apply for a promise, and if it were refused would know what that implied, and would deal with the voter accordingly. Perhaps the landlord or customer might wait until the election was over, and then ask the man how he voted. If the elector did not choose to tell an untruth (which would, of course, be demoralizing), he must either give an evasive answer, the meaning of which would be understood, or confess that he had voted against the wishes of his patron. Consequently, the voter would be dealt with in such a case just the same as if he had given his vote openly and without reserve; and as far as protecting the tenant or tradesman from the landlord or customer is concerned, the Ballot would be totally ineffectual. With regard to treating, the hon. Member has told us how an election is conducted, how the public houses are thrown open, and how men belonging to one party go to the houses taken by their candidate. This would not be prevented by the Ballot. Now, the Ballot would not prevent bribery, because an agent might go to an elector and say, "Here is £5 or £10. I trust to your honour; you shall have this money if you will promise to vote for so and so, but not otherwise." The elector, if without any particular predilection in another direction, would probably be tempted to take the money and give the promise, which, I dare say, he would keep faithfully. I have that opinion of the electors of this country that I believe they generally would keep their promise, at whatever time it might have been exacted. Then as to the public-houses, would it not be very easy for the Man in the Moon, described by the hon. Gentleman, and his friends to make arrangements that the public-houses should be accessible only to those who carried signs or emblems by which it would be known that they were supporters of a particular candidate? I say, then, that the Ballot is erroneous in principle, and would be ineffectual in practice. Objection has been taken to my having applied to the Ballot the epithet un-English. I may vary the expression, and say it is adverse to and inconsistent with the habits and feelings of Englishmen, who are usually proud of their political opinions, anxious to manifest to friends and neighbours what those political opinions are, and to act in accordance with them, and therefore I say that a system of secresy is at variance with the habits, opinions, and practice of Englishmen. For these reasons, without taking up further time, I will only say that I shall vote against the Motion.

MR. H. BERKELEY

said, he would not attempt to answer the noble Lord, because it would take him entirely through Hansard, The noble Lord had not said a single word respecting the present state of the constituencies, nor had he tried to defend those Acts of Parliament which had been palmed upon the country as remedies for bribery and corruption. For the existing evils there was really no remedy, except the substitution of a system which had succeeded everywhere for a system which had failed wherever it had been tried. He should certainly take a division, with a view of eliciting the expression of opinion of honest reformers, who were driven to a point, but were no doubt prepared to express that view which was their honest opinion.

Question put,

The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 212: Majority 89.