HC Deb 14 July 1868 vol 193 cc1166-85

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 17 (Report of the Judge as to Corrupt Practices).

MR. J. STUART MILL

The addition which I propose to this clause is one of great importance, since it raises the question of providing better security against corrupt practices in municipal, as well as Parliamentary elections. No one is likely to deny that bribery in municipal elections deserves repression as much, and is as unfit to be tolerated or indulged, as bribery in Parliamentary elections; and the special reason why it should be dealt with in this Bill is that, as we are told by all who know anything about the matter, municipal bribery is the great school of Parliamentary bribery. Hon. Members of this House have on a former occasion testified to this fact from their personal knowledge, and I shall quote only two authorities for it. One is that eminent Conservative solicitor, Mr. Philip Rose, formerly as intimately known to hon. Gentleman opposite as his partner, Mr. Spofforth, now is. Mr. Rose, before the Select Committee of this House on Corrupt Practices, in 1860, expressed himself in these words— My strong opinion is, that all the efforts which are now being made to check bribery at Parliamentary elections will fail, for this reason, that you do not attempt to strike at the root of the offence. The real nursery for the evil is the municipal contests; and those oft-recurring contests have led to the establishment of what I might almost term an organized system of corruption in the municipal boroughs throughout the kingdom, which provides a machinery ready made to hand, available when the Parliamentary contest arrives. My next authority is the Committee itself, before whom this evidence was given, and who reported— That it has been proved to the satisfaction of your Committee, that an intimate connection exists between bribery at municipal and Parliamentary elections, and it is expedient that the provisions as to punishments and forfeitures for the offences of bribery at each such election should be assimilated as far as possible. Notwithstanding this recommendation of the Select Committee, which I hope that the next House of Commons will see the propriety of adopting in its integrity, I have not ventured to propose that the present Bill should provide a machinery for the investigation and punishment of corrupt practices at municipal elections. But I do propose, by the present Amendment, and by an additional clause which will follow in due course, that when the machinery which the Bill does provide for the investigation of corrupt practices at Parliamentary elections is actually set in motion, the inquiry may extend to municipal as well as to Parliamentary corruption. If the House adopt my Amendment, the Special Commission, which is already empowered to inquire into Parliamentary elections previous to that which caused the issue of the Commission, will have the power conferred on it of inquiring, to exactly the same extent, into previous municipal elections. By the additional clause, the Judge who tries an Election Petition, may take evidence to prove that an elector who voted at the Parliamentary election had been guilty of corrupt practices at any municipal election within two years previous, for the purpose, of course, of showing that his vote was corruptly influenced at the Parliamentary election. The period of two years is selected with reference to the term fixed by the 56th clause of the Municipal Corpora- tions Act; and I confidently claim, both for the Amendment and for the new clause, the support of all hon. Members who really desire to lay the axe at the root of electoral corruption. The hon. Member moved to add at the end of the clause the following words:— And it shall be competent for any such Commission to inquire into corrupt practices at previous municipal Elections within the county or borough as fully as into corrupt practices at previous Parliamentary Elections.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member was not sufficiently relevant to the Bill to enable it to be inserted in the Bill in the absence of a direct Instruction of the House to the Committee on the subject. The Amendment had reference to municipal elections, and the Bill referred only to the elections of Members of Parliament.

MR. TREEBY

submitted, that if bribery at municipal elections tended to corruption at Parliamentary elections, the Amendment was relative.

MR. BOUVERIE

observed, that, under this clause the whole practice would be changed. The Judge, and not the Committee, would have to inquire into the seat, and the alleged corrupt practices at the election. The Judge, and not the Committee, would hear the evidence. The Judge, and not the Committee, would report to the House whether extensive corruption had or had not prevailed among the constituency. Hitherto it had devolved on the Chairman of the Committee to bring the matter on the Report before the House; but on whom would that duty devolve under the new system? On the Government? They had already enough to do. Was it, then, to be left haphazard to any private Member on either side of the House who might read the shorthand writer's notes, but who had neither seen the witnesses nor heard their evidence? That would be a most lame and impotent conclusion, more likely to encourage party feeling and give latitude to corrupt practices than the present system. The arrangement proposed would lead to nothing being done. What he suggested was that the issue of the Commission should depend on the finding of the Judge, and not on any Address being moved. He was prepared to move the insertion of words in this clause, making the issuing of the Commission obligatory whenever the Judge stated in his Report that he had reason to believe that corrupt practices had prevailed at an election.

MR. J. STUART MILL

observed that he had so altered his Amendment as to obviate the difficulty started by the Chairman. He proposed it should run thus— And it shall be competent for any such Commission to inquire how far corrupt practices at any previous municipal Election may have conduced to corrupt practices at the Parliamentary Election.

THE CHAIRMAN

felt bound to say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster, even as it now stood, extended beyond the bonâ fide limits of the Bill, and the Committee could not well entertain it. He would therefore suggest that the hon. Member should bring up a clause to the effect stated on the Report.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, he would avail himself of that suggestion.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

supported the proposal of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) and hoped he would frame a clause such as he had described.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he thought that the clause as it stood was very important and valuable in itself, and that, therefore, the Committee would not wish to get rid of it altogether. It proposed to enact that when the judge should report that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in a county or borough the House should he placed in exactly the same position as it was at present when a Committee made a Report to a similar effect. The Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for Westminster would, if substituted for this clause, deprive the House of the discretionary power it had hitherto exercised upon the Report of a Committee being made to it alleging the existence of extensive corrupt practices in a county or borough. It was the more necessary that this discretionary power should be left to the House, seeing that the present Bill made the ratepayers liable for the expenses of the Commission. He therefore hoped that the clause would be allowed to stand.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he was afraid that the Judges who were appointed to try these Petitions would be placed in a very awkward and unpleasant position by this Bill; they would first be requested to make a Report as to whether or not corrupt practices extensively prevailed in a borough or county, and when they had made that Report they were to be told that they were not to be believed, and that the whole Inquiry must be gone over again before the House could act in the matter. He thought that a Commission should issue as a matter of course upon the Report of the Judge that corrupt practices were extensively prevalent in a county or borough being made. He did not think that in one case out of ten the Judge would make such a Report, as he would content himself with ascertaining the existence of one or two cases of bribery, and would then make a dry Report to the effect that the seat was vacant by reason of bribery having been committed.

MR. NEATE

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken that the clause should either be struck out or considerably amended. He was of opinion that a Judge should not be called on to say extra judicially "that he had reason to believe" that bribery extensively prevailed.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, he did not think the House could compel the Crown to issue a Commission in these cases. The best plan would be to pass the clause and discuss the question in a separate form. He trusted that the Committee would be allowed to make some, progress with the Bill.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he had endeavoured to discuss the provisions of the Bill with a view to rendering it more efficient. No one, he thought, could accuse him of trying in any way to retard its passing. ["Oh!"] He thought that the course now being adopted would render corruption more easy, instead of more difficult; but, finding the Committee against him, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 23 (Service of Petition).

MR. BOUVERIE

wished to know whether a Member was to be tapped on the shoulder and served with an Election Petition in the same way that a man was now served with a writ?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he had never understood that tapping on the shoulder was a necessary accompaniment to the serving of a writ.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 (Shorthand Writer to attend Trial of Election Petition).

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he objected to the construction of the clause, which would throw a monopoly of the shorthand writing into the hands of Messrs. Gurney, who already enjoyed the monopoly of the shorthand writing of the House of Commons. Without in the slightest degree wishing to impugn the skill of those gentlemen and their staff he thought that the shorthand writing business arising out of these Inquiries should be thrown open to the shorthand writing profession generally. He suggested that the shorthand writer to attend these Inquiries should be appointed either by the Judge or by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

MR. NEATE

said, he would move the Amendment of which Notice had been: given by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive), to leave out— On the trial of an Election Petition under this Act, the shorthand writer of the House of Commons, or his deputy, shall attend, and shall be sworn by the judge faithfully and truly to take down the evidence given at the trial, &c." and insert— On the trial of an Election Petition under this Act, a shorthand writer shall be appointed by the judge (in the manner hereinafter provided), to attend, and shall be sworn by the judge faithfully and truly to take down the evidence given at the trial, &c.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he should support the clause as it stood, seeing that if they were to interfere in this way with every small matter in the Bill they had better at once proceed to construct a Bill themselves, and to treat the initiatory action of the Government as amounting to nothing. The shorthand writing of the House of Commons as performed by Messrs. Gurney was incomparably well done. He had never seen any operation of the human mind combined with that of the hand that appeared to him so wonderful as the precision with which the proceedings in the Committees of that House, where the utmost confusion frequently prevailed, were taken down and read off fluently by the shorthand writer. If the Government were to announce that this Bill was merely of a temporary character the greater part of these discussions would at once fall to the ground.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

observed that his object was merely to permit the direct employment of those who now did the work.

MR. DISRAELI

With the permission of the Committee I will take this opportu- nity of stating that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose that this shall be a limited Bill, to remain in force for three years only.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 (Practice of House of Commons to be observed).

MR. MAGUIRE

observed that perhaps this would be the proper time for him to move a proviso, to which he believed the Government would not object. As the Bill stood Parliamentary agents would not be entitled to appear professionally in Election cases before the Judges. The object of his proviso was to provide that agents or counsel now entitled to practise in the House of Commons in respect of election matters, should be entitled to practise before the Judges in respect of similar matters.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he would make some additions to the hon. Member's proviso, and bring it up as a new clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 (Reception of Judge).

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was about to propose the insertion of words which would throw the expenses of the Court held by the Judge upon the locality whose misconduct had been the cause of the outlay. He apprehended that the object of the House of Commons was to educate public opinion to bear against electoral corruption. With that view he thought it would be well to make the existence of such corruption in any community inconvenient to that community. The presence of a Judge for a short time in a borough was not looked upon as either a disgrace or an inconvenience to that borough. On several occasions the House had seen the anxiety displayed by communities to have their particular locality selected as the assize town. There were festivities of various kinds—including the "Assize Ball "—during the visit of a Judge to a county town. Perhaps next year they should hear of "the Bribery Ball." The House as much as possible ought to avoid giving the smallest ground for the supposition that the visit of the Judge to try a case under this Bill was to be an occasion of merrymaking. He had taken the words of his proviso from those of a clause framed by the Government, and applying to the expenses of a Commission. He was willing to add words providing that where the allegations in the Petition were found to be frivolous and vexatious, the expenses of the inquiry should be borne by the Petitioner.

Page 10, line 25, Amendment proposed, To leave out the words "by the Commissioners of the Treasury, out of monies provided by Parliament," in order to insert the words "as if they were expenses incurred in the registration of voters for the county or borough,"—(Mr. James Lowther,) —instead thereof.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that no one would go further than he was ready to go in punishing a constituency found guilty of corrupt practices; but the House must take care not to press that principle too far. In their anxiety to suppress corruption they must not do what was unjust. The intention was that a Judge should proceed to the particular borough in order to try whether there had been corrupt practices there or not. Now, the Judge might arrive at the conclusion that the charges were unfounded, and yet not be prepared to hold that they were frivolous and vexatious. There was a great difference between those two findings. Again, the charge of an undue return might be sustained in consequence of five or ten persons in a borough having taken bribes. The general rule was that the country provided the expenses of judicial investigations.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 67: Majority 67.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 31 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 37 (Withdrawal of Petition and Substitution of new Petitioners).

MR. AYRTON

said, that nothing could be so well contrived as the clause to prevent the presentation of Election Petitions, for which the utmost freedom ought to be allowed; and he moved the omission of the words— Subject, as aforesaid, a substituted Petitioner shall stand in the same position as nearly as may be, and be subject to the same liabilities as the original Petitioner.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

observed that it was only where the Judge was of opinion that the withdrawal of a Petition was the result of a corrupt bargain, and that the first surely was a party to the corruption, that in case another Petitioner came forward to prosecute the inquiry, the old sureties would remain liable. He thought that a very proper provision.

MR. WHITBREAD

explained that the Committee intended by this clause to prevent the withdrawal of bonâ fide Petitions; and with this view where the Judge was satisfied that a corrupt bargain existed for the withdrawal of a Petition the clause provided that the £1,000 lodged by the first surety should be impounded and applied, so far as it would go, to pay the legitimate expenses of the inquiry.

Amendment negatived.

MR. LOWE

observed that the sureties were required by the clause to guarantee that the prosecution of the Petition should be effective, and not merely that the expenses should be paid.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the object of the clause was to prevent the Petition being withdrawn from corrupt motives.

VISCOUNT AMBERLEY

thought that the Petition should not be allowed to be withdrawn under any circumstances.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he could not see how the Judge was to ascertain whether the withdrawal of the Petition was owing to corrupt motives. If he endeavoured to cross-examine the Petitioner the latter might refuse to answer on the ground that he declined to criminate himself, or else one or two witnesses might be brought forward who had no evidence to give, and it might be said that the case had broken down, as in either of these cases the Judge would be helpless.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that the object of the clause was to prevent Petitions being withdrawn in pursuance of corrupt arrangements. The hon. and learned Baronet who had just spoken had shown how it was possible for the ends of justice to be defeated, and the present clause only endeavoured to meet a certain number of the contrivances that might be adopted with that view. A former clause provided for this difficulty, because under it the Judges were enabled from time to time to prescribe rules under which Petitions might be withdrawn. He did not mean to say that there could be no evasions of the Act; but if they desired to prevent the corrupt withdrawal of Peti- tions it was worth their while to try whether the machinery now devised would not effect that result.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he was of opinion that the only remedy would be found in the appointment of a public prosecutor.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 41 (Respondent not opposing not to appear as Party or to sit).

MR. BOUVERIE

called attention to the fact that there were no means by which the House could be officially informed of the steps taken from time to time affecting seats, and consequently a Member whose seat had been declared vacant might still take part in these proceedings, and vote in important divisions.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

remarked that the means of information were just as great as they were at present.

MR. BOUVERIE

replied that at present the proceedings before Committees, needed no notification to the House, because the deliberations and duties of Committees were really deliberations and duties of the House; but in this case they were constituting a new tribunal, with which they would have no connection whatever.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he did not wish to say anything impertinent, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that the proceedings of the Court would not be transacted in a cellar.

MR. LOWE

remarked, that the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) ought to be removed by a previous portion of the Bill, where the determination of the Court was ordered to be reported to the Speaker.

MR. BOUVERIE moved the addition of the following words:— The court or judge shall, in all cases where such notice has been given, in the prescribed time and manner, report the same to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought there was an important omission in the clause, because, if the person petitioned against did not choose, from want of means or any other reason, to defend his seat, nobody else could come forward to rebut the charge of bribery and corruption made against the borough.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would find that that difficulty had already been provided for by an earlier clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 (General Costs of Petition).

MR. J. STUART MILL

proposed, in page 14, line 11, to insert after "on the whole successful" the words— And in the case of any such Petition where any corrupt practice is charged to have taken place, and where the court or judge has decided that any corrupt practice has been proved, the court or judge shall have power to order any portion or the whole of the costs, charges, and expenses to be defrayed by any party or parties who may have been proved guilty of corrupt practices, or by the county or borough, in the same manner as expenses incurred in the registration of voters for the county or borough, regard being had to the importance of securing the beat efforts of the county or borough for repression of corrupt practices. In the case of any Petition complaining of general or extensive prevalence of corrupt practices, if the court or judge shall be of opinion that there was reasonable and probable ground for its allegations, the petitioner or petitioners shall be relieved of all costs, charges, and expenses incurred in and about the inquiry, and it shall be in the power of the court or judge to distribute the said costs, charges, and expenses in such proportions as it or he may think fit between parties who shall have been found guilty of corrupt practices, or who shall have caused expense by vexatious conduct, unfounded allegations, or unfounded objections, and the county or borough, as the case may be, the expenses charged on the county or borough to be defrayed in the same manner as expenses incurred in the registration of voters for the county or borough. The principle of this Amendment is that to bring to light, and prosecute to conviction, acts of bribery or other corruption at elections, is a public service; and that, being a public service, those who are judicially decided to have performed that service ought not to be required to pay the expenses of it from their private purse. It is enough that they take upon themselves the risk of failing to establish the charge, which, we all know, may easily, and does frequently, happen when it is perfectly notorious that the charge is true. But when it has been proved true, and is judicially declared to be so proved, I maintain that the Petitioners have a clear moral right to be indemnified for the expense. Their first claim, no doubt, is upon the parties who, through their instrumentality, have been found guilty; but the Judge may not always think fit to inflict even upon proved corruption, so heavy a penalty as the entire expenses of the Petition; and it will often happen that the parties have not the means of paying it. I propose, therefore that the Judge should have the power of apportioning the expense in whatever manner he deems most just, between the persons convicted of corrupt practices, and the county or borough.

MR. AYRTON

remarked, with reference to the earlier part of the clause, that, as persons would be less able to inform themselves of their grounds of action through the shortening of time during which a Petition could be presented, a provision making the payment of costs depend upon the event would almost entirely prevent Petitions being presented.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the Petitioner did not pay costs unless the Committee decided his proceedings had been vexatious. The Committee desired on the one hand to put an end to corrupt practices; but at the same time to protect a Member from improper Petitions. The Judge was vested with a discretion as to awarding costs.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, and he did not believe the hon. Member would press it when he understood what it comprehended. It actually gave the Judge power to award costs against any man whom another might have charged with bribery under circumstances in which he could offer no defence. Any voter might go before the Judge and say, without the least foundation, "Such a one offered me a sum of money." He was sure, too, the latter part of the Amendment went far beyond the intention of the hon. Member.

MR. J. STUART MILL

asked, whether since Judges could be trusted to decide cases of political importance, the Attorney General believed they could not be trusted to exercise proper caution in awarding costs?

MR. LOWE

thought costs, properly so called, could only fall on persons who, as parties to the suit, could be heard; here, however, was a proposal to impose an arbitrary fine on persons not parties to a suit, and having no power to make themselves heard. The same remark applied to the borough or county as to persons, and the only possible precedent which could be quoted in support of either case was that of making an attorney pay costs for improper conduct in a suit.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 (Punishment of Candidate guilty of Bribery).

MR. POWELL

observed that there was surplusage in the use of the word "personally," as referring to the person guilty of bribery.

MR. J. STUAKT MILL moved, in page 14, line 35, to leave out the word "bribery," in order to insert the words "corrupt practice" in its stead. "Corrupt practice" were the words used generally throughout the Bill as a description of the offence with which the measure dealt. His object was to extend the operation of the clause to persons guilty of treating or of intimidation.

Page 14, line 32:—Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "bribery," in order to insert the words "any corrupt practice,"—(Mr. Mill,)—instead thereof.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the Amendment would effect a very important change in the Bill. The question raised by the hon. Member for Westminster had been very fully discussed and considered by the Select Committee, and that Committee thought it would be going too far to exclude a man from the House of Commons for seven years because he had been found guilty of treating or guilty of intimidation. That penalty was by the clause now under discussion inflicted on any person found guilty of bribery.

VISCOUNT AMBERLEY

observed that treating was bribery by means of eating and drinking, and therefore it was morally as bad as bribery by payment of money.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, he hoped the Government would not assent to the proposed Amendment. He did not think that a punishment which was almost as bad as transportation for seven years should be inflicted merely for giving a man half-a-crown to get something to drink.

MR. FAWCETT

hoped the hon. Member for Westminster would persevere with his clause.

MR. CLAY

thought that intimidation was even worse than bribery.

Question put, "That the word 'bribery' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 80: Majority 95.

MR. POWELL

proposed to leave oat in page 14, line 37, the words "during the seven years" to the end of the clause, with the view of adding the words "or sitting in Parliament for such county or borough during the Parliament then in existence." He observed that the Bill as now drawn did not retain the provision that a candidate found guilty of malpractices by himself or his agents should be incapable of sitting in the House of Commons during the then existing Parliament for the same constituency. He thought that a just and wise provision. Else a candidate unseated on Petition might at a subsequent election—that election being a pure election, and therefore free from attack—be returned by force and by virtue of that very corruption which had vitiated the former return. The Amendment raised the whole of the large question whether a single Judge sitting alone without a, jury should have the power of depriving a citizen of his civil rights. A man so charged was entitled to a trial by jury. Before a citizen was found guilty of such an offence, and was subjected to such a punishment, his trial should proceed, not on a collateral and accidental issue, but on a fair issue fairly raised, and the verdict should be arrived at after careful investigation by a jury under the guidance of a Judge in reference to the special and individual case. It was not necessary for him to enlarge on the horrible nature of the punishment which sent a man forth into the world deprived of all that made life worth having, by rendering him incapable of sitting in Parliament for seven years. It had been found that extreme severity of punishment defeated its own object, and he was of opinion that an English citizen should not be liable to suffer this punishment by the sentence of a Judge sitting without a jury. He therefore proposed to omit from the clause the words rendering the candidate with whose knowledge and consent bribery had, in the opinion of the Judge, been committed, "incapable of being elected to and of sitting in the House of Commons during the seven years next after the date of his being found guilty;" and to substitute for them a provision rendering such candidate incapable "of sitting in Parliament for such county or borough during the Parliament then in existence."

Amendment proposed, In line 37, to leave out from the word "Commons" to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "or sitting in Parliament for such county or borough during the Parliament then in existence,"—(Mr. Powell,) —instead thereof.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that the observations of the hon. and learned Member directed attention to a matter which it was necessary should be properly understood. It was desirable to know whether it was intended by the clause to repeal altogether the present law, which declared that, if a candidate were found guilty of bribery, treating, or undue influence, by himself or his agents, he should be incapable of sitting in the House of Commons during the Parliament then existing. The Committee would observe that agency was not mentioned in the present clause, and that omission would have the effect of operating as a very great stimulus and encouragement to bribery in those cases where the present law discouraged such offences. The unpopularity of the persons who spent large sums of money in corrupt practices was not so great as the advocates of purity of election might desire, and if a candidate who had committed bribery were allowed to stand again for the same place where the bribery had been practised, it would be ten to one in many cases that he would be returned. In abolishing Election Committees it was manifest that, if the House intended to retain the substance of the existing law, some words must be introduced into the Bill to make the present consequences of agency applicable to a person convicted by a Judge.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

stated that the intention of the Bill was that the penalty in the case of a candidate personally guilty of bribery should be more severe than at present; but it was not intended to alter the law applicable to candidates guilty of bribery by their agents, and he would, in order to preclude all doubt on the point, undertake to bring up a clause relating to the matter upon the Report.

MR. LOWE

thought that the clause seemed framed with undue severity. An immense penalty was annexed to the offence mentioned in the clause, and they were obliged to exaggerate the character of the offence before they could bring themselves to assent to the penalty. The clause stated that where, by the report of a Judge upon an Election Petition, it should be found that bribery had been committed with the knowledge or consent of a candidate, such candidate should be deemed to have been personally guilty of bribery. They might say that, but their saying so did not make the candidate personally guilty, though by the use of those words they might seek to excuse themselves for providing so heavy a penalty. In the case of murder they might say that any person with whose consent or knowledge murder was committed should be deemed personally guilty of murder; but that was not law. Such a person was not a principal, but an accessory. This constrained construction being put on the Act mentioned in the clause, the penalty imposed was seven years' exclusion from the House of Commons. The penalty here would be worse than transportation for life to some persons. It would be extremely wrong to put this tremendous power into the hands of a single Judge. They would defeat their own object, for no Judge would ever take on himself the responsibility of saying what he might think in his own mind, because he would shrink from the consequences it would involve. But let them look at the matter with reference to political expediency. They were not saying that every man who had done this must be dealt with after a certain manner, but everyone who had been proved to have done it. There was the difficulty of deciding what was true and false on such testimony as was given in these cases; it was not on the fact of a man having done it, but of the witnesses being able to impress the mind of a Judge that he had done it, they were proceeding. There were Gentlemen sitting in that House whose presence there was most important to the interests of party and the interests of the nation; and there was hardly anything that might not be contrived by wicked and unscrupulous persons to procure their absence. Yet their absence during the past seven years, and Still more during the next seven years, would revolutionize and alter the whole history of the country. Everything would depend on the presence or absence of those two Gentlemen; and would they leave so tremendous an issue to be decided in this manner? He could not reconcile his mind to such a conclusion. He did not stand there as an advocate of those who gave or took bribes; but by such arbitrary and harsh constructions they strained the laws into what they were not; and their penalties, being utterly wild, violent, and extravagant, would not check bribery, but rather enable many to escape the stigma justly due to their misconduct. They would act much more wisely by leaving these matters to he dealt with as they had been already—not to outrun, but trusting to the force of public opinion to put down this offence. He was quite sure that here, as in all other cases, laws too severe and extravagant had only a tendency to defeat themselves.

MR. AYRTON

said, he thought the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) struck at the root of the whole Bill. Observations very much to the same effect had been made on many of the clauses of the Bill; but it was only now the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at a conclusion as to the real character of the Bill, and denounced it as a most deplorable calamity. They were attempting to combine a civil and criminal suit—to blend two very different things, and involving such tremendous penalties as seven years' ostracism from the House of Commons. But the objection of the right hon. Gentleman came somewhat late. After constructing the most excellent tribunal they could by possibility devise, and entitled to every confidence, they suddenly turned round, and would not allow justice to take its course. He, on the other hand, maintained they were bound to accept the legitimate consequences of what they had done in the penal character of the clause.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he found that the clause now under discussion was accepted by the Committee on the Corrupt Practices Bill last year nem. con. Seventeen Members were present, and fifteen Members of the Committee voted for it, among whom was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne.

MR. LOWE

I did not vote for it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The Motion was made and the Question put— That it is desirable that persons found guilty of bribery or reported by the Judge or Commissioners as having been guilty of bribery should, notwithstanding any indemnity, be for seven years incapacitated from being elected as Members of Parliament, or voting for Members of Parliament, or holding municipal offices, or being included in a Commission of the Peace. That question was put at the instance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney), and agreed to. Of course he was not able to say, from the report of the proceedings, whether the right hon. Gentleman had before then left the room.

MR. LOWE

I did leave the Committee-room.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The right hon. Gentleman was there immediately before.

MR. LOWE

I was.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

No Member of the Committee took exception to the Resolution. Of course, it was open to any Member of the Committee to change his mind.

Mr. LOWE

I did not change my mind on that matter.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

did not say that the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind. But he did not record his vote against the proposition. With regard to the question whether it was desirable to have such a provision he, would say a few words. Why was money spent in bribery? The object to be attained was a seat in that House; and if it were provided that on Members being convicted of spending money illegally in order to obtain a seat in Parliament that object would be defeated, very strong discouragement would be given to bribery. No doubt there might be combinations and conspiracies to prove distinguished Members of the House guilty of bribery; but they must trust, as in other cases, to the acumen of the tribunal to detect and defeat those conspiracies.

MR. CLAY

said, he hoped that the Government would not be induced to consent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge(Mr. Powell), which proposed to place the man who was cognizant of bribery being committed for him with the individual who was so unfortunate as to have over-zealous friends who bribed on his behalf, but without his knowledge. He doubted whether seven years' exclusion was a sufficient punishment for those who had been guilty of bribery.

MR. PAULL

said, he was afraid that the words of the clause would not carry the punishment intended.

MR. WHITBREAD

, as a Member of the Committee, explained that the penal clauses had been very much discussed, and that the right hon. Member for Calne voted with the minority against them. The best course would be to withdraw the penal clauses, and to leave the law upon the point as it now stood.

MR. SANDFORD

said, he thought it was not just to treat an accessory in the same manner as a principal, although it appeared the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) was incapable of understanding the distinction.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Powell), both on grounds of justice and expediency, was a good one. After the stigma had been cast upon a man, all the witnesses might admit that they had made a mistake, or might be convicted of perjury, yet there would be no means of setting him right for seven years. He should like to know how long such a regulation would remain in force after one of the Leaders of that House was excluded under this provision. The best way would be to leave the period of exclusion in the discretion of the Judges who tried the Petition.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he thought the stigma resulted from the conviction of the offence, and not from the punishment inflicted by the tribunal. The real foundation of all who spoke against the clause was want of trust in the tribunal. He did not include the right hon. Member for Calne in the number, for he had been all along in favour of the tribunal. The Amendment did not provide against the candidate trying his fortune in another borough or county; for it might happen that the reputation which a candidate had acquired in this respect would tell in his favour in a locality where bribery was valued.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 26: Majority 171.

VISCOUNT AMBERLEY moved that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. MONK

asked whether the Bill would be taken as the first Order on resuming Business this evening?

MR. DISRAELI

said, he hoped the noble Lord (Viscount Amberley) would withdraw his Motion that the clause might be agreed to.

VISCOUNT AMBERLEY

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 46 (Penalty for employing corrupt Agent).

MR. POWELL

, said, he wished to limit the words, to prevent candidates from being entangled by acts of which they were not conscious. Under the clause it might be considered that, by the most casual proceeding, a candidate had engaged a person to act for him. He therefore proposed to insert after the word "engaged," the words "as an agent."

MR. CANDLISH moved that the Chairman report Progress.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday, at Twelve of the clock.