§ MR. RYLANDSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the disqualifications attaching to candidates and others found guilty of corrupt practices by the report of an election judge also apply to the same persons scheduled by a Royal Commission; and, whether candidates, aldermen, and magistrates found guilty at Macclesfield and other Boroughs will be rendered incapable of sitting in Parliament, voting, &c. for seven years?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)There are certain disqualifications attaching to candidates in consequence of being reported personally guilty of bribery by an Election Judge. These disqualifications are imposed by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, s. 43; but no disqualification of any kind attaches to any person so reported other than a candidate except the prohibition of his employment as an election agent during seven years. The reason for this is to be found in the wording of the 45th section of the Act I have mentioned, which says—
Any person other than a candidate found guilty in any proceeding in which, after notice of the charge, he has had an opportunity of being heard,shall be subjected to certain disqualifications. It has been determined by Lord Blackburn, in the decision given by him in the Bewdley Petition case—and it seems to me quite correctly determined—that a person giving evidence upon the hearing of an Election Petition has not had "an opportunity of being heard" in the legal sense, and that, therefore, unless tried and convicted before a jury the disqualifications do not attach. The same rule applies with greater force in relation to the Reports of Commissioners; for even candidates are subjected to no penalties or disqualifications in consequence of being reported by Commissioners as personally guilty of bribery. The result is that unless persons be prosecuted and convicted, which they cannot be in the face of a certificate of indemnity, no consequences of any kind result directly 761 to anyone from being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election Commissioners. As I mentioned on Friday, the Lord Chancellor has, of his own motion, taken, and is taking, steps in relation to magistrates who have been reported guilty of corrupt practices, and it rests with Parliament to determine what disqualification it will impose when Bills for that purpose are presented to it. The necessity for considering whether further disqualification than the usual one of mere removal from the register by statute should not be imposed becomes apparent when we know that in five Reports 20 Magistrates, 12 Aldermen, and 47 Town Councillors are found to be guilty of corrupt practices.