BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. (Hansard, 5 June 1832)

§ Lord Wynford
said, that he had intended to propose the addition of certain clauses to the Reform Bill, for the purpose of preventing bribery at elections, but indisposition had prevented him from attending the Committee latterly. He now begged to propose the clauses in the shape of a Bill, and he moved that it be read a first time.

§ The Duke of Richmond
directed the noble Lord's attention to the votes of the House of Commons of last night, where he would find, that Lord John Russell had given notice of his intention to introduce a bill for the prevention of bribery; and he begged to submit to the noble Lord, whether the House of Commons was not the best place in which such a bill could be originated.

§ Lord Wynford
said, that the best answer he could give to the observations of the noble Duke was, that the only good Bribery Act in existence had originated in the House of Lords.

The Lord Chancellor
said, that he had informed the noble and learned Lord, that Government had prepared a measure on this subject. He, however, saw no objection to allowing the Bill just proposed to be read a first time, and to be printed, provided it was not pressed forward until the other measure came before the House.

Lord Holland
said, that if he were not mistaken, the Bribery Act, stated by the noble and learned Lord to have originated in that House, was the Act passed in 1726. He felt it necessary to say, for the noble and learned Lord's information, that the Act did not originate in the House of Lords.

§ Lord Wynford
Some of the clauses of it did.

Lord Holland
continued. That was exactly the point to which he wanted to bring the noble and learned Lord; for he wished him to understand properly the precedent which he had quoted. The bill to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, and which had contributed as much as anything else to render the great measure which had just received their Lordships' sanction necessary, originated in the House of Commons; and had for its object to make the decision of that House conclusive and irreversible, with respect to the right of voting in boroughs. When the bill was sent up to that House, their Lordships perceived the effect which had since been produced by that measure—namely, that of narrowing the right of voting, and the Lords, though adverse to the proposition, yet, wisely thinking that a collision between the two Houses ought at all times to be avoided, did not reject the bill. They, however, added some clauses to it, for the professed purpose of preventing bribery at elections, but with the real intention of getting rid of the bill altogether, by compelling the House of Commons, in vindication of their privileges, to reject it. But the House of Commons acquiesced in the unusual and irregular proceeding of the Lords, and adopted the amendments in order to secure to themselves the power which the bill would give them. This was the true history of that bill, and the noble and learned Lord was welcome to all the value of his precedent.

§ Lord Wynford
admitted, that the statement of the noble Baron was generally correct, but he was not aware that there existed any constitutional objection to originate a bill of the nature he now proposed in the House of Lords.