Lord Campbellmoved the second reading of the Bribery at Elections Bill, and briefly stated its nature and object. It was, the noble and learned Lord observed, intended to prevent as much as possible the recurrence of numerous instances of bribery and corruption such as had prevailed of late to so great an extent. Amongst its principal enactments were the abolition of treating before the test of the writ, or after the return, by having them considered as equivalent to bribery. Payment of head-money was to be regarded in the same light, and in cases of " compromise," where charges of bribery had been brought and abandoned, the election committee was to have power to inquire into them, and, if it thought proper, to examine the candidates and agents, but subject to the ordinary rules of evidence, by which a man was not bound to criminate himself. lie could wish that the bill bad gone a little further, and abolished the bribery oath, which, for purposes of preventing bribery, was worse than useless. lie did not believe it possible to prevent, bribery in every ease, but 1062 to prevent it to a great extent would be most desirable, and in that way he expected much good from the working of this bill.
Lord Broughamexpressed his full p - probation of this bill as far as it went. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend that the bill would do much good—but he wished, with him, that it had been carried much further. For instance, he thought would be most desirable to abolish the bribery oath, for the effect of that oath was, not to diminish bribery, but to increase perjury. lie should like, also, that bribery, when clearly established against. a candididate, should be a disqualification of him for life for a seat in Parliament. No such object, however, seemed to have been broached by the framers of this bill. He had not gone through the voluminous mass of evidence which had been reported by election committees this Session, because the greater portion of it had not vet been printed; but there was one report which lie had read. It occupied three pages, and it' it was to be taken as a specimen of the mode of proceedings in the other committees, it certainly did lease much to desire by way of improvement in the system of election committees. The committee, he found, had the same constituent parts as other election committees. There were at one side three gentlemen professing one set of political principles, on the other three gentlemen of antagonist principles, and the gentle-man who presided over and formed one of this tribunal might have belonged to either party according to the system, but in this particular case he was a Whig. On looking over the report of the proceedings, he found that there had been three divisions in the committee. On each of these divisions (one of which was to decide the most important question—whether the sitting Members were to be unseated), the numbers were three at each side. Nothing could appear more fair and impartial than such alt equal division; but on examining more closely it was found, that the three it one side were composed of' men of one part yard the three at the other side were of the opposite political party. In this equal division the vote of the chairman alone could decide, and he gave it conscientiously no doubt, and it was no disparagement to him to state, that it so happened that on each of those three divisions the opinion of that gentleman coincided ex- 1063 actly with those of the three gentlemen who belonged to his own political party. He did not blame any hon. Member for being found at one side or the other of those divisions. If blame lay any where, it was the system which threw them into such curious positions. From all that he had been able to learn relative to this Ipswich committee, it seemed to him to present no exception whatever to the conclusion which he had formed relative to preceding cases from perusing the votes of the other House of Parliament, that in eleven cases out of twelve, and now he might say in twelve out of thirteen, the decision of the committee was determined by the opinion of the chairman, half the Members regularly voting one way, and half the other. He hoped that what had passed in these committees, and the new light which had been lately thrown upon their proceedings, would make clear the justice, expediency, and he might say decency, of the House of Commons parting with the jurisdiction which he would not say a committee of that House was always more incapable of satisfactorily or justly exercising than any other body that could be named, but of which the public mind had received the unalterable and indelible impression, that the House of Commons never could exercise it with satisfaction to the country. There was no good reason why a committee of the House of Commons should be different from all other tribunals, which held it not only necessary to do substantial justice, but to satisfy the country that they did dispense substantial justice—justice, not only pure, but unsuspected.
Lord Campbellsaid, that as the country had already had a Grenville Act and a Peel's Act, settling the law relative to elections, he now hoped they would have a Brougham Act. There was no reason why such a measure should not be introduced into that House, explained and supported by his noble and learned Friend, and accepted by the Commons.
§ Bill was then read a second time.
§ Their Lordships adjourned.