CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. (Hansard, 24 August 1848)

The LORD CHANCELLOR
, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, called their Lordships' attention to what were the objects of the Bill, and what were the remedies it proposed. In the first place, it was merely a provision for inquiry; it affected no interest; it interfered with no rights; it proposed only a machinery by which investigation might take place in matters which their Lordships would not hesitate for one moment to say required investigation, namely, corrupt practices at the election of Members of the House of Commons. If such corruption existed, it was most important to ascertain to what extent it existed, in order that Parliament might apply a remedy to so great a grievance. If there was an interference with the rights of voters, their Lordships would not let it rest without exhausting all the means in their power to prevent the grievances arising from such an evil. He would call their attention to the evidence as it stood—as it had been ascertained in the course of the present Session. After the last general election many matters came under the consideration of the House of Commons in the shape of petitions, questioning the return of certain Members. In the course of the investigation many-seats were questioned on the ground of corrupt practices having taken place at the election; but as soon as the Committee had 481 ascertained the fact one way or the other, that there had been corrupt practices, then the functions of the Committee were at an end; they had no jurisdiction vested in them to pursue the inquiry, to ascertain to what extent these practices might have been adopted; but their jurisdiction terminated with the inquiry as to the validity of the return, and the title of the Member to retain his seat. Again, this constantly occurred. When it became evident that there was every probability of the disclosure of corrupt practices, it became the interest of both parties to keep this abuse out of sight, and, by some arrangement amongst themselves, to prevent the Committee further investigating a matter which was thought to be inconsistent with the interests of either party. In either of these cases, the functions of the Committee were paralysed. There had been evidence sufficient, although obtained incidentally only, to show that, to a great extent, and in a great variety of boroughs, corrupt practices had existed. In all the boroughs contained in the schedule, there was a report verifying the fact of corrupt practices; and as to many the Committee made special reports that such corrupt practices had been carried into effect to a very considerable extent. What, then, became the duty of Parliament? Was it to do nothing, and to allow such acts to be repeated on some other occasion? Was Parliament so indifferent as to the means of correcting such abuses, that it would not entertain the question, and endeavour to put an end to a system which every man would reprobate as productive of much evil, as demoralising especially the places in which such practices prevailed? The House of Commons had, therefore, sent to their Lordships a Bill merely arranging the machinery for the purpose of investigating these practices; not for the purpose of interfering with the existing rights and privileges of any person, but merely for the purpose of endeavouring to ascertain to what extent the practice had prevailed, for the purpose that, when the inquiry was concluded, and Parliament was in possession of the facts, some provision might be made with the view of checking the evil. That was the principle of the proposed measure—it was suggested from the beginning of the Bill to the end; and to show that that was the object, and that it had no other object but to ascertain future legislation, he would call their Lordships' attention to a particular clause which 482 they might be surprised to find, but which was perfectly consistent with the other provisions of the Bill. It provided that a witness who might have been examined, and might have given evidence before either the Committee of the House of Commons appointed for the purpose of investigation, or before Commissioners appointed under the provisions of this Act, should not be a witness in any action or prosecution which might be instituted relative to the transaction to which the witness might have deposed. It was provided that the witness himself should be protected against any consequences personal to himself; but then it was suggested, and he thought rightly suggested, consistently with the principle on which the Bill proceeded, that, although a particular witness might be protected, his evidence might give rise to proceedings against others; and, as the object was that no man should suffer, but that the investigation should be solely for the purpose of informing Parliament, the Act protected not only the witness himself, but others, from the consequences of his evidence. With the facts that had been disclosed, with the knowledge which every individual possessed in a greater or less degree of the practices to which he had alluded, would this House refuse to co-operate with the House of Commons in passing a Bill the object of which was, if possible, to enable Parliament hereafter, by some legislative measure, to prevent a repetition of the offences? He could not believe that any of their Lordships would refuse co-operation with the House of Commons. That being the object of the Bill, he would state what was the plan of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord having described the mode in which the Commissioners were to be appointed, and the manner of conducting their inquiries, proceeded to say, that upon the principle of this measure there could be no difference of opinion. He asked their Lordships, then, to sanction the principle, seeing that it had received the assent of the House of Commons, and there would be other opportunities of considering the details. The object was neither more nor less than to investigate, not alleged but proved malpractices in the several boroughs named in the schedule, and into those of other boroughs should any hereafter occur. Surely their Lordships would not refuse their assent to an inquiry which the House of Commons deemed essential to the purity 483 of the representation. But it was objected that it was too late in the Session to proceed with the measure. He could understand the force of such an objection if the measure proposed to interfere with the rights and interests of Parliament; but that was not its intention; and the only question for their Lordships was, whether they would consent to the machinery for investigation. If they acquiesced in the necessity for a remedy, why should they hesitate to approve of inquiry, in order to ascertain what remedy should he applied hereafter? He repeated, that this Bill had been much discussed in the House of Commons; and if their Lordships now refused to sanction it, and corrupt practices should be repeated, no very long time would elapse before another measure would be brought in. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be read the second time.

§ LORD REDESDALE
wished to observe the greatest possible courtesy towards the other House of Parliament; but in agreeing to the Motion for the second reading of this Bill, he must guard himself against sanctioning the principles it involved, more than the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack seemed to think necessary. He desired it to be distinctly understood, then, that the sole principle in the Bill to which he consented was this, that it was expedient to inquire into corrupt practices at elections. As to the details of the measure, he was not competent to form a judgment upon them, as the print of it had only been delivered that morning. He might, however, say that he considered the proposal of sending a Commissioner to make inquiries upon the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, most objectionable. Never, since the days of the Star Chamber, had such arbitrary powers been possessed by any individual. The Commissioner, it appeared, was to report, not to the House of Commons, but to Her Majesty, and then his report was to be presented to both Houses. The inquiry was then to be accepted by both Houses—a proposal of which he did not approve. As he had stated, he should offer no opposition to the second reading, but he hoped it would not be further pressed; and he would then move a resolution to the effect that the Bill contained principles of too great importance to be adopted by that House without ample time for discussion; that it was not expedient to deliberate upon those principles at this late 484 period of the Session; but that the House acknowledged the great importance of the subject, and would be prepared to give its attention to any Bill for the prevention of corrupt practices that might be brought in during the next or any subsequent Session. Under these circumstances, he trusted it would not be said that any want of respect was shown to the wishes of the other House with regard to the practices of which they had a just right to complain.

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
said, that whilst he gave the noble Lord credit for correct views as to the propriety of not proceeding with the Bill at this period of the Session, he felt a considerable degree of embarrassment as to the course to be pursued. After all, that House had as great an interest in the purity of election, and in all the circumstances which tended to the purity of election being correctly provided for by law, as the other House. Nevertheless, considering the importance attached by the other House to the question which had resulted in this measure, the number of investigations that had taken place, from which it appeared that corruption to a large extent prevailed, so as to make it necessary to suspend the writs, or in other words to suspend the constitution so far as concerned those particular boroughs, there appeared to be no prospect of amending such a state of things but by a measure of this description. He, therefore, felt very great difficulty, even at this late period of the Session, in abandoning the hope that an effectual remedy might be adopted, because it was most material it should not go forth that there existed, upon the part of cither that House or the other, any sort of disinclination or hesitation to prevent corrupt practices at elections. At the same time, he was willing to attend to any suggestions that might have the effect of convincing the public and the House of Commons that that House was not indifferent to the matter. But in order that they might provide the remedy which was most desirable, particularly where differences of opinion existed, as he knew they did exist, among persons of the highest authority, with regard to the principle of the Bill, he was most desirous, if it could be done consistently with the respect due to the opinions to which he alluded, that more ample time should be afforded for consideration. He therefore readily acceded to the suggestion of the noble Lord; and he was convinced that if his noble and learned Friend now pressed 485 the second reading, it would be only with the view of affirming the principle in the limited sense, that it was expedient to provide more effectual remedies than now existed to prevent corrupt practices at elections.

§ LORD DENMAN
had felt it his duty to come down to the House for the sole purpose of opposing this measure. In his opinion, it was liable to objections of every description, both as to the powers it gave, and as to the lateness of the period for entering upon a discussion of them. He entirely approved, however, of the principle of the Bill, if that principle was understood to be the correction and punishment of corrupt practices at elections.

The DUKE of ARGYLL
, after a most careful examination of the provisions of the Bill, was opposed to its further progress during the present Session. The noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack said, that although the Bill was introduced at a late period of the Session, it was not too late to pass a measure of the utility of which there could be no doubt; but if the noble and learned Lord would refer to the history of the Bill, he would see there was considerable doubt respecting its utility. Under all the circumstances, he rejoiced that the noble Marquess had consented to postpone the further progress of the measure.