BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL. (Hansard, 30 July 1849)

LORD BROUGHAM
Tell us something about the Bill.

§ LORD MILFORD
was understood to say that the object of the Bill was to put an end to bribery at elections, and that he 1111 thought none of their Lordships would oppose the passing of a measure of that kind.

LORD STANLEY
said, that if he wanted any additional motive for the Motion which he was about to make, he should find it in the evident incapacity of the noble Lord really to explain the provisions of the Bill which he had taken upon himself to move in so extraordinary and unprecedented a manner on Friday last. It was then stated that it was the intention to prorogue the House upon Tuesday or Wednesday next, and for the purpose of facilitating that prorogation, and the carrying of those Bills which it was absolutely necessary should pass their Lordships' House, they had, contrary to the usual practice, sat upon Wednesday and Saturday last, and went through a number of Bills with very considerable rapidity on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. It was then understood that their Lordships had full notice of all measures to be submitted to their consideration in the course of the present Session; and under that impression many noble Lords, and himself among others, had actually left London in the full conviction that it was impossible that any surprise should be attempted by the introduction of any measure of which no notice had been given. He was happy to think that the course which had been pursued in so unprecedented a manner was adopted by a noble Lord who had not had much experience in the practice of their Lordships' House. It was a proceeding which appeared to him not only inconsistent with the usages of the House, but also opposed to that ordinary fairness which, upon most occasions, he was bound to say characterised the conduct of the noble Marquess who represented the Government in that House. Upon the Friday to which he had alluded, the noble Lord (Lord Milford) undertook, without notice, to move, contrary to the usual practice, the second reading of a Bill which did not stand upon the Orders of the Day. The rule of the House requiring that proper notice should be given of the second reading of any Bill, was a most important one, and was particularly so at the present late period of the Session. He was surprised to find that the Government, instead of putting themselves forward, as was their duty under such circumstances, as the protectors of the House against surprises of this kind, in the first place sanctioned the attempt to have the Bill road a second time, and in the next place were the actual suggestors of the course—so 1112 much at variance with fair dealing and fair play—now proposed of reading the Bill a second time, and moving the suspension of the Standing Orders. With respect to the suspension of the Standing Orders, he thought that such a course ought only to be pursued under very special circumstances, for some great national object, and for passing within a limited time some measure the principle and details of which were generally agreed upon by a majority of their Lordships. Any stretch of the power of suspending the Standing Orders beyond that point, was to impose the tyranny of the majority upon the minority, and to deprive the House of the means which its practice had placed at the disposal of their Lordships for the due consideration of all the measures brought before them. Under these circumstances, it was clearly the duty of the Government to resist any attempt to suspend the Standing Orders; and he was surprised to find not only no resistance made on their part, but that the suggestion for facilitating the passing of this Bill proceeded from the Government itself. When he looked at the Bill itself, he saw no excuse whatever for adopting the course proposed with respect to it. The Bill had been in their Lordships' House not loss than a fortnight, and it was not until within two days of the close of the Session that any noble Lord had proposed to have the Bill read a second time. There had therefore been a delay on the part of the promoters of the Bill, if promoters there were in that House which of itself was sufficient to put them out of court on the question of the suspension of the Standing Orders. The measure itself was full of faults and defects, vicious both in principle and detail, and involved questions of so great importance that it was impossible that they could be properly considered by the House at that late period of the Session. When the noble Lord (Lord Milford) rose to move the second reading, he was called upon by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) to state something of the principle of the Bill; but all that was stated by the noble Lord, in answer to this request, was to the effect that a Bill to prevent bribery, which had been fully discussed in the other House, could not fail to meet with the approbation of their Lordships. He (Lord Stanley) thought that the noble Lord was himself perfectly ignorant of the measure, and did not think that he had ever taken the trouble to read a single word of it. The principle of the 1113 Bill was of the most objectionable character. [Lord BROUGHAM: Monstrous!] Its first provision was to the effect that any person who might be declared by the unanimous verdict of a Committee of the House of Commons to have been guilty of bribery, upon satisfactory evidence being adduced before such Committee—though such declaration might be made by a Committee of the House of Commons behind the back of a person accused—that person all his life shall be incapable of voting for Members of Parliament; and from one county to another—from one town to another—from one end of the kingdom to another—wherever he goes, that stigma was to follow after him. That judgment was to be passed upon a person by a tribunal before whom he never had been heard.

LORD BROUGHAM
And he might never be aware of the accusation.

LORD STANLEY
Even where a person only received refreshment, a fastidious Committee of the House of Commons might report that to be an act of corruption, and the unfortunate man would lose his franchise for the rest of his life. But though the person who bribed might thereby lose his right to vote, he did not lose his right to sit in Parliament except for that particular Parliament, and the borough in which he bribed. While they disfranchised the voter, they permitted the person who had bribed hundreds of those voters, to take his seat amongst the legislators of the country in the House of Commons, and there and in the passing of new Bills for securing the purity of election. He would, in the next place, call their Lordships' attention to the fifth clause. It enacted that if any petition for bribery be presented to a Committee of the House of Commons by an unsuccessful candidate, or by voters in his name or on his behalf, or by voters not in his name or on his behalf, but in their own, it shall be competent for the sitting Member to threaten the unsuccessful candidate, though he is not a petitioner, to present a petition to prove him guilty of bribery. And if that man were poor, and could not afford to appear before the Committee to defend his character, be, though not asking for the seat, and though not guilty of bribery, but not choosing to come forward and make his defence, would be told that be was guilty of bribery, and that all those penal consequences should follow. That was a clause to intimidate the poor man 1114 from presenting a petition against the wealthy man; and the effect of the clause would be, that not only injustice would be done, but they would, in point of fact, defeat the object the Bill professed to have in view. Those were two of the provisions of a Bill which they were called upon, on the 30th of July, to pass through all its stages in the course of one day, and to pass it on the Motion of a noble Lord who did not know what he was proposing, and had never read a syllable of the Bill he asked them to pass. He (Lord Stanley) had gone to the country when he heard the news of this monstrous proposition of Saturday last, and at a great inconvenience he felt it to be his bounden duty, while there was a possibility of this measure passing, to return to his place in that House, to denounce not so much the Bill as the corn-so taken to surprise the House into the passing of this Bill, and the smuggling it through the Legislature. When the noble Lord (Lord Milford) entered the House, he (Lord Stanley) was about to move that the order should be discharged; not because he thought it would be disrespectful to the noble Lord, but because be conceived that under the circumstances the noble Lord had thought it more prudent not to move the second reading. He (Lord Stanley) should now substitute for that Amendment the proposition, "that the Bill be read a third time this day three months."

§ EARL GREY
would not discuss the provisions of the Bill, because he admitted at once it was a Bill that ought not to pass during the present Session. If it were a fitting occasion to discuss the clauses of the Bill, he did not think from a hasty and cursory perusal of it that it would be difficult to show that the view taken of it by the noble Lord opposite was an extremely inaccurate view; but that was not the proper occasion to discuss it. With regard to the Bill, he concurred with the noble Lord in thinking that it was one for the passing of which, except by the general consent of the House, the Standing Orders ought not to be suspended; and he thought his noble Friend should adopt the suggestion that had been made to him, and withdraw the Bill. He (Earl Grey) understood that the Bill appeared in the Minutes of the Proceedings as a Bill of which the second reading would be moved by the noble and learned Lord opposite.

LORD BROUGHAM
No.

§ EARL GREY
Then the noble Lord disclaims it.

LORD BROUGHAM
I have nothing to do with it.

§ EARL GREY
believed his noble Friend had been asked to move the Bill, with an assurance that it would be agreed to by all parties, and was so invited to move in the place of an absent Friend. It was a Bill that required consideration, and he should not object to its being postponed.

LORD BROUGHAM
denied the extraordinary charge made against him by the noble Earl, of having anything to do with the procreation of this most rickety bantling. He was bound, in defence of his own purity, to deny that it was his natural child at all. He admitted that he had repeatedly urged their Lordships to pass a Bribery Bill; but the proposal which he suggested, and which an honourable and much esteemed friend of his (Sir J. Pakington) had brought into the other House of Parliament was to this effect: It required a declaration to be made at the table by the Members of the other House of Parliament, that they had neither directly or indirectly given or authorised to be given any bribe, gift, promise, or other consideration whatever, for a vote, or to influence a vote, or directly or indirectly concerning a vote; and that they had never promised to fulfil any engagement made in their name in respect to any vote given on a former occasion. That was the Bribery Bill he had propounded, and that clause was in the Bill, and the Commons in its wisdom struck out the clause, which was the only part of the Bill he knew anything about, and they added to it the most monstrous provisions. He did not conceal his opinion from Sir J. Paking-ton, and told him it was utterly impossible he could support, or do otherwise than oppose, such a monstrous proceeding. He objected to trying a man in his absence, and condemning and punishing him in his absence, and without his knowledge. It was monstrous to think that this Bill should be passed in the other House of Parliament without opposition. It was one of the most marvellons sights—one of the greatest phenomenons in legislation he had ever witnessed.

§ LORD MILFORD
was understood to say that he should not press the Motion.

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
begged to make an observation in reply to the statement of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) with respect to the course taken 1116 by the Government in relation to the Motion for suspending the Standing Orders. Notwithstanding the course he (Lord Lansdowne) had taken on that oscasion, he had never expressed the least interest in the Bill, and he bogged leave distinctly to state, that the Bill was not a Government Bill.