HL Deb 29 July 1858 vol 151 cc2245-50

House in Committee (according to order).

Bill reported without Amendment.

LORD EBURY moved, that the first clause should be omitted, which enacted that a candidate may provide vehicles for the conveyance of electors to the poll, but shall not give them money to pay for their conveyance. Having had an opportunity, on Tuesday last, of stating his objections to this clause, it would not be necessary for him now to trouble their Lordships at any length. The clause, he contended, was not necessary at all; but even if it were necessary, the mode of carrying the intention into effect was a most inconvenient one, and contrary moreover to every principle of legislation on the subject for the last twenty-five years. This being his opinion, he hoped to induce their Lordships to concur in his Amendment. Now, as to the question of the necessity for the clause. Noble Lords opposite disclaimed any intention of a dissolution of Parliament, and therefore he might assume that there was not likely to be a dissolution between now and next Session. Were there to be any contested elections between now and then? It was true that there were rumours that two Members of the House of Commons were to be elevated to the peerage; but neither in North Cheshire nor in South Devonshire was there likely to be any contest in the elections to fill up the vacancies the elevation would occasion. This measure, therefore, was not necessary to meet any circumstances likely to arise before next Session. Something had been said about an uncertainty in the law, and his noble Friend had talked of the case of "Cooper v. Slade" upon that point. It was true that there was an uncertainty in the law, but there was no uncertainty whatever in the practice of the House of Commons. He had had great experience in the trial of election petitions by Committees of the other House, and there was no case in which a Member had been unseated by the House of Commons for having paid the bonâ fide travelling ex- penses of voters. In "Cooper v. Slade," what had taken place was adjudged to be a corrupt contract; and what was decided was, that you must not write to a voter and say, "If you vote for me I will pay your expenses." It was stated to be the intention of the Government next year to submit the whole question as to elections to the consideration of a Select Committee, and therefore this particular clause was at present totally uncalled for. Even supposing there was a necessity for the clause, he believed the mode of carrying the intention into effect was an inconvenient one. The noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, in moving the second reading, had described the Bill as a measure intended to enable poor voters to exercise their franchise; but were they sure that the enabling poor people to vote was really what was desired? There was not a word in this clause about poor voters, in contradistinction to any other voters. What it did was to allow a candidate to carry every single voter to the poll in a chaise and pair. He would read to their Lordships a few words of warning which he had received from an election agent. That gentleman said, that the expense of conveying voters to the poll at an election was one of a very serious character; and he did not hesitate to say that such expense was, to a very great extent, wasteful and grievously corrupt and extravagant. He went on to say, that from his experience he was convinced that this clause would add enormously to the expense of elections, especially in county contests, and would enable the possessor of the longest purse to win. That was that gentleman's opinion. This clause was not only different from, but was contrary to the principle which bad governed the whole tendency of legislation since the passing of the Reform Bill. Year after year measures had been carried for preventing the exercise of undue influence and for lessening the expense of elections; the time for keeping open the poll had been greatly reduced, the cost of bonds and colours had also been abrogated, refreshment tickets had been declared illegal, and each step that had been taken had been in the direction of greater purity of elections. Almost every one of the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons of 1834 had been carried into effect, and he begged to recall to the recollection of their Lordships the concluding paragraph in the Report of that Committee. It Was to this effect:— Your Committee are of opinion that every measure regulating the election of representatives should be based on the broad principle that the representative should be placed in the House of Commons, if possible, free of expense. That was the true principle, and now, for the first time in their legislation, they recognized the absurdity that a candidate should be liable for the personal expenses of the voter. Why should the candidate be liable? If a man were unable to walk to the poll to record an independent vote, let him be carried by all means; but why at the candidate's expense? Why should not the cost fall upon the Consolidated Fund? It would be quite as reasonable as that the candidate should pay it. He should, no doubt, be told that the House of Commons were the best judges of this matter, and that they had sent up the clause by a large majority. But this was not the first time that they had done the same thing. On the last occasion they sent it up backed by a much larger majority; but their Lordships expunged it nevertheless, and received the heartfelt thanks of every honest and independent elector throughout the country for doing so. This clause aimed a deadly blow at the purity of elections, and he trusted that their Lordships would defend their own independence and the independence of the voter by striking it out of the Bill.

Moved, To leave out Clause 1.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

said, the reason why this Bill had been introduced was, that in the existing state of things candidates did not know how to act with regard to the conveyance of voters, and the single object of it was to remedy the present unsettled state of the law in regard to that question. If, as his noble Friend said, the recent, decisions of the House of Commons were, in favour of allowing it, he did not see bow his noble Friend could object to the Bill. Under the existing state of things, those who were most desirous of keeping, within the pale of the law were placed at a disadvantage as compared with others, It was urged as a practical objection to this Bill, that after it was passed no voter would go to the poll without being carried. He did not concur in that opinion, especially as the name of every person carried, the distance he was carried, and the charge for his conveyance would have to be published. The real question was, whether the law should be placed on a clear intelligible footing, instead of being left doubtful and in such a state as to encourage evasion? It was for the advantage of all parties that some strict defined rule should be laid down on which all might act alike.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he entertained insuperable objections to this clause, and thought, if it passed, the Bill ought to be called a measure for the "promotion," not the "prevention," of corrupt practices. It would open the door to all sorts of corruption and bribery and would give the advantage in every case to the wealthiest candidate. He recommended that the question should be deferred until it could be dealt with in the large measure of Parliamentary Reform which the Government had undertaken to introduce next Session.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW

was of opinion that the question involved should not be allowed any longer to remain in its present doubtful state. He was in favour of the clause, believing it was only just and fair that the candidates should defray the expenses of bringing the voters to the poll, rather than that the latter should be burdened with such a charge.

LORD CAMPBELL

complained of the late period of the Session at which so important a measure had been brought before their Lordships. It was read a second time, he believed, on the very day fixed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees as the last day on which their Lordships would read any Bill a second time, and therefore, if not contrary to the letter, it was contrary to the spirit of the noble Lord's Resolution. Arguments might be urged on both sides of the question, and he was not prepared to give any positive opinion upon them. It was very important that the honest and poor voter should be placed in a position to exercise the franchise; but to give him facilities might open the door to bribery and corruption. In his opinion, instead of removing doubts in the law, this clause would give rise to many difficult questions, for the decision of the courts of law. The question was far too important to be decided satisfactorily in the last week of the Session, and the necessity for legislation was not urgent, and it had been announced in the other House that a Reform Bill was to be introduced next Session, when the whole subject would be discussed. It was impossible to doubt that the clause would add greatly to the expense of elections. Non-resident electors would be brought from remote parts of the country, from the Continent, and possibly from Australia. The expenses not being payable to the voter himself could only be paid by an agent, and a special messenger might be sent to accompany each non-resident voter. Then would arise the question which he had no doubt would soon be discussed in Westminster Hall, whether conveyance did not include refreshment and conveyance back again—whether all the consequences of what was enacted were not enacted. Those were specimens of the questions which would arise, and as no evil could result from postponement, he entreated their Lordships not to agree to the clause.

LORD REDESDALE

reminded their Lordships that the Corrupt Practices Act of 1854, came up after the day fixed as the last day on which they would read a Bill a second time, and was read a second time as a Bill of urgency. This Bill had received the approval of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, and he thought they were justified in acceding to a proposition which came to them with such authority, and which peculiarly affected the privilege of the other House.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, there was this very essential difference between the dates of reading this Bill and the Bill of 1854 a second time. In this case, the last day on which they would read Bills a second time happened to be fixed five days before the end of the Session, and in 1854 it was eighteen days before the end of the Session. He did not think that too much stress ought to be laid upon the supposed acquiescence of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell in this clause, because the former noble Lord distinctly stated that there were arguments on both sides, and Lord John Russell expressed a strong opinion that this ought to be merely a continuance Bill. He concurred with the noble and learned Lord in his objection to the period at which their Lordships were called upon to pass a measure which was only read a second time on Tuesday at the tail of twenty-eight other Orders of the Day. Lord Lyndhurst thought the Bill in its present shape so objectionable that he had authorized him to obtain a pair for him against the clause if their Lordships should divide upon it. When their Lordships remembered that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had expressed an opinion that this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee, and that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a general measure in the early part of next Session, there could be no pretext for hurrying their Lordships into the adoption of a premature and ill-considered alteration of the law. He had, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the Motion of his noble Friend.

On Question, Whether the said clause shall stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 43; Not-Contents 23: Majority 20.

CONTENTS.
Chelmsford, L.(L. Chancellor.) Sandwich, E.
Wicklow, E.
Cleveland, D. Dungannon, V.
Manchester, D. Hardinge, V.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Bath, M. [Teller.]
Salisbury, M. Melville, V.
Strathallan, V.
Amherst, E.
Bathurst, E. Aveland, L.
Beauchamp, E. Cloncurry, L.
Carnarvon, E. Colchester, L.
De La Warr, E. De Freyne, L.
Derby, E. De Ros, L.
Desart, E. Dinevor, L.
Ellenborough, E. Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Graham, E.(D. Montrose.)
Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Hardwicke, E. Plunket, L. (Bp. Tuam, &c.)
Jersey, E.
Leven and Melville, E. Redesdale, L.
Lonsdale, E. Sondes, L.
Lucan, E. Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)
Mansfield, E.
Portarlington, E. Saint Leonards, L.
Romney, E. Wynford, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Somerset, D. Boyle, L. E.(Cork and Orrey.)
Lansdowne, M.
Effingham, E. Campbell, L.
Granville, E. Chesham, L.
Harrington, E. Churchill, L.
Minto, E. Cranworth, L.
St. Germans, E. Ebury, L. [Teller.]
Somers, E. Foley, L. [Teller.]
Eversley, V. Rivers, L.
Stratford de Redcliffe, V. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Torrington, V. Wodehouse, L.
Wycombe, L. (E. Shelburne.)
Audley, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.