§ Order of the Day read for resuming the adjourned Debate upon the Motion made on the 29th of May last to agree with the Commons in the Address to Her Majesty respecting, and to fill up the Blank with ("Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and"): (The Earl Russell: To which an Amendment has been moved to leave out from ("That") inclusive to the end of the Motion, and to resolve,
§ 1st. That the Address to the Crown in which this House is asked to concur by the House of Commons has for its Object to cause the Extent to which corrupt Practices have prevailed in the Borough of Lancaster to be inquired into by a Commission in the Manner provided for by the Act 15th and 16th Viet. Cap. 57.:
§ 2nd. That since the passing of the above Act Inquiries have been instituted under its Provisions as to the Prevalence of corrupt Practices in Ten Boroughs:
3§ 3rd. That the Commissioners by whom these Inquiries have been conducted have reported that in Eight out of the Ten Boroughs to which they related, corrupt Practices have been extensively and systematically carried on, and that in Six of these Boroughs such Practices have prevailed for many Years:
§ 4th. That in consequence of the Reports so made by Commissioners of Inquiry Bills were introduced into the House of Commons in the Year 1854 for the Prevention of Bribery in Barnstaple, Canterbury, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Malden; and in the Year 1858 a Bill for the Disfranchisement of the Freemen of Galway was also brought into the House of Commons; but none of these Bills were proceeded with:
§ 5th. That these Inquiries have thus failed to lead to the Adoption of any Measures for the Prevention of Bribery in the Boroughs to which they related; they have also failed to elicit Information calculated to assist Parliament in passing any general Act for the Prevention of Corruption; and it was stated in Evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons in the Year 1860 that they have occasioned much Perjury and Demoralization:
§ 6th. That although these partial Inquiries as to the Prevalence of Corruption in particular Boroughs have produced no useful practical Results, even when gross and systematic Corruption in these places have been established, there is Reason to believe that a comprehensive Inquiry into the various Methods by which Corruption is practised in Elections, and into the best Means of checking it, might afford useful Assistance to Parliament in legislating on a Subject on which its Interference is urgently required:
§ 7th. That this House is not therefore prepared to assent to the Address in which it is asked by the House of Commons to concur, but would be ready to join that House in praying Her Majesty to cause a general Inquiry on the Subject of Bribery at Elections to be instituted by Means of a Commission:
§ 8th. That the above Resolutions be communicated to the House of Commons in reply to their Message inviting this House to concur in addressing the Crown for an Inquiry into the alleged Prevalence of Bribery in the Borough of Lancaster.—(The Earl Grey.)
§ Debate resumed accordingly.
§ LORD EBURYsaid, he was desirous of saying a few words on this subject. He had had considerable opportunities during the thirty-five years he was a Member of the other House of observing the working of our electoral system and of the law applicable to it. There had recently been a violent outburst of indignation against bribery and corruption—not that be intended to imply that the indignation was greater than the occasion deserved—but it was invariably the case after a general election. But whatever might be the state of opinion the necessity of expressing an opinion on the subject had been laid upon their Lordships by the Resolutions moved by the noble Earl (Earl Russell), and even 4 if they did not concur in the Resolutions they were bound to assign their reasons and state the manner in which they intended to effect that which it was the object of them all to accomplish. Re was inclined to agree with the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) that they should not concur in the Commons' Resolutions, and for the reasons which that noble Earl had stated; but he could not exactly concur in the method by which the noble Earl proposed to deal with the difficulty by a general and not by a special Commission. If these special Commissions had such a demoralizing character as had been attributed to them, why extend the anticipated evil by sending a general Commission to every borough? If the House agreed to the first Resolution, he should be prepared to propose an Amendment to the sixth Resolution, which referred to a comprehensive inquiry into the subject. Some persons considered bribery at elections was on the increase; but he (Lord Ebury) was not aware of the period of purity with which these persons compared these demoralized times. There were times when the electors of a borough, whether the borough was contested or not, received a certain money payment. He remembered that in the first borough which he had the honour to represent, a time-honoured custom prevailed—he did not know if it was to be considered bribery—that whether the election was contested or not, the electors should receive the sum of £10 each from the candidate. He begged to say that upon the occasion of his election the money was not paid, but it was commuted by the patron of the borough, and a town hall was built instead; and he was happy to say that, although the borough still returned Members to Parliament—and there had been since many candidates for that borough—no improper practices had, since that time, been imputed to it. He was most decidedly of opinion that bribery and corruption were not nearly so prevalent now as they were formerly, and he defied any one to point to a borough where such a custom as that to which he had referred was in force at the present day, or where such shameless bribery had been practised as at a certain well-known election in Liverpool. They must all regret the large amount that was now spent in what were called legitimate election expenses, and they ought to deal with it as speedily as possible. He regretted to find that, undeterred by past failures, 5 some persons had revived the cry for treating this subject with very stringent penalties, and he believed they would continue to fail in attaining their object because public opinion did not approve of them and would not concur in them. Much was to be done without having recourse to such stringent measures, and it was on account of what could be done in reference to the expenditure of money that he was induced to address their Lordships on that occasion. Up to 1832 he might say that bribery and corruption was the rule and not the exception, because as borough elections occupied fourteen days and county elections three weeks the respective agents were able to calculate the necessity with the greatest accuracy; but when the period of election was reduced in boroughs to four days, and afterwards to two days, and then to one, a great blow was struck at the system. His opinion was that Parliament should in the first instance pass a Bill which should absolutely forbid the payment of the voters' expenses by the candidate, and next that the employment of paid canvassers should he absolutely forbidden, and, that any one who received payment from a candidate should be disqualified from voting for that candidate at that election. He would also forbid the hiring of an unreasonable number of committee-rooms, and agents being engaged merely for influencing in fact their votes. The constituencies must be no longer treated as spoilt babies—who could do nothing for themselves, and left all for the candidates to do. They should endeavour to establish a sound moral and independent feeling in the constituency. He did not make these assertions in the security of a Peer of Parliament and as one who had no necessity to go to the country, because on a former occasion when he contested Middlesex he informed the electors that if they expected him to expend some thousand pounds he should consider that he sat for his money more than their votes. And the consequence was that they concurred in his views, and he was re-elected. Another remedy to which he attached great importance was that borough or county should pay the expenses of taking the poll by a local tax imposed for that purpose, which would reduce the expenses by two-thirds. He had himself introduced a Bill into Parliament placing the expenses of the polling on the electors, but the measure did not get beyond the second reading. He had 6 never altered his opinion, that if they wanted independent Members they must first have independent constituencies. He would, therefore, propose, as an Amendment to the Resolution affirming the propriety and necessity of a general Commission, the following:—
That this House is not therefore prepared to assent to the Addresses in which they are asked to concur, but they are ready to join that House in concerting measures for suppressing bribery at elections, which in their opinion is capable of being dealt with with the knowledge they already possess.
EARL GREYthought that as several Peers were present who did not hear the previous discussion on this subject, it would be for their Lordships' convenience if he stated the real nature of the Amendment which he had ventured to propose. His noble Friend (Earl Russell) invited them to concur with the other House in an Address to the Crown, the effect of which, under the Corrupt Practices Act, would be to cause an inquiry to be instituted as to the extent to which bribery had been practised in the borough of Lancaster at the last election; and this, if agreed to, would be followed by a similar step with regard to three other boroughs. Now, he (Earl Grey) asked their Lordships, instead of concurring in those Addresses, to adopt a Resolution pointing out the undeniable fact that the ten previous inquiries that had taken place under this Act had been totally without result, although in eight of those cases gross bribery was proved to have been practised. It was true that Bills were introduced into the other House to disfranchise the electors of certain of these places who were shown to have been bribed; but it was held that such a measure would be inconsistent with the terms of the indemnity under which they gave their evidence, and by a general concurrence of the House the Bills were abandoned. Moreover, it had been stated before a Select Committee of the House of Commons that these Commissions had a very mischievous tendency, and rather tended to promote than to check bribery, for men came forward under the shelter of the indemnity conferred upon them by the Act of Parliament, and actually boasted of the bribes they had received—so that the effect was rather to raise the price of votes than anything else. A noble Friend of his, whom he did not see present (Earl Fortescue), had confirmed this from his personal experience, stating that these inquiries 7 took away any little shame that might have formerly attached to the receipt of bribes, that they led men to boast of their proceedings, and that they made persons who had not hitherto shared in such corruption anxious to participate in the advantages. That such was the practical effect of these special inquiries was a fact which he (Earl Grey) believed no one could deny, and he therefore asked their Lordships, instead of concurring with the Commons in the Address to the Crown, to agree to a Resolution setting forth the failure of former Commissions, this be followed up by a Resolution proposing a more general inquiry. Now, the nature of that proposal had been greatly misunderstood. It seemed to be supposed that what he suggested was a roving Commission to travel about the country and inquire into the prevalence of bribery in various places. Nothing, however, could be more foreign to his intention. What he proposed was, that a Commission should be appointed to assist Parliament in the very difficult task of legislating against bribery. For that purpose it would be necessary to obtain evidence as to the method by which bribery was now commonly carried on, the devices by which the law was evaded, and the best means of meeting those devices. Such an inquiry, if intrusted to competent persons, need only last a very short time. The witnesses whom it would be advisable to call would be a few Parliamentary and electioneering agents and barristers who had had personal experience of these special Commissions. All the necessary information would thus be obtained to enable the Commissioners to judge by what means the law could be best improved. It appeared to him that every discussion on the subject had shown the desirability of a general inquiry of that kind before Parliament proceeded to the work of legislation, for he believed there was no subject in the world on which legislation was more difficult. The law, it was true, was stringent enough if they could only bring it into full play; but so many devices were resorted to, and money was given by such indirect means, that bribery was extremely difficult of detection. Moreover, when speaking of bribery, they ought to consider not merely what came strictly within that category, but the general expense of elections. The enormous cost of elections at the present time was, he thought, one of the greatest evils which had to be contended with. Printers, public-house keepers, proprietors 8 of hackney carriages, and other persons had a great interest in keeping up contests for the sake of sharing in the money that was expended, and a general inquiry such as that he proposed might properly inquire into the means by which that expenditure could be reduced. It had been said, indeed, that they had already sufficient information on the subject, and that it was the duty of the Government to propose measures for dealing with the question. But it should be remembered that on questions of a much less difficult nature both the Government and Parliament had derived great assistance from the investigations of Commissions as to defects in the law, and the means by which those defects could be remedied. Everybody admitted that the last Act on this subject had been utterly useless, and in many respects worse than useless; and he was quite sure that though the responsibility of proposing a measure on the matter must ultimately rest with the Government, they had a right to claim the assistance that could be given them by qualified Commissioners. Every discussion that had taken place showed how very vague were the ideas that were entertained as to the nature of the remedies that were required. He believed the effect of increasing the stringency of the penalties on bribery would be to revolt public feeling against the law and increase the difficulty of obtaining evidence to convict those who were guilty of the offence. He was not one of those who were very sanguine as to the entire success of measures for putting a stop to it. He was afraid the causes of it were such that it was impossible to suppose the evil could be entirely eradicated. Still, the evidence which had been obtained did prove that there were measures which might be adopted that would have a great tendency to diminish the disposition to give and take bribes, and at the same time to diminish the great cost of elections, which in itself was a kind of corruption. His noble Friend (Lord Ebury) had pointed to one of these—namely, the preventing of candidates paying for the conveyance of electors to the poll. But if that measure were adopted in a large constituency where men were much occupied, except where a very great interest was felt in the result of the contest, only a very small percentage of the electors would come to the poll. It would, besides, have a very unfair effect in many contests. On one side there might be no difficulty whatever in providing private carriages or other means of convey- 9 ante to the voters; while the other, having little or no connection with the gentry of the county, would have the greatest difficulty in bringing the voters to the poll. Other suggestions had been made. It had been strongly urged by two or three gentlemen of great experience on this subject, that instead of having votes given at the poll some authorized and responsible public officer should leave voting papers at the houses of the electors, and after a reasonable time allowed for having them filled up call for them again. This would not only prevent that form of bribery which consisted in carrying voters to the poll, but also those payments for loss of time which the friends, in spite of the most earnest wishes of candidates, could hardly be prevented from making. It was, undoubtedly, an immense hardship where a man was earning not more than was required for the wants of his family that he should lose half a day's wages in order to give his vote; and in London and many other large places, according to the evidence of electioneering agents, it appeared that half a day's labour would be lost in many instances. His noble Friend (Lord Ebury) had also called attention to the fact that bribery very often first showed itself in cases where parties were very nearly equally divided. That was the case the other day in Windsor. Where parties were nearly balanced, a number of persons held back to the last moment in order to make the most of their votes. As these persons had it practically in their power to turn the election, one party began to purchase their votes, and the other was almost sure to follow the example. In such cases bribery was a very contagious disease. When a man saw his neighbour get a £10 note, he said to himself it would be a great convenience to him, it would pay his rent, exempt his family from much privation, and he might as well have it as his neighbour. Another suggestion was that voters should be able to give as many votes as there were candidates, and either divide or give them all to one candidate. That would diminish the number of contests and the enormous expense of elections. It had been stated that at the last general election the sum expended was not less than £2,000,000. This had not only been wasted but spent to a great extent in demoralizing the people. He had mentioned these suggestions not because he was prepared to recommend the adoption of any one of them, but because the fact that they 10 had been made showed how desirable it was that the whole matter should be carefully scrutinized and considered. With that view lie had ventured to recommend that they should propose to the other House that, instead of having partial and useless inquiries into the extent of bribery in particular boroughs, they should have an inquiry into the means by which corruption and expense at elections generally might be best avoided. But in the first instance that was not the question before them. The first question was whether they should concur with the House of Commons in the Address to the Crown proposed. If their Lordships declined to concur in that Address they would not be in the slightest degree pledged to adopt all or any one of his Resolutions. These Resolutions would afterwards be separately and deliberately considered, and of course they were liable to be amended—especially the sixth, on which his noble Friend (Lord Ebury) stated he had an Amendment to move, to which he had no objection except that his noble Friend proposed legislation before inquiry had taken place. These Commissions were not only useless, but did mischief. But it might be said it was a strange thing for that House to refuse its concurrence in measures taken by the other House on such a subject. He could not, however, see the force of that objection. The Act of Parliament rendered the concurrence of both Houses necessary to the issuing of these Commissions. Their Lordships therefore had a discretion to exercise on the point. They also learnt from the ordinary channels of information that these Addresses were adopted rather as a matter of course on the Motion of the Chairman of Election Committees. Very different opinions in regard to them had since been expressed in the House, many Members declaring that they could lead to no possible useful result, and that they were adopted only to beget an impression on the public mind that Parliament had a holy horror of bribery while taking care to do nothing real on the subject. Their Lordships were not only at liberty, but were bound, to exercise their discretion in considering whether these Commissions of Inquiry were or were not calculated to check bribery. If they thought that the Commissions were not calculated to effect that result, then it was their duty to withhold their concurrence in the proposed Address to the Crown.
§ EARL RUSSELLthought that there would be great difficulty in refusing to 11 concur with the House of Commons in an inquiry of this kind. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) had said truly that, as the law stood, their Lordships had to concur in an Address to the Crown before any inquiry such as this could be set on foot; and it was perfectly true that it was never meant that their Lordships should be bound by the decision of the House of Commons in these matters; and that if their Lordships thought that in any particular case there was not sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry by Commission, that would be a sufficient reason why they should refuse to concur in the Address to the Crown. The question now was whether, their Lordships having no measure before them to diminish or check bribery, there was any sufficient ground for refusing to join in this Address, and leave these boroughs, in which it was alleged extensive corruption prevailed, to perfect impunity. It did not matter how these inquiries were conducted. Formerly they were carried on at the Bar of the House of Commons, and forty-seven years ago he himself conducted an inquiry, which was carried on at the Bar of the House, and he examined the agents and other witnesses as to the bribery committed. But at the present time it would hardly be possible, with the great increase of business before the House of Commons, to carry on inquiries such as these at the Bar of the House, and therefore of late years Parliament had adopted the mode by which these inquiries could be delegated to Commissioners. The question was whether they should have an inquiry, and not as to the mode of the inquiry. They must either leave these boroughs with perfect immunity from a punishment for the great corruption which was said to exist, or they must join the House of Commons in the Address to the Crown. With regard to Totnes, the Committee reported that corrupt practices prevailed at the last election, and that on former occasions corrupt practice had extensively prevailed. Were their Lordships to say, because that there was no general measure ready to check corrupt practices they would not join in proposing the only mode of inquiry that was open to them in reference to this particular borough? Such would be the effect of their refusing to pass the Resolution. With respect to the efficiency of this mode of inquiry, he might mention the instances of three or four boroughs. In the cases of Shoreham and Aylesbury, the result of inquiry was that the boundaries of these boroughs were enlarged; and in the 12 cases of Sudbury and St. Alban's the result was the disfranchisement of those boroughs. The Members for the disfranchised boroughs were transferred to the county of York and the borough of Birkenhead, and he challenged any one of their Lordships to say that the bribery which formerly prevailed was transferred to these places. If he were right in his opinion upon this matter, then it was plain that the remedy which had been provided in those cases was efficient. He did not say that measures might not be adopted to render the law as to bribery still more efficient; but in the absence of a remedy of a different character, he thought their Lordships ought to agree to apply the remedy that existed. He had no objection to inquiry into the general law as to bribery, but their Lordships had not taken any steps towards such an inquiry. If there had been a Commission which had made a Report, and a Bill had been founded upon that Report, he could then have understood this Amendment in favour of adopting improved remedies instead of having the old mode of inquiry. They ought not, however, to abandon the old and accustomed mode of inquiry until they were prepared to adopt some other mode in its stead. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) had said that the expenses of election had much increased, but he (Earl Russell) conceived that they somewhat exaggerated the existing evil from a forgetfulness of the extent of the evil as it prevailed in past days. He remembered that on one occasion when Lord Fitzwilliam contested the county of York, each party spent the enormous sum of £100,000. Of this sum he had heard that no less than £7,000 was spent in supplying the ribbons to the wives and daughters of electors, which was in itself a kind of bribery. He remembered also speaking to Lord Fitzwilliam, when his Lordship said that he and his father had determined to be more economical at the then coming election; and when asked how much they intended to spend, he said that they had agreed not to spend above £30,000. He (Earl Russell) therefore said that when it was said that matters had become much worse of late years, there was some exaggeration in the statement. His belief was that no general measure would extinguish bribery at elections. A gentleman did not go to a borough with the intention to commit bribery; but wishing for the great distinc- 13 tion of being a Member of Parliament, he trusted to his agents, who applied the money placed in their hands for bribery. He remembered asking Mr. Charles Austen, an able advocate before Committees, how he would prevent bribery and the answer was, that he would not bring up before the Committee three or four wretched persons who had received bribes, but he would go to the bankers and ask how much money had been deposited with them, and if they confessed that they had received £3,000 or £4,000, and paid it over to the election agents, and those agents were afterwards proved to have been guilty of bribery, the whole truth of the matter would be ascertained. His (Earl Russell's) own opinion was that one of the chief means of checking bribery at elections was, no doubt, the presentation of a petition against the return of the member elected under its influence, but then it often happened that the defeated candidate was not in a position to incur the expense which the adoption of that course would involve. If, however, an inquiry before an Election Committee was instituted, and that Committee reported that they had reason to believe that in several instances bribery had prevailed in a particular borough, a Commission might then be appointed to take evidence upon oath; and if the result of their investigation proved the Report of the Committee to be justified by the facts of the case a Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough might be introduced. That was at present the most effectual mode of putting a stop to corrupt practices, although it was hardly to be hoped that it would do away with them altogether. He quite concurred in the opinion that too great immunity was now given to persons who confessed themselves guilty of bribery under the existing Act, which, while it guarded them against the consequences of a penal prosecution, did not prevent their being disfranchised by Parliament. He would not say that he was very sanguine that any steps which the Legislature might take would completely check bribery, but he had less faith in the suggestion made with that object by his noble Friend who moved the Amendment than in the course which he invited the House to adopt. That being so, he hoped their Lordships would give their assent to the original Motion.
LORD BROUGHAMwas of opinion that the issue of a Commission, whatever punishment might result to individual boroughs, 14 would scarcely prove to be otherwise than a most inefficient and partial remedy for the evil against which it was directed. The bribery which had of late prevailed was a scandal to the country; it affected the character not only of the Legislature, but that of the people at large. He had no doubt that when the House of Commons was anxious and determined to put an end to it, it would find that it had to a great extent the means in its own hands: for he could not help thinking that if every Member were obliged, in conformity with a Standing Order of that House, to make, on taking his seat, a declaration to the effect that no money beyond the legal expenses had been laid out by himself, or so far as he was aware, by his agents, to procure his election, a considerable check would be placed on the commission of an offence of which there was so much reason to complain. No person could make this declaration who had paid a large sum for the purposes of his election, because he must be perfectly aware that such sum could not be expended in legal expenses. He was told, however, that legislative measures, in addition to the declaration, were necessary, and that these measures should provide for the punishment of the bribers. He might remind their Lordships that previous to 1811 the profits accruing from the slave trade were so large that the measures taken to put it down had proved ineffectual, but that things assumed a very different aspect after passing the measure which he had in that year introduced, making the trade in slaves a felony. He did not, indeed, mean to contend that bribery should be placed in the same category; but then it might be made a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. If that course were taken, he was certain that candidates for Parliament would not run the risk, not only of losing their money, but of being put upon the treadmill.
§ On Question, Whether the Words proposed to be left out shall stand Part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 77; Not-Contents 17: Majority 60.
§ Resolved in the Affirmative: Then the Original Motion was agreed to.
| CONTENTS. | |
| Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Somerset, D. |
| Bristol, M. | |
| Cleveland, D. | Normanby, M. |
| Devonshire, D. |
| Airlie, E. | Churston, L. |
| Bantry, E. | Clandeboye, L. (L.Dufferin and Claneboye.) |
| Belmore, E. | |
| Caithness, E. | |
| Chichester, E. | Clermont, L. |
| Clarendon, E. | Dacre, L. |
| De Grey, E. | Feversham, L. |
| Devon, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) |
| Ducie, E. | |
| Effingham, E. | Hatherton, L. |
| Granville, E. | Heytesbury, L. |
| Leven and Melville, E. | Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.) |
| Lucan, E. | |
| Malmesbury, E. | Keane, L. |
| Manvers, E. | Kilmaine, L. |
| Minto, E. | Minster, L. (M.Conyngham.) |
| Morley, E. | |
| Nelson, E. | Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.) |
| Powis, E. | |
| Russell, E. | Mostyn, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Northbrook, L. |
| Stradbroke, E. | Oxenfoord,L. (E. Stair) |
| Strafford, E. | Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.) |
| De Vesci, V. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.] |
| Eversley, V. | |
| Falmouth, V. | Portman, L. |
| Halifax, V. | Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) |
| Hawarden, V. | |
| Lifford, V. | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Stratford do Redeliffe, | Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.) |
| Torrington, V. | Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) |
| London, Bp. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Peterborough, Bp. | Stuart de Decies, L. |
| Ripon, Bp. | Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) |
| Abinger, L. | Talbot de Malahide, L. |
| Belper, L. | Taunton, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Vaux of Harrowden, L. |
| Camoys, L. [Teller.] | Wensleydale, L. |
| Chaworth, L. (E.Meath.) | Wrottesley, L. |
| Churchill, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Albemarle, E. | Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.) |
| Fortescue, E. | |
| Grey, E. [Teller.] | Ebury, L. [Teller.] |
| Shrewsbury, E. | Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.) |
| Zetland, E. | |
| Northwick, L. | |
| Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) |
| Oxford, Bp. | Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| Blantyre, L. | Stratheden, L. |
| Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Wenlock, L. |
§ Then the Joint Addresses in respect to the Great Yarmouth Election, Reigate Election, and Totnes Election were severally agreed to.