HL Deb 29 May 1866 vol 183 cc1416-34
EARL RUSSELL

, in rising to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the Address to Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the existence of alleged corrupt practices at the last election for the borough of Lancaster, said, that the Election Committee which had been nominated to try the petition complaining of an undue return for that borough had agreed to a resolution stating that they had reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed there. The question now raised was, unfortunately, no new one. At various times Parliament had taken steps to check bribery and corruption at elections. At a former time they had disfranchised the offending boroughs, as in the case of Gram-pound, Sudbury, and St. Alban's; and in the case of East Retford, although they had refrained from disfranchising the borough, they had sought to check the evil there by extending the Parliamentary boundaries. In more recent times the House of Commons had not taken such summary steps for checking the evil; for although by the Act 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57 it was provided that in the event of any Committee appointed to inquire into the matter of any petition complaining of undue proceedings at the election for any place or borough, reporting that there was reason to be lieve that bribery had extensively prevailed at the last election for that be rough, a Commission should issue on a Joint Address of both Houses to inquire on the spot into the existence of such corrupt practices; and although several Commissions had been subsequently issued, and Bills had been introduced into Parliament founded on their reports, the Bills had been withdrawn and nothing had been done. But although there had been complaints of the inefficacy of the steps taken to repress those evils, yet it could not be altogether denied that the inquiries set on foot by Parliament with regard to corrupt practices in various boroughs had been followed by some beneficial consequences. On these grounds he asked their Lordships to agree with the other House of Parliament in an Address to the Crown for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the corrupt practices which prevailed at the last election for the borough of Lancaster. It was quite true, as expressed in the Resolutions of which his noble Friend (Earl Grey) had given notice, that in some recent cases the House of Commons had not adopted those efficient measures which it had taken in former years with respect to electoral corruption; and at the late general election there had, he believed, been a great deal of expense, and, he feared, corrupt expense incurred In former times Parliament had steadfastly set its face against those proceedings; and if the inquiries now proposed took place, he thought it would again be found that the House of Commons would not be backward in applying a remedy. But that did not depend upon the House of Commons alone. The Act now under discussion contemplated that the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons was interested in the purity and integrity of the representation; and if they found an instance in which the existence of extensive corruption had been clearly proved, but in which the case had not been taken up by the House of Commons, it was perfectly competent for their Lordships to introduce a Bill to disfranchise the particular constituency in question; and then, he thought, the other House would scarcely refuse to pass such a measure. In that way a remedy as efficacious as that applied to St. Alban's and Sudbury might, if the circumstances warranted it, be adopted. The Resolutions of which his noble Friend had given notice not only condemned the present Motion, but went to the extent of saying that the House ought to express to the House of Commons its readiness to concur in recommending a general inquiry over the whole kingdom as to the existence of corrupt practices. His own opinion was that the institution of such a general inquiry would not be so expedient as the course now proposed.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the Address to Her Majesty, and do fill up the Blank with ("Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and.")—(The Earl Russell.)

EARL GREY

said, he could assure his noble Friend and the House that if he opposed his noble Friend's Motion, it was not owing to any indifference on his part to the prevalence of bribery and corruption at elections. On the contrary his strong feeling was, that the course now proposed was not one that was likely to be effectual for its object. Corruption in the Parliamentary constituencies was a great, and he was afraid a growing evil. It was impossible to deny that of late years more and more money had come to be employed at elections, or that the return of Members to the other House of Parliament was more and more swayed by corruption. That, perhaps, was a consequence of the rapidly increasing wealth of the country, and of the increasing number of persons who desired to obtain a seat in the House of Commons, either as a means of social distinction or of political influence. At the same time, they must all agree in the opinion expressed on that subject some few years ago at a public meeting by a very distinguished gentleman, now one of the Members for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), who said he thought there was a very great danger of the degradation of the representation from the readiness of those whom he called the vulgar rich to pay any sums that might be necessary in order to obtain seats in Parliament, and who were far more eager to do so than persons of more recognized station in society. Now, he held in his hand a list of all the inquiries which had been made since the passing of the Act under which they were now asked to concur with the other House in addressing the Crown to institute separate inquiries into the corruption which had prevailed in four more boroughs. First in that list stood the borough of Cambridge, the Address for a Commission in regard to which was agreed to on the 2nd of May, 1853. That Commission reported on August 9, 1853, that bribery and other corrupt practices had for a long time systematically prevailed. Next came the case of Canterbury, the Address with respect to which was agreed to on April 11, 1853, and the Report, made on July 28, 1853, was to the effect that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the last and at previous elections. Then came Maldon, the Address relating to which was agreed to on May 30, 1853, and the Report, made on August 12, 1853, declared that corrupt practices in various forms had long prevailed, and open and direct bribery at the last election to a greater extent than at any which preceded it. Next, in the case of Barnstaple, the Address was agreed to on June 27, 1853, and the Report of the Commission which was made on July 31, 1854, declared that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the last election. Then in regard to the borough of Tynemouth, the Address was agreed to on June 27, 1853, and the Report made on February 20, 1854, was to the effect that bribery and corrupt practices did not extensively prevail at the last election, but did exist among a portion of the class of publicans. Next, in the case of Hull, the Address was agreed to on the 21st of April, 1853, and the Report made on the 2nd of February, 1854, was that systematic corruption had uniformly prevailed at the elections, and systematic and extensive bribery at the last election. Again, in the case of the borough of Galway, the Address was agreed to on the 20th of August, 1857, and the Commission reported on the 10th of December, 1857, that for a long period corrupt practices had prevailed at the elections. Then, with respect to Wakefield, the Address was agreed to on the 11th of August, 1859, and the Commissioners reported on the 31st of January, 1860, that there had been an employment of non electors as watchers and runners for corruption and intimidation; and that bribery on both sides was before the election a matter of common notoriety. In the case of Gloucester city, the Address was agreed to on August 12, 1859. The Report was made January 27, 1860, and stated, that with some exceptions corrupt practices bad for a long time prevailed. He remembered having served upon a Berwick Election Committee the first year he was in Parliament. On the 10th of June, 1860, an Address was agreed to for a Commission for Berwick-upon-Tweed. They reported February 11, 1861, that bribery existed at and before the election of 1859; that there were certain cases of bribery, but the Commissioners did not report that corrupt practices generally prevailed. In eight out of ten of these boroughs the Commissioners reported that bribery had systematically prevailed, and in six of them that it was of very long standing. Was it possible to have stronger Reports or evidence? In 1854 the Attorney General of that day brought into the House of Commons a Bill for the prevention of bribery in one of those boroughs, the object being to disfranchise the voters who had been guilty of bribery. It was said, however, that this measure was inconsistent with good faith, as the witnesses had given their evidence under the indemnity assured to them by Act of Parliament, and the Bill was dropped without discussion. In a subsequent year a similar Bill was proposed with regard to Galway; and that also was allowed to drop. It seemed, then, that these inquiries by Commissions, prosecuted at a very large expense, although they established beyond contradiction the existence of gross and systematic bribery, had been barren of any result whatever. He ought not, however, to say that they were barren of results, because a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1860 to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at elections. Evidence was given before the Committee by gentlemen of great knowledge and experience that these inquiries were worse than useless. One witness stated that, although an indemnity from all criminal proceedings was sufficient to induce the lower classes of voters to tell what they knew, it was not so with regard to the classes above them, and led in their case to an amount of perjury which the witness held to be highly demoralizing. Another witness — Sir Frederick Slade — a gentleman who had been employed in conducting some of these inquiries — said that these Commissions were perfectly efficient to establish what every one knew before—namely, that bribery existed; but that they were quite at a loss to suggest any method of correcting the evil. That was the real difficulty in the case. His noble Friend (Earl Russell) had pointed out that in former times inquiries of this kind led to important results—that they led to measures being passed through Parliament by which the guilty places were either his franchised or the boroughs so enlarged as to guard against the evil. That remedy was all very well as long as only small towns were concerned. But when the Commissions established that in great and important towns like Cambridge, where bribery had been long and systematically practised, and when it was proved that in newly enfranchised boroughs like Wake field bribery existed more extensively than in any other town under investigation, that it extended to a higher class of society, and was practised in an unblushing manner, then disfranchisement ceased to be a remedy. If Parliament could not disfranchise a large town when it was proved to be corrupt, was it reasonable to say that they would inquire into the case of both large and small towns, and that where bribery was proved the large town should get off scot free, while if the little town was guilty, it should be disfranchised? That appeared to be an extraordinary mode of reasoning. What was really wanted was not a penal inquiry of this sort into the corrupt practices of these particular towns, but a more general inquiry with a view of ascertaining by what means bribery was habitually carried on, and how Parliament might prevent or render more difficult those devices by which the law was evaded. The moment they found they could no longer carry into effect, in cases where bribery was established, the old system of punishment by disfranchisement or the enlargement of boroughs the whole system, as it seemed to him, broke down. Sir Frederick Slade had said what was perfectly true, and he (Earl Grey) was at a loss to perceive how these Commissions were to enable the Legislature to deal with bribery in particular places. He thought that upon his noble Friend's own showing disfranchisement in some of the cases to which the Addresses referred would hardly be practicable. Would he propose to disfranchise Great Yarmouth, for instance, one of the most considerable ports in the country? That was hardly to be ad- vised. With regard, also, to so large a place as Lancaster, such a remedy was scarcely appropriate. If Parliament really wished to put down bribery, it was time they gave up these special inquiries into the delinquencies of particular towns, which differed from other towns only in the accident of having been found out. In the worst cases of bribery, where both parties bad been carrying it on equally, and the losing party could not hope to carry his seat, there was no petition — their Lordships knew perfectly well that the very worse cases did not come before the Election Committees, and, therefore, did not lead to such Resolutions as led to the present proceedings. It had been asserted no later than last night by a Member of the other House of Parliament, speaking from his own knowledge, that in a town of 1,000 electors, not less than 700 had taken bribes at the average rate of £35 each. Was it enough, when statements of this kind were made, that with mock virtuous indignation they should say they would inquire into three or four places which had had the misfortune to be detected, and not inquire whether it was practicable for Parliament to correct the evil for the future? His noble Friend (Earl Russell) said that several years ago the question was referred by him to the Law Officers of the Government whether it was expedient to provide measures of a more stringent character. [Earl RUSSELL: To the Law Officers of two Governments] Their opinion, it seemed, was against such a measure. The noble Earl entirely concurred with that opinion, and so did he (Earl Grey); and it was on that account that he objected to these special inquiries as to particular towns, which were more or less of a penal character. He felt convinced that penal legislation would fail. If Parliament attempted to make the law more stringent, and to inflict severer punishment upon those guilty of bribery, the effect would be the very contrary of what was desired. It was scarcely possible, considering the strong motives which existed for the perpetration of the offence, and how deep the causes lay in human nature, that they could ever hope to extirpate the evil. But, although they might not do that, it was surely not too much to expect that Parliament might do something to check the evil and prevent it from spreading so widely. If they desired to pass any law to make bribery less easy, the first step was to institute a general and comprehensive inquiry into the manner by which bribery was generally carried on, the devices by which the law was evaded, and the measures by which they would defeat those practices. The inquiry should also go into the question whether they might not take measures to diminish the motives and the inclination to commit bribery on both sides—on the part of the briber as well as the recipient of the bribe. At present the Commissioners had no authority to suggest any general remedy. The Committee of the other House, in 1860, on Corrupt Practices did enter upon these questions, but they did it so very imperfectly that by their own showing they did not obtain all the information that might have been laid before Parliament. At the same time they brought to light several important facts. For instance, a most important Resolution was passed by the Committee to the effect that bribery in Parliamentary elections was intimately connected with bribery in municipal elections. Now, that fact seemed to indicate where great assistance might be found towards diminishing the evil. The statement was confirmed by witnesses, one of whom stated that one of the most common modes by which corrupt practices were now carried on in boroughs was by the Member for the place, or the person who hoped to become so subscribing largely for the purpose of municipal elections. He was perfectly at liberty to give what money he liked to advance the interests of his party, and that was done with the understanding that he was to have a return for his money in due time by their support at the Parliamentary elections. One witness said that he knew that the pressure put upon Members of Parliament every November with a view to corruption at municipal elections was much greater than the pressure for charitable objects. He would suggest, therefore, for inquiry, whether the money contributed by Members of Parliament to municipal elections might not be made as fatal to the seat as money paid directly for the purpose of the Parliamentary election. Bribery at municipal elections was obviously extending itself very rapidly. He remembered having served with his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Duke of Somerset) some seven years ago on a Committee of that House appointed to inquire into the effect upon municipal elections of the clause in the small Tenements Act which superseded the necessity of burgesses being personally rated; and that Committee, after hearing a great deal of evidence, came to the unanimous conclusion that the effect of the clause which was passed, he believed, inadvertently by Parliament, had been greatly to extend corruption at municipal elections and ought to be repealed, Nor had corruption diminished since then. He knew persons of great experience who informed him that since the date of the Report of that Committee corruption in the municipal boroughs had become far worse than before. It appeared also from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons that the means by which bribery was carried on, and the ways by which the law was evaded, were almost marvellous. For instance, one Member gave annually to his Committee £600 a year for what he called "maintaining his interest in the borough." By means of that £600 a year a full purse was made up, which at the time of the election came to be applied in bribery, while the Member for the borough could say, with a safe conscience, that he had not paid a single shilling illegally for his election. There was another practice also which was extremely wrong. Nothing was more common than for lands and houses to be let to electors below their value with the full understanding that those houses and lands could be retained only by the lessees voting according to the wishes of the landlord. Again, it was no uncommon practice for a solicitor who made electioneering a trade to get during the interval between one election and another a number of small electors into his power by advancing money as loams, and when the time came to sell his interest wholesale to a wealthy candidate under the form of a bill for agency or in some other way. Then there was another point which called loudly for inquiry, and that was payment for loss of time. A person of great experience stated distinctly with regard to this point that as a general rule, contrary to ordinary belief, bribery was suggested by the voters rather than the candidates; and it commonly took this form, "Who will pay me for my loss of time?" And after all that was not so unreasonable. The poor man found that he could not give his vote without loss of half a day's or a whole day's wages, and at a time when no great public question excited his interest he might be very reluctant to make a sacrifice of his wages in order to give his vote; and in such cases it became extremely difficult for a candidate to prevent an injudicious supporter from saying, "Never fear; I will make up for your loss of time." Many a Member of Parliament had got involved in bribery in that way by the action of his injudicious friends. And, unfortunately, when money was once given the matter seldom stopped with payment for loss of time, but large sums were given away. So common a cause of bribery was it that some persons had suggested as the only mode of putting a stop to it that, instead of the present system, voting papers should be left at the houses of the electors by a responsible officer, who should collect them next day That would take away the excuse for payment for loss of time, and cut off one great source of expense at elections, the carrying of electors to the poll. He was far, however, from pledging himself to this system of voting papers; but he merely mentioned it as a suggestion of many experienced men with a view to decrease the temptations to bribery and its actual practice. Now, when it was an ascertained fact that bribery was becoming more and more prevalent, that partial inquiries had led to no result, and that there was no reason to despair that an investigation of a more general nature conducted by competent Commissioners might lead to changes in the law which would diminish the prevalence of this great evil, he thought he had made out a case for asking their Lordships to suggest to the other House of Parliament a general for these four special inquiries. And when his noble Friend remarked that such an inquiry would be attended with very great expense, and be of a very inquisitorial and odious character, he entirely differed from him in that view. The expense of a general inquiry if well con- ducted would not be so great as that of one of those special inquiries, and it would be much less than the expense of the special inquiries that were proposed, while it would be infinitely less invidious and inquisitorial. It would not be an inquiry into the abuses of the past but into existing abuses, with a view to such a reform in their legislation as might diminish the evil for the future. That being the object of the Motion which he had to make, he could not help expressing an earnest hope that his noble Friend at the head of the Government would not think it his duty to resist it.

An Amendment moved to leave out from ("That") to the end of the Motion, and insert the following Resolutions:— 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 l5th and 16th Vict. 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: 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 Maldon; 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 18C0 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 has 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 aftord 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 Marl Grey.)

LORD LYVEDEN

felt he could not acquiesce in the observations of the noble Earl who sat on the cross-benches (Earl Grey), as to the means he proposed for the remedy of bribery and corruption. But though he did not agree with the noble Earl on the cross-benches, he would express his decided objection to the Motion brought forward by the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury. The Act for these Bribery Commissions had failed, for there had been ten Commissions issued under it, and in not one of them had there been any result.

EARL RUSSELL

said, that was because they had not done their duty.

LORD LYVEDEN

wished to know who had failed in their duty. Was it the House of Peers or the House of Commons? Whose interest was it to bring forward a Motion on the subject? It was not the interest of an independent Member, and it was not the interest of any Government after the experience of the failure of the many Reform Bills they had brought forward. In fact, the Reports of the Commissions had slept, and that was because there was but little feeling about the matter in the country. Neither the bribed nor the bribers would take up the question, and there was no independent person to take it up; and, in the result, there was no punishment for the offence. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury said he saw a difficulty in a criminal punishment. But neither was there any social punishment, for the man who gave a bribe walked about the town without losing caste, and although the Member lost his seat for the time, their Lordships met him on the same terms as before, and he might stand for an adjoining borough. Thus there was no result. The inquiry which had resulted in these Commissions arose in a private contest for the seat between two candidates, and it was difficult to understand upon what principles the Committees acted who inquired into the matter. They seemed to be at a loss to prove agency, and rarely was it brought home to the candidate himself. The only consequence of a Member losing his seat for bribery was that he could not stand for the same borough for the same Parliament; but he might stand for another borough, and if a young man, even although convicted of personal bribery, he might well wait for his seat in the following Parliament. It might be hard to say that a man should be for ever shut out from Parliament if he was once convicted of bribery; but unless they were prepared to deal strictly with the evil they would be unable to effect any good. The truth was that a candidate, if he wished to put an end to bribery could do so, if he made it known that he discountenanced bribery on his part there would be none; but in most cases this was not done, and in this wealthy country men were willing to spend any amount of money to get into Parliament. Some were of opinion that if they were to declare canvass illegal they might put an end to bribery; but again it was said that this would destroy all opportunities of intercourse between the candidate and his constituency. Another proposition was that the Member on taking his seat should declare that he had not been guilty of bribery; but this declaration would lead to the same result as the declaration of qualification, which was notoriously only transferred for the purpose. The only remedy he saw for the evil was an Act brought in by the authority of the Government to put an end to the corruption of voters. The noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) proposed to issue a Commission to inquire into corruption all over the country. The noble Earl called that a comprehensive scheme—and undoubtedly it would be too much so. What was that Commission to inquire into? Was it into how corruption was practised? Was it into corruption of custom? Was it into corruption between landlord and tenant? Was it into corruption of boroughs as well as of counties? Counties regarded themselves as being free from corruption on account of their size; but how were the large sums of money expended which were necessary for the return of county Members? He thought such a Commission would extend itself over such a surface and over such a length of time as would render it useless for any effective result. The difficulty at present was in collecting evidence; but such an unlimited Commission would not meet the difficulty. He did not see why their Lordships should not adopt the same conclusion as they arrived at in the Clitheroe case in 1853, and declare that they did not agree with the House of Commons in addressing the Crown for the issuing a Commission, because they did not feel that any satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at. The probability was that if they did issue such Commissions they would delay the passing of more valuable measures which might otherwise be passed. And, in fact, the previous evening the Commissions had been made an excuse for not introducing a measure for the prevention of bribery. It would be unjust to propose that the general disfranchisement of a borough should be the punishment in the event of ten, twelve, or fourteen individuals being convicted of bribery—it would be unfair that the pure men should be involved for the punishment of the guilty. He could not believe that the majority of the constituencies were corrupt.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

agreed with the noble Lord who had just addressed their Lordships (Lord Lyveden) that the proposed inquiry would lead to no result. He thought that the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) had made I out a satisfactory case against the proposition of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury. He could not conceive a more demoralizing process than that of sending down a Commissioner who began by offering plenary absolution to all the offenders, the consequence of which was that the most unmitigated scoundrels in the place came forward and actually boasted of their iniquities. A more demoralizing process could not be desired; for the people became accustomed to it, and the issue of a Commission was looked upon as mere brutum fulmen. The only I way to create a moral sentiment on the subject was not the disfranchisement of a borough, which would lead to a struggle between the two great political parties, but the disfranchisement of the individuals who had been convicted of bribery. Parliament could not disfranchise a large and important town merely because an inconsiderable number of the electors had taken bribes, but surely they might impose this penalty on the twenty, or fifty, or 100 individuals who were at fault. This would hold out a standard of electoral purity, and would stigmatize corruption not as a mere political but as a moral offence. He thought their Lordships were much indebted to his noble Friend (Earl Grey) for calling attention to the subject, though it might be that the course he proposed would lead to no better results than had been obtained by these Commissions.

EARL FORTESCUE

said, he could testify from personal experience to the worse than failure of these Commissions, for he had himself suffered from them. In a credulous moment, desiring to see the constituency purified, and confiding in the professions of the other House of Parliament, he refused a compromise which would have given him a seat. But the only result of the Commission which was issued was that a number of persons made superfluous confessions of corruption—superfluous, because lists of the names had previously been handed in and proved. And these persons were subsequently, on the strength of these confessions, exempted not only from all legal penalties, but also from disfranchisement He was present during part of the inquiry: loud laughter was a frequent accompaniment of these revelations, and at subsequent public meetings and elections the bribers, so far from being ashamed, actually boasted of their performances, and one of the Members who was unseated afterwards sat for the same borough at a subsequent election. Instead of diminishing bribery, these Commissions had increased it, for they had given a feeling of security and boldness to the agents of corruption which was before unknown. If they led to the disfranchisement of the guilty individuals something might be said in their favour, but the only prospect held out by the noble Lord (Earl Russell) was that additions might be made to the area of the boroughs in question. As his kind and lamented Friend the late Lord Lansdowne had said, in reference to the effect of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act in his (Earl Fortescue's) ease at Barnstaple— The result was that the only losers were those who acted in compliance with the law, and the only losers those who set defiance to the law. The only thing certain, however, was the expenditure of a certain amount of public money, those Commissions having cost from £1,800 to £2,000 each. It had been objected that the inquiry proposed by his noble Friend (Earl Grey) in his able speech would be too wide, would last too long, and would lead to no practical result; but this objection only referred to the 6th and 7th Resolutions, and to the preceding Resolutions every noble Lord who had addressed the House might be considered as agreeing. He ventured to hope they would not again see so much public money expended in these separate Commissions of Inquiry— they would cost each £1,800 or £2,000, or £18,000 or £20,000, in the aggregate, and their only result seemed to be to give impunity to the offenders, and to lead the corrupt to glory in their shame. Whether or not they suggested to the other House the appointment of a Commission of a more comprehensive character, he hoped their Lordships would not concur with them in an Address which would only lead to a waste of public money without the prospect of obtaining any remedy for one of the greatest blots on our existing electoral system.

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, I am not disposed on the present occasion to enter at large into the very important question brought under the consideration of your Lordships' House by my noble Friend on the cross-benches (Earl Grey), and by the Resolution moved by the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government. The question is one of very great difficulty and delicacy, and one that requires our most serious consideration with regard to its practical result. On the one hand, we have the House of Commons desiring our concurrence in a Resolution to carry into effect the only remedy hitherto suggested for meeting the great and growing evil of general bribery and corruption— and I am afraid I must agree with my noble Friend on the cross-benches that so far from diminishing it is an evil that is on the increase, and has perhaps been practised more generally at the last than at any other previous general election. On the other hand, we have in the first five Resolutions moved by my noble Friend, a statement of facts which no one pretends to deny. No one pretends to deny that whilst these inquiries have caused a very large amount of public expenditure, they have also caused a great amount of perjury and demoralization, and have really secured impunity for those most guilty, they at the same time have effected nothing whatever towards putting down the evil by punishing those who have been engaged in these corrupt practices, or of deterring others in other parts of the country. This, therefore, leaves us in great embarrassment how to deal with this question. On the one hand, we are desired to concur with the House of Commons in a matter which peculiarly belongs to that House, and on the other hand there is a clear conviction placed before your Lordships that the remedies proposed (the only mode which the law provides) have been found useless, or worse than useless; therefore you are asked to concur, out of respect to them, in that which reason does not commend, and which you know to be utterly ineffectual and illusive. This question has been brought before us rather suddenly. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) only gave notice yesterday of his intention to move the concurrence of this House with the House of Commons, not in this single case, but in four cases—and possibly two or three more may come up to us.

EARL RUSSELL

said, he had given notice of his Motion immediately before the holidays.

EARL GREY

said, that he stated the day before the Whitsun holidays his intention to bring this subject before their Lordships' House, but he was only able to put his Resolutions on the paper yesterday.

THE EARL OF DERBY

The first day on which my noble Friend on the cross-benches could put his Resolutions on the paper was yesterday, as he has stated, and consequently they were not in your Lordships' hands until this morning, and it is not to be expected that your Lordships are in a position to come down prepared to discuss so large and important a subject. I have no wish to embarrass the noble Earl opposite or Her Majesty's Government, nor have I a wish to stand in the way of anything that might have a tendency to check the great and growing evil of bribery; but in consequence of the shortness of the notice, I do not think that the House is in a position to come to a definite conclusion on so large a subject; and therefore I would suggest—not for the purpose of defeating the object which the noble Earl has in view, but of enabling him and his colleagues to consider more carefully than they have been able to do, the result of the adoption of their proposal, and the negativing the noble Earl's Resolutions, and whether some more practical course might not be more likely to attain the object in view; instead of adopting the course of issuing these Commissions, which are encumbered with serious disadvantages and an expenditure which leads to no good whatever. I do not wish to express any opinion on the general question. I cannot, however, say that I am sanguine of its leading to any practical or beneficial result, because all the circumstances connected with the practice and evasion of the law are known to all the Members of your Lordships' House, and any further inquiry will not give us a more perfect knowledge of how the law is evaded. The question is, how can we meet the evil? How can we make the law more stringent—I do not mean more penal, but more effectual than it is at the present moment. Look at the system of Parliamentary Election Committees. Two gentlemen go down to a borough—one with a perfect determination not to expend 1s. beyond the legitimate expenses. Possibly he is fortunate enough to secure a committee and agents so prudent and careful as to keep within the law; but he has the misfortune to have an over-zealous friend who may still destroy all chance of defending himself. He knows to a moral certainty that the other side are not so scrupulous — that they are expending money, and will be able to command a number of votes to prevent his return, and defeat the cause of purity of election. What is the remedy? A Committee of the House of Commons?—the remedy being worse than the disease. He spends more money in defending his seat with greater difficulties of success; and the question is whether he should not submit to the chances of being compromised by some over-zealous friend rather than submit to a reference to a Select Committee, where he will have to spend three times more money on lawyers than he had spent on the election. I do not say where the remedy is, and as it is a subject which it is desirable should have the general consideration of your Lordships' House, I earnestly press on the noble Earl opposite the expediency of the Government acceding to an adjournment of the debate for about ten days, so that we may have an opportunity of more materially considering the subject and of coming to a more matured and final determination.

EARL RUSSELL

said, he desired to pay every respect to the opinion of the noble Earl. No doubt some noble Lords had not had sufficient opportunity for considering this question. At the same time, he must take that opportunity of saying that, if he consented to an adjournment of the discussion, it was not because his opinion had been in the least altered by anything he had heard from the noble Earl (Earl Grey), or by any other noble Lord who had addressed them on the subject. The censure which the noble Earl had passed upon the House of Commons was not deserved. Where had the failure taken place? Not in the working of the Act— not in the Commissions—not in the House of Commons. This Amendment rather looked like a censure on the House of Commons for neglecting their duty.

THE EARL OF DERBY

asked if, in the case of large towns, it had not been found impossible to follow up the Report of the Commission with disfranchisement.

EARL RUSSELL

said, that at the beginning of the reign of George III., the electors of Sudbury used to advertise that if any Gentleman wished to have a seat in the House of Commons if he would pay a sufficient sum of money they would return him, and from 1761 up to 1850 or 1860 he believed they continued the same practice. When they disfranchised Sudbury, St. Alban's was also disfranchised upon the Report of a Special Commission, and the seats were transferred to the counties of York and Lancaster and the borough of Birkenhead. And could their Lordships say that that was not an efficient remedy for the bribery, corruption, and intimidation that had been practised? He could not think that a general inquiry would meet the evil. He was quite willing to adjourn the debate till Friday week.

Further Debate adjourned to Friday the 8th of June next.

House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.