§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the General Election of 1880 had shown that, notwithstanding the introduction of the Ballot, and the legislation which had taken place to prevent them, corrupt practices had increased. This had been proved by the Reports of the Election Courts, and of the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the elections for certain boroughs in which it was reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. Though the actual sums given by way of bribery had been smaller than formerly, it appeared, from the evidence, that a larger number of people were bribed, and that bribery was carried on by persons of higher 697 position than formerly—as, for instance, town councillors, solicitors, and others, who ought not to have been mixed up in such practices; and the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had, on more than one occasion, to perform the painful duty of removing from the Bench magistrates who had been reported to be guilty of those practices. Not only could it be said that corrupt practices had increased, but the expenditure incurred at the last Election was excessive. The expenditure was not only detrimental to the public interest by deterring persons who would have been excellent representatives of constituencies in the House of Commons from standing for election, but also had the effect of accustoming those engaged in elections to consider that an election was simply an affair of money, and of thus leading to corrupt practices. He might say, without the expectation of being contradicted, that such a state of things was a scandal to the nation, required to be grappled with, and that it was necessary some stronger remedy should be applied. It was, then, for that purpose that the present Bill had been introduced in and passed by the other House. He would shortly state the principal provisions of the Bill. The term "corrupt practice" was well known and defined by the existing law—important changes in respect to the definition and punishment of corrupt practices were proposed in the Bill. There was, in the 1st clause, a provision making treating an offence when committed by other persons than the candidates; and in Clause 2 there was a new definition of "undue influence." The Bill increased considerably the penalties for corrupt practices; the disabilities to which candidates were now subject when reported to the House as guilty of corrupt practices were increased. If a candidate was reported by the Election Court to have been guilty of bribery by or with his knowledge or consent, he was, by the existing law, excluded from sitting in Parliament for seven years; and if reported by the Court to have been guilty through his agent of corrupt practices, he was excluded from sitting for the particular constituency to the end of the Parliament. By the Bill, a candidate for a constituency reported to be personally guilty of treating, or undue influence, or of any cor- 698 rupt practice by and with his knowledge and consent would not only be excluded from sitting in Parliament for seven years, but for the same constituency for ever; and if found guilty of treating through his agents he was to be excluded from sitting for the same constituency for seven years. The penalties were also increased. Under the Bill corrupt practices would be punishable by imprisonment with hard labour, or by a fine not exceeding £200. The disqualifications had also been extended. The Bill proceeded to deal with a class of offences termed "illegal practices," which included illegal payments, illegal employment, and other illegal acts specified. Thus the conveyance of voters to the poll, except in one or two exceptional constituencies, was made an illegal practice. The effect of this provision would be appreciated when it was remembered that during the last General Election no less a sum than £750,000 was expended in conveying voters to the poll, the expenditure in one county being between £6,000 and £7,000. The Bill also regulated the number of election agents and paid canvassers to be appointed, and the number of committee rooms to be hired in each constituency. It prohibited the hiring of any houses for the display of placards, or anything of the kind. It also fixed the maximum sum to be expended during an election by each candidate. The personal expenses of a candidate were limited to £100, and the following were the maximum amounts hereafter to be spent by Returning Officers:—For a borough of under 2,000 electors, £350; over 2,000 electors, £380; and £30 more for every additional 1,000 of electors; for counties with under 2,000 electors, £650 in England and Scotland, £500 in Ireland; over 2,000 electors, £710 in England and Scotland, £540 in Ireland, with £60 more in England and Scotland and £40 more in Ireland for every additional 1,000 of electors. The expenses of the General Election in 1880 were officially returned as £1,800,000; but he believed that the amount was really not less than £2,500,000. This Bill, if it had been in force, would have reduced the sum to between £600,000 and £800,000. That the amounts specified in the Schedule were sufficient was already proved by experi- 699 ence at King's Lynn, Peterborough, North Northumberland, Bedfordshire, and Hackney, where the expenses were less than would be legal under the Bill. It was trusted that under the new system to be established by this Bill the real opinion of the constituencies would be more certainly expressed than it was under the existing system. Certain disqualifications and penalties were attached to "illegal practices" and "illegal payments." There were also provisions which enabled a Judge to try a person accused of corrupt practices on the spot; barristers and solicitors were to be dealt with by their governing bodies, and licensed victuallers by the licensing authority. The Bill contained ample Equity Clauses. The case of a candidate who was only technically guilty of corrupt practices by his agent was provided for, and the Election Court was given power to declare that the election of a person so guilty should not be void; the Election Court had also power to except trifling acts which were illegal under the letter of the law, but not under the spirit. Any trifling default which a candidate or his agent might make with respect to returns and declarations was not to be subject to the penalties laid down in the Bill for acts of default. No doubt, it would be difficult to alter customs which had long prevailed in some places; but there was great hope that the offences mentioned in the Bill would be diminished. One good result of the measure would be the increased employment of voluntary instead of paid workers at Parliamentary elections. In conclusion, he thought their Lordships were all aware of the great and patient consideration which had been bestowed on this important subject. It was mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne in 1881, and a Bill was introduced in 1882 but could not be then proceeded with. This year a most patient and attentive consideration had been given to it in "another place" under the very able and conciliatory direction of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. So far as the general principle of the Bill went, it had been received in the other House of Parliament with general concurrence, and had been frankly and fairly discussed without the intervention of the ordinary 700 divisions which separated the two great Parties in Parliament. He, therefore, trusted their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading, and apply a real remedy to the great evils which all admitted, and so render more free and complete the representation of the people in the other House of Parliament. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the title of the Bill as commonly quoted—namely, the Corrupt Practices Bill—in reality gave a very inadequate idea of its real scope and intention; but, undoubtedly, it did deal to some extent with corrupt practices, and so far as it did so it would carry with it the sympathies of their Lordships and all persons who desired to see such great evils remedied. But in reference to that part of the Bill, they could only say that in the past history of the country it had not been found that the increasing of penalties had usually been accompanied by any great diminution of offences. At all events, it was a plan which had been frequently tried without success. He did not quarrel with the motives which had induced the Government to this further effort; but the record of similar efforts was not encouraging as to the probability of success. It was not, however, with respect to corrupt practices, in regard to which there would hardly be any difference of opinion, that the Bill was principally important. A very remarkable characteristic of the Bill was the very wide extension it had given to illegal practices which were in no sense corrupt illegal practices, which of themselves were not morally wrong or repugnant to the most sensitive morality, and which were only made wrong by being for bidden by Act of Parliament, and in regard to which the Government could not expect any extensive assistance from public opinion. The motive of the Government was very obvious, and the noble Earl had stated it with fairness and candour; the object was not so much to prevent corrupt practices as to diminish the vast expenses attending elections. He did not quarrel with that attempt, as he thought it was desirable that elections should be made cheaper, 701 if only for the purpose of enabling persons of limited means, who had the capacity, to aspire to a seat in Parliament. Like Mr. Forster, speaking in Devonshire, he thought the surprise in the constituencies would be very great when they saw what a measure was provided for them. He had heard it said that the persons who would be successful at the next General Election would be the second candidates, as all the first candidates would be disqualified for corrupt practices. Certainly, the provisions of the Bill were so minute, and the penalties so wide, and the chance of tripping so enormous, that a man would need to be very courageous and resolute, and very indifferent to penalties, to run the risk of a General Election. As it was said that all railway evils would be cured when a Railway Director was killed, so he only hoped that the first persons to suffer under the Bill would be Cabinet Ministers, and then he had no doubt an amending Bill would be speedily introduced. He had no anxiety to arrest or hinder the Bill in Parliament. It was only to last till December of next year. It was very reasonable that in view of the great evils with which we had to contend the Government should make this experiment, especially as it was an experiment made at the expense of the House of Commons, which had been so good as to pass the Bill in order to inflict the penalties on themselves. But there were one or two provisions to which he would like to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government, as they seemed to him open to question, and the first was the very serious proposal to deprive an elector of the means of conveyance to the poll. The policy of Parliament hitherto had been in the opposite direction—namely, to afford facilities to the voter of getting to the poll; but now Parliament was retracing its steps, and said that in the case of a man living at a distance from a polling station he should have no artificial means of getting to the poll. He did not know how that would work. It was, however, permitted to people to lend carriages, and they were told that those who had carriages to lend would be at an advantage compared with those who had not. But apart from such artificial assistance, he thought there could be no doubt that people living in wild and desolate districts, where the prescribed 702 number of 100 electors could not usually be made up, would run great risk of being practically disfranchised. He was not sure whether he preferred the opinions of people living in outlying districts or of those living in towns; but he thought that whenever the Bill came forward to be put into a more permanent shape they must not allow it, under a pretext to diminish expenses, to be in reality an Act for disfranchising those persons whose votes were disagreeable to the Government of the day. That was, however, difficult to ascertain until they had actually had experience of the working of it, and it was a matter to which the attention of those interested in Parliamentary elections would be carefully directed, and they would, no doubt, then have full statistics as to how far people living in far distant districts were prevented from voting. There was another clause in the Bill which belonged to a class of legislation which, he confessed, he viewed with great repugnance, and that was the practice of ascertaining the facts by squeezing them out of a witness to his own incrimination in the witness-box. Their Lordships were aware that it was an old maxim of English law that no man was bound to criminate himself; but it had been again and again in recent Acts the policy to overthrow that law, and to use the power of cross-examination in the witness-box in the way in which a President of a French Court would use it—for the purpose of torturing the witness into criminating himself. No doubt, provision was made that the man should not be liable to punishment for what came out; but if he was a solicitor he might be struck off the Rolls, or if a barrister he might be disbarred in consequence of evidence which had been wrung from him under this French method. The facts obtained at criminal trials were obtained from independent witnesses and not from avowals extorted from the criminal. There was another peculiarity in this Bill, and that was that the great engine by which the Government proposed to obtain their ends was making people answerable for the acts of others over whom they had no control. It was a rough and barbarous mode of procedure well known to schoolmasters. It used to be not an unfrequent practice for a whole remove to be punished in order to find 703 out one boy, and that was the way of this Bill. The man whom the Bill punished was not the man who bribed, but the unfortunate candidate who had had nothing whatever to do with the illegal act, and the Government hoped to effect their object in that way. That was the agency established by that Bill. In the contemplation of law an agent could not acquire that character without the authority of his principal; but in the strange legislation before them anyone could constitute himself agent of the candidate without the consent or even the knowledge of his principal; he had merely to take part in the election without the candidate even knowing his name, and he could fasten upon the candidate the guilt which was aimed at by the Bill. That seemed to him a very objectionable state of things; and when Governments and Legislatures, in order to gain their ends, had recourse to these proceedings, which conflicted with the common sense and morality of mankind, it was not difficult to predict that such legislation would fail. But they would not only fail, but would do worse. They would bring the action of the law into disrepute, and would cease to have public opinion on their side. It would cease to be disgraceful to fall under the penalties of the law, and the law would be driven to attain its ends simply by the terror it excited, and not by the sympathy of the community. He regarded this peculiarity in the Law of Agency as a disgrace to the law, and one which had produced, and would produce, great evils. Those who thought it their business to find fault with the softer sex, said that if you wish to know the important part of a lady's letter you must look at the postscript. If they wanted to know the important part of this Bill they must look in the middle of it. The 44th clause was the strangest clause he ever saw put into an Act of Parliament. It said, in fact, that they might punish all future culprits as hard as they liked, but that it did not apply to those who were culprits now. It was a clause enacting that in all future investigations into electoral corruption they should be forbidden to ask any impertinent questions as to anything that had taken place before the passing of the Act. He presumed that it was passed in the interest of those Members who did not intend to 704 stand again, and who might desire to be whitewashed. He knew nothing of the genesis of this Bill; but if, at some future time, any antiquarian should try, from internal evidence, to construct its history, he would say that someone had been concerned in the preparation of it who did not wish his transactions with some constituency to be known. Whether their Lordships would care to alter the Bill he did not know. He should be sorry if it failed to pass, and there was, no doubt, danger at this late season that altering a Bill might prevent its passing; but if any alteration was to be made, he would prefer to see the clause to which he had referred struck out, which, while providing the most savage penalties with regard to corruption in the future, extended an unrestricted amnesty to corruption in the past.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was sorry that the noble Marquess could find nothing good in any of the measures which came under discussion. Two most simple and innocent clauses of this Bill had been attacked by the noble Marquess as likely to be productive of evil. He could answer the noble Marquess that under the first clause objected to no considerable number of electors would be prevented from coming to the poll. As to the 44th clause, the noble Marquess appeared to think that that proposal was intended to prevent the delinquencies of some unknown individual being brought to light before an Election Commission. If he thought that person was some Member of Her Majesty's Government, he should like to say that the provision was not in the Bill as originally drawn, but was introduced at the suggestion of a Member of the Conservative Party, and the insinuations of the noble Marquess must fall upon his own Friends.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI had no intention of making any insinuation against Her Majesty's Government.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was glad the suspicions of the noble Marquess were only of a general character. He thought the noble Marquess should not throw the ægis of his protection over those individuals who had been guilty of corrupt practices, and whose acts showed them to be unworthy of exercising the franchise of which they were deprived by the Bill. Nor did he think his reference to the 705 subject of the Law of Agency in point. There was no alteration whatever made in that Bill in the Law of Agency.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYHear, hear!
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he did not, therefore, see that the observations of the noble Marquess, however applicable they might be to some other Act, had any reference to the Bill which he now asked their Lordships to read a second time.
LORD LAMINGTCONsaid, he believed that the severity of the penalty inflicted by the Bill was so great that the object of the Legislature would be defeated, and that in future the expenditure would be almost wholly on Election Petitions.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he must protest against the Government bringing a Bill of pains and penalties of that character before their Lordships' House at so late a period of the Session, when it was impossible that it could be adequately considered. Such a measure, if presented to the House at all, ought to have been submitted at a time when they could have had a larger attendance of Peers to discuss it. He protested also against the excessive severity and the degrading nature of some of the penalties which the Bill would inflict on certain offences connected with elections, believing, as he did, that such rigorous punishments would not meet with the general sanction and support of public opinion.
§ Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.