N the 2nd of March, lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better prevention of Bribery at Elections. He did not seek his object by directing new prohibitions against the giving and taking of money, or propose to aggravate the punishments by which the existing laws were already sanctioned; his purpose seemed rather to be, to invigorate those laws by facilitating the detection of those who might be tempted to break them. Every one, he said, knew that, in former days, the decisions of this House were so interested and corrupt, as to render it necessary to impose on a select number of members an obligation to do justice between the parties. This remedy, it was generally admitted, was satisfactory; and he was ready to admit, that, as between party and party, it was satisfactory, but not as regarded the public. There were many points into which the committee would not inquire; and it might happen, that the expenses

of bringing such points before their consideration might deter private individuals; or it might happen that those who had the means of doing so were also tainted with bribery, and shrunk from bringing on an investigation into the conduct of others. Under these circumstances, the public had not that degree of security which it had when the matter was brought be fore the House to be investigated. The remedy he proposed was, that when any party complained of a corrupt election which had occurred within six years before the petition had been present, if the House thought that the petition set forth circumstances requiring further investigation, it should appoint a committee, consisting of fourteen members and the member who presented the petition. He did not propose that any members should be struck off, as in ordinary election committees, but simply that they should be chosen by lot: that this committee should investigate the circumstances dis

closed in the petition, and report thereon. It would then be for the House to consider, in each case, whether any, and what, ulterior measures ought to be taken. He could not, he said, be met on the present occasion with the objection, which his motions for reform had often had to encounter, that his views were vague and general, and that nothing should be ventured on but what was specific. Here was a great evil, and here was proposed a specific remedy for it. He, there fore, moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better discovery and suppression of Bribery, and other corrupt practices, in the election of members to serve in parliament.".

this

The bill was brought in, and on the moving of the second reading (14th March), Mr. Wynn said, that he had many objections against it, which he feared it would not be practicable to remove, so as to render the bill fit for the adoption of the House. The principle of the bill, as he understood it, was, that, upon complaint made to the House by petition, a select committee should be appointed to try the issue, and that their decision should be absolute and final. To there was the obvious objection, that the decision of no committee could be binding upon that House. The inquisitorial powers of the House might be delegated, but not the judicial. A body might be appointed to bring in a true verdict as to fact, but the question of corruption was a question of influence. All that a committee could do was, to report to the House; and the House could then either proceed further, or allow the matter to sleep. The bill also gave power to present petitions of com plaint within six years from the period of election; and this he

1

་་་་

a

thought too long. He also objected that there was no penalty or punishment assigned to an unfounded charge. A frivolous charge ought to be visited with costs to the individual; whereas it was proposed by this bill to charge the public with costs. A member of parliament could not be placed in situation more repugnant to good feelings. He was sure there was no situation to which he could have a greater objection, than to be called upon to inquire respecting an election, when he had previously heard the detail of the circumstances from the mouth of one of the interested parties. Still, notwithstanding what he had felt it his duty to say on the subject before the House, he would willingly give the matter further consideration, and perhaps, at a future stage, add some additional observations.

Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. A. Smith, and Mr. Fyshe Palmer supported the bill; the latter recommending that the candidate should be bound, as well as the elector, to take the oath that he was free from all bribery, either by fee or reward. But the measure never proceeded farther; for when the report on the bill was to be taken into con-" sideration (28th April), lord John' Russell stated that it was not his intention to press it during the" present session; but that he would probably, if such a proposition should meet with the concurrence of the other side of the House, embody its provisions in the sh shape of resolutions.

1

E

Accordingly, on the 26th of May, the very last day of the session, his lordship moved the twofollowing resolutions:

"1. That whenever a petition shall be presented to this House,

after the expiration of the time allowed for presenting petitions against the validity of the return of any member of this House, by any person or persons, affirming that, at any time within eighteen calendar months previous to presenting the said petition, general bribery or corruption has been practised, for the purpose of procuring the election or return of any member or members to serve in parliament for any borough, cinque port, or place, and it shall appear to the House, that such petition contains allegations sufficiently specific to require further investigation, a day and hour shall be appointed by the said House for taking the said petition into consideration, so that the space of twenty days shall intervene between the day on which the said petition shall have been presented, and the day appointed by the said House for taking the same into consideration; and notice of such day and hour shall be inserted, by order of the Speaker, in one of the two next London Gazettes, and shall also be sent by him to the returning officer of the borough, cinque port, or place, to which such petition shall relate; and a true copy of such notice shall, by such returning officer, be affixed to the door of the town hall, or parish church, nearest to the place where the election of members to serve in parliament for such borough, cinque port, or place, has been usually held.

"2. That, at the hour appointed by the said House for taking such petition into consideration, the said House shall proceed to appoint a -select committee to inquire into the truth of the matters contained in the said petition, and report the result of their inquiry to the said

House; and such select committee shall consist of thirteen members, to be chosen by lot, according to the directions, provisions, rules, and regulations, and subject to the exemptions for choosing forty-nine members by lot, contained in the various acts to regulate the trials of controverted elections, or returns of members to serve in parliament, so far as they are applicable thereto, and of two other members to be appointed by the said House, out of the members then present in the said House; and the thirteen members so chosen by lot, together with the two members to be so appointed by the said House, shall be a select committee, and shall inquire into and try the matter of such petition, and shall report their opinion thereof, together with the evidence given before them, to the said House."

Mr. Wynn said, that he by no means intended to object to the principles of the resolutions; but, as the forms of the House had provided a mode of redress for all cases of abuse, he was averse to entering upon a general inquiry. He thought that the desired end would be better obtained by the appointment of a local committee, where every member who chose might attend, than by the ordinary mode of proceeding by ballot; and he would suggest to the noble lord, that, as the present was the seventh session of parliament, it would be better if he were to reserve his resolutions till the next parliament, as they would require, at all events, to be affirmed by it. He was not aware of the abuse which had been adverted to: viz. the distributing of money to the electors after the fourteen days prescribed for the presenting of petitions had elapsed. If such a case could be brought

forward, the House, he had no doubt, would order the Attorneygeneral to prosecute the parties; or if it could be proved that the great body of electors had participated in the corruption, the House might proceed to disfranchise them. He would repeat his suggestion to the noble lord, to try his experiment in the next parliament, in the event of any case occurring which the resolutions contemplated. It would then be competent for him to move for the appointment of a select committee, and to conduct the inquiry in the way which he proposed.

Mr. Peel, likewise, wished the consideration of the resolutions to be delayed until next session. They involved matter well worthy the attention of the House, and he did not think the last day of a session a fitting time either for that deliberation which they required, or for measures which were to bind future parliaments. The resolutions, in fact, were of so important a character, that full effect ought to be given to them only by a legislative enactment, which could not take place till next parliament. But lord John Russell having pressed his motion to a division, as he could not be certain of having a seat in the next parliament, and the numbers on each side being equal (62), the Speaker gave his casting vote, as is usual in such cases, in favour of the resolutions; the last breath of the expiring parliament being thus spent in prayers for the integrity of its successors.

About the same time at which lord John Russell gave up the bill for effectuating this particular improvement, he again brought forward (27th April) the general question of parliamentary reform in a shape that could not claim the

praise of being distinct and specific, which he had bestowed upon his bill for the prevention of bribery. The resolution which he proposed for the adoption of the House was, "That the present state of the representation of this country in parliament requires the most serious consideration of the House;" and the line of remark by which he supported this proposition was similar to that which he had applied to the same purpose on former occasions. He laid down two premises: first, it was a matter of paramount importance to adapt every government to the wants and wishes, the prejudices, and existing circumstances of the country for which it was intended. The grand Seignior might safely amuse himself with as many decapitations daily as he chose; but he could not safely neglect, or refuse, to appear before his people at stated intervals which custom had prescribed. Secondly, the people of this country had arrived at a degree of knowledge, intelligence, and wealth, which made them a people more worthy, than had ever before existed, of being intrusted with the privilege of electing their representatives, and more capable of exercising it with advantage. From these premises, the mover of the resolution concluded, that the House of Commons, as at present constituted, was badly constituted, for, instead of being chosen by the more numerous, the more intelligent, and, compared with past times, the more wealthy class, it was elected by those who were less numerous, less intelligent, and less wealthy. Since, therefore, the elective franchise, instead of remaining in the hands of the many, had become the property of a few, since such a discrepancy between