but when the question came how that was a power not appointed by that House at to be done, the hon. Gentleman gave them all-but as the hon. Member for Berwicka most vague and shadowy plan. And as on-Tweed would say-by another branch of to the hon. Gentleman's objection to the the Legislature; and they might as well plan of the Government, he must say he say it was an infringement of the privileges never heard a more miserable objection; of that House that Revising Barristers because, when reduced to its elements, it should go round the country to decide amounted to this, that, in his opinion, ap- whether a man had a right to his vote as parently, it was the House of Commons that a Judge or any other tribunal should only that was interested in the character go to decide whether he had rightly exerof the elections to that House, and that cised his franchise. He did not wish to it would be a crying sin and shame if the occupy the time of the House by discussHouse of Commons were to surrender its ing that matter. It seemed to him that, if right to control and regulate the elections they were really in earnest about it, they of its own Members. Now, he entirely do much better by proceeding to consider disagreed with the hon. Gentleman at the the Bill submitted to them by the Governvery foundation of his argument; because ment, and not only by the Government, he said it was not the House of Commons but by the careful Report of a very wellonly that was interested in the purity of selected Committee of that House, comthe elections to that House, but the whole prising the most important Members chosen country was interested in it. [Mr. MITCHELL from all parts of the House, who gave here made a remark which did not reach great attention to that subject last Sesthe Gallery.] The hon. Gentleman might sion. The Government when they brought say it was an affair that rested with the in their measure last Session, did, indeed, constituencies and the House; but he held proceed tentatively and cautiously, and it that the whole country was interested in was true, as the hon. Member for Berwickthe matter; and if by any particular system on-Tweed said, that that Bill, as originally they could secure greater electoral purity, introduced, preserved the right of the and could provide a better remedy against House of Commons to review the decisions the evils which unfortunately crept into which another tribunal might come to on the election of Members of Parliament, these matters. What the Government had he maintained that any attempt to resist felt was, that it was important they should that upon the ground that it involved an introduce a measure which would be efficainterference with certain imaginary pri- cious, and which would also be accepted, vileges of the House of Commons was an and that it was of no use bringing in one objection to which the country would that might look well, but that would be never listen, and ought not to listen. Of exploded. Therefore, they proposed a course, if he could show that the par- measure which, in the first instance, was ticular proposal contained in the Bill very carefully prepared, to preserve the would be inefficient for its purpose, that ultimate control of that House over these was a valid objection; but the main cases. But the moment that Bill was inground on which the hon. Gentleman put troduced, Member after Member rose and his argument was that they would have said, if they were to make the attempt they another power in the State interfering be- should do it on sound principles, and not tween the electors and the elected. The seek to bring the decisions of the external hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) tribunal under the review of that House; had answered the hon. Member for Ber- and when the Bill came before the Comwick-on-Tweed extremely well, and had mittee, there was found to be almost an shown that there were now various in- unanimous opinion there that it would be stances in which another power interfered better to intrust that jurisdiction to a tribetween the electors and the elected. The bunal which would command confidence, hon. Member for Bedford noticed the case and with which they could leave the final of a Member of that House who might be decision. The Government accepted the adjudged a bankrupt; but he mentioned decision of the Committee, and the Bill another and more frequent occurrence of had been brought in in accordance with the interposition of another power-namely, that decision. If they went into Comin the very settlement of the list of electors mittee he should be prepared to discuss themselves. Who was it that adjudged the particular framework of the tribunal; whether an elector had or had not a right but he thought, if the House was really to his vote? Why, the Revising Barrister, in earnest in its desire to check bribery at

The

elections, that it would fairly grapple with | counsel and solicitor, both of them opposed
the question, and that it was, he might to him in politics, that frightful extortion
almost say childish, and certainly futile, to might be committed under this Bill.
be raising these objections as to an un- hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread)
willingness to part with an imaginary privi- said that time was a great element in the
lege of that House which stood in the way matter; but in twenty days a man might
of serious improvement.
be able to make up something that would
extort a very considerable sum from an
unfortunate Member. There was his hon.
Friend the Member for Nottingham, who
would not give sixpence away improperly,
and who would yet go the length of sub-
scribing to the Nottingham Rifle Corps.
[Mr. OSBORNE: Yes; or a dinner to my
father.] Suppose a man went in twenty
days after an election to his hon. Friend,
and said, "Your Friend, Mr. Wykeham-
Martin, has been down to Nottingham,
through his great zeal for you, and he,
having come down on your account, having
walked out with you frequently, and being,
in fact, your agent, has given a quart of
beer to one of the electors." [Mr. OSBORNE:
He would not care much for a quart.] In
that case there would be no suspicion of
bribing; but there would be the offence
much more difficult to avoid, of treating.
If the man in that case did not have mat-
ters squared with him, the Member's career
might be cut very short, and he would be
made an outlaw for seven years.
His
hon. Friend might not, under such circum-
stances, submit to extortion; but many
timid Members might. If this Bill only
had those offences which constituted bribery
properly defined, it might be made a very
valuable measure; but if not it might be-
come a most iniquitous one. If Her Ma-
jesty's Government would satisfy him that
the Bill was bond fide, and not to be made
into an engine of tyranny and oppression,
he would cordially support it; but if not,
he should be inclined to vote not with the
hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed but
against the Speaker leaving the Chair.

MR. P. WYKEHAM - MARTIN said,
he approved of the suggestion of the hon.
Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer)
that the old common law practice should
be reverted to, and the evidence on elec-
tion petitions be heard before a Judge and
jury. It was proposed to inflict a very
heavy penalty on a man for bribery-no
less than making him an outlaw for seven
years, which was a great deal worse than
the punishment which would be inflicted
on him if he had robbed a hen-roost.
And yet the man might have been guilty
of no crime at all. They proposed not
to subject him to the opinion of the coun-
try to which there was no objection-but
to the caprice of a single individual. He
did not, in the least degree, impute any im-
propriety to the Judge, who would, no
doubt, try the case conscientiously; but
the opinion of Judges on the moral guilt
of bribery varied, for he had himself heard
one Judge assert that, in his opinion,
there was no moral guilt to be imputed
to a candidate for the former borough
of St. Albans, because it was the custom
to give the voters £10 a head all round,
therefore, a man gained the same which
ever way he voted; and another assert
that, in his view, it was bribery on the
part of a candidate to subscribe to the
local charities, and even to the local
rifle corps. If, as was said by the right
hon. Baronet, bribery was an evil which
it was to the interest of the whole country
that anyone practising it should be sub-
jected to the penalty, then the accused
person ought to be tried by a jury of his
countrymen. So strong were the opinions MR. J. STUART MILL: Sir, if the
of some men as to what was bribery, that question were solely between the Bill of Her
he remembered on the occasion of one of his Majesty's Government and the Amendment,
elections giving a dinner to his own father, I should have no hesitation in at at once de-
and the solicitor who was the agent came in, ciding for the Bill. Not that it corresponds
and insisted, under the Corrupt Practices or comes up in all respects to my notion
Prevention Act, that his father should pay of what such a Bill should be. Nor do I
for his share of the dinner. His father believe that by any one expedient-and
had to pay, and the solicitor saw a regular there is only one expedient in this Bill-
receipt given for it before he went away. we can hope to put down corrupt practices.
Now, was that an act of bribery or not? If the House are in earnest in their desire
This Bill ought not to be made a trap in- to put down corrupt practices at elections
volving the most fearful penalties for what-and I am bound to believe that they are,
might be a perfectly innocent act. He however little credit they receive for such
was told a few days ago by a most eminent earnestness out of doors-I apprehend they

Judges of the land. Would it not be a suitable way of meeting these objections if this tribunal were to be only a tribunal of appeal? Indeed, even if the House should not choose to adopt this tribunalif they should keep these matters in the hands of a Committee of their own Members presided over by a legal assessorand few, I think, will now deny that there must at least be a legal assessor

whether they adopt the proposal of the Government-there are very strong reasons for making the tribunal only a tribunal of appeal. It is only by enquiry diligently made on the spot, that the truth in such matters can be discovered. I will make one suggestion, which will be found in a pamphlet which has attracted a good deal of attention, and has been read, I know, by Members of the Government. It is written by Mr. W. D. Christie, formerly a Member of this House, and who I hope may be so again. It is that there should be a local inquiry by a person of competent legal qualifications after every Parliamentary election, whether there is a petition or not.

will be obliged to have recourse, not to one, but to several expedients. Nevertheless, I think favourably of the Bill, because though it does in reality only one thing, that thing is a vigorous one, and shows an adequate sense of the emergency. It shows a sense that, in order to put down this great evil, it is necessary to go out of the common path. The truth is that, however possible it may be for Committees of this House to be impartial on the question to whom the seat-whether the House adopt this way, or shall be given and I do not deny that they are often impartial in that respect, nor is it hopeless that they might be always so-nobody out of this House, and I think I may almost add in it, believes that so long as the jurisdiction remains in this House the penalties against the giver of the bribe will ever be seriously enforced. There are several reasons for this, some of which, perhaps, had better be understood than expressed. To confine myself to what may be said with safety; any tribunal that acts only occasionally as a tribunal, still more any person called for the first time so to act, as is often the case with Members of Parliament, has naturally a very strong indisposition to convict: and still more is["Oh, oh!" Notwithstanding the disthis the case when those who have to decide are men of the same class, and the same general cast of feelings, and subject to the same temptations as the accused, and men of whom it must be said that hitherto they have been disposed to consider a scrape of this sort as much more a misfortune than a crime. I think that there is, after all, something in the objection to the proposal for giving the ultimate decision to a Judge not appointed by the House. There is some reason against their handing over their jurisdiction at once and for ever to a functionary appointed solely by the Crown; but there is an easy mode of getting rid of that objection--namely, by making the Act temporary. I am not sure that it should not be annual-that it ought not, like the Mutiny Act, to be renewed every year, so that there should never be any long time during which evil consequences need be suffered. And although I do not myself think that any evil consequences are likely to follow, still, as where there is a bare possibility there is always apprehension, I hope that, if the House adopts the Bill, the Government will see the propriety of introducing some limitation such as I have suggested. There is another point on which I wish to say something. Great objections appear to be felt to turning over these inquiries to the

sent with which this proposition seems to be met, much may be said in its favour; for the very worst cases are invariably those in which petitions are either not presented, or, having been presented, are afterwards withdrawn, because it is found that an inquiry would be equally damaging to the case of the petitioner, both parties being tarred with the same brush. These are such flagrant cases that I am sure it must be admitted that, unless they are in some manner provided for, it will be impossible effectually to put down bribery. The officer whom I suppose to be appointed would proceed after every election to the spot, and there sit in public to receive any complaints that may be made. Of course it is a necessary consequence that this officer should have the power, where the complaints are frivolous, of throwing the expense on the complainant. And whatever expenses would not thus be met, should be defrayed by the locality-should be, in fact, a public charge. There is the more reason for appointing such an officer, as it is indispensably necessary that there should be an inquiry, not only into Parliamentary, but into municipal elections, which are the nurseries of Parliamentary bribery. Mr. Philip Rose, a Conservative solicitor, well known to many hon. Members opposite, has expressed an opinion on this subject which