TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE NEW BRIBERY BILL.
THE title of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S Bill is clearly a misnomer : in- stead of " Bribery-discovery Bill," it ought to be called "a Bill to prevent Bribery increasing so much as to become inconveniently expensive to candidates."
Lord Joni frankly told the House of Commons, that he enter- tained " no such Utopian view as to believe that we can altogether put an end to bribery " ; but added, that he thought "means may be suggested for imposing a check upon these practices." His Lordship, however, did not attempt to explain how far the check he had to suggest would prove effective. We will endeavour to supply the omission.
Lord JOHN'S bill contemplates various innovations upon the pre- sent mode of investigating charges of bribery at elections. In the first place, it is proposed, by demanding lists of the electors alleged to have been bribed, by holding out a prospect of indemnity to witnesses who make full confession, and by declaring it competent to examine Members, candidates, and their agents, to afford in- creased facilities for getting at the truth. In the second place, it is proposed, by throwing obstacles in the way of withdrawing pe- titions, to prevent compromises with a view to avoid disclosures. In the third place, it is proposed to render compromises out of doors more difficult, by enacting that where a petition is presented, distinctly alleging that extensive bribery has taken place in a par- ticular constituency, such petition may be tried, by order of the House, in the same way as an election-petition. These are the provisions of the bill which bear upon the " discovery " of bribery ; and to them we shall speak before looking further into it.
There can be no doubt that, by enabling the House to institute investigations into the practices at even those elections the returns of which are not challenged—by preventing parties from putting an untimely stop to investigations once begun—and by widening the range of competent witnesses, as well as by holding out inducements to tell the truth—the chances of detecting bribery are materially increased. But Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S Bill makes no provision with respect to the most copious source of unjust and deceptive judgments in cases of Parliamentary bribery—the constitution of the tribunal before which they are tried. After the frank and un- contradicted declarations of Mr. DUNCOMBE as to the very few Members who enter the House with perfectly clean hands—after Lord BROUGHAM'S arithmetical demonstration that party considera- tions alone determine the decisions of Election Committees—Lord Jones RussELL's Bill (in that part of it which bears upon the dis- covery of bribery) leaves the investigation, as before, in the hands of these notoriously worthless tribunals. Enough has transpired to enable us to say that there is, perhaps, not one Member in twenty, chosen to sit upon an Election Committee, who has not good reasons in his own person, and not one but has good reasons arising out of party considerations, to abstain from pressing in- quiries touching bribery beyond a certain length. The parties appointed to investigate charges of bribery have a distinct and tangible interest in pushing inquiry so far as it can be done with- out compromising the characters of Parliamentary candidates and Members, and not a hairbreadth beyond. They have an interest in frightening the receivers of bribes, lest their demands should become too exorbitant ; and they have an interest in screening the givers of bribes, because "thOse who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones." Whig and Tory have a common interest in making an arrangement to prevent the one side outbidding the other too far. Lord dons RUSSELL'S Bill is a true Member-of- Parliament measure : it gives corrupt M.P.s the whip-hand in their dealings with corrupt electors.. Sir ROBERT PEEL expressed great anxiety to protect Members of Parliament from vexatious proceed- ings : he might have saved himself the trouble,—unless, indeed, the remark was only thrown out ad captandum, to gain the good- will of his auditors by affecting great regard for their comfort.
The only other provision of the Bribery-discovery Bill that de- serves notice, is the constitution of the Committees proposed to conduct investigations with a view to the disfranchisement of boroughs. Even a Whig can see the disadvantages of two se- parate inquiries, instituted by two different bodies, with, it may be, years intervening between them ; and the impossibility of mending the matter simply by the appointment of a joint Commit- tee, without any arbiter to give a casting-vote when the Lords and Commons disagree. But neither Whig nor Tory can see, what ap- pears self-evident to all men free from party or Parliamentary bias, that the most likely way to obtain a fair and satisfactory investiga- tion is, to put it at once in the hands of a competent judge. Lord JOHN RUSSELL protests even against the employment of a judge as assessor to his joint Committee of Peers and Commoners—" I think that there is a very great objection to the having a judge to preside over these inquiries : I think that it is a matter so much concerning Parliament itself, so much concerning the functions of Parliament and our rights as a legislative body, that it should be decided by Parliament itself, not acting under the direction of a judge." Carry out this principle, and it may be shown that judges are useless and objectionable in all cases. Does a litigation refer to an estate ? " In a matter so much concerning the proprietor himself; so much concerning the functions of a proprietor, and my rights as a holder of property, I think that it should be decided by the proprietor himself, not acting under the direction of a judge."
Lord Joines objection to "foreign interference" is confined ex- clusively to judges : he has no jealousy, in so far as "our rights as a legislative body " are concerned, of the Crown or the Peerage- " I should therefore propose, that there should be either five Peers and four Commoners, or four Peers and five Members of the House of Commons, constituting a commission of nine members; and that this commission, instead of a judge, should be presided over by one of the Peers, who should be named by the Crown for that purpose." Lord Joins is too jealous a guardian of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons to trust them to a judge, who has no conceivable interest in curtailing them; but he is willing that these rights and privileges should be placed at the mercy of a Commission that may consist of six Peers and four Commoners, and he proposes that " all the members be named by the Crown,"— the Crown and the Peerage being both in fact and by the theory of the constitution rivals of the House of Commons, in a perpetual struggle for power and ascendancy. Sir ROBERT PEEL was re- solved that Lord JOHN should not enjoy the exclusive credit of this absurdity—" He agreed with the noble lord, that there would be greater advantage in leaving the nomination of such a body to the responsible officers of the Crown than to a majority of that House : certain differences might arise from the contentions of party in nominating such a tribunal, that might deprive it of prac- tical results." And Sir ROBERT sees no way of avoiding the con- fusion to which party-squabbles might give rise, except by placing in the hands of Ministers the power of appointing a number of Commissions, by a dexterous use of which they may secure a per- manent majority in the House of Commons.
It is in vain to speak of giving increased facilities for the de- tection of bribery, or of intimidating bribers and the bribed by the prospect of certain severe punishment, unless the preliminary step be the institution of a trustworthy tribunal for the adminis- tration of the new law. No men, and least of all House of Commons men, are to be trusted as judges in their own cause. The matter will not be mended by transferring (as the Commis- sions advocated by Sir ROBERT PEEL and Lord Join" RUSSELL necessarily would do) the jurisdiction to the Peers and the Minis- ters of the Crown. They are equally disqualified and subject to suspicion with the House of Commons men, on account of their imperfect acquaintance with the law and legal investigations, and of their being liable to the temptations of a sinister interest. In proposing these Commissions, both the Minister and the leader of the Opposition have asserted the necessity of the Members of the House of Commons acting as judges in their own cause : they are willing, while leaving the Commons an apparent share in the inquiry, to secure a majority of Peers in each Commission. By going thus far in proposing to subject the House of Commons to an external jurisdiction, they have done some good. They have paved the way to the appointment of an independent judge for the trial of all litigations arising out of elections. The prejudice in favour of allowing the House of Commons to be at once party and judge, being removed in one class of cases, it will be the easier to show that it is a groundless prejudice in all the rest ; and it being admitted that the House of Commons may plead before an independent judge, there can be no doubt as to the advantage of having one competent to the task free from any suspicion of bias.
Previous page
