THE BRIBERY DEBATE.
THE Judges, of all men in the world, have intervened to protect Electoral corruption. Mr. Disraeli, who, it may be from calculation, it may be from that latent dislike of the money power which he has occasionally betrayed, seems sincere in his expressed desire to put down Bribery, .drew up a Bill which, if accepted, might have been, we believe would have been, successful in suppressing the .crime. Though imperfect on points, the Bill established the two great and essential principles of reform,—that a -charge of bribery shall be tried like any other criminal charge before the judges of the land, and not before any extra-judicial tribunal whatever ; and that the investigation shall take place on the spot. These two points conceded, all the rest will become easy ; and they were conceded, both by Government and the House. On Thursday, however, Mr. Disraeli, when ask- ing leave to introduce his Bill, was obliged to state that a new and most unexpected obstacle had arisen. The Judges had taken upon themselves to remonstrate against the Bill upon three distinct grounds,--that it was unconstitutional, that it was oppressive to themselves personally, and that it was in- consistent with their oaths of office. Mr. Disraeli did not repeat the reasons they had adduced, but with that ironic courtesy of which he is so consummate a master, declared that Her Majesty's Government were unwilling to place themselves in painful relations with "a body so exalted ;" that the Judges were, of course, unmoved by personal considerations, though 4‘ the highest authority has told us that even those who reside in Olympian dwellings are still not superior to the infirmities of human nature ;" and that Government had received the judges' "decision" with "feelings of mortification and dis- appointment." He therefore proposed to create a trumpery Court of three barristers, with 2,000/. a year each, to be called -the Parliamentary Election Court, and to have nothing to do but investigate Parliamentary scandals.
This will never do. It is quite clear that the House of Commons will never consent to transfer its own highest power to any tribunal not including the highest Judges of the land, and quite clear also that a check must be given to the astound- ing pretensions of the Judges. They are as much bound by the law as anybody else, and have no more right to pronounce this or that Act of Parliament unconstitutional than as many London Police Magistrates or Suffolk Justices of the Peace would have. There is no Supreme Court in England, thank Heaven, above the law, and no written Constitution to limit the authority of the nation. If Parliament sentences the Judges to be hanged without trial, or to give their decisions through speaking-trumpets, that Act would be as constitu- tional as any other, and as much entitled to obedience in the Courts. Of course, if the Judges have practical reasons to produce they should be heard, but Parliament is not bound to attend to them, any more than to any other gentlemen who may petition against its decrees. As stated by Mr. Disraeli, their reasoning is weak in the extreme. An unconstitutional Act is under the Constitution an impossibility, Parliament being in theory as absolute as if it were infallible ; the oath of office is a mere contract with the nation, from which a rote of the national representatives can relieve the Judges, and their personal objections can be removed by increasing their number. It is probable their real objection is a dislike to subject their high offices to political criticism, or the suspi- cion of political bias ; but that argument would compel us to leave all cases under the existing Bribery Act, all cases of treason, and all cases of seditious libel untried, or to relegate them to a special Court. We do not believe they would be more distrusted in one class of cases than another, and as to Lord Cranborne's argument that judges shoved into the dirt of politics would not come out clean, that is easily settled. Add three judges to the Court of Divorce and Probate, which wants increased force, and let them try all election cases. Not even an investigation into municipal bribery could add to their experience,—alike of perjury andl
of dirt. If the Judges want aid, let them have aid ; if
they desire more pay, let them have more pay ; but they must carry out the law of the land as Parliament makes it, or resign their offices.
We trust the House of Commons will not give way in this matter, as it once gave way to the clergy upon the Divorce Bill, unless, indeed, it is ready to admit the principle that there exists a powtr within the State higher than the legally expressed will of the nation. It is quite clear that Mr. Disraeli only wishes to be supported. It is quite clear that Mr. Gladstone intends to support him, calling on the House as he did to note that "having now heard the opinions of some twenty gentlemen, including a very large number, not only of persons of the greatest weight and experience in the House, but of those who have specially given their minds to the con- sideration of this very question,—not so much as one of thein has, though agreeing to the transfer of the jurisdiction, been disposed to make that transfer to any persons except the superior judges." Mr. Lowe is emphatically on the same side, and the single doubt, and a very serious doubt it is for those who produce it, is whether the majority of the House are sincere in their expressed desire to put down corruption, whether they will not leap at an excuse which on any other subject would have irritated them to violence. The tone of the House, and more especially of the Radicals, was far from satisfactory. They do not want to maintain bribery permanently, but they do want to maintain it till the nation, in utter disgust at the prevailing corruption, adopts large electoral districts and the ballot as the only and sufficient remedies. Mr. Bright, in a speech utterly unworthy of his nature, which with all its faults is never cynical, almost avowed this view, and we are not sure that his followers will dissent from a policy the immorality of which can be concealed only by intense party feeling. The old Whigs have never been hearty against bribery, and Mr. Bouverie was for "retaining the jurisdiction" in the House ; while Mr. Henley, spokesman of the new Tories, raised the absurd bugbear that an election dispute might one day be appealed to the House of Lords, as the highest tribunal in the realm. Think of that, shade of Hampden! Does Mr. Henley really believe, or expect anybody else to believe, that the Law Lords would perjure themselves in order to seat John Smith instead of Thomas Brown in the House of Commons ? or is he really hurt at the idea that a peer—who has perhaps just told his tenants how to vote—should influence the ultimate result of an election ? Lord Cranborne, we presume, was honest when he said thatthe Judges, having been politicians till their appoint- ment, could not decide without political bias, and only forgot that an election committee is composed solely of politicians; but the House itself does.not strike us as hearty in the work.
And yet if it knew its own interest it would be. It is a House of Somebodies whose chance against the Nobodies would, if bribery were once abolished, be increased three-fold, who dread the inevitable alternative, the ballot, and who are deprived of much of their power in the State by the fact that every election involves a heavy pecuniary fine. Whom does bribery benefit except the very class the members most dis- like, new men, with no abilities for political life, who are ready to pour out money like water if only they may purchase with a seat the social standing the majority of members enjoy without one ? Do old squires like Mr. Henley, and old Whigs like Mr. Bouverie, and great lords like Lord Cranborne really want to see all the little boroughs filched from the represen- tative men of both parties by China merchants and India merchants, and contractors and speculators, and anybody who chooses to throw away 50,000/. We can understand Mr. Bright thinking that scene tolerable, because it must end in violent reaction against electoral inequalities ; but what is the latent idea in the minds of men not desirous of the American system ? That the House can put down bribery for itself ? It has tried for a hundred years, and bribery is more rampant than ever. That bribery is a Conservative force ? It ceases ta operate just when it would be useful, when a gust of passion crosses the popular mind. That it will cease of itself ? That is conceivable when the multitude, weary of a corruption in which it can have no share, turns in utter wrath and loathing against the body which, claiming all power as representative of the people, allows itself to represent only the lowest of their vices.
Previous page
