BRIBERY AT ELECTION&
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
Stn—I have attended many Election Committees of the House of Commons; and the conclusion was always forced upon me, that if the same difficulties and the same hesitation to convict criminals in our courts of law prevailed that are shown to convict parties of bribery, very few criminals would ever be punished.
Sometimes, you have several persons of character and alleged probity who de- pose to criminal acts of bribery; but there is no confirmatory evidence—for there can be none. Of course, the evidence of one or two must be rejected; but if there are several persons who depose to such acts, is not the evidence of several clear evi- dence of a system ? and does not the evidence of such persons, though relating to distinct acts, afford corroboration of each act? If I were to be offered a bribe, my probity, my character, my adherence to truth, would not avail me; I should ac- tually lose my character before a Committee of the House of Commons if I gave evidence of the conduct of an agent of a candidate in my private room in the ab- sence of a third party. It would be in vain for are to say, " You have evidence of a far larger sum having been paid, as expenses of the election, than the legal expenses amounted to; and therefore the inference is, that the bribe offered to me was accepted by others, and that my testimony of the offer made to me is to be relied on. Committees never reason thus. They cannot find out who paid large sums of money: they find men to be agents, but they cannot find that the agents acted under the authority of their principal. The agents are the most disin- terested persons in the world. They have abundance of money at their command, and the candidate is utterly ignorant of his election being carried by other than the purest and most disinterested services! Again, as respects treating. A Member of the House of Commons may be nu- seated, and cannot be reelected, if his agent pays five shillings to a voter; but if more than five pounds a bead for all the voters in the borough is paid for the ex- penses of treating, the unseated Member may go back to the constituency and be reelected. Isit not scandalous that such a state of things should be tolerated? Cases of treating and bribery ought to be acted on as public charges; and the expenses both of the charge and the reply ought to be borne by the public, in the same manner as prosecutions in our criminal courts ; leaving authority to the Com- mittee to disallow expenses when the evidence or the case is frivolous or vexatious. At present, a seat in the House of Commons is regarded as a mere private in- terest, and private persons are left to scuffle for it. It was only the other day, in consequence of some ignorant blunders of the Examiner of Recognizances, that a bill was proposed and rejected which was intended to correct his errors and to enable several petitions against returns to be heard. What were the arguments against it?—first, that it would affect the "private interests" of the sitting Members; and secondly, that it would be an ex post facto law. A seat in the House of' Commons a private interest ! a share in the sovereignty of the country a private interest ! The acquisition of this great power, by fraud or corruption, a private matter! Have men the possession of reason who make such statements?
But it was an ex post facto law!. The objection to an ex post facto law is, that it deprives parties of rights which they legally-possess, or imposes on theta penalties which did not exist when certain acts which they may have com- mitted were done. The object of the proposed bill was to give the sitting Mem- bers a security for their costs. If they were legally in possession of their seats, the bill could not affect their legal rights. It was to confer on them privileges, which by an error of an officer of the House of Commons they were thought to have lost.
By the common lave.of Parliament, there was no interval of time to prevent in- quiry into the merits Of a return. The statute was passed to save Members from being harrassed by charges which might be promoted on account of their votes, and to make them feel independent by feeling their seats to be secure. It was not passed to deprive constituencies of their means to establish their legal rights. if the blunders of a subordinate officer of the House are to have this effect, he has only to court the majority of the House—though in these cases I disclaim imputing any such intention—and to exclude a powerful opponent by neglecting his duty. i
This is the moment of all others that the House of Commons should not merely have seized but have rejoiced in the opportunity of convincing the people that it would stop no inquiry and give no senction to corruption; that in cases of doubt, it would even favour the inquiry, and reject every objection that might be madelo inquiry if proposed within the interval of time fixed by the statute.
The sensation producW in the country by the exposure of the corrupt practices at Yarmouth, Lyme, Harwich, Carlisle, Lancaster, &c., and the conduct pursued by the House respecting the bill relating to defective recognizances, are perfectly painful. This, too, at;a moment when the House requireanll the moral support and influence that can be given to its proceedings. With anarchy in France, certain to lead to the intervention of Military power—with inefficiency and pas- siveness on the part of the Government at home as astounding as unparelleled- with neglect on the part of the Legislature to hasten on measures required in Ireland and in England—where can we look for confidence in the future, if the constitution of the House of Commons and its proceedings do not command
Previous page
