The position indeed of all parties entrusted with the electoral franchise, and all places where they exercise it, has become exceedingly critical, in consequence of the recent and greatlyaugmented facilities which now exist for detecting bribery in even its subtlest and most varied forms. Devices hitherto

successful in the hands of those characterized by a corrupt but consummate astuteness, will be henceforth found shorn of almost all their efficacy; for it is perhaps not going too far to say that impunity may be regarded as comparatively annihilated. The universal spirit of indignation against this opprobrium of the age, to which impressive utterance has been given by the most eminent statesmen belonging to all parties, and also, with a marvellous concurrence, by all the leading organs of public opinion, will not suffer itself to be baffled during the inquiries into corrupt practices which may henceforth be instituted. Candidates themselves can now be compelled to come before committees, or it may be into a court of law, there to be exposed to an acute and merciless examination, from which they cannot shelter themselves, except by the ignominious, perilous, and even fatal plea, that they decline to answer, on the ground that their answers may tend to criminate themselves. All their agents, friends and acquaintances, moreover, especially those most intimate, and in any way taking part in the election, will be subjected to similar scrutiny; as will be also every elector, whom vigilant and unsuspected observation may detect in a suspicious or equivocal position. While candidates, voters, and those who communicate with them are thus imperilled, it must be borne in mind that places themselves which are the scenes of bribery and corruption, will henceforth be subjected to the unsparing and rigorous scrutiny of parliament, with the great additional powers conferred by the act which has just received the assent of an expiring parliament.* It is possible that more than one borough may ere long find itself in the melancholy position of Sudbury and St. Alban; or their freemen follow the fate of many of their brethren disfranchised during the last few years for systematic corruption, and whose doings, as exbibited in the catalogue of statutes given in this volume, have too often inflicted an indelible stigma upon their order.

Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57, post, p. 363, a.

At the commencement of the last session of the Parliament which has just been dissolved, a distinguished judicial member of the House of Lords* made, in his place, some evidently well-weighed observations upon this subject, which it will be useful for those concerned, especially at the present period, to ponder. By the Evidence Bill† of last session both the sitting member, and the unsuccessful candidate for a seat, are liable to be examined upon oath, subject, no doubt, to their refusal to answer any question which might criminate themselves, but also to the consequences criminatory of themselves which might result from their silence, and which would be fatal before an election committee. Unquestionably, however, something more than the Evidence Bill is wanted to render the law for the prevention of bribery perfect, sanguine as are my hopes of the effects of that bill I therefore trust that her Majesty's ministers will take the subject under their consideration, as the instances which have occurred of late, confirm rather than weaken the belief in the existence of great bribery and corruption at elections. I have a very confident opinion that a bill might now easily be framed, which, with the Evidence Act, would put a stop to these corrupt practices. The true course to be taken in order to extirpate bribery, would be to exact from every member of parliament, on taking his seat, a solemn declaration, either upon oath, or upon honour-I should prefer the latter that he had not, by himself or his agents, directly or indirectly, given or promised money, or any other valuable thing to, or had used or promised to use, any influence to procure a place or pension for, any voter who had voted at his election ; and that he was wholly ignorant of any gift or promise made on his behalf by any person to such voter, and that he wholly disbelieved that any such thing had been done on his behalf by any persons for him, or pretending to act for him, whether with or without his authority; and furthermore, to bind him by a solemn promise, not to pay or cause to be paid anything, or to fulfil any one promise, or to do anything whatsoever, to carry into execution the promise or engagements of his agents, or of any other persons, authorized or unauthorized on his behalf. The same declaration would of course also be exacted from the unsuccessful candidate at the election for the Lord Brougham, 9th February, 1852, Hans. vol. cxix. + Stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 2, post, p. 359, A.

seat, in case he succeeded in ousting the sitting member. That would be a declaration which, I think, no man would dare to make if he were not thoroughly and perfectly conscious, in his own mind, that he had not, either by himself or by another in his behalf, done anything, or was cognizant of anything, like bribery having been done, in the course of his election. If his declaration were in any particular false, he would be, as he must know, in the hands of worthless persons, and his character was gone for ever.'

On a later day,* the same noble and learned lord again gave utterance to his views on the momentous subject. In all cases of contested elections, Scotch as well as English, in the other House, the parties to the petition, and the parties enjoying the seat, are compellable to appear and answer as witnesses, and to undergo that searching process of examination and crossexamination, which is so necessary to extirpate bribery, unless indeed they choose to shelter themselves under the plea that their evidence would inculpate themselves.'

If this be a correct view of the existing law, and it is believed to be so, it is manifest that the offence of bribery, with all its serious incidents, in respect of both persons and constituencies, is placed upon a new, and to the guilty alarming, footing; and those meditating corrupt practices, must prepare for an ordeal such as never before, at least in modern times, had to deal with such matters. They must expect to have their whole conduct during the election submitted to a process of examination, torturing indeed to one who knows that he has fatally committed himself: an examination extending to his intercourse with all who have been concerned with him during his election, -to the secret arrangements, and understandings, between them, thereby compromising both himself and others who may have been linked with him in guilty participation, and all the while in a fallacious sense of perfect security. The two sections of the statute above referred to are as follows:

'On the trial of any issue joined, or of any matter or question, or on any inquiry arising in any suit, action, or other proceeding in any court of justice, or before any person having by law, or by consent of parties, authority to hear, receive, and examine evidence, the parties thereto, and the persons on whose

10th June, 1852.

behalf any such suit, action, or other proceeding may be brought or defended shall, except as hereinafter excepted, be competent and compellable to give evidence, either vivâ voce or by deposition, according to the practice of the court, on behalf of either or any of the parties to the said suit, action, or proceeding.

'But nothing herein contained shall render any person who in any criminal proceeding is charged with the commission of any indictable offence, or any offence punishable on summary conviction, competent or compellable to give evidence for or against himself or herself, or shall render any person compelled to answer any question tending to criminate himself or herself; or shall in any criminal proceeding render any husband competent or compellable to give evidence for or against his wife, or any wife competent or compellable to give evidence for or against her husband.'*

The committee which shall have first to decide the question, whether this act empowers them to examine both the sitting member, and any candidate, or either of them, or the petitioner, will have undoubtedly an anxious duty to perform, and their decision will be looked for with the utmost interest. If it be in the affirmative,—that the words of both sections taken together are sufficiently extensive to meet the case of an election petition, -then will the position of all parties to it become one of great anxiety and responsibility. The effect of a sitting member, or petitioner, declining to answer a question directly pointing to the fact of bribery, or knowledge of it, on the ground that 'it might tend to criminate himself' (s. 3), may be conjectured. A gentleman, conscious of his innocence, would answer with confidence and unconcern: but what is to become of him with whom it is not so, and who is also aware that others are likely to be, and may have been actually, summoned to be examined, to whom similar questions will be put, and answered truly? In justice, however, to those who may be placed in so novel and startling a position, it ought to be intimated that their licence, in declining to answer questions of this description, is large. Lord Eldon thus lays down the rule in such a case: In no stage of the proceedings of this court can a party be compelled to answer

14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, ss. 2, 3 (1851), post, p. 359, A.

The Lord Chancellor was speaking of a court of equity, which renders his observations the more pointed and applicable to the case which is now being considered.

any question accusing himself, or any one, in a series of questions that has a tendency to that effect; the rule in these cases being, that he is at liberty to protect himself against answering, not only the direct question, whether he did any thing that was illegal, but also every question fairly appearing to be put with a view of drawing from him an answer containing nothing to affect him, except as it is one link in a chain of proof that is to affect him.'

The question, however, remains, as to the effect likely to be produced on the minds of a committee, on finding a member or candidate seeking this shelter; and when that fact is combined with other evidence before them, to which it gives an aspect and a strength which it had not previously.†

In the event of this statute being held applicable to inquiries before election committees, it renders nugatory the examination of many reported decisions of election committees, and lends a new and serious significancy to the widely-worded statutes, of both older and more recent date, against bribery and corruption. Again, it is to be remembered that by the Bribery Act of 1841, the legislature thought proper to arm a committee of the House of Commons with perhaps unprecedented authority; subverting, for that purpose, a fundamental rule of the law of evidence. By that act, short but potent, when a charge of bribery shall be brought before any select committee of the House of Commons, it shall receive evidence upon the whole matter whereon it is alleged that bribery has been committed,' WITH

OUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO PROVE AGENCY IN THE FIRST

INSTANCE: - and the committee'shall separately and distinctly report upon the fact or facts of bribery proved before them; and

Paxton v. Douglas, 19 Ves. jun. 227.

It may have been seen that the second section of stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, provides that nothing therein contained shall in any criminal proceeding render any husband or wife competent or compellable to give evidence for or against each other.' Though this clause is not very likely to be brought into operation in the inquiries now under consideration, it may not be useless to inform the reader, that in a recent case in the Court of Queen's Bench it was decided, in conformity with the opinion of the then Lord Chancellor (Truro), in the case of Percival v. Caney, and of the Court of Exchequer in that of Barbat v. Ailan, that a wife is not rendered by that act a competent witness for her husband in an action by or against him. Stapleton v. Croft, 28th April, 1852, 16 Jurist, 408.

Stat. 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57, [post, p. 267, A.] reciting, that the laws in being are not sufficient to hinder corrupt and illegal practices in the elections of members to serve in parliament.'