Front Page Titles (by Subject) 120.: Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections  18 JULY, 1868 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
120.: Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections  18 JULY, 1868 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868, ed. John M. Robson and Bruce L. Kinzer (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988).
About Liberty Fund:
The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press.
Fair use statement:
Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections 
PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1449, 1451, 1456. Reported in The Times, 20 July, p. 6, from which the variants and response are taken. For the Bill, see No. 89 The discussion in Committee was on an additional Clause proposed by Fawcett, which provided that the expenses of returning officers be paid out of the rates, and required a deposit on behalf of every candidate of £100, such monies, in the case of candidates receiving less than 10% of the votes received by the least successful of the successful candidates, to be used to help defray expenses (cols. 1443–4). After some discussion, including the assertion that candidates’ paying of returning officers was not a corrupt practice, the case was raised of Members who, having accepted office, had to stand for re-election: Should the rates cover their expenses?
ais it fair or reasonable to take advantage of a technical difficulty in order to leave a question of this sort undecided until after the next election? If in a purely legal point of view it does not belong to the subject of corrupt practices, yet it belongs to a system of measures of which that relating to corrupt practices is the completion. Unless it be agreed to, the system will be left incomplete, and the Reform Act will, in some important respects, actually deteriorate the representation, for its practical effect will be to bring us nearer to a plutocracy than we ever have been before.a I would most earnestly appeal to the honourable Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance), who has made so excellent a speech in favour of the proposition,1 to put for the present in abeyance his objections to any additional burthen on the local rates—objections in which, as I have stated on a former occasion,2 I in part agree, and which will certainly, with the whole subject of the incidence of rates, come under the early consideration of the new Parliament. I beg him to trust the fairness and sense of justice of the future House of Commons, and not to resist a provision required for the beneficial working of our political institutions, because it involves a very small, and probably temporary, addition to the local expenditure. (Hear, hear.)
[There was still objection to the requirement that £100 be deposited.]
Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, the House would be glad to learn that anyone could be nominated and elected who was not in possession of £100, but whose friends were willing to put down £100 for him.
[Discussion continued on the question of the deposit, and that proviso was removed from the Clause, which was then approved. Then the debate turned to a further Clause that candidates be required to subscribe to a declaration of honesty. It was objected that such declarations would not prevent lying.]
Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, it was no great compliment to the House to represent that it consisted of persons whom a declaration upon honour would not bind. He himself thought a declaration on honour would bind the Members of the House, provided it was imposed with a serious intention of doing so. It had been too much the fashion to regard these declarations as mere forms; but they were so only when the engagement which they made was one which opinion did not really desire to enforce. The object should be to impress upon Members that the House was really in earnest and meant the declaration to be a sincere one. That object was sought to be obtained by the penalty of £500, and he thought this would be a means of enforcing the declaration.
[After further discussion,]
bMr. Mill said that many of the amendments undisposed of were of considerable importance. Four of them were at least as important as those which had been discussed already. He doubted whether it would not be better to go on with the discussion than postpone it till the fag end of the evening.b
[After Disraeli said that he would bring the Bill on as the first order of the day on Wednesday, the Clause was negatived.]
[a-a]TT Even supposing that logically or properly this clause has nothing to do with corrupt practices, would the House make use of a technical difficulty in the way of inserting in what might be called the completion of the measures of Reform a clause which would go far to show the people that Parliament did not mean, under the guise of a wide scheme of enfranchisement, to impose on the country a scheme which would enable parties to make the representation a plutocracy?
[1 ]Cols. 1445–6.
[2 ]See No. 95 (12 May, 1868).