Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 125.: Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [11] 23 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

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Collection: The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill

125.: Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [11] 23 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 [1850]

Edition used:

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).

Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


125.

Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [11]

23 JULY, 1868

PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1676, 1678, 1685, 1691. Reported in The Times, 24 July, p. 6. For the Bill, see No. 89. The debate was on a new Clause: “Whenever any person or persons shall have been reported by the Judges to have been guilty of corrupt practices, the Attorney General shall institute against such persons or person such proceedings as the law will allow”

(col. 1676).

mr. j. stuart mill thought it very important that some official person should be charged with the duty of considering whether a prosecution was necessary or not.

[The Clause was negatived.]

[Then Lowther moved to amend Clause 43 (see No. 116) to make repeated corruption a misdemeanour. This modification the Attorney General thought too harsh: an agent who had already been punished for corruption, if he got another appointment within seven years, would be liable to two years’ imprisonment.]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, he hoped the House would divide, as the country would like to see the names of the honourable Members who thought it was too severe a course to punish an agent or canvasser who, having been guilty of corrupt practices in one election, procured similar employment in a subsequent election.

[The amendment was lost.]

[The debate then returned to Clause 53 (Fawcett’s clause; see No. 120). Various amendments were moved concerning a deposit to be used for election costs if the candidate failed to poll certain percentages of the vote: Wentworth Blackett Beaumont (1829–1907), M.P. for Northumberland, proposed that the percentage should be one-fifth of the votes cast, the failed candidate being liable for his share of the costs, and after some discussion added that the proposer and seconder of such a candidate should be liable for that share (cols. 1681–2). George Leeman (1809–82), M.P. for York, proposed an amendment retaining the one-fifth provision, but calling for a deposit of £100 in boroughs and £200 in counties.]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill thought the object which the honourable Member for York had in view would be sufficiently attained by the proposal of the honourable Member for Northumberland.

[Leeman withdrew his amendment, and then the proposal of Beaumont was defeated. The Government continued to try to subvert Fawcett’s Clause 53; the Solicitor General moved to leave it out (cols. 1687–8), saying in defence of his motion that the obscure and intricate machinery of rating would make the Clause impracticable.]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill: If the Government were aware of the profound feeling of satisfaction that went forth through the country on learning that the Amendment of the honourable Member for Brighton was carried, they would, instead of imposing any technical objection in the way of the passing of the clause, introduce a Bill, if necessary, for the purpose of giving it effect, and pass it through both Houses, as they could easily do, within a week. The representative of an extensive constituency remarked to me that the adoption of the clause marked the commencement of a purer era, and would bring forward more eligible candidates.

[In the event, Clause 53 was struck out of the Bill.]