Westminster Bribery Case

REX z; GEORGE, MACDONALD, MAXTON, 
AND OTHERS 

Corrupt Practices 

The Political Bribery case was concluded at the Old 
Bailey to-day, when nearly four hundred Members of 
Parhament crowded the dock 

Mr Justice Trout {in his summing-up to the jury) You 
have heard the lengthy and well-paid addresses of 
counsel, and you will now, if you can, divert your gaze 
from the distinguished figures in that dock and pay 
some attention to me 

The pnsoners include the whole of the Parhamen- 
tary Labour and Liberal Parties, His Majesty's Ministers 
(with three exceptions) and the man George They 
are charged under a section of the Corrupt Practices 
Act, 1854 (incorporated m the Corrupt Practices Act, 
1883), which says that any person shall be guilty of 
bribery who 

^shall directly or indirectly^ by himself or by any other 
person on his behalf y give or procurcy or agree to give or 
procure^ or ojer, promise, or promise to procurey or to 
endeavour to procure any office or employment to or for any 
voter y or to or for any person on behalf of any voter y or to or 
for any other person in order to induce such votes or refrain 
from voting ’ 

Now, you have heard in evidence that at the last 
General Parhamentary Election all the accused 
persons presentedf themselves as candidates to their 
respective constituencies, and the evidence is clear also 
in every case that they did promise to procure employ- 
ment for certain voters, as a result of which promises 
they did induce the exercise of millions of votes m their 
own mterest The promises varied m extent and con- 
fidence Some of the prisoners contented themselves 
with promismg to procure employment for particular 
sections of the people in particular trades, such as coal- 
mimng, or the cotton mdustry, others promised to find 
‘Work for AH’, and among these must be numbered 
the prisoner George, whose generous behef in his own 
capacity to find remunerative employment for all our 
citizens made a special impression on some of the 
witnesses 

There is very httle evidence that their promises have 
in fact been carried out, but that is not a relevant 
consideration The charge is one of bribery, not of 
deceit or false pretences (though that aspect of the 
matter may call for mqmry on some other occasion) It 
IS sufficient for the prosecution m this case to prove that 
the undertakings were made and that votes were given 
in return for them. 

It may occur to you, gentlemen, members of a later 
generation than my own, to inquire why these facts, if 
proved, should constitute an offence The answer is 
that m the year 1854 ^ very different view of the nature 
and responsibihties of the vote was held from that 
which IS common to-day In the much-abused nme- 
teenth century the exercise of the sufifirage was valued 
more as a pubhc duty than as a pnvate right. Men 
voted, or were expected to vote, after long mternal 
debate, for reasons directed to the general welfare, to 
remove an mcompetent Ministry, to uphold the honour 
or save the soul of their country, to 'defend rehgion or 
succour ihe oppressed, but not to advance their personal 
fortunes And Parliament, m the statutes already 
cited, took special steps to secure that the vote should 
never be bartered for private material gam, whether m 
the shape of money, place, or employment 

All this, as some of the prisoners confessed, almost 
with pride, has changed It is now a commonplace for 
Parliamentary candidates to mvite the support of the 
voter by the simple assurance that, if they are elected, 
the voter will receive more money, more food, and more 
material pleasure It is odd, perhaps, that this increase 
of materialism in pohtics should coincide with the 
advent to power of certain political parties which claim 
a monopoly of ideals, but it is the fact The result is 
that the vote is generally regarded not as a precious 
instrument by which each man may do his country 
good, but as a weapon of offence or cajolery by which 
his country may be influenced to satisfy lus material 
desires 

If this is the state of the public mmd (and that is not, 
I think, m dispute), it follows that those laws which 
govern the conduct of elections must be enforced with 
especial seventy and watchfulness Our conditions, in 
some cases our consciences, may have changed, but the 
law remains the same It is an offence to persuade the 
citizen to vote for this man or for that by holding out 
promises to provide him with employment, for this is 
to corrupt the character not only of the candidate but 
of the voter It is also to brmg mto the arena of pohtical 
warfare matters of trade and industry which are much 
better left out of it, but that is by the way There is no 
doubt m my mmd, and there can be httle in yours, that 
this offence — ^the offence of bribery — ^has been commit- 
ted by all the pMsoners The penalties provided by 
the Act are heavy> but you must not be deterred by
that consideration from brmging in a true verdict The 
penalties are twelve months’ imprisonment, with or 
without hard labour (or a fine of two hundred pounds), 
deprivation of the suffrage for seven years, and removal 
from and disqualification for any public office, and if 
the offender be a candidate, he also loses his seat (if 
elected) and is disqualified for ever from representmg 
the constituency Gentlemen, you will now consider 
your verdict 

The jury, without leaving the box, found all the 
pnsoners guilty, and m imposing the maximum 
sentences the judge said 

I have decided to inflict imprisonment rather than 
a fine m order to ensure that none of these persons 
shall be free to take part m the approachmg General 
Election It has been urged before me that the sudden 
mcarceration of the whole Cabmet may cause some 
trouble, but I am satisfied that the mconvenience will 
be both trifling and temporary Two hundred Members 
of the House of Commons will stiU remam at large, and 
these should without difficulty be able to provide a 
Government I may add that these proceedmgs were 
taken at the instance of a Mr Albert Haddock, and 
the nation has to thank him, not for the first time, for 
his enterprise and pubhc spirit 


Note — ^This case, decided m January, 1931, had a profound influence 
upon the technique of pphtics In the election which followed the 
‘crisis’ of the autumn, 1931, His Majesty’s Ministers vied with each 
other in promismg the electors not benefits but blows ‘We have 
reduced,’ they said, ‘your wages and your allowances and increased 
your taxes, and if we arc elected there may be worse to come * The 
more they threatened and bullied the people the more the people 
cheered The Government was returned to power by an imparalleled 
majority, while those who promised the people more work and higher 
wag^ and allowances were almost obhtcratcv