§ Mr. C. Buller moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Controverted Elections Bill.
Lord Stanleycould assure the hon. Gentleman that it was with no hostility to the object he had in view, or to the mode in which he proposed to effect it, that he rose to suggest to him, after the course which had been taken by the House, the absolute necessity of postponing the second reading of this Bill. The House would recollect that, on the same day on which he obtained leave to introduce a Bill for the correction of the law respecting controverted elections, another hon. Gentleman (the Member for Dublin) also had permission granted him to bring in a Bill having precisely the same object, but proposing to obtain it by a course as different as possible from that of the hon. Member for Liskeard. Before going further into the question, he would put it to the hon. Member for Liskeard whether this circumstance was not in itself sufficient to induce him to postpone the second reading of his Bill? If the hon. Member persisted, he should deem it his duty to make a few further remarks on the subject.
§ Mr. C. Bullerintimated his intention of proceeding with the Bill.
Lord Stanley, under such circumstances, felt bound to address to the House some further observations on the subject. He had just pointed out to the recollection of the House, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had obtained leave to bring in a Bill similar in its object with that of the hon. Member for Liskeard, but distinctly different in its mode of procedure. Such being the state of things, it was obvious that the House, before it came to the consideration of either of these measures, must be desirous of having both placed clearly before them, in order to see which of them was the best, in order to judge which of them should be accepted, or whether both should be rejected. The adoption of both was of course out of the question. The hon. Member for Liskeard was, therefore, most unreasonable when he insisted on the House adopting his plan in preference to the other which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had permission 285 to introduce, when the House had not heard any of the details of the latter measure, and when, indeed, the House knew nothing of it, further than that it proceeded on principles diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Member for Liskeard. If the House were to assent to the second reading of the present Bill, in what possible manner could they proceed to discuss the principles of the Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He (Lord Stanley) did not wish to be understood as saying that he did not prefer the Bill of the hon. Member, as far as it went, to that which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had given an outline of; but he thought that as these Bills, with the same object, were so entirely different in their principle, justice and common sense, demanded that the House should have the details of both measures distinctly before them before they adopted either in preference to the other. The hon. Member, it appeared, proposed to make some slight alteration in the mode of appointing Election Committees, on the ground that these, as now constituted, formed a very partial tribunal—as consisting, in all cases, of parties highly interested in the result. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin also stated that, being persons selected from the body of the House, the Members of Election Committees must be considered as interested parties, and, therefore, not fit judges of the merits of the respective cases; and the hon. and learned Member, therefore, proposed to take the jurisdiction in controverted elections entirely out of the House, and refer it to a tribunal independent of the House—to a court of law, where all the points of law should be decided on. Now, he saw very great objections to taking the decision on questions of Parliamentary law out of the control of the House, and referring it to another tribunal; but at the same time he felt bound to point out to the House that, having given permission to the hon. and learned Member to introduce his Bill, they were bound to hear what that hon. and learned Gentleman had to urge in support of his proposition. The objection advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Bill of the hon. Member for Liskeard. was one that carried with it great weight. If an Election Committee, as at present constituted, was so fundamentally and grossly partial a tribunal that no election petition could be, with any expectation of unbiassed justice, referred to it, then it might with safety be asserted that the Bill of the hon. Member for Lis- 286 keard afforded no remedy or palliation of the evil whatsoever. He would repeat that he was actuated by no hostility to the hon. Member's bill, and he was acting entirely without any communication with any hon. Member on either side of the House; but he considered that common sense suggested to them the postponement of this bill for a time, in order that they might be enabled thoroughly to weigh the two plans; and in order that the younger Members of the House might have time to become acquainted with the present system, and whatever inconveniences might exist in it, and thus be better able to judge which of the proposed remedies was the best. In reference to the postponement in point of time, had it been the hon. Gentleman's intention to apply the principles of his bill to election petitions now pending, there might have appeared much stronger grounds for his not postponing the bill; but it appeared that such was not the case, for the bill as printed, expressly provided that it was not to come into operation till the last day of the present Session of Parliament. It being thus admitted that the bill had no reference to pending petitions, the hon. Member had all the time before him till August (to have it fully considered, and it could therefore be no possible harm to the bill if its second reading were postponed till, say some time in February. He would take the opportunity of these Bills being under discussion to say that he by no means joined in the full extent of abuse which had been poured on Election committees, as at present constituted. He would by no means go the length of saying that it was impossible to constitute a tribunal out of the Members of that House which should be otherwise than so corrupt and so forgetful of the obligations imposed on them by a sense of honour, and the force of their oath, as that matters of fact and evidence could not safely be intrusted to their verdict, however constituted, but that they would inevitably give a false verdict, for the purpose of securing political and party objects. The House in considering this question should distinguish a little between that gross corruption which would give a false verdict upon facts for party and political objects, and that natural and unavoidable bias which influenced the most honest men when certain questions were submitted to their consideration. His own conviction was, that the fault was not so much in the construction of election tribunals as in the subject matter brought 287 before them. He believed that the fault was, not that Members could not be trusted to give a fair and honourable verdict on matters of fact, but that the points brought before Election Committees were more or less nice points of law, and controverted points, on which much had to be said on both sides; these points being of trifling or no importance except in the particular case, yet very often of such vast importance in the particular case as to weigh very considerably with even the purest-minded members of Committees in giving their judgment upon it, some one way, some another, in reference only to the immediate case before them, and with the knowledge of the bearing their decision would have on the political interests for which they were respectively concerned. It was, therefore, not so much the corruption of the tribunal, but the uncertainty of the law, which had to be provided against. If they wished to begin at the right end—if they wished, as he believed all did, to promote the cause of abstract justice—they must commence by altering the duties of Election Committees. In the first place—and this was part of the hon. Member's bill, and a most desirable feature in it—they must appoint some tribunal to which reference should be made on disputed points arising before the revising barrister, having first established authorities by which all conflicting points of law should be decided generally, and which should guide and control all future Election Committees. As the law now stood, not only was it uncertain how any given Committee might decide upon a new point, but even upon many old points the decisions of different Committees were so various, that it was impossible to say which precedent out of the many would be adopted. Therefore it was, that it became essential to have a paramount authority which should declare the law generally, without reference to any particular case. It was his opinion that if a Committee of barristers of experience and standing were appointed to sit permanently as a court of appeal from the revising barristers, in a very few years all the cases which could arise out of the construction of the Reform Act would be settled. If the House would permit him, he would, without any party feeling whatever throw out a suggestion for its consideration and that of the hon. Member for Liskeard, namely, whether it might not be practicable to appoint a Committee consisting of the Members of the greatest 288 eminence on both sides of the House, to whose opinion the House and the country would defer with confidence, and to whom it should be intrusted to examine all the points on which former Committees had come to conflicting decisions. That this Committee should lay down, as far as possible, general rules of practice and law, to be afterwards affirmed by a declaratory act, and to serve as a definite guide for all future Committees. Should it happen, indeed, that the Members of such a Committee were nicely balanced as to their opinions in politics, and, in consequence of their party views, took opposite views of the various propositions which would be brought forward, there might be some difficulty in passing through the Legislature any declaratory act founded on the report of such a Committee; but looking to the immense importance of the case, the absolute necessity acknowledged of establishing fixed rules for the decision of these questions, he felt assured that it would be practicable to produce such an unanimity in the decisions of a Committee fairly chosen from both sides of the House as it would have its weight in inducing the Legislature to pass a declaratory act founded on those decisions. He had ventured to throw out this suggestion entirely of his own feeling; he had consulted no other Member of the House on the subject; but he was quite confident that if the House wanted to obtain a legitimate authority for the decisions of its election committees, if they wished to secure an impartial tribunal, they would not obtain their end by any alteration in the manner in which Committees were now ballotted for, or by arranging whether the number on each Committee should be five or eleven. Their only efficient course would be to make the law so clear and so definite as that the duties of a Committee should be confined to the reception and examination of evidence, and should have to give a verdict on the facts simply, and not a declaration of the law. If this end were once attained, it would be a matter of very little importance whether the Members of Committees were chosen from one side of the House or from the other. He had hoped that the hon. Member for Liskeard would not have objected to postpone this Bill till February; but, in order to take the sense of the House upon the question, he should conclude with moving, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on the 12th of February.
§ Mr. Charles Bullersaid, that he was always ready to accede to the declared wish of the House, or even to that of a large portion of the House; but he did not perceive that the noble Lord had adduced any sufficient reason, on the mere point of time, to impress upon the House a conviction that the 12th of February would be a better day for the second reading of the Bill than the present occasion. It appeared to him most desirable, that the principles of the Bill should be discussed as speedily as possible; for, although the Bill might not come into operation till the end of the Session, yet it was highly important that at the earliest possible period the public should have a guarantee that a system was not to be longer pursued which had been clearly proved to be dishonourable to the House and obstructive to justice. The noble Lord had put his amendment on the ground that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had leave to introduce a Bill with a peculiar object, which the House was entitled to have, in a detailed shape on the table, before they decided as to either. All he (Mr. Buller) could say in reply, was, that if the noble Lord, who was, doubtless, well acquainted with the intentions of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, or if any other hon. Member would take upon himself to guarantee to the House that the Bill of that hon. and learned Gentleman was forthcoming now, or would be forthcoming within a reasonable time, or that in fact the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that it should be forthcoming at all, he would acquiesce in the noble Lord's wish, that the present Bill should be postponed. He must, however, require a sufficient guarantee that the hon. and learned Member's Bill was in preparation; but he doubted whether the noble Lord could satisfy the House that one word of the Bill was written, or had been even thought of. He did not, for his own part, believe, nor could any man in his senses for a moment imagine, that there was the slightest intention on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman of proceeding with the Bill in question. If anybody else, however, believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill was so far ready, that the House would be able to discuss the two together—if anybody really thought the hon. and learned Member's Bill would be worth a serious discussion—he would assent to wait, and have the two Bills placed together before the House; but he thought it rather too much to ask him to put off a Bill which 290 he had printed, and which had received the sanction of a Committee of the House, for the purpose of waiting till the hon. and learned Member should have leisure and inclination to draw out a Bill which he (Mr. Buller) considered as not only uncreated, but as inconceivable and inconceived. The noble Lord said, he looked upon the fault as lying, not in the tribunal but in the law, which it had to administer. Now, he (Mr. Buller) could not quite agree with the noble Lord on this point. Of course all persons had certain prejudices in favour of their own character, and consequently the noble Lord had better ground to stand on with the present audience, when he expressed the opinion that Members of Committees would decide fairly and justly if they had only a good law to administer, than he (Mr. Buller) had when he stated an opinion that no small defect was in the composition of the committees themselves. He did not mean to say that the House of Commons was composed of men who were worse than the class of their countrymen from whom jurors were selected, or that they themselves would not make very trustworthy jurors. But what he meant to say was, that the mode in which members of Election Committees were selected rendered it next to impossible to expect justice in their decisions. Their full impression in almost all cases was not that they had justice to administer, but party and political objects to work for. He might observe, that some wonderful change seemed to have come over hon. Gentlemen in their self-estimation. When last he set forth the evils of the present system, there was no point on which he met with more general assent from the House than the dishonesty and incompetency which he charged against the present tribunal. He himself had, however, found no reason to change his opinion on this point; nor had the public come to a different view of the matter. None of the parties who came before the Election Committees had that confidence in their honour; quite the contrary: every body said that an election committee of the House of Commons was the last tribunal where a man could expect justice. The manner in which the newspapers discussed the pending election questions fully bore out what he said. In one of the Dublin papers people were urged to subscribe in support of petitions against Liberal Irish members, on the around that if the petitions produced no other good effect, they would bring down 291 the ministerial majority to a level with the opposition, if not reduce them to a minority, and so give the Conservatives an advantage in election ballots; nor were the ministerial papers any better, for he had seen in one of them only the other morning a castigation of Mr. Martin, of Galway for pairing off with Mr. Cooper, who it was set forth, was disqualified from serving on an election committee in consequence of having subscribed to the fund in question. "Pairs," it was said, "may be very good things upon political questions, but not so when election petitions are in question." It was due to the House itself that it should as speedily as possible remove so destructive an imputation on its honour. At present it was the universal opinion out of the House, among Tories, Whigs, and Radicals, that an Election Committee of the House of Commons was an assemblage of men whom neither honour, virtue, nor their oaths could bind when their political bias was involved. Such an opinion as this the House should remove as speedily as possible. He did not for a moment mean to say that he concurred in the imputation to any thing lite the full extent; he did not believe that the House consisted of a set of men incapable of doing justice; but he conceived that the present system inevitably led them, in the generality of cases, into injustice. The reforms he proposed were as small as could be proposed. All he desired was, to get as far as possible on the right road. One great object would be to render the law certain. He should also desire to reduce the number of Members serving on each Committee; and he believed the general feeling to be, that the smaller the number Of Members the greater was the chance of justice, without any decrease of responsibility. Another improvement was, substituting a peremptory challenge for the present mode; and he believed this change would produce the ultimate effect that challenges would be exercised very sparingly. Another improvement would be, the introduction of publicity into the proceedings of Committees. He proposed that the votes which hon. Members gave on these Committees, on every resolution, should not only be entered on the record, but read by the Chairman when the public were readmitted. He would ensure further publicity by the Chairman giving his decision publicly; and thus, he thought, he should effect all the publicity that was necessary. He proposed another alteration, and it was 292 one of considerable importance: it related to the law of costs. He would not say what the whole law of costs should be, for he thought that a matter which in a great measure it was better to leave to the regulation of the tribunals themselves when established. He proposed then to give the power to the assessors to regulate the costs till the necessary rules were laid down. The last alteration was one to which the noble Lord had given his high sanction, and it was the one which he believed to be the most important. He proposed the establishment of a court of appeal, composed of assessors. His proposition was, that three assessors should sit to hear appeals from the decisions given in the revising barristers' courts, as the Court of Queen's Bench heard appeals from the magistrates. It was not his object to deprive any man of his right of appeal to the House of Commons; but he would allow to no man a double appeal—he would not allow any point that had been decided by that higher tribunal of which he had spoken to be brought under the consideration of a Committee of the House of Commons. He hoped the House would excuse the length to which he had addressed them, his excuse being, that he had had no previous opportunity of explaining the details of what, he must confess, was a somewhat complicated measure. He knew his plan was objected to by many who said that it did not go far enough, that it was incomplete, that it did not remove the whole evil. He admitted that such might be the case. He was aware that there were a great many evils in the present system which his Bill did not remove; but it did not, at all events, aggravate any of them; so far as it went it proceeded in the right direction. He begged the House would bear in mind that he proposed this plan rather as the machinery for effecting future reforms than as a reform complete in itself. He would say, let no hon. Member obstruct the speedy passing of the Bill; it was not a party measure; it was a measure which the House ought to pass, if it were only in vindication of its own character.
§ Mr. Williams Wynnperfectly concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman in saying that this ought in no respect to be considered as a question of party, but one in which both sides of the House ought to feel an equal interest. It was surely as much the interest of one side of the House as the other that the tribunal which decided on elections was one entitled 293 in every respect to the fullest confidence both of the House and the country. In saying this, however, he must also say that he entirely concurred in the observations which had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), and particularly in his opinion that the House was not yet prepared for this discussion. The evidence submitted to them was this, that besides this Bill they had before them another of a decidedly different character. In his judgment they ought not to proceed with one of these Bills without having the other before them in such a state as to be able to institute a comparison between the two. If it was the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Buller) that the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin at the time he moved for leave to bring in his Bill was not to proceed with it, he neglected his duty in not opposing the motion; but in fact, the only reason as signed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin for introducing his measure was, that the House might be afforded the opportunity of judging as to the comparative merits of the two plans. He was not prepared to say how far he could give his sanction to either of them; but he thought that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin having obtained leave to introduce his Bill, till it was introduced, and he had had an opportunity of explaining its nature, it would not be just towards him, neither would it be consistent with the usual character of their proceedings, for the House to come to a decision either for the adoption or rejection of either of the measures. On that ground, independently of any opinion that he might form of the Bills themselves, he should decidedly object to their proceeding to the second reading of the hon. and learned Gentleman's measure. There were certainly portions of the Bill in which he was ready to concur; but it appeared to him that they were beginning at the wrong end. Their first object ought to be to remove the ambiguities of the old law of election, particularly of the Reform Act, which were the main cause of the discordant decisions of Committees. There was one remark made by the hon. and learned Gentleman from which he altogether dissented. He decidedly differed from him when he said that such was the opinion of the country of the profligacy characterising the conduct of hon. Members on Election Committees that it was believed they were bound neither by the dictates of honour nor the obligation of their oaths. He de- 294 clared on his honour that he believed such imputations to be most unfounded, and that it was not true that such an opinion prevailed. If a conviction of that nature did exist in the country, then, indeed, should he think that a most radical reform would and ought to take place: he should expect that the country would indignantly rise and turn them out of the House. If the country entertained the opinion that its rulers, that those who made its laws, were so profligate, were so dishonest, as to be bound neither by the obligations of honour nor the still higher obligations of an oath—if that were really the case, the sooner the functions of Parliament were brought to an end the better. If he entertained such an opinion of the House, he would say, "Give him a despotism, and the sooner the better; give him anything rather than such a Government." Some of the Committees had come to different decisions it must be admitted, but it would always be the case that intelligent men would entertain opinions at variance with each other on points of law. For example, there was the case of the opening of the Irish registration. He had his opinion on that subject, but he thought that men might very fairly and honourably entertain an opinion on it different from his own. That was a question which, of all others, he thought most required to be put to rest by a declaratory act. There were other questions relative to the right of voting under the English Reform Act, upon which, even the assistant barristers sitting together had given most learned opinions showing that they took directly opposite views as to the proper construction of the law. Neither profligacy nor dishonesty was attributed to them; and if not, why draw such conclusions with regard to the House. With a view to correct this discordance he highly approved of the establishment of a court of appeal as proposed by the present Bill, nor did he object to afford to Committees the legal assistance of assessors, but he should feel great difficulty as to the proposed appointment of these assessors by the Speaker, and the confirmation of the appointment by the House. He thought that if such a mode of proceeding were adopted, the appointment would come, in point of fact, to be made by the majority of the House. Then, again, he considered that the reduction of the numbers of the Committee made it more probable that the Committee 295 would consist of Members all of one side of the House. He did not think the present tribunal too large. He for one could not allow the judge of a court of common law to sit on points of Parliamentary law; there was a very great difference between the common law and the lex non scripta of Parliament. According to the law of Parliament the judges ought not to be called on to decide any question of Parliamentary law, nor according to an old dictum of their own ought they to be. He would instance this by the right of Peers to vote: that was a question that ought not to be put to the judges for their decision. They probably, as there is no express disqualification of Peers by statute, would maintain that right, which the House of Commons by their resolutions, had uniformly denied and resisted. But he took the preliminary objection to their proceeding further with this Bill: they had two plans before them, one being incompatible with the other, and before they decided on endeavouring to render either perfect, let them see and judge of both.
Mr. O' Connellsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a mistake when he said there were two Bills before the House: there was but one. It was true he got leave of the House to bring in another, but he would state the course that he had intended to pursue. He proposed to put his Bill upon the table of the House, and to have it printed by the commencement of the recess, so as to be in the hands of hon. Members during that recess. He did not mean to proceed further with it till it had passed through a Committee, and then he would decide whether he would press it on the House or not. He now saw that he interrupted the present Bill by introducing his at all, and having satisfied himself as to that, he should move that the order for leave to him to bring in his Bill be discharged. Let them discuss the Bill before them on its own merits, and not with reference to any other. As the principle of this Bill, and not its details, was under their consideration, he begged to submit to the House whether it were not necessary that something should be done? When the right hon. Gentleman opposite told them on his word and honour he did not believe that the public were so dissatisfied with the Committees of that House—he must admit, though that the hon. Gentleman did not go quite to that extent; that was a little too far, and he had no 296 wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman—when, however, the right hon. Gentleman declared on his word of honour that he did not believe the country entertained so bad an opinion of the House as had been stated, he fully believed that such was the belief which the hon. Gentleman entertained; but he must also express it as his opinion, that the public were greatly dissatisfied with the decision of the Election Committees of the House. It was rather an unfortunate circumstance that when a petition was sent down to them for trial there was immediately a very active canvass as they must all admit on each side. It was true that when men asked him to attend the ballot they did not say to him, "Pray go down to the House of Commons, ready to perjure yourself on the Committee!" Oh, no; but what they said was, "Pray go down to the House, that you may prevent the Tories from pressing themselves on the Committee." And did not the opposition say the same on their side. When the whipper-in went to them and pressed them to come down, did he say, "Come down, that you may be on the Committee, and no matter what the evidence, decide against the individual petitioned against, because he belongs to the opposite party?" No such thing. But what he did say was, "Go down, or the Reformers or Radicals will decide everything; they will not care for their oaths; they will perjure themselves and set at nought every moral obligation, in order to cause a decision in favour of their party.' The truth was they accused each other, and he believed that the public accused them both. It was notorious that when a Committee were to be ballotted for, each side was anxious to get upon the Committee a majority of individuals belonging to their party. Did they not know that it was commonly said by one side or the other, when the parties went from the bar, "They have no chance—we have beaten them—we have settled them now—there are seven to four; or there are six to five; they will appoint their chairman, their chairman has a double vote—they have not the least chance." Counsel had predicted thus, and their predictions had been verified by the event. Was that creditable to the House? They might delude themselves by the speeches they made there on the subject, but the public knew what the fact was, and the public condemned them all. In the case of Carlow alone there had been three different decisions by three 297 different Committees on the question of opening the register. The first settled that the register should not be opened; eleven hon. Members on their oaths decided that. Eleven hon. Members, on another Committee, decided on their oaths that the same register should be opened. It was thought now that the possible differences between the Committees were exhausted; but it was not so, there was a third Committee, and they decided on their oaths that the register should be opened partially; they decided that whenever it could be shown that an objection was taken below at the time of the registry, it might be opened so far. What was the consequence? The Reformers had been unwilling to object to the first registry, from a wish to have the registration as general as possible; and thus not having objected to the first registry, the Tories had a great and decided advantage, for they were able to strike off whom they pleased, and the opposition party were able to strike off—none. In this instance, then, there were two directly opposing decisions, and one that was worse than either of the other two. Now, he put it to the House, would they have legal assistance or not? There was also the case of O'Dwyer, in which the Committee decided against the opinion of Lord Redesdale. He cast no imputations on the House; but ought they to be subject to such imputations from any quarter? There had been no Committee of the kind of which he was speaking appointed in that House; but he would not conceal from them that he should not have expected justice from an Election Committee of the last Parliament. Two seats had been decided against, by Committees of the last Parliament on the presumption that a man owed a tax because he was liable to it. A vote was objected to on the ground that the tax had not been paid; the objectors were not able to show that the man was in arrear. The books were produced, and his name was not on them; but because he resided in the street it was presumed that the tax was not paid. This was a monstrous case, but that decision unseated him. He then, asked them again, would they have no legal assistance? Was that such a state of things as ought to continue? To such an extent was the objectionable system carried that he had heard hon. Gentlemen reproached for having given certain votes in Committees of which they were Members. What, then, was public opinion upon the subject? He was ready to tell 298 them. He should read for them a passage from a public newspaper—he meant to read it as part of his speech. The passage he referred to was written in allusion to the plan of the hon. Member for Liskeard; it expressed the conviction of the writer as to what the effect of the Bill would be. The writer said, "Thus this alteration would not put an end to what the writer of the article in The Law Magazine tenderly calls 'trifling with oaths.'" Did the House mark the expression "trifling with oaths." He had heard that House, before the Reform Bill became law, called "the noblest assembly of freemen in the world." He hoped the House had still some high feeling left; and yet did they mark what a law-writer—what one who it was supposed by his profession happened to know something of the working of their Committees—tenderly named "trifling with oaths." Was there a man amongst them who would trifle with his oath? Was there a man amongst them who would not say it was false that he would trifle with his oath? The writer said, "The Law Magazinetenderly calls it 'trifling with oaths, but which, in our opinion, amounts to a much higher crime. We alluded, cursorily, the other clay, to this part of the subject, and to the different condition of judges and witnesses, although each under the obligation of an oath. The Members of a Committee have often sent witnesses to New gate for giving false evidence, while they themselves, by their decision, have shown that they were utterly regardless of their own oaths, and careless whether the evidence were false or true." That was the language of The Morning Chronicle with regard to the decisions of their Committees, and to the regard paid to them by their oaths. It proceeded to say:—
With regard to the assessors, who by Mr. C. Buller's Bill are to preside and determine points of law without the power of voting, we by no means think, if they could be found and appointed, that the result would correspond with the expectations of the framer of the measure. The opinion of the assessor, however well founded, would have but little weight with men who had made up their minds to forswear themselves from party motives; and we cannot help believing that the rights of petitioners and respondents (if we may so call them) would be even safer in the hands of men bound by their honour to determine fairly and impartially than bound by their oaths. At all events, it is quite clear that oaths have been and are of no avail. To violate honour might have a serious effect upon gentlemen in their intercourse with society; but we see plainly, 299 that the avowed breach of a solemn oath on an election committee, entails no inconvenience or disgrace.That was the language of The Morning Chronicle of the 3d of November. They cheered those opinions! Were they satisfied with the truth of what The Morning Chronicle said of them. They cheered a party paper because it publicly accused them of violating their oaths! They cheered that! If such were their carelessness and such their indifference with respect to the imputation—if it were only because it was said in a party paper that they were regardless of it, then he said, God help those who had to come before them for a decision. Did they not remember that the editor of the newspaper expected that its readers would believe the assertion? But did not hon. Gentlemen opposite see what their own newspapers stated with regard to them? Had he not read in The Standard a demand upon the Members of its own party to be diligent in attending upon the ballots for election petitions, as "the old Whigs never attended?" What was expected from this? Did it not argue a foregone conclusion equally with The Morning Chronicle It had come to this, in fact, that they who it was to be expected were to set an example of high morality to the country, they who were to be regarded as men of the highest honour, were now so lost to feeling as to be regardless of the observance of the most solemn obligation. They, too, were content that such remarks as he had read should be made respecting them! Hon. Members, too, were aware that upon the striking of an Election Committee, when two or three persons drawn belonged to the same party, a cheer was to be heard. Was not, he asked, this indecent? Was it not improper that any set of men should be appointed judges whose opinions might be influenced by political and party interest? The House was quite aware that at this moment the striking off a Member from one side or the other was an object of the greatest importance. The fate of England, of one-third of the empire—the fate of Ireland, and how it was to be governed—the appointment to the highest offices in the state, all depended upon the majority in that House. Good God! if they would not hear that questions concerning their property, their life, or their honour should he tried by men having the one hundredth part of the interest in the result of the trial which they had there, why permit 300 trials in that House where such interests were at stake by the very parties who tried them? This Bill did not, in his opinion, go far enough? but it gave them at least one protection, that of a single impartial person—it also gave them publicity, which was another security at least. There was no man, he was sure, who heard him who was not convinced that a worse species of tribunal to decide rights than an election Committee there could not be. On his side of the House they sought to ameliorate the present system—upon the other side they stood forward as its protectors—in doing so they used all their influence in outraging the public feelings, and let them have with it all the prosperity that they could obtain.
§ Sir Edward Sugdenwas surprised at the course pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He had given credit to that hon. and learned Member at the moment that he had learned that it was his intention to have introduced a Bill of which he had given notice. Not only had the hon. and learned Gentleman altered the title of his Bill, so that it might proceed with the Bill of the hon. Member for Liskeard, but in so doing the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had declared his opinion that the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard could not be adopted. He (Sir E. Sugden) had understood the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, in speaking of that Bill, to express himself in as strong, though not uncourteous, terms, as it was possible for one Member to use in speaking of another. It did appear to him, therefore, and he said this without intending any imputation on the hon. and learned Member, that Members on his side had been most unpleasantly taken by surprise in consequence of the course the hon. and learned Member had adopted. He had come down to the House in the belief that they would have an opportunity of discussing the principle of both Bills before they were called on to affirm that of either. The hon. and learned Member said it had been his intention to allow the hon. Member for Liskeard's Bill to go to a Committee before proceeding with his own, but he ought to have known that when the House had given its sanction to the principle of the one Bill, it was utterly impossible that they could allow the other to be brought in at all. When the hon. Member for Liskeard's Bill had reached so advanced a stage of its progress, it would have been most irregular to call on the 301 House to disclaim the principle they had affirmed, and to entertain another Bill, on a new principle, diametrically opposite to the former. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that they were Bills which could not travel together. The hon. and learned Member did gross injustice to that side of the House when he supposed they could come there to oppose a Bill designed to improve the character of the tribunal appointed to try contested elections. He believed there was not one Gentleman on that side who did not desire to give such assistance to that tribunal as should enable it to stand well with the country. He regarded that tribunal as necessarily having a judicial character; he declared that he had heard with unmixed horror the epithets applied to the conduct of its Members, and could he believe them to be just or de-served, instead of holding it an honour to be a Member of that House, he should look back to the day which had sent him there with the deepest pain and contrition. He could not make out that there was any real difference between the views of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and those of the hon. Member for Liskeard. The noble Lord said, that however honourably a man commissioned to determine the validity of a disputed election might be disposed to judge, he was still but a man, liable to be influenced by party bias and prejudice, and to be embarrassed by the other obstacles in the way of arriving at a correct decision. The hon. Member for Liskeard, who had ridiculed the statement of the noble Lord, confirmed it in a subsequent part of his speech, for he said he did not believe any jury that ever existed would give an ho-nester and fairer decision than the Members of that House. So that, in fact, the hon. Member's objection to an Election Committee resolved itself into this—that as the Members of it were human beings, it was impossible to give credit to any conclusion they might come to, and that it must be unsatisfactory. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had read a most offensive and most libellous passage from a daily print, which supported the interests, and was supposed to be in the confidence, of her Majesty's Ministers. In that libel, thus brought before the House, and read as part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, there was no distinction of party, nor any respect paid to the friends of those who wrote it; both sides of the House were equally attacked. The hon. Member, when reading the passage, was met by a cheer 302 from the friends around him (Sir E. Sugden), and had affected to mistake its meaning. Could the hon. Member really be at a loss to know what that cheer meant? That cheer expressed, as clearly as any language could express, the disgust which all upon that side of the House felt at the imputation cast upon its character in the libel; it declared, in the face of the House and the country, that they were clear from the guilt laid to their charge, and the hon. Member must have known it. But what use had the hon. and learned Member made of this cheer? The libel he had read represented the system of trial for contested elections, as one that degraded them to the level of the lowest of mankind, and the hon. Member had insinuated that they cheered it as if it were true, and as if they approved of it. The hon. Member had imputed to that side of the House sentiments which never entered their minds, and which they altogether disclaimed. All sides of the House might be, and must be open to those influences which affected humanity; but he did not, and could not, believe that any Gentleman on either side could forget the solemn oath he took fairly to try the case, and to decide according to the best of his judgment on the evidence before him. If it were otherwise, then he could only say that the sooner the law was altered, the better for the country. There was great difficulty in entering on the discussion of the measure before the House, because they had been taken by surprise in being asked to sanction its principle. Anxious to adopt any plan which, without giving up the power of the House in election matters, would impart a better character to their decisions, and take away all ground for censure, he would consent at once to entertain the question; but he wished that the Bill might be postponed for such a time as would enable them to consider it properly, as well as allow the hon. Member for Dublin time to introduce his measure. They were not now prepared to discuss this measure as it ought to be discussed. In times gone by, an hon. Member would not have thought of moving the second reading of a Bill so important as this without making a single observation, but would have explained the principles on which it was founded, and the details by which he meant to give effect to them. His objection to this Bill was confined to its details: it did not extend to its principle. He would state to the House a few of the grounds on which he thought it 303 would not operate well. The hon. Member for Liskeard asked, if they would continue a Committee irregularly and badly constituted, when they might create a far more eligible tribunal; and the hon. Member for Dublin, in the speech delivered by him, which was evidently intended for his own Bill, ascribed the vice of the system to the tribunal. Well, what did this Bill propose? Why, the same tribunal to all intents and purposes, though fewer in number. Instead of having an equal number of Members balloted for, and reduced to eleven, it was proposed that Committees should consist of five; but were these more likely to be bound by their oaths, or by the principles of honour than the eleven? Supposing they were more mindful of their honour, was it not safer to intrust such a power to the hands of eleven than five? Three assessors were to be appointed by the Speaker, barristers of not less than seven years' standing, with a salary of 2,000l. a-year,—not a large sum, but with so little to do for the money, that he was sure there would be a good many candidates. The House had the highest respect for the impartiality of the chair; but they could not but feel that, out of the chair, the Speaker, as an English gentleman, was opened to be swayed by party influences. As the assessor only held his situation during good behaviour, and as his nomination must be confirmed by the House, it was not to be expected that any man possessed of much practice at the bar, would be induced to withdraw from it by such a temptation. Should any man leave his practice for an office so precarious, and be obliged afterwards to resume it, he would soon find that his practice had left him. He did not believe, that that House would ever abandon its control over the elections of its own Members. In reviewing the history of the constitution, it was impossible not to be struck with the difficulty experienced by the Commons in establishing their own exclusive right to such interference, and there could hardly be a more dangerous measure than by an Act of Parliament to put a bridle on themselves and invest any other body with the power of deciding questions regarding their own elections. He should be able to show, in a more minute survey of the Bill, that other parts of it were equally objectionable. He could not persuade himself, that the other side of the House would take that side by surprise, and send the Bill to the Committee, without allowing that reasonable 304 time, which was asked by the noble Lord to consider the measure.
§ Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that although he concurred generally with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in thinking the present Committee for the trial of contested elections objectionable, he would not have ventured at that moment to obtrude himself on the attention of the House had it not been for one expression that fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member, in alluding to the acts of a Committee, which he designated in a manner not to be misunderstood, had stated that the Committee assumed that a voter had not paid his rates because his name was omitted from the rate-book of the district in which he lived, and had also said that that case lost him his election. He would unequivocally declare, if he rightly understood what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member, that he had asserted what was not accordant with the fact. He would not occupy the time of the House by a reference to the acts of that Committee, but he was bound to say, and it was the first opportunity afforded to him of stating it to the hon. Member's face, that the hon. Member had thought fit on many occasions to speak of his conduct at that time in a manner which he would not say the hon. Member would not have dared to do. [Order, order.] because he had seen too much—
§ The Speakersaid, he hoped the strong expression used by the hon. Member would be withdrawn.
§ Mr. Youngwas sorry if he had used any expression inconsistent with the propriety of debate, and apologised for having done so. The hon. Member had thrown out imputations from which he would not condescend to vindicate himself, but on behalf of that Committee, and not for himself, he declared in the face of the House and the country, that he had never acted with a set of gentlemen more free from party bias than those who composed the committee. He declared on his honour as a gentleman, that throughout the whole of that protracted investigation it was utterly impossible for him, though he had an intimate knowledge of the sentiments of each individual Member, to predict how any of them would vote. If they did not bring to the discharge of their duties a great degree of legal knowledge, the absence of which was reflection on them, still it was most unfair that they should be held up to public odium as having betrayed their trusts. For his 305 own part, he should consider himself disgraced if he could allow himself to be influenced in the discharge of these duties by a factious motive. He was fully sensible, however, that so long as the public found that Members, whenever a ballot for a Committee took place, were asked to come down and "stand their shot," they would be persuaded that a strong party bias existed, which though it might not induce the Committee to act in direct contravention of their oaths, would exercise a pernicious influence on their decisions.
Mr. O'Connellin explanation stated, that he had been misunderstood as having said, that one case lost him his election, instead! of one decision, which involved several cases.
§ Lord John Russellfelt it necessary to make a few observations upon the present occasion. He owned that there appeared to him to be grounds favourable to the second reading of this Bill. It was the result of the labours of a Committee that had given great attention to the subject; and he observed in the records of the House, as to the labours of that Committee, that on the subjects submitted to them, on which it was to be supposed there had been a great deal of argument, there had been not less than twenty-one divisions in the Committee. These had all taken place upon various points, and each of them the most important as connected with the principles of the Bill. He had read over the names of the Gentlemen who generally appeared upon the one side and upon the other, and to show the House the manner in which these divisions generally took place, he should take the division upon the question for the nomination of the assessors during good behaviour. The names upon the one side were Mr. Hardy and Mr. Pemberton; and upon the other Mr. W. Wynn, Mr. Strutt, Sir Thomas Fremantle, Mr. Grote, Mr. Villiers, and Lord George Somerset. These divisions were not courted by different political parties; but persons of the same political parties were to be found voting against each other. This he thought, looking to the names of the persons, was a proof that they might have been safely intrusted with the preparing of what was a difficult measure. The House had, then, the recommendation of a Select Committee for this Bill; and they were also aware that in the last Parliament it had been read a second time without a division. He said, then, that these were peculiarly favourable grounds for their granting a 306 second reading, and so far sanctioning the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord (Stanley) and the learned Gentleman who followed him (Sir E. Sugden), especially his noble Friend, rested their objections on this ground—that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had obtained leave to bring in a Bill which was to be of a different character, though intended for the same purpose, and that that Bill ought first to be printed. The noble Lord placed rather too much reliance on the Member for the city of Dublin. The hon. Member had observed, that it had been his intention to introduce the Bill and have it printed, and allow it to be over during the recess; but when he followed up that by saying he thought the subject of so much consequence that rather than impede the progress of the present measure he would not introduce his own, then the whole argument built on the intention of the learned Gentleman fell to the ground. If they had to consider the two Bills founded on different principles, one already introduced, and the other to be introduced, in a few days, then it might be proper not to delay this Bill till the 14th of February, for there could be no reason for that but to delay it for a week or ten days till they had the other Bill before them. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman said he was not prepared to bring forward his Bill, that he did not mean to bring it forward at all, they might fairly conclude that the Bill, having the sanction of the Select Committee, and of the last Parliament, was the only one to which their attention was directed, and that the only question before the House was, whether they should sanction a Bill having for its principle the amendment of their Election Committees. His own opinion was, on the whole, that the best course they could adopt was, not to change altogether the nature of the tribunal before which questions regarding elections were brought. But he thought that some late decisions of Election Committees had given so much dissatisfaction, that they ought to endeavour to amend the tribunal, and see if, with those amendments. they could make such a tribunal as would give fair and competent decisions. He would not cite any instances in support of his position, but he believed it could not be denied that latterly the Election Committees had not produced an impression either on this House or the public that their decisions would be free from party bias. He had not himself attended to the election 307 business of the last Parliament, but he had been told that on three or four occasions it happened, when three or four Members of the same party had their names read together on the balloting list, that a cheer had been heard from that side of the House to which they belonged, as if they had secured, not an impartial judge, but a ready partisan. He had been told so. He had been asked last year to adopt, with respect to these elections, the same course which was followed upon party questions, that of sending out notices. He declined doing so, as he said it was an improper practice. But then the argument used to him was that to which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had referred, "that the other side of the House did the same." He did not know that this was the practice on the other side; he did not know it to be the practice upon his own. But when there was so much jealousy about the names of adverse parties being on a Committee, it was a sufficient proof that the decisions of the Committees would be party decisions. A part, a great part of this feeling had arisen from the uncertainty of the law, but more especially from the uncertainty respecting the right of voting in Ireland. This had been the case with two or three Election Committees, and with the Longford Committee in particular, where, he believed, this was the chief point in dispute. Now, without the imputation of intentional perjury to any side, where there was a question of intricate law, and upon which some of the Irish judges differed from other Irish judges, and where there were other questions not legal, but intricate, party bias would influence the decisions upon them. In saying this, he was not imputing perjury to such a person; he was merely pointing out his incompetency to decide the question without further information. Let them consider whether this Bill tended to remedy the evils whose existence was acknowledged. He, for one, thought that it did provide some remedy. He had always thought it a very bad provision that a number of names should be taken and reduced by striking off to a small number. The right hon. Gentleman who brought in the last Bill on the subject, the 9th George 4th, so far acted on this view of it that he reduced the number of names to be drawn from forty-nine to thirty-three. Previous to that the constant custom was, to strike off a great number of names by each party which was then called—he did not know that the practice still continued 308 —but then it was called '' knocking the brains out of a Committee." It was the very way to spoil the tribunal which they wished to have named. He had rather have a Committee chosen by that House, and composed of proper persons, than that each party should have the power of striking off names. He had rather himself, if he had to defend his seat, have a person of the opposite side of politics, who knew all the questions that could be discussed before him, than a person of his own side who was ignorant of them. He was quite sure that what was called perjury depended not in such cases upon the corruption, but the ignorance, of the party. When, then, an hon. Member was well informed upon different questions, he must see that without perjury he could not give an improper decision upon it; when, perhaps, another would give a vote against him in ignorance, upon a wrong principle, or upon a wrong interpretation of the law. With respect to another point, namely, the appointment of assessors to attend Committees, he thought that this likewise would tend to make Committees act with greater justice, and with more deliberation; but what he looked to above all in this Bill, and what he thought would tend to produce good effects both with respect to the Election Committees and the legislation on the subject was, that there should be a certain number of persons of fit qualification, who should form a permanent judicial body, ready to give their opinion, and the substance of their deliberations, whether to the Election Committees, or to the House of Commons, or whether in the course of registration upon any election which should call for it. But he did not wish at present, certainly, and without much farther consideration, and without seeing that the evils which the present system produced were without any other remedy, that that House should lose or part with the power of deciding these questions by Members chosen from amongst themselves. But he thought that the great evil which affected those who had seats in that House which were called in question, and which affected every voter who came before the revising barrister, and which, indeed, affected the whole country, was the uncertainty that prevailed at present. They could not allow all disputes arising out of elections to go into a court of law, and very properly, as he thought; because the judges who had to decide upon all questions relative to the properties and lives of 309 her Majesty's subjects were now supposed to be actuated by no political bias; but if they referred to the constituted tribunal of the judges those questions of a political nature, whatever their decisions might be, they would be liable to imputations from one side or the other. As, then, they! could not part with the power themselves and give it to the judicial tribunals already constituted, the next thing that occurred to him as most likely to improve the present tribunals was, that there should be a certain number of men, of legal knowledge and judicial habits, who should form a permanent body to decide such questions as should come before them. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) said that there ought to be a Committee of the House of Commons appointed to declare what the law was upon these questions. Now he must say that he should not entertain much hope from such a Committee; because, if Committees now decided with a certain bias with respect to what the law was at present, he was quite surd that a Committee would decide with a bias when it had to interpret what the law should be in future. They had found this already with respect to the registration bills, and therefore he thought that where a doubtful point arose, and a Committee had to clear that doubt, the Members would say to themselves, "as we have to clear this doubt in future, let us not proceed according to our notions of what the practice should be, but let the doubt be cleared in a manner favourable to our own party." That would also be the opinion of the other party, and they would therefore have the same difficulty in passing a bill through the House which should obtain the assent of either party, as they had now. Therefore upon the whole he thought that there was no sufficient reason for not agreeing to the second reading of the bill. The objection which was stated at first, and which was a reasonable objection, namely, that the bill of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin stood in the way was now done away with by that hon. and learned Gentleman himself, and he thought, therefore, that if they wished to apply any corrective whatever to the evils which existed with respect Election Committees, they ought to sanction the second reading of this Bill.
§ Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the question was not whether they would consent to any improvement of the present system by which Election Committees were consti- 310 tuted; the question was not whether they would consent to the principle of this Bill; but the simple question was, whether on that day the House of Commons was sufficiently prepared, by mature deliberation on the subject, to affirm the important principle involved in the Bill. Were they, he would ask, a new Parliament, with 150 new Members, to be called upon a few days after the opening of Parliament, and only two days after the printing of the Bill, to enter into the consideration of that Bill, and the very important question to which it related? Of the 150 new Members, he would venture to say, that not one had yet had an opportunity of considering—nay, even of reading the Bill through. Why, the Bill was printed only on Saturday, and probably many Members did not get their copy until that (Monday) morning. He owned he had not read the Bill, until he came down to the House that evening. How many of the 150 new Members had read it? But he would not ask the question, for the Bill was so full of blunders, that even if it had been read, it was exceedingly difficult to be understood. He would take, as an instance, the proviso to the 16th clause of the Bill. It was there stated, that "if after reading the order of the day for taking any such petition into consideration, it shall be found that there are not 100 Members present, or that the number of thirty-three Members, not set aside or excused, cannot be completed, it shall and may be lawful for the House, if they think fit, to direct that the order shall be adjourned for any number of days," &c. Now, what had they to do with the thirty-three Members? [Mr. C. Butter: That is a blunder in the Bill.] Clearly so; but there were other parts of it equally confused. Here, then, was a Bill printed on Saturday, delivered on Monday, which was perfectly unintelligible, on account of the great hurry with which it was printed, which was admitted to be unintelligible by its Mover (Mr. C. Buller), as far as the number thirty-three is concerned. Let it be so; but under these circumstances they were called upon to affirm the principle of the Bill. Whatever they might do in this respect, let it be done after mature deliberation. They might depend upon it, that a contrary system would not be satisfactory to the people; and if the people entertained the impression that they had adopted this plan lightly, and without mature consideration, the consequences would be, that they would view it in the same light in which they were sup- 311 posed to view the present system; and if they found that with this Bill, which was admitted to be incorrect, which had been printed only two days, and with 150 new Members in the House, they dared to affirm summarily the principle on the second reading, he would venture to affirm that the people would be disposed to view the future decisions of Election Committees with little confidence, and still less would they have confidence in the fitness of that House to legislate on the subject. But the real question—a question which had not been referred to—was this, did they mean to apply the new tribunal to existing election petitions? This was the real question which was involved in this measure. He found the following sentence introduced into the face of the Bill, and he should like to know whether it was another blunder? It was this:—"And be it enacted, that this act shall commence and take effect from and after the last day of the present Session of Parliament." Here was a distinct manifestation of the intention of the author of the Bill, that the Bill should not take effect until after the present Election Committees should be disposed of. If this were the case, where was the necessity of such precipitation? If it were really intended that all existing Election Committees should be appointed under the existing laws, unless for some extraordinary and special contingency, in respect of which the noble Lord opposite had reserved himself—if it were intended, that all election petitions now pending should be tried by pre-existing tribunals, where was the necessity of calling upon the House of Commons to assert that the present mode was so inconvenient that they must affirm the principle of a new tribunal within two days after the Bill had been printed and put into their hands? If, indeed, it was intended to supersede the existing tribunals, and to refer election petitions to some tribunal to be constituted—if that were the case, he could understand the reason for this precipitation and haste; but that motive was distinctly disclaimed by the Mover of the Bill, and believing that disclaimer to be sincere, he called upon the House to ask for some little time before they committed themselves to the principle of this measure. He gave credit to the hon. Mover of the Bill for good intentions; he believed, that the hon. Gentleman sincerely meant what the last clause of the Bill contained, viz., that the Bill should not take effect until after the present Session of Parliament, and that 312 it should not, with respect to existing petitions, supersede the existing tribunals; but he begged to remind that hon. Gentleman, that if a majority of the House were so inclined, there was nothing so easy as, in passing through Committee on the Bill, to strike out the two lines at the end of it, and thus leave the election petitions to be tried by the tribunals constituted by the present Bill, and thereby to give it an ex post facto operation. They would, doubtless, have the assistance of the hon. Mover of the Bill in resisting such a proposition—a proposition fraught, as he considered it, with the grossest injustice. They might depend upon it, that whatever objections there might be to the existing tribunals, yet if the country understood that that House of Commons meant to postpone what had hitherto been considered their first and most positive duty on the assembling of a new Parliament, namely, to determine who of the sitting Members were duly elected, and who of the sitting Members retained their seats against the intention of the law in that House, the country would not approve of the House of Commons in thus giving the Act of Parliament an ex post facto operation. The main question, therefore, was whether or not the new tribunal was, in point of fact, to supersede the existing law, and to have the election petitions referred to it? On Wednesday, the 6th of December, the noble Lord opposite promised to deliver an opinion decisively upon this point. The noble Lord had given notice, that on Wednesday, the 6th of December, he would name the day in February, on which he would propose to take into consideration the election petitions. He admitted, that the noble Lord reserved himself in certain cases, neither the magnitude or occurrence of which he could foresee. They would know the opinion of Government on the 6th of December, and he, for one, would not consent to the second reading of this Bill until that declaration was made on the part of Government. Upon these two grounds, he was in favour of postponing the consideration of this Bill, until the noble Lord declared what course the Government proposed to pursue with respect to the election petitions, and also on the ground that the Bill required some additional consideration beyond the mere Sabbath-day. If he wanted any other reason, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was, he thought, decisive against proceeding with the Bill. The noble Lord opposite 313 said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had cut away from his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) the whole ground upon which he objected to this Bill. As far as the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was personally concerned, as far as concerned his personal wishes and feelings in the matter, there could be no doubt but that that hon. and learned Member, greatly to his surprise, did waive his personal wishes and feelings; but, as far as the arguments and reasoning of the hon. and learned Member were concerned, they remained with undiminished force. That hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House, that he intended to bring under discussion the great question whether the persons directly interested, and who were, in fact, the parties, should be the judges or not? The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that it was a scandalous thing that summonses should be issued to procure attendance in that House, that it tended to degrade them in the public estimation, that it lowered the character of individual Members of the House, and that in their collective capacity the object was for party purposes to insure a large attendance. Now, if this objection had any weight, it would apply with just as much force to the present Bill as to the existing law. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, that the present system induced political parties to attend in order that the benches might be well filled when the names were drawn from the balloting box. If the hon. and learned Member felt the force of this objection, he ought to resist the second reading of this Bill, unless, indeed, he was making his consent to the second reading of the Bill a mere matter of form. If they consented to the second reading of the Bill it would imply that the House of Commons ought to retain the jurisdiction in election matters in their own hands. Now he would not hesitate to say, that if he thought that the House of Commons deserved the character which he had heard given to it by those who were the most anxious for a reform, he should have desired that the jurisdiction might be transferred from the House of Commons, and he would have concurred in the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. If the Members of that House were so influenced by party feeling that they were not fit to decide questions that arose upon election committees under the tribunals as they were at present constituted, they surely 314 would not be fit to decide them under the tribunal proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard. That hon. and learned Member said that this was a bit by bit reform, that he was proceeding very gradually, that he wanted to have as little reform as possible. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, on the other hand, denied that the House of Commons was a fit tribunal, or of a character sufficiently impartial to fit it for the consideration of these questions, and therefore he wished to have them transferred to another tribunal. He was surprised, after the position thus laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin respecting the character of the House of Commons, and the inferences thus drawn by him, that he should consent to the second reading of this Bill. The objections which applied to the existing tribunals would apply equally to the tribunals constituted by the present Bill. He for one would not go quite the length of some hon. Gentlemen as to the great danger of parting with the constitutional right of deciding upon election petitions. If they could get an impartial tribunal of five or seven persons, not directly interested in the election petitions, he was convinced that the House of Commons would lose nothing by the transference of the power of deciding in such cases to a body so constituted. The great difficulty was as to the mode of selection. It must be admitted that they must be selected by some body If it were left to the Government it would be open to strong objections, the great objection being the difficulty of constituting an impartial and a satisfactory tribunal. To the appointment of assessors by the Speaker he would decidedly object. He could not conceive any proposition tending more to destroy the impartial character of the chair. The Speaker of the House of Commons, whose election for his new duty would doubtless depend upon party, would, on the first meeting of Parliament, have to propose to the House the names of three Members with a salary of 2,000l., and these persons were to act in respect of political matters of the utmost importance to parties. He was afraid that it would be impossible for any Speaker, with the best intentions, to make a selection which would be satisfactory to all parties. It would be placing a Speaker of a new Parliament in a most unpleasant situation. There would, in the election of a Speaker, be either a complete acquiescence or a contest. If there 315 was a contest, what a situation would it place the Speaker in? It could not be expected that the Government, who selected the Speaker, would not labour under the impression that they were bound to support the nominations of their own Speaker. It might be easily foreseen that it was probable that a Government might say to itself "These men bear a most excellent character, the Speaker has named them as men eminently qualified for the office, and it will be degrading to them unless we support their nomination." The other party would say, "That may be all right; but we should have the appointment, if not of two out of the three, at least of one of them." Would this be a fit situation to place the Speaker in? Was it proper that on taking the chair on the first meeting of Parliament he was to have the nomination of parties possessing a character the most important, not merely as respected political, but party questions? He could not affirm this principle of the bill. It appeared to him to be a very grave question, and he would much rather not give his opinion decisively upon these points. He would also much rather reserve to himself a fair opportunity for a full consideration relative to his views of the challenges proposed to be allowed. It was possible that the right of challenge, where five challenges were made, would be to insure the knocking out the brains of the Committee. Now he was not sure that it would not lead to a directly opposite result. Opposing parties, on hearing a certain number of names called, might be in doubt whether or not they should exhaust their challenges by objecting to the names called, or whether they should not wait for a better challenge. This would at once be the introduction of the element of chance into the new tribunal. The objection to the present system was, that it was influenced by party motives, and that the Members were selected by chance; but it was evident that the same objection applied to the new tribunal. Parties would, as they did now, assemble in great strength on each side, and chance would determine the tribunal as it did now; and he was not at all certain whether it would give a greater degree of satisfaction. It appeared to him that chance would exercise as much influence over the new tribunal as over the old. He would be very sorry, however, to give a decisive opinion upon this point. He should wish to satisfy himself on these 316 points. He had never read the bill till he came into the House. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) said that the bill had passed through the second reading last Session. Was that quite fair? He admitted that it did pass the second reading, but it was distinctly understood that the bill should not pass into a law. [No, no!] He was sure that was the general impression. ["No, no!" from Lord Howick."] He thought that an objection was taken by the Attorney-General to proceeding further with the bill. ["No!" from the Attorney-General.] He could not refer to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman—he trusted to memory, and that was his impression. If, then, there was a general feeling on the part of the House that the present tribunal was so unsatisfactory that it required amendment, but that those amendments should be applied after mature consideration—if the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard really desired that they should not look upon this question as a party measure, but that it should be gravely and deliberately discussed; above all, if hon. Gentlemen wished that this question should receive a calm consideration, if they wished maturely to consider the transferring of their power, as far as their jurisdiction was concerned, to somebody impartially selected, with the consent of the House of Commons, he hoped they would all concur in deferring the second reading of this bill. He asked the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard himself to postpone the bill until the House had an opportunity of giving it further consideration. Above all, he hoped those Members of the House of Commons who were now called upon to exercise their functions for the first time, would refuse to pledge themselves to affirm the principle of this bill on that night, and that, on the contrary, they would support the proposition of his noble Friend, which was not that the present system should not be amended, not that the bill should be rejected, but merely that there should be a delay of two months interposed, in order that public attention having been drawn to the subject during the recess, old Members and new Members might be enabled to apply themselves to the subject with more caution and deliberation, thus affording a better prospect of their arriving at a conclusion upon principles satisfactory to themselves and the country.
§ Viscount Palmerstonmust say, that he 317 did not think the reasons assigned by the right hon. Baronet for the proposed delay, appeared to him at all satisfactory. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that it was most desirable, that whatever the House did upon this subject, should be done with calmness and with an absence of all party feeling. The object the Bill had in view was, to relieve the House from an unfavourable impression existing in the public mind with repect to the votes of that House, in which, therefore, they had all a common interest. It appeared to him impossible to deny, that the present mode of deciding upon election petitions, was not such as was satisfactory to that House or to the country, therefore, as far as they were called upon by reading this Bill a second time to affirm the principle that some change should be made, he, for one, was perfectly prepared to affirm that principle, and he called upon the House to declare itself of the same opinion. The principle involved in the second reading of the Bill was, that some change was desirable, and that it was expedient, in the first place, to attempt to make such a change as should reserve, as far as possible, to the House of Commons itself jurisdiction over those questions. If he understood the right hon. Baronet correctly, he thought the right hon. Baronet seemed not altogether indisposed to the constitution of some tribunal different from the House of Commons to which these questions should be referred. He thought, however, that the House ought to pause before they proceeded to that extent. He thought, that they ought to satisfy themselves that it was not possible, by any modification of the present mode, to decide those matters themselves so as to attain a mode of settling them, which would be satisfactory to themselves and to the public. He was, therefore, prepared in the second place, to affirm the other principle which the second reading of the Bill carried with it, namely, that they ought in preference to endeavour to keep these questions within their own jurisdiction. The right hon. Baronet asked the House, why could they not postpone the second reading of the Bill for two months, till after the recess? The reason was obvious; they had now no business in the House; they had now no business before them to prevent the House from giving their full attention to this subject. If, indeed, they postponed it till after Christmas, other matters of pressing importance 318 would come before them, so that it would be impossible for them to give this subject the same attention which they were now enabled to give it. With regard, therefore, to the principles which they were called upon to affirm by reading the Bill a second time, and also with regard to convenience as to the question of time, he thought the House would do well to proceed to the second reading of the Bill.
§ Mr. Freshfieldsaid, that it appeared to him objectionable to read this Bill a second time on the present occasion, and he hoped he should have the votes of many hon. Members on the other side of the House against such hasty legislation. If there was a necessity for a new tribunal, how was it that it did not show itself till now? In 1832 it was not thought necessary to reform the existing tribunal, though the numbers in the House were as three to one. At that time no objection was found to the formation of Election Committees. In 1835, there appeared to exist no necessity for change; indeed the feeling seemed only to commence late in the last Session. It appeared to him that the constitution of the present Parliament afforded anything but a reason for change. In the present Parliament, parties were so fairly divided that there was a much better chance of obtaining a fairly selected Committee. Another reason for not proceeding with the second reading of the Bill was, that it was not intended to come into operation with respect to those elections which had taken place. It could not be intended that this Bill should have a retrospective effect; for he was sure that so atrocious an injustice would never be seriously perpetrated by the House of Commons, or permitted by the country. The sanctioning the second reading of this Bill would be casting discredit on the tribunal before which, at least, all existing election petitions would be tried; and for this reason, if there were no other, he thought the second reading ought to be postponed.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 160: Majority 54.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adam, Sir C. | Ball, N. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Bannerman, A. |
| Archbold, R. | Baring, F. T. |
| Attwood, T. | Barnard, E. G. |
| Bainbridge, E. T. | Beamish, F. B. |
| Baines, E. | Belfast, Earl of |
| Bellew, R. M. | Grey, Sir G. |
| Berkeley, hon. F. | Grote, G. |
| Bernal, R. | Guest, J. J. |
| Bewes, T. | Hall, B. |
| Blackett, C. | Harland, W. C. |
| Blake, M. J. | Hawes, B. |
| Blewitt, R. J. | Hawkins, J. H. |
| Blunt, Sir C. | Hay, Sir A. L. |
| Bowes, J. | Hayter, W. G. |
| Bridgeman, H. | Heathcoat, J. |
| Briscoe, J. I. | Hindley, C. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Hobhouse, Sir J. |
| Brodie, W. B. | Hobhouse, T. B. |
| Brotherton, J. | Hodges, T. L. |
| Bryan, G. | Horsman, E. |
| Bulwer, E. L. | Hoskins, K. |
| Busfield, W. | Howard, F. J. |
| Butler, hon. Colonel | Howard, P. H. |
| Callaghan, D. | Howick, Viscount |
| Campbell, Sir J. | Hume, J. |
| Carnac, Sir J. R. | Hutton, R. |
| Cavendish, C. | Ingham, R. |
| Cavendish, G. H. | Jephson, C. D. O. |
| Chalmers, P. | Jervis, S. |
| Chapman, L. | Johnston, General |
| Chetwynd, Major | Kinnaird, A. F. |
| Clay, W. | Labouchere, H. |
| Collier, J. | Lambton, H. |
| Collins, W. | Langdale, hon. C. |
| Craig, W. G. | Leader, J. T. |
| Crawford, W. | Lemon, Sir C. |
| Crompton, S. | Leveson, Lord |
| Currie, R. | Lister, E. C. |
| Dennistoun, J. | Loch, J. |
| D'Eyncourt, C. T. | Lushington, Dr. |
| Divett, E. | Lushington, C. |
| Duckworth, S. | Lynch, A. H. |
| Duff, J. | Macleod, R. |
| Duke, Sir J. | Macnamara, Major |
| Duncan, Viscount | Mactaggart, J. |
| Duncombe, T. | Maher, J. |
| Dundas, J. C. | Marsball, W. |
| Dundas, F. | Marsland, H. |
| Dunlop, J. | Maule, W. H. |
| Ebrington, Viscount | Melgund, Viscount |
| Eliot, hon. J. C. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Erle, W. | Morris, D. |
| Etwall, R. | Murray, J. A. |
| Evans, Colonel | Muskett, G. A. |
| Evans, G. | Nagle, Sir R. |
| Evans, W. | O'Brien, C. |
| Fazakerley, J. N. | O'Brien, W. S. |
| Fenton, J. | O'Callaghan, C. |
| Fergusson, R. C. | O'Connell, D. |
| Finch, F. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Fitzroy, Lord C. | O'Connell, M. |
| Fitzsimon, N. | O'Conor, Don |
| Fleetwood, P. H. | Paget, Lord A. |
| Fort, J. | Palmerston, Viscount |
| French, F. | Parnell, Sir H. |
| Gibson, J. | Parrott, J. |
| Gordon, R. | Pattison, J. |
| Goring, H. D. | Pease, J. |
| Grattan, J. | Pechell, Captain |
| Grattan, H. | Philips, M. |
| Greene, T. | Philips, G. R. |
| Greenaway, C. | Pinney, W. |
| Potter, R. | Talbot, J. H. |
| Poulter, J. S. | Talfourd, Sergeant |
| Power, J. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Power, J. | Thomson, C. P. |
| Price, Sir R. | Thornley, T. |
| Protheroe, E. | Tracy, H. H. |
| Pryme, G. | Troubridge, Sir E. T. |
| Redington, T. N. | Tufnell, H. |
| Rice, E. R. | Turner, W. |
| Rice, T.S. | Verney, Sir H. |
| Rich, H. | Vigors, N. A. |
| Roche, E. B. | Villiers, C. P. |
| Roche, W. | Vivian, Sir R. H. |
| Roche, D. | Wakley, T. |
| Rolfe, Sir R. M. | Walker, R. |
| Rundle, J. | Wallace, R. |
| Russell, Lord J. | Warburton, H. |
| Salwey, Colonel | Westenra, J. C. |
| Sanford, E. A. | White, A. |
| Scrape, G. P. | White, H. |
| Seale, Colonel | Wilbraham, G. |
| Seymour, Lord | Williams, W. |
| Sharpe, General | Williams, W. A. |
| Somers, J. P. | Wilshere, W. |
| Standish, C. | Winnington, T. E. |
| Stanley, E. J. | Winnington, H. J. |
| Stanley, W. M. | Wood, Sir M. |
| Stanley, W. O. | Wood, G. W. |
| Stansfield, W. R. C. | Woulfe, Sergeant |
| Steuart, R. | Wyse, T. |
| Stewart, J. | Yates, J. A. |
| Stuart, Lord J. | Young, G. F. |
| Stuart, V. | |
| Strangways, J. | TELLERS. |
| Strutt, E. | Buller, C. |
| Style, Sir C. | Smith, V. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Acland, Sir T. D. | Chapman, A. |
| Acland, T. D. | Christopher, R. A. |
| Adare, Viscount | Chute, W. L. W. |
| Alexander, Viscount | Clive, Viscount |
| Attwood, W. | Clive, hon. R. H. |
| Bagge, W. | Corry, hon. H. |
| Bailey, J. | Courtenay, P. |
| Baker, E. | Cresswell, C. |
| Baring, hon. | Crewe, Sir G. |
| Barneby, J. | Cripps, J. |
| Barrington, Viscount | Dalrymple, Sir A. |
| Bateman, J. | Darby, G. |
| Bateson, Sir R. | Davenport, J. |
| Bell, M. | Dick, Q. |
| Blackburne, I. | D'Israeli, B. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Dugdale, W. S. |
| Blair, J. | Duncombe, W. |
| Blakemore, R. | East, J. B. |
| Blennerhassett, A. | Eaton, R. J. |
| Boiling, W. | Ellis, J. |
| Broadley, H. | Estcourt, T. |
| Brownrigg, S. | Farnham, E. B. |
| Bruges, W. H. L. | Feilden, W. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Fitzroy, hon. H. |
| Burr, H. | Follett, Sir W. |
| Canning, Sir S. | Forbes, W. |
| Cantilupe, Viscount | Forester, hon. G. |
| Chandos, Marquess of | Freshfield, J. W. |
| Gaskell, Jas. Milnes | Packe, C. W. |
| Gibson, T. | Pakington, J. S. |
| Gladstone, W, E. | Parker, R. T. |
| Glynne, Sir S. R. | Patten, J. W. |
| Gore, O. J. R. | Peel, Sir R. |
| Gore, O. W. | Peel, J. |
| Goulburn, H. | Perceval, Colonel |
| Grimsditch, T. | Perceval, hon. G. J. |
| Hale, R. B. | Planta, J. |
| Halfourd, H. | Plumptre, J. P. |
| Harcourt, G. S. | Polhill, F. |
| Henniker, Lord | Pollock, Sir F. |
| Herries, J. C. | Ponsonby, C. |
| Hinde, J. H. | Powerscourt, Lord |
| Hodgson, F. | Praed, W. M. |
| Hodgson, R. | Price, R. |
| Hogg, J. W. | Pringle, A. |
| Hope, G. W. | Rae, Sir W. |
| Houstoun, G. | Ramsay, Lord |
| Hughes, W. B. | Richards, R. |
| Irton, S. | Rickford, W. |
| Irving, J. | Rolleston, L. |
| James, Sir W. C. | Rose, Sir G. |
| Jenkins, R. | Round, C. G. |
| Johnstone, H. | Round, J. |
| Joliffe, Sir W. | Rushbrooke, Colonel |
| Jones, J. | Sandon, Viscount |
| Jones, W. | Shaw, right hon. F. |
| Kemble, H. | Sheppard, T. |
| Kerrison, Sir | Shirley, E. J. |
| Knight, H. G. | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| Knightley, Sir C. | Sinclair, Sir G. |
| Lascelles, W. S. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Lewis, W. | Stanley, E. |
| Liddell, hon. H. T. | Stanley, Lord |
| Litton, E. | Stuart, H. |
| Lockhart, A. M. | Sugden, Sir E. |
| Logan, H. | Trench, Sir F. |
| Lowther, Viscount | Trevor, G. R. |
| Lowther, J. H. | Vere, Sir C. B. |
| Lucas, E. | Vivian, J. E. |
| Lygon, hon. General | Whitmore, T. C. |
| Mackenzie, T. | Wilberforce, W. |
| Mackenzie, W. F. | Williams, R. |
| Mahon, Viscount | Wodehouse, E. |
| Manners, Lord C. S. | Wood, Colonel T. |
| Marton, G. | Wood, T. |
| Master, T. W. C. | Wynn, C. W. |
| Maunsell, T. P. | Yorke, E. T. |
| Maxwell, H. | Young, J. |
| Milnes, R. M. | |
| Monypenny, T. G. | TELLERS. |
| Mordaunt, Sir J. | Fremantle, Sir T. |
| Ossulston, Lord | Baring, H. |
| Paired Off. | |
| FOR. | AGAINST. |
| Grosvenor, Earl of | Maidstone, Lord |
| Lennox, Lord A. | Wall, C. B. |