BRIBERY BILL.

HC Deb 08 August 1854 vol 135 cc1411-32

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

moved that the House should take into its consideration the Lords' Amendments in this Bill.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he begged to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was competent for the noble Lord to bring the subject under their notice at that moment. There stood upon the paper a number of Orders of the Day, while the Motion of the noble Lord was placed upon the paper in the shape of a notice.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that previous to the establishment of a rule to which the House had some time ago agreed, the Amendments introduced by the Lords into a Bill might be taken into consideration at any time. That rule, however, had provided that the Lords' Amendments should not be taken into consideration upon the day upon which they came down from the other House, but should be fixed for some subsequent day, unless the House was pleased to order otherwise. It was competent, however, for the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), having given notice of Motion upon the subject, to move that those Amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that a general assent had been given by the other House of Parliament to the Bill as it had been sent up to them from the House of Commons. The important definitions of bribery and treating and undue influence, and the important provision which related to the appointment of an election officer, had undergone no alteration. The last day upon which the Bill had been considered in that House a former decision of the House bad been reversed—he meant that with respect to the declaration to be taken by hon. Members at the table. It had then been asked whether it was not competent to expunge those other declarations in the Bill which were consequent upon the principal one. They had been informed, however, from the Chair that it was then too late to take those other declarations into their consideration. Now, in the House of Lords those declarations had been struck out. An important clause, Clause 23, legalising the payment of travelling expenses to the voter, had also been struck out by the House of Lords. He himself had proposed that clause to the House, in the belief that it was desirable to confirm the law as it at present stood. The House would bear in mind, however, that the necessity for the clause in question depended in some measure upon the declaration to be taken by Members of Parliament, and that declaration having been struck out, the clause with respect to travelling expenses no longer retained its former value. He proposed that that House should agree to the omission of this clause. No doubt, when a declaration was to be required from every Member of that House that he had not incurred any illegal expenses, it was most essential that there should be a particular definition of what expenses were or were not illegal, but that declaration had been struck out. The only effect of agreeing to this Amendment was, that the law would remain in its present state; but he might say that, while this Bill treated one part of the subject of bribery and corruption, there was another part of the subject— namely, that which referred to the trial of offences before Election Committees; and he hoped to be able to deal with that subject during the next Session of Parliament.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he still retained all those objections to the Bill which he had urged against it upon the third reading, but he should not upon the present occasion enter into a recapitulation of those objections. The course he meant to take was to call the attention of the House to the manner in which, and to the time at which, the House of Commons was called upon to take into consideration the subject of the noble Lord's Motion. For his own part he must say that he had never yet, during the time he had sat in that House, seen a Minister ask the concurrence of the House to an Amendment against which, in conjunction with his colleagues, he had spoken and voted. The present Bill had undergone considerable discussion in that House, and also the severe scrutiny of a Select Committee— and, indeed, the consideration of it could not be concluded before the day arrived after which the Lords had determined not to receive any more Bills from that House. They had, however, for various reasons, consented to take this Bill into discussion, and among other reasons stated was a feeling of deference to the opinion of that House.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I understand that the noble Lord is about to enter into a detail of the proceedings with respect to this Bill which took place in the other House; but the proceedings which have taken place there, in Committee, with regard to it, are not properly matter for discussion in this House.

LORD HOTHAM

The noble Lord was perhaps justified in calling him to order; but he thought that the noble Lord himself, in asking the House to consider what had never been printed, and of which they had no Parliamentary knowledge, was scarcely taking a legitimate course. The clause to whose omission from the Bill the noble Lord now asked them to give their assent, was one which had been considered upon no less than five different occasions, and upon every one of those occasions the noble Lord had either spoken or voted in its favour. The whole force of the Government had, in fact, been arrayed in support of it; and yet the noble Lord had no hesitation in asking the House of Commons to sanction its removal from the Bill. It was vain to say that to reject this Amendment would only leave the law in the same condition as it at present was, for surely it was not unreasonable, on the part of those who desired to see the law settled with regard to this subject, to complain of its being left in its present state. He contended that if the House consented under any pretence to the proposal of the omission of this clause, they would expose themselves to the scorn and contempt of every man throughout the country. What, then, was to be done under the present peculiar circumstances? To take the sense of the House would be a perfect absurdity, for, at that advanced period of the Session, when very few hon. Members besides Members of the Government were in London, the Government would, he was well aware, be able to carry any measure they pleased to bring forward, even if it were a proposal to make bribery at elections a capital offence. He scarcely knew what course he should take in order to resist the unjustifiable attempt of the noble Lord to reverse the decision at which the House of Commons had arrived. He must, sorry as he should be to be compelled to do so, if the noble Lord persisted in asking the House to assent to the omission of the clause in question, adopt a mode of proceeding the object of which was to protect that House from an improper interference with its action, let that interference come from whatever quarter it might. During the long period which he had sat in that House he had never felt it to be his duty to resort to the mode of proceeding to which he referred; but he had seen upon one occasion, no less than thirty divisions taken in Committee of Supply by the noble Lord's colleague, the late Lord Durham, and the last of those divisions had been taken on the question whether fresh candles should be lighted or not. There was a limit to all human endurance, and the present was an occasion upon which, he thought, the noble Lord might be considered to have passed that limit. The noble Lord, in fact, called upon the House of Commons to stultify itself by giving its assent to a proposition, the effect of which was to declare that it was prepared to act in a manner which would reflect disgrace upon its proceedings. Under these circumstances, he should implore of the noble Lord to reconsider the determination at which he seemed to have arrived, and not compel him, and those who might concur in his view of the matter, to have recourse to either one or the other of two alternatives —namely, either to take a course which it must be most repugnant to their feelings to adopt, or to make a pusillanimous and disgraceful surrender of the duty which they owed to their own consciences, to that House of which they were Members, and to those constituents whom they had the honour to represent. If the noble Lord, however, should persevere in the course which he had signified it to be his intention to pursue, then he (Lord Hotham), when they should have arrived at the 23rd clause, should move that the consideration of the Amendment of the House of Lords with respect to that clause be agreed to that day month.

Amendments agreed to, as far as Clause 23.

Amendment, to leave out Clause 23, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Ques- tion, in order to add the words "the said Amendment be taken into further consideration upon this day month," instead thereof.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that the noble Lord seemed to consider that clause to be a very essential portion of the Bill; but the fact was that the Bill which he (Lord J. Russell) had introduced at the commencement of the Session had contained no such provision; and he believed that no such provision was to be found among the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Suffolk (Sir E. Kelly). It certainly was not true that the adoption of such a clause had been regarded as one of the primary objects of the measure. But it was true that when they had been discussing the declaration clause, it had been strongly urged that if every Member were to be compelled to declare that he had incurred no expenses except legal expenses, they ought to define as exactly as possible what expenses were legal and what expenses were illegal; and it was in consequence of that argument that he had been induced to advise the House to agree to the clause then under their consideration. But he should confess that he thought the arguments used in that House against allowing candidates to pay election expenses had appeared to him very strong, and that they had certainly made a considerable impression upon his mind. It had been argued that by that clause they would open the door to many practices which should be clearly considered corrupt, and which were very akin to direct bribery. He could not help thinking that there was considerable weight in the objections thus put forward against the clause; and in his opinion it was desirable that they should agree with the Amendment of the Lords, and omit the clause from the Bill. It was not one of the essential provisions of the measure, although some hon. Members on both sides of the House had chosen so to represent it. If the House of Lords had undertaken to define what expenses should be legal, and what expenses should be illegal, he could understand that there would be some force in the objections advanced by the noble Lord against the course which the Lords had pursued, because the decision to which the House of Commons had come would then have been directly reversed by the other House. But the Lords had taken no such course; they had merely decided in favour of the omission of the clause; so that if the payment of travelling expenses had heretofore been legal, it would still continue legal under that Bill. It might be desirable that Parliament should come to some definite decision upon that point; but as the Bill now under consideration contained many other useful provisions—provisions, for instance, defining what was bribery, what was treating, what was undue influence, and providing for the appointment of an election officer with a view of ascertaining and limiting the expenses of elections, he thought that it was well worth the approval of the House, although it did not peremptorily deal with the question of the legality or the illegality of the payment of travelling expenses. He could not, therefore, conceive that the noble Lord could have any reason to say that that House would be at all disparaged by agreeing to that Amendment of the Lords. On the contrary, he was exceedingly glad that the Lords had not made any further Amendments in the Bill, and that in spite of the Resolution to which they had come, not to consider any Bills after the 25th of July, except Bills of Supply, or Bills of extreme urgency, they had thought proper to proceed with the present measure after that date. That fact showed that the House of Lords were more aware than the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) appeared to be of the urgency of that measure. It showed an earnest desire, on their parts, to put a check to those corrupt practices, and it likewise showed that they entertained very considerable deference for the wishes of the House of Commons, in which House the question of the propriety of issuing new writs for the five boroughs which had, for some time, remained unrepresented, was to be considered on Friday next. Under all the circumstances of the case, it appeared to him to be very desirable that the Bill should pass as soon as possible, and that if new writs were to be issued for Cambridge and the other unrepresented boroughs, they should have an opportunity of seeing whether the measure would be effectual in preventing that corruption by which those boroughs had hitherto been disgraced. He had, therefore, no hesitation in advising the House to agree to that Amendment of the Lords. He trusted that if the noble Lord opposite should divide the House upon that occasion, and if his Motion should be rejected, he would see that the feeling against those corrupt practices was so strong that it was not considered advisable that the House should delay until another Session some remedy against their recurrence.

MR. HILDYARD

said, that the noble Lord President of the Council had addressed the House apparently under the supposition that the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Hotham) wished that the House should reject the Bill altogether. But he (Mr. Hildyard) did not certainly understand that that was the wish of the noble Lord.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that the Motion of the noble Lord was that the Amendment should be considered on that day month; and the effect of its adoption would necessarily be to defeat the Bill for the present Session.

MR. HILDYARD

said, that he was sure that if that would be the effect of the Motion his noble Friend would be prepared so to amend it as to show that he wished the Bill should pass at once, but should pass with the clause which had been struck out by the Lords. [Lord HOTHAM: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord the President of the Council had told them that that was a matter of no great importance; but if it were a matter of only trifling importance, why should not the House of Lords coincide in a decision to which the House of Commons had come after prolonged deliberation? He said that that was an exercise of the privileges of the House of Lords which the Commons ought not to tolerate. In that case the Lords had thought proper to reverse a decision to which the House had come by very considerable majorities, and with the sanction of every noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench. Why should the Members of that House be subject to the caprice of the House of Lords? If that clause were struck out, the legality or the illegality of the payment by candidates of the travelling expenses of voters would still be left in doubt and different Committees of that House would be found deciding that question differently. It was only natural to suppose, however, that ultimately county Members would be deterred from incurring the risk of paying those travelling expenses, and then the poorer class of county voters would in many instances be virtually disfranchised. He hoped that the House would not, by adopting the Amendment, succumb to the caprice of the House of Lords, and that that House would not consent to the omission from the Bill of a clause to which they had before repeatedly given their sanction by large majorities.

MR. HUME

said, it would appear from the language employed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed them that the Liberals were at present the constitutional party in that House, and that the self-styled Conservatives were the enemies of the constitution. The doctrines laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman would lead to a complete revolution in the constitution of this country. For his (Mr. Hume's) part, he had always defended the constitution as composed of King, Lords, and Commons; and no man could be more anxious than he had always been that each of these bodies should perform its special duties in our legislative system. He had frequently complained that the Lords had overstepped their rights by sending Members to the House of Commons; but he had never insulted them by complaining that they had exercised their undoubted privilege of dealing as they might think proper with any Bill that might be submitted to their consideration. If they were not to be allowed to exercise that privilege, why, he would ask, should measures be brought at all before them? He must confess at the same time that he attached but little importance to the Bill; he had even abstained from taking any part in its discussion or in the divisions upon its various clauses; and he had told the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) not only on this, but on similar occasions, that he believed the only effectual mode of putting a cheek to bribery at elections would be the adoption of the vote by ballot. He thought it only fair that Members of Parliament should not be saddled with the expense of bringing voters to the poll. He had no particular anxiety to see the franchise placed in the hands of men who would not be prepared to go to a polling-booth to record their votes; and if the present polling-booths were too distant for any electors, he would only recommend that the number of polling-places should be increased, and that one of them should, if necessary, be erected in every parish. Under any circumstances he felt that a candidate ought not to be put to the expense of a single shilling in order to ensure his return to Parliament; for he was but the servant of the public, and, as a servant, he ought not to be compelled to purchase his employment.

MR. SPEAKER

said, he felt it his duty to remind the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire that his Amendment, if carried, would lead to the rejection of the Bill. If the noble Lord only objected to that particular Amendment of the Lords, he should merely move that the House should disagree to that Amendment.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he felt it his duty to avail himself of every form of the House, not for the purpose of defeating the Bill, but for the purpose of ensuring the rejection of that Amendment of the Lords. If the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would move that the House should disagree to the Amendment, and if that Motion should be adopted, he (Lord Hotham) should not offer the slightest opposition to the further progress of the Bill. His only wish was that it should remain in the state in which it had been sent up to the other House.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he understood the noble Lord to state that unless that clause were reinserted in the Bill he would obstruct the progress of the measure altogether. [Lord HOTHAM: Hear, hear!] That was a perfectly intelligible object, and for that object the Amendment of the noble Lord was a perfectly correct one. The noble Lord the Lord President of the Council had congratulated the House on the fact that the House of Lords had, in the case of the Bill now before them, waived the Resolution they had passed not to consider any Bill, except Bills of Supply, after the 25th of July. But he (Mr. Duncombe) saw no ground for congratulation in that circumstance. The Amendment which the Lords had made in striking out this clause was obviously a compromise. There was no question that the Government had been placed in a false position by the course which had been taken in this matter; but the House of Lords seemed desirous of placing the House of Commons in a false position of much more dangerous import by the Resolution under which they had sought to restrict the proceedings of that House. It appeared to him that the House of Commons would be deserting their duty to themselves and to the country were they to permit the Resolution of the House of Lords to become a precedent. It was a Resolution, moreover, which altogether trenched upon the prerogative of the Crown; for, supposing Her Majesty to have thought fit, instead of proroguing Parliament, to adjourn it for two or three months, was it to be permitted that the Lords should say they would not receive any of the Bills which might result from the resumed sitting, because they had not been brought up to their Lordships' House before the 25th of July in this year? He regarded the Resolution as altogether vicious, wrong, and unconstitutional. He perceived that the Lords had introduced another Amendment into the Bill, to the effect that it should continue in operation for a period of two years, and thence to the end of the next Session of Parliament; or, in other words, that it should remain in force for a period of three years. But as he (Mr. Duncombe) believed that the Bill was a trumpery and inefficient one, he meant to bring forward an Amendment to that proposal, and to move that the operation of the Bill should be limited to a period of twelve months. As this was intended to be an experimental measure, so also let the ballot be experimental.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, they had all heard that the views of hon. Members were often influenced to a greater extent than they were aware of by the side of the House on which they sat. He was glad the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who had so long sat on the sunny side of the House, should now feel disposed to give the benefit of his great experience and weight as a champion of the rights and privileges of the House of Lords. He thought, in his new character, the hon. Member could not do better than enter into a compact with the hon. Member for Finsbury, who had just attacked the House of Lords in a manner wholly undeserved because of its Resolution in reference to not receiving Bills after the 25th of July. Now, so far from having done anything unconstitutional, or anything that could be held to militate against the privileges of the Commons, the Lords never, in his opinion, took a course more wise or constitutional than in the case just mentioned. He was sorry Her Majesty's Government should take such an active part in putting aside a Resolution which was essential to the maintenance of the privileges of the House of Lords as an independent branch of the Legislature. What was the state of business in the House of Lords this time twelve months? The accumulation of Bills on their table was such that it was impossible they could give them attention. They were called upon in the month of August not to exercise an independent function, but to register whatever Bills the House of Commons might desire to crowd upon their table. He hoped in future Sessions the Lords would not only arrive at a similar Resolution, but that they would also adhere to it, as well as be supported by the House of Commons. As regarded the question now before the House, he should say it was not creditable to the character of the House; it was not a desirable or decorous proceeding that, in the middle of August, with a mere skeleton of the House present, they should be called upon to rescind and reverse the determination arrived at on so many occasions by a full House. It might be contended that if the Lords made Amendments in their Bills at so late a period of the Session, and sent them back, what else was to be done? But in the present case that had not happened. They found, on the contrary, a Member of the Government, in another place, proposing to reverse the resolution of the House of Commons—a resolution deliberately arrived at, and not alone deliberately arrived at, but also urged for adoption by the Government itself. The Government, therefore, were not in a position to urge on the House the necessity of the case, and, therefore, he should feel bound to vote with his noble Friend the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire in the course he was taking. But they were told if the Amendment of his noble Friend were carried it would be fatal to the Bill. His noble Friend, however, had stated that such was not his object. However, he (Sir J. Pakington) agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) that if the result of the Amendment was to put an end to the measure in the present Session the loss would not be very great. He supported the Bill up to the last division, but he had no hesitation in avowing that upon that occasion the Bill was so mutilated and so altered for the worse, that he did not think it was desirable the Bill should pass; and his apprehension was that if the Bill should pass in its present shape, it would only be a delusion. He did not say that the Bill had no merits. It consolidated the laws relating to bribery, and it gave a better definition than they had yet had of what bribery was; but it was not intended for a Consolidation Bill, or a Bill for de- fining bribery, but as a Bill for putting an end to those scenes of bribery and corruption which had disgraced some recent elections; and in that important respect he believed that the Bill would be an utter delusion. Without a declaration to be taken by the successful candidates, he believed that the nomination of an election officer would be a perfectly useless appointment, and that the Legislature would fail in the great object which it had in view. Upon that ground he was prepared to give any vote which would impede the further progress of the Bill, and upon that ground he regretted that the Government thought it desirable to press it. He could have wished that, instead of carrying this now imperfect measure through Parliament, they had taken the recess to consider the subject, and at the commencement of the next Session had brought forward a well-digested measure, which might then have been deliberated upon and passed by both Houses.

MR. G. BUTT

said, that it appeared to him the Bill, as it had come from the House of Lords, was, upon the whole, a useful measure. It certainly could not be denied that it contained many provisions calculated to carry into effect objects which Members of that House on both sides desired to have fulfilled. He would not go into the conflict between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, which had nothing to do with the question. The matter was, whether the Bill had sufficient merit in itself to entitle it to the adoption of the House as it now stood, and he thought it had. The noble Lord opposite had truly pointed out that in neither of the three Bills which had been submitted to the Select Committee had there been any clause which affected to deal with the question as to the legality of the payments to which this clause referred. It might be desirable, hereafter, to define what was legal and what was not in relation to such payments, but this future expediency afforded no reason why the present Bill should not pass —why another recess should pass away, and another Session, before any attempt was made to put down bribery and corruption. No doubt the Bill, as it came from the Committee was better than it was now, but let them take the measure as it stood, and let a short Bill be introduced next Session to supply any defect in the particular point under discussion, which it might be expedient to deal with.

MR. WILKINSON

said, he had no faith in the Bill as a remedy for the evils of bribery, or in any legislative action by way of penalty. The only effectual way, in his opinion, of putting a stop to malpractices at elections would be to extend the franchise on the one hand, and adopt the system of the ballot on the other.

MR. CAYLEY

said, he thought that the House of Lords was perfectly justified in the course they had taken. At all events, they had greatly improved this Bill, which he hoped would be passed in its present shape. He differed from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) in thinking that the House of Lords did an unconstitutional act in passing their Resolution of the 2nd of May. That was a most useful Resolution, and one to which he hoped the House of Lords would adhere in future Sessions. With respect to the clause under discussion, he thought it would be inconsistent, and against all right principle, to call upon candidates to pay the travelling expenses of voters, and he should give his hearty support to the Lords' Amendments.

MR. MALINS

said, he would beg the noble Lord the President of the Council to say, after the House of Commons had decided five times by large majorities that the actual and reasonable travelling expenses of voters should be paid by the candidates, and after every Member of the Government in that House had voted in favour of the clause to that effect, that the resolution to which the House had deliberately come should be set aside because the House of Lords had decided, upon a single night's debate upon the whole Bill, that the clause should be expunged. The effect of omitting the clause would be to leave the question of the legality or illegality of travelling expenses in a state of greater doubt and uncertainty than before; and it would be impossible either for an election officer or an Election Committee of that House to show how they were to deal with such cases. He thought that, instead of passing the Bill in its present imperfect and dangerous shape, it would be far better to delay it till next Session. But he would like the noble Lord the President of the Council to explain how it came to pass that a clause, which was supported in the House of Commons by all the Members of the Government in that House, was struck out on the Motion of another Member of the Government in the House of Lords. It could not be that the noble Duke acted without the knowledge or consent of his colleagues. He believed that in some matters the noble Duke did not allow the other Members of the Government to interfere with him; but this was not a question of that description; and at all events the matter was one in which an explanation was most assuredly due to the House. Seeing that the Bill as it now stood was one of little value, while it was calculated to create the greatest possible embarrassment at elections, he trusted that it would be allowed to remain over till next Session, when it might be made really effective for the suppression of bribery and corruption.

SIR CHARLES BURRELL

said, he thought candidates should be allowed to pay the travelling expenses of poor voters, who had not the means of going to the poll at their own cost. He would also suggest that more polling-booths should be erected in large counties, and in any future Bill he hoped that point would not be lost sight of. The omission of the clause which allowed travelling expenses was a harsh and injudicious act, and he would therefore vote against it.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR

said, he must deny the assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), that the Government had to a man supported the clause in that House. The Attorney General not only voted, but spoke, against the clause. He rejoiced exceedingly at the course which bad been taken in the other House, for he saw an opening for incalculable mischief in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. So great, indeed, had been his objection to the clause, that he had felt it his duty to vote against the passing of the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to take a very extraordinary view of the duties of a candidate. Formerly, if a man went down to a borough and openly stated his intention—and kept to it—not to pay more than legal expenses, he was held up to honour; but now there seemed to be an idea abroad that a great portion of the expenses, properly belonging to the borough, ought to be got out of the candidate.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 21: Majority 57.

Main Question again proposed.

LORD HOTHAM

said, in pursuance of the feeling he had on this subject, it was now his duty to move that the House do now adjourn. In doing so, he would take the liberty of saying one or two words in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord the President of the Council, who appeared to be under the impression that he (Lord Hotham) had stated that this clause involved the principle of the Bill. He neither said so, nor did he feel it to be any such thing. But what he did say was, that there was no clause in the Bill on which the House had expressed a more decided opinion, or on which more divisions had been taken. It was on that ground that he considered the House ought not to assent to the omission of the clause. He had no other object in view than that this clause should remain in the Bill, although it had been said that a question was sought to be raised as to whether the Bill should be proceeded with or not. For his own part, he would scorn taking the opportunity of doing indirectly what he could not do directly. His objection was solely to the omission of this clause. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was to decide whether the Bill should pass or not. It was not a question between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, but a question between the Ministers of the Crown in that House and the Ministers of the Crown in the other House of Parliament. If the noble Lord was willing to determine that the repeated decisions of the House of Commons should be maintained and that the clause should be restored, then he (Lord Hotham) should not offer one further word of objection to the Bill.

MR. HILDYARD

said, he wished to correct a great misrepresentation of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that he had said the House of Lords had acted capriciously. What he said was that if the House of Lords thought proper to reject this Bill because the House of Commons adhered to a clause upon which they had five times divided, and which they had carried by large majorities, they would, in so rejecting it, act capriciously, and on them would be the consequence of that rejection. To every word of that statement he adhered. By majorities of nearly three to one that House had declared that reasonable and actual expenses of travelling were not illegal. The clause was not an enacting, but a declaratory clause, that the payment of the reasonable and actual expenses of voters was not illegal. The House of Lords had struck out that clause, without declaring that the payment of those expenses was illegal. What, then, would be the condition of county Members? They would not be able to pay a single farthing on account of such expenses without risking the loss of their seats.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 84: Majority 68.

Main Question again proposed.

MR. FITZWILLIAM HUME

moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. HUME

said, he trusted, after the manifestation of the opinion of the House, that the further opposition to this Bill would be withdrawn.

MR. HILDYARD

said, he was astonished the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose should talk of the manifestation of a majority in that House, when it was well known the present manifestation was the manifestation of a minority, against which there had been a vote of at least three to one of that House. The noble Lord the President of the Council had now all his supporters still in town, but the great bulk of the Members who would support the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) had left town.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he did not think the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down was remarkable for his calmness. It could not well be said of the hon. and learned Gentleman— Whose own example strengthens all his laws, And is himself the great sublime he draws. The hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken in supposing this clause formed any part of the original Bill. The clause in question had been added to it at a later period of the discussion, and it never formed a portion of the original Bill. He trusted the noble Lord would not now put the House to the trouble of dividing, but would take the sense of it on the main question, that they agree or disagree to the Lords' Amendments. The noble Lord must perceive, that in the division which had taken place, not merely the ordinary supporters of the Government voted in favour of the Lords' Amendments, but also many of those who sat upon the noble Lord's own side of the House.

COLONEL BLAIR

said, he would remind the noble Lord that, not many weeks ago, he had stated that, if he conscientiously believed he were right, however small the minority who supported him, he would persevere. He also begged to remind the noble Lord that a great many Members who had formerly opposed the view taken by the House of Lords, were now out of town, and had not had notice that the question was to be discussed.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that the occasion to which the hon. and gallant Member adverted, upon which he (Lord J. Russell) spoke as stated, was where a minority attempted to contravene the wishes of the majority.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he had taken a deep interest in this Bill from the commencement. It was not special or partial legislation, but applied equally to England, Ireland, and Scotland, and he trusted the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) would not again uselessly divide the House.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he would advise the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. F. Hume) not to press his Amendment to a division, but that he and his friends should reserve their forces for his (Mr.Duncombe's) Amendment, that the operation of the Bill be limited to twelve months.

MR. MALINS

said, he must complain that no notice had been given of agreement to these Amendments being moved. There were many at this moment within two miles of the House of Commons who did not know what was going on, and who had no reason to know what was going on. He justified the course which he and his friends were taking, and which he admitted upon ordinary occasions was exceedingly to be deprecated, upon the ground that they were asked to reverse the oft-repeated decision of that House, and to do it without reasonable notice.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he had not been in the House upon the two former divisions, but should vote for the present Amendment, if it were pressed, upon the ground that it was a most unjustifiable proceeding to attempt, at that period of the Session, and in such a House as was then assembled, to force on a measure of this kind without proper notice. It was a positive act of deception on the House. A measure of this magnitude, and involving such great interests, ought to have been brought forward and discussed at such a period of the Session as would have ensured a proper attendance of Members.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 81: Majority 66.

Main Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 79: Majority 66.

Main Question again proposed.

MR. MALINS

said, he thought the noble Lord the President of the Council would agree with him, that it was not fair that such a subject should be discussed without notice. In order, therefore, that such notice might be given, and that those hon. Members who were absent might have an opportunity of attending, he would propose an adjournment until Thursday. He would have preferred Friday, but he understood that the prorogation was to be on Saturday, and he could see that Friday might be inconvenient; but he trusted that the noble Lord would think that, in proposing Thursday, he was only suggesting a fair compromise. There was another reason for the postponement. It would afford the noble Lord an opportunity of giving an answer to the question he had asked just now, and which, he thought, respect for the country and that House demanded should be answered, as to the reasons which had led the noble Duke (his colleague) to move in the other House of Parliament to undo that which the noble Lord in that House had himself proposed to do.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman could only move that the debate be adjourned.

MR. MALINS

said, he would therefore alter his Amendment accordingly, on the understanding that, if carried, the discussion should be resumed on Thursday.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, a postponement to Thursday would give hon. Gentlemen opposite a great advantage. It was obvious that they might pursue the same course on that day and on Friday as they had pursued to-day, and then the only alternative would be, that the prorogation must be postponed or the Bill be lost.

MR. BRIGHT

said, it appeared to him there was something not quite so honest as they might expect in the course which hon. Gentlemen opposite were taking. They were objecting now to the further progress of the Bill, on the ground that a particular clause had been withdrawn, but they had voted against the Bill with that clause in it; and the ground of their opposition, therefore, must be sought, not in the withdrawal of the clause, but in the ancient inveterate hostility to the Bill itself. He thought that the objection as to want of notice savoured very much of a court of law; that those hon. Members who were still in town, and had sufficient means of knowing that the subject was to be discussed, and that those who had gone out of town, must be supposed to have ascertained before they left, whether there was any business which remained to be transacted of sufficient importance to detain them. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) claimed to represent a majority of the House. How did he know that? The noble Lord the President of the Council, on whose recommendation only the House had agreed to this clause, had changed his opinion upon it; and they all knew that the noble Lord's conversion was generally followed by the conversion of a great many others. He remembered to have heard it said of a certain Cardinal that he had baptized 4,000 or 5,000 people at once by the twirling of a mop; and when the noble Lord changed his opinions a great many other people changed their opinions at the same time. He would put it to the noble Lord whether it was worth his while—as this was a temporary measure—as a majority of the House of Commons had adopted it—as the House of Lords had thought it of sufficient importance to warrant a suspension in its favour of the Resolution it had passed this Session—as the whole subject must be reconsidered at all events within the next two years—it was worth his while to persevere in a course which, supported by thirteen Members—just "a baker's dozen"—against seventy-nine, could lead to no practical result?

MR. HILDYARD

said, he must still contend that the objection made upon the ground of want of notice was the objection, not merely of a lawyer, but of a statesman, and he assuredly should support the course which the Opposition had pursued.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he maintained that it was perfectly consistent with the opposition that had been given to a Bill which they believed to be bad, mischievous, and inefficient, to support the reintroduction of a clause, the omission of which, they considered, made a bad measure worse.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he agreed that the clause which the Lords had struck out was one of great importance, for, if it had become law, rank bribery would for the first time have become legalised. What hon. Gentlemen wished, therefore, was to establish bribery by Act of Parliament.

LORD HOTHAM

said, if, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, the clause in question would have sanctioned bribery, how happened it that he himself, on four or five different occasions, voted for it? The hon. Gentleman had, as he had frequently done before, imputed motives to those who were opposed to him. How much better it would be if the hon. Gentleman would confine himself to giving his reasons for the opinions he entertained. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), he would only say, that it was not the fact that those who sought to maintain the clause which the Lords had struck out wished to establish bribery. [Mr. BRIGHT: Hear, hear.] At all events, the hon. Gentleman imputed to the minority that they had an object other than that which they professed. He (Lord Hotham) could only say that, whatever might be the merits of the clause, it was one which had over and over again been confirmed by that House. It was on that ground, without any reference to the intrinsic merits of the clause itself, that he was proceeding on this occasion. The ground he was now going upon was, that there was originally a large majority extremely in favour of the clause. Nothing would have induced him to put himself in the situation he was then assuming, but a most sacred sense of duty. It was a position which was most distasteful to him, but from which he felt he could not recede without sacrificing his conscientious feelings, and consenting to a most unworthy surrender of the privileges of that House.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 78: Majority 65.

Main Question again proposed.

LORD HOTHAM

I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. MALINS

said, he had hoped, when he moved that the debate be adjourned to Thursday next, that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would have acceded to so reasonable a proposition, but, as the noble Lord had not thought proper to do so, he did not think it was necessary to proceed further in dividing the House.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 77: Majority 66.

Main Question again proposed.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he should again move that the debate be adjourned.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

Mr. Speaker, it appears that both sides of the House are gradually dwindling away, and as the minority are decreasing two to one, as com- pared with the majority, it is clear that in the end they must give way. Now, I would suggest that time would be saved, and the object of both parties attained, by the adoption of the compromise I suggested an hour or two ago, that the present Bill should continue in operation for twelvemonths and the then next Session of Parliament instead of for two years, and the then next Session. This, I conceive, would meet the views of both parties. The noble Lord the President of the Council would then no doubt undertake to bring in a new Bill in the course of next year, but if the operation of the Bill be extended for three years after what has taken place this evening, I think it very probable that we shall not have an effectual Bribery Bill for a considerable length of time. I hope the noble Lord the Lord President will consent to this arrangement, and that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Hotham) will also acquiesce in it.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he had no other object in view than an imperative sense of public duty. He was ready to admit that if the operation of the Bill were limited to twelve months, the view he entertained of the matter would be considerably modified, and if the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) consented to provide that it should continue only for one year, he (Lord Hotham), being most unwilling to interfere more than was absolutely necessary with the progress of other business, would readily acquiesce in that arrangement.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

If my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury means to propose that the Bill shall continue for one year, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament, I shall be willing to accede to that proposal. There would then be time to consider any other Bill which it might be thought desirable to introduce, but if it was limited to one year only, an attempt might be made on the first or second reading or on some other stage of such Bill, to move adjournment after adjournment, and thus prevent the passing of any measure upon the subject.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he believed that the words "and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament," were generally introduced into Bills not to be in force, but to cover any accident that might occur such as the noble Lord had suggested, and his object was not to run the present Bill until the end of the next Session, after the expiration of the year, but to afford the noble Lord the opportunity of bringing in another Bill next Session, and doing his best to carry it, but having the prospect of the continuance of the present Bill until the end of the succeeding Session should he fail in doing so.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he was willing to acquiesce in the proposed arrangement.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Of course I shall feel myself at perfect liberty to propose either to amend this Bill in another Session, or to reintroduce it exactly as it is if I should so think fit. By acquiescing in this arrangement, I must not be understood as binding myself to any particular course in this respect.

MR. MALINS

said, he hoped the noble Lord, whether he introduced this Bill or proposed a new one, would incorporate in it the clause which had been struck out by the Lords.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

then moved an Amendment in accordance with Mr. T. Duncombe's suggestion, limiting the duration of the Bill to one year, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament.

In reply to Mr. HILDYARD,

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, of course this Amendment would have to go up to the Lords for their concurrence.

Amendment agreed to.