Commons Sitting of 20 March 1854

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Durham County (Northern Division), v. Viscount Seaham, now Earl Vane.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Public Libraries and Museums; Dublin Port; Dublin Carriage.
2o Ministers' Money, &c. (Ireland); Colonial Clergy Disabilities.

COLOURED SUBJECTS OF GREAT BRI- TAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in what state the correspondence between the British and the United States Governments with reference to coloured seamen (being British subjects), on the vessels to which they belong arriving at a port in any of the Southern States, being imprisoned on account of their colour, now was, and whether there would be any objection to lay the correspondence on the table of the House; and also whether there was any truth in the report, that coloured seamen (being British subjects) have been not only imprisoned, but afterwards sold into slavery, if unable to pay the cost of their imprisonment? He had documents in his possession which led him to believe that this had occurred.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid: Lord Clarendon was of opinion that it would be better not to produce the correspondence, relying on the Legislatures of the several States to make such alterations in their laws as would prevent a recurrence of these causes of complaint. In Carolina the Governor had proposed an alteration which had not been carried into effect, but it was understood that it would be again proposed this year; and believing that there would be a great improvement in the
996
legislation both of Carolina and of Georgia upon this subject, Lord Clarendon, he repeated, was of opinion that the correspondence had better not be produced.

MINISTERS' MONEY, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. MIALLsaid, it was his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The House was already in possession of ample information with regard to the tax of ministers' money—an impost which might be described as an Irish church rate with aggravations peculiar to itself. The excuse urged in behalf of church rates in England, that they had existed from time immemorial, could not be alleged in favour of ministers' money, which was a tax of comparatively recent date, having been imposed by Statute in the reign of Charles II. That tax was a badge of conquest and of degradation to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland; it was perfectly unnecessary to the carrying out of the establishment principle in Ireland; it was extremely partial in its operation, and it fell chiefly upon persons whose religious belief was diametrically opposed to the creed which the tax was intended to support. He regarded the tax as both impolitic and unjust, and, as the amount derived from it was extremely small, and there was a strong feeling in favour of the total repeal of the impost, he hoped the Government would not press this Bill, which was intended simply to effect a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had alleged as a reason for not proposing the total repeal of the tax the inviolability of Church property, but he (Mr. Miall) considered that a tax levied for the support of a Church or the maintenance of divine worship, under an Act of Parliament, could scarcely with propriety he denominated property, for such a tax might at any time be repealed by the Legislature. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman must have overlooked what took place a few years ago when the tithes were commuted to a rent-charge, and twenty-five per cent of them were thus sacrificed and given over to the landlords. If, however, this tax was to be regarded as Church property, he still thought it was completely within the power of that House to deal with it as they

997
pleased, and that too, on principles of the most perfect equity. The right hon. Gentleman, by introducing a Bill which gave up part of this impost, thereby admitted that there was a real grievance complained of, and that the character of the tax was one of great injustice. There were abundant funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which might be made applicable to supply the place of this tax, and it would be consulting the best interests of the Church and of religion if such an application were brought about. He (Mr. Miall) conceived that, so long as a Church set at nought the principles of justice, it was perfectly vain to expect that the spiritual influence of that Church upon the people would be what it ought to be, and what it was designed to be. He believed that not only did the Church suffer, but that religion itself also suffered, from the mode of quartering the ministers of religion upon the resources of persons whom they were intending and hoping to convert. Only last week, while he (Mr. Miall) was engaged in attending to his duties in that House, three persons, a policeman and two brokers, entered his domicile; they brought with them a warrant from a magistrate; and, as he (Mr. Miall) happened to be one of those unfortunate individuals who had a conscientious objection to the payment of church rates, they seized what furniture they could put it into a cart, and drove off with it. Now, without considering what effect such acts were calculated to produce upon the minds of the victims, he would ask what effect they must have upon the minds of the men who were engaged in these transactions? Were such occurrences likely to increase their reverence for religion or its ministers? He hoped, therefore, that the House would show its desire to get rid of these inconvenient and irritating questions by supporting the Amendment he now begged to propose.
MR. HUME, in seconding the Amendment, said, he must express his regret that the Government evinced so little disposition to allay the excitement and irritation which were occasioned by this description of taxation. In the days of Charles, when cities and towns of Ireland and the city of Edinburgh were saddled with taxes of this nature, the number of Dissenters was small, but he called upon the Government to consider the number of individuals at present who, as Dissenters, objected on conscientious grounds to the imposition of
998
these rates. He hoped that the Government, seeing the excitement and discontent occasioned by such taxes, would consider whether it was right or politic to raise by these means a paltry sum of 14,000 l. or 15,000 l. a year, when there were large surplus revenues belonging to the Church.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 97: Majority 106.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2o.

COLONIAL CLERGY DISABILITIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. HADFIELD, in moving that the second reading of the Bill be postponed, until that day six months, said he was very much surprised at the introduction of this measure after the decision of the House last year, for its features were even of a more objectionable character than those of the Bill of last Session. The Bill was in effect to repeal the Act of Henry VIII., and to permit the colonial clergy to meet, subject to no responsibility whatever. It conferred on the clergy who settled in the Colonies privileges and concessions which were altogether withheld from the clergy at home. Now if there was one point more than another in respect of which the Colonial Legislatures were peculiarly jealous, it was in regard of interference with their ecclesiastical affairs; and that being so, he warned the House not to meddle on so ticklish a question with that class of Her Majesty's subjects. Let the House recollect that it was a similar interference which primarily led to the revolt that lost to us our North American Colonies. The Bill professed to be remarkably simple and straightforward, yet it was difficult to determine what its true meaning was. It set forth that the Colonists might assemble and make regulations concerning their ecclesiastical matters, yet it carefully enacted that the Bill should give no legal effect to those regulations when made. He wanted, then, to know what was the Bill for? The House should carefully deliberate whether or not the prohibitions put upon the clergy

999
shall be continued. Let them not experimentalise upon the Colonies; but let the question be discussed upon a broad principle, and as one involving the whole of the ecclesiastical policy of the country. The present Bill was one which would tend to dissatisfy the Colonists, and occasion a religious element of discord which would prove not only exceedingly injurious to the Colonies themselves, but likewise to the mother country.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, with the permission of the House, I wish briefly to state the reasons why I find myself unable to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and I cannot help hoping that the hon. Gentleman himself will not think it desirable to press his Amendment to a division. The House will recollect that this is by no means the first time on which this subject—one, no doubt, of great intricacy, as well as of extreme interest to members of the Established Church in the Colonies—has been brought before this House. About two years ago I had found it to be my duty to oppose a Bill upon this subject that was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On that occasion I explained at considerable length the objections which I entertained towards it. In making those objections I received on that occasion the support of the present hon. and learned Solicitor General, who is now the promoter of the present Bill, and who concurred in the views which I then put forward. But when I stated the objections I entertained to that measure, I also felt it my duty to express an opinion that the state of the Church in our Colonies was far from satisfactory, and that it would be desirable to give the colonial members of that Church all the additional freedom of action in the management of their ecclesiastical affairs that was consistent with the two grand objects of the unity of the Church and the constitutional authority of the Crown. I then stated I thought that the Church of England in the Colonies laboured under disadvantages with regard to the necessity of adapting herself to missionary duties, but more especially in reference to the management of the temporalities of the Church, and to the establish-
1000
ment of a proper discipline. Now, my object is to remedy those defects in such a manner as would better meet the wishes of the colonists themselves. Fortunately this subject has been for a long time before Parliament and our Colonies, and there will, therefore, be no difficulty in deciding what is the real view of the majority of the members of the Church of England in all our most important Colonies. Those who are conversant with the subject will confirm what I now say. The demands of the colonists may be divided under two heads. First—they are desirous—whether rightly or wrongly, whether the present state of the law does or does not impose impediments to free action—they are desirous to be more free than they now find themselves; and secondly, they are no less anxious to keep up their connection with the Church of England and Ireland. These I believe, beyond all doubt, are the real objects of the colonists themselves. Well, the question then arises whether the Bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has put upon the table will attain this double object? This Bill is extremely simple and short in its character. It professes to do very little. It is, however, I think, one of the gravest Bills with which we ever had to deal. It proposes to do no more than to repeal all existing disabilities, and to make the Church of the Colonies free. But, simple as the Bill is in shape, it has nevertheless excited considerable alarm. I hear many say that, short as the Bill is, they have no idea what it will do, and they express themselves to be extremely afraid of it. Now, I think that this alarm and these doubts are not without foundation. We found two years ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill professed to be a very simple measure. It nevertheless was full of constitutional objections of the gravest possible nature. I also think that objections, resting upon a solid foundation, may be urged to the present Bill, however simple in its shape, if it were to pass without any alteration into a law. It might do a great deal more than I am willing to believe the authors of the Bill themselves really intend. My great objection to the Bill that was before the House two years ago was this, that it would have the effect, if passed, to make the Church of England in every colony a separate and an independent Church, and to put an end to the connection that has always existed between them. Instead of having a United Church

1001
of England and Ireland, every colony would have a separate and independent Church of its own. Though, perhaps, the danger may not now be so great and so apparent, I still must say, I think that if this Bill passes in its present shape, the practical effect will be much the same as that anticipated in the objection which I had made to the former Bill. I must say, I share the opinion of many who spoke on this subject, that they would prefer in its outline the Bill of last year. Now, I thought that the Bill of last year was rather cavalierly treated by the Government after it had passed the House of Lords with the sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of the Church of England. Many colonial bishops who were then in England assented to it. That Bill had passed the other House of Parliament, but when it came down to this House it was not entrusted to the care of any particular Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is true, offered a few faint words in its defence, but even by that right hon. Gentleman the measure was cavalierly treated. It was ultimately dropped. The objects then proposed were clearly intelligible; and I confess I am of opinion that that Bill was a much better one than the present. But I cannot altogether pass over a very remarkable paper, proceeding from a high authority, that was published last year in connection with that Bill, and which exercised great influence upon the public mind. I allude to a letter written by Sir James Stephen. I have heard that that gentleman has also objections to the present measure; but I think that the objections of Sir James Stephen to the Bill of last year were exaggerated. He objected to that Bill on the ground mainly that, first of all, the Colonial Legislatures were competent to deal with the affairs of the Church of England in the Colonies. Now, I hold this to be a mistake, for though I do not deny the competency of the Colonial Legislature to deal with such matters, yet I say that if the Church of England waits until regulations for her own government are made by the Colonial Legislature, I believe the day to be very distant indeed before she will arrive at that happy result. I think, in the opinion Sir James Stephen then expressed upon this subject, he lost sight of the real character and views of the Colonial Legislature. Another objection of his was in reference to
1002
this kind of legislation. He declares that this attempt at legislation is a breach of our solemn pledges against interfering with their local affairs. I think that this is a most unfounded objection; because, instead of this being a Bill intended to interfere with the colonists in the settlement of their own affairs, it is directly the reverse, This is a Bill rather to enable the colonists to deal with their own affairs—affairs to them of a most urgent and interesting character. In consequence of the law of England, by the Act of Henry VIII. and the I Eliz., the colonists find themselves trammelled in carrying out their own affairs with that freedom which they wished. It is a fact which cannot be denied, that the members of the Church of England in Canada, in Nova Scotia, and in the Australian Colonies have been petitioning for greater freedom. And what has been done? In two dioceses—namely, the diocese of Melbourne and the diocese of Adelaide—the members of the Church of England had formed themselves into Church societies in order to make such regulations as they deem necessary for the government of their Church. These two dioceses have, then, been led by the urgency of the case to try the experiment. I have in my possession proof that they are deterred from taking the same course in other dioceses from doubts as to the state of the law in their regard, and from an expectation that we shall set them free to manage their own affairs. These demands have been pressed year after year upon our attention. Instead of refusing these demands, which I believe to be both reasonable and just, I think the wiser course will be to endeavour so to shape our legislation as to make it harmless in itself, while we consent to give them greater freedom, and that such freedom should be given in such a manner as not to violate their connection with the Church of England and Ireland. Under these circumstances, the course I propose to take, and which I hope will be generally supported, is not to make any objection to the second reading of the Bill, but to reserve to myself the right—and I now give notice of my intention when in Committee—to move several very important additions. This Bill has been considered by some able and competent lawyers, who have pronounced their opinion of the measure, which opinion I now hold in my hand. They say, that in any view of the case, they think it would be very necessary that the intentions and the objects of the Legislature should be clearly

1003
expressed. I don't think that the Bill, as it stands, is at all clear. I think that there are three points that are left open which must be clearly guarded by Parliament—first, the supremacy of the Crown; second, the unity of the Church—that is, to take care that any powers given by this Bill shall not be exercised so as to interfere with the standard of faith and doctrine of the Church; and, third, to reserve to the Colonies what they expressly desire, namely, the continued power of appeal to the highest ecclesiastical authority in this country. I think that these three points should be carefully preserved. I am not disposed to think that this Bill, if so altered, will have an injurious effect, although I doubt very much whether it is the best shape which our legislation could take. I think, however, that if certain clauses were added to it, for the preservation of those important points to which I have referred, the Bill would be rendered somewhat more complete for the attainment of its object. It is my intention, therefore, when in Committee, to submit to their consideration such clauses as I shall then think it necessary to move.
MR. WARNERsaid, he thought that, when last year the Parliament of this country had passed the measure by which the control of the clergy reserves in Canada had been given to the local Legislature, we had announced our determination not further to interfere in the Church affairs of our Colonies. At all events, whether Parliament would or not, they would be forced sooner or later to carry out that principle. He believed this Bill would be grossly abused. The clergy of the Church of England, both in the Colonies and elsewhere, had determined to rule without the laity, and their authority, he feared, was sure to be misused.
MR. R. J. PHILLIMOREsaid, he was I satisfied that the apprehensions which had been entertained as to the consequences of this measure were entirely groundless. If hon. Members looked at the first and only clause of this Bill, they would see there was an express provision for the representation of the laity of each diocese in this proposed assembly. The simple object of the Bill was to put the Church of England in the Colonies in the same position as every other voluntary society there was placed. He agreed that it was most desirable that the Church of England in the Colonies should assume a voluntary form, but he objected altogether to the kind of
1004
tyranny which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), no doubt unwittingly, sought to exercise in regard to them. The hon. Member said at one moment, that the Church of England in the Colonies was a voluntary society, while at the same time he refused altogether to remove from them disabilities passed in the time of Henry VIII. and of Queen Elizabeth, when we had no Colonies at all, those disabilities now, by a fiction of law, applying to the Colonies. These two repositions were quite inconsistent. He, for one, wishing well to the Church of England in the Colonies, and looking to the facts of the case, and not to any abstract idea of his own, was satisfied that if she were to take root downwards it would be owing to the voluntary exertions of those who were attached to her doctrines and who believed in her faith. It was because this Bill recognised the Church of England as a voluntary association, and because it proceeded to remove from her disabilities which by a fiction of law attached to her, that he gave it his hearty support. With regard to what had been said by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), he thought it impossible, by any construction, to suppose that the supremacy of the Crown, or the virtual unity of the Church, would be impaired by the language of this Statute. The House, therefore, would see that it was in reality called upon to do a bare act of justice, and he trusted they would give their assent to the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. HUMEsaid, after the contradictory statements as to the objects of the Bill to which the House had listened, he considered that it was quite necessary to call for some explanations as to what was intended by this measure. They had heard that two of the Australian dioceses had been formed into a society for their own independent government, and if this had been done, what was it that prevented the same course from being taken in other dioceses? To say the least of it, this looked suspicious.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he could conceive that nothing could be more unfortunate than that a meeting, constituted of the bishop, a portion of the clergy, and a portion of the laity of any colony, deeming themselves competent to pass regulations, should do so, and then find the validity of those regulations afterwards becoming matter of litigation. This would have the effect of splitting up the Colonial Church into two portions, and he should like to

1005
know from the hon. and learned Solicitor General whether any such contingency was guarded against in the Bill?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was one of those who, having read this Bill carefully and listened attentively to the discussion with respect to it this evening, not only was at a loss to know what was the legal effect of the measure, but what was the object of its introduction. Would the hon. and learned Solicitor General be good enough to state, for the information of those hon. Members who had no desire whatever to oppose the Bill, what the precise disability was which the measure proposed to repeal, and, in addition, give an answer to the important question of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram), as to what would constitute a legal meeting? He wished to know the extent of power which would be given to this meeting as to the control and management of what were termed "ecclesiastical affairs"—whether that power would extend to questions of faith and doctrine, or whether it would embrace those matters only which related to the temporalities of the Church; whether, if their power related to questions of faith and doctrine, a meeting of the bishops, clergy, and laity could make alterations of that sort without appeal, so that in every colony there might be a different standard of doctrine and a different form of Church Government, under the provisions of this Bill? He wished also to be informed, as the regulations, agreements, or arrangements emanating from this meeting were not to derive any force or authority from the enactments of this Bill, how it would be in the power of the ecclesiastical authorities in the Colonies to enforce obedience to their regulations?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he regretted very much that when he applied for leave to bring in this Bill, the House had not derived, from the short statements he then made, a sufficient explanation as to its necessity and objects. He would now endeavour to give a further explanation. The necessity of the measure arose in this way—at an early period of the Reformation, and in the 25th year of Henry VIII., it appeared right to the Parliament of this country, acting under the influence of that Monarch, to vest in the Crown an absolute power of prohibiting any meeting of the clergy whatever. Accordingly a Statute was passed, not only expressed in a very oppressive manner, but, interpreted, as it would be, by the guides to the meaning of
1006
the Legislature afforded by the preamble of the Statute, making it unsafe for the clergy to meet in any form, for the purpose of devising regulations or entering into any agreement touching ecclesiastical matters, unless they were convened for that purpose by the express antecedent authority of the Crown. Not only could the clergy not meet without the authority of the Crown, but, if they passed any resolutions, or ordinances, at such meeting, those ordinances would have no effect whatever. The House would therefore see that, when a bishop and clergy were sent out to the Colonies, they were bound by that Act, because the Statute, which was declaratory of the common law, defined in this respect the legal relation between the Crown and the clergy, and became part of the supremacy of the Crown as declared, first by the Statute 26th of Henry VIII., afterwards repealed, and then by the 1st of Elizabeth. Accordingly, when the Statute of Elizabeth declared in effect that the supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical affairs should extend to all the possessions of the Crown, whether colonial possessions or conquered countries, the clergymen sent to those districts were bound by this tie to the Crown, and were subject to those disabilities which it was the object of the present measure to remove. Under the present law the clergymen who were sent to the Colonies were bound by a chain, and were unable to meet, in order to do that which every other religious community in the Colonies had the power of doing—to substitute, where no law was in force, mutual agreement and consent. The result was, that the clergy were totally unable to carry out the objects for which they were sent to the Colonies, and it became absolutely necessary to place them in the same position as that enjoyed by dissenting ministers, and to give them the liberty of meeting for the purpose of regulating the ecclesiastical affairs of the Church. With regard to the relations at present existing between the clergymen in the Colonies and the colonial bishops, these were in such an unsatisfactory condition as to render some legislation absolutely necessary. A clergyman in any of the Colonies had the benefit of his endowment, and possessed the power of exercising his sacred functions only so long as he held a title from the bishop of his diocese; and the consequence was, that, if any complaint or accusation was brought against a clergyman, the matter was decided by the

1007
bishop alone, and not, as in this country, by a regularly appointed tribunal, according to an established form of law. The bishop thus became the sole autocratic power, and the clergyman had no means of having any accusation which might be brought against him tried in a satisfactory manner. The consequence of such a state of things could not but be injurious as tending to impair the discipline of the Church. With regard to the Church temporalities, the state of things was at present even still more unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it was impossible that any system for the improvement of churches or to supply the means of supporting clergymen would be satisfactory, unless it could be subjected by mutual agreement to those regulations which might be necessary. The Methodists in the Colonies regulated their Church affairs by means of trustees, and, indeed, every sect of Dissenters were able to come to some arrangement by virtue of which they could lay down some form of procedure. The Church of England laboured under disability and suffered inequality by reason of that law which bound her clergy not to hold meetings without the consent of the Crown, and they were therefore placed in a disadvantageous and vexatious position as compared with the ministers of other persuasions. While the present Statute remained unrepealed, clergymen were sent to the Colonies, who, instead of having free and voluntary action, were in reality bound hand and foot by an imperious law. These were the general legal necessities for the introduction of a measure like the present, and with regard to the moral necessity and propriety of placing the clergymen of the Established Church in the same position which was enjoyed by the ministers of other persuasions, he did not think that there could be any dispute. He believed that it was a great and a sound principle to leave to the colonial clergy the free liberty of regulating their own ecclesiastical affairs, by freeing them from the effects of what he considered to be a most injurious enactment. It had been suggested that a difficulty would arise from the fact that the Bill did not contain any provision defining what was to be considered a legal meeting; but if he were desirous of pointing out any one particular in the Bill more deserving of approbation than another, it would certainly be that it contained no provision by which any attempt was made to give a legal character or description to meetings of the clergy and laity in
1008
the Colonies. It was not intended to constitute or define what should be a legal meeting; all that was intended was to remove a chain which interfered with the voluntary and free action of the Colonial Church. With regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), the answer to the question which he had put could be given very shortly. It would be competent for a meeting of the clergy and laity assembled in any colony to do by agreement everything which it was lawful for them to do, but it would not be competent for them, by virtue of mutual consent, to do anything of an illegal nature, or anything which would in the slightest degree affect or impair the law of the land; the whole object of the Bill, in short, was to free the Colonial Church from a disability under which it laboured, but not in any way to give the colonial clergy and laity assembled at a meeting the power of interfering with the laws of the realm. They would be no more able to affect the supremacy of the Crown than to declare that they were exempt from the operation of all law. He must beg the House to remember that the bishops and clergymen sent to the Colonies could not, as members of the Established Church, remove the tie which connected them with the Crown, and that from that very circumstance the supremacy of the Crown in the Colonies could not be endangered by allowing them the power of meeting for the purpose of regulating the ecclesiastical affairs of the Colonies. With regard to another question which had been put to him by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), as to whether these meetings would have power over questions of doctrine and faith, it admitted of precisely the same answer. Matters of faith and doctrine were already established by law, and these meetings would have no power to make any ordinances which should directly or indirectly alter the existing laws. The present measure would, in fact, do nothing more than remove a restriction which was found to be injurious, and would give to the clergy of the Colonies the power of substituting the force of mutual consent and agreement in the place of that ecclesiastical law which exists in England, but which has not been established in the Colonies.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he confessed that he was in much greater doubt and difficulty since the explanation of the hon. and learned Solicitor General than he

1009
was before. He would now ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, after the passing of this Bill, if it did pass, the United Church of England and Ireland in the Colonies would be a free or an established Church; or whether this was not an attempt to effect an impossible, or, if not impossible, yet a most disadvantageous compromise between the two? He would contend, with as much energy as the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. J. Philimore), that if the United Chuch in the Colonies were a free Church, nothing could be so monstrous and unfair as for Members of that House who happened to dissent from that Church to stand up and justify that free branch of the United Church being left under a bondage which it ought not to endure. The question was this—and the Solicitor General had not answered it, but it was a question which everybody throughout England would be asking—"What position would the Church occupy which was affected by this Bill if it passed into a law?" If it were a free Church, if it were a purely voluntary association, then the Bill must be altogether unnecessary, as unnecessary, indeed, as it would be to pass such a Bill for the purpose of enabling the Baptists, Independents, or Wesleyan Methodists, to meet and make arrangements for the regulation of the affairs of their respective communities. "But," said the hon. and learned Solicitor General, "it is not so;" and the reason was, that in the reign of Henry VIII., and also in that of Elizabeth, Statutes were passed which bound the bishops and clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland not to meet together for any purpose without the consent of the Crown; that upon the wording of these Statutes the obligation followed all the individuals to the Colonies, and that thereby they were bound. His (Mr. T. Chambers') answer to that was supplied by the Bill itself. Look at its title—"A Bill to relieve the Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland resident in the Colonies from any Disability," not stating what—"as to the holding of meetings in such Colonies for the regulation of Ecclesiastical Affairs therein." Now, then, refer to the preamble. That surely ought to recite the disability; then the House would be able to see that the enactment was adapted to meet the difficulty, and no more; to remove the disability, and no more. He should have expected it to begin in some
1010
such way as this:—"Whereas, by an Act passed in the reign of Henry VIII., and by another Act passed in the reign of Elizabeth, such and such a thing was provided, and whereas by those Acts it was unlawful to do so and so; be it therefore enacted." But it did nothing of the sort. Let the House listen to this well-considered and dexterously-drawn preamble. It ran thus:—"Whereas, by reason of the Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances, which affect or bind the bishops and clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland"—some disability or hindrance to their meeting exists? Not at all; but—"doubts may exist." Why, there were no laws or Statutes in existence with reference to which that might not be predicated, and very lucky was it for the learned profession that it was so. But the preamble was thus drawn because the hon. and learned Gentleman who drew it could not lay his finger on a line of the Statutes which, in his own judgment as a lawyer, convinced him there was a doubt. If these bishops and clergy in the Colonies were under a disability imposed by Statute, that disability ought not to be removed; if they were not, then there was no reason for the Bill; and it was on the ground of that alternative that he should oppose the measure. If the bishops and clergy in the Colonies were bishops and clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland within the meaning of the Statute, nothing would be so unwise and impolitic as to remove the restrictions, and the present was a most unlucky time to propose it. But if they were not—if the Church in the Colonies was simply a free Church—then the Bill was, he repeated, utterly unnecessary. Would the hon. and learned Solicitor General venture to predict what would be the consequences of the measure? Observe the largeness of terms employed. It was to regulate ecclesiastical affairs within each province or diocese. What was the nature of the regulations? what was to be their force when made? what the construction of the body which was to legislate? what the apparatus to be set up for enforcing the regulations? Upon all these most vital points the House was to be left in entire ignorance. This experiment was to be made in the Colonies, as they must all know, not to relieve the clergy from a suppositious disability, but to establish a precedent which might be followed in this country with fatal effects. One of the Amendments

1011
suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwitch (Sir J. Pakington) would, he (Mr. T. Chambers) believed, do grievous mischief if it were adopted. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill ought to contain a power of appeal from the Colonial Churches to the highest ecclesiastical authority at home. But what was this but to lay a foundation for the very same evils against which we had remonstrated for ages in this country, and against which we were remonstrating at this moment, with reference to the Roman Catholic Church? For his part he did not consider that the United Church of England and Ireland was wanted in the Colonies. They might have their bishops, they might have their Episcopal Church there if they pleased; but let that Church be independent—an integral native Church, owing only that kind of affectionate allegiance to the United Church of England and Ireland which was due to the institution to which it owed its existence.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Solicitor General had conclusively demonstrated to the House not merely that doubts might possibly exist, but that doubts were actually entertained by high legal authorities in this country, and that those doubts had been expressed at different times by those high legal authorities on each side of the House, and from time to time been pressed by them upon successive Secretaries of State and various Governments, with regard to the power of the colonial Churches to regulate their own internal affairs. He was sure the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment must have laboured under a total misapprehension of all the facts, when he said that the measure was unsolicited by the Colonies. Knowing something of the strong feeling which prevailed amongst colonial Churchmen—alike bishops, clergy, and laity—upon the subject, he (Mr. Mowbray) could take upon himself to assert that the measure was one which they had deeply at heart, and one, moreover, which they had earnestly solicited at the hands of different Governments. The hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) asked, What is this United Church of England and Ireland to the Colonies? If it be a free Church, your Bill is unnecessary; on the contrary, if it be a Church in the same position as the Church at home, then it is opposed to sound policy to remove the disability complained of. Now it might be difficult, per-
1012
haps, to define the precise position of the colonial Churches and the precise connection which subsisted between those Churches and the Church at home at the present moment. But, surely, it could not be impolitic to remove a disability merely because they could not exactly define the position in which the Church in the Colonies was to be classified. With regard to endowments, the Colonial Church was in the same position as any independent voluntary body in this country. The only case in which it possessed an endowment was, he believed, in Canada; but the Imperial Parliament surrendered to the Colonial Legislature all authority and control over that endowment in the last Session of Parliament. So far as endowment was concerned, then, the Church in the Colonies was an entirely free Church. But even if it were not a free Church, the argument advanced to-night by the hon. and learned Member for Hertford as to what might be the policy or the feelings of the people of England with reference to the disabilities with which the Bill proposed to deal, was not the argument by which such a measure ought to be met. He should have thought that upon a colonial subject the question would have been, not what was the feeling of the people of England, but what the members of the Church in the Colonies desired to be done. An objection was raised to legislating upon the subject, on the ground that in some of the Colonies meetings had taken place already. True, that had been the case in Canada and the Australias, where so strong was the feeling with regard to the wants of the Colonial Church, that, legal or illegal, the meetings had been held. At the same time he had been assured by persons who were concerned in those meetings that the greatest difficulty was experienced respecting them, that many conscientious men had declined to attend meetings, the legality of which might be doubted; and that whilst such doubts prevailed amongst high authorities in this House upon that point, it was competent to those who were opposed to those meetings to question their legality, and cast ridicule and contempt upon them. If the Legislature desired to do justice to all the various interests of the Colonies, and to extend to the Church there the same privileges as they were prepared to give to any other religious society, they would now pass some measure on this question, which had been brought before Parliament many years

1013
since, which had occupied much of the thoughts of colonial Churchmen, and with respect to which the present Bill proposed a remedy, if not the best, still one recommended by the Government and calculated to lead to some benefit.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was one who had taken part in the rejection of the Bill of last Session, but he was bound to say, that he did not consider the Government had treated that measure cavalierly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the best fight he could for it, and it was only upon the representation of the Solicitor General, who considered it to be vicious and obnoxious, that the Government, acting, as he believed, in perfect good faith, withdrew the Bill. The measure now upon the table was, in his opinion, infinitely better than the one of last Session; still, he thought the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Hertford—and the suspicions raised against the measure of last Session—had not been satisfactorily removed, and he should therefore oppose the second reading.
MR. NAPIERsaid that, though he had listened attentively to the explanations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he had not been able thoroughly to understand this measure. He therefore thought that the most correct and consistent course which he could take, would be to wait until the third reading, to see what changes were made in the Bill, and whether he could then understand it, and then to give his vote according as seemed best. As far as he could see, this would be a very harmless Bill; but he should have preferred that of last Session, because it was definite, and said exactly what power was to be given. He was fully of opinion that it was necessary that some power should be given to the Church in the Colonies, but he thought that that House ought to say specifically what power it was giving, and not legislate in a blind manner. He had to apologise to the House for not giving a vote, but, not being able to understand the Bill, he thought it most discreet to abstain from voting upon it.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that it was clear to his mind, and would be clear to the mind of any hon. Gentleman who had read the five or six papers with reference to the Church of England in the Colonies which were presented in the years 1850 and 1851, that that Church laboured under incapacities and disabilities which it was highly necessary for the Legislature to
1014
remove. He would give two illustrations, taken from these papers. In the first place, if a clergyman of the Church of England had very much misconducted himself, there was in the Colonies, as was evident from the papers he had referred to, no power for the heads of the Church to remove him from the preferment to which he had been inducted. In the second place, if a clergyman thought he had a right to do certain things which the bishop disputed, it was in the power of the bishop to deprive him of his licence, which deprived him of his salary, and he had no remedy without coming to this country to make his appeal. Here, then, were two practical grievances that required a remedy. And what was the remedy now proposed? That the members of the Church of England, clergy and laity, who went to a colony, should be enabled to meet together in the same way as any body of Dissenters could meet in the Colonies for the purpose of regulating their own matters for themselves, and that they might not be exposed to the inconveniences which he had pointed out to the House. The Bill he must say was an extremely difficult one to draw, and it was desirable that time should be given to the House, in Committee, to consider whether the clauses as they now stood were likely to carry out the objects of the framers without interfering with the law of England as applicable to the Church and to the supremacy of the Crown and the Statutes of Uniformity. But he could not understand any hon. Gentleman's wishing to vote against the Bill, when there were such palpable grievances as those he had mentioned, and refusing to go into Committee to consider how those grievances could be remedied; unless, indeed, that, being a Dissenter from the Church of England, he wished to withhold from it the liberty which he claimed for his own denomination. And he (Mr. Walpole) must say such a proceeding reminded him of a passage in our history when those who held opinions similar to those of some of the opponents of this Bill, using the name of religious liberty, gained the upper hand in the State, and then refused to the members of the Church of England the right of using its own Prayer Book.
MR. MIALLsaid, he wished to explain the reason why he must vote against the second reading of this measure. He wished to extend the religious liberty of all denominations, and even of that deno-

1015
mination which he thought inflicted on the Dissenters of this country great injustice and wrong. But when it was said that the Church of England in the Colonies desired to be placed simply on an equality with the various voluntary bodies there, then he asked whether the Church of England in the Colonies would be placed by this Bill in exactly the same relation with respect to precedence and privilege as the other Colonial Churches? If there was no connection between the Church of England in the Colonies and the United Church of England and Ireland, then there could be no reason why they should not most gladly give her all the licence she required; but it was because there was a political tie and connection between the two Churches that this measure was required, and the bringing forward of this very Bill showed that it was wished to maintain that connection, otherwise the Church of England would already have all the liberty which the voluntary sects enjoyed.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I wish to say a few words, in order simply to explain what will be my object in voting for the second reading of any Bill of this kind. It is merely with the view that the Church of England in the Colonies may have the same power of regulating their affairs as other religious bodies have. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) says that he is quite willing to consent to such a Bill if the Church is entirely a colonial Church, and is confined in its whole operations to the Colonies, and separated from the Church of England at home. But that is not the liberty which other communions enjoy in the Colonies. The Church of Rome in the Colonies of the Crown has its own meetings and its own regulations, but they are meetings and regulations which are subject to, or connected with, the decision that the head of that Church may come to, and any laws which he pleases may be passed binding on that Church. Again, the Church of Scotland in the Colonies, and, I imagine, also the Free Church of Scotland, have their assemblies; yet those Churches have connections and very important relations with the Church Assemblies sitting in Scotland, or with the Assembly of the Free Church of that country. So, in like manner, with the Wesleyan bodies in the Colonies. As Secretary of State for the Colonies, I had frequent occasion to speak with them on such subjects. They have meetings and conferences, but
1016
they are connected with the Wesleyans of this country; and members of the Wesleyan body are often sent from this country in order to take part in the ecclesiastical affairs of the Wesleyans in the Colonies. But what, then, is the justice of the case? The Roman Catholics in the Colonies may be connected with their Church in Europe—the Scotch Church there may be connected with their Church in Scotland—the Wesleyans may be connected with their body in England—but members of the Church of England in the Colonies are precluded from holding Church assemblies, because of their connection with the Church of England in this country. But then the hon. Gentleman who spoke last gave us to understand that he would agree with the Bill if there were no political connection. Now, I do not imagine that there is any political connection between the Church which is established in this country and the Church in the Colonies. I believe that no such political connection exists. The only tie between them is their general agreement in respect of matter of doctrine and faith; and, further, there is a bishop who is appointed by the Crown in this country. It seems to me, therefore, that it is right to relieve the laity and clergy belonging to the Church of England in the Colonies from any disability inflicted by Statute. I consider it quite right to maintain these disabilities in this country, because the Established Church is connected with the State, and it is proper that the State should have that control over the members of the Established Church. But with regard to the Colonies there is no reason for maintaining such control. There is no reason at all why you should retain that control which you have owing to certain doctrines respecting the supremacy of the Crown that are held in this country. With regard to the necessity for this Bill, there is, at least, I believe, an established case in which the clergy of the Church of England in Massachusetts, about a century and a half ago, wished to meet. They applied to this country, through the Governor of the Colony, for leave to do so, and they were told, after the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken—and at that time one of those law officers was no less a man than Lord Hardwicke—they were told that they could not have that liberty, and would not be allowed to meet as a clergy. Now, I think that this restriction should be removed, and removed by Statute. As to

1017
the provision which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) proposes to introduce, I wish to say not a word on that subject now. I think it is a question worthy of consideration, when in Committee, in what manner this restriction should be repealed; but that is not the question we have to decide to-night—we have now to say simply, whether we shall give the Church in the Colonies freedom to meet on its own affairs.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided;—Ayes 196; Noes 62: Majority 134.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2o.

PREVENTION OF BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS—

  CANTERBURY BRIBERY PREVENTION.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in rising to move for leave to bring in Bills for the prevention of bribery in the election of Members to serve in Parliament for the city of Canterbury, and for the boroughs of Cambridge, Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Maldon, said that in all those cases a manifest necessity existed for bringing the results of the Commissions which had inquired into them under the consideration of the House; but as all the cases helped to throw light upon one another, and served to render manifest the necessity for the measures he was about to submit, he thought it would be more convenient and more economical of the House's time in the end, if he called its attention at once to the whole subject connected with those boroughs, instead of going into the details of each case by separate addresses to the House. The Reports made by the several Commissioners appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Act 15 & 16 Vict. c. 7, had been for some time before the House, and no doubt most hon. Members had made themselves generally cognisant of their contents; it was not, therefore, necessary for him to advert to details, or to do more than shortly call attention to those facts which bore a more immediate relation to the provisions of the Bills which he was about to ask leave to introduce. The first case to which he would refer was that of the city of Canterbury. It appeared, from the Report of the Commissioners, that the population of the city of Canterbury within the electoral area was 19,000. The constituency was 1,583, consisting of 637 householders and
  1018
  946 freemen. The Commissioners reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the last election, and also at previous elections. They stated that for some time the system of bribing and corrupting the electors was by giving them colour-tickets. Each voter was allowed to name two persons, each of whom received 10 s. In another part of their Report the Commissioners said:—
  "The money bribery was on a large scale. The result was a general demoralisation of the minds of all those who had anything to do with it, the ordinary distinction between meum and tuum was constantly confounded, and it was no uncommon thing to find a large proportion of the money destined to bribe a voter sticking by the way in the palm of the individual who was selected to give the bribe. The leaders of the parties did not themselves bribe; they were ready with the money for those who were ready with the voters. Electors met in a public-house, and set their votes at so much a head; the lot or batch was then sold, and the agent between the voter and the briber generally netted a pretty sum out of the transaction.… There was one family of the name of Styles, who invariably voted together, but never employed an agent. They dealt directly with the principal—their price was always 10 l. per head; the number in the family was from nine to ten, and they received from 90 l. to 100 l. each election for the votes of the family. In the year 1841, when there were two elections, they netted above 200 l. by the sale of their votes."
  The facts disclosed were a flagrant scandal upon the constituency of Canterbury. It appeared that at the election in 1841 there was spent between the two candidates no less a sum than 11,000 l. to corrupt the constituency of this city. At the election in 1847 the expenditure was not so large, but it nevertheless amounted to nearly 5,000 l., 3,000 l. of this sum being expended on the one side, "of which," said the Commissioners, "a very considerable portion went in direct bribery," but they were unable to state precisely the amount; but, on the other side, they said, "it was proved that 500 l. was expended in direct money-bribery." Out of 1,500 voters no less than 155 received direct bribes at that election. In 1852 what occurred was not quite so bad, because bribery was only practised on one side. By the side on which bribery was committed a sum of 2,350 l. was expended, of which 1,000 l. at least—probably considerably more—was expended in direct bribery. The number of voters who polled was 1,340—the number bribed was seventy-nine, of whom sixty-seven were freemen and twelve were householders; these received direct money-bribes. Thus much for the city of Can-

  1019
  terbury. He would now pass on to Barnstaple, where another harrowing picture of corruption was exhibited. The population of that borough was 11,371—the constituency 754. At the last election (1852) the number of voters polled was 696, and of these no less than 256—being upwards of one-third of the whole—received direct money-bribes as the price of their votes. There were three candidates; the losing candidate was in a minority as regarded the first candidate on the poll of seventy, four, and as regarded the second candidate of sixty-one. Before quoting the observations of the Commissioners, he wished to state that he was extremely anxious not to mention the names of the parties into which the borough was divided, nor the names of individuals. It was quite sufficient to expose the system, without doing anything that would be offensive to any individual. The Commissioners said that—
  "The general mode in which the bribery was effected was by means of what were called 'lists.' One of the more prominent members of the Conservative party would ask a voter if he should put his name down on his list, and, upon receiving an assent, it was understood that if any money was spent in bribery the voter was to have his share, through the agency of the party upon whose list his name appeared. This was usually done before the day of election, but no particular sum was mentioned at the time. Afterwards the wife of the voter, in some cases, would find 6l., in a very mysterious manner, upon her table, about which as little as possible was said by her to her husband. In some instances the voter himself would be paid, with the remark, 'Here is something for you;' but all mention on what account the money was given was most studiously avoided. The majority of the bribed voters appear to have endeavoured to satisfy their consciences by receiving the bribe under the name of expenses."
  In the case of Barnstaple, however, he was bound to say that the case made out by the Commissioners was not so strong as it might have been if they had made a more complete investigation; but they were obstructed by a provision in the Act of Parliament, which provided that where a pure election without bribery had taken place in any borough, it should not be competent to go into any inquiry as to practices at any preceding election. That clause was not in the Bill when it passed the House of Commons, but was inserted elsewhere, and it was a very convenient provision, no doubt. The Commissioners were not able, therefore, to go into an inquiry as to any election prior to 1852, because at the election of 1847 the candidates on both sides, sick and wearied of the system hitherto pursued, determined
  1020
  not to bribe, and they did not; consequently the Commissioners could not carry their investigation beyond the election of 1852. But nobody could entertain the slightest doubt that the election of 1847 was an exceptional case, or of its being notorious that Barnstaple had for many years been as corrupt a borough as could possibly be conceived. That appeared clear enough from the Report of the Commissioners, who in one part of it said:—
  "At one time there appears to have been an apprehension in the minds of some of the electors that no money would be spent, and several of them became alarmed lest the ancient practice of bribery should fall into disuse. They assembled, therefore, at a public-house, and drew up an advertisement, inviting a candidate to come forward with the professed object of creating a contest, and of thus procuring bribes for the electors. They did not care of what politics the candidate might happen to be so that they succeeded in obtaining a third man. A subscription was made, and an advertisement was forwarded to the Times newspaper, but it was returned by the editor, and the subscription was refunded, minus the expenses."
  This was prior to 1847, but as far back as 1819 it had been proved that a system of bribery and corruption prevailed in the borough of Barnstaple, for a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in that year upon the subject, in which Bill it was declared that there had been bribery and corrupt practices in the borough of Barnstaple at the then last election, and that it was necessary some means should be adopted to put a stop to such practices. It was, therefore, enacted that a district of the county should be thrown into the borough. That Bill passed the Commons, but not the House of Lords. It served, however, to establish the fact that, in 1819 a system of bribery and corruption prevailed in the borough; and the Commissioners had reported that in 1852, out of a body of less than 700 voters, 256 received bribes. So much for Barnstaple. He would next advert to the borough of Maldon, where an extensive system of corruption had been shown to prevail. The population of Maldon was 5,470, the number of the constituency 845, of whom 235 were 10 l. householders, and 635 were freemen, a large proportion of whom resided out of the borough, but within the seven miles limit. Prior to the Reform Act the right of voting was exclusively vested in the freemen, and previously to 1826 that body had dwindled down to a very small number—about fifty. But it appeared that in that year the town became divided by

  1021
  two rival candidates, when 2,000 freemen were immediately admitted, whose expenses were paid by those two candidates, who on that occasion expended, on a borough containing a population of only 5,470 souls, no less a sum than 30,000 l. With regard to the election of 1847, bribery, direct and indirect, was practised, and treating took place to an unlimited extent. It was stated in the Report that in the charges for treating there was included an item to the two candidates who stood together on the same side of no less a sum than 2,150 l. for beer alone. The Commissioners, in referring to the election of 1852, stated that—
  "Bribery, direct and indirect, was practised at least on behalf of one of the candidates, and that in an undisguised, and, indeed, ostentatious manner."
  They reported that seventy-five persons received direct bribes. The Commissioners said:—
  "Upon a review of the whole evidence taken by us, we come to the conclusion that corrupt practices, in various forms, have long prevailed at elections for the borough, and that open and direct bribery was practised at the last election to a greater extent than at any which preceded it. We also find that a large portion of the electors, consisting chiefly of the poor classes of freemen, have, in giving their votes, been influenced, not by the political or personal recommendations of the candidate, but by considerations of money or other benefit to themselves, and that such influences have been habitually employed to corrupt them; but we cannot forbear adding, as our opinion, that the blame of such corruption rests not so much with them as with their superiors, by whom the temptation to it was held out."
  In that remark he most heartily concurred; but, at the same time, that did not dispense with the necessity of his calling on Parliament to purify the constituency of that borough by introducing among them a purer system of election. There was another circumstance mentioned in the Commissioners' Report which deserved to be noticed. They had heard a great deal about the necessity and expediency of putting the bribery oath to the voters; but he certainly was of opinion that it produced very little, if any, good effect. And what said the Commissioners on that point? They observed that—
  "Having in the course of the foregoing statement shown the influence of bribery upon the votes of so large a portion of the constituency, it would be improper to pass unnoticed the fact that at the election of 1852 the bribery oath was tendered to each voter as he came to the poll, and that it was freely taken by all, however recent, open, or unquestionable the bribe to them may have been; and this shamelessness was in some cases increased by their becoming witnesses
  1022
  before us of the double fact of their own bribery and perjury."
  The next case which he would bring before the House, was that of the borough of Kingston-upon-Hull. The constituency of that borough was 4,698, 3,184 being householders, and 1,494 freemen. The Commissioners gave some details of the elections of 1841, 1847, and 1852. At the election of 1841, there was expended the sum of 10,540 l.; of this sum the Commissioners came to the conclusion that 4,000 l. was expended in payment of the voters under the system which still existed, which was a system not of direct bribery. Formerly head-money was paid to the voters. Every man got 4l. for a double vote and 2l. for a single vote. It was felt that that system would not do. It was too open, and, therefore, they had recourse to another mode equally pernicious—namely, a system of colourmen, and of other employments; but the system of corruption was just as prevalent as at any previous period, and the employing of men to carry colours and to perform other assumed offices was only another mode of bribery. At the election of 1841, the number of voters that polled was 3,583; the number of voters paid, or, in other words, bribed, was 1,300. In the year 1847, the contest was shorter, less active, and less expensive than in 1841, nevertheless there was expended at that election 6,840 l., out of which the Commissioners said that 1,650 l. was spent almost in direct bribery, besides a sum of 1,200 l., of which the Commissioners could not obtain any account. The number of voters polled was 3,618, and of that number there were paid or bribed no less than 1,175. At the election of 1852, the Orange party expended 4,990 l., and the Blue party 3,631 l., making together 8,621 l. Out of this sum there was paid in the shape of what was called wages to voters on the Orange side, 2,235 l., and on the Blue side, 1,300 l., together 3,535 l. The number of voters that polled was stated to be 3,983, of which number it was assumed that not less than 1,350 were bribed. So much for Kingston-upon-Hull. The next and the remaining case, the last but not least, to which he would call the attention of the House, was that of the notorious borough of Cambridge. That borough contained a population of 28,000, of whom about 1,887 were voters; but out of that number from 150 to 200 of them never voted at all, being apprehensive that they should injure their interests by so doing;

  1023
  the number of the constituency was really between 1,600 and 1,700. Before the Reform Bill this was a constituency of freemen, and he was sorry to say that they here had a specimen of what 10 l. householders were liable to become when once corruption had been introduced among them. It seemed that at first, after the passing of the Reform Bill, the electors had been proud of their franchise, and had exercised it in a straightforward and honest manner; but four successive elections having resulted in the success of the same party, the other party—he would not say which—had then had recourse to corruption, and had organised a most complete system, of which he would give some details, for the purpose of tempting and corrupting the voters. Samuel Long, whose name was notorious in the annals of Cambridge bribery, and would long be remembered in that borough, appeared to have been the master-mind of this system, and he was employed almost exclusively in tempting, or rather, at first, in sounding, the voters. He would go to public-houses, mingle with the poorer voters, lead them on to the discussion of political matters, and, when he had heard their opinions, he would suggest to them that it did not signify a rush which way or for what candidate the poor man voted, but it was his business to see what he could obtain by his vote. He thus ascertained their sentiments and put down in a book the names of any person who he thought might conveniently be tampered with, when an individual, acting on his suggestion, took some convenient moment to sound the same man, and offered him a direct bribe at the first favourable opportunity. If the man swallowed the bait, his name was put down as that of a safe person, and Long entered into communication with him. So completely was the whole thing organised, that the Commissioners reported that, after the first election, a mere look or a gesture on the part of Long, on his calling upon a voter, or having his name mentioned, was sufficient to make the voter aware that his vote was counted upon by Long, and that, if he gave it as Long wished, he was sure of getting his reward for doing so at the proper time. The Commissioners gave an account of several elections, and they reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the last election. They said:—
  "We have also ascertained that an unbroken chain of corrupt practices, capable to a certain
  1024
  extent of direct proof in detail, has continued upwards until the election of the year 1839 inclusive."
  At the election in 1840, upwards of 800 l. had been distributed in bribery. In 1841, "treating," said the Commissioners, "was carried on to a great extent, and Long distributed between 500 l. and 600 l. in direct bribery." In 1843, bribery was also carried on to a large extent, and a very curious incident then took place. A Dr. Bartlett received instructions to go to the Golden Cross, Charing Cross, where he would see a person who would probably deliver something to him. Dr. Bartlett went to the Golden Cross, and there came a mysterious individual who deposited with him a carpet-bag, in which there were 1,000 sovereigns. He took it back to Cambridge and gave it to Long. Between 200 l. and 300 l. was also obtained in a similar manner, so that, in addition to the legitimate expenses of the candidates, about 1,300 l. had been spent in bribing the voters at that election. At the election in 1845, the same devices were resorted to. It seemed that the candidates at that election had clearly established before the Commissioners that they had nothing to do with the bribery that took place, but again an individual had taken 800 l. to Cambridge, every farthing of which was spent in bribery. The Commissioners stated:—
  "This election (1845) appears to have been most hotly contested, and up to a very late period in the polling the majority was in favour of one candidate. Within the last hour a majority was suddenly obtained for the other candidate, who was eventually returned. We were able to ascertain the means by which this change was accomplished. A number of voters were assembled at a public-house, the Star and Garter, and refused to vote unless money were paid down to them. Some time elapsed before anything was done. At last Long was despatched to secure their votes. He took with him money, and an assistant named Stearne. This man he posted in a room where was a window with part of a pane out and the blind down. The names of the voters were called one by one, and the assistant was supplied with a sum of money (10 l. in all instances save one, where it was 12 l.). This he handed out to each individual as he came forward. The hand came through the hole in the window, no other part of the person was seen. Some were bribed at so late an hour that, though they ran all the way, they did not arive in time to poll. On this occasion Long spent as much as 1,000 l., and stated—what, no doubt, was the fact—that without his intervention the election would have been lost."
  The next election took place in 1847, when, in consequence of the excited state of feeling that prevailed with reference to the question of the Corn Laws, the chances

  1025
  upon one side were so bad that there was no hope of turning the scale by bribery, and no corruption was resorted to. Then came the election of 1852, when 1,600 l. was contributed by the candidates who were returned, in addition to which 1,250 l. was supplied from local sources for the purposes of corruption, and out of that sum 800 l. was paid by Long in direct bribery. The number of voters polled was 1,546, of whom 111 had been directly bribed. The Commissioners also made a statement with regard to the utter uselessness of the bribery oath, which was frequently administered at the elections at which bribery had been practised, and was always taken with one exception—that of a man who was known to entertain conscientious scruples against taking an oath at all. The Commissioners went on to say:—
  "From the best information we were able to obtain, the number of bribed voters throughout the whole constituency never exceeded from 150 to 200; but this, in Cambridge, where the parties are nearly in a state of equipoise, of course enabled the party possessed of the bribed votes to gain the election; and the opinion accordingly seems to have prevailed among all well-informed persons, that it would always have been in the power of Long to secure the return of those candidates in whose behalf he might have been retained. This opinion Long himself also stated with very great confidence. We arrived at the conclusion that the main body of the constituency were themselves not only innocent, but also ignorant, of bribery, except by general report, and that they reprobated and deplored its existence. Some of the bribed voters examined stated that they had no political opinions at all; they were no scholars, they hardly knew which was which, but voted according as they were directed by the person to whom they sold their votes; that 10 l. was of more service to them than the Members were, and, therefore, that they always sold their votes if they had a chance. Many, it was stated to us by the principal bribing agent, would not take the trouble to vote at all unless paid for their votes. Out of 111 voters, bribed at the election in 1852, who received their expenses, after examination before us, upwards of 30 signed their receipts with a mark, from inability to write."
  These were the most important parts of the Reports which he had considered it necessary to bring before the House, and he thought it would be quite clear that the state of these constituencies was a reproach and scandal, not only to themselves, but also to the country at large and to that House; and that, if anything could be done to purify them from venality and corruption, it was the duty of Parliament to do it. Then came the question, what course ought to be pursued? It might be said that general legislation might be relied on,
  1026
  and that they might trust to Acts which now existed or which it was now proposed to pass through Parliament. He owned that he could not bring himself to that conclusion, for he believed that no general legislation on the subject of bribery and corruption would cure the mischief. They had been legislating for the purpose of preventing it for nearly two centuries; they had accumulated Statute upon Statute; they had added oath to oath; they had multiplied penalty upon penalty, forfeiture upon forfeiture; but with what result let the last election of 1852 show. The noble Lord the Leader of the House, it was true, in a Bill now before Parliament, proposed to make every payment illegal except certain payments which were to be made through the lawful agent of the candidate; and the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) had also introduced a Bill upon the same subject; but how could any such legislation as that touch such a case as the borough of Cambridge? It was true that they might attach penalties to sitting Members if they deviated from the rules which they laid down; but how could they prevent friends and political or local partisans from finding money with which corruption might be carried on? He would take the case of Cambridge, for instance, as an illustration. In 1843 a sum of 1,300 l. was found, and spent in corruption; in 1845, 800 l. more was found, and disposed of in the same manner; and in 1852, 1,250 l. had been supplied from local sources. The two candidates, on that occasion, had every disposition, to keep strictly within the limits of the law, and they had taken every precaution to prevent abuses of this kind being practised. One of them, a friend of his, Mr. Kenneth Macaulay, appeared, from his examination before the Committee, and from his personal statement, to be most anxious to protect himself against such a result, and he stipulated the sum he should pay. After that, in the course of the election, 200 l. more was paid, but he knew that Mr. Macaulay was most anxious that nothing illegal should be done. That learned gentleman was rising most rapidly to distinction in his profession; and during the short time he sat in that House he had given very great promise of future eminence. He would venture to say that if he had remained amongst them, or if he should return to them, which he hoped he would do at no distant epoch, he would be an

  1027
  honour and ornament to the House. Here was a gentleman, desiring to keep within the limit of the law, and thinking that he had been returned by proper means, who found that there was a petition against him, and discovered, to his mortification and discomfiture, that his agents and friends had involved him in a breach of the law, the consequence of which was the loss of his seat. This was a lamentable position for a gentleman to be placed in, and some means ought to be adopted to put a stop to such a state of things. He did not believe that this could be done by general legislation; although it might be good, as a preventive, to prevent the introduction of bribery into constituencies, or to stop it where it had not gathered to a head; but when once the mischief had taken root, when a large proportion of a constituency had become corrupt, he did not believe that general legislation would effect a cure. They must, in such cases, have recourse to special legislation, and, either by partial or by total disfranchisement, rescue the borough from the corruption into which it had fallen. What, then, ought to be done with regard to these cases? They had not to deal with such simple and easy cases as those of Sudbury and St. Albans, in which the whole, or, at all events, a large proportion of the constituency was corrupt, and there was not a sufficient number of honest electors to induce them to allow the constituency to remain in existence; for, in these cases, even if 1,000 or 1,100 voters were corrupt, there still remained 3,000 or 4,000 honest persons; and therefore he thought it would be highly inexpedient to disfranchise such places as Kingston-upon-Hull or the county towns of Cambridge and Canterbury. He would not allow any considerations of justice to intervene in the view which he took of the question, as this was not a question of whether they were acting justly or unjustly towards a constituency; for if it were, they would not have been justified in sacrificing the innocent electors of St. Albans and Sudbury. They must only look to what was consistent with the common weal—with the national good, as regarded the representation of these constituencies—and he thought it would be for the interest of the country to maintain those constituencies that already existed, in which there was a sufficient number of honest voters to constitute a good constituency. But in some cases such as these, a small and corrupt
  1028
  portion of a constituency, who sold their votes at the market price, exercised a great influence in elections, and therefore bribery and corruption would always be resorted to so long as they were permitted to vote. He thought they could deal with these cases in a very simple manner; namely, by removing the corrupt portion, and leaving the sound residue; by casting away the diseased and cankered limb, and preserving what was sound. It appeared to him that if we were to do anything, we must pursue this simple and obvious course. We should, fortunately, have no difficulty here, so far as related to the knowledge of who had been guilty of corruption at these elections; for the Reports of the Commissioners named the individuals who had been guilty of bribery, and also those who had been bribed. He proposed to deal with both these cases. Our knowledge did not rest on the evidence taken before the Commissioners implicating these parties, for we had their own statements. The Commissioners, before they reported against any man, had thought it their duty to give him an opportunity of defending himself; and he believed that in every instance in which individuals had been brought before them, they had admitted the fact of having received bribes. He really did not see why they should hesitate to deal with persons who, upon their own admission, were unworthy to exercise the important functions of electors. But he was told that a difficulty, which he, however, did not feel, here presented itself. It had been suggested from a quarter for which he entertained the most sincere respect, that we could not deal with those electors who had been reported guilty of bribery, because they had been examined under the promise of an indemnity. ["Hear, hear!"] He quite understood the cheers of hon. Members, and he fully admitted that, if such an indemnity had been actually given by the terms of an Act of Parliament, or virtually by any terms which Parliament had held out, however grave, however serious, the mischief with which we had to deal, it would be a less evil that corruption and venality in its present disgusting form should exist in these boroughs, than that Parliament should give an example of a breach of faith, even to the lowest and most contemptible individuals. But, looking to the Statute, he did not believe that there was the slightest difficulty about this matter, and he would call the attention of

  1029
  the House to the words which it used, as it seemed to him that all it gave to these parties was an indemnity from personal penal consequences. This was not only the construction which as a lawyer he put on the terms of the Act, but it was also the construction which Parliament itself had put upon similar Statutes; because in the cases of St. Albans and, Sudbury the Act contained the same indemnity, and yet the whole of those constituencies had been disfranchised. The 9th section of the Act, authorising the appointment of Commissions, provided that any person—
  "Who is examined as a witness, and gives evidence touching such corrupt practice before the Commissioners appointed under this Act to make such inquiry, and, who, upon such examination makes a true discovery, to the best of his knowledge, touching all things to which he is so examined, shall be freed from all penal actions, forfeitures, punishments, disabilities, and incapacities, and all criminal prosecutions to which he may have been or may become liable or subject at the suit of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, or any other person, for anything done by such person or persons in respect of such corrupt practice."
  What did this mean? Did it apply to the penal consequences then existing, or did it divest Parliament of its power and authority to legislate penally with reference to such cases as these? He entertained no doubt that it had the former limitation, because it was impossible that an Act should have been passed which contemplated anything else. An Act might grant an indemnity in respect of penalties incurred under the law as it than stood, but the Legislature could not bind the hands of future legislators with regard to future legislation. The terms employed were, that the witness should be—
  "Freed from all penal actions, forfeitures, &c., to which he may have been, or may become liable or subject at the suit of Her Majesty or any other person."
  It was quite clear that the words "at the suit of Her Majesty or any other person" must override the whole section; and, as a lawyer, he should have no doubt whatever as to the mode in which the Act should be construed. A subsequent section provided that the witness, upon the production and proof of the certificate, should have protection against—what? against "any action, information, or indictment which might be preferred against him." He could have no question, therefore, that the Act only applied to protection against criminal informations. He did not wish the House, however, to look
  1030
  at this matter in the narrow view merely of a lawyer, because, if he thought that Parliament had held out expectations to these people that they should not be made to suffer in any way in consequence of their deeds, he should grieve to lead the house to sacrifice its faith even to punish this venality. He could only know, however, what Parliament had done by the Acts which it had passed; and he denied that they held out any such expectations. But what right had they to grant, under this Statute, a degree of immunity which they had not granted under former Statutes, and what, he asked, had Parliament done upon former occasions? The Act appointing the Commissions in the St. Albans and Sudbury cases was precisely similar to this. Then, where was the distinction? Corruption was proved here of the minority, as it had been proved there of the majority, and, if in one case the argument was good for the disfranchisement of the borough, surely here it was sufficient to disfranchise a portion of the borough. If the House had not intended to apply this remedy if it should have become necessary, what, he asked, was the reason for appointing the Commissioners at all, and directing them to report the names of all the individuals whom they had found guilty of bribery? Surely the reason for such a course must have been to enable Parliament to deal with those particular persons. These were the observations which suggested themselves to his mind, and he felt that he should have shrunk from his duty if he had not expressed them openly to the House. At the same time, if the House should come to the conclusion that, either directly by the terms of the Act of Parliament, or indirectly by any other means, they had entered into a compact with these persons not to deprive them of their franchise in the event of their giving full information to the Commissioners, he should be the last man to interfere with their political rights. He did not believe, however, that that was the case. They had a great evil to grapple with, and it was the duty of Parliament to grapple with it by means of special legislation adapted to the special circumstances of the case. He left the subject to the better judgment of the House, feeling that he had only done his duty in asking leave, as he now did, to bring in these Bills for the prevention of bribery in the election of Members to serve in Parliament.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid, he would shortly state the reasons why he thought the House should not entertain the Bills which were proposed to be laid upon the table by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, very properly, that he did not wish the question to be considered as one of the mere legal construction, but upon the broader ground of what was the spirit of the engagement which the Legislature had by the Statute entered into. As they all knew, the Crown had the power, upon a joint Address, to issue a Commission. Suppose, then, that there was no Act of Parliament to provide an indemnity for the witnesses before such Commission, what would be the consequence? The Commissioners would go down to the borough and call their witnesses; but the witnesses would at once say, "The questions which you ask us tend to criminate us—we are not bound to give you an answer, and we refuse to do so." There would be an end then of the inquiry of the Commissioners. The Legislature had foreseen that, and they thought that was an objection to be guarded against, and it was considered so valuable to obtain the truth, that it was worth while to pay for the truth by giving a full indemnity to the witnesses. What was the course which had been taken by these Commissioners? A petition had been presented from Barnstaple which described the course that had been taken by the Commissioners in that borough, and it was a fair type of what had occurred in other places. The Commissioners put up a placard in the market-place, in which they stated that if those summoned as witnesses came forward, and gave evidence without reserve, they would be protected from any possible consequences that might occur. He did not suppose that those men in the country had a copy of the Statute, or would understand it if they had it; but they had intelligence enough to see, that when the Commissioners, by notice in the market-place, promised them that if they gave evidence nothing should happen to them, it was a guarantee which would protect them, not merely against a criminal prosecution, but against anything which they might consider in the light of a criminal prosecution, or a deprivation of their civil rights. Upon that understanding they gave their evidence; and in Barnstaple the Commissioners reported that out of 255 persons, 254 gave their evidence in a
  1032
  straightforward and proper way, and received certificates from the Commissioners. Then let them refer to the Act of Parliament and see what was the consequence of receiving the certificate. The Act of Parliament said that every person who shall make a fair discovery shall be free from all penal actions, forfeitures, punishments, disabilities, and incapacities, and all criminal prosecutions to which they may become liable at the suit of Her Majesty, or her heirs or successors, because or in respect of such corrupt practices. The Attorney General said that that only contemplated a criminal prosecution for a penalty recoverable under the law as then existing; but did not the hon. and learned Gentleman see how that would apply? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that it would be competent for Parliament, in point of honour and good faith, after giving this indemnity, to turn round and pass an Act now by which they would impose a penalty on every voter say of 100 l. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Bill only referred to disabilities and incapacities which were incurred at the suit of Her Majesty. But he found the Act referred also to disabilities and forfeitures incurred also at the suit of other persons. He wished to know what anybody would understand from the whole scope of these words with regard to disabilities and incapacities. He took it that they must include disabilities and incapacities affecting their civil rights—those very civil rights which the Attorney General now proposed to take away. But the Attorney General said, look to St. Albans and to Sudbury. There the witnesses were promised an indemnity, and yet the Parliament disfranchised the boroughs altogether. But the present was altogether a different proceeding from what took place at St. Albans. Of course he admitted that no indemnity would protect the witnesses from any general measure of Parliamentary reform. It would never be permitted to them to come forward and say, we have a vested right against the operation of such general Bill. But it was quite a different thing when the penalties were made to fall upon those only who had been proved to be corrupt, and who had every one of them been promised an indemnity. The Attorney General said, if indemnity were to be granted in this sense, where was the use of sending Commissions? But had the Commission been of no use in the case of St. Albans? It bad been of

  1033
  great use; and so the issuing of those Commissions was of use, as it showed the country that the House was determined to probe to the bottom all allegations of bribery and corruption. He was ashamed to put the case upon a lower ground than that of the public faith and honour. But he would put it upon one lower ground, which he thought even the Attorney General would appreciate. It was proposed, now, to legislate with a view of disfranchising the corrupt electors in certain boroughs. Well, he hoped they would never have occasion to issue another Commission. But suppose they should be obliged to do so, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, did he suppose that he could resort to this measure of indemnity a second time? Did he think that they could again publish placards in the market-place, promising indemnity; or if they did, could they suppose that the electors, with these proceedings in their recollections, would be befooled into coming forward again to give evidence? He said the thing was utterly impossible. It would go abroad that the mode in which the Legislature kept its faith was the mode now recommended by the Attorney General, and there would be an end to all further inducements to witnesses coming forward and exposing the practice of bribery. But he wished the House not to consider the question on the ground of expediency, but on the ground of good faith and the public honour. If he were called upon to form a comparison between the two offences, of a poor man who had sold his vote for a few shillings or a few pounds, and the offence of that man who, after getting at that fact by a promise of indemnity, afterwards turned round and visited him with the very consequences against which he had guaranteed him, he must say that, according to his apprehension, the last offence was not the least. He was willing to go as far as any man in that House by all proper means to check bribery. It was of inestimable importance to preserve purity of election; but there was one thing that was of more importance still, and that was to preserve pure and inviolate the public faith and the public honour; and, believing that the public faith and the honour of that House would be tarnished by the proposed course of proceedings, he was prepared to meet the present Motion with a direct negative.
  SIR JOHN HANMERsaid, he also must oppose the Motion. He thought that
  1034
  the House had a right to expect from the Attorney General a proposition which savoured of a jurist and a statesman; he must, however, say that in his opinion the Bills which had been brought in had about them nothing of the kind, and because they would inflict an extreme and unexpected punishment upon persons who believed, and were led to believe, that by the terms of the Act of Parliament instituting the extraordinary and exceptional tribunal, before which they were examined, they were to be protected from consequences. He was sure such a sense of injustice would attend any action of the kind now proposed by the Attorney General, as would tend more than anything else to defeat the object he had in view. The House ought also to remember the composition and character of these extraordinary Commissions. Of the names of those gentlemen, who were appointed in a great hurry, without a moment's question, many hon. Members had, perhaps, never even heard, and yet powers had been entrusted to them which were unknown to Westminster Hall, unknown to the judicature of the country, and such even as the Lord Chief Justice of England, if he wished to exercise them, might wish to exercise in vain. Their conclusions were arrived at in an extra-judicial manner, and he knew that men of the highest respectability complained of their Reports as unjust. He contended, therefore, that the House ought not to bear too hardly upon persons who had been reported to be guilty of offences against the law by such very exceptional tribunals. The Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman did not stand alone. Happily, the House had awakened at last to a sense of the absolute necessity of checking these corrupt practices; and the noble Lord the Member for London had brought forward a Bill prospectively imposing disabilities, the operation of which, when it should come into force, was limited to two years; but in this retrospective Bill of the Attorney General's, the only limit apparently imposed was imposed by chance or the caprice of the Commissioners, and in some cases they went back for thirteen years. If they were to alter the present state of the law, he would rather prefer that it should be done under the guidance of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London than under the Bills proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General; and he would put it to the House whether it would be altogether just to go back to those legendary times,—to the time of Lord

  1035
  Melbourne's Government, and to times when it was impossible to say what had taken place, and to disfranchise, for acts then committed, long lists of voters? Having said thus much, he wished to say a few words, and he was sorry he was obliged to do so, with regard to himself. In 1841 he was a candidate for the representation of Kingston-upon-Hull, and in the Report of the Commissioners, he found that they stated that at that election a corrupt expenditure of money took place, with which when he became acquainted, he did not interfere to prevent it. Now, he had, both in that House and out of it, taken rather an active part to put down and repress anything approaching to corruption at elections, and any man who knew him would not only bear witness to his sincerity, but he believed also, in some cases, to the efficiency of those endeavours. In 1841, thirteen years ago, he was requested to stand for Kingston-upon-Hull, and, as he thought fit to do so, he took such precautions as he supposed any Gentleman of that House, if they took any, would have done. He expressed his disapprobation of corruption, and took with him a gentleman of the bar, to whom, jointly with his then colleague, Sir Walter James, he paid a fee of 100 guineas, whose business it was to protect them from all difficulty and trouble. He was an efficient and able man, and would have done all he could, but he did not render any great services on this occasion, as the committee who had undertaken the election would manage their own affairs. He (Sir J. Hanmer) was asked by the Commissioners if he knew anything particular of the practices that prevailed at Kingston-upon-Hull as to men called "runners," or who had something to do with the committee. He told the Commissioners that he did not remember any circumstance which would justify him in saying that he knew anything particular of this practice, and that all he could remember was, that afterwards, in 1842, when the noble Lord the Member for the City of London brought in his Bill, whereby such practices were declared to be illegal, he communicated to his friends that he should never stand again for Kingston-upon-Hull, and therefore he thought it proper to infer, being asked and curiously examined by the Commissioners as to his recollections of thirteen years ago, that he might have known something upon which that conclusion of his was founded, but how or when he knew it,
  1036
  he could not say. It did not consist with his ideas of what was befitting a Member of that House to deny absolutely any knowledge of what might have been known, but he never intended to go beyond admission of the possibility of his having known what, after all, was in 1841 no illegal practice. Yes, he begged leave to say that on that occasion the employment of runners was no illegal practice. In 1837, the election previous to the one he had been alluding to, a man was proceeded against, and the practice as to persons being employed as runners was pressed, and this man's name was erased from the poll. The counsel asked on what ground the Committee had done this? and the reply was, "On that of treating." So that it was plain and obvious that on this point, afterwards provided for by the 20th clause of Lord John Russell's Act, there was great doubt as to the illegality. It had been sanctioned by an Election Committee, and it was not wonderful if the people of Hull had interpreted this their own way. He thought that, considering the precedent thus given by the Committee of 1837, he had grounds for complaining of the way in which the Commissioners had mentioned himself; and he again declared that, from 1842, when the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London made such great alterations in the state of the law, he used every exertion to bring the constituency to a sense of their position, and to a due obedience to the law. In 1847 he was again requested to stand for Kingston-upon-Hull, but declined to do so unless full assurance was given that his election should be made in Obedience to and in conformity with the law. Such assurance was not given to him, and he therefore declined to stand for the borough. He had a great regard for the town of Hull—it was one of the great mercantile seats of the kingdom, and he did not think that the scandal cast upon it by the Commissioners or by the mischances, or even misconduct, of elections would justify him in voting for such a Bill as this, and that borough contained men of as great honour, intelligence, and worth as any constituency, and whom any one would be proud to represent. He considered that the course which the House had taken in suspending the issue of the writ sufficiently showed their opinion and determination, and he would agree to any prospective course which might be, after such warning, fairly proposed; but as to retrospective disfranchisement upon en-

  1037
  forced evidence, he must confess that he would rather adhere to the old jurisprudence, justice, and legal proceedings of the country. If alterations were to be made, he would prefer their being so under the guidance of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who had taken a very different line in his Bills. He could not understand the course pursued by the Commissioners in their inquiry; he thought the rule in practice was that they would go back to a pure election. If this were the case in the instance of the right hon. Gentleman now Member for Leeds, he should have thought that a point to stop at; but he understood it to be the fact that one of the Commissioners, whose Report had not been printed, but who was the Chief Commissioner, had gone back to the days of Queen Anne. He should, therefore, on the whole, without any doubt, oppose the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. PHINNsaid, he much lamented that the hon. Baronet who had last addressed the House should have introduced into the debate personal topics, which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had anxiously avoided doing. There could be no doubt that the hon. Baronet desired to put down corruption, and there was no desire to implicate him in the proceedings. He thought it desirable, however, that this question should be discussed on general principles, and not the particular precedents of hon. Gentlemen. One part of the hon. Baronet's speech he could but advert to—he had said that the issuing of these Commissions was contrary to the common law, and that respect ought not to be paid to their decisions. This would have been a very proper argument to use when the Bill for issuing these Commissions was introduced into the House, but it was altogether irrelevant now; and if he recollected rightly, that Act of Parliament received the support of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and their united efforts carried it through. He thought that the policy of these Commissions ought not now to be discussed, as the opinion of the House had been taken in almost every case by a division, and it had agreed not only to the propriety of there being a general measure, but also that of issuing particular Commissions. The question now was, that knowing the result of these Commissions, were they to pass only a general measure? After having considered that these individual Commissioners incurred vast and
  1038
  frightful expense, was this to result in nothing but tons of blue books, and was a slur to be cast indirectly on the judgment of those employed on them? In adverting to the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns) the hon. Member said the question was not whether they should punish the guilty, but whether, having found the innocent and the guilty, they could draw broad lines which would separate one from the other. The hon. Member for Belfast did not question the expediency of the Sudbury and St. Albans Commissions. In these cases the same certificates were granted to parties who were indemnified, not from future consequences, but from the consequences imposed by the Statutes then relating to bribery. He might state, from his particular experience of the St. Albans case, that when that Act was passing through the House, he did not believe that it entered the contemplation of any hon. Member that they were protecting parties from more than the existing disabilities. The St. Albans Act stated that—
  "Witnesses shall be freed from all penal actions, forfeitures, punishments, disabilities, and incapacities, to which he or she may have been or may become liable"—
  [Cheers from the Opposition benches.] Hon. Members should have listened to the concluding part of the sentence:—
  "to which he or she may have become liable or subject at the suit of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, or any other person, for anything done by such person or persons in respect of such bribery."
  Could it ever be supposed from this that a man was free from, and not subject to, future disabilities? The hon. Member had said that if they imposed those punishments on the guilty, they would not get future disclosures. But ought they not to argue from what had been done, what would be done? But the hon. Member for Belfast said he would not argue on the Act, and there he thought he was quite right. He then went on to say that in Barnstaple the Commissioners had published a placard, declaring that they would protect the witnesses from all ulterior proceedings. He believed what the Commissioners really did was to publish the section of the Act. In the case of Sudbury these same immunities had been promised, and the borough and every man who had given evidence were disfranchised; and when the St. Albans case

  1039
  followed, they were not then twitted with having promised immunities, and yet disfranchised Sudbury. No; experience refuted this argument used by the hon. Member. Was the indemnity disregarded, or did the witnesses refuse to answer? Not at all. And it was the height of absurdity to say that, because where 300 out of 400 voters were bribed, they had disfranchised the whole, therefore, where 1,000 out of 5,000 voters were bribed, they must either disfranchise the whole or none. If there were a question that by the proposed measure they were violating any principle of honour or integrity, he would rather let abuses pass and bygones be so, and trust rather to future legislation and the improved moral condition of the country; but he did not consider that any such principle was violated, and the country would have a right to consider that the House was not in earnest in this matter if, whenever the question came of prosecuting bribery, they did not follow up the investigation by action.
  "Quid tristes querimoniæ
  Si non supplicio culpa reciditur?"
  He might say he never yet knew a man against whom a tribunal had decided who acquieseed in the justice of that decision; but whatever imputation the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Hanmer) might cast upon the Commissioners at Hull, he would say that more independent or impartial gentlemen never made a Report to that House.
  SIR JOHN HANMERsaid, that he had cast no imputation on the Commissioners.
  MR. NAPIERsaid, he should base his opposition to the measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite upon the provisions contained in the clause of indemnity. If he understood that clause aright, it was grounded upon the long-established principle of our law that no man was bound to criminate himself. In accordance with the Act no person was bound to answer any question which would subject him to forfeiture of any nature whatsoever. The law upon that point was very clearly explained in William's Treatise upon Evidence. Yet it was sought by the Bills before the House to compel a witness to forfeit his franchise upon grounds furnished by the questions which had been put, and by the answers which he had given to those questions. The words of the Act were, that—
  "The persons examined before the Commissioners should be free from all penal actions, from
  1040
  forfeiture, from punishment, from disability, and from incapacity."
  But there could be no doubt that to deprive a man of his franchise must be regarded in the light of a punishment and a forfeiture, and that any such proceeding was one which must be held to be one which came within the words of the Act of Parliament. Such was his opinion, and upon that, therefore, as well as upon the other grounds which had been put forward by his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Cairns), he should not support that view of the question of which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was the advocate.
  MR. KENNEDYsaid, he understood that evidence had been given of the fact of bribes having been received before recourse was had to the electors themselves; and that the object of calling the electors was to give them an opportunity of defending themselves, if improper evidence had been produced against them. In these circumstances, he thought a boon had been conferred upon the parties rather than otherwise, and the House had, unquestionably, a right to see that justice was duly done to the honest and respectable portion of the constituency. They ought to separate the two, as far as the evidence enabled them, in order that the pure might not be degraded by association with the corrupt. Considering that this was wise policy, he should give his support to the Attorney General's proposition.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, he believed that it was admitted on all sides that if it were not for the indemnity clause in the existing Act standing in the way, there would really be no substantial argument against the proposition of the Attorney General. He had looked into that clause, and found that its terms were very large. It indemnified the voter against penal consequences, forfeiture, and disabilities. There could be no doubt that it referred to the similar clause in the Bribery Act, by the force of which no man could be made liable to penal consequences, to forfeiture, to disability, or to deprivation of his vote, unless he had been prosecuted and convicted in due course of law. No doubt, therefore, the principle of indemnity had been carried to a very great extent; but he would suggest that not only were the present peculiar cases, but that Parliament ought to put its own construction upon the indemnity. If that were so, it was manifest that the cases of St. Albans and Sudbury were precedents. The true point, however, was, whether a

  1041
  man who had once acknowledged himself guilty of corrupt practices was to enjoy an immunity for them ever afterwards. It appeared to him absurd, unconstitutional, and even stultifying, to pretend that any Act of Parliament whatever should, directly or indirectly, confer upon a voter an immunity of corruption. Would it be contended for one moment that any law ought to give a voter once guilty of corruption immunity for it during the rest of his life. What was this right of which it was proposed to deprive the corrupt voter? There were Gentlemen in that House who looked upon the franchise as an indefeasible right, but the constitution of this country did not say so. A man might be in possession of this franchise, and that House, from high reasons of policy, might deprive him of it. In this way whole constituencies had been deprived of the franchise, and could it for a moment be said that the House had not the same right in the case of individuals? The Reform Bill deprived whole constituencies of it who were not affected by corruption; yet no one ever ventured to say that there was anything illegal in the deprivation. No more was there in the present case. The hon. Member for Belfast would not deny that Parliament had this power; he said, however, "If you can prove the whole constituency corrupt, disfranchise it; but the moment you attempt to separate the innocent from the guilty, you commit a great injustice." The injustice, it appeared, was committed by not convicting those who were innocent. In the case of Sudbury, some of the constituency were as untainted with corruption as any voters in the empire. It was, therefore, a hardship that they should be involved in the disgrace and punishment of their corrupt associates. The proposition of the Attorney General, however, applied something like equity and justice to the cases under consideration. On grounds of public policy the House had a right to deal with the electoral franchise as it thought proper; it could transfer it from one place to another; and if they could do this, it would be admitted that, à fortiori, they had a right to deprive persons of the franchise who had grossly abused it. What, he asked, would be the effect, if this Motion were not adopted? Why, the writs would go down, and the very persons who had must abused the sacred electoral trust would have the power of voting again. Was this system to go on ad infinitum? On every ground, therefore, of public po-
  1042
  licy, of common sense and common decency, the House was bound to accept and pass this measure.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was sure that the House was desirous to ascertain whether the principle was a sound one upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General called upon them to act. Now there were parts of the world in which a confession might be extorted from a witness, and in which that confession might afterwards be proceeded upon, and turned to his disadvantage. By the law of England, however, that could not be done; and yet it was in contravention of such a law they were called upon that evening to legislate. It appeared to him that the Act ought to be interpreted as those parties who were to be affected by its provisions might be supposed to understand it. The Act first of all set forth that no statement which might be given by a voter before the Commissioners should ever be made use of against him. If the voter obtained a certificate, and a prosecution had been instituted against him afterwards, that prosecution must fail. Yet it was proposed, by ex post facto legislation, to deprive of his vote that person whom, by a criminal prosecution, the Attorney General would find it impossible to convict. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn) had stated that he entertained no doubt as to the meaning of the words contained in the Act; but was he quite sure that those words justified the interpretation which he had put upon them? The words of the Act were:—
  "The person examined as a witness, and giving evidence touching such practices before the Commissioners, shall be free from all penal actions, from forfeiture, from punishment, from disability, and from incapacity."
  He should stop there. Then the next section commenced as follows:—
  "He is to be free from all criminal prosecutions to which he might have become liable at the suit of Her Majesty."
  The plain and fair meaning of the words, then (for they must not quibble in that House with respect to the meaning of an Act of Parliament as against the parties whom they might induce to make a confession), was that those parties were to be held free from all the consequences which, under other circumstances, would follow from the disclosures which they might make. Witnesses were asked to come forward and to give their evidence before

  1043
  Commissions, and were promised immunity so far as the acts to which their testimony might relate were concerned. Such persons would read the words of the Act, and placing the natural interpretation upon those words, would consider themselves as secured against the possibility of any penal consequences resulting in their regard from the disclosures which they might make to the Commissioners. But the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath, in quoting the words of the Act had asked, "What will the country think of us if, after those extensive and costly investigations, we do not do something?" His (Mr. Whiteside's) answer to that question was, that the people of this country would always be found ready to appreciate the conduct of those who acted upon principles of equity and strict justice. The object of the Act of Parliament was, in his opinion, to enable that House to procure such evidence as might warrant them in pursuing the same course as in the case of St. Albans had been adopted, or to furnish them with such information as will aid them in framing a general law in reference to bribery and corruption. The persons who had given their evidence before the Commissioners, however, could by no means have supposed that the law could have had for its object that which it was sought by the Bills now under their consideration to carry into effect. Petitions had been presented that very evening in which the petitioners had complained that they had been induced to give the Commissioners all the information in their power upon an understanding in contradiction to the spirit of which the measures of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite were framed. Nobody could deny but that it was an "incapacity" not to be in possession of the franchise, and yet they were now called upon, by ex post facto legislation, to do that to which the words of the Act declared the witness should not be held to be liable. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had not told the House how many years his Bills were to embrace in their retrospective operation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he proposed to incapacitate those persons whom the Commissioners had reported by name to the House, and that there was but one Report in which the Commissioners had gone back beyond the year 1853.
  MR. WHITESIDE: It is important to know whether we are to go back to the beginning of the present century.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: When the hon. and learned Gentleman puts such a question as that, he would not condescend to answer it.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was quite sure that the House would agree with him in thinking that when a new law was about to be introduced, and when he, as well as several Gentlemen who sat beside him, were not aware now far back its retrospective action was to extend, the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman deemed it right to give to the question was scarcely such a one as he considered he was entitled to expect.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the reason why he gave to the question of the hon. and learned Member the answer which he did give, was because he considered that question as one which was personally discourteous.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could assure the House that he himself, as well as several of his hon. Friends near him, were altogether unacquainted with the intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman with respect to the point to which the question which he had put to the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. He had merely asked the hon. and learned Gentleman for information, and it seemed that, in accordance with the principle upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to act—the principle of outraged official dignity—no information would be given as to how far he intended to extend his legislation in the wrong direction. Now he (Mr. Whiteside) should ask the House to pause before they gave their sanction to a system of legislation such as that which they had been asked to sanction. It was no doubt highly desirable to put down corruption; but he would venture to say that it was a more important matter to adhere to a principle upon which they could always act with honour to themselves and with advantage to the general interests of the country.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he regretted these conflicts of legal opinion in that House, because they tended very much to diminish the confidence of the public in the sincerity of lawyers. He would submit to the House that there was no reason to be found in the Act of Parliament itself why they should legislate upon the question under their consideration in a spirit different from that which was embodied in that Act. That measure had been passed with a view to repress bribery

  1045
  and corruption; and, above all, as the House could not fail to observe, to furnish them with materials for future legislation upon the subject. It was a measure which enabled the Legislature to deal with a species of property which must always be distinguished from private property, over which a man was held to possess absolute control—namely, a great political and public trust. Those hon. Members who seemed so anxious to adhere to principle, and who were animated by such an abhorrence of what they were pleased to denominate "legal quibbles," would do well to remember the distinction which existed between the use which might be made of private property, for which the possessor could not be held accountable, and the use which might be made of a public trust, for the proper exercise of which the holder was morally responsible. All clauses of indemnity had for their object the protection of an individual either in his person or his property; but it appeared to him ridiculous to contend that clauses of that description ought to be viewed in the same light as those which were contained in the Act to which their attention had so often been called that evening. An indemnity clause, framed to protect an individual in his person and property, could not, in his opinion, be placed upon the same footing as an indemnity clause contained in an Act of Parliament, by which the Legislature intended to gather materials for future proceedings. It would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill to construe a clause framed for the purpose of facilitating future legislation, as being a binding contract, which should disable that House from availing itself of the means which might thus be afforded. He believed that they would be committing the greatest absurdity if they were to construe the Act in such a way as to disable themselves from passing a measure which the public interest rendered it expedient that they should adopt. He readily admitted that the Statute ought to be so construed as to promote the attainment of the object for which it had been framed. But he defied any hon. Gentleman to show that they would be pursuing that course if they were to tie up their own hands, and to render themselves incapable of passing any Act which would lead to the future disfranchisement of parties whom the Commissioners might find guilty of having accepted bribes. The House ought not to desire to forge fetters for itself, unless it should be compelled to
  1046
  do so by considerations of honour and good faith. Let them look at the meaning of the clause to which the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) had more particularly called their attention. It provided for witnesses a relief against the law as it then stood. That relief was personal to each individual; it was intended to protect his person and his property; and it was intended to protect him fully from disabilities, forfeitures, and incapacities. But then those disabilities, forfeitures, and penalties were such as must follow an indictment against him at the suit of the Crown, or a proceeding taken against him by a common informer. That was the plain meaning of the words. The words were not grammatical nor English, unless that meaning were attached to them. The hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen said he chose to stop at the word "incapacities;" and no doubt the hon. Member might stop where he pleased, but other hon. Members would stop only where the rules of grammatical construction required. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen as to his reading of this clause, inasmuch as he considered such reading, however original and independent it might be, not according to those grammatical rules which generally prevailed, at least in this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman, after having done violence to the sentence, found the unfortunate conjunction "and," which compelled him to borrow some words from the antecedent part of the sentence at which he had told them he would stop, and he was thus obliged to re-unite phrases which he had ruthlessly disjoined. He (the Solicitor General) knew no mode of arriving at a correct interpretation of the passage except by reading the whole of the words, and giving to each of them its proper effect. He believed that the construction put upon the sentence by his hon. and learned Friends opposite could not be adopted without a departure from the purpose for which the Act had been introduced—without, in fact, stultifying the Act—and without violating the universal rule of law as to the proper meaning and intent of indemnity clauses. Those clauses, he could assure the House, were wholly personal to individuals, and were never intended to prevent the enactment of subsequent measures by Parliament.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he should deem it a great misfortune if, now, on the first occasion on which Parliament was asked to

  1047
  act on the measure of 1852, they should apply that measure in a manner which would be found hereafter to interfere with public policy, and still more, if they should apply it in a manner which would destroy the security of that guarantee which was intended by the Legislature to save all persons against the imposition of disabilities or incapacities in consequence of the evidence laid before the Commissioners. The object of the Statute, according to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, was to put down bribery. But the object of a Statute could only be ascertained legally in one way, and, legally or otherwise, there was only one other way in which it could be ascertained. It could only be ascertained by looking at the preamble or recital of the Act in conjunction with its provisions, or else by going back to the intentions announced by the framers of the measure at the period of its passing. Taking the first of these tests, he found that the object of the Statute was simply to cause an inquiry to be instituted into the condition of certain boroughs, and not to disfranchise them. The preamble merely stated that—
  "It was expedient to make more effectual provision for an inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices at elections of Members to serve in Parliament."
  And if you examined the intentions of those who framed the Act, you will find no evidence that they meant the inquiry to be followed up by any measure of this description. It should further be remembered that the Act had been founded on two Statutes that had been previously made applicable to two particular cases—the case of St. Albans and the case of Sudbury. In the latter case it appeared that, out of 280 voters at one election, 220 were proved to have been bribed, and that while 3,000 l. had been sent down to the borough, the expenditure of a portion of that sum had not been accounted for, so that there was reason to believe the corruption had extended beyond the 220 ascertained instances. In the case of St. Albans, it appeared that at one election 186 voters out of 270 had been bribed; and that at another election 240 voters out of 280 had been bribed. It further appeared that Mr. Coppock had stated that "to bribe and to bleed were the only things known at St. Albans," and that Sir Robert Carden had declared "there was no principle in the borough excepting that which was contained in the breeches' pocket," while the Commission-
  1048
  ers had reported that, "with the exception of the clergy and the principal proprietors, the whole town was corrupt. In those two cases Parliament acted in the way in which it was intended by their own legislation that they should act, in case the corruption of the place inquired into was general and systematic—that was to say, they disfranchised those boroughs. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, supported by the Solicitor General, said that these cases were a complete precedent for the course that is contemplated on the present occasion, inasmuch as the Legislature had then, upon the evidence of the parties corrupted, punished not only the guilty, but the innocent. That, however, was not so. What the House did was this. It took the evidence of all the witnesses, not merely with reference to themselves but with reference to the borough generally—evidence which they might have been required to give without an indemnity secured by Act of Parliament. It having turned out upon that evidence, thus legitimately procured without the necessity for any indemnity, that bribery and corrupt practices were generally prevalent in these boroughs, Parliament interfered, and said that such boroughs were no longer qualified to return any Members. In so doing they did not violate the fundamental principle by which, according to the laws of this country, no man can be required to give testimony which will criminate himself. He believed that the Acts appointing the St. Albans and Sudbury Commissions contained indemnity clauses, but then in those cases Parliament took away the franchise from the boroughs because the witnesses gave evidence—which could have been obtained without any indemnity—against other parties, and they did not inflict a personal disqualification on particular witnesses arising out of the evidence which they had themselves given. In the cases of St. Albans and Sudbury, bribery was proved to have been general and systematic; and without proof of this he thought they had no right to deal with these boroughs as they had dealt with them, that was to say, to punish the innocent as well as the guilty, by taking away the right of representation. In these cases, however, the Attorney General did not pretend that there had been general and systematic bribery, and therefore he did not now ask of Parliament to disfranchise these places. What he sought to do was, to disfranchise the voter, in a matter which was purely personal to himself. But

  1049
  if this was a matter personal to the voter, could they deprive him of a right which belonged to him when, according to the laws of England, they could not have required him to give the evidence—they could not probably have obtained the evidence—of which the effect was to deprive him of such right? In other countries it was the practice to examine and cross-examine an accused party, but in this country, happily, it was never allowed; the rule of the English law being clear and distinct, namely, that no person should be punished criminally except upon the evidence of independent witnesses other than himself. That rule rested upon a principle—a principle often enunciated by Lord Eldon from the bench, and which he trusted this country would never forget—that we ought never to put a man into such a position that his interest would conflict with duty. His interest might induce him to commit perjury. His duty would require him to tell the truth. In the Act of Parliament appointing these Commissions an indemnity clause was inserted, and the inducement to a witness to perjure himself was therefore taken away. If, however, they passed the Bill to introduce which they were now asked to give their permission, he should be glad to know how future Commissions would prevail upon witnesses to come forward and give evidence that would deprive them of that right which should not be taken from them except upon evidence from other quarters. That was a very important consideration. The Commissioners appointed to inquire into one borough reported to Her Majesty a striking opinion of the great importance of this indemnity clause, because, they said, it appeared that the very witnesses who, when examined upon oath before a Committee of the House of Commons, did not tell the truth, told it freely under the supposed protection of that indemnity when examined before themselves. And why? Evidently because they believed they were to be saved harmless for the evidence they gave in the latter case. But if witnesses found that they were not to be saved harmless, would not the same perjury be committed in future before Commissions which now took place before Committees of that House? Why, again, should they deal with these cases, because they came before them in a mass, in a different manner from that in which they treated cases of bribery reported to them by their own Committees? Were they to say that when-
  1050
  ever a Committee of that House reported that one man or a dozen men had been guilty of bribery, they would disfranchise him or them by Act of Parliament? He trusted not. He, for one, should not complain of any measure by which parties henceforward guilty of bribery should be disqualified from the exercise of the franchise. But he protested in the most solemn manner against a violation of that fundamental principle of English law which declared that no man should in a criminal matter be required to give evidence against himself. He said it was more important that they should keep faith with those whom they had induced to criminate themselves than that they should punish by a retrospective law men who had been guilty of bribery in the exercise of their electoral rights. He would further ask the House whether it was desirable that those voters who had given their evidence under the notion that they would not thus disqualify themselves from the future exercise of the franchise—he would ask the House whether it was desirable that those voters should be deprived of a locus penitentiœ? An hon. Gentleman opposite said, "If we did not pass this Bill, we should be giving to voters an immunity for future corruption." Far from it. There was a Bill brought in by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, which declared that, in case of such corrupt practices being committed in future, the parties so offending would be deprived of their franchises. He (Mr. Walpole) admitted the justice of that proceeding, for the parties would have notice that such would be the case; but what he wished to impress was, that they should not pass a retrospective law. The two things were distinct, and should be kept in mind. He admitted that there was a great difficulty in any view of the case. But, upon the whole, he was afraid they must deal with the voters who had been found guilty of corrupt practices, in the same manner in which they had treated other voters who had been found guilty of bribery by Committees of that House. He could see no distinction between the two classes. The hon. and learned Attorney General had left it doubtful to how many past elections this Bill would apply. If he recollected rightly, the Report of the Kingston-upon-Hull Commission was accompanied by schedules containing the names of those who had been bribed for four or five elections. Now, he wished to know whether

  1051
  it was proposed to disfranchise electors who may have been guilty of bribery two or three elections since, although they were quite innocent at the last election? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No.] Then the Bill must, he thought, be confined to the last election. And a measure which extended even thus far was just as liable to the objection that it was retrospective legislation, as if it were made applicable to previous elections. In fact, he did not see how they could escape the difficulties that beset them, except by saying, "We will not deal retrospectively with these cases; we will show to Parliament and to the country that if these cases occur again, they shall be punished by one measure of disqualification, applicable to the whole kingdom; but we will not, even for the great object of punishing corruption, violate the fundamental principles of the law of England, and induce a feeling throughout the people resident in these boroughs, that Parliament has been guilty of a breach of faith and a gross injustice."
  MR. WARNERsaid, he thought that the House had been somewhat taken by surprise by the nature of the measure. He thought, however, they ought not to reject at so early a stage any Bill which had received the sanction of the Government. He should vote for the introduction of the measure without pledging himself to the principle of the Bill, because he could not but feel that very serious objections had been urged against it.
  MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the position in which they would stand if, having obtained the evidence of witnesses against themselves on the faith of there being no Act of Parliament by which they could be attacked, they sanctioned a Bill inflicting pains and penalties on those who had made their depositions in the belief that they would be exposed to no pains or penalties whatever. Nothing, he thought, could be more unjustifiable—nothing more opposed to equity. Indeed he believed they would do better to extract evidence by the thumbscrew, the torture, or any other means, than by violating the faith of England and the sacred pledge which an Act of Parliament had given to these people, that if they came forward to give the House of Commons the information it desired, they should not be visited with any pains or penalties of any kind. Whatever might be the construction of lawyers, he was sure
  1052
  that the sense which the people of Hull, Cambridge, Barnstaple, and the other placesw hich had been subjected to these Commissions, and of the country generally, would put upon this measure was that the witnesses should be relieved from any evil consequences arising out of any Act either then in existence or which might be subsequently passed, in consequence of their having too credulously given faith to the British Parliament. He hoped that, for the sake of purifying boroughs from corruption, the House was not about to do what was much more corrupt than bribery—violate its faith towards those persons who had placed confidence in its promises.
  MR. MANGLESsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) how he reconciled the principle he laid down in his speech with the disfranchisement of those electors of St. Albans and Sudbury who had given evidence criminatory of themselves? It appeared to him that, if the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was good for anything, it must be applied throughout; and that on the principle he had laid down he would have been bound to exempt such electors from disfranchisement, and in fact to have left them as the sole electors of these boroughs.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, those boroughs were disfranchised on evidence, for which the voters who gave it required no indemnity, and not on the self-criminatory evidence given by voters with respect to themselves.
  MR. W. O. STANLEYsaid, that if this Bill was not sanctioned by the House, Parliament had better retrace their steps, and repeal the Act of Parliament under which these Commissions were appointed. It appeared to him that some hon. Gentlemen seemed to look upon the certificates of indemnity, given by the Commissioners to parties who gave evidence before them, much in the light in which, in former times, indulgences and absolution were regarded when granted to persons after confession, who—
  "Even in penance
  Added sins anew."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said he had to express his regret that the even tenor of their debate should have been interrupted for a moment by a suggestion that he had sought to be offensive to any hon. Member who had taken part in it. He could assure the House that nothing was further from his mind than to

  1053
  offer offence to any one; on the contrary, he thought he might take credit for what an hon. Gentleman opposite had been pleased to term "official dignity," though not in the sense in which he had used the term. Perhaps he might be allowed to say in extenuation, in some degree, of the charge of offensiveness, that the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) was sometimes not the mildest that might be used to express his sentiments, and that there was something occasionally in his manner which was not calculated to excite the blandest deportment. He (the Attorney General), however, could only repeat, so far as he was concerned, that if he had said aught that was offensive, he was sincerely sorry for having done so. To return to the subject under debate, it did not appear to him that any one hon. Member opposite had denied the proposition that it was essential that something should be done to improve the condition of the constituencies to which the present Bills applied. Everybody seemed to concede that; and nobody denied that it was desirable to disfranchise those voters who had admitted their guilt in the evidence they had given before the Commissioners, if it could be done without anything like breach of faith towards them. The whole question, therefore, was this—was there anything in the Act of Parliament which prohibited that House, either in good feeling or in good faith, from taking away from them the exercise of their franchise? If it could be shown that upon a legal construction of the Act of Parliament there was anything which could be considered in the light of an implied contract with the persons in question, by which Parliament was bound to leave them in possession of their franchises, he did not ask the House to adopt the measure. He did not, however, so read the Act of Parliament. The ninth clause of the Act pointed out distinctly what were the penalties from which parties giving evidence before the Commissioners should be indemnified, and the following section stated that the certificates of indemnity were to apply to the penalties there specified; but there was nothing in the Act to fetter future legislation. Considering how many Gentlemen of no mean legal ability had thought it their duty to address the House on the Motion before it, he regretted that an hon. and learned Friend of his (Sir F. Kelly), a great light in the profession, had taken no part in the discussion. Why was that? He (the
  1054
  Attorney General) would give the House an answer. He would undertake to say that his hon. and learned Friend could not stand up in his place and contravene the proposition he (the Attorney General) had just laid down, namely, that the section in question of the Act of Parliament did not fetter the legislative action of that House. If the constitutional principle was to be applied to those cases that no man was called on to criminate himself, and that Act of Parliament was intended to maintain that principle inviolate, he would ask, what was the object of that part of the Act which called on the Commissioners to report by name every man who was proved before them to have been guilty of bribery? He should say that the object and intention was to disfranchise individuals in cases where the conduct of those individuals called for such a mark of legislative deprivation. He must again say he did not think the House would be at all straying, from the meaning or intention of the Act of Parliament in disfranchising those guilty parties. He thought, on the contrary, that no contract had been made with those parties to give evidence which at all would warrant their proposed disfranchisement being regarded in the light of a breach of faith on the part of that House; and that hon. Members might not be over astute in their endeavours to discover a locus penitentiœ for persons who had so abused a great public trust.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he must beg to express his thanks for the handsome and unmerited eulogium passed on him by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, but he was afraid it might be the occasion of his inflicting a speech upon the House, which would not otherwise have been the case, as he should have been content to leave the case in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole); but, having been, as it were, challenged, he must say that this was the very first time on which a Bill had ever been brought forward in either House of Parliament to inflict pains and penalties and disabilities on a number of individuals who had been convicted by no jury, and yet who were, under the sanction of that House, to be deprived of a franchise which the law conferred upon them, upon an ex parte Report, against which they had not even had the opportunity of being heard. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had put a question to the Attorney General which he (Sir F. Kelly) thought was not

  1055
  an unreasonable one. It was, whether this Bill, which had for its object the disfranchisement of a large number of persons, sought only to disfranchise those who appeared to have committed bribery at the last election, or whether it included all who had committed bribery at the numerous preceding elections which had been inquired into by the Commissioners? The Commissioners reported not as to one or two, but six, seven, and eight elections, and in the case of Maldon their inquiries extended so far back as the year 1826. Surely, then, it was not unreasonable to ask the number of persons to whom it was sought to apply these Bills of disfranchisement. Taking the first case—that of Canterbury—the Bill proposed to disfranchise as many as 100 or 150 individuals, and supposing the individuals proposed to be disfranchised should hereafter petition both Houses of Parliament, and claim to be put upon their trial before they suffered the consequences of a conviction by law, how could the House refuse to hear them? He challenged his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) to point out a single instance in the whole history of our Legislature in which any man sought to be disfranchised by a Bill in Parliament, except a Bill of Pains and Penalties, where the person sought to be punished by that Bill was not entitled to be heard with all the protection of the forms of a judicial prosecution. He could say, without fear of contradiction, that this was the single and unprecedented instance of a Bill of Pains and Penalties against a great number of individuals who had never been put upon their trial, and had consequently had no opportunity of being heard in their defence. With regard to the Act of Parliament itself, as he had been called upon, although he did not think this a fit arena for arguments of this nature, he had no hesitation in stating his views. If the Act of Parliament were a penal Act, and were so to be construed, then he thought it was sufficiently ambiguous in its terms to entitle the persons convicted of the offence complained of to the indemnity insisted upon on that (the Opposition) side of the House. First of all, the Act provided that, upon evidence being given by any accused persons, the persons so giving evidence should be protected and indemnified against actions, disabilities, forfeitures, and a number of other pains and penalties. If the Act stopped there, no doubt, all such persons would have been fairly entitled to indem-
  1056
  nity; but it went on to say that they should be indemnified from all penal prosecutions to which they might be liable or become subject at the suit of Her Majesty or any other person. If the words, "at the suit of Her Majesty or any other person," referred, as in ordinary grammatical construction they would, to the last antecedent—namely, to "all penal prosecutions to which he may become liable or subject," then the person giving evidence was indemnified from all pains and penalties whatsoever. But if, on the contrary, the final words overrode the entire sentence, then, no doubt, the construction insisted upon by the Attorney General was the true construction. The Act, at any rate, was sufficiently ambiguous in its terms to entitle any man to say he had a fair reason to expect to be indemnified against pains and penalties. But whatever might be the strict legal meaning of the Act of Parliament, was it not in substance a direct violation of all honour and justice if these pains and penalties were inflicted? If, instead of bribery, the offence had been the crime of high treason, and the parties had given evidence sufficient to convict themselves of high treason, would it be proper for Parliament to step in and say, "We will not indict you for high treason, but we will bring in a Bill of Pains and Penalties and inflict on you the punishment awarded to high treason, upon your own confession?" In such a case, would not the parties thus visited be entitled to ask, "What is the meaning of your Act of Parliament?" The Bill was nothing more nor less than a Bill of Pains and Penalties, and a Bill against any subject of the realm, for any offence whatever, ought to entitle that subject to be heard by counsel, and to undergo a trial with all the forms of law. He considered the Bill a delusion and a deception, and he thought he should not be charged with using too strong language when he characterised it as a fraud. The parties who had given evidence before the Commissioners had been led to believe, and had in fact been told, that they would not expose themselves to disfranchisement, and they therefore gave their evidence, under that assurance, freely, fully, and candidly. They were now, however, to be told that they would be liable to no action at law, and would suffer no action for pains and penalties, but that at the same time they would be punished in some other way, and would be deprived of their franchise.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the prevention of Bribery in the Election of Members to serve in Parliament for the City of Canterbury."
  The House divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 118: Majority 71.

  List of the AYES.

  A'Court, C. H. W.

  Fox, W. J.

  Alcock, T.

  Gardner, R.

  Anderson, Sir J.

  Geach, C.

  Bagshaw, J.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

  Goodman, Sir G.

  Ball, J.

  Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

  Greene, J.

  Barnes, T.

  Greville, Col. F.

  Bass, M. T.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Beamish, F. B.

  Hadfield, G.

  Bell, J.

  Hall, Sir B.

  Benbow, J.

  Hankey, T.

  Bethell, Sir R.

  Hastie, A.

  Biggs, W.

  Headlam, T. E.

  Blackett, J. F. B.

  Heard, J. I.

  Bowyer, G.

  Heneage, G. H. W.

  Boyle, hon. Col.

  Herbert, rt. hon. S.

  Bramston, T. W.

  Hervey, Lord A.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Heyworth, L.

  Brocklehurst, J.

  Higgins, G. G. O.

  Brotherton, J.

  Hindley, C.

  Brown, H.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Brown, W.

  Howard, Lord E.

  Bruce, Lord E.

  Hume, J.

  Bruce, H. A.

  Hutchins, E. J.

  Buckley, Gen.

  Hutt, W.

  Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

  Ingham, R.

  Byng, hon. G. H. C.

  Keating, R.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Kennedy, T.

  Castlerosse, Visct.

  Keogh, W.

  Caulfield, Col. J. M.

  Kerrison, Sir E. C.

  Cavendish, hon. G.

  Kershaw, J.

  Challis, Mr. Ald.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Chambers, T.

  Kingscote, R. N. F.

  Chaplin, W. J.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Cheetham, J.

  Kirk, W.

  Clay, Sir W.

  Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

  Clifford, H. M.

  Langston, J. H.

  Clinton, Lord R.

  Langton, H. G.

  Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

  Laslett, W.

  Coffin, W.

  Lawley, hon. F. C.

  Cogan, W. H. F.

  Lee, W.

  Cowper, hon. W. F.

  Lockhart, A. E.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Lowe, R.

  Dashwood, Sir G. H.

  Mangles, R. D.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Marshall, W.

  Dent, J. D.

  Massey, W. M.

  Duff, G. S.

  Matheson, A.

  Duke, Sir J.

  Matheson, Sir J.

  Duncan, G.

  Miall, E.

  Dundas, F.

  Milligan, R.

  Dunlop, A. M.

  Mills, T.

  Dunne, M.

  Milner, W. M. E.

  Ellice, E.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Esmonde, J.

  Moffatt, G.

  Ewart, W.

  Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.

  Fagan, W.

  Monsell, W.

  Feilden, M. J.

  Morris, D.

  Ferguson, Col.

  Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

  Fitzroy, hon. H.

  Mulgrave, Earl of

  Forster, C.

  Muntz, G. F.

  Forster, J.

  Murrough, J. P.

  Fortescue, C. S.

  Norreys, Lord

  1058

  O'Brien, P.

  Shafto, R. D.

  O'Connell, J.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Osborne, R.

  Sheridan, R. B.

  Paget, Lord A.

  Smith, J. A.

  Paget, Lord G.

  Smith, J. B.

  Paget, Lord

  Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

  Patten, J. W.

  Sotheron, T. H. S.

  Pechell, Sir G. B.

  Stanley, hon. W. O.

  Peel, F.

  Strutt, rt. hon. E.

  Pellatt, A.

  Sutton, J. H. M.

  Peto, S. M.

  Tancred, H. W.

  Philipps, J. H.

  Thicknesse, R. A.

  Phillimore, J. G.

  Thompson, G.

  Phillimore, R. J.

  Thornhill, W. P.

  Phinn, T.

  Traill, G.

  Pilkington, J.

  Walmsley, Sir J.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Walter, J.

  Price, Sir R.

  Warner, E.

  Price, W. P.

  Watkins, Col. L.

  Ricardo, O.

  Wells, W.

  Rice, E. R.

  Whatman, J.

  Richardson, J. J.

  Whitbread, S.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Wickham, H. W.

  Roebuck, J. A.

  Wilkinson, W. A.

  Russell, F. C. H.

  Willcox, B. M.

  Russell, F. W.

  Williams, M.

  Sadleir, J.

  Williams, W.

  Sawle, C. B. G.

  Wyndham, W.

  Scholefield, W.

  Wyvill, M.

  Scobell, Capt.

  Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Scully, F.

  TELLERS.

  Seymer, H. K.

  Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

  Seymour, W. D.

  Berkeley, G. L.

  List of the NOES.

  Arkwright, G.

  Fuller, A. E.

  Baird, J.

  Gilpin, Col.

  Bankes, rt. hon. G.

  Gladstone, Capt.

  Barrow, W. H.

  Gooch, Sir E. S.

  Bateson, T.

  Greaves, E.

  Beach, Sir M. H. H.

  Greenall, G.

  Bennet, P.

  Grogan, E.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Gwyn, H.

  Blair, Col.

  Halsey, T. P.

  Boldero, Col.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Booker, T. W.

  Hamilton, G. A.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Bruce, C. L. C.

  Hardinge, hon. C. S.

  Buck, L. W.

  Hawkins, W. W.

  Burghley, Lord.

  Heathcote, Sir W.

  Campbell, Sir A. I.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Carnac, Sir J. R.

  Herbert, hon. P. E.

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Hildyard, R. C.

  Chelsea, Viscount.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Clive, R.

  Hotham, Lord

  Cobbett, J. M.

  Hume, W. F.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Irton, S.

  Codrington, Sir W.

  Jones, Capt.

  Coles, H. B.

  Jones, D.

  Compton, H. C.

  Kelly, Sir F.

  Crook, J.

  Kendall, N.

  Davies, D. A. S.

  Knatchbull, W. F.

  Davison, R.

  Knightley, R.

  Dering, Sir E.

  Knox, Col.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Knox, hon. W. S.

  Duncombe, hon. O.

  Lacon, Sir E.

  Dundas, G.

  Langton, W. G.

  Dunne, Col.

  Lennox, Lord A. F.

  Farnham, E. B.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Fellowes, E.

  Liddell, H. G.

  Filmer, Sir E.

  Lindsay, hon. Col.

  Floyer, J.

  Lovaine, Lord

  Frewen, C. H.

  Macartney, G.

  1059

  Malins, R.

  Stafford, A.

  March, Earl of

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Masterman, J.

  Stanley, Lord

  Michell, W.

  Starkie, Le G. N.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Mowbray, J. R.

  Taylor, Col.

  Mullings, J. R.

  Tomline, G.

  Mundy, W.

  Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Napier, rt. hon. J.

  Vance, J.

  Neeld, J.

  Vansittart, G. H.

  Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Vyse, Capt. H.

  Palk, L.

  Waddington, H. S.

  Percy, hon. J. W.

  Walcott, Adm.

  Portal, M.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Pugh, D.

  Willoughby, Sir H.

  Repton, G. W. J.

  Wise, A.

  Robertson, P. F.

  Woodd, B. T.

  Rolt, P.

  Wyndham, Gen.

  Sandars, G.

  Yorke, hon. E. T.

  Scott, hon. F.

  Smijth, Sir W.

  TELLERS.

  Smith, W. M.

  Whiteside, J.

  Spooner, R.

  Cairns, H. M.

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, and Viscount Palmerston.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that after this division he would not oppose the other Bills of which the hon. and learned Attorney General had given notice.
  On the Motion of the Attorney General, leave was then given to introduce similar Bills for the prevention of bribery in the election of Members to serve in Parliament for the boroughs of Cambridge, Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Maldon.

  DUBLIN PORT BILL.
  SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he had now to ask leave to introduce a Bill to enable the collector general of rates and taxes in Dublin to levy money to repay a certain outlay by the Corporation for preserving and improving the Port of Dublin, in and about repairing the quay wall of the River Liffey, and for the future repairs thereof.
  MR. GROGANsaid, he must complain that already the citizens of Dublin were more heavily taxed for local purposes than those of any other town or borough in the kingdom, and to such an extent had taxation proceeded, that every one of limited means who could by any possibility do so, retired to the outskirts of the city. He wished clearly to understand the purport of the Bill.
  SIR JOHN YOUNGwas understood to say, that at present, in consequence of a recent Act, the Corporation of Dublin had no power to levy money for the purposes of improving the port, and the Bill was intended to confer the necessary powers for that purpose.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Young and Viscount Palmerston.
  Bill read 1o.

  DUBLIN CARRIAGE BILL.
  SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he would now move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Dublin Carriage Act of last Session. The object of the present Bill was to provide that in all cases after licences for 1,600 cars and 200 four-wheeled carriages had been granted, a sum of 25 l. should be paid for every additional licence. The Bill also increased the annual fee on renewal of licence from 1l. to 2l., which would considerably augment the resources at the command of the Dublin Corporation for payment of the police force. The first provision of the Bill was rendered necessary in consequence of the complaints of the car-drivers and car-proprietors, who in Dublin were generally a very poor class of persons, and who having, in many instances, paid as much as 40 l., for their licences had been injuriously affected by the Bill of last Session.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he believed that the Bill of the right hon. Baronet was by no means unlikely to establish a monopoly in the car trade of Dublin. He did not think the Bill was either favourable to the car-owners generally, or acceptable to the inhabitants of that city. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the issuing of a Commission, to ascertain the real state of the facts, before proceeding further with the measure. And, certainly, if he (Mr. Vance) did not receive an assurance to that effect, he should reserve to himself the right of giving every opposition to the Bill when it came to be read a second time.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Young and Viscount Palmerston.
  Bill read 1o.
  The House adjourned at a quarter before twelve o'clock.