Commons Sitting of 22 February 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Election Petitions Act (1848) Amendment; Dwelling's for Labouring Classes (Ireland).
THE TREATY WITH FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is understood by the Government that the proposed reduction and abolition of Import Duties, pursuant to Articles V. and VI. of the Treaty with France are to take effect as regards the produce of other countries than France and her dependencies in virtue of the obligations of the said Treaty? Not seeing the noble Lord in his place, he would postpone his inquiry, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be willing to give him the information he sought for. Article V. referred to the abolition of Duties upon a variety of articles. Article VI. proposed a reduction of Duties on French Wines and Spirits. He especially wished for an explanation of Article V.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have been in communication with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the hon. Member's question; and I am quite prepared to answer it if I collect the meaning of it rightly. So far as I am aware, the Treaty with France has no effect whatever except with regard to French productions, for which the Articles ensure, in certain cases mentioned in the Treaty, certain arrangements which are also mentioned there, there being likewise certain general provisions ensuring the same terms to France as to the most favoured nations. But as respects the course which Parliament may think fit to take with regard to the productions of other countries beyond those terms which are specifically mentioned in the Treaty, I am not aware that the Treaty has any effect. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman means to raise such a question as whether,
  1544
  should Parliament wish to maintain the duties on German silk goods, for example, it would be precluded from doing so by the Treaty. Most certainly it would not. I will not, however, express any opinion as to the wisdom of any particular course, but I think Parliament would be at liberty either to admit German silk goods at the present duty, or to prohibit them, or to increase the duty, so far as the French Treaty is concerned.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. WALTERsaid, he wished to make a formal objection to the Speaker leaving the chair, in order to call the attention of the House to the peculiar circumstances under which this Bill came before them. He could assure the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) that he was not influenced by any feeling of indifference for the praiseworthy objects which the hon. Member sought by this Bill to promote, or by any want of respect for the benevolent sentiments by which the hon. Member was actuated. But he could not forget that on that day fortnight the Bill was read a second time immediately after a division upon a measure of rather an analogous character— the abolition of church rates—in which division both he and the hon. Member voted with the majority. The reason why he voted with the majority on that occasion made him oppose this Bill, as he did not see how, after that vote, he could with any consistency accede to it. The principle involved in the church-rate question appeared to him to be the power of majorities to tax minorities. It was upon the ground that majorities ought not to have such a power that Bills for the abolition of church rates had always been supported since the decision of the highest Court of Appeal in the Braintree case. But if the principle of taxing minorities by majorities were not allowed in the matter of church rates he did not see how it could be allowed, as the hon. Member proposed, for the purpose of making public improvements such as the creation of parks or the provision of seats. This Bill provided that where two-thirds of a parish should agree upon certain public improvements, that proportion should be

  1545
  able to tax the remaining one-third. It was the identical principle upon which the opposition to church rates rested, and if the frequent decisions of the House against its justice in the case of church rates were to be maintained, how could they allow it to be applied to other objects of a public nature which, however desirable, were not more praiseworthy than the maintenance of the fabrics in which Divine worship was celebrated? He did not intend to discuss the clauses of the Bill, but simply to insist that the House ought to proceed with some degree of consistency. He did not object to the principle of levying rates by majorities, provided it was carried out without exception. But he was not to be told that church rates ought to be resisted on that ground, and to have the very same evening the second reading of a Bill smuggled through the House which gave effect to that principle. He did not think the argument could fairly be maintained that this measure had nothing to do with religious purposes, and that a different principle might be applicable where a question of conscience was not involved, because, as to church rates, the ground of conscience had, practically, been abandoned. The Dissenters, when invited to accept a conscience clause, which would have exempted them from church rates, declined, and said they objected altogether to the imposition of taxes upon minorities by majorities. There was a great deal to be said in favour of that view. He believed that the voluntary principle would be sufficient for the maintenance of churches, and upon the same grounds he believed that the voluntary principle would be sufficient for the maintenance of parks and places of public amusement. There was a clause in this Bill which disclosed the weakness of the ground upon which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury stood, and it was the one which provided that, previous to any rate being imposed, not less than one-half the cost of the improvement should be subscribed by voluntary offerings. Such a mixture of the voluntary and compulsory system was most objectionable.
  Amendment proposed,—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,' instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GAVEsaid, he had no objection to the principle of the majority taxing the minority. On the contrary, he thought it a good one, as it enabled them to catch two classes of persons; first the unreasonable man who could not see any advantage in public improvements, and secondly the selfish man who saw improvements but wanted other people to pay for them. He objected to the Bill, however, because it proposed to give larger powers than mere taxing powers to the majority. It enabled them to say what were improvements. Under this Bill the right hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), whose name was on the back of it, might be taxed to pay for those public indicators which so much moved his indignation last Session. Another objection which he had to the Bill was that, as at present drawn, a great deal of injustice might be done by it in cases where a large proportion of the property in a parish was owned by bodies which could not be represented in the vestry. In the parish of St. George's-in-the-East two-thirds of the property was owned by the London Dock Company. They paid their proportion of the rates, but they were advised by their solicitor that they could not appear in vestry; so that, if this Bill were adopted in that parish, it would be adopted, not by two-thirds of the ratepayers of the parish, but by two-thirds of the remaining one-third. If the Bill went into Committee he should propose clauses to remedy such cases of injustice as this.
  MR. RIDLEYobserved, that this was one of the class of Bills which required the strict attention of the House. They were founded undoubtedly on philanthropic motives; but under that character there was great danger of injustice being done to individuals. He also observed that there was a clause in the Bill by which ratepayers under £10 might be present and vote at a meeting at which a rate was authorized, and yet be exempted from contributing any portion of the rate themselves. Surely all who voted for the rate ought to be made liable to it. He intended to vote for the Amendment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the machinery of this Bill, if not its principle, required strict examination, because, to increase the powers of levying local rates, which so often gave rise to ill-feelings and heartburnings amongst parishioners was an operation which ought not to be undertaken without due consideration. Not the slightest intimation was given as to the

  1547
  class of places to which it was meant to apply, whether to parishes with 100 inhabitants only, or to parishes with 10,000. The definition of its objects was also of the very vaguest character. The second clause, to use a familiar phrase, was rather a putting of the cart before the horse; for whereas, the whole operation of the Bill, so far as taxation was concerned, was to depend upon a given sum being collected by voluntary contributions, it was provided in the second clause that the ratepayers should be asked, with ten days' notice, without knowing what it was for, or what was to be done, to adopt the Bill once for all; and if two-thirds in value of the ratepayers present adopted it, it would become law in the parish for ever after, to be put into operation at any time. Certainly in affairs of so much consequence as those contemplated by the Bill it would be fairer that there should be a longer notice; that there should be some reference to the whole body of the ratepayers; and that something more definite should be stated as to what it was intended to do. The meaning of the fifth clause was also very doubtful. It stated that no occupier of a tenement under £10 should be called on to pay the rate; but was it meant that the property should not be taxed, and the occupier merely? It was a favourite maxim on the other side of the House that taxation and representation should go hand-in-hand, but though the Bill provided that occupiers under £10 should not pay the tax, there was not a single inkling to show that they were not to tax their neighbours. The machinery of the Bill would certainly require great consideration before it could be allowed to pass into law.
  MR. CROSSsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member to explain why he had departed from the precedent of the Libraries and Museums Act, which had been found to work so well?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he concurred with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire in thinking that the machinery of the Bill, as it at present stood, would be inoperative even of the House should sanction its principle. It was true that in the Baths and Washhouses Act the House had already sanctioned a similar principle to this, but if the hon. Member would look to the 41st clause of that Act he would see how cautious the Legislature had shown itself in the framing of a Bill intended to impose additional burdens on
  1548
  the ratepayers. By that clause it provided means by which the Act could be carried into operation by appointing commissioners, in the absence of a town council, in whom the whole management should be vested. There was no such provision in this Bill. The first clause provided that the ratepayers might hold lands, &c. — and this before the rates were levied—but it was quite impossible to vest property of this kind in the hands of the whole body of ratepayers. He understood that it was intended to exempt large towns from the operation of the Bill, but these were just the places where the Bill would be of most use, and it was not worth while to pass it for country parishes only. There was scarcely a line in the Bill which would not require amendment, and as these Amendments were not prepared he should advise the hon. Gentleman not to go into Committee to-day, but to postpone it until he had had time to frame whatever Amendments he might think necessary to introduce into it.
  MR.W. EWARTsaid, he would suggest that the Bill should be postponed for a fortnight.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, that what had occurred was a fair illustration of the difficulties inherent in the attempt to legislate with a view to the improvement of the condition of the working classes. His object had simply been to provide places of recreation for the humble classes after their day's toil. At the same time he was very grateful for the suggestions made by hon. Members, many of which had great cogency. With the permission of the House, he would postpone the Bill for a short time, in order to consider whether he could meet the views of hon. Members, while retaining the principle of the measure.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that he still retained his objection to the measure, but he would, on the pledge that the provisions of the measure be considered, consent to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday, 7th March.

WINDOW CLEANING BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR CHARLES BURRELL, in moving the second reading of this Bill said, that

  1549
  its object was to diminish the danger incurred by servants and others employed in cleaning windows. His attention had been drawn to the subject by a very serious accident in Brighton. The Bill had been drawn with great care, and similar provisions had been found to work very well in Scotland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that several of the clauses were likely to cause great inconvenience. By one of the clauses a penalty of 40s., or imprisonment for fourteen days, was proposed to be inflicted on any master who permitted any one in his employment, not being a tradesman, to "stand, sit, or kneel" on the outside of his window, or to be on the outside of any window for the purpose of repairing or painting anything growing thereon, except such window was on the basement or sunk story. It was quite clear that the Bill required to be amended, for if it passed in its present shape a person would be liable to imprisonment for sitting on the sill of a window with his legs inside; or a man could be fined or imprisoned for permitting his gardener to trim flowers growing outside a window on a ground floor. He would suggest the hon. Baronet should be prepared with clauses to meet these cases before the Committee came on.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that as the representative of some thousands of housemaids he must express his opinion that some of the provisions of the Bill were the most preposterous he had ever heard of, which it would be a waste of time to pass. For instance, it provided that anybody who permitted his servant to get outside a window-sill to clean or paint anything affixed to or growing to the house should be liable to a fine or imprisonment. What that could mean he could not understand, though, certainly, in walking through the streets of Marylebone he had often noticed on the window-sills dingy geraniums, which would be all the better for a touch of paint to give a tinge of verdure to them. If the Bill passed, any gentleman who might direct his servant to get on to the window-sill and stuff up a pane of glass which might chance to have got broken during the night, might be hauled up before the magistrate, and imprisoned for fourteen days.
  MR. PACKEsaid, he wished to point out that it was already the law in the
  1550
  metropolis that any person who ordered his servant to stand on a window, to the obstruction or danger of the passers by, was liable to a penalty or imprisonment. If, however, only the person himself was exposed to danger there was no penalty enacted, and it was to meet this defect and to extend the protection of the present law to servants and others who were employed on such duties that the Bill was mainly intended.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he should be sorry to see any Bill brought in by the hon. Baronet who had been so long a Member of this House rejected in so summary a manner, and he hoped, therefore, that it would be allowed to pass a second reading.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he hoped the House would not. It was one of the most vexatious and foolish Bills he had ever heard of, and would cause all sorts of quarrels between neighbours.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the argument that the law already forbade occupiers to allow their servants to stand on window-sills to the danger of the passers-by was really against the second reading and not in favour of it. He was not aware how the hon. Baronet got his windows cleaned in the country, but if this Bill passed it would prevent any persons in the country, where professional window-cleaners were not easily got, sending his servant up a ladder, as was generally done, to clean the outside of a window. The Bill was open to many objections, and was scarcely one which the House would be disposed to sanction.
  SIR CHARLES BURRELLsaid, he believed the Bill was a just one, and founded on humane principles, and that to reject it would be to do a great injury to society. Since he first brought in the Bill, no less than three persons had been killed from window-cleaning. If there were objections to the details of the measure, they might be met in Committee. The Bill had been drawn up with great care by one of the solicitors to the House, and he could not take on himself the responsibility of withdrawing it.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he wished the opinion of the House on the measure, and he should therefore move that it be read that day six months. He gave every credit to the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Burrell) for his humane intentions, but his Bill altered entirely the character of the present enactments on this subject.

  1551
  The present law went upon the intelligible principle, that if any persons did an act, or ordered another to do an act, or did not prevent an act being done when he had the power, which was dangerous to persons passing along the street, he should be liable to a penalty. In populous cities it was very natural that enactments should exist with a view of preventing passers-by from annoyance or danger through the cleaning of windows; but the measures were in no way intended for the protection of the window-cleaner, who was supposed to be capable of taking care of himself. The Bill was not called for in the rural districts, while the measures at present in existence were sufficiently stringent in towns. To make these general, therefore, throughout the country would be a perversion of the legislative principle.
  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, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added. Main question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put of for six months.

ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5, in line 34,
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he wished to move, after "University," to insert "or the matriculation examination of the University of London." His object was to put the matriculation examination of the London University on the same fooling, for the purposes of this Bill, as the middle-class examinations of Oxford and Cambridge.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he should support the Amendment. He thought no case had been made for excepting the University of London.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he also should support the Amendment.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 6 to 12 inclusive.
  MR. MOWBRAY MR. MOWBRAY moved an additional clause:—
  "Provided also, that all persons who, previously to the passing of this Act, shall have been duly admitted and enrolled attorneys or solicitors of the Courts of the Counties Palatine of Durham
  1552
  or Lancaster, or either of them, shall and may be admitted and enrolled attorneys and solicitors of the High Court of Chancery, and in Her Majesty's superior Courts of law at Westminster, in pursuance of the provisions of this Act, without further examination, upon payment of such fees and duty as by law required; provided always, that such admission and enrolment be perfected on or before the first day of Trinity Term, 1861."
  After some discussion the clause was, with some modifications, agreed to.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, that he had several other clauses to propose, but as they had only been printed and circulated that morning, and as it was not possible that hon. Members could have had time to examine them, he was in the hands of the House either to report progress of the Bill now, or to bring up these clauses on the Report.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, it would be better to report progress.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, the clauses were so numerous, and went so far to alter the character of the present Bill, that he thought it would be better to make them a separate Bill altogether.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, he would agree to this suggestion, and withdraw the clauses.
  House resumed. Bill reported as amended.

ELECTION PETITIONS ACT (1848) AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. MELLOR MR. MELLOR moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he was willing to admit that the House was very much indebted to his hon. and learned Friend for bringing forward this Bill; but he would suggest that it should be referred to the Select Committee already appointed on the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, in order that they might consider the whole system of the trial of election petitions. There was especially the question of the withdrawal of election petitions, which was known to be an evil, and demanded the greatest consideration. It was a common practice after a general election for a large number of petitions to be presented against the return of hon. Members without any reasonable or probable cause, and without any intention of pursuing them to an inquiry. As one behind the scenes, having been counsel engaged in election petitions, he could state that many were presented expressly for the purpose of either extorting a sum of money, or of having what was called a cross-petition to

1553
set off against a petition presented on the other side. This monstrous system was resorted to alike by the agents of both political parties, but it was unknown in any other tribunal or court in the kingdom. At the last general election eighty petitions were presented against hon. Members for bribery and treating; but of these not more than thirty, perhaps, would be brought before the Committee on Elections. The object of many of these was to intimidate Members into giving up their seats, or to induce them to prevail on some other Members to give up theirs. It was constantly the case that when a petition was presented against the Member for a borough in the south, a cross-petition was presented against some Member for a borough in the north. This was a disgraceful abuse of the system of petitioning, and not only put Members to great and unnecessary expense, but was calculated seriously to injure the character of the House.
SIR GEORGE LEWISremarked, that there was a difficulty in the trial of election petitions that did not affect actions in a court of law; there was a public as well as a private question involved in the trial of election proceedings. The right in litigation before the Election Committee was, in some respects, a public right; but the petition was carried on at the expense of a private individual, and the contest was also one of private right. It was, therefore, impossible to put the petitioner, or a Member defending his seat, exactly on the footing of a person defending a public right. If a Member was defending his seat, and making a determined fight against, perhaps, a wealthy opponent, it was unreasonable to saddle him at the same time with a public duty without the assistance of the public purse, and treat him as a champion of public purity and a guardian of the public against corruption at elections. It was the conflict between these two principles that produced the anomaly pointed out by the hon. and learned Member. It often happened that when the public interest required the petition to be proceeded with, and the corruption at the election to be probed and laid bare, the private interest of the party induced him to decline the contest, withdraw from it, and let the matter pass without investigation. He did not know whether it was possible altogether to reconcile entirely those two interests. It was a difficulty inherent in the question,
1554
and it was impossible to prevent an occasional failure of justice. The proceedings on a petition must be carried on by private funds; consequently, the House had no right to inquire into the private reasons for which a petition might be withdrawn. He should offer no objections to the second reading of the Bill, and, as the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Corrupt Practices Bill must examine the mode of trying election petitions, the Bill might be referred to it with a view to see what remedy could be devised. It was impossible to dissociate the question of bribery from the question of the mode of trying petitions; the remedy to be obtained against corrupt practices depended essentially on the nature of the tribunal that tried the petitions charging them. He thought that the tribunal by which election petitions were tried admitted of improvement. He was a Member of the Select Committee, and he should be ready to place before it some material proposals in reference to the present system of trying petitions. He had no doubt an improvement of the tribunal would tend to check the abuses against which it was directed. He thought the House should agree to the SECOND READING of the Bill, and then refer it to the Select Committee.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he entirely concurred with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. The distinction he had drawn between the trial of an election petition and a trial in a court of law was perfectly correct. He hoped the Select Committee would be able, in its Report, to propose some remedy for the defects of the present mode of proceeding. It was impossible not to see that election petitions, besides raising a question between the petitioner and the sitting Member as to the right to the seat, frequently involved a question in which the public had a direct and deep interest, and an interest, perhaps, directly opposed to that of the two parties. To impose on individuals the duty of prosecuting in all cases in which the public interest required it, would be a species of tyranny. He hoped the Select Committee would consider whether it might not be possible to adopt some means of prosecuting charges of bribery under the order of the House. He should support the second reading, and the reference of the Bill to the Committee.
MR. MELLORsaid, the object which he had in view in introducing the Bill was simply to prevent the recurrence of an ad-

1555
mitted grievance—the presentation of frivolous and vexatious petitions. This he endeavoured to achieve by putting a stop to their withdrawal on other than bonâ fide grounds, and by requiring that petitioners should state sufficient reasons to the House or a Committee for declining to proceed. He was by no means, however, opposed to the institution of an extensive investigation into the subject; but he would suggest that, as the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the Corrupt Practices Act would have to travel over a very wide field, it would be desirable to refer the measure under discussion to another Select Committee.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that in consenting to the second reading, he wished to guard himself against giving entire approval to the main proposal contained in the Bill, because he was of opinion its effect might be to bring the trial of election petitions under the cognizance of the House itself, which would be a proceeding both inconvenient and opposed to general usage. He was, nevertheless, prepared to admit that it might be expedient to take due precautions against the presentation of petitions which were purely of a vexatious character. At the same time he believed that, whatever difficulties were placed in the way of withdrawing petitions, it would always be done where it was the interest of both parties to it, and some arrangement would be made as to the costs. There was no doubt some value in the objection that the Bill ought not to be referred to the Select Committee on the Corrupt Practices Act, which had already so important and extensive a subject to deal with. If, however, it should be submitted to that Committee, he hoped they would dispose of the question of bribery before they proceeded to investigate the proceedings which the Bill proposed to amend.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, they might force a petitioner to go before a Committee, but when there he might still say that he had not been able to collect the necessary evidence. The old proverb applied, You may bring a horse, &c. He was also of opinion that the 7th Clause of the Bill interfered with a most important principle of English law, that no man should be compelled to criminate himself.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, the object of the Bill was a very simple one—namely, to prevent the presentation of frivolous and vexatious election petitions. It would be
1556
within the recollection of the House that the present system had been denounced very strongly last Session by many hon. Members who, like himself, considered that they had been subjected to great and undeserved persecution from motives arising from envy, hatred, and malice. So much, indeed, had that been the case that that the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had promised to bring in a Bill to remedy so crying an evil. That hon. Member, however, since he had reclined so luxuriously on the Treasury benches, appeared to have fallen into a state of apathy or somnolency. Now, if the House agreed to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. E. James) of sending the Bill to the Committee upstairs, it was virtually shelving the question, and he was sure that Committee had quite enough to do in remodelling the Corrupt Practices Act, without having any other subject referred to them. Under these circumstances, and as Her Majesty's Ministers evidently shrank from the responsibility of dealing with a very simple question, he hoped hon. Members would join him in vindicating the position of the House, and support the second reading of the Bill.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) that it was not desirable that the decision on election petitions should be transferred from Select Committees to the House generally; and he would throw out, as a suggestion for meeting the requirements of the case, that a tribunal similar to the Standing Orders Committee, and consisting of three or five members, should be appointed at the commencement of each Session, to whom the consideration of proposals for withdrawing petitions should be referred before the House gave its sanction to such proceedings. He hoped that the Bill would not be referred to a Committee which had other subjects connected with our electoral law to consider.
MR. COLLIERsaid, he was afraid that if the Bill was sent before the Committee on the Corrupt Practices Act, no legislation to effect its object would—so wide was the field of inquiry upon which the Committee would have to enter—take place during the present Session. He trusted, therefore, that the Bill would be sent to another Committee.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would admit that a strong reason for complaint was fur-

1557
nished by the fact that petitions were brought before the House upon insufficient grounds, and frequently without any intention on the part of their promoters to proceed with them. Sham petitions were from time to time brought forward, and somebody found himself, as the result, seated in that House, while somebody else discovered that he was unseated, nobody knew how. Now, that was an evil which, in his opinion, required a remedy. It was, he believed, attended by a good deal of corruption, and, entertaining that view, he should give his cordial support to the second reading of the Bill. He might add that he concurred with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey) that it was desirable to prevent the trial of petitions as far as possible from being mixed up with the proceedings of the House.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEmaintained that it was undesirable on general grounds to add to the labours which the Committee on the Corrupt Practices Act had already undertaken to discharge. At the same time he was of opinion that the best course to pursue with respect to the Bill under discussion was to take further time to consider whether it should be referred to that Committee or to another.
MR. STEUARTsaid, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, as he thought that the Committee on Corrupt Practices ought not to be charged with the further duty of inquiring into the question involved in the present measure.
MR. HUNTsaid, he would suggest that on the presentation of a petition some preliminary investigation as to whether a petition was or was not based upon frivolous grounds should be instituted. He would also recommend that the petitioner, before his petition was referred to the General Committee of Elections, be required to make out a primâ facie case against the sitting Member. It would be very easy for him to lodge affidavits with his petition, and it might be referred to a subcommittee to report whether such affidavits showed a primâ facie case, and if they did, the inquiry should not be conducted at the expense of the petitioner, but the matter should be taken up by the House; and if bribery and corruption to a great extent were proved to have existed in the particular borough to the return for which the petition related, a rate should be levied on the inhabitants of that borough to defray the expenses of prosecuting the petition.
Bill read 2° and committed.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he would now move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. VANCEobserved that the whole of the proceedings were directed against the successful candidate, whereas there was often quite as much bribery upon the part of the unsuccessful candidate. He quite agreed that when there was any charge of bribery and corruption the investigation should be on the spot, and that the costs of the inquiry should be paid by the corrupt borough. That suggestion was worthy of great consideration by the Committee to which the Bill was to be referred.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsuggested that, as the Committee on the Corrupt Practices Act was to meet to-morrow, it would be desirable that they should have an opportunity of considering whether they could deal with the question raised by the Bill under discussion, as well as with the other important subject which they had been appointed to investigate. Being of that opinion, he should move the adjournment of the debate.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he adhered to the view which he had already expressed, that to refer the Bill to the existing Committee instead of appointing another was the preferable course to pursue. He had arrived at that conclusion, because it was extremely difficult to find a duplicate Committee consisting of some fifteen or sixteen Members to inquire with due efficiency into cognate subjects, and because he thought it better that two questions intimately connected should be dealt with by one body, whose recommendations would be likely to be founded on the same principle, than by two distinct bodies, who might arrive at their conclusions on each of those questions upon principles entirely different.
Debate adjourned till to-morrow.
House adjourned at Ten minutes before Six o'clock.