COMMITTEE. [Progress, 6th July.]

HC Deb 10 July 1868 vol 193 cc1001-20

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 10,11,12, and 13, struck out.

Clause 14 (Mode of Trial of Election Petitions).

MR. DISRAELI moved, in page 6, line 12, after the word "Act," to insert a, clause consisting of nine sections regulating the mode of trial of Election Petitions, embodying the decision arrived at on Monday last on the Motion of Mr. Ayrton as to the mode of trying Election Petitions.

First Section read, as follows:— 1. The trial of every Election Petition shall be conducted before a puisne judge of one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster, to be selected from a, rota to be formed as herein-after mentioned.

MR. MONSELL

said, that the Bill ought to apply to Ireland as well as to England, and for the purpose of raising the question he begged to move that the words "or Dublin" be inserted after the word "Westminster." It was perfectly obvious that there should be the same law on the subject for England and Ireland.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

said, he was desirous that the Bill would be made to apply to Scotland also. Election Petitions were very rare in that country, but he thought it would be well to provide for the contingency.

MR. GOLDNEY

observed that the adoption of the Amendment would necessitate an alteration of the whole framework of the Bill.

SIR ROBERT COLLIER

said, he took the same view. If the Amendment were carried, it would be almost impossible to pass the Bill in the present Session, for it would have to be sent back to the draftsman to be re-cast. A better mode of proceeding would be to have separate short Bills for Scotland and Ireland.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he had no objection to the principle of the Amendment, if Irish Members on both sides were satisfied that the fulfilment of those duties could be intrusted to Irish judges, who, he thought, would require no addition to their staff for the purpose. Supposing that they legislated for Ireland on this point, they must also legislate for Scotland, and he was of opinion that it would not be necessary to increase the number of the Scotch judges for the fulfilment of such duties. But he feared that in adopting the Amendment the Committee would be embarking on a sea of troubles, and would not be able to go on with the Bill as at present framed, and, therefore, if they legislated for Ireland and Scotland, they must do so, he apprehended, by separate measures. However, after the Bill as it stood was considered in Committee, it might be found possible to introduce a clause in respect to Ireland and Scotland, and the Government would consider that point.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he wished to know distinctly whether, if the present Bill passed, the Government would introduce similar measures for Ireland and Scotland? If they did not, the result would be that as regards those countries the trial of Election Petitions would still be conducted by a tribunal which the House declared to be incompetent in reference to England. And yet the right hon. Gentleman (the First Minister of the Crown) might, perhaps, say in the end that the function of trying Election Petitions could not be entrusted to a single Irish judge, who might have been, before his elevation to the Bench, noted for being of a different party complexion from the man whose seat he had to decide on.

MR. SCHREIBER

said, that the Irish Bench was composed of men who in many instances had been Members of that House, and had discharged their duties on Election Committees with impartiality, and was it to be supposed that on being made Judges they become incapable of properly discharging the same functions? On the contrary, hon. Members, when transferred to the Bench, lost their politics. Mr. Whiteside was a strong partizan when in that House, but, by the consent of all men in Ireland, he was declared to be a conscientious and impartial Judge.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, he thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Treasury) was perfectly fair and satisfactory.

MR. MONSELL

said, the assumption was that this Bill would be a good measure as against corruption. Now, in some of the Irish boroughs corruption had prevailed to a very great extent. He desired the same legislation should extend to the whole kingdom. He did not want to impede the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would give a pledge that if this Bill passed for England he would introduce another Bill for Ireland and Scotland, he would be satisfied. He did not care how the thing was done; all he wanted was a distinct understanding that the same legislation should be applied to the three kingdoms.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he did not think this was dealing fairly and honourably by the right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Treasury), who had distinctly stated what he should do. It was childish to go on as they were doing. The real object was to obstruct the Bill.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he did not wish to be misunderstood. He had not said he would proceed by separate legislation for Ireland and Scotland, but he did pledge himself to this—that when this Bill was carried through they might introduce some clause that might apply to Ireland and Scotland. So far he would pledge himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) said first that it was impossible to apply this legislation to Ireland; and, second, that he would never consent to this legislation for England unless it should be applied to Ireland. What was the inevitable inference from the two propositions but that the attempt to apply it to Ireland was a side-wind attack on the Bill itself?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. AYRTON

said, he objected to the whole scheme of the rota. The Government in this clause seemed to lose sight of the fact that the object of the Bill was to meet two entirely different classes of cases. The first embraced Election Petitions that would result from the General Election, and the second the more casual Election Petitions arising during the continuance of Parliament. There was no real resemblance between those two classes of cases. The Petitions arising out of the General Election would all be presented and brought into the Court of Common Pleas on the same day or within a week. Of these there might be forty; the casual Election Petitions did not exceed two in the course of a six months' Session. Now, I they were attempting to deal by the same machinery with both sets of Petitions. They proposed to select three Judges, and if they thought they were not sufficient to deal with the number of Petitions within a convenient time, to appoint new Judges to the Courts at Westminster, the reason of whose appointment would expire whenever these forty Election Petitions were disposed of. Was that a reasonable mode of treating the question? There was a defect in the clause which should at once be remedied. They left it to the Judges to say what time was reasonable—whether one or two months—within which the Petitions should be determined, whereas they ought to insist on a guarantee that the Petitions presented should be determined within a reasonable time. He would suggest an arrangement under which all difficulties would vanish. The Election would be about the beginning of the November term. Petitions would not be presented within forty days after the Election, or forty-five days when the recognizances were questioned. That would bring them to the middle of December, when the Judges were about to go all over the country to hold their winter criminal assize. Why, then, should they not avail themselves of this arrangement which Providence placed in their way, when the Judges and the Bar were in the country, to dispose of these Petitions? They were entitled to have an effort made at that time for the trial of the Petitions, and, if necessary, that other business should be postponed. The rota would interpose unnecessary difficulties in the way of the accomplishment of their object. But, to go further, it was extremely inconvenient that three particular Judges should be selected to discharge this duty. It would be much better for the whole of the Judges to meet together when the Election Petition list was complete and decide how they should all distribute themselves about the country for the purpose of trying these Petitions, Just in the same way as they distributed themselves at the spring, summer, and the winter assizes. Of course, if it were thought desirable, the Chief Justices of the three Common Law Courts could remain in London. It was absurd to appoint a rota of three Judges to try casual Petitions, of which only two or three might be presented in the course of a twelvemonth. Another objection to the rota was that the particular Judge whose turn it was to try an Election Petition might be particularly required to discharge some of the ordinary business of the Courts just at the time he was taken away to try the Petition. It would be far better to place in the hands of the Judges the power to determine which of their number should try any particular Election Petition. He, hoped that the Government would consent to the omission of the words relating to the rota. He begged to move to leave out the words "to be selected from a rota to be formed as hereinafter mentioned."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he; failed to see any practical objection in the speech of the hon. and learned Member to the proposal that the Judges should elect three of their number to try Election Petitions. The word "rota" was well known to the Judges, because they attended by "rota" to try prisoners at the Old Bailey. The ''rota" for Election Petitions was ordinarily to' consist of three Judges, but in case of a, General Election power was to be given to appoint other Judges. When the hon. and learned Member proposed that all the Judges should be liable to discharge this particular duly, did he mean that they were all to have an increase of £500 per annum in their incomes? The hon. and learned Member could not have attended the Bar very lately, or he would scarcely have stated that all the Judges went the winter circuit. The fact was that but few of them went the circuit. Did the hon. Member seriously propose that Judge should "turn to" and try first a prisoner and then an Election Petition alternately? The idea was perfectly preposterous. The hon. Member had further said that the Bar went the winter circuit, but he must have forgotten that only the junior portion of the Bar, who were just beginning to learn their profession, went that circuit. He hoped that the words the hon. Member proposed to omit would be retained.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, he was greatly surprised by the flippancy of the observations of the Solicitor General upon the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). In his (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee's) opinion, the Judges to try these Petitions should be selected by ballot, and not by rota. As he understood, the selected Judges were to be on the rota for the whole year, or how would they get the extra £500? He had no objection to an increase in the salaries of the Judges generally, as he bought they were underpaid; but he objected to this £500 a year being paid hem as a sort of bribe to induce them to undertake the duty. He saw no reason why a Judge should not try a prisoner one lay and an Election Petition the next, n the same way as a Judge on Circuit tried a prisoner one day and a civil cause he next. He objected, in the first place, to the Judges being appointed to try Election Petitions by rota; secondly, to those Judges being appointed for a year; and, Thirdly, to its being known beforehand which of the Judges would have to try the case. He should support the Amendment on the ground that it would carry out more Fully the original plan, which unquestionably agreed with the opinion of the majority of the House—namely, that the Judges trying Election Petitions should occupy the position more of Jurors than of Judges.

MR. SANDFORD

said, he wished to point out an objection to the appointment by rota of the Judges to try the Election Petitions, which had apparently escaped the learned Solicitor General; which was that each of three Judges might have to try ten or twelve of these Petitions, instead of the whole of the Judges dividing the responsibility of deciding these crises among them. He thought they were running a risk of placing the Judges in a very invidious position. The greatest lawyer in the House had pointed out in a previous debate that one Judge might be more or less objected to than another, but here they were to have the same Judges over and over again. He wished to know why these three Judges should have £500 per annum more that the rest of the Judges for deciding a few of these cases once in every six years—because it was impossible to take the casual Petitions into consideration. Was the £500 intended as an equivalent for travelling expenses? He hoped that there would be some further explanation of the matter on the part of the Government.

MR. MONK

said, it would be more satisfactory if instead of appointing a rota of three Judges the whole of the Judges were to take the trial of Election Petitions in turn. He wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that the £500 a year which was to be paid to the Judges appointed for the purpose of trying Petitions was intended by way of extra salary and not in lieu of expenses, which, by another provision, were to be defrayed out of the Treasury. He certainly could not see any reason for paying an additional £500 a year to the three Judges to be appointed for the trial of these Petitions.

SIR ROBERT COLLIER

said, that the proposal to select Judges from a rota was in accordance with the plan adopted at the trial of criminals at the Old Bailey. In the course of three or four years all the Judges went through that work. They ought to trust the Judges and consult their convenience. He believed that the proposal made by the Government would be the most convenient for the Judges, for the Bar and also for the public.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he would beg to remind the Committee that they were not now discussing the question of an additional £500 a year being given to the Judges appointed for the trial of these Petitions. The question before the Committee was as to the selection from a rota, and it would be better perhaps if the Committee adhered to the plan usually followed, and to discuss only that portion of the measure which was immediately under consideration.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he thought it would be better to permit the appointment of as many Puisne Judges as the pressure of Election Petitions might require, instead of determining at once on the selection of a certain number for a rota.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he wished to remind the House that the Lord Chief Justice of England had written a letter to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government upon this subject. That letter contained the following passages:— In conformity with your wishes, I have consulted the Judges, and I am charged by them, one and all, to convey to you their strong and unanimous feeling of insuperable repugnance to having these new and objectionable duties thrust upon them. We are unanimously of opinion that the inevitable consequence of putting Judges to try Election Petitions will be to lower and degrade the Judicial office, and to destroy, or, at all events, materially impair the confidence of the public in the thorough impartiality and inflexible integrity of the Judges when, in the course of their ordinary duties, political matters come incidentally before them.… I have only, in conclusion, to protest in the name of all the Judges and my own, most earnestly and emphatically, against the proposed scheme, as one which, besides being unconstitutional and unjust towards the Judges, is calculated to degrade the character of the Bench, to impair the confidence and esteem now happily entertained for the Judges, as well as their influence and utility, and most seriously to interfere with the administration of Justice. He now desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown whether he had had any fresh communication with the Judges, and whether as the scheme now proposed to the Committee was practically the same as that of which the Lord Chief Justice had written so strongly, he had received any retraction of the opinions which he had just read, or whether, indeed, the fact was that the scheme, in its present form, had never been submitted to the Judges at all?

MR. DISRAELI

I will observe only that the opinion referred to was expressed a considerable time ago, and that it is now generally admitted that time influences even unanimous opinions. That opinion was, moreover, expressed at a harsh period of the year, when people are not sanguine in their temperament. I have, therefore, every hope that her Majesty's Judges will now take a larger and more expansive view of the circumstances of the case and of their duties; and if the House will but agree to the Bill we have introduced, Her Majesty's Judges will, I have little doubt, carry out its provisions to the. utmost of their ability.

MR. BOUVERIE

I must remark that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.

MR. ALLEN

pointed out that practically the House was saying to every one of its Members, including the Attorney General and all Members of the Bar among them, that they were incompetent to try an Election Petition as long as they were Members of the House, but that as soon as any learned Member was raised to the Bench he immediately became endowed with superior ability.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, it must not be lost sight of that they were giving the Judges power to provide one of their number with an extra £500 a year. He presumed there would be some sort of canvassing among the Judges for the post, though he did not suppose they would issue election addresses. He could not, therefore, refrain from expressing a hope that the House would not hereafter hear of Election Petitions against the Judges themselves.

MR. OSBORNE

said, he thought the Committee ought to consider that the Government were placed in considerable difficulty in this matter, and that they deserved credit for touching this question at all. He looked upon the Bill ns an experiment, and, although he did not approve all its provisions, he would vote for it, because it would enable the House to escape from one of the very worst systems with which it had ever been hampered. But an unnecessary difficulty had been imported into the scheme in the shape of the £500 a year proposal. He recommended the Government to get rid of that proposal, and all would go smoothly. There was no necessity for it; the work of the Judges would be made much lighter by the Bill, and they could arrange for this extra work among themselves as they arranged for for the transaction of all other business; the Judges would, at the same time, be rid of the odium which might possibly attach to their voting £500 a year to one of their number. No doubt the increase of pay would induce the Bench to look with more favour on the Bill; but the House had but one duty before it, and that was to put an end to bribery. His own opinion was that a Judge going down to a borough would strike terror into the hearts of the corrupt, and do great things for enforcing purity of elections.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he thought that the question before the Committee should be decided before other matters were discussed.

Question, "That Section 1 stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the last Amendment, to add the words "2. The members of each of the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, shall, on or before the first day of Michaelmas Term in every year select, by a majority of votes, one of the puisne Judges of such Court, not being a Member of the House of Lords, to be placed on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions during the ensuing year."—(Mr. Disraeli.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. AYRTON moved an Amendment, providing that the Judges should meet from time to time to arrange among themselves for the trial of all Election Petitions within two months after issue should have been joined. He proposed to supplement this by moving that, instead of paying the Judges appointed an extra salary, they should have a certain allowance on account of expenses for each Petition tried, in the same way as was formerly done in the matter of Assize. He saw must ground for giving additional salary, because the Judge engaged in the country on an Election Petition would be secure from work in town, so that he would not, in consequence of being elected Bribery Judge, be saddled with extra work. The object of his present Amendment was to limit as much as possible the time occupied in the trial of Petitions.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, By leaving out from the word "Exchequer," to the end of the said proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "shall meet together from time to time to arrange amongst themselves a rota for the trial of all Election Petitions within two months after the same shall be at issue,"—(Mr. Ayrton.)

—instead thereof.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the Amendment divided itself into two parts. First, the Judges were to meet on receipt of a Petition, and arrange who should try it; secondly, the trial was to terminate within two months. The first point was practically decided on the last section, when the House decided there should be a rota; and as to the second, he had to say only that a proposal to legislate that a trial should be completed within two months had never before been entertained in any civilized country.

LORD HENLEY

said, he preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton).

MR. MONK

said, he understood the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to intend, not that all the trials should be completed within two months, but that they should be commenced within that period.

MR. AYRTON

said, his proposition was that they should fix a term for the commencement of the trial. If two months were too short they could alter the period, or insert the words—well known to the law—"within a reasonable time."

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 83: Majority 65.

Then the following Sections of the proposed Amendment read, and agreed to. 3. If in any case the Members of the said Court are equally divided in their choice of a puisne Judge to be placed on the rota, the Chief Justice of such Court (including under that expression the Chief Baron of the Exchequer), shall have a second or casting vote. 4. Any judge placed on the rota shall be re-eligible in the succeeding or any subsequent year. 5. In the event of the death or illness of any judge for the time being on the rota, or his inability to act for any reasonable cause, the Court to which he belongs shall fill up the vacancy by placing on the rota another puisne judge of the same Court. 6. The Judges for the time being on the rota shall, according to their seniority, respectively try the Election Petitions standing for trial under this Act unless they otherwise agree among themselves, in which case the trial of each Election Petition shall be taken in manner provided by such agreement.

Section 7, Where it appears to one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, upon a certificate under the hands of the Judges on the rota, after due consideration of the list of Petitions under this Act for the time being at issue, that the trial of such Election Petitions will be inconveniently delayed unless an additional judge or judges be appointed to assist the Judges on the rota, each of the said Courts (that is to say) the Court of Exchequer, the Court of Common Pleas, and Court of Queen's Bench, in the order named, shall, on and according to the requisition of such Secretary of State, appoint one of the puisne Judges of the Court to try Election Petitions for the ensuing year; and any judge so appointed shall, during that year, be deemed to be on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions—" read.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to call attention to the way in which the section was framed. Its effect would be to put Election Petitions under the control of an Officer of the Crown. Any Secretary of State was to have power to regulate the trial of Election Petitions. In certain cases, if there was no interference by any such officer, the Petition could not be tried. If hon. Members accepted everything that was proposed to be put into the Bill because it was called a Bill for the Prevention of Corrupt Practices at Elections, they would deserve to be compared to those animals who swallow bait which, though smeared with something savoury, contains poison. In his opinion, the interposition of a Secretary of State was wholly unnecessary, and the natural course of proceedings would be to leave the matter in the hands of the Chief Justice, who could ask the members of his Court to make proper arrangements. He proposed as an Amendment to leave out the words "one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State," in order to insert the words "Chief Justice of the Court."

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he thought it would be better still that the matter should be left in the hands of the Judges on the rota, and suggested that the words "Chief Justice of the Court" should be struck out of the Amendment.

Words "Chief Justice of the Court" struck out; Amendment amended by the insertion of other words.

Section, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Section 8, Her Majesty may, in manner heretofore in use, appoint an additional puisne Judge to each of the Courts of Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, and the Exchequer; but no judge appointed in pursuance of or after the passing of this Act shall be placed on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions until the expiration of two years from the date of his appointment— read.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the proviso in this section was a most unhappy one. It was proposed to enact that Judges should sit in the Superior Courts with the stigma of Parliament upon them, to the effect that they could not be trusted to do some of their duties. Anything more offensive to a Judge it was difficult to conceive. It seemed that they were to have two years of purification; but he (Mr. Ayrton) never before heard of any system of purification which extended over so long a period as two years. In converting a wretched Hindoo into a Brahmin it was only necessary that he should be steeped in jar of oil for nine days, and at the end of that period he came forth a Brahmin. Surely some shorter mode of purifying a Judge night be found; but, in his opinion, it would be better to leave out the latter part of the section altogether, and he therefore moved to omit the proviso.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he had no objection to omit the words objected to.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that the danger which it was intended to guard against was that of having partizans acting as Judges. A Gentleman who had taken part in the heated conflicts of that House might be transplanted to the Bench, and might, but for some such provision as this be at once engaged in trying Election Petitions. Whether he had to try the case of an opponent or that of a political friend the result was sure to be that there would be a charge of partiality brought against the Bench. The principle of the Bill was that such a man was to be distrusted as one of a Committee; but the moment he got upon the Bench he was to have full confidence placed in him.

MR. ROEBUCK

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman had better move that no Member of Parliament should be made a Judge.

Proviso struck out.

Section, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9, The expression "the Court" shall, for the purposes of this Act, mean the Court of Common Pleas, and such Court shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, hare the same powers, jurisdiction, and authority with reference to an Election Petition and the proceedings thereon as it would have if such Petition were an ordinary cause within theirurisdiction— read.

MR. AYRTON

said, they had now arrived at that part of the Bill which provided that the Petition should be tried not before the Judge, but by the Judge without the assistance of a jury. It was proposed that he should not only without the intervention of a jury determine questions of fact, but also decide questions of law affecting the scat of a Member, his capacity to sit in Parliament for seven years, and the qualifications of electors. This was an enormous power to give to a single Judge. If an act of corruption was to be tried, involving a comparatively small punishment, the question of fact must be decided by a jury; but where the act of bribery was to affect the validity of the Election and deprive a Member of his seat, the Judge alone was to determine it. In fact, the person tried for bribery—it might be in the same Court, if not at the same sitting—might be acquitted by the jury, so that there would be an absolute reversal of the decision of the Judge by the verdict of the jury. That was a very unfortunate position in which to place a Judge. Would it be competent in such a case to sue out a pardon from the Crown against the decision of a Judge in these circumstances? Looking at the penal consequences of a conviction under these petitions, it was necessary that the case should be tried, as in other criminal cases, by a jury. The consciences of twelve men afforded a better guarantee for impartiality than that of a single Judge did. If the Committee assented to the proposition that all matters of fact were to be tried by a jury, it would be easy enough to adopt a course which would secure a jury whose minds were unbiassed with reference to the matter under inquiry. He begged to move as an Amendment, to leave out all the words in the clause after the word "tried" in line 15, for the purpose of inserting the words "by a jury to be selected as hereinafter provided." If that Amendment were adopted, all matters of law relating to these Election Petitions would be tried by a Judge, while all questions of fact would be decided by a jury of the people of this country.

MR. ROEBUCK

pointed out a more convenient method by which the questions before the Committee could be put, and concluded by observing that in the multitude of words there was not much wisdom.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, possibly the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was a more convenient one than that which had been taken. Still the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had a right to put his Amendment in the way he had done.

SIR ROBERT COLLIER

said, it was utterly impossible that the scheme proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) could be carried out practically. A jury might decide one or two issues of fact easily enough; but it was too much to expect them to come to a unanimous decision upon questions of the complicated character that were sure to arise at the trial of Election Petitions, where they would have to agree upon not one, but perhaps twenty issues of fact. The result would be that in every case the jury would have to be discharged without giving a verdict.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GOLDNEY moved in line 22, after "Petition," to insert, "in which Corrupt Practices are charged or alleged shall."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that these words would confine the trial on the spot to cases in which corrupt practices were charged; but he thought that in other cases—for instance, in the case of a scrutiny—there should be a local proceeding.

Amendment withdrawn.

MR. AYRTON

said, be would beg to move an Amendment binding the Judges in their procedure to respect the decisions and Judgments of the House. The inquiries of Election Committees were various in their character, and there was only one way by which proper relations between the House and the new tribunal could be preserved, and that was that the authority of the House should be fully recognized, and that the new tribunal should be guided in everything they did by the course followed by the House, whether that course were right or wrong. It was quite clear that I unless they did that there would at no very distant date be a continual conflict between the House and the Court they were now setting up.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That no court or judge shall call in question, or suffer to be called in question, in any proceedings under this Act, any resolution or order of the House of Commons touching the privileges of the House, or of any Member thereof, or the duties of any returning officer, or of any officer of the House of Commons; and a printed copy of the Journals of the House, or of any such resolution or order printed by the printer of the House, shall be sufficient evidence thereof; and; such order or resolution shall be binding and conclusive on such court or judge, and all parties appearing in any such proceedings."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

objected to the Amendment, because he regarded it as unnecessary, and feared that it would be dangerous. Indeed, he looked upon it as the last effort on the part of the hon. I and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) to retain the jurisdiction in the House of Commons by making the House a kind of Court of Appeal to the tribunal they were now establishing. There was nothing in this Bill which gave the decision of the Judge any greater effect than the decision of an Election Committee; and, therefore, if any danger would exist after this Bill was passed, it had existed a long time. The Amendment served no good purpose, and could lead to nothing but ill.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that the House had had control over Committees, but the Judges might treat the Orders and Resolutions of the House as waste paper. There had been a struggle for centuries between the House and the Bench, and now the House with their eyes open were going to part with their privileges. They were about to rush with haste into what those who came after them would repent at leisure. He would support the Amendment as calculated to mitigate the evils the Bill would entail.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 53 Noes 185: Majority 132.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

MR. STUART MILL

said, he had intended, before the clause was finally agreed to, to make some observations in vindication of a plan which was embodied in three pages of Amendments that stood on the Notice Paper in his name. As the Committee had, however, already virtually decided against his plan, he would not now press his Amendments.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (House of Commons to carry out Report).

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he hoped the House, out of regard for its own dignity and character, would reject that clause, which was without parallel in the history of their legislation. Surely, when the law had been declared by a tribunal over which the House was to have no control, it was not to be supposed that the House would break the law. It should be left entirely to the House itself to say what it should or should not enter on its own Journals.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

pointed out—as a precedent for that clause—that by the 86th section of the 11 & 12 Vict.c. 98 it was enacted that the decisions of Election Committees should be entered on the Journals of the House.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 54; Majority 120.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 (Report of the Judge as to Corrupt Practices).

MR. SANDFORD moved to leave out the clause, and insert a new clause in its stead. His object was to provide that in every case in which a Member was unseated for corrupt practices a Commission should be issued to inquire into the extent of the existence of corrupt influences on the spot; for as matters now stood it was often the wish even of the Petitioner to stifle the circumstance of their extensively prevailing, in order that a new writ might be issued. The best way, he might add, to put a stop to bribery was in his opinion to make it the interest of the inhabitants of a locality to put it down, and a candidate would no longer be looked upon as popular, but rather as a pest, if his conduct in promoting corruption should lead to the imposition of an additional burden on the rates.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "And in every case where a Member for a County or a Borough may be unseated for corrupt practices, then and in every such case a Commission shall be issued according to the provisions of the Act of the Session of the fifteenth and sixteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, intituled 'An Act to provide for more effective inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections of Members to serve in Parliament, for the purpose of inquiring into the prevalence of Corrupt Practices in such County or Borough; and the expenses of such Commission and such inquiry shall be defrayed by the County or Borough to which such Commission shall be issued."—(Mr. Sandford.)

MR. AYRTON

said, that the latter portion of the clause cut two ways, and would be likely to do more harm than good. If, in the case of corrupt practices, all the inhabitants of the locality were to be fined by paying the expenses of a Commission, the result would be that everyone of them would be interested in preventing corrupt practices being proved. The real danger of the Bill already was that it tended to prevent the discovery of corrupt practices, and this provision would add another motive to those which already prevailed to induce persons to refrain from giving evidence. He hoped the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) would leave out that portion of the clause which threw the expenses of Commissions on the locality.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, it was the opinion of the Committee, which sat on the subject last year, that the object to be kept in view was rather the prevention of corrupt practices in the first instance than the disclosure of such practices when they had taken place. They thought that to throw the expenses of the inquiry upon the locality, where it was proved that corrupt practices had prevailed, would have the effect of preventing those corrupt practices being committed. It appeared, however, to him that the addition moved by the hon. Member would inflict injustice in certain cases.

MR. LOWTHER

said, he thought the most effectual way of preventing corrupt practices was by charging the expense of the inquiry upon the locality.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, he objected to the expense being thrown upon the whole of the inhabitants of a locality, as it would be making the innocent suffer with the guilty. He feared that such a provision would render it the interest of the inhabitants of a borough where bribery had prevailed to have no petition presented.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, he was happy to be able, on the present occasion, to vote with the Government.

MR. HENLEY

said, that if the object was to prevent bribery, they had better not throw the expense of checking it on the offending locality, or they never would be able to discover the commission of corrupt practices, as people would band together in order to keep them from becoming known.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked whether it was necessary to carry the delusion further, that the respectable inhabitants of a borough knew nothing about the corruption which took place in their midst? In some boroughs it was necessary to settle the "difficulty" which arose with regard to the voters who objected to bribery and those who were in favour of it before a candidate could be chosen. He believed that the imposition of a fine on a borough for corruption would tend to lessen the evil.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

pointed out that the proposed Amendment would make the issue of a Commission imperative when a single case of bribery had been committed, although the Judge might be of opinion that bribery had not extensively prevailed. He thought it would be a hardship to the inhabitants of the county or borough to issue a Commission in cases where the Judge was of opinion there were only one or two cases of bribery.

MR. AYRTON

observed that a Commission would issue under the clause as it stood only on the Address of both Houses of Parliament. He thought a Commission should issue unless the Judge should certify that no further acts of bribery had occurred beyond those he had already inquired into.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

reminded his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) that the Judge was, under a previous clause, bound to report in writing to the Speaker whether there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed.

MR. BOUVERIE

contended that it should be imperative to issue a Commission where corrupt practices had extensively prevailed; and therefore it was necessary to consider by whom the proceedings were to be carried out after the Judge had decided that corrupt practices had prevailed. He remembered a case which had come before an Election Committee, of which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) was Chairman. The Committee reporte that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed; but, as the Chairman declined to move an Address, no inquiry had taken place from that day to this.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

If that is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, he should say "No" to; the clause, and bring up a new clause himself.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he thought that the meaning of the words "extensive bribery" ought to be defined. Did they mean corruption to the extent of 5 or 10 per cent of the constituency?

MR. M. CHAMBERS

maintained that on receipt of a Report from the Judge that bribery and corruption prevailed, a Commission should issue forthwith.

MR. LOWTHER

said, he was surprised at the mistake into which the right hon. I Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney) had fallen when he said it would be the duty of the Judge to inquire whether corruption had been prevalent. All that would devolve on the Judge would be to take such evidence as would decide the question of the seat.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

observed that, in such a case at present, a Commission issued for the purpose of legislation, on the Address of the two Houses, to enable them to know whether the place should be disfranchised. A shorthand writer would attend the inquiry before the Judges, and his Report would be sent to the House, so that they would have the means of knowing everything that occurred.

MR. AYRTON

By whom will the Address be moved?

MR. DISRAELI

said, he would answer the hon. and learned Member by asking who moved the Address in the House of Lords at present?

MR. AYRTON

said, they were not legislating for the House of Lords; they were legislating for the House of Commons, and it was sufficient for him to have to do with the House of Commons. At present, the Chairman of the Election Committees who made the Report was a Member of the House, and could be brought to the table, but it surely was not intended that the Judge should be ordered to attend at the Bur, and explain what took place on the inquiry. After the Judge sent the certificate with regard to the prevalence of corrupt practices to Mr. Speaker, upon whom would devolve the duty of moving the Address? Unless they knew who was to move for the Commission in that House it would be better that the Commission should go as a matter of course.

MR. SANDFORD

said, that if the Amendment were carried a stop would be put to corrupt practices, as the inhabitants would exert themselves to prevent such practices being carried on.

Question put, "That those words be there added"

The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 126: Majority 54.

MR. STUART MILL

said, that as he had an important Amendment to propose, and there was not time for the discussion, he would beg to move that the Committee report Progress.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he wished for some more explicit understanding as to the moving of these Addresses. He should otherwise feel it necessary to raise the question again. Was the duty to fall on the Government, or would it devolve upon any hon. Member who chose to wade through the short-hand notes? Unless he had a distinct understanding on that point he should move the rejection of the clause with the view to bringing up a fresh one.

MR. DISRAELI

If the right hon. Gentleman is desirous of preserving the privileges of this House, why does he grudge hon. Members the privilege of moving these Addresses?

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

objected to the performance of the duty being left to the inclination of any private Member.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.