HC Deb 17 July 1868 vol 193 cc1369-87

Order for Committee read.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 46 (Penalty for employing corrupt Agent.)

MR. LOWE

proposed to insert the words ''by the Report of an Election Committee or by the report of a judge."

MR. AYRTON

said, he objected to the clause altogether, on the ground that it proposed to impose a penalty upon persons who had been indemnified under a former Act.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that all they had in view was to prevent the employment by candidates of agents who were notorious bribers. He should therefore cordially support the clause and the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Page 15, line 3, Amendment proposed, after the word "tribunal," to insert the words "or has been reported guilty of any corrupt practice by a Committee of the House of Commons."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 63: Majority 11.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he would beg to move the insertion of words making it a misdemeanour for any agent who had been adjudged guilty of bribery to hire himself as an agent or canvasser.

Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word "fifty-seven," to insert the words "any such canvasser or agent shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would lead to the punishment of a man twice for a single offence. He would be imprisoned in the first instance, and then because he accepted a second office he would be imprisoned again, though be had committed no new offence.

MR. GORST

said, he must contend that the man would have committed a second offence; he would have engaged himself under false pretences, because no candidate would willingly engage an agent who had been proved guilty of bribery.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 84: Majority 22.

VISCOUNT AMBERLEY

said, that in his opinion the man who employed a corrupt agent stood in about the same relation to that corrupt agent as the receiver did to the thief. He thought, therefore, that the penalty of making such a man's election void was not commensurate with the offence. He therefore proposed to move to add the words at the end of the clause—"And he shall be incapable of being elected to and of sitting in the House of Commons during the three years next after such trial."

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and he shall be incapable of being elected to and of sitting in the House of Commons during the three years next after such trial."—(Viscount Amberley.)

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

said, that it was quite possible a candidate might get into the hands of a corrupt agent without knowing it. In the case of a young man coming into Parliament for the first time this might easily occur. Would it not be too hard to brand such a man with the disgrace which the noble Lord's Amendment would inflict upon him?

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, the Amendment would only apply to a candidate who knowingly employed a corrupt agent.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he must, with great respect to the noble Viscount, say that the Amendment appeared to him to be nonsense. The word "trial" referred to the trial in the case of the corrupt agent who had been convicted of corruption within seven years previously to the Election which under the clause would be void. If the words proposed by the noble Viscount were added to the clause, the punishment of the candidate might commence long before he had committed the offence.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he thought the noble Lord had mistaken the object of the clause.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he did not think the Amendment applicable to the clause. In his opinion, making the Election void would a sufficient punishment.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that if at this period of the Session hon. Members persevered in moving Amendments the result would be that the Bill would be amended off the face of creation.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he felt that a person who knowingly employed an agent who had been convicted of corrupt practices ought to be subjected to this penalty at least.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

said, he did not think it would be too great a punishment to inflict upon a man who prostituted the political rights of the country by bribery to disqualify him from sitting in the House of Commons for ever.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 115: Majority 67.

MR. FAWCETT

said, that he wished to ask the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther) whether he would bring up a clause on the Report embodying the views which he sought to carry into effect in the Amendment which had shortly before been negatived?

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he intended to do so. Some hon. Members had, he believed, voted against his Amendment in ignorance of the real question at issue.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, that the real question for the Committee to decide was whether they meant to pass the Bill before them this year or not. The Bill was one of great importance, and the Government, he thought, had very fairly done their duty in pushing it forward.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would postpone the prorogation, if necessary, in order to carry the Bill. The feeling of the House was evidently strongly in its favour.

MR. DISRAELI

said, that the fact that the feeling of the House was in favour was no argument against hon. Members exercising a discretion in dealing with it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 47 (Disqualification of Persons found guilty of Bribery).

MR. AYRTON

asked for some explanation of the clause. He did not object to all the penalties being placed upon those who had been found guilty; but he should object to penalties being placed upon persons who had not been tried, but had only been incidentally mentioned in a Report of a Commission; and who might have had no opportunity of being heard. He proposed to leave out the words "other than a candidate," in order to raise the question.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the clause was intended to include persons other than the Petitioner and respondent, but no doubt there was difficulty in what was pointed out, and to meet it he should propose to amend the clause so that the penalties should only be inflicted upon persons, other than candidates, who should have been found guilty of bribery in any proceeding at law.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he thought that what was intended was that the penalty of disqualification should follow a report of the Judge, and should not apply only to those who had been convicted upon a trial. When the inquiry had been conducted by a Judge, who would, of course, be aware of the penalty imposed by the clause, might it not be presumed that he had taken all the necessary steps for arriving at a knowledge of a man's guilt?

MR. NEATE

said, he hoped that the original words would be adhered to.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the difficulty was inflicting a penalty upon a person who might possibly not be present; but he thought that there would be no hardship in placing a penalty upon a person who had been reported guilty after he had had an opportunity of being heard. He would, therefore, propose that the clause should be amended by inserting the words, "in any proceeding in which, after notice of the charge, he has had an opportunity of being heard."

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to know what would be the position of an unfortunate candidate with regard to expenses, if the inquiry before the Judge was to be hung up while notice was being given to all the persons-implicated, as well as during the trial of all these collateral issues. Such a delay would cause a very ugly addition to the candidate's expenditure.

MR. POWELL

said, he hoped that words would be introduced to ensure parties accused a fair hearing.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, that the worst delinquents could run away, and no notice could be given to them. They would thus escape the penalty.

Mr. AYRTON'S

Amendment withdrawn, and that of the SOLICITOR GENERAL agreed to.

MR. J. STUART MILL moved, in page 15, line 16, after "voting at any," insert "Parliamentary and municipal," the object being to extend penalties to bribery at municipal Elections.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he thought they had better in this Bill, and at this period of the Session, confine themselves to Parliamentary Elections. No doubt at some future period there must be an inquiry in reference to municipal Elections.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, that his proposition was simply that a person convicted of bribery at a Parliamentary Election should be disqualified from voting at future municipal as well as Parliamentary Elections.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he feared that if they accepted the Amendment they would not be allowed to stop there, they would have to go further, and that would only be entering upon a sea of troubles, and they would run great risk of foundering in their legislation. He believed, however, that they would soon have to enter upon the question of bribery at municipal Elections.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 48 (Returning Officer may be sued for neglecting to return any Person duly elected).

MR. J. GOLDSMID

said, that the clause proposed that in a certain event the returning officer should pay to the Member double the damages which he had sustained. This seemed to be placing a money value upon the position of a Member of Parliament, and he should move that instead of these words there should be others enacting that the returning officer should be liable to a penalty not exceeding £500.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the clause as proposed was an exact copy of the 123rd clause of the 11th and 12th Vic, c. 98, which had been found in-applicable.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 49 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 54 (Repeal of Acts).

MR. AYRTON

said, the clause would make the punishment for offences under the Bill different in Ireland and Scotland from that in England. It appeared to him that it was now time to consider whether they should extend this Bill to Ireland and Scotland.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, he concurred in thinking that the clause required consideration.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the clauses of the Acts proposed to be repealed were not penal clauses, but merely those which regulated the mode of trial of the Petitions. If he were mistaken on the point he would bring up a clause upon the Report which would settle the question.

MR. DISRAELI

said, the Bill would be valuable as an experiment, even if its provisions were not extended to Ireland and Scotland, although he did not mean to say that he had given up the idea of introducing a clause to extend, if possible, the provisions of the Bill to Ireland and Scotland.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was one of those who had originally contended that they would be placed in a position of great difficulty with regard to this Bill if its provisions were not extended to Ireland and Scotland, but he thought that the question had assumed a new light in consequence of the announcement of Her Majesty's Government that the operation of the Bill was only to endure for a limited period; although he did not mean to say that if Her Majesty's Government could see their way to effect such an extension without loss of time it would not be desirable that the experiment might be equally and simultaneously tried in Ireland and Scotland, as well as in this country, or that it would be well to preserve the jurisdiction of this House in the case of Election Petitions from Ireland and Scotland, and to extinguish it as regarded this country. Under these circumstances he should not press the Government upon the point.

MR. MONSELL

said, he must press upon the Government the importance of making the law upon the point apply to the three countries alike.

MR. DISRAELI

said, if he did not bring up a satisfactory clause upon the Report the right hon. Gentleman would have the opportunity of doing so himself.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

proposed to amend the clause by inserting the words "as far as regards Elections and Petitions in respect of constituencies in England and Wales."

Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Postponed Clause 2agreed to.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he wished to propose a new clause providing for the payment of additional Judges and remuneration of Judges appointed under this Act.

Clause (Provision as to payment of additional judges and remuneration of judges for duties to be performed under this Act,)—(Mr. Disraeli,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he would remind the House that a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the constitution of our Courts of Judicature. That Commission had been sitting for about a twelvemonth, and would shortly, it was believed, propose some very great changes. He trusted, therefore, that these new appointments would be made subject to any decision at which the House might arrive after seeing the Report. If the right hon. Gentleman would deal with that question, he would leave it in his hands; if not, he should propose a clause himself on bringing up the Report.

MR. AYRTON

said, he trusted that the Government would assent to the following Amendment to the new clause:—Line 1, before "The," insert— No additional Judge shall be appointed under this Act until fourteen days after all the Elections Petitions presented to the Court of Common Pleas respecting the first Elections to the Parliament convened on the dissolution of the present Parliament shall be at issue. His object was to prevent the public being put to a great expense, unless it had been satisfactorily proved that the assistance of new Judges was absolutely called for.

MR. DISRAELI

said, that the matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock had been under the consideration of the Government, and there was at present a clear understanding with the Lord Chancellor that the services of the new Judges should be at the disposal of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman brought forward a clause, it should of course receive attentive consideration. As regarded the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) he could only say that he should give it the strongest opposition in his power, because it was in reality an attempt to upset the whole of what they had already done. It was, in fact, an announcement of the hon. and learned Member's opinion that no new Judges were wanted, although Her Majesty's Government had reason to believe, from the representations made to them, that the Judges had more to do than they could satisfactorily perform, and that it was only by the appointment of new Judges that the Bill could be carried into effect.

Amendment negatived.

MR. MONK

said, he would propose to strike out the words in Mr. Disraeli's clause providing that the Judges selected for the trial of Election Petitions should receive £500 a year in addition to their ordinary salary. He should be sorry if the Judges were not adequately remunerated for the services which they rendered to the country, but he could see no reason why this additional sum should be paid, more especially as the work of the existing Judges would be lightened by the assistance which the new Judges would render them when not engaged on the trial of Election Petitions.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "Admiralty Court" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Monk.)

MR. GOLDSMID

said, he apprehended a good deal of canvassing among the Judges for this £500 a year.

MR. DISRAELI

said, it was desirable to induce the old Judges, if he might use that epithet, to give up their time to the performance of these duties, duties which, it must be remembered, they never expected at the time of their appointments to be called on to perform. The performance of those duties involved considerable inconvenience. The Judges employed in them would, for instance, be separated for some time from their families, and have to reside occasionally in small inns, which, to say the least of it, were not replete with the comforts and advantages to which they were accustomed. It was desirable, if it could be managed, that the new Judges should be engaged at first on the ordinary judicial duties, and that the trial of these Petitions should be carried on by those who had been for some time on the Bench. It was necessary to make the proposal as agreeable as possible, and as the clause had been carefully considered he trusted that it would be adopted in its entirety.

MR. LOCKE

said, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was extremely kind towards the Judges. It was, of course, a good thing to make matters comfortable; but still, as a Judge once said to a friend who was condoling with him on his having been unexpectedly detained in a small country town from Saturday to Monday, "A man must be somewhere." He remembered that on one occasion Chief Justice Tindal, after having been received in an assize town by the sheriff with a coach and four horses and javelin men in plenty, was taken to the most miserable lodgings he had ever seen; his Lordship, however, simply said, "This is Cinderella, indeed !" Respecting the simple proposition, he did not think it was necessary to bribe the Judges to do the work, especially as they were going to inquire into charges of bribery. His own idea was that if any addition were made to the salaries of the Judges it should be general. The expense of going circuit would be more than those incurred by the Judges under this Act. This seems merely to be a payment to induce the Judges to adopt a new line of business.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he was of opinion that if they were to assent to the increase of pay to the Judges in question, they ought to extend that increase to all the Judges of the Superior Courts.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he must ask the Committee to bear in mind the difficulties under which the Bill had been brought in and pressed to its present position. The original objections of the Judges themselves, and the fact that those objections had never been in express terms withdrawn, should not be forgotten. These objections were those of gentlemen who had been appointed to do a certain work, and who had not accepted office on the understanding that this new work should be thrust upon them. Considering, then, that this work would be by far the most unpleasant the Judges, future as well as present, would have to do, he recommended the Committee to consider the question as men of the world, and make the Bill as little unpalatable as possible. Although the Judges themselves had been no parties to any such arrangement as that proposed, he was bound to remind the Committee that the Bill had hitherto been considered on the understanding that it should not be in the nature of an imposition on the Judges. And it would be admitted on all hands that the Judges would have a most onerous duty to discharge in laying down the course of procedure under the Act. All would remember how greatly the general admiration of Sir Cresswell Cresswell's conduct had been increased when it was remembered what immense trouble he had taken to regulate the procedure in the Divorce Court. There was no doubt that immense labour would be imposed on the Judges by the Bill; he therefore hoped the proposal of the Government would be acceded to.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he had heard with the greatest pleasure that the proposal under consideration had been made on the sole authority of the Government; it would have been extremely painful to him to think the Judges had been consulted on the subject and had entered into a compromise. He could not agree that the new duties imposed by the Bill would be the most disagreeable the Judge could undertake; it would be infinitely more disagreeable to him to try a man for his life. The question, however, was whether the passing of this provision would tend to elevate or derogate from the position of the Judges. It was true additional duties had been imposed on the Bench, but additional Judges would be appointed to share their work. He had never before heard the principle advocated that Judges should be offered additional payment to induce them to undertake work Parliament thought it right the Bench should discharge. If, then, it were resolved that the Judges should have this additional payment, he feared the result would be greatly to disparage the high estimation in which the Judges were held by the country. The Committee should be slow to create a precedent of this nature; for his part he would prefer voting £500 a year to each of the Judges unconditionally rather than accept the proposition made.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he thought the offer of £500 would make it impossible for the Judges to accept these new duties. The Judges' objection was not on account of the work, but for fear the new duty would destroy the dignity and authority of the Courts in other cases. As the objection of the Judges as stated in the letter of the Lord Chief Justice had not been withdrawn, this proposal of the additional £500 a year would seem like saying, "We will bribe you with £500 a year to withdraw your objection."

MR. WHITBREAD

said, the House had taken the matter out of the hands of the Judges by deciding, notwithstanding the objections urged by the Lord Chief Justice, that the Judges were to do the duty. When additional duty was thrown on public servants, who were already fully occupied, it was customary to give them an addition to their salaries. To do that in this instance, could not be taken as a proposal, the acceptance of which would be derogatory to the dignity of the Judges.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, his hon. Friend who had just sat down had founded his allegiance to the proposal before the House upon the doctrine that when additional duties were imposed on servants of the Crown additional remuneration should be given, and very generally was given. He was sorry to be obliged to differ entirely from his hon. Friend, both as to principle and as to fact. In the first place, he thought that if public servants were already fully occupied, additional duties ought not to be imposed upon them. That was the principle upon which the House had proceeded in appointing additional Judges. It would be very had policy to accept the principle contended for, because you could not have more than an average amount of service; and if you said, "We will give them more work and a higher salary," the result would generally be that the higher salary would be received, but the additional work would not be done. The homely rule of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work" was the sound one. He was bound to say likewise that, as far as his experience went, it was not the rule of the public service, when new duties were imposed, to cap those new duties by new salaries. He did not hesitate to say that this was a principle you could apply; and in this case it would be irrelevant, because the difficulty had been met by an increase in the number of Judges. He must say that, whatever might happen with respect to this clause, no suspicion would be entertained within the walls of Parliament that the granting or the withholding of the proposed £500 a year would in any way influence the conduct of the Judges. But outside it might be supposed that the House of Commons had endeavoured to meet the objections of those learned personages by voting an addition of £500 to the salaries of the Judges who had to perform the duties prescribed by this Bill. He concurred with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) that if the salaries of the Judges were thought to be insufficient, they ought to be considered generally, and a uniform increase ought to be made.

MR. GORST

said, he would beg to remind the Committee that not only new duties but more arduous were to be imposed. As in this country position was in some degree estimated by amount of salary, this addition of £500 to the salaries of the Judges would, to some extent, elevate them in dignity.

MR. HENLEY

said, he could not concur with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken—that the position of Judges was to be elevated by £500 a year. If the Judges would not be fit to try those cases unless they got another £500 a year, he doubted very much that they would be fit to do so at all. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford that if the Judges were underpaid, there ought to be an increase in their salaries for the discharge of their duties generally; but he considered that, as three new Judges were to be appointed, the work of the Judicial Bench would not be increased by this new jurisdiction.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 123: Majority 27.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

proposed the following new clause:—

(Commissions of Inquiry into Corrupt Practices.)

"If upon a Petition to the House of Commons, presented within twenty-one days after the return to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery of a Member to serve in Parliament for any Borough or County, or within fourteen days after the meeting of Parliament, and signed by any two or more electors of such Borough or County, and alleging that Corrupt Practices have extensively prevailed at the then last Election for such Borough or County, or that there is reason to believe that Corrupt Practices have there so prevailed, an Address he presented by both Houses of Parliament, praying that such Allegation may be inquired into, the Crown may appoint Commissioners to inquire into the same, and if such Commissioners in such case be appointed, they shall inquire in the same manner and with the same powers and subject to all the provisions of the Statute of the fifteenth and sixteenth of Victoria, chapter fifty-seven,"

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he wished to know who was to present these petitions. Was it to be the Government Whip?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the hon. Gentleman might undertake the duty himself.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, he wished to express his acknowledgments to the Government for the great improvement which had been effected in the Bill.

Clause added.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

proposed a new clause—

(Rules as to agents practising in cases of Election Petitions.)

"Any person who at the time of the passing of this Act was entitled to practice as agent according to the principles, practice, and rules of the House of Commons, in cases of Election Petitions and matters relating to Election of Members of the House of Commons, shall be entitled to practice as an attorney or agent in cases of Election Petitions, and all matters relating to Elections before the court and judges prescribed by this Act: Provided, That every such person so practising as aforesaid shall in respect of such practice, and everything relating thereto be subject to the jurisdiction and orders of the court as if he were an attorney of the said court: And further, Provided, That no such person shall practice as aforesaid until his name shall have been entered on a roll to be made and kept, and which is hereby authorized to be made and kept, by the prescribed officer in the prescribed manner."

MR. M. CHAMBERS

proposed, as an Amendment, an addition to prevent persons, Members of this House from practising.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the object of the clause was to preserve the status of the class known as Parliamentary agents, who may be neither barristers nor attorneys.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he had no great admiration for the Bill; but if it was to be tried, the experiment should he fairly made. It would be a singular example of mongrel legislation if they were to give this jurisdiction to the ordinary tribunals, and to allow audience to persons who were not now at liberty to practise there.

Amendment negatived.

MR. MAGUIRE

proposed to insert after the words "agents" the words "or counsel," in order to do an act of justice to the bar of Ireland.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, the Irish bar were entitled either to some compensation—[Laughter]—he wished the House would hear the sentence out—for the loss of the business that would be taken away, or to be allowed to practise in the Court to which the jurisdiction was to be transferred.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

MR, DISRAELI moved a new clause—

(Duration of Act.)

"This Act shall be in force until the dissolution of the next Parliament, or until the expiration of three years from the passing of such Act, whichever event first happens."

MR. LOWE

said he thought it might tend to prevent inconvenience to omit the words "until the dissolution of next Parliament," and so fix the definite period of three years for the duration of the Bill. He moved an Amendment to that effect.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BOUVERIE

proposed to omit "three years" and insert "two years."

Amendment negatived.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY moved the addition of the words "and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HUTT

proposed, after Clause 53, to insert the following clause—

(Lords Spiritual or Temporal not to interfere in Parliamentary Elections.)

"Any Lord of Parliament, Spiritual or Temporal, who after the passing of this Act shall in any way interfere or concern himself in the Election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanour, and may be prosecuted accordingly: Provided always, That no prosecution for such offence be tried or had before any Court of General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace."

This was a Resolution which the House was accustomed to pass every Session of Parliament, and he could not see any possible objection to it. In fact, the late Lord Campbell used to say that it was a mere declaration of the Common Law of England. He thought they should not only insist on the Resolution, but take care that those who were the objects of it should not treat it with derision and contempt. It was known that Peers did interfere, and that one of them acted as chairman of a Registration Society.

MR. DISRAELI

said, the Resolution to which the right hon. Baronet referred was passed in the 17th century; and at that time there was very good reason for passing such a Resolution, because the House of Lords had then the power and privilege of taxing themselves. Their interference with the rights of the House of Commons could not then be justified. But time which brought so many changes had brought a considerable change in the position of the House of Peers in regard to the great subject of taxation. The Members of that House were now taxed by the Votes of the House of Commons, and therefore he could not understand why a Peer of the Realm should not have a right of voting for Members of Parliament and taking part just as another individual in the general business of a free country like this, with the view of protecting his property and guarding his own interests. As to the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Baronet, it might be a version of the British Constitution to be found in De Lolme, or some other author; but in his (Mr. Disraeli's) judgment it was not a fair reading of the British Constitution. When the House of Commons, at the period of the Long Parliament, came to this Resolution the possession of power as regarded the respective branches of the Legislature was very different to what it was at that moment. It appeared that Peers of the Realm did now take an interest in elections of Members of that House. For example, at the commencement of the Session his attention had been called to the fact that a noble Friend of his—a Peer much respected on both sides of the House—had token the chair at a registration meeting in his own county; he was asked a Question on the subject, and he made some constitutional observations upon it. If it was a misdemeanour on the part of a Peer of the Realm to connect himself with the registration of his county, why was it not mentioned in this clause? This clause would not touch him as it only applied to interference in elections. The omission rather invalidated the position of the right hon. Gentleman. At the last Election for the University of Oxford, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) was a candidate, more than one Peer of the Realm not only took a lively interest in those proceedings, but actually registered a vote. The distinguished Bishop of his (Mr. Disraeli's) diocese was a supporter then of the right hon. Gentleman, and, in the spirit of his constitutional rights and privileges, registered his vote for him. Another Spiritual Peer, the Bishop of Durham, had also the satisfaction to register his vote for the right hon. Gentleman on the same occasion, and a noble Earl, bearing an illustrious name—the descendant and representative of Lord Chancellor Cowper—also supported the right hon. Gentleman. Practically, Peers of the Realms did interfere in Elections and could register their votes. Within the last few days, he might say hours, he had read the advertisement of an election committee to support a candidate for the new constituency of the University of Edinburgh, and the chairman of that committee was the Duke of Argyll, who, he had no doubt, would make a most admirable chairman, and would direct and guide the operations of that committee with the utmost zeal tempered with discretion. He thought that all this showed that the Resolution which was first passed two centuries ago, and which was adapted to circumstances which had now changed, ought rather to be omitted from the Resolutions of the House than set up in a statutory form. Taking a great interest in the success of the Bill, he did not at that moment see that the adoption of this clause would be one of the most conciliatory courses they could take towards securing the concurrence of the Upper House. It would certainly not promote the passing of this Bill to inform the House of Lords that they had sent them up a clause which would inform the Lords Spiritual as well as Temporal, that their interference in the Elections of Members of that House should be considered as misdemeanour, and that they should be prosecuted accordingly. One would almost be led to suppose that the right hon. Baronet was animated by some vindictive feeling were it not that he had taken care to insert a proviso that the Bishops were not to be prosecuted at the Quarter Sessions. Whatever might be the view of the House of Commons as to the conduct of noble Lords interfering in the Elections for Members of that House, he would remind them that they had a right to be tried by their Peers, and that right still existed, independently of the House of Commons. If such a question had been brought forward at a younger period of the Session he thought it would probably have occupied three nights' debate. The practical point before the House was, were they interested in the success of this Bill, and if so, were they to send it up to the House of Peers with this clause? He thought the subject might reasonably be reserved for the consideration of the New Parliament.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought the pith of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the First Minister of the Crown) was contained in the last sentence. He should be very glad to persuade his right hon. Friend that there was no advan- tage in proposing a clause of this kind to give a rigid form to that which had not been hitherto the statute law of the country. But if it were deemed right to raise the question, it could not well be raised upon this Bill. He entirely concurred in the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had arrived, but he must make a protest on behalf of the Re-solution of this House. The right hon. Gentleman did not give sufficient weight to the fact that they were responsible for it. It had been remarked by Earl Russell—when Leader of that House—that although the Resolution of the House was not law, and was not susceptible of a rigid and uniform application, yet, on the whole, it operated to check and restrain within narrow bounds the interference of Peers in elections, which, if not so restrained, might grow to a great inconvenience. That was sufficient to justify as a practical measure the Resolution of the House of Commons, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would not press his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Peers of the Realm in this country, at the time when this Resolution was first passed, possessed a power of separately taxing themselves, but it required the whole weight of the right hon. Gentleman's authority for him to believe such a statement.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that the Resolution had hitherto been enforced by Election Committees, as the law of the House, though not the law of the land. By the law of the land Peers could interfere as well as any other individuals. The practice of that House had always been to vindicate their privileges by striking out the votes of Peers at an election, but that power they had parted with by placing their jurisdiction in the hands of an independent tribunal, which would have no power to strike out such votes. He might observe with reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the First Lord of the Treasury) that Peers had always exercised the right of voting at and taking part in the elections for the Universities. Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Sir William Hutt) proposed a clause forbidding Peers taking part in elections—without subjecting them to punishment as being guilty of a misdemeanour—it would have been carried.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, if it should be the wish of the House to pass a Resolution of this kind in a future Parliament they would have the same power to enforce it which they had always had. The privileges of the House were part of the law of the land, and had been always recognised as such; and if it were part of that law that Peers should not vote at elections, it would be the duty of the Judges to disallow such votes. But the real object and purpose of the Resolution was not to strike off this or that vote, but to prevent unconstitutional interference on the part of Members of one House with the independence of the other House. Should the clause be omitted, however, there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent that House from vindicating its privileges in such a case. If they attempted to turn this interference into a crime, they would be doing a different thing from what had ever been done by a Resolution of the House, or intended to be done. He thought, therefore, that the Committee would do well to adhere to the existing state of things, and not to assent to the clause now under consideration.

MR. EYKYN

said, that these votes had invariably been rejected by Revising Barristers.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he believed that the Revising Barristers had always expunged the names of Peers from the lists of voters.

MR. HADFIELD

supported the clause.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Hutt) should bring up the clause in a different form to meet the objection that had been made. He believed the only way to prevent the interference of Peers in elections was to enact that all elections compassed by the unconstitutional interference of Peers should be declared void. If the right hon. Gentleman would bring up a clause to that effect it would find a good deal of support in the Committee. He was rather surprised to hear it asserted that Peers might interfere in elections, and propose and vote for candidates, for if that were so it would go far to demonstrate that there was no necessity for the House of Lords.

SIR ROBERT COLLIER

said, he apprehended that Peers had not a right to vote for Members of Parliament. It was so stated by Lord Camden, and it was not a subject on which doubt should be entertained.

Clause withdrawn.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH moved the following clause:—

(Payments defined by former Acts to be illegal to be bribery.)

"Any payment of money or any valuable consideration by any candidate, or by any person on his behalf, for or under the head of travelling expenses or conveyance, which has been defined by any former Act to bean illegal payment, shall be deemed to be bribery within the meaning of the second Clause of the 'Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854,' and the receipt by any voter of any such payment for travelling expenses or conveyance shall be deemed to be bribery within the meaning of the third Clause of the same Act, and the vote of any voter who shall pay or receive any money or any valuable consideration for or under the head of travelling expenses or conveyance shall be deemed null and void."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he thought that the punishment attached by this measure to acts of bribery would be far too heavy for the offence to which the hon. Gentleman's clause referred.

MR. KARSLAKE

opposed the clause.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, that though not going to the full extent of the clause, he thought that something clear and definite should be laid down with reference to such expenses.

Clause negatived.

House resumed.

MR. MONK

asked when the Bill would be again proceeded with?

MR. DISRAELI

said, he proposed to place it on the Paper for To-morrow, but would be able more definitely to inform hon. Members on the subject later in the evening.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.