REPORT OF RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 11 August 1879)

§ MR. MONK
hoped that the House would not be asked to assent to the Resolution at 6 o'clock in the morning. It was a Resolution of a very important character, and involved questions which ought to be discussed in a full House. The Government had brought in a Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill—that Bill was, for some time, on the Table of the House—it was at length cut down by the Government into a Continuance Bill; for, in fact, it was too late to be anything else. But, instead of amending the Bill so as to contain two clauses, and confining its operation to one year only, the Government had inserted a clause enacting that two Judges should try every Election Petition. It might be a very proper thing that two Judges should try an Election Petition; but that was a question that ought to be fully discussed in that House, and it could not be properly discussed at that hour. It was not his desire to enter into the question, and lie hoped that the Government would not press the Resolution. If the Government did not intend to press the clause, then the present Resolution would fall to the ground. But if the Government intended to go on with the Resolution, he certainly must continue his remarks.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
intimated that it was intended to go on with the clause.

§ MR. MONK
said, that in 1875 a Committee sat, which recommended that two Judges should try Election Petitions; but if the proceedings of the Committee were looked at, it would be found that some of the most experienced Members of the House who sat on that Committee were amongst the minority who voted against that proposal. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole), the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers),and the hon. and learned Attorney General himself, were amongst that minority. He thought that the opinion of such a mino- 802 rity was deserving of the serious attention of the House. At that period of the Session, it certainly would not be right to impose upon the country the very serious expense which would be incurred by sending two Judges to try every Election Petition. He was not aware that any strong feeling existed on the subject in England; but, in Ireland, he knew there was such a feeling. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had raised the question by giving Notice of an Amendment, to the effect that the Act should apply to Ireland only. For his part, he (Mr. Monk) should be willing to accept that Amendment; but with regard to England, he did not think it desirable that so serious a change as that proposed should be made at that period of the Session. So important a matter ought not to be taken at 6 o'clock in the morning, and particularly when it was against the opinion of so influential a minority of the Committee of 1875. Election Petitions had been very well tried by one Judge, and it was quite unnecessary that two Judges should try them. That provision would make it necessary to have more Judges, or else to delay the Business of the country; if the Judges were not available, there would be great delay in the Law Courts, and suitors generally would have great reason to complain. They would soon have a cry raised, that it was necessary to appoint additional Judges. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was a very serious matter, which required the attention of the House. He would not presume to take up the time of the House at any great length upon the matter; but he did hope that the change would not be made at that time. The better course for the Government to pursue would be not to press the 2nd clause of the Bill, and then the Resolution now before the House became wholly unnecessary. In order to raise the question, he begged to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

§ MR. COURTNEY
rose for the purpose of seconding the Motion. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), that it was perfectly unnecessary to provide that the Election Petitions should be tried by two Judges in England. He quite admitted, at the same time, that there was a strong feeling in Ireland in favour of having two 803 Judges to try Election Petitions, and he had put down an Amendment restricting the operation of the provision for two Judges to Ireland. He thought that they would only damage the investigation of Election Petitions by sending two Judges to try them. He did not think that there was any precedent for sending two persons to try a mere question of fact. It was very seldom indeed that two Judges sat together, for the only example with which he was acquainted was that of the two former Lords Justices of Appeal in Chancery who were in the habit of sitting together. But to send two persons to try a mere question of fact, where no law was involved, was absurd. As there was a strong feeling in Ireland that Election Petitions should be tried by two Judges, he was willing to accede to the proposition; but he did not see why it should be adopted in this country where there was no demand for it.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that the consideration of that Report would not have been pressed at that early period of the day, but that the Government were as anxious, as he believed most hon. Members were, to close the Session as soon as possible. The Bill, if it was to go to "another place" that Session, must pass that day, after they had assented to the Resolution. The Bill, as it stood, had been materially reduced from the state in which it first reached the House. When notice was taken of the proposed changes, he mentioned that there was an assent on the part of the House to the change contemplated. [Mr. MONK observed that he objected to the change.] The majority of the House were of opinion that the change recommended by the majority of the Select Committee was advisable. Without going further into the matter, he would only say that the Government would hesitate long before they made any such distinctions between England and Ireland in respect of Election Petitions as was proposed by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He would ask the House to adopt the Resolution.

§ MR. MELDON
said, that a pledge had been given by the Government that 804 some change should be made with respect to the trial of Election Petitions, and he was glad to see that that pledge would be redeemed. He, therefore, hoped hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House would not object to the consideration of the Resolution. He thought, in face of a General Election before they met again, it was desirable that the Bill, founded upon it, should pass, because the fate of the Government would be redeemed by the passing of the Bill.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
saw no necessity for two Judges, and should suppose his right hon. Friend had given a further pledge with respect to this matter, which he should like to see redeemed.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that all sorts of pledges had been imagined for them. The only pledge which he had given was, that at the beginning of next Session the Government would introduce a Bill relating to Corrupt Practices at Elections.