CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. (Hansard, 21 August 1848)

The LORD CHANCELLOR
moved the First Reading of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill. It was his intention to move the second reading upon Thursday next.

§ LORD REDESDALE
protested against the hurrying a Bill of such an important character as this at such a late period of the Session. The Bill had only been laid upon the table of the House that evening. It attacked a great number of boroughs, and that upon grounds very indefinite. It was hardly possible to estimate the importance of the measure; and he did hope that Government would yield to the wishes of the Opposition, and postpone it until further time was given for its consideration.

LORD BROUGHAM
felt that it was absolutely necessary, for the honour of Parliament, as well as for the morality of the country, that a stop should be put to the practices which commonly prevailed all over it at elections, and never to such an extent as they had at the last.

The LORD CHANCELLOR
did not consider that there was any ground for postponing the measure. It was his intention 309 to move the second reading of the Bill upon Thursday next.

§ EARL GREY
considered that they should read the Bill a first time before they could say what they would be disposed to do with it. It would certainly be more convenient to postpone a measure of such importance to a future Session if the adoption of such a course would not lead to its total loss. Such a measure, no matter when introduced to the other House, could never reach their Lordships at a much earlier period of a Session.

§ The EARL of HARDWICKE
thought it was extremely hard that they should be called to pass measures bearing upon the constitution of the country at such a late period of the Session, and in so thin a House. The object of Parliament was to legislate for the people in an efficient manner. This could not be attained if Bills were thus hurried, and if due time was refused for their consideration.

§ LORD REDESDALE
moved, that the Standing Order of the House, No. 24, be read. It was impossible that any Bill could be discussed at that period of the Session with due consideration. The Lord Chancellor proposed to read it a second time on Thursday next. The Bill had only been laid upon the table that day; it could not be with their Lordships before Tuesday, and that would only leave a day for consideration. It was indecent to hurry a Bill of such importance. He did trust that the Government would yield to the wishes of the Opposition upon this single occasion. Some deference ought to be shown to those wishes, for Government could not complain that they had received from the Opposition any which could in the slightest degree be deemed factious. He would move the further consideration of the Bill upon that day three months.

The LORD CHANCELLOR
said, the order referred to a Bill passed in the year 1668, and set forth that the passing of that Bill should not be deemed a precedent in future for passing measures at late periods in a Session. The instance referred to occurred in the year 1668, and this was the year 1848. He could not see any similarity between the two cases.

§ LORD REDESDALE
considered that there was a similarity. He again urged upon the noble Lord the policy of yielding to the wishes of the Opposition.

LORD BROUGHAM
said, that the legislation of this country was conducted through 310 the medium of the King, Lords, and Commons. He held that the Crown could not disfranchise a borough; the Lords could not disfranchise a borough, neither could the Commons disfranchise a borough. No one branch of the Legislature could disfranchise a borough, or any place entitled to send a representative to Parliament, of its own authority. By the law of the land the Commons could not suspend the right of any borough to send its representatives to Parliament. They had their right to be represented, and, above all, they had that right when a Bill was introduced for the purpose of disfranchising them. The House of Commons had taken upon itself to dispute and set aside the law of the land, and they had suspended the writs for election in several boroughs merely because they were charged with some offence. A certain borough had been thus suspended of its rights for two whole years. He desired that the boroughs should be represented during the inquiry about to take place. He did trust that the law of the land, which had been interfered with, would be once more restored.

§ The DUKE of WELLINGTON
The question before the House is, whether this Bill be read a first time. Let it be so read. As well as he was informed, and he had no better information than what the newspapers afforded, it was proposed by this Bill to form a new jurisdiction for the trial of these cases. And if the Bill pass, their Lordships would be deprived of the right of inquiry into those cases. Their Lordships will have to decide upon them without previous inquiry at their bar. That might be an object which it was very desirable to attain. He apprehended, however, that it was a measure of such importance that it ought not to be brought under the attention of the House without due and full consideration; and he considered full time ought to be given to their Lordships and to the country at large to understand what they were going to do.

§ EARL GREY
The House always read a Bill a first time before they say what they should do. He would not have risen were it not to put it to the noble Lord whether it were not an incorrect practice to suspend inquiries of this kind. The noble Lord himself voted for the suspension of the writ for East Retford.

LORD BROUGHAM
In all these cases it had become the common practice of the House of Commons to suspend the writ; it is done upon the slightest charge. This 311 was not proper. The case of East Retford was very peculiar in its nature.