Lords Sitting of 14 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Lunatics, Reported.—School Sites Acts Extension.
3ª Differential Dues.

THE GREAT WESTERN, &c., RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for taking into Consideration Standing Order No. 185, sec. 1, in order to its being dispensed with, read.
LORD BEAUMONTmoved that the said section of the said Standing Order be dispensed with. The question involved in the Motion was, in reality, whether there should be only one means of communication between London and the Mersey and between London and Ireland, and whether the vast and important traffic now conducted between those two points of the kingdom should be confined to one single means of communication, and that the proprietors of that communication should possess a monopoly. If his Motion was negatived, their Lordships would come to a contrary conclusion to that which they had arrived at upon a former occasion. Some time ago their Lordships gave their consent to two Bills creating railways, the one between Birmingham and Shrewsbury, and the other between Shrewsbury, and Chester. It was well known that since those railways had been constructed, the amount of traffic had enormously increased; in fact, so much so, that it would be dangerous to entrust it to one line. Their Lordships wisely foresaw that this would be the case, and therefore sanctioned these Bills. The London and North Western Company exerted every means in their power to oppose the passing of these Bills;

547
but they failed in their opposition, in consequence of both Houses thinking it advisable that another and competing line should exist between London and the north-western parts of the kingdom. The two smaller companies were then harassed by their formidable rival in every way possible, and their opponent at last had succeeded in placing such impediments on their working that they were gradually losing their traffic; they therefore felt that their only resource was to seek an alliance with some other Company. They accordingly sought that of the Great Western, in order to carry out a proposition that there should be two continuous lines between London and the Mersey; and if this Bill passed, the public would be in possession of those two lines. A Bill to carry out this great object was introduced into the other House of Parliament, and the House of Commons adopted a Resolution, that it was for the public advantage that two lines of communication should thus exist. The Bill then arrived at their Lordships 'House; but before they could discuss its merits, it was necessary that the Standing Orders should be complied with. One of those orders, known by the name of the Wharncliffe Order, was extremely important. It required that the assent of four-fifths of the shareholders should be given to every new Bill before it could receive the consideration of the House. This order was for the purpose of protecting a minority. Originally the assent of only three-fifths wa3 required, but it had been subsequently increased to four-fifths; giving a protection to a still smaller minority. The shares in the Shrewsbury line were extremely low in the market, and a powerful and wealthy Company like the North Western, of course, found very little difficulty in making itself possessor of a large proportion of the shares. That was done accordingly, for the protection of its interest, and to prevent the amalgamation; and the consequence was, that when the meeting was held, the four-fifths could not be obtained. The Standing Orders Committee had reported that they saw no reason for recommending the suspension of the Standing Order. That Committee, however, could only look at the technical question, and leave it to their Lordships to suspend the Standing Order, although it had not been complied with, if they considered that the merits of the case justified them in doing so. The Standing Order might generally work well; but cases must arise in which,
548
if acted upon, it would occasion great public inconvenience and injury. If their Lordships refused to suspend the Standing Order, and thus prevented the Bill from being considered upon its merits, they would confirm for ever the great monopoly in the hands of the London and North Western Company, because, by throwing out the Bill, they would utterly destroy the chance of a competing line being established. If their Lordships sanctioned the continuance of the present monopoly of communication, they would not only endanger the interests of commerce, but they would peril the lives of persons travelling upon a line so encumbered and overwhelmed with traffic. He entertained the strongest conviction, from the evidence before the Committee, that the minority of shareholders opposed to the amalgamation was composed of persons interested in the London and North Western line; and if their Lordships persisted in enforcing the Standing Order, the Shrewsbury and Birmingham and the Shrewsbury and Chester Companies must be annihilated.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that their Lordships might perhaps recollect that three or four years ago a Bill was pending in that House for the purpose of making a railway from Oxford to Birmingham. That Bill was zealously opposed by the London and North Western Company, with the same feelings, and he believed by the same means, as they had adopted on the present occasion. He took a part then in opposition to the North Western Company; and with the assistance of his noble and learned Friend, who then presided in that House, the late Lord Cottenham, succeeded, for the benefit of the public, as it now clearly appeared, in frustrating that attempt. He approved entirely of the Standing Order to which the noble Lord had referred. It was passed to protect the minority against the wild speculation of the majority; but it was never intended, he apprehended, to stand in the way of any great public interest. A railway was, to a certain degree, by its very nature, a monopoly. Their Lordships conferred great powers upon these establishments; but it was, at the same time, the duty of their Lordships to take care that those powers were not used for the purpose of extending that monopoly, or for the purpose of crushing less powerful companies. At the present time there was but one line of railway communication between London and the Mersey, and it was, therefore, particularly the duty

549
of their Lordships, not only to see that there was no abuse of the powers conferred upon that Company, but that those powers should not be used to extend that monopoly. Now, what was the railway proposed to be established by this Bill? It was a railway passing through Staffordshire and Shropshire, counties rich in minerals and the seats of manufactures of the most important character; and by the Bill it was sought to give them the advantage of communication on the one hand with Liverpool, and on the other with London and Southampton. Of the three railways interested—the Great Western, the Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and the Shrewsbury and Chester—which had now entered into an alliance for the purpose of effecting this object, the Chester and Shrewsbury was the first established. On its starting, the North-Western Company foresaw the consequences which must flow from the establishment of that railway; and they had, therefore, exhibited towards it the most incessant hostility, and had sought to lower the value of its shares, in order to get possession of it, and by that means to break one link in that chain of so much importance in the communication to which he had referred. The Chester and Shrewsbury Company, in consequence, had had to apply over and over again to the Court of Chancery, and had obtained injunction after injunction to protect themselves under these assaults. In May last, the directors of these companies held a meeting to see if they could make an agreement under which they might form an amalgamation. They agreed upon the terms; but the agreement was, of course, subject to the ratification of meetings of the different Companies. There were meetings held of the Great Western, the Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and the Chester and Shrewsbury Companies. Those meetings were advertised in the ordinary way; and now let us see the course pursued by the London and North-Western Company. The North-Western purchased a large number of shares, and divided them in such a manner as to give an undue preponderance to their own shareholders. Some of these shares were distributed among clerks, porters, and others connected with the Company, in the hope that by resorting to that means they might succeed in overpowering the other Companies. But this was not all. They had allies of the greatest power and influence, the leader of whom was a man of great note, of great name, and
550
the head of a great league—the Anti-Corn-Law League—Mr. George Wilson— clarum et venerabile nomen. Mr. Watkins, the secretary, and many of the committee of the Anti-Corn-Law League, all united together for the purpose of assisting the North-Western Company. These enemies of all monopoly, who hated monopoly except that in which they were themselves deeply interested, were the zealous friends of the Company, and assisted them in accomplishing their object. What was the result? The North-Western Company was defeated, not by a majority only, but by between three and four-fifths of the shareholders, who voted in favour of the plan of amalgamation, and the Bill was carried in spite of all the combination, contrivance, and trickery he had mentioned. The Bill was then introduced into the House of Commons, and referred to a Select Committee, the chairman of which was Mr. Christopher, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who examined it with the most scrupulous care. It was opposed by the North-Western Company; hut notwithstanding their most strenuous exertions, the Committee passed the measure, so satisfied were they of its propriety. According, however, to the Standing Orders of their Lordships' House, it was necessary that the three Companies should again meet and agree to the amalgamation; and the man must be credulous, indeed, who supposed that the same barefaced practices which wore formerly adopted were not resorted to on that occasion, though, perhaps, in a more cautious and moderate manner. It was in this way that the Bill, which he considered of the highest importance to the districts affected by it, had been defeated; and on the grounds of public policy—that the great majority of the shareholders of the three Companies had acceded to the arrangement, and that there were reasons for at least suspecting unfair conduct on the part of the opposing Company—he would support the Motion for dispensing with the Standing Orders.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, the subject under discussion was one of no ordinary importance, for that was the first time an attempt of the kind had been made in their Lordships' House, to set aside the decision of the Standing Orders Committee when those orders had in no way been complied with. On all former occasions, he believed, when their Lordships had suspended the Standing Orders, they had done so on the recommendation of the

551
Standing Orders Committee, except in the Smithfield Market case, when the House resolved (in his opinion most dangerously) that the notoriety of the intention of the Government to take steps for its removal might he held to excuse the giving regular notice. He thought no sufficient grounds had been shown to justify the House taking the course suggested by the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont). The noble Lord said that the question was, whether there should only be one line of communication between London and the Mersey. But this Bill was not for opening up a new communication between London and the Mersey—it only amalgamated certain lines which formed at present a communication between those points. Those lines were sanctioned for the purpose of affording the advantage of railway communication to a district which did not possess such accommodation, and there was at the time no notion that they would form a competing London line. The noble Lord said it was impossible to give such a communication without an amalgamation of the lines; but the experiment had never been tried, and no opportunity had been afforded for judging how far existing arrangements might enable his object to be attained. Was the noble Lord certain that an amalgamation would secure two competing routes of railway? It was his (Lord Redesdale's) impression that as soon as the Great Western Company became amalgamated with these minor companies, instead of there being a competition between them and the Northwestern Company, from London to the Mersey, the two Companies would ultimately come to a traffic arrangement, to avoid, as it is called, "cutting each other's throats," which would put an end to all competition. The case of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company was a very peculiar one, and showed the necessity of the Standing Order. Last year the directors came to an arrangement with the Great Western Company; but the shareholders called a meeting to consider the subject, and they passed, by a majority of 2,000 votes, and in the very teeth of the directors, a proposition in favour of an amalgamation with the North-Western Company. This decision of the proprietors had been overturned by the management of the directors. It came out in evidence before the Committee, what the directors of a Company could do—that they had it in their power to use the money of the Company for the purpose of obtaining votes;
552
and in the Shrewsbury and Chester case one of the directors admitted that they had made many thousand votes by getting their friends to split their shares, and that all the transfers and retransfers had been effected at the expense of the Company. The case of the Great Western, and the Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and the Shrewsbury and Chester Companies, had been referred to the Standing Orders Committee; but their case broke down on their own evidence; and now they wished to set aside the Standing Orders, to have the Bill tried on its merits. The public had a right to look to the Standing Orders as a protection, and if they were to suspend them on the present occasion, they would open a door, which they would be unable to close, to jobbery, and vicious proceedings of all kinds.
LORD LYNDHURSTexplained, that what he said was, that unless an amalgamation was to place the Companies under one direction and one set of officers, it would be impossible to have any opposition to the rival line.
The DUKE of RICHMONDprotested against the merits of the case of the particular railways being gone into, inasmuch as they had not been tried before the Committee. He believed there never was a Standing Order which worked better than that known as Lord Wharncliffe's, and he trusted that their Lordships would not consent to its suspension. Unless their Lordships supported the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, they would never be able to get noble Lords to slave and listen to all the particulars of these cases in Committee.
LORD BEAUMONTexpressed his firm conviction, that by refusing to suspend the Standing Order in this case, they would be placing the order itself in considerable jeopardy hereafter; and would, by so doing, show that larger Companies might with impunity successfully crush and destroy their smaller rivals. While he expressed his determination to divide their Lordships upon his Motion, he felt bound to say that, in his opinion, the Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with upon any occasion without a sufficient case being made out for so doing.
LORD BROUGHAMobjected for obvious reasons to the principle of bringing the decisions of the Select Committees on questions like the present before the House itself. When such a course was departed from, and when they were asked to sus-

553
pend the Standing Orders, it behaved the parties asking for such suspension to show the necessity for such a proceeding. They were called on to adopt this stop in the present instance on some allegations of fraud, which allegations were denied on the other side. The question then to be determined was, whether the Standing Orders Committee had an opportunity of exercising their judgment in the truth or falsehood of these allegations. That was an issue of fact which the House was not competent to try, and yet upon that depended the vote of every Member of the House. He understood that the Committee had had that opportunity, and that it had not thought proper, upon investigating the allegation, to report in favour of the justifiableness of suspending the Standing Order. If that were so, he was against suspending it.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, when he was on the Committee he thought the Standing Orders ought to be suspended; but subsequent consideration made him arrive at a different conclusion. In reply to the noble and learned Lord, he had to state that the Committee came to a resolution which was framed by his noble Friend behind him (Lord Beaumont)—to the effect that nothing had been proved to justify them in recommending the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), that breaking down a great monopoly, and substituting a competing interest, was desirable; but he did not think the House had any right to call on the shareholders in any particular railway to sacrifice their interests in order to procure the public such an advantage. It was proved that shareholders representing stock to the value of 500,000 l dissented from the amalgamation; and there was no evidence to prove that the North Western, or any other company, had made any undue acquisition of shares. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) that the proposition, if carried, would establish a very dangerous precedent, and open a door to abuses which it would be difficult to close.
LORD BEAUMONTregretted the defection of his noble Friend, and the silence of some noble Lords from whom he had expected support. The question to which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) referred had come before the Committee, and the evidence produced by the alleging party amounted to this, that 15,466 voted altogether; of those, 1,0257 voted for
554
the amalgamation, and 5,209 were in the minority against it; and of that minority 230 votes were traced to the North-Western Railway Company; and the decision of the Committee therefore was, that as only 230 votes out of 5,209 votes were traced or proved to be in accordance with the allegation, they were not justified in recommending that upon that, allegation the Standing-Orders should be dispensed with.
LORD BROUGHAM: The answer of the noble Lord was perfectly fair, perfectly candid, and perfectly fatal to his own case.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that though it was not proved that more shares had been traced to the possession of the London and North Western, there was ground for strongly suspecting that it was used to a much greater extent.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he considered that if this Motion were carried, it would be fatal to the authority of their Lordships' Committees. But after the statement of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), as to the previous proceedings affecting this transaction, whether the power which the noble and learned Lord had referred to as having been used by one of the great railway companies had been exorcised in this instance or not, it nevertheless appeared that it was in the power of a great company to make use of this Standing Order as an instrument not to advance their own legitimate interests, but to defeat the substantial interests of others, and of the public; and, therefore, if their Lordships should decide that night that they were not justified in going into the merits, he trusted that no long time would elapse before their Lordships reviewed this Standing Order; for he believed that, in its present state, it afforded a great temptation to powerful companies to enter upon agreements with other companies for the purpose of establishing monopolies.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, there were many points connected with this case which he had not touched upon, and he warned noble Lords not to form too hasty an opinion upon the demerits of the existing order, as in the whole of his experience he had not remembered a single instance in which the regulation had operated with greater advantage, or more for the protection of the interests of the shareholders, than in the present case.
On Question, Resolved in the Negative.

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION—THE MANAGEMENT CLAUSES.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill read.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he was about to move that the Order of the Day be read for the House going into Committee on this Bill; but before the House went into Committee, he wished to set himself right in the opinion of the House, and in that of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), in reference to a statement made by him with regard to a supposed alteration having been made by the Committee of Privy Council in their Minutes subsequent to the vote being taken in the House of Commons for educational purposes. It was stated by the noble Earl the other night that the Committee of Privy Council of Education under the late Government had made an alteration in the management clauses in reference to the Jewish schools, after the vote by Parliament of the grant for the year. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) stated in general terms that he was convinced that no material alteration had been made by the late Government subsequent to the vote for the year being taken in the House of Commons; but he had since had an opportunity of referring to the merits of the case, and he found that, so far from the proceedings of the Committee of Privy Council with respect to Jewish schools affording any such precedent, it actually appeared, by a paper on their Lordships' table, that a letter had been addressed by the Committee of Privy Council on the 8th January to the Jewish Committee, in which they were informed that unless a satisfactory arrangement could be proposed by them previous to the vote on education being taken, no such vote could be taken by which they would benefit. That did not rest on his own authority, but on the authority of the Minutes actually on their Lordships' table. At the same time he begged to state his belief that it was from mere inadvertence on the part of the noble Earl that that statement was made. He begged also to add his perfect satisfaction with the assurance which he understood the noble Earl to have given on Friday night, that no alteration should take place of a material or novel nature in the proceedings of the Committee of Council on Education until opportunities were afforded to Parliament, especially to the House of Commons, for judging of the nature of those alterations. He might be al-
556
lowed also to add, that no actual proceeding whatever had taken place with regard to the Jewish schools.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that on Friday last he had the honour of receiving a private note from the noble Marquess, in which he stated that it Was his intention to put a question as to whether or not a new Minute had been prepared by the Committee of Privy Council on Education, but, as he understood the noble Marquess, without intending to raise any discussion upon the subject. The noble Marquess did put his question, and he (the Earl of Derby) answered it, simply detailing the circumstances; and he confessed that it was with some surprise he then heard from the noble Marquess the expression of a rather severe censure on the course Her Majesty's Government had pursued, not with regard to the substance of the Minute itself, but from the fact of having laid it on the table at all. That, he thought, was hardly consistent with the noble Marquess's declaration that he did not intend to raise a discussion. Now, expecting that no discussion would be raised, he (the Earl of Derby) had come down to the House altogether unprepared for the accusation which the noble Marquess had made in such strong terms—that the Government had purposely abstained from laying this Minute on the table of the other House of Parliament until they had obtained the grant for education by a vote of the House of Commons. He (the Earl of Derby) must say that he felt that to be an accusation highly discreditable to Her Majesty's Government, and one which he could not and ought not to pass over without observation. The noble Marquess asserted that on no previous occasion subsequently to passing the educational vote for the year, had any important alteration been made in the Minutes of the Committee of Privy Council without submitting that alteration to Parliament, in order to obtain its sanction thereto—indeed, he went further, and said that on no occasion had any important alteration been made without submitting it to the other House of Parliament previous to asking for the educational vote for the year. Now he (the Earl of Derby) was not prepared at the time with any precedent in reference to the conduct of the Committee of Council; but it did occur to him that in the course of last winter a declaration was made on the part of the Committee, by means of a Minute, that they would

557
consent to grant assistance to Jewish schools—they having in the year 1849 (and no alteration having been made by them in the meantime) declared that those schools were not, under the terms of the Minutes, admissible to participate in the grant for education. But though the case of the Jewish schools might not afford him a precedent of the sort, yet he was quite sure that he should satisfy their Lordships that, in the declaration which the noble Marquess had felt himself called upon to make, he was speaking in error and misapprehension in the general assertion which he made on Friday; and he (the Earl of Derby) was in hopes when he saw the noble Marquess rise that evening, that he was about to correct that misapprehension. The House would recollect that the statement of the noble Marquess was, that it had never been the practice to make any material alteration in the Minutes of the Committee of Privy Council subsequently to obtaining the sanction of Parliament to the educational grant for the year. Now he begged their Lordships' attention to the following facts:—In the year 1847, 100,000 l. was voted on the 26th of April, and on the 10th of July there was passed by the Education Committee a supplementary Minute, that supplementary Minute being represented by the noble Marquess himself, in a discussion which afterwards took place in this House, as one of very great importance, and which would enable the Committee of Council to give assistance to many schools to which they were previously debarred from giving such assistance by the Minutes which had been laid before the House. That supplementary Minute was agreed to on the 10th July, 1847, and the effect of it was to admit to the benefit of the public grant for education all schools which refused to submit to any inspection or report with regard to the religious instruction which was given in those schools. Surely the noble Marquess would admit that that was an important alteration in principle. The vote being passed on the 24th of April, the supplementary Minute was agreed to on the 10th of July, and laid upon the table of this House on the 16th of July; but it was not even then, nor until it had been called for, laid upon the table of the other House of Parliament. He (the Earl of Derby) took the liberty of commenting upon this fact on the 22nd of July, and on the 23rd— the following day—Parliament was prorogued
558
previously to a dissolution. Passing over minor instances of the same kind, he presumed that their Lordships would be of opinion, since great stress had been laid upon the proposed alteration of the management clauses by the present Committee of Council, that these management clauses themselves formed a rather important portion of the system. Well, the vote for the year 1847 was taken on the 26th of April, and the management clauses A, B, C, and 1), which regulated, for the first time, the whole of the restrictions imposed upon grants to Church of England schools, bore date the 28th of June, 1847; and for the first time they were laid before Parliament, not in the course of that Session—not only not previously to taking the grant for that Session—but they were not laid before Parliament until they appeared as part of the blue book; subsequently taking the vote—not for that—but for the succeeding Session of Parliament. In short, the management clauses were passed after the vote for the year was taken, whilst Parliament was sitting, and were not submitted separately to Parliament at all. The vote for the following year, 1848, was taken on the 23rd of August, and the management clauses so contained in the blue book were laid before their Lordships' House on the same day; but they appeared not to have been laid before the House of Commons until the 22nd of August, the day after the vote was taken, and then they were produced without any explanation. Again, after considerable discussion with the National Society for Education, the management clauses were revised and altered materially in the year 1849. But, from that day to this, alterations so made had never been separately laid upon the table, of the House, but were inserted in the blue book. The Vote for the year 1849 was taken on the 4th of June, and the revised management clauses appeared in the Minutes of the Committee of Council of 1848, but they were for the first time submitted to Parliament on the 28th of June, 1849. He had now stated the important occasions upon which, contrary to the statement of the noble Marquess, material alterations were made whilst Parliament was sitting, and subsequently to the Estimates for the year having been granted; and which alterations were not communicated to Parliament at all until the following Session— one of these alterations being the alteration of the whole system of the manage-

559
ment clauses, of which the present Minute was not so much an alteration as an alternative offered to the Church schools for the acceptance of the management clauses in their present or amended state. He hoped he had now said enough to satisfy their Lordships that in the course Her Majesty's Government had pursued, they had not been without a precedent to support their views. At the same time he must positively disclaim, for himself and for his Colleagues in the Government, any desire whatever to withdraw from the fullest cognisance of Parliament this or any other alteration that might he proposed; and if the noble Marquess would like to discuss the merits of the particular alteration now contemplated—which, being substantially agreed to a week ago, was finally arranged on Saturday last, and which he (the Earl of Derby) had brought down to lay upon their Lordships' table to-night—he should be most happy to give him the opportunity of doing so. With regard to the particular time at which that Minute was agreed upon, he could assure the noble Marquess that, at that time, he did not himself knew whether the specific Vote for education had passed the House of Commons or not; but if it would be any satisfaction to the noble Marquess, he would tell him the ground upon which that particular time was chosen for no longer delaying to come to a conclusion upon the Minute. The fact was, that on the following Thursday there was to be the annual meeting of the National Society; and Her Majesty's Government were extremely desirous, by making an alteration which they hoped would meet the views of moderate Churchmen, to prevent a repetition of the very painful discussion which took place last year, and to prevent the bringing forward of extreme opinions on either side, and to reconcile, previous to the annual meeting, the great body of Churchmen upon a subject with regard to which there had hitherto been most unfortunate, and he thought unprofitable, discussions between them.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he wished shortly to state that he placed the most implicit faith in the statement made by the noble Earl as to the circumstances under which this Vote was moved in the other House of Parliament. He had not intended to cast any imputation whatever on the good faith of the noble Earl. But with regard to the other point to which the noble Earl had adverted—that of the management clauses—he
560
(the Marquess of Lansdowne) admitted that if the noble Earl could prove that the alterations made by the late Committee of Privy Council were alterations of the system, and not such as were adopted in consequence of explanations given in Parliament—that they could not be considered in any other point of view than as a change of principle—he would be justified in the observations he had made. It would be obvious to their Lordships that he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not go into the question in that incidental way; but he should be prepared to do so on a future occasion. But he believed the alterations in the clauses in question were not alterations of the system, but were strictly in furtherance of the assurances given to Parliament for the carrying out of that system.
The EARL of CHICHESTERbegged to corroborate the statement of the noble Marquess, that the management clauses were not in themselves an alteration of the principle of the system, but were merely a more perfect carrying out of the system to which Government were previously pledged; in proof of which he referred to communications he had had with the noble Marquess on the subject of a Motion which he had intended to bring forward with the view of making the imposition of the clauses compulsory, but which Motion he had abandoned when he learnt the intentions of the Government.
The BISHOP of OXFORDthought that the assistance which the noble Earl had intended to give the Government by his statement was rather of an unfortunate character; inasmuch as the fact that the noble Earl had mentioned, that he had himself intended to bring forward a Motion on the subject, showed that he considered the matter to be one of very great importance. The noble Marquess had described the former alteration of the management clauses as an unimportant charge, and not falling within the category of an alteration at all.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: No, no; far from it.
The BISHOP of OXFORDhad understood the noble Marquess to say that it was merely a carrying out of what had been done before, and was therefore not necessarily laid before Parliament. He, on the other hand, thought it was an operation of the greatest possible moment, and one on which Parliament ought to have been fully consulted, and had the opportunity of expressing an opinion. He thought

561
that if this noble Marquess would fix a time when the question could be properly discussed, he should be able to show the noble Marquess that very important changes had been repeatedly introduced by the late Government after the annual vote had been taken.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he should have felt it highly improper to go into the general question: all he wished was to set himself right. He admitted that the management clauses were an important change as to the mode of administering the grant, but there was no change in principle. The object was that schools of every denomination complying with those conditions might derive the benefit of the grant.

SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL.
LORD BROUGHAMrose to implore his noble Friend opposite, before the next stage of the Bill, to reconsider the propriety, which he would strongly urge upon them, of withdrawing the measure. They had the best possible opportunity of doing so, on account of the total change in the law of France which had taken place upon the very subject of extradition since the Convention was entered into.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: It is not at all necessary that I should detain your Lordships before I give an answer to the request which the noble and learned Lord has addressed to me, because I have already made up my mind upon the subject. I had come down to the House intending to inform your Lordships at the proper time that Her Majesty's Government thought fit at present to withdraw this Bill. I think at this moment, after what the noble and learned Lord has said, that I need not exculpate myself for a mistake into which I fell on a previous evening, which originated in an error of the person who wrote the despatch to me, and which our Ambassador at Paris has desired me to explain in the manner I have now done. Before I leave this subject, I only wish to state that it would be extremely dangerous, I think, at the present moment, for Her Majesty's Government to continue this Act of Parliament under the new law which has been passed in France. In the first place, I cannot yet understand the full bearing of that law; but, as far as I do understand it, it would seem to give the French Government a power to reclaim any criminal from any part of the world
562
wherever he committed the offence— though it was not committed on French ground, and though the party were not a Frenchman.
LORD BROUGHAM: Yes; an Englishman in London.
LORD MALMESBURY: I would beg to suggest to your Lordships that we should have no discussion at present upon this Bill. Suffice it that, on these grounds, I had intended at the proper moment to have told your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government had for the present suspended the further progress of the measure.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that nothing could be more satisfactory than this course, and nothing could be more complete than the justification of the noble Earl for so acting. He could do no other, after finding that he had been misinformed as to the actual state of the French law. The new law was, that an Englishman for an offence committed in London, or alleged to be so committed, might be brought to trial in France, and dealt with by the French authorities. It was not for the first time that a law of this sort was propounded in France; it was in a great measure the same under the Emperor Napoleon, in 1808, when France, England, and Europe were in totally different circumstances. Since then, owing to that diversity of circumstances, the law had been a dead letter; but it had been now revived, and with a very material extension, having reference to misdemeanours as well as other crimes.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that by the existing French law, supposing the Bill before the House to have been carried, an Englishman might have been apprehended here after he had been in Paris.
[Subsequently, Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendment, read, and discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.]

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE,in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, said the measure was one of great importance, and he would endeavour, in a few words, to state its object, having, by arrangement with the noble Earl opposite, refrained from doing so on the second reading. The noble Marquess, after referring to the disgraceful proceedings which had taken place in the borough of St. Albans, and to the conse-

563
quent inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons, said that this inquiry had not come to a satisfactory conclusion, owing to certain witnesses being prevented attending, whereby the ends of justice had been defeated. A proceeding of a different kind was, therefore, adopted, with the almost unanimous consent of both Houses of Parliament; and a Commission was appointed to make an inquiry on the spot. In consequence of the success of that measure, and of the apprehensions entertained (he feared justly) that practices similar to those at St. Albans extended to other places, the late Government had thought it expedient to introduce a measure, the object of which was to convert that which was a particular law into a general law, applicable to all cases, and which might be brought into operation whenever the House of Commons thought such an inquiry as took place at St. Albans necessary. It was needless, he was sure, to dwell on the importance of extinguishing corruption wherever it existed; for he apprehended that it was not in that House that persons would be found to raise their voices in favour of so flagrant a vice, and one so utterly subversive of constitutional principles. He wished to show how far the measure was calculated to attain its object. The House was aware that various attempts had been made from time to time in the other House to extinguish corruption, but they had proved comparative failures. Young aspirants for the honour of statesmanship had sought to win their spurs, and the most experienced men in the other House had turned their attention to the abatement of this evil; but the result was that corrupt practices remained just where they were before. The inquiries of Election Committees had led to a perfect manual of corruption in the shape of blue books, by which the unscrupulous, combining with the vulgar, were enabled to defeat the law. These details showed that in some places every man's conscience was for sale, and the precise price defined. Such being the case, it became an object of the greatest public necessity to introduce a Bill which should remedy this state of things. And nothing was more likely to promote—what all considered so desirable—the pure and unbiassed, choice of the electors, as holding over every borough the certainty in prospect of an investigation, such as that which had been made by the Commission in the St. Albans case, not confined to
564
the particular matters or the particular corruption of the election which was the immediate cause of the inquiry, but going back, if necessary, to other elections and preceding transactions, to exhibit what was the general state of the constituency, and to enable Parliament to judge, by positive evidence, as to the degree in which corrupt practices had taken root in such places. Upon these grounds the Bill had been brought forward. It armed the Commissioners with great powers, but not more so than were justified by the occasion—if they were an inquisition, they were a holy inquisition, engaged in the prosecution of a moral and justifiable undertaking. They had evidence that the Commission had acted well, and had discharged its duty in the case of St. Albans; the results were unexceptionable, even to those whose interests were affected. The Gentleman who was the principal victim of that Commission, had had the candour and justice to admit that the conduct of the Commissioners had been perfect and unexceptionable; he went the length of saying that he had the same respect towards those Commissioners that a child would feel for the parent who had corrected him. He hoped that was also the feeling of many of the electors. The result had been the disfranchisement of St. Albans, so justly deserved. He trusted that their Lordships would not object to this extension, considerable as it was; remembering that they would still have it in their power to review the decisions of the Commissioners before they were carried into effect. He rejoiced that he did not feel himself called upon to enter into questions to which a noble Friend of his on the cross benches had recently called their attention, relating to the improvement of the existing constituencies; for whatever those constituencies might be—whether they were large or small—that had nothing to do with the principle of this Bill, the object of which was to remove the reproach which in the eyes of the public and of foreign countries attached to our Constitution, namely, that various individuals, or bodies of individuals, had the power of influencing the return of those who were supposed to be the representatives of the whole nation. He anticipated the assent of the noble Earl to this measure, being convinced, if it were adopted, that it would afford the most effectual means for the castigation and exposure of that corruption which, unless it were laid bare and exposed, would remain for ever a

565
corroding canker at the root of the electoral system.
Moved—"That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, the object of the Bill, as explained by the noble Marquess, is one which, no doubt, will meet with the general concurrence of your Lordships, as it has that of the other House of Parliament. None of your Lordships can desire that that system of bribery and corruption, by which, of late years especially, many cities and boroughs have been disgraced, and which is, I am afraid I must say, increasing, should remain unchecked. And I admit that it may be necessary, for the purpose of effectually repressing this system, that Parliament should consent to a measure of a somewhat exceptionable character, and not rely upon meeting each individual case by a separate Act of the Legislature; but that you should provide the means by which Parliament may have the opportunity of inquiring into the proceedings of delinquent boroughs. Inasmuch, however, as this Bill is of an exceptionable character, inasmuch as it constitutes a tribunal exempted from all the ordinary forms of judicature, and invested with extraordinary powers, I am sure that your Lordships will think that it is due to the best interests of the country that not only the powers proposed to be confided to that tribunal should be carefully considered, and strictly limited, but also that you should consider the circumstances to which these powers are to be applied, and the conditions under which they are to be brought into action. My Lords, the Bill which you are now called upon to pass is a general enactment to enable tribunals to be constituted, with all the extraordinary powers with which by special Act of Parliament you have felt it necessary to invest similar Commissions, first with respect to the borough of Sudbury, and afterwards that of St. Albans. That tribunal, besides having the power to call before it all persons to give evidence, even such as may criminate themselves, has the very extraordinary power of giving an indemnity to those persons who in their judgment shall have given fair and candid evidence, which otherwise would have subjected them to a prosecution in the courts of law. This applies also to what has hitherto been deemed the exceptional case of confidential communications. I think that there being extraordinary powers proposed to be given, not merely for the pur-
566
pose of inquiry, hut leading to ulterior consequences in the form of disfranchisement, you ought not to consent to confer them upon any Commission without due consideration. Hitherto it has been required that when a Committee of the House of Commons should by investigation come to the conclusion that extensive bribery has been committed in any particular borough, and has so reported to the House, a Bill should be introduced and submitted to the consideration of your Lordships' House, specifying the particular powers intended to be given, nominating the Commission by whom the powers are to be executed, and asking for your Lordships' concurrence, and the sanction of the Crown, for the establishment of a tribunal in the individual instance for the purpose of previous investigation. This Bill, however, proposes, as a general rule, to establish this tribunal for the trial of delinquent boroughs. I think it is important that you should consider whether these powers should be conferred without some safeguard that the House of Commons will not exercise the authority entrusted to it in an arbitrary manner. But I find that it is proposed in this Bill, as it stands, that whenever the House of Commons, upon the report of a Committee which may have sat for the purpose of inquiry into the circumstances of an election, shall have arrived at the conclusion that bribery has prevailed, and shall have voted an Address to the Crown desiring further inquiry, such inquiry shall take place at once without reference to your Lordships' House. It cannot be said that this is a matter which concerns the jurisdiction of the House of Commons alone, or that it is analogous to an inquiry before an Election Committee, the result of which was that A. or B. was the sitting Member, and which did not affect the borough or county itself; for this is a Bill which introduces inquiry preparatory to disfranchisement, and which has for its end to bring down penal consequences upon the delinquent borough. It is true this must be done by further legislation; but the appointment of the Commission itself is, for the first time, to be left in the hands of the House of Commons exclusively; and it is put out of the consideration of your Lordships, whether or not it is a case to which these extraordinary powers of investigation are to be applied. It is well worthy of consideration, whether your Lordships are disposed to part so far with the power you at present possess as to sanctioning

567
by vote the application of this machinery to any county or borough at the mere will and pleasure of the House of Commons, on a simple Address to the Crown, or whether your Lordships will, as I confess I think you ought to do, require that the House of Commons, having taken a preliminary examination, and obtained the evidence on which they think it expedient that such a Commission should issue, to communicate that evidence to your Lordships; and that the further proceedings should take place, not upon the Address of the House of Commons only, but upon an Address of the two Houses conjointly. There is a further security also, which has hitherto always been adopted—Parliament will not confer these powers in blind confidence, without knowing the agents to whom the execution of them is to be entrusted, and we have always hitherto required that the Commissioners should be named in the Bill. In this Bill we go somewhat further, for we are asked to give the House of Commons the power for all future time, of putting this machinery into operation—ousting your Lordships of all jurisdiction hereafter, and vesting these arbitrary powers in the other House, to be exercised by persons nominated by the will of any Government which might be in office. I much doubt whether we ought to confer this extraordinary power upon the House of Commons alone, whether it is not just and equitable that we should reserve to ourselves the power, not of joining the House of Commons in passing an Act for each separate case, but of concurring with that House in an Address to the Crown to institute an inquiry in every particular occasion. I think the remedy ought not to be applied beyond the exigency of the case. There is another point also which is worthy of consideration. As the Bill was first introduced by the late Government, it only applied to those places where bribery and corruption had been proved to exist—its operation was confined to cities, towns, and boroughs; but upon the third reading an Amendment was proposed and carried by a small majority, extending the jurisdiction to counties, divisions of counties, and the universities, with respect to which no allegation of bribery has ever been brought. I must confess that, in cases where you are called on to apply extraordinary remedies to great grievances, I think those remedies ought to be confined to those cases simply where the grievances are proved to exist. It is
568
an invidious thing to involve in the reputation of corruption those places against which, I believe, no accusation has ever been made. I shall, therefore, propose that your Lordships restore the Bill to that form which it bore when originally introduced to the other House of Parliament, by confining it to cities, towns, and boroughs, and by rejecting those words which were inserted in the manner I have stated. I also object to that provision of the Bill which gives the Commission power to carry back their investigation to any length of time they may think fit. I think that is a power beyond the exigency of the case. It may be quite right, where the prevalence of corruption has been ascertained in in any borough, to give large powers to the Commissioners; but it appears to go beyond the exigencies of the case to give to unknown and unnamed Commissioners the power of carrying back their inquiries to any period, however remote, which they might think fit to inquire into, without there being any allegation that in the intermediate period bribery had been committed. I think it is monstrous that, in inquiring whether bribery has existed in any particular borough in 1852, in 1847, or even in 1841, you should give power to carry the investigation back to a period even antecedent to the Reform Bill, under a different constituency—so different that it might involve a different generation of men, and be an inquiry into the sins of a generation long passed away, in the time and under the auspices of their grandsons. It would be unjust to visit the errors of a former generation on their descendants; and I think, moreover, it would be exceedingly inconvenient to certain persons of elevated position in the cases of old boroughs, to go into all the instances of bribery which have occurred there, and to call before the Commission all parties who had been concerned in these transactions, for the purpose of stating all they knew about the corruption of the borough. I do not refuse that an inquiry should take place into systematic corruption, limiting it to such elections in the course of which a Committee of the House of Commons may have reported that bribery had existed. I think also that power might be given, supposing that bribery should have been proved to exist at that particular election, to go into the next preceding election; and if it should have been proved to exist at that also, to the next preceding; and so on to unravel a systematic course of bribery and

569
corruption existing in that particular borough for a long course of time. Another objection I take to this Bill is, that for the first time it puts bribery and treating upon precisely the same footing. You must remember that you are examining with a view to penal consequences, and that while bribery is an offence well known to and punishable by the law, there is no legal definition, as far as I am aware, of the offence of "treating," and certainly no punishment affixed to it by the law. The House of Commons has also hitherto always drawn a broad distinction between the two; the fact of bribery being proved to have existed at an election incapacitates the Member from sitting in that Parliament, while the fact of treating merely voids the election, but inflicts no kind of disqualification upon the Member who has lost his seat in consequence of it. You must also remember that it will depend upon the construction of each individual Election Committee as to the amount of treating which may be thought sufficient to justify the recommendation of a further inquiry by Commission. I am far from attempting to palliate that mode of influencing an election which takes the form of beastly intoxication, and which in itself is as discreditable as to receive a bribe of money; but you are to recollect that, although that description of treating may be as objectionable in character as bribery itself, yet there are forms of it so entirely innocuous, so free from all guilty tendency, and all guilty intent, that I am sure your Lordships would be reluctant to visit them with the severe penalty which is contained in this Bill. I think I may say with perfect confidence, that there never has been a contested election for county, city, town, or borough—I do not know about the Universities—in the course of which there has not been committed, by some agent, some offence which might, by a Committee of the House of Commons, be considered as treating. I think, with these modifications which I have enumerated, there will be not only no reasonable objection to the Bill, but we shall be following the precedent which, in reference to tribunals of this kind, has been already admitted—that is, on the principles adopted in the General Enclosure Acts. With these Amendments, I think the Bill will not only be harmless but useful; and from them I hope your Lordships will infer no desire on my part to interfere with the working and application of the measure, because I know the evil is
570
increasing, and will increase, and cannot be checked, except by some stringent measure; and, entertaining that opinion I will not examine very minutely even the extraordinary powers which are conferred by this Bill.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, it was impossible not to feel, with regard to the first Amendment proposed, or rather suggested, by the noble Earl, that by passing that Bill their Lordships would place unreservedly in the hands of the House of Commons a most formidable power; and that whereas now the action of the three branches of the Legislature was required to establish such tribunals as proposed by this Bill, they were asked to leave them to be constituted in future by the single vote of the House of Commons. This was a large concession on the part of their Lordships. The principle of our present law was, that all the movement and inquiry into the criminality of constituencies rested with the House of Commons, but that after that the legislation which might be required rested with all three branches; and this principle was now seriously invaded. But the main reason of his addressing the House was the strong objection he entertained to the noble Earl's second Amendment. It was an Amendment which altered the whole character of the measure. The preamble proceeded on a general assertion, that it was expedient to make a more adequate provision for inquiry into corrupt practices at elections. It contained no allegation against any one class of constituencies; but now, as thus amended, it would amount to a bill of indictment against a certain class of constituencies; and if they were to except counties and universities, why not great cities? To the latter, charges of corruption could not generally apply. He presumed the noble Earl would not assert that no corruption ever existed in the counties; nor would he himself say so much of great cities; hut he did argue, as he thought fairly, that on the same ground on which it was proposed to except counties and universities, they might reasonably be required to except the great cities of the country; and this would be impossible. His objection, in short, to the proposed exceptions was, that they implied a charge of general corruption against the boroughs; and though he knew that the extreme Liberal party went upon the principle that all small boroughs were corrupt, and should have their franchises given over to larger constituencies,

571
he thought their Lordships were scarcely prepared to receive and act upon this opinion as correct. The alteration, he said, would change the whole principle of the Bill, and would have a most injurious effect on the future consideration of those great questions of Parliamentary Reform yet to come before their Lordships. The right principle was to enact a general law against electoral corruption wherever it existed. In conclusion, he confessed that he was very much inclined to agree with the observation made by the noble Marquess at the very outset of his remarks— though he thought the observation a very remarkable one to come from him. The noble Marquess said that this was the most important of the measures of the late Government with reference to the representation of the people, and that it was the least open to objection. He (the Duke of Argyll) thought that this implied a very strong opinion with regard to the operation of this Act—that it should be considered by the noble Marquess the most important and the least open to objection.
The EARL of DERBY: With regard to the Amendment mainly objected to by the noble Duke, I am not proposing a bill of indictment against any class of constituencies. I am proposing to restore the Bill to the precise state in which the late Government introduced it.
LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEYsaid, this was no Bill imposing pains and penalties, but one that was intended simply to facilitate inquiry. It conferred no new power on the other House of Parliament; it simply enabled them to establish new machinery for inquiring into the corruption practised at elections. But when the noble Earl complained of the power the Bill gave of going back into former allegations of corruption, he would remind him how often in small boroughs there were compromises between the contesting candidates, entirely with a view of saving the constituency from the notoriety which their corruption was gaining. He should, therefore, not be at all disposed to limit either the House of Commons or the Commissioners from using their discretion as to how far back they were to go in such an inquiry. But what if they should do so? It was, after all, a mere report upon which a Bill was founded that had to go through all its stages in this House; and if their Lordships should think that it was ill-founded, or that the evidence had not been properly collected, it was still per-
572
fectly open to their Lordships to reopen the inquiry, and to summon evidence to their Lordships' bar. He did not recollect more than one petition being presented against a county for corruption, and of course he did not suppose that corruption prevailed at the Universities; but when there was a Bill for establishing machinery for the purpose of checking bribery, he did not think it at all an imputation upon either the counties or the Universities that they should be included in such a measure. As to treating, although it was not a crime in law, he thought it was a subject which the House of Commons had very properly taken cognisance of, in order to preserve the purity of election. He hoped the noble Earl would not insist upon his Amendments.
LORD REDESDALEconsidered the Amendments of the noble Earl well entitled to the approbation of the House. He believed every party desired to get rid of corruption, and no party more than the Conservative party; but when a Bill was introduced, conferring powers of an extraordinary nature, it was important that they should be restricted in their application. He reminded their Lordships of the extent to which party feeling not long ago prevailed. Let an allegation of corruption be made against any place, let that be reported to the other House, and then upon the address moved by an individual, and upon the vote of the majority, this Bill would be brought into operation. He thought more protection ought to be afforded the constituencies. He thought, also, it was important for their Lordships to consider how far the privileges of. the House would be affected by this Bill, which empowered the other House to proceed upon an Address to the Crown without the concurrence of their Lordships. Moreover, he was of opinion that the other House ought to insert the names of the Commissioners into their Address, and not to leave it to the Minister of the day, whoever that Minister might be. It was very proper that Parliament should have cognisance of the parties who were to investigate the matter. Parliament had already given a precedent of that kind in the two Bills which had recently been introduced; and he hoped they would not in any case depart from it. But as to the question of the privileges, he thought it very desirable, when the other House was about to call into exercise powers which went quite beyond the ordinary limit of the law, that the initiative

573
ought not to be adopted without the concurrence of both Houses.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, with regard to the first Amendment, he could not so readily come to the conclusion that had been arrived at by the noble Lord who had just sat down. If the Bill were to deprive the House of Lords of any privilege it at present possessed, if it made any alteration in reference to the relative position of that House and of the House of Commons, he should concur in the Amendment; but, when they looked carefully at the Bill, they would find that no new power was conferred on the House of Commons, no means were given to that House of punishing delinquent boroughs, no power of evading any existing checks or control of the Upper House, but that it was merely affording a new mode of carrying out those investigations which it was in the power of the House of Commons now to effect by other, but more tedious and less effective means. It was necessary that an inquiry should take place before an Address was agreed to. In the St. Albans case, their Lordships did not rest satisfied with the evidence given before the Commission, but gave the parties liberty to examine witnesses at the bar of the House to rebut the evidence; and they would be at liberty to do that again in reference to any other case, even though the Bill should pass in its present shape. He thought the other Amendments of more practical importance, and one of them still more objectionable. The noble Earl proposed to omit counties and the Universities. He saw no reason for including the Universities, but he could not go so far as to omit counties, which were certainly not free from corruption, though less tainted than boroughs; and he thought it was possible to do all that was required, and in a preferable form, by omitting any enumeration at all of the various classes of constituencies to be subjected to the operation of the Bill. With regard to the Amendment, as to an inquiry into retrospective elections, he agreed that some limitation was desirable; but the Amendment proposed would not meet the case, and would go greatly beyond the professed object, frequently operating as an effectual screen to the very practices which it was sought to expose, and as an immunity to the most flagrant cases and the most notoriously corrupt constituencies. In cases where the corruption had been most systematic, they
574
might find an occasional pure election by arrangement between the parties; and if they were stopped by that accidental and isolated case of purity from going back to previous elections, inquiry would be evaded. Then the noble Earl proposed to omit altogether the words relating to treating. He certainly thought that a Commission should not issue where there was no greater allegation than the issue of half-crown refreshment tickets. He, for one, however, would sooner run the risk, which he thought extremely small, of inquiring into cases of treating which were quite harmless, than let slip the chance of inquiring into such a flagrant case as that which took place the other day at Monmouth, and which, as regarded moral guilt, could not be considered as in any degree less worthy of punishment than bribery by means of money; and he therefore hoped the noble Earl would turn his mind to this subject, and see whether some arrangement could not be made by which that species of treating which, practically, was for the purpose of influencing voters, might be inquired into under the enactments of this measure.
LORD BROUGHAMthanked the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) for the course he had taken, according to a pledge he had previously given him in 1847, on the eve of the last general election, when he (Lord Brougham) moved a Resolution, pledging the House, after the meeting of the New Parliament, to investigate all cases in which corruption should have been stated to have taken place. He greatly approved of the measure, with one or two exceptions; but they could not close their eyes to the fact that by the Bill they were creating great changes in the law. By the Bill, they might, for the first time in the history of the law, compel a witness, whether he was a party or an accomplice, or whether he was neither one nor the other, but the confidential and professional agent of a party, or of one who was the party, to answer all questions that might be put to him, and to produce all documents, books, and papers, although his answers, or the production of the documents, might criminate himself; and the only protection afforded to him was, that in giving his evidence before the Commission which instituted so searching an inquiry, they might, if they pleased, give him a certificate indemnifying him from any further proceedings. By the provisions of

575
the Bill, they denounced with serious pains and penalties him who should give false testimony before the Commission. Now, it was only from the utter abhorrence with which he regarded these awful crimes of bribery, of corruption, and of perjury, and from the painful conviction under which they all laboured, that those crimes were too generally, too habitually, perpetrated, that he, or he believed any of their Lordships, could be induced to vote for the passing of a measure creating such a tribunal as was contemplated by this Bill. It was said they were giving no new powers to the House of Commons. In one sense they were not. In the ordinary sense the House of Commons would be endowed with no new powers; but if the Bill stood as it was, the House of Commons would be armed with the power of creating a tribunal endowed with the extraordinary powers to which he had referred. Then the House of Commons were to be the judges on such questions. But there was an important check or safeguard, for there was to be a Committee of the House of Commons, which Committee was required to report to the House, so that there could be no want of due consideration of the address for inquiry. He thought, however, it might be well for their Lordships to consider whether they would not add their interposition to that of the House of Commons. He considered that if general powers were given to the Commissioners—powers of going back for the purposes of inquiry fifteen or twenty years-it would give rise to the greatest inconvenience. Yet if they could only go back for a year, no contest might have taken place that year, and still the greatest corruption and bribery might have occurred in the year before. He thought on the whole it would be much better to lay down a fixed rule, and that it would be the most convenient course to take a certain number of elections—or, better still, of years. For instance, what harm would there be in taking six or seven years, which would generally include two general elections? He saw nothing in this Bill in reference to the intimidation exercised at elections—it was limited to corruption only. He admitted there was much difficulty in getting at intimidation. Yet if a case could be made out, he did not see why that should not form a subject for inquiry. However, he would not risk the fate of the Bill by proposing any addition of this kind. The
576
subject of treating was also one most difficult to be dealt with. Treating was the colour and the shift for bribery, and they who had undergone—he ought to say the misery, but he would only say the honour of a contested election—well knew this. He recollected that he was concerned many years ago in a contested election, where the currency was in beer tickets; and, on speaking of the enormous expense incurred for treating, that is, for bribery, under the form of treating, amounting to 50,000 l. or 60,000 l., he was told it was much worse the other side of the estuary, for there the tickets were for wine; so that the difference in the expenses was the difference between the price of beer and the price of wine. There were at all those places central committees, where the beer or wine tickets could be exchanged for anything which was not either wine or beer. But why, he might be asked, should they prevent a man who came a great distance to record his vote from partaking of some trifling refreshment? but this hardship was as nothing, compared to the importance of stopping bribery and corruption; and this they could never do if they did not altogether close the door against treating. He was convinced that if the knowledge that all circumstances connected with an election could be entered into upon petition—could be made to reach candidates and their agents—it would greatly diminish the evils complained of. In every contested election where bribery took place, a petition might be brought; and where a petition was brought, a Committee might be appointed to inquire into its allegations, and before that Committee any party might be subjected to examination. Under the new law, his (Lord Brougham's) Evidence Act of last Session, the party as well as his agent might be subjected to the most searching and stringent examination—an examination conducted with all the ability and all the zeal—he would not say all the unscrupulousness, for in such a case there ought to be no scruple—but with all the searching zeal and practised skill of counsel who would inquire not only into what the party knew to have taken place, but into what he believed or suspected to have taken place. Every one knew the effect of refusing to answer, on the ground that it might criminate the party: his seat, or his chance of a seat, was gone. When these things were known to persons engaged in electioneering contests, it was his sanguine

577
hope that the evils so much complained of would be greatly diminished. Sooner or later they must be known; and then the operation of the new law would be, he trusted, effectual.
The EARL of HARROWBYwas in favour of including the counties and the Universities, because it would be invidious to draw a distinction; but that made the question of treating one of more delicacy. To pay country clergymen their expenses in going to vote at a University election was not with a view to bribery. Should not the thing prohibited be bribery by money or by entertainment—a thing done with the effect and intention of corrupting the voter? In respect of some of the provisions of the Bill—it was an evil to be making conventional offences of what public opinion did not stigmatise as offences; a law of this kind should be such as to carry with it the feeling that the offence was not merely a political, but a moral one. As to a concurrent Address, the objection of the noble Earl well deserved consideration. It would be inconvenient to have investigation after investigation, and their Lordships might not be satisfied with an investigation in which they had no share, and which was made at the instance of a Committee not upon oath, receiving evidence not upon oath. He thought their Lordships ought to insist upon their concurrence in the inquiry as a security for the liberty of the subject; for everything that gave to an investigation a grave and judicial character, was of the highest importance.
The LORD CHANCELLORconfessed that, with regard to the first point, namely, whether the Bill should extend to counties and the Universities, as well as towns, he approved of the Bill as it stood formerly. The introduction of the words "counties and Universities" was a sort of compliment to towns and cities. He did not wish to speak harshly of the latter, but many of them were notoriously corrupt, and it was on account of their corruption that the Bill was introduced. That, however, was not the case in regard to the Universities, and, in common justice, they ought to be excluded. Then, in respect to counties, though he did not deny there had been bribery, yet no one would venture to say it had been practised to such an extent in counties as to call on the House to include them in this measure. If bribery had not been extensively carried on in boroughs, it was perfectly clear the
578
Bill would never have been introduced. He asked, then, on every principle of justice, whether counties and the Universisities ought to be included, simply because a necessity had arisen to apply stringent provisions to boroughs and cities? In regard to their Lordships' privileges, he asked them to consider for a moment what they were doing? By assenting to it, they would give up their right to the first step founded on the Report of the Committee. The House of Commons was to originate the inquiry by a Committee; but when that Committee decided on an inquiry taking place, how was it to be conducted? The Bill proposed to give the Commission the most unguarded powers, which no man would apply to himself personally, and which nothing but the strongest and most urgent reasons would justify that or any other country granting to a tribunal. By assenting to this arrangement, their Lordships would give up any power they might now possess. The Bill proposed to meet all the cases that had been mentioned by one operation; and if it passed in its present shape, this House would not have the slightest power in regard to the issuing of the Commission. And then, to whom were those powers to be entrusted? The clause provided that they should be barristers of seven years' standing. He had great respect for the Bar; but there were many barristers whom he would not intrust with the inquiry: before he did so, he should like to know their antecedents, what they had been doing for the past seven years, and whether they were likely to exorcise the powers to be entrusted to them properly or recklessly. It was not enough that they were even of seven years' standing at the bar—they ought to be persons of recognised ability, and in whom confidence might be placed. The Bill asked their Lordships to abrogate their powers for the time to come; and he understood the Amendment to be to maintain those powers just as they were at present. He trusted the hope expressed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) as to the Bill deterring persons from being concerned in corrupt practices, would be fulfilled, for that was a consummation very much to be desired. He should like to know what good purpose would be effected by this crusade against all past offences. Was it desirable that they should reopen all those past transactions? He maintained that it was not, and that it was most convenient some stop and limitation should be pu

579
upon the Commissioners, in order that they should not extend their investigations beyond a specified period. As to treating, no reasonable man would put it upon the same footing as bribery. There ought to be some provision against treating, provided that it did not strike at the root of fair and legitimate treating. He would, therefore, propose that treating should not form part of this Bill, but should be made the subject of a separate measure. If the Amendments proposed by his noble Friend were adopted, they would greatly improve the measure, and render it somewhat more satisfactory to the public.
LORD TRUROsaid, that the House of Commons did at present possess extensive powers in reference to bribery, but they had been found inefficient, and all parties had agreed that it was proper and necessary that those powers should be increased. The object of this Bill was no doubt to confer upon the House of Commons increased powers—powers to investigate and discover the existence of evils in reference to elections, and to apply a practical remedy. It had been suggested that this Bill would in effect take from their Lordships some of their privileges. He (Lord Truro) was not aware of anything contained in this Bill which was at all open to such an objection. The House of Commons possessed at this moment extensive means of inquiry; hut these means had been found not sufficient to effect the object they all professed to desire. The House of Commons did not ask to have the power of themselves to institute such an inquiry: all they asked was that their Lordships should be parties to the creation of such a power on their part. Doubts had been expressed as to the manner in which the powers so created would be exercised. No doubt it was a matter of great importance that these powers should be so exercised as to furnish ground on which reliance could be placed, when they came to further legislative interference with the borough or city in respect to which the Commission had been issued; and he warned their Lordships against interposing any obstacle in the way of such an inquiry, lest they should suffer in public opinion. If the Commissioners misconducted themselves, what would be the result? Simply, that; the House would not act upon their report. In his opinion it would not be politic to limit the period for inquiry. They did not want to know whether there was bribery at any particular election—they de-
580
sired to arrive at what was the character of the borough. If proper persons were appointed Commissioners, they would be able to decide what ought to be the limit of the inquiry. If they found bribery at the last election, they would refer to the preceding, and so on. His noble Friend had referred to some former Bills brought in upon the subject. Now, all former measures had fallen short of the end proposed. No one objected to the present Bill because it would not effect the purpose for which it was designed. The objections were, first of all, that it interfered with their Lordships' privileges, and then that its powers were too extensive. The first of these objections, he thought, was untenable; and the second was an advantage rather than objection. The legislation of past times was always defective because it did not go far enough; and he trusted their Lordships would not, by impairing this Bill, render the measure open to the same reproach. He was anxious that their Lordships should manifest to the country that they were desirous of putting an end to bribery, and of keeping the representation of the country pure. They had good security that the Commissioners would take care that their inquiries did not stretch too far back, in the fact that it would be useless. They had also good security that proper persons would be appointed, in the fact that important interests were at stake, and in the fact that they would have the opportunity of questioning the propriety of their judgments. If they found that they were questionable, it was in their Lordships' power to refuse to act.
LORD CRANWORTHtrusted the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) would not press the Amendment, by which an Address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament, instead of from one only, would be rendered necessary, because it appeared to him that to introduce such a provision into the Bill would make the whole measure a mere nullity. The House of Commons at present could, without legislation, appoint a Committee of Inquiry, and could address the Crown for a Commission, and could introduce a Bill to enable such a Commission to work efficiently, and such a Bill must necessarily come before their Lordships for their sanction; and, moreover, for the purpose of disfranchisement, a legislative enactment must pass both Houses. If, therefore, the Amendment were passed, the Bill would confer, in effect, no powers

581
beyond those already possessed by the House of Commons. ["No, no!"] In what, then, would the difference be? There must be an Address in that House, and an Address in the Commons, and exactly the same discussion must ensue in both Houses. ["No, no!"] To say "no" was to cast a reflection upon that House; for would not their Lordships take as much pains to discuss a question of so much importance as that of depriving a borough of its ancient rights, as the House of Commons? As to the appointment of the Commissioners, he felt that there would be an infinitely better selection made if it was left to the Crown, than if the power was vested in either House of Parliament. The feeling of responsibility would influence the Crown in its selection. If they left out counties and Universities, he did not see on what principle they could include cities or boroughs. With regard to treating, he must say that in the case of the Universities, alluded to by the noble Earl on the cross benches, it seemed to him that of all places in the world exception was least required in them, because the voter from a distance could go to his college and obtain the refreshments he needed without difficulty.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; House in Committee accordingly.
On Clause 1,
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that the reason he had given notice of the Amendment to omit the Universities and counties from the Bill, was, that they had been inserted in the Bill in its third reading by a surprise; and the noble Lord who was the author of the Bill voted in the minority against their being included. After the discussion which had taken place, however, he was satisfied that, practically, the Bill, in reference to the Universities and counties, as far as bribery was concerned, would be a dead letter; and he should therefore withdraw that Amendment. Their Lordships, however, must remember that the purport of this Bill was disfranchisement. ["No, no!"] Yes! for the House of Commons already had the power of instituting any inquiry they might think fit, and of unseating the Member; but they could only affect the seat for a time. To disfranchise the borough permanently, legislation was now necessary. The object of the Bill must, therefore, be inquiry, with a view to disfranchisement; and he would remind their Lordships that never yet had there been a proposition to disfranchise town, city, county, or University for mere
582
treating. It was, therefore, most necessary to define the grounds of inquiry. The noble Earl then moved his other Amendment that the words "Address of the House of Commons" in the first clause should be omitted, and the words "a joint Address of both Houses of Parliament" be substituted.
LORD CAMPBELLthought that the Amendment would be detrimental to the Bill; but admitted that, at the same time, it was most necessary to watch and guard against the encroachments of the House of Commons, in which, he regretted to say, that he had of late seen a disposition practically to legislate for and govern the country alone. The conduct of the other House in reference to an Address to the Crown, touching the better regulation of the Post Office, afforded a bad precedent. Nothing could be more dangerous than that one House should attempt to legislate for the whole Empire. As to the Commissioners, there was no fear of any encroachment in respect to them, as their Report was to be presented to their Lordships' House equally with the Commons. He thought the Amendment was quite unnecessary, and extremely detrimental to the measure.
EARL GREYsaid, that he could not help expressing a little astonishment that their Lordships should be called upon to divide on this question. He would remind the House that this measure had been introduced into the other House of Parliament by the noble Lord lately at the head of the Government, and had been prepared by it with the greatest care; and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated at a very early period after the late Government leaving office that it was one of the measures which he was anxious to carry through Parliament. The Bill was read a second time by a majority of 281 to 6. No Amendments were moved in the Bill during its progress on the part of the Government, with the exception of the insertion of words making it applicable to counties and Universities. It was under these circumstances, most unexpectedly and without notice of any kind, that the noble Earl now proposed the present Amendment. He did not believe that their Lordships' privileges required the protection afforded by the proposed Amendment. The best possible results might be anticipated from the operation of this Bill, even in cases where it was not considered necessary to agree to the disfranchisement of any place to which the inquiry had been direct-

583
ed. For instance, he could easily suppose that extensive bribery and corruption might be found to exist in a large county or borough constituency, such as the county of York, or the town of Liverpool. It might not be considered necessary to disfranchise either of these constituencies; but even if it were not, still the exposure of the corrupt practices could not fail to be attended with beneficial results. The single object of this Bill was to obviate the risk that every man knew practically existed of a difference between the two Houses of Parliament, as to whether there should be an inquiry or not, and to make provision, once for all, that upon an address of the House of Commons an inquiry should take place. The noble Earl now called upon their Lordships to accept an Amendment, the adoption of which would be only an indirect, and therefore a less honest and straightforward way of throwing out the Bill. If they were to agree to this Amendment, it would be idle to go on with this Bill, for every one knew there would be no chance of the other House agreeing to it with the words suggested by the noble Earl. He thought it would be much better at once to move that the Chairman report progress and sit again next week.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that the noble Earl had thrown new light on the motives of those who had introduced the Bill. He (the Earl of Derby) had previously thought that the Bill had been introduced for the purpose of putting a stop to bribery and corruption at elections, by affording the means of a very extensive inquiry into those alleged practices before a competent tribunal. But the noble Earl had just informed them that the Bill had been introduced for the single purpose of enabling the inquiry to be made by a vote of the House of Commons, without the necessity of asking the concurrence of their Lordships in the inquiry; and the noble Earl had further said, that this mode of proceeding would obviate the inconvenience of a difference of opinion between the two Houses. Why, the very same argument would apply to every other subject of legislation; but he begged to say that this was setting their Lordships' House and authority altogether out of consideration, and giving them no weight in the constitution of the country; for he believed that by the constitution of the country it was intended that in all matters of legislation their Lordships should have a full and equal share with the House of Commons.
584
What the Government proposed to do by the Amendment which he had proposed, was to facilitate the operations of Parliament—not the House of Commons alone, but of both Houses—in exposing and punishing gross bribery and corruption; and the noble Earl could not go further than he (the Earl of Derby) would in obtaining that end by a regular and constitutional mode of proceeding. But the noble Earl said that the Amendment would make an alteration with respect to the authority of that House. He (the Earl of Derby) would take the liberty of contradicting the noble Earl upon that point. The Amendment would not add to the existing power and authority of their Lordships' House, hut would retain it precisely where it stood at present. While agreeing now, once for all, that a machinery should be adopted for the discovery and punishment of bribery in all future cases, their Lordships, by this Amendment, claimed for themselves—and he believed they were entitled to claim—the same power which they now had of deciding in each case whether the machinery which was intended to be applied was applicable to that particular case. It might he that this point did not strike the mind of the Members of the House of Commons so forcibly as it would strike their Lordships in the maintenance of their own privileges; but could it be said that their Lordships were really seeking a single extension of the powers of that House when they asked that the same concurrence should be given in future in regard to the single stage of an Address, as was now given in all stages of legislation?
EARL FITZWILLIAMwas of opinion that if the Amendment were adopted, the House of Commons would have some reason to say that it was an encroachment on their privileges; but that was not precisely the ground upon which he objected to it. He objected to it principally because it appeared to him that in many cases it might place their Lordships in a position of difficulty and embarrassment, for they must institute some inquiry of their own before they could join in any Address of the Commons, as proposed by the Amendment. He was not satisfied with the manner in which the Commissioners were to be appointed. He thought it would be much better to take their appointment out of the hands of the Executive of the day, and vest it in some high legal authority.
EARL ST. GERMANScomplained that no notice had been given of the Amend-

585
ments which the Government intended to propose in Committee on the Bill. It was quite in the power of their Lordships, if they thought the inquiry had been improperly conducted, to reject the Bill which happened to be sent up; but the Amendment of the noble Earl, if adopted, would entirely alter the character of this Bill.
The EARL of POWISasked what chance there was for an effective inquiry under the Bill as it then stood? Suppose the Address carried, and Commissioners appointed to make a Report to the Crown against some borough, their Lordships would be placed in the position of being obliged either to accept the Report, in the obtaining of which they had given no concurrence, and which had been made by persons in whom, perhaps, they had little confidence, or to institute an inquiry of their own, and exposing themselves to the charge of trying thereby to screen a corrupt borough. It had not always followed that evidence which had satisfied the House of Commons had succeeded in satisfying the House of Lords, as their Lordships would remember in the case of the borough of Stafford. He therefore supported the Amendment, which he did not consider as any interference with the privileges of the House of Commons.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEthought that the argument which the noble Earl had urged in favour of the Amendment was an exceedingly strong argument against it. His noble Friend very truly said that there had been cases in which the House of Lords were not satisfied with the evidence which had been taken by the House of Commons, and he deduced from that circumstance the inference that they would probably dissent from the report of the Commissioners appointed under the Address by the Commons. Now, that was an argument which was directly opposed to that which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) asked them to do. The noble Earl asked them upon the strength of a report of a Committee of the House of Commons to join that House in an address to the Crown, which report their Lordships could have had in no proper sense before them unless they requested a copy of it by an address to the Crown.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that if he thought the privileges of their Lordships' House at all interfered with by the present Bill, he should have been the first to accede to the Amendment of the noble Earl. He should have acceded to
586
the Amendment, although he had not had the opportunity of considering it before; for, until he heard the Amendment from the lips of the noble Earl himself, he was not aware that any such Amendment was intended to be proposed. But he felt satisfied that in no respect did it do so. It should be borne in mind that the whole object of the Bill was simply to provide the means for a preliminary inquiry, and to render such inquiry more efficacious. The noble Earl had said, that the necessity of the Amendment was not so likely to strike the Members of the House of Commons as it would their Lordships; and certainly it would seem that there was a great difference between the atmosphere of the two Houses—and that the difference had affected even the noble Earl's own Colleagues in the other House, for although those eminent persons were enjoying the confidence of the noble Earl, and were in weekly, daily, nay, hourly communication with him during the three weeks that the Bill was before the other House, they never discovered by the light of their own understandings, assisted though it was by the light of the understanding of the noble Earl, that there were any constitutional objections whatever to the Bill. Night after night these eminent persons had moved the Bill—they were invited to state their opinions—night after night they heard Amendments moved by other hon. Members, some of which they supported; but on behalf of the constitution, on behalf of the head of the Government, it never once occurred to them to move this Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Content 78; Not-Content 34: Majority 44.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Erne

DUKES.

Harewood

Cleveland

Hardwicke

Manchester

Harrowby

Montrose

Jersey

Northumberland

Lonsdale

Richmond

Lanesborough.

Rutland

Lucan

MARQUESSES.

Mansfield

Drogheda

Malmesbury

Salisbury

Macclesfield

EARLS.

Mountcashell

Abingdon

Nelson

Airlie

Powis

Cardigan

Roden

Cathcart

Romney

Cawdor

Rosse

Dartmouth

Rosslyn

Derby

Sandwich

Desart

Selkirk

Donoughmore

Sheffield

587

Stradbroke

BARONS.

Talbot

De Ros

Wilton

Berners

Winchilsea

Boston

Verulam

Calthorpe

VISCOUNTS.

Clarina

Hereford

Castlemaine

Combermere

Colvile of Culross

Gough

Colchester

Hawarden

Downes

Gage

Dunsandle

Hill

Dynevor

Melville

Forester

Ponsonby

Gray

Sidmouth

Rayleigh

BISHOPS.

Redesdale

Bangor

St. John

Cashel

Sandys

Chichester

Southampton

Gloucester

Tenterden

Rochester

Walsingham

The LORD CHANCELLORproposed an Amendment, in regard to the appointment of the Commissioners, that they should be named in the Address to the Crown before it left the Commons.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE was understood to oppose it.
LORD CAMPBELLwould have supported a proposal that the Government should name them, or rather that the Lord Chancellor should do so; hut, although he had been a Member of the other House, and felt a great respect for them, the last thing he would have them to do would he the appointment of Judges. In the case of St. Albans, the appointment was made by the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. He should be very sorry to hold the patronage, however, for he had just now to appoint two revising barristers on the Northern Circuit, and 150 applications had been sent in to him.
The EARL of DERBY: By the Bill as it stood at present, the names of the Commissioners were to be inserted in the Bill as it passed the House of Commons. It was afterwards sent up to their Lordships' House for their concurrence. But the names would now be inserted in the Address to the Crown, and instead of being considered by their Lordships in the Bill, they would now be considered in the Address.
EARL FITZWILLIAMopposed the Amendment.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEwished to know what would be the exact course and purport of the joint Address? If there were two separate independent Addresses, the House of Commons Address might contain the names of individuals selected by that House, and the other might con-
588
tain separate and distinct names. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) perhaps meant to have recourse to a conference between the two Houses; but he (the Duke of Newcastle) apprehended there would not be an opportunity for a conference between the two Houses, so as to arrange the matter of the names to he inserted in the Address.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the object of the Amendment was to secure the nomination of competent persons upon the commission; and the names would be selected with great care, diligence, and inquiry, under the spur of the knowledge that they would he submitted to the approval of the Crown and the House of Lords,
Amendment agreed to.
On Clause 6, giving the Commissioners power to inquire whether there had been corrupt practices at elections "for such a period retrospectively as they should think proper," and "whether any corrupt practice by way of treating has been carried on at any such election,"
The EARL of DERBYproposed to strike out the words "for such a period retrospectively as they should think proper," and to introduce words providing that if the Commissioners found that there had been corrupt practices at the election which was the subject of the report of the Committee, they might inquire into the next previous election, and so on in like manner from election to election, as far back as they should think fit, until they reached an election where, upon inquiry, they found no corrupt practices to exist, and then they should not inquire further back. It had been suggested that this limit should have reference either to a certain number of years, or a certain number of elections; but neither of those limitations were satisfactory. There might be, as in the case of Harwich, five elections within a very brief space, and then, if the limit was that of a certain number of elections, it might not extend over six months. On the other hand, there might be a place which had had no election for seven years, and then, unless the period extended over many years, the inquiry would be limited to one election. It appeared, therefore, to the Government that the only method of really carrying out the objects of the Bill would he by first examining into the election which the Committee of the House of Commons had decided as being tainted with corrupt practices, and then to go back until they came to a pure election,

589
at which point it was proposed by the Amendment to stay the inquiry. The noble Earl also proposed to strike out the words relating to treating. Cases of treating could still be investigated by Committees of the House of Commons; but it had not been made cause of disfranchisement, and the powers of the Commissioners should be reserved for the gravest offences. It was exceedingly difficult to deal with treating, and impossible legally to define it, and it would be better not to place it on a footing with that which was a statutable offence.
The Marquess of LANSDOWNE and Earl FITZWILLIAM were understood to object to this mode of limitation.
After a few observations from the Earl of HARROWBY and Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
Amendment agreed to.
On the Amendment respecting treating being moved,
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved that systematic corruption had been effected by treating, and if all other means of bribing were cut off by an Act of Parliament, treating would be still more resorted to for the same purpose.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, the fact of Parliamentary Committees having disagreed as to what amount of refreshment constituted bribery, showed how difficult it was to deal with such an undefinable offence.
EARL GREYadmitted it was perfectly true there was a great difference of opinion on the question of treating. He thought it would be very hard to deprive a Member of his seat because he gave some trifling refreshment to the electors; but the practice was blameable, inasmuch as it was capable of considerable extension. There was one form of corruption which had not been mentioned in the course of the discussion. It was a very common practice, in small boroughs, to buy up the public-houses; and he recollected when he was canvassing for a seat in Parliament, he was told by a publican he would not vote for him unless some money was spent at his house. In some instances the publicans got up a contest themselves, in the hope of personal gain. In conclusion, he thought no reason had been shown for excluding the Commissioners from exercising their discretion whether treating was or was not one of the forms of corruption practised.
Their Lordships then divided: Content 68; Not-Content 35; Majority 33.
Other Amendments made. Report to be received on Friday next.
House adjourned till To-morrow.