Lords Sitting of 28 July 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Colonial Governors Tensions Act Amendment * (239).
Committee—Inland Revenue * (279); Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (287); Danube Works Loan * (272); Saint Mary Somerset's Church, London. * (278).
Report—Inland Revenue * (279); Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (287); Danube Works Loan * (272); Saint Mary Somerset's Church, London, * (278).
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; Colonial Shipping * (274); Turnpike. Acts Continuance * (253); Electric Telegraphs (282); Expiring Laws Continuance * (280); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 4) * (273); Poor Lair Board Provisional Order Confirmation * (266); Registration (Ireland) (28l), and passed.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.

  (NO. 287.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that the question dealt with by this Bill was one of such importance that, notwithstanding the late period of the Session at which it had come up to their Lordships, he wished to trespass upon their attention for a few minutes while he expressed his opinion upon it. He thought that the transfer of the jurisdiction of the House of Commons in deciding upon election cases to the Judges was a very serious matter, and ought not to have been done without the gravest consideration. If, indeed, he could believe that the transfer would lead to the repression of bribery at elections, he should be inclined to waive his objections; but, he must say, he did not anticipate that such would be the result. The transfer of jurisdiction he regarded as in itself an evil, and it was certainly a great change in our Constitution; for although the Grenville Act and subsequent Acts had transferred the jurisdiction from the whole body of the House to five Members of it, the power had virtually jested, up to the present moment, with the House of Commons. But it was now, for the first time, to be taken away altogether. It seemed to him a grave constitutional question, whether the House of Commons should part with this tribunal. Another evil of the transfer was that there would not be henceforth the same opportunity for that exercise of business habits which
  1890
  made the House of Commons something more than a mere debating society. If both Election Petitions and Private Bill legislation were taken away from them, the functions of Members of the House of Commons would be materially curtailed. This would not have mattered so much, if the House of Commons had retained ultimate decision over these matters; but their whole powers were transferred to the Judges, and nothing kept back. He did not believe the Bill now under discussion would be a remedy for electoral corruption, for the evil, he feared, was too deep-seated to be removed by this measure. He was sorry, too, to find that a great deficiency of the present system had not been supplied—he referred to the want of motive power. Only electors would be able to initiate proceedings, and the consequence would be that in the very boroughs where there had been the greatest corruption, and where both parties had been engaged in and had profited by it, no Petitions would be presented. It was notorious that the worst cases were those in which, both parties being afraid of the consequences, no Petitions were presented. Now what was wanted was that any persons, whether electors or not, should be competent to bring forward cases, or else that a public prosecutor should be appointed. The matter ought not to be left to the electors, because the most flagrant cases would then he hushed up. The consequence would be that the Bill would altogether fail to put an end to bribery and corruption. Another point deserving of consideration was that legislation was of little use, unless it was supported by public opinion, which was not the fact in the present case. What instance was there of a man engaged in bribery having been on that account discredited in society, or having any moral stigma attached to him? So far from this, he had known cases of men who had been guilty of bribery becoming Cabinet Ministers, and filling the highest offices in the State. Without a healthy public opinion the provisions of this Bill would be of little effect. He believed, indeed, that election agents throughout the country were putting their heads together, and were already coming to the conclusion that corrupt practices would go on much as before, notwithstanding the coming down of a Judge to institute an inquiry on the spot. He was sorry that some provisions which would have been very beneficial had been rejected by the House of Commons.

  1891
  One of these was that election expenses, or at least a moiety of them, should be charged on the rates. That was an excellent proposition, and he regretted that after having been inserted in the Bill it was ultimately struck out. He would say nothing of what passed in the other House on the subject, as he wished to avoid anything offensive, but he much regretted the absence of that clause. He also regretted that an end had not been put to canvassing agents, and, indeed, to canvassing altogether, for if bribery was to be put clown some strong step of this hind must be taken. He approved the clause disqualifying any person who had been guilty of bribery from sitting in Parliament for seven years. He was not so sure, however, that the disqualification should be extended to disqualification for the magistracy, and unless there was to be an Address to the Crown to remove persons guilty of bribery from the commission of the peace he did not see how this provision was to operate. A proposal had been brought forward that Members should make a declaration that they had not been guilty of corrupt practices; but under the circumstances he was glad that it had been rejected. Its operation would probably have been just as nugatory as the property qualification used to be, for it was notorious that Members possessed of some pretended qualification did not scruple to go up to the table of the House of Commons and make the declaration. The declaration against bribery might in the same way have become a mere farce, and he was therefore glad that it had been rejected; but the way in which it was generally recoiled from was a proof that no public opinion existed which would back legislation, and so put an end to bribery. Another question was that of travelling expenses. There was no more frequent form of bribery than the paying voters a larger sum than they had actually disbursed; yet the Bill contained nothing to check this. The municipal Elections were another source of bribery. When the Municipal Reform Act was passed apprehensions were expressed on this point, and it was notorious that bribery prevailed at these elections. This, he feared, would continue to be the case; and indeed bribery might be practised at municipal Elections with a view to influencing Parliamentary Elections. He regretted, therefore, that the Bill did not attempt to deal with the former. There was one remedy for bribery,
  1892
  the ballot; but that was so objectionable in other respects that he, for one, could not support it. At the same time he believed it to be the only effectual check. Again, in this Bill there was a want of definitions. In the 1st clause, indeed, there was a definition of "corrupt practices;" and what were they? They were bribery, treating, and undue influence. In an after-part of the Bill they were told that a Commission was to be issued to inquire into corrupt practices. But was a Commission to be issued to inquire into treating, and, if so, what was the amount of treating to be inquired into? Again, what was undue influence? Would anyone give him a definition of it? He could not conceive anything more difficult. Then there was bribery by custom, as, for instance, if a candidate employed tradesmen in a town—if he employed the butcher, the shoemaker, and the grocer; but, in that case, how could the Bill reach him? And yet bribery in that shape was quite as foul as in any other. He felt that bribery could only be put an end to by creating a public opinion against it; but it might be very much checked in the way he had indicated. He believed that candidates were more in fault than any other persons, and that if they chose really to set their faces against bribery they might do much to put an end to it. He was perfectly willing to admit that it did Her Majesty's Government great credit to have made this attempt to put down bribery, and he had not the slightest intention of opposing the Bill. But he thought that some measure was wanting to bring this offence before the Judges otherwise than through the electors, who were persons very much interested, and who would be under the apprehension of being disfranchised themselves or getting their borough disfranchised. The consequence would be that many cases of bribery most gross and lamentable would never come under the cognizance of the Judges; and in this way the Act would become inoperative.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought that the conclusion which would naturally be drawn from the noble Lord's speech was that he would vote against the Bill, because he considered that no legislation whatever would be of any use—he seemed to consider that the vices of human nature were so inherent and impossible to correct that all attempts to legislate on the subject would be thrown away. That might be the case; but at all events Her Ma-

  1893
  jesty's Government had thought it their duty to try a new course of legislation with regard to bribery when all other courses had failed. As to the privileges of the House of Commons, there could be no doubt that House had fully considered the matter during the period—some months—while the matter was before them. The noble Lord had said that he had no hope from the proposed tribunal, the highest in this or perhaps in any other country, the most respectable, and the most incorruptible. He differed entirely from the noble Lord. Let their Lordships only consider what was the state of opinion out-of-doors about the Committees of the House of Commons in trying Election Petitions. What was the first question asked when a man had got a Committee to try his Petition? It was this—" How is the Committee formed? Is it a good one or a bad one?" Questions of that kind were debated in the most open manner; and what did all that show? Not that the Members of the House of Commons were not capable of giving the best decision in the case, but that public opinion did not respect the tribunal and used to speak of the Committees in the offensive manner he had described. Assuredly, then, it was time to send Election Petitions to be tried before a tribunal which could not possibly be suspected. The noble Lord had said that more ought to be done with a view to encourage the presentation of Petitions. Now he very much doubted the necessity of such a course. By the new Reform Bill the number of electors would be very much multiplied; and almost every man in a borough—at all events almost every man of respectability—and every householder would be an elector, and everyone would have it in his power, on certain conditions, to challenge the election. He thought it very likely that the beaten party would have among its members plenty of persons with zeal enough to challenge the election when needful without the intervention of a public prosecutor. Then the noble Lord had said something about the ballot—that, though he would not vote for it himself, it would be a security against corruption. He differed altogether from the noble Lord. Their Lordships must have heard how the ballot was managed in other countries, how agents were engaged, how they organized bodies of voters, and told them that if Mr. So-and-So came in they would have so much to be divided among them—the candidate would make a conditional promise
  1894
  to the agent and the agent to the voter. This was only a temporary measure; it was only to be passed practically for four years; their Lordships would have an opportunity of seeing how it would work, and of judging of the results.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 23, inclusive,agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Shorthand Writer to attend Trial of Election Petitions).
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, this clause required that the proceedings of these election trials should be taken down by the Shorthand Writers of the House of Commons. He thought that it had better be left to the shorthand writers who usually attended the Courts; but he would not press the Amendments of which he had given notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought his noble and learned Friend had exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing his Amendment. Admitting the respectability and talent of many of the shorthand writers who had signed the petition, he thought that, even if this were a permanent and not merely a temporary measure, there would be several things to be considered before the House would accede to the prayer of their petition. For instance, on the ground of economy alone, it was certainly a very grave question whether it would be wise to do anything which might have the effect of crippling the existing staff of shorthand writers, under the management of the Messrs. Gurney, who were found to perform the duties satisfactorily. But whether wise or unwise in that point of view—and he (the Lord Chancellor) thought it would be unwise—there could be no doubt that any alteration of this clause would come with a very bad grace from their Lordships. The House of Commons was, by this Bill, giving up its jurisdiction over the trial of Election Petitions—a jurisdiction which it had hitherto clung to with great jealousy—and in doing so it had expressed the wish that the record of the proceedings of the new tribunals should be taken down in shorthand by certain officers, of whose efficient discharge of similar duties it had had experience, and in whom it placed entire confidence. This was, he was sure, not a matter in which their Lordships would for a moment think of interfering with the Bill as it had passed the other House.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS BILL.
(The Duke of Montrose.)
ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS BILL.

  (NO. 282.) THIRD READING.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE,in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, that in reference to what had been said on a previous occasion with respect to the expediency of giving powers to make use of the railway wires in certain cases, he desired to explain that the Bill contained a clause empowering the Postmaster General to require the railways to carry on through their wires any business which might be necessary for the convenience of the public. The railway companies wished to have independent wires for their own purposes, but they were willing to act for the Post Office in cases where there might not happen to be a convenient telegraph office or local post office.
  Bill read 3a.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had an Amendment to move in that part of the Bill which provided for the distribution of money by the directors of the telegraph companies in recognition of special services. This clause put into the hands of directors and officers the power of voting money to themselves without much control, and he thought it would be only reasonable that the arbitrator named in the Bill should determine whether the sum was reasonable or not. He, therefore, moved to insert the words, "any sums so voted having been approved of as fair by the arbitrator hereinafter named."
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment, because, if it were adopted, the Bill must go back to the Commons, and delay would thus be occasioned. The fact was that in the case for which the noble Lord wished to provide the shareholders must take care of themselves; and he should hope that, after the notice taken of the subject by the noble Lord, shareholders would be sufficiently alive to prevent any job of that sort. The arbitrator was really not the proper person to settle such a point as this; he was merely to fix the sum to be paid by the Government to these companies, and was not to decide between the directors and the shareholders.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed.

  BABY FARMING.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he desired to ask the Lord President of the Council a Question on a subject which had obtained much notoriety, in a great measure through the efforts of The British Medical Journal, the conductors of which had incurred considerable trouble and expense in searching into this abominable system. The system might be divided into two parts. One, and a comparatively legitimate part, was the baby nursing where infants were placed out to nurse by persons who really looked after them to some extent; the other part was the baby farming, where infants were put out for the sole purpose of being got rid of altogether, or of never being heard of again by the parents. To the class of persons who made this a trade belonged Mrs. Winsor, who escaped from punishment by a strange technicality in the law; and there was every reason to believe that these Mrs. Winsors were numerous, and were carrying on a large trade in many parts of the kingdom. Such a state of things had excited, very naturally, much terror. What, it was asked, could be the state of our laws when they were found so ineffectual as to be totally unable to put down such practices? On the other hand there were persons who relied on the known inefficiency of the law to enter on a career of crime, and the knowledge that this crime existed and was not suppressed produced the worst effect, for it familiarized the public in the most frightful manner with the perpetration of crime, and taught them that it was not to be reached by the law. Under these circumstances he begged to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the System of Baby Farming; and, if so, whether they intend to institute any Inquiry into the subject?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that owing to the Notice of this Question which had been given by his noble Friend, he had caused some inquiries to be made into the subject. Unfortunately it was too true that a system of what was called baby farming existed, under which the grossest crimes might be committed. His noble Friend had asked whether the Government intended to institute any inquiry into the subject? but probably the object which his noble Friend had in view might be somewhat defeated if the Government were to institute such an inquiry. He believed

  1897
  that the facts were not such as to demand inquiry. The system was well known. Persons who had an unnatural desire to get rid of their children put them out to nurse in the charge of those who, by neglect or other methods with which they were familiar, probably brought about the deaths of these poor infants. It was intolerable that such nets as these should be committed in a civilized country, and yet escape without punishment by the law. But the matter was rather one of police than of sanitary investigation. Measures might be adopted for putting an end to so inhuman a practice, either by registering the houses of persons taking these children to nurse, or by a system of licensing combined with periodical inspection by properly qualified officers. He was glad the noble Earl had asked the Question, because this was a Subject of great importance. Government would turn their attention to it during the Recess, and he hoped they would be able to discover means which, embodied in a Bill, would obviate the dangerous abuses to which attention had been directed.

REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 281.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD STRATHNAIRN: With a considerable experience of Ireland, my Lords, and as commanding the troops in that country, I cannot refrain from expressing my great regret that the Registration Bill should have come up without the salutary measure of the increase of polling-places. The distance and scarcity of polling-places not only facilitate, but invite attack on voters, and render necessary the employment of troops at elections. The bad effects of troops being thus employed are so universally recognized and have been so often brought before your Lordships that I shall not dilate on the matter. The distance and scarcity of polling-places cause great concentration of voters and the consequent concentration of rioters, and necessitate those long journeys by road through a highly-excited country which are so dangerous to voters. The increase and proper distribution, my Lords, of polling-places obviate these disadvantages, enable electors to vote in comparative security, and render unnecessary the general employment of troops at elections. If the increase of polling-places in Ireland was at all times
  1898
  called for, they are doubly so since, as was seen at the Tipperary and Waterford elections, the elements of disorder and intimidation have been organized by men who have learnt tactics in the American war. For example, barricades, strongly constructed with trunks of trees and large stones, are drawn across the road in ground which enables assailants, under cover, to attack the escorts on both flanks with a cross-fire of stones. At one place in Waterford one of these barricades was drawn across a sunken road; on the almost precipitous banks looking into it were stationed men ready to roll down rocks and stones on the voters as they passed. Luckily, the voters took another road. If they had not, your Lordships can judge how many good farmers and good soldiers would have been killed or cruelly maimed. At another place four-cross-roads was selected as the place of attack, as favouring the concentration of rioters from different quarters. They arrived at the rendezvous with a punctuality which would have done credit to the Quarter Master General's Department. They were placed in two lines—one attacking, one in reserve; both under cover. All the gaps leading from the roads into the fields had been solidly built up to prevent cavalry clearing rioters out of the fields; and piles of large angular stones called "smashers" had been carefully stored up in rows on each side of the roads. A man performing the duties of Staff officer rode continually during the collision which ensued with orders from the first to the second line. The results of these organized attacks on voters and their escorts were in the Waterford election thirty-six casualties among the military. Some of them were serious. One, a corporal of the Carbineers, a very good man, hovered between life and death from concussion of the brain by a "smasher." Another, a captain of the 75th, had his eye cut out by a stone. Under these circumstances, and as recent political events, into which I will not enter, render it more than probable that the coming elections will be unusually stormy, I venture to ask my noble Friend who has charge of the Bill whether it would not be possible, even now at the eleventh hour, to improve the old law in a way which would afford some protection to voters, and obviate the unsparing employment of troops at elections. For I am sure, my Lords, that you will agree with me that the present condition of elections in Ireland is

  1899
  very unsatisfactory, and discreditable to humanity, good and civilized government, and the freedom and independence of election. I beg to say, my Lords, that I have made these observations, not under the influence of any party feeling whatever, but solely from a sense of professional feeling.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Certainly, no authority on this subject can be higher than that of the noble and gallant Lord. I regret extremely it is now too late to do what he wishes to do—namely, to increase the number of polling-places in Ireland by an Act of Parliament. I must inform my noble Friend that the Government had taken measures for increasing their number in the counties, and that clauses with that object were prepared and inserted in the Registration Bill for Ireland when it was presented to the House of Commons. I regret still more to say that they met with so factious, so unbending, so determined, and what, looking to the consequences that may follow, I may call so wicked an opposition, that the Government were obliged to withdraw them; that opposition coming from those who two years ago were advocates for an increased number of polling-places. It is a disagreeable thing to attribute motives to anybody at any time; but, looking at the palpable advantage on the score of convenience of increasing the number of polling-places in a country where, in some cases, they are thirty and thirty-five miles apart, and seeing the palpable advantage to humanity and peace, and the general good of society in those districts, of increasing the number of polling-places, it is almost impossible not to impute motives as actuating the violent manner in which the Government were opposed on this particular point, There can be no doubt that an increase of polling-places in Ireland would not only contribute to the peace and tranquillity of the elections, but would render it unnecessary to employ a great number of the troops that are employed to maintain order. That of itself would be of a great advantage. Putting on one side the question of fairness and justice with respect to the elections in the counties, the very fact that one-half the number of troops would be required at the elections ought to have been the strongest inducement to any Irishman to do as much as possible to increase the; number of polling-places. It is now too late to consider the question. The Government having been baffled in the manner
  1900
  I have described, I have only to say I trust the good sense of the people of Ireland and the courage of the electors themselves will contribute to maintain peace and order, and, although I sincerely trust that nothing of the sort will be necessary, Her Majesty's Government will feel it to be their duty to maintain order if it is broken, and I think the maintenance of that order cannot be in better hands than that of my noble and gallant Friend.
  LORD DENMANthought it was due to Ireland that something of a conciliatory nature should be said before the close of the Session, and that every facility should be given for electors to register their votes, and it was to be lamented that the efforts of the Government had not proved successful in this respect. One of his first reasons for joining the party of the noble Earl late at the head of the Government, as he stated to him by letter, before his seeming likely to be again in Office (in January, 1858), was his knowledge of the forbearing and generous conduct at the time of the potato famine towards his tenants in Ireland by remitting their rents when they had not the means of paying them, and by forgiving them the severance of crops, and by paying their passage to a country where they might better their condition. He could not imagine how bitterness amongst such emigrants could be entertained. He had the honour of holding a name which of itself promised justice to Ireland; and acting on the conviction that Fenianism was not general, and that antipathy to England was not founded on the question of religion, he had called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to an old historical document, which showed that in 1641 there was an unreasonable desire, that—
  "Such of the English as could not prescribe a settlement in this Kingdom (Ireland) for 200 years are to be cut off, notwithstanding they be of the Romish Sect; and, what exceeds all, not an English beast, nor any of that breed, must be left in the Kingdom."—[Somer's Tracts,vol. 5, p. 578.]
  This unreasonable prejudice, then as now, had no foundation; and as the prerogative of mercy had been extended at the last moment, he could not but hope that his intercession in May of last year had helped to turn the balance in favour of the convicts whose case just before had seemed hopeless; and, as regarded the passing of abstract Resolutions with reference to the Irish Church they were likely to prove as

  1901
  abortive as the Appropriation Clause of 1835, and would do no more to advance a settlement in Ireland than any vague declamation in Hyde Park could have advanced the cause of Reform.
  Bill read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Four o'clock.