HL Deb 02 August 1869 vol 198 cc1077-85

(The Lord Lurgan.)

(NO. 210.) SECOND BEADING.

On Order of the Day for the Second Reading,

LORD REDESDALE

said, he felt it his duty to move that the Order be discharged.. Their Lordships were aware of the care he had always taken to prevent the Business of the House at the close of the Session, being conducted in a manner injurious to the character of the House. He thought it of the greatest possible importance that the House should never be taken by surprise by any measure, and particularly by one of great importance. This Bill came to their Lordships some time ago without any notice of its being a Government measure; and now, when many of their Lordships had left the House for the Session, notice was given—not by a Member of the Government—of an intention to proceed with it. Whether the step was taken with the concurrence of the Government he did not know; but, whether it was or not, he must say that this was a Bill which ought not to be proceeded with at this period of the Session. It was of considerable importance in point of principle, and it was entirely without precedent. There had never before been an inquiry with respect to one class of voters in a borough. He would put it to their Lordships to consider how unfair such a proceeding would be in itself. Suppose a Judge had reported that bribery had prevailed in a particular ward of a borough, would that justify an inquiry with regard to that ward, alone, with a view to its disfranchisement? Their Lordships might feel that this was a Bill affecting the other House, and that it therefore called for some concession from this; but on that very ground he contended that the Bill required particular attention. They all knew that where party feeling ran high, things might be done for a party object, although they were ostensibly done in the name of justice. For this reason their Lordships ought to be jealous of any action of an unusual character in a matter of this kind. Their Lordships could not help knowing that a large body of voters in Dublin were supposed to entertain views which were not in favour with a majority of the present House of Commons; therefore, their Lordships ought to be particularly careful what they did in a matter of this kind, and ought to see that equal justice was done as between the two parties. If there had been any precedent for this Bill, and if it had come before their Lordships under ordinary circumstances, it would have been open to fair discussion; but, considering what had taken place upon the subject, as well as the history of the Bill, and the time of the Session at which it had come up to their Lordships, it was a serious question whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed further. The question of the Dublin election was discussed in that House on the 8th of June, when their Lordships were asked to concur in an Address to the Crown sent up by the Commons, praying for the appointment of a Commission to make inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices at the last Dublin election. In the course of discussion it was shown that the Report of the Judge did not authorize such, a pro- ceeding, and their Lordships did not concur in the Address. In the other House of Parliament, on the 17th of June, a Bill was introduced for disfranchising the freemen of Dublin; but that was thought rather a strong proceeding, and therefore, on the 1st of July, leave was given to introduce this Bill for a Commission. It came up to their Lordships' House on the 22nd of July; and from that date to the 30th no notice was taken of it, although the Bill had been introduced into the other House by the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Under such circumstances most of their Lordships must have believed that the Bill was dropped, and that it was not intended to proceed with it. It was extremely objectionable that a Government measure should pass without notice for so many days at the close of the Session, if it was intended to proceed with it, and such a proceeding was calculated to bring discredit on their Lordships' House. For these reasons he moved that the Order for the second reading be discharged.

Moved, "That the Order of the Day for the Second Reading be discharged." —(The Chairman of Committees.)

EARL GRANVILLE

said, as to this Bill reaching their Lordships at a late period of the Session, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had shown that it did not leave the House of Commons until a very late period; and, as to many noble Lords having left town, there had been above an average attendance that evening; therefore he could not attach the slightest importance to the reasons alleged for rejecting the Bill before the second reading was moved, and he must urge their Lordships to consider the Bill on its merits. He entirely repudiated the idea that the Government was actuated by party motives; and he could not conceive how that stigma could have been applied to the Government if the noble Lord himself had been entirely free from such motives—particularly as the Government had left the Bill to be taken up in that House by a Peer who did not belong to the Administration.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he would not go into the merits of the Bill, which everyone must admit was one of very great gravity. It proposed ex post facto legislation and legislation without precedent. The Bill came up to this House on the 22nd of July; it was now the 2nd of August; during that interval it might have been carried through all its stages if their Lordships had approved it; and now a number of noble Lords, and especially those connected with Ireland, had left London having fairly concluded that the Bill would not be proceeded with. It was not right that such a measure should be brought under their consideration after the Appropriation Bill had been introduced into the other House.

On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 32; Not-Contents 33: Majority 1.

Resolved in the Negative.

Order of the Day read accordingly.

LORD LURGAN

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time said, that it had been carefully considered and fully debated in '' another place,'' and on two occasions had been carried by large majorities. He was aware that the Bill was objected to as a piece of exceptional legislation, and that it was said that the usual course was to act on an Address from both Houses of Parliament. But that course had been adopted in the other House, and their Lordships had declined to join in the Address, owing to some alleged informality in the Judge's Report. The matter had for the time dropped; but that could not be accepted as a final settlement of the question, and the present Bill was introduced, being simply a Bill for the appointment of Commissioners to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices among the freemen electors of the City of Dublin. It was based on the Report of the learned Judge who tried the petition, before whom an immense number of witnesses were examined, and who reported that he had reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed among the freemen. This was certainly a grave charge against them; and, supposing it for a moment to be true, he did not see how another election could be held until after full inquiry—for surely it would be worse than ridiculous to give these freemen, who had thus unworthily exercised the franchise, an opportunity of again disgracing, not only themselves, but also, indirectly, the whole constituency of the metropolis of Ireland. The freemen were undoubtedly a large portion of the constituency of Dublin, number- ing between a fourth and a fifth of the whole body. Under present circumstances he would offer no opinion respecting them; but any noble Lord who wished to learn more of their proceedings at contested elections could read the report of the proceedings at the late trial of the election petition. If all there stated were true, it was quite clear that a case was made out for inquiry and exposure. If, on the other hand, there had been any misapprehension or misrepresentation, it was incumbent on those who agreed with him, and doubly incumbent on noble Lords opposite, who had always found these freemen firm allies, to give them the opportunity, which this Bill afforded, of vindicating their character by an inquiry before Commissioners in whom the utmost reliance might be placed. On these grounds he ventured to ask their Lordships to assent to the second reading of the Bill.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Lurgan.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, the Bill involved a principle which ought not to be sanctioned by the House, and he would therefore move an Amendment that it be read a second time this day three months. Last year an Act had been passed after considerable discussion, putting an end to the trial of election petitions by Committees of the other House. Now, it was because the Report of the learned Judge who tried the Dublin election petition did not conform to the condition of the Act, which would alone justify the issue of a Commission, that their Lordships had refused to concur in the Address which had been sent up from the other House on the subject in the early part of the Session. That Justice Keogh was a man who was likely to commit an informality, no one who knew the distinguished reputation of that learned Judge was likely to believe; and if he had been of opinion that extensive bribery prevailed at the late election for Dublin he was not the person to shrink from giving expression to that opinion in his Report. No objection, he might add, had been made by the Members of the Conservative party in the other House to the issue of Commissions in those cases in which the Judge had reported that extensive bribery prevailed, and to endeavour to make such cases the subject of party contests, and to enter upon the course of legislation proposed by the Government would, he contended, be to run the risk of returning to a state of things in every way discreditable to Parliamentary Government, when almost every contested election was made the subject of a Parliamentary battle. Without wishing to say anything offensive to noble Lords opposite, he must be allowed to point out that in the division which had just been taken the majority against the Motion of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees for the discharge of the Bill was only 1, and that if such questions were to be decided in that sort of way the public out-of-doors could scarcely be expected to regard the decision of the House with any great respect—seeing especially that those who voted in the majority were, for the most part, composed of Members of the Government whose official duties compelled them to stay in town. As to the freemen against whom the Bill was directed, they amounted, he believed, in all to 2,700; and was it right, he would ask, because charges were brought against some 250 of that number, to pass against the whole of them a measure which could not be regarded otherwise than as a measure of pains and penalties? Those 2,700 electors comprised a most respectable class of men, and he for one protested against having the innocent confounded with the guilty in the way proposed, and a stigma cast upon them which they by no means deserved. It should, moreover, be borne in mind that the Act of last Session provided a remedy in cases of corruption. The Attorney General might have prosecuted in those cases; and if he had done so, and it had been proved the law was not sufficient to meet them, then the Act of last Session might have been supplemented by further legislation. Nothing, however, so far as he was aware, had been done by the Government to vindicate the majesty of the law by prosecuting those whose names had been laid before them as guilty of bribery; and he for one objected to the ex post facto legislation which they now invited the House to sanction—legislation, too, which would violate the fundamental principle that a Member of the House of Commons represented the whole of his constituency and not a fractional part of it, whether represented by freemen or lodgers or any other class of voters. For those reasons he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that if he might venture to express an opinion with respect to the credit of the House to which the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) had alluded, he did not think it would be consulted by a refusal to pass the present Bill, and thus far placing their Lordships in the position of protectors of corrupt voters. What was the exact point involved in the measure? The noble Earl seemed in his speech completely to overlook the fact that Mr. Justice Keogh, who tried the election petition, had reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed among the freemen of Dublin at the last election—a fact which, by no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, had been deemed sufficient ground for praying the Crown to issue a Commission of Inquiry. Their Lordships refused to concur with the other House in the Address praying for the issue of such a Commission, because it was pointed out that there might be some doubt—which he supposed was what his noble Friend behind meant when he spoke of an informality—as to whether such a Report as Mr. Justice Keogh had made entitled the House to vote an Address to the Crown. That was a technical difficulty; but looking to the spirit of the Act of last Session he felt sure that the noble Lord opposite would feel that it would be absurd that Parliament should be precluded from dealing with the case of a corrupt class of voters, merely because they happened to be supporters of the one political party or the other in the State. Mr. Justice Keogh, at the end of his judgment, said that it was proved by what appeared to him most conclusive evidence, direct and circumstantial, that the freemen of the City of Dublin had been shown to a great extent to be corrupt voters, and that he would leave the House of Commons to deal with their case and with the constituency as affected by it. What could be more clear than that Mr. Justice Keogh contemplated Parliamentary action in that case? The clear intention of the Act and of Mr. Justice Keogh's judgment was that that corruption should not pass without notice. He therefore trusted that their Lordships would not follow the advice given them to reject that Bill.

LORD CAIRNS

maintained, in opposition to the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) that there was no question of technicality or informality raised in the discussion that took place on the proposed Address in their Lordships' House. The objection raised was that the Act of Parliament had not been complied with, and that therefore there was no power to address the Crown; and on that ground their Lordships refused to concur in the Address. The Bill was very objectionable on the ground that it proposed ex post facto legislation, and that upon a subject to which of all others that kind of legislation ought not to be applied. He looked upon the Act of last year as an extremely valuable one, and as effecting one of the greatest improvements ever made in election law; and it was by that Act that proceedings relating to elections ought to be governed; and he maintained that the resort to special Acts of Parliament to deal with cases was the most dangerous of all undertakings in which Parliament could engage. If they legislated to-day specially with the Dublin election after it had taken place, they must legislate to-morrow specially with some other election after it had been held. And if they pursued that course—although he did not suggest that any person was actuated by party motives in that or any other ease— the consequence would in the long run be that they would get into that line of action which Parliament years ago avowed its desire to abandon—namely, that of dealing with particular cases in a way which excited the party feeling and prejudice of those who engaged in such legislation. It was from that dilemma they were extricated by the Act of last year, and it was in that direction that the present Bill proposed to make a relapse. On that ground he objected to the measure.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he was extremely surprised at the opposition now offered to the Bill. When, on a former occasion, their Lordships were requested to join in an Address which the House of Commons was prepared to adopt under the Act of last Session, it was said to be dangerous to take that course, because, should it turn out that the Report of the learned Judge did not justify such an Address, in what a position would the learned Judge and the Commissioners be placed if they attempted to commit anybody by virtue of that Act, and if it were found that by committing any person they exceeded the powers given in the Act? He had not been prepared to face the possibility of there being such a difficulty on the part of those who conducted the inquiry—so that they would have had to act under very considerable disadvantage. And what did his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) say then? Why, that that was not the right course to take— that they had other remedies; that they might have a Committee of the House of Commons, or they might bring in a Bill. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in "another place," took exactly the same line and recommended a Bill. Again, it was said that this was ex post facto legislation; but a Committee of the House of Commons had examined into the corruption of the freemen of Yarmouth, and a Bill was afterwards brought in disfranchising them. Mr. Justice Keogh had found extensive bribery to exist among a large class of the constituency, consisting of 2,700 persons: about 270 cases of gross corruption had been proved against the Dublin freemen; The House of Commons, being anxious to preserve the purity of its elections, but at the same time wishing to avoid party bias, concurred in resigning its power to deal with these matters by its own Committees, and passed an Act by which such questions should be investigated by the Judges. Well, that new method of investigation had been adopted; and when about one-tenth part of a large class of voters had been found by a learned Judge guilty of flagrant corruption, their Lordships would place themselves in a strange position if, in opposition to the desire of the other House to purge itself of that gross corruption, they would not allow any further step to be taken for its punishment.

On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 29; Not-Contents 27: Majority 2.

Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed, to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.