Lords Sitting of 16 August 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bankruptcy* (195); National Debt* (196); Expiring Laws Continuance* (197); Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections)* (198); Education (Scotland)* (199).
Second Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) (189); Cholera Hospitals (Ireland)* (193).
Committee—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1)* (157); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (159); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (160); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (173); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8)* (174); Patents for Inventions (recomm.)* (188–201).
Report—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) (190–200); Friendly, &c. Societies (Nominations)* (166), now Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies.
Tird Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (151); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (152); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4)* (158); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9)* (101); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10)* (162); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11)* (163); Public Health Act, 1875 (Support of Sewers) Amendment* (172); Agricultural Holdings (England) (192); Diseases Prevention (Metropolis)* (181), and passed.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving that the Bill be re-committed to the same Committee, said, that some four or five days ago he presented a Petition against the third reading of the Bill upon representations of so strong a nature against the Company that it seemed to him every one of them ought to be investigated. Some allegations had certainly been borne out; and, although all the statements were made ex parte, they were made with the positive assurance that every one could be substantiated.
Moved, "That the Bill be re-committed to the same Committee."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)said, that ample inquiry had been made into the truth of the allegations, and the only person who could have raised any objection in the matter was the contractor, who had since become a bankrupt. He did not think it was proper at this period of the Session that the Bill should be re-committed.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 190.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 190.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  Clause 2 (Restrictions as to improvements before Act).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 10, after ("improvement") at end of clause, add ("but under deduction of the value of any manure stipulated for under the lease.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he thought the words in the clause were amply suffi-

  685
  cient, and that nothing would be gained by the change.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHremarked, that those who would suffer would not be the landlords.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvements in second part of Schedule).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsuggested that, instead of fixing the rate of interest at 4 per cent to be paid by a tenant for improvement executed by his landlord, they should substitute the words—
  "At the rate per cent at which the money could he borrowed from a land improvement company in the same period."
  The object of this proposal was that the landlord might not lose by the transaction, as in many cases the improvements on which interest at the rate of 4 per cent would be paid might yield to the tenant from 14 to 30 per cent. Under those circumstances, it would be very hard that the landlord should be losing on the transaction all the time the tenant was gaining upon it. He threw the suggestion out for consideration on the third reading.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONhad no objection to the proposal, as his sole desire was that the landlord should not have to pay more for the loan of money than he would be allowed by the tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he agreed with the justice of the proposal, but under it a tenant might have to pay occasionally as much as 6½ and even 8 per cent.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL) moved the following Proviso from the English Bill:—
  "The landlord and tenant may, if they think fit, dispense with any notice under this section, and come to an agreement between themselves, in the same manner and of the same validity as if such notice had been given."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsuggested that the words "the landlord and tenant may, in terms of the lease, or otherwise," should be added; but he would not press that at the present stage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHrose to move an Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the time had gone past for moving that Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he must protest against the irregular manner in which Business was carried on in the House. The sort of conversation which went on in conducting a Bill of this kind made it impossible for anyone to know what was taking place. There were great complaints about the bad acoustics of the building; but it was more the fault of the Members themselves than the construction of the building that no one could hear.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future leases).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he rose to call attention to the last sub section of Clause 5——
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYrose to a point of Order, and remarked that it had been stated by the Lord Chancellor that they had got to Clause 6 of the Bill. ["No, no!"] Noble Lords might not have heard it, but he certainly was led to understand that they had reached Clause 6. The noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) had been prevented from putting his Amendment upon Clause 4, because the conversation going on in the House had prevented his hearing that Clause 5 had been announced by the Lord Chancellor as being discussed. For his (the Earl of Galloway's) part, he had no objection to either clause being discussed; but if the noble Duke was ruled out of Order in discussing Clause 4, because Clause 5 was under discussion, similarly, the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) was out of Order in discussing Clause 5 when Clause 6 was under discussion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that Clause 6 was mentioned by himself in consequence of seeing a Notice upon the Paper in reference to it, but nothing had been moved upon it; therefore, the noble Lord was perfectly in Order in referring to Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to ask what was the meaning of the following sub-section of Clause 5:—
  "The last preceding provision of this section relating to a particular agreement shall apply in the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this

  687
  Act, in respect of an improvement specified in the third part of the Schedule hereto, specific compensation for which is not provided by any agreement in writing or custom."
  He had appealed to persons accustomed to drafting Bills for an explanation, but they seemed as ignorant as him-self?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the case stood in this way. The second paragraph of the clause provided for agreements for fair and reasonable compensation, but it only gave that power in the case of tenancies beginning after the commencement of this Act. Therefore, if the clause ended there, there would have been no means for landlords and tenants to enter into fair and reasonable agreements during the currency of an existing lease. The new paragraph had nothing to do with existing agreements and customs, such as were referred to in the first paragraph of the clause; it related entirely to the future. It was to enable agreements to be made during the currency of a lease existing at the commencement of the Act that the paragraph was inserted, and if the noble Lord studied the matter he would find that it was quite necessary, for the reason he had stated.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not believe that the clause as it originally stood precluded landlords and tenants from entering into these agreements.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Set off of benefit to tenant).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, line 31, at end of clause, add—"Nothing in this section or in any other section of this Act shall enable a tenant to obtain compensation under this Act in respect of any boning, claying, liming, or marling of land executed more than seven years before the determination of the tenancy, or in respect of any purchased artificial or other purchased manure applied, or any cake or other feeding stuff consumed on the holding more than three years before the determination of the tenancy."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  After a pause,
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked whether the Lord President of the Council had not a word to say on that Amendment?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)replied, that the noble Lord on the Cross Bench had not
  688
  said a word in support of his own Amendment, and therefore he had not felt himself called upon to answer him. To all their Lordships except the noble Lord himself he thought it must seem impossible for anyone who had accepted the second reading of the Bill to accept his words, which would substitute for the provisions of the Bill a system of artificial periods of compensation and of exhaustion of the improvements. The Amendment proposed that the periods should be seven years in certain cases, and three years in others. That was, of course, absolutely opposed to the principle upon which the Bill was drawn; and, with respect to the three years, it was, he thought, even opposed to the Act of 1875.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 17 (Reference to and award by oversman).
  On the Motion of The Lord PRESIDENT an Amendment made by inserting page in 7, at end of Clause, the following new paragraph:—
  "In any case provided for by sections three, four, or five, if compensation is claimed under this Act, such compensation, as under any of those sections is to be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act, if and so far as the same can under the terms of the agreement, if any, be ascertained by the referees or the oversman, shall be awarded in respect of any improvements thereby provided for, and the award shall, when necessary, distinguish such improvements, and the amount awarded in respect thereof, and an award given under this Clause shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (What notice to be given of termination of tenancy).
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he proposed to amend the clause, by providing that the section should not apply to leases current at the commencement of this Act which had less than five, instead of two, years to run.
  Amendment moved, in page 11, line 27, leave out ("two") and insert ("five.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the Government could not agree to that Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Commencement of Act).
  LORD LOVATsaid, that, on behalf of his noble Friend (the Earl of Stair), he would propose that the Act should come into operation at the term of Whitsuntide instead of on the 1st of January.
  Amendment moved, in page 13, line 24, after ("on") leave out ("the first day of January") and insert ("the term of Whitsuntide.")—(The Lord Lovat.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he thought it would not be well to defer the operation of the Act until Whitsuntide without some very good reason for it. For his part, he could not see what advantage there would be in the change, and what the risks were that were supposed to attend the earlier operation of the Bill. With respect to the improvements in Part I., they could not be affected by it in any way; and, with respect to drainage works, the noble Lord would see that no tenant, as the Bill stood, could do that which he seemed to be so much afraid of—that no drainage could be begun until the 1st of next March, as two months' notice, beginning after the 1st of January, of an intention to drain a field had to be given to the landlord. By an alteration that had been made in the Bill no tenant could begin to manure, or lime, or do anything of that kind without first giving six months' notice; therefore, he could not see that anything would be gained by deferring the commencement of the Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought there was a serious difficulty in the way in consequence of the earlier period in Clause 5. In the 2nd subsection they would observe that the Act enacted that in all cases in reference to tenancies at will, which were called tenancies under lease in Scotland, when a new tenancy commenced at the first period at which notice could be given to terminate the tenancy at will—that was to say, the first period after the commencement of the Act—in order to get their agreement into operation, so that they should be capable of substituting it for the Act, they must have made with every one of their tenants a new agreement, and they would have to do that by Ladyday or Candlemas, or whatever was the day at which the tenancy ceased.
  690
  That was rather a severe requirement, and the end of it would be that in order to save himself the landlord would give notice to quit, in order to prevent being left altogether without the substitution of his own agreement for the compensation he was called upon to pay.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Application of Act).
  LORD LOVATsaid, he would propose that the Act should apply to a holding of less than two acres in extent if it was of the value of £2. In the Highlands small holdings were often given by way of charity, and it was not proposed that such holdings should come under the operation of the Act. If the clause remained as at present, small holdings in the Highlands might mean nothing, because the holding might consist of bare rock; but if it was made £2, that would mean something.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that as he had not agreed to the limit of two acres, he could not agree to the present proposal; but if the noble Lord considered it absolutely necessary, he hoped he would raise the point on the third reading.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 86 (Avoidance of agreement inconsistent with Act).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 13, line 39, at end of clause, add—"Provided that nothing in this Act shall make it illegal for a landlord and tenant to agree in writing that the purchased artificial or other purchased manures, in respect of which a claim for compensation may he made under this Act, shall be limited to the manures specified in such writing; and if the landlord and tenant so agree, no claim shall be competent to the tenant under this Act in respect of the application to the holding of any such manure not specified in such writing."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, as the noble Earl had given no reasons for the Amendment, his own reasons why he could not accept it would be very brief. This was one of those precautions against an infinitesimal and unlikely

  691
  danger, which he thought they would be very ill-advised if they introduced it into the Bill. It was quite possible that an unenlightened owner of land might use such a general power as this in a very mischievous way. He might force his tenant to consent to an agreement which would exclude him from the purchase of all manures except one. He might have a great dislike to the purchase of manures, and a still greater dislike to put his hand into his pocket to give compensation. The best security against the use of injurious manures was the tenant's own interest.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 200.)

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 192.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 192.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  The Queen's consent and the consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he begged to present four Petitions against the Bill, one of them being from the Manchester and Salford Householders' Association, in which the Petitioners said—
  "They could not help feeling that the principle involved in the Bill was one which, if admitted in the case of agriculture, would lead to similar interference in other branches of trade and commerce. They therefore submitted that, for the great principle of freedom of contract, the substitution of State regulation could not be regarded as in any way advantageous to the country at large."
  He would, therefore, as a matter of form, and also of principle, move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to take that, the last opportunity, of entering his protest against the Bill
  692
  as it stood, and he did so on the ground that it was unnecessary, since all that was just and fair in it, as between landlord and tenant, was in practice. Another grave objection was the unnecessary late period of the Session at which it had been introduced, thus preventing the Bill being adequately discussed. His fear was that the word "improvements" in it would lead to almost endless litigation, unless it were qualified by the word "efficient;" further definition being required in this particular, together with other portions of the Bill. He further deprecated hasty legislation on this, in common with other subjects, at the end of a Session. As in the case of the Irish Land Bill, it would greatly injure small proprietors, whom those holding extreme opinions on all political subjects professed their desire to see increased; and in respect to the smaller tenants, they would ultimately be entirely swept away as regarded this country, although this class of tenants, under the Irish Land Bill, had acquired rights that were not contemplated by Parliament. And with legislation thus hastily passed for Party purposes, there was no assurance that such a measure as the Bill before the House would not very shortly be followed by another measure of a similar kind.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?" Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Lord President.)
  Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvement in second part of schedule).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLbegged to move an Amendment on the last subsection of the clause giving landlords and tenants, if they thought fit, "in a lease or otherwise," to dispense with any notice under the section the right to come to an agreement between themselves, in the same manner and of the same validity as if such notice had been given, his Amendment being confined to the introduction of the words "in a lease or otherwise." He considered this a very important Proviso. The healthy system of leases was already beginning to be undermined. Some tenants were unwilling to be bound by long leases; and he had heard of a large estate in

  693
  the South-West of Scotland where the 19 years' system had been abandoned, and yearly tenancies adopted.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 5, after ("agreement") to insert ("in a lease or otherwise.)"—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he doubted whether the words would not be open to misconstruction, though he quite agreed in the object of the noble Duke.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he doubted the necessity of these additional words; but he thought them quite right, and would accept the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he considered that a very important concession.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Incidence of charge).
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL) moved to add the following as a separate paragraph at the end of the clause:—
  "Capital money arising under the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be applied in payment of any costs incurred by a landlord under or in pursuance of this Act in or about the execution of any improvement mentioned, in the first or second parts of the schedule hereto, as for an improvement authorised by the said Settled Land Act, and such money may also be applied in discharge of any charge created on a holding under or in pursuance of this Act, in respect of any such improvement as aforesaid, as in discharge of an in cumbrance authorised by the said Settled Land Act to be discharged out of such capital money."
  Those words were for the purpose of carrying out a suggestion made by a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon). The effect was simply this. Under the Settled Land Act, 1882, there was a long list of improvements capable of being executed by the landlord under the control of the Court, by means of what the Act called the capital trust money of the estate; but in that list of improvements there were two in Part I. of the Schedule of this Bill which were not included. The one was the formation of silos—a new thing—and the other was the laying down of permanent pasture. The object of the Amendment was to add those two to the improvements in the Settled Land Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Commencement of Act).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYproposed an Amendment by which the 31st of March, 1884, should be substituted for the 31st of January, 1884, as the date at which the Act should come into force. The Bill had come upon the landed interest with great surprise. He said, in the presence of many of them, that they were not a race whose actions were hasty or precipitate, and it was cruel to them to force them to bring into operation a totally new system of law, for which no previous discussion had prepared them, at so very short notice as the 1st of January next. It should be remembered that the interval was only four months, during two of which they could get the assistance of no lawyer and solicitor, and, therefore, all the work must be confined to two months at the end of the autumn. He thought they ought to have a longer time.
  Amendment moved, in page 20, line 3, to leave out ("first day of January") and insert ("thirty-first day of March.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if that Amendment were adopted, the consequence would be that no notice could be given in the case of Lady Day tenancies until the following Lady Day; and the result would be to delay the operation of the Act in those cases for a whole year.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 31: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Granville, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Sydney, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Thurlow, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Richmond, D.

  Winchester, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Clonmell, E.

  695

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Ellenborough, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Haldon, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Fortescue, E.

  Milltown, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Melville, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Norton, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Bateman, L. [Teller.]

  Denman, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Words substituted accordingly.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PROTEST

    AGAINST THE PASSING OF THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
    "DISSENTIENT:
    "1. Because no man in this country occupies and cultivates the land of another, except by his own free will and upon terms which he has voluntarily accepted.
    "2. Because it is a sound principle in Legislation that men should be permitted to contract freely with one another in the management of their affairs.
    "3. Because no exceptional reason exists in the case of landlords and tenants for departing from the above sound principle; inasmuch as tenants are for the most part grown up men, as well or better capable than most other classes of securing their own interest by bargain; and, moreover, under existing circumstances, able almost to dictate their own terms. Their case is thus distinguished from those in which the Legislature has hitherto interfered with free contract for the protection of women, children, and lunatics, or of life, limb, or health.
    "4. Because there is no distinction in principle between the business of cultivating land and that of any other great industry—the community in all instances alike is interested in a successful result; but experience has shown that success is most surely brought about by the unfettered enterprise of individuals under the steady stimulus of private gain.
    "5. Because between two persons who have entered into a contract as landlord and tenant for the occupation of land, there is no natural, or other, right whatever in respect of such occupation, except that which is expressed or implied by the contract itself; and if a tenant who has made improvements beyond those provided for therein is entitled to compensation, the landlord who has done the same thing is equally entitled to an increase of rent, in defiance, in both instances, of the bargain they have mutually made.
    "6. Because the Bill will give direct legislative encouragement to dishonesty, even when
    696
    premeditated, since it will enable a man to obtain advantages by signing an agreement, and after having enjoyed them to repudiate it to the detriment of the other party.
    "7. Because, while the relations of landlord and tenant have hitherto been generally maintained on a friendly footing, those between capital and labour are with difficulty adjusted, and are the cause of ceaseless disputes; and if the principle of free contract is recklessly abandoned in the one case, it will be found difficult to maintain it in the other, when a claim is urged that the rate of wages should be settled by law.
    "8. Because the wanton abandonment of the above sound principle to favour one class cannot fail to induce other classes to demand similar Legislative interference in their behalf, and will tend to generate Political combinations for the attainment of private ends, in place of the common weal.
    "9. Because legislation of this kind lies outside the proper province of Parliament, which cannot by any expenditure of time and trouble satisfactorily adjust the varied and constantly varying detailed requirements of special industries.
    "10. Because, finally, legislation of this description is not new, but was freely tried in the days of the Plantagenet Kings, and failed; while in modern times it has been, until quite recently, condemned alike by Political economists and statesmen of all Parties.
    "PENZANCE.
    "BRAMWELL.
    "REDESDALE.
    "FORTESCUE.
    "WEMYSS."

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL—(No. 189.)
  (The Earl of Northbrook.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL—(No. 189.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the General Election of 1880 had shown that, notwithstanding the introduction of the Ballot, and the legislation which had taken place to prevent them, corrupt practices had increased. This had been proved by the Reports of the Election Courts, and of the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the elections for certain boroughs in which it was reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. Though the actual sums given by way of bribery had been smaller than formerly, it appeared, from the evidence, that a larger number of people were bribed, and that bribery was carried on by persons of higher

    697
    position than formerly—as, for instance, town councillors, solicitors, and others, who ought not to have been mixed up in such practices; and the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had, on more than one occasion, to perform the painful duty of removing from the Bench magistrates who had been reported to be guilty of those practices. Not only could it be said that corrupt practices had increased, but the expenditure incurred at the last Election was excessive. The expenditure was not only detrimental to the public interest by deterring persons who would have been excellent representatives of constituencies in the House of Commons from standing for election, but also had the effect of accustoming those engaged in elections to consider that an election was simply an affair of money, and of thus leading to corrupt practices. He might say, without the expectation of being contradicted, that such a state of things was a scandal to the nation, required to be grappled with, and that it was necessary some stronger remedy should be applied. It was, then, for that purpose that the present Bill had been introduced in and passed by the other House. He would shortly state the principal provisions of the Bill. The term "corrupt practice" was well known and defined by the existing law—important changes in respect to the definition and punishment of corrupt practices were proposed in the Bill. There was, in the 1st clause, a provision making treating an offence when committed by other persons than the candidates; and in Clause 2 there was a new definition of "undue influence." The Bill increased considerably the penalties for corrupt practices; the disabilities to which candidates were now subject when reported to the House as guilty of corrupt practices were increased. If a candidate was reported by the Election Court to have been guilty of bribery by or with his knowledge or consent, he was, by the existing law, excluded from sitting in Parliament for seven years; and if reported by the Court to have been guilty through his agent of corrupt practices, he was excluded from sitting for the particular constituency to the end of the Parliament. By the Bill, a candidate for a constituency reported to be personally guilty of treating, or undue influence, or of any cor-
    698
    rupt practice by and with his knowledge and consent would not only be excluded from sitting in Parliament for seven years, but for the same constituency for ever; and if found guilty of treating through his agents he was to be excluded from sitting for the same constituency for seven years. The penalties were also increased. Under the Bill corrupt practices would be punishable by imprisonment with hard labour, or by a fine not exceeding £200. The disqualifications had also been extended. The Bill proceeded to deal with a class of offences termed "illegal practices," which included illegal payments, illegal employment, and other illegal acts specified. Thus the conveyance of voters to the poll, except in one or two exceptional constituencies, was made an illegal practice. The effect of this provision would be appreciated when it was remembered that during the last General Election no less a sum than £750,000 was expended in conveying voters to the poll, the expenditure in one county being between £6,000 and £7,000. The Bill also regulated the number of election agents and paid canvassers to be appointed, and the number of committee rooms to be hired in each constituency. It prohibited the hiring of any houses for the display of placards, or anything of the kind. It also fixed the maximum sum to be expended during an election by each candidate. The personal expenses of a candidate were limited to £100, and the following were the maximum amounts hereafter to be spent by Returning Officers:—For a borough of under 2,000 electors, £350; over 2,000 electors, £380; and £30 more for every additional 1,000 of electors; for counties with under 2,000 electors, £650 in England and Scotland, £500 in Ireland; over 2,000 electors, £710 in England and Scotland, £540 in Ireland, with £60 more in England and Scotland and £40 more in Ireland for every additional 1,000 of electors. The expenses of the General Election in 1880 were officially returned as £1,800,000; but he believed that the amount was really not less than £2,500,000. This Bill, if it had been in force, would have reduced the sum to between £600,000 and £800,000. That the amounts specified in the Schedule were sufficient was already proved by experi-

    699
    ence at King's Lynn, Peterborough, North Northumberland, Bedfordshire, and Hackney, where the expenses were less than would be legal under the Bill. It was trusted that under the new system to be established by this Bill the real opinion of the constituencies would be more certainly expressed than it was under the existing system. Certain disqualifications and penalties were attached to "illegal practices" and "illegal payments." There were also provisions which enabled a Judge to try a person accused of corrupt practices on the spot; barristers and solicitors were to be dealt with by their governing bodies, and licensed victuallers by the licensing authority. The Bill contained ample Equity Clauses. The case of a candidate who was only technically guilty of corrupt practices by his agent was provided for, and the Election Court was given power to declare that the election of a person so guilty should not be void; the Election Court had also power to except trifling acts which were illegal under the letter of the law, but not under the spirit. Any trifling default which a candidate or his agent might make with respect to returns and declarations was not to be subject to the penalties laid down in the Bill for acts of default. No doubt, it would be difficult to alter customs which had long prevailed in some places; but there was great hope that the offences mentioned in the Bill would be diminished. One good result of the measure would be the increased employment of voluntary instead of paid workers at Parliamentary elections. In conclusion, he thought their Lordships were all aware of the great and patient consideration which had been bestowed on this important subject. It was mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne in 1881, and a Bill was introduced in 1882 but could not be then proceeded with. This year a most patient and attentive consideration had been given to it in "another place" under the very able and conciliatory direction of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. So far as the general principle of the Bill went, it had been received in the other House of Parliament with general concurrence, and had been frankly and fairly discussed without the intervention of the ordinary
    700
    divisions which separated the two great Parties in Parliament. He, therefore, trusted their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading, and apply a real remedy to the great evils which all admitted, and so render more free and complete the representation of the people in the other House of Parliament. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the title of the Bill as commonly quoted—namely, the Corrupt Practices Bill—in reality gave a very inadequate idea of its real scope and intention; but, undoubtedly, it did deal to some extent with corrupt practices, and so far as it did so it would carry with it the sympathies of their Lordships and all persons who desired to see such great evils remedied. But in reference to that part of the Bill, they could only say that in the past history of the country it had not been found that the increasing of penalties had usually been accompanied by any great diminution of offences. At all events, it was a plan which had been frequently tried without success. He did not quarrel with the motives which had induced the Government to this further effort; but the record of similar efforts was not encouraging as to the probability of success. It was not, however, with respect to corrupt practices, in regard to which there would hardly be any difference of opinion, that the Bill was principally important. A very remarkable characteristic of the Bill was the very wide extension it had given to illegal practices which were in no sense corrupt illegal practices, which of themselves were not morally wrong or repugnant to the most sensitive morality, and which were only made wrong by being for bidden by Act of Parliament, and in regard to which the Government could not expect any extensive assistance from public opinion. The motive of the Government was very obvious, and the noble Earl had stated it with fairness and candour; the object was not so much to prevent corrupt practices as to diminish the vast expenses attending elections. He did not quarrel with that attempt, as he thought it was desirable that elections should be made cheaper,

    701
    if only for the purpose of enabling persons of limited means, who had the capacity, to aspire to a seat in Parliament. Like Mr. Forster, speaking in Devonshire, he thought the surprise in the constituencies would be very great when they saw what a measure was provided for them. He had heard it said that the persons who would be successful at the next General Election would be the second candidates, as all the first candidates would be disqualified for corrupt practices. Certainly, the provisions of the Bill were so minute, and the penalties so wide, and the chance of tripping so enormous, that a man would need to be very courageous and resolute, and very indifferent to penalties, to run the risk of a General Election. As it was said that all railway evils would be cured when a Railway Director was killed, so he only hoped that the first persons to suffer under the Bill would be Cabinet Ministers, and then he had no doubt an amending Bill would be speedily introduced. He had no anxiety to arrest or hinder the Bill in Parliament. It was only to last till December of next year. It was very reasonable that in view of the great evils with which we had to contend the Government should make this experiment, especially as it was an experiment made at the expense of the House of Commons, which had been so good as to pass the Bill in order to inflict the penalties on themselves. But there were one or two provisions to which he would like to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government, as they seemed to him open to question, and the first was the very serious proposal to deprive an elector of the means of conveyance to the poll. The policy of Parliament hitherto had been in the opposite direction—namely, to afford facilities to the voter of getting to the poll; but now Parliament was retracing its steps, and said that in the case of a man living at a distance from a polling station he should have no artificial means of getting to the poll. He did not know how that would work. It was, however, permitted to people to lend carriages, and they were told that those who had carriages to lend would be at an advantage compared with those who had not. But apart from such artificial assistance, he thought there could be no doubt that people living in wild and desolate districts, where the prescribed
    702
    number of 100 electors could not usually be made up, would run great risk of being practically disfranchised. He was not sure whether he preferred the opinions of people living in outlying districts or of those living in towns; but he thought that whenever the Bill came forward to be put into a more permanent shape they must not allow it, under a pretext to diminish expenses, to be in reality an Act for disfranchising those persons whose votes were disagreeable to the Government of the day. That was, however, difficult to ascertain until they had actually had experience of the working of it, and it was a matter to which the attention of those interested in Parliamentary elections would be carefully directed, and they would, no doubt, then have full statistics as to how far people living in far distant districts were prevented from voting. There was another clause in the Bill which belonged to a class of legislation which, he confessed, he viewed with great repugnance, and that was the practice of ascertaining the facts by squeezing them out of a witness to his own incrimination in the witness-box. Their Lordships were aware that it was an old maxim of English law that no man was bound to criminate himself; but it had been again and again in recent Acts the policy to overthrow that law, and to use the power of cross-examination in the witness-box in the way in which a President of a French Court would use it—for the purpose of torturing the witness into criminating himself. No doubt, provision was made that the man should not be liable to punishment for what came out; but if he was a solicitor he might be struck off the Rolls, or if a barrister he might be disbarred in consequence of evidence which had been wrung from him under this French method. The facts obtained at criminal trials were obtained from independent witnesses and not from avowals extorted from the criminal. There was another peculiarity in this Bill, and that was that the great engine by which the Government proposed to obtain their ends was making people answerable for the acts of others over whom they had no control. It was a rough and barbarous mode of procedure well known to schoolmasters. It used to be not an unfrequent practice for a whole remove to be punished in order to find

    703
    out one boy, and that was the way of this Bill. The man whom the Bill punished was not the man who bribed, but the unfortunate candidate who had had nothing whatever to do with the illegal act, and the Government hoped to effect their object in that way. That was the agency established by that Bill. In the contemplation of law an agent could not acquire that character without the authority of his principal; but in the strange legislation before them anyone could constitute himself agent of the candidate without the consent or even the knowledge of his principal; he had merely to take part in the election without the candidate even knowing his name, and he could fasten upon the candidate the guilt which was aimed at by the Bill. That seemed to him a very objectionable state of things; and when Governments and Legislatures, in order to gain their ends, had recourse to these proceedings, which conflicted with the common sense and morality of mankind, it was not difficult to predict that such legislation would fail. But they would not only fail, but would do worse. They would bring the action of the law into disrepute, and would cease to have public opinion on their side. It would cease to be disgraceful to fall under the penalties of the law, and the law would be driven to attain its ends simply by the terror it excited, and not by the sympathy of the community. He regarded this peculiarity in the Law of Agency as a disgrace to the law, and one which had produced, and would produce, great evils. Those who thought it their business to find fault with the softer sex, said that if you wish to know the important part of a lady's letter you must look at the postscript. If they wanted to know the important part of this Bill they must look in the middle of it. The 44th clause was the strangest clause he ever saw put into an Act of Parliament. It said, in fact, that they might punish all future culprits as hard as they liked, but that it did not apply to those who were culprits now. It was a clause enacting that in all future investigations into electoral corruption they should be forbidden to ask any impertinent questions as to anything that had taken place before the passing of the Act. He presumed that it was passed in the interest of those Members who did not intend to
    704
    stand again, and who might desire to be whitewashed. He knew nothing of the genesis of this Bill; but if, at some future time, any antiquarian should try, from internal evidence, to construct its history, he would say that someone had been concerned in the preparation of it who did not wish his transactions with some constituency to be known. Whether their Lordships would care to alter the Bill he did not know. He should be sorry if it failed to pass, and there was, no doubt, danger at this late season that altering a Bill might prevent its passing; but if any alteration was to be made, he would prefer to see the clause to which he had referred struck out, which, while providing the most savage penalties with regard to corruption in the future, extended an unrestricted amnesty to corruption in the past.
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was sorry that the noble Marquess could find nothing good in any of the measures which came under discussion. Two most simple and innocent clauses of this Bill had been attacked by the noble Marquess as likely to be productive of evil. He could answer the noble Marquess that under the first clause objected to no considerable number of electors would be prevented from coming to the poll. As to the 44th clause, the noble Marquess appeared to think that that proposal was intended to prevent the delinquencies of some unknown individual being brought to light before an Election Commission. If he thought that person was some Member of Her Majesty's Government, he should like to say that the provision was not in the Bill as originally drawn, but was introduced at the suggestion of a Member of the Conservative Party, and the insinuations of the noble Marquess must fall upon his own Friends.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had no intention of making any insinuation against Her Majesty's Government.
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was glad the suspicions of the noble Marquess were only of a general character. He thought the noble Marquess should not throw the ægis of his protection over those individuals who had been guilty of corrupt practices, and whose acts showed them to be unworthy of exercising the franchise of which they were deprived by the Bill. Nor did he think his reference to the

    705
    subject of the Law of Agency in point. There was no alteration whatever made in that Bill in the Law of Agency.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear!
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he did not, therefore, see that the observations of the noble Marquess, however applicable they might be to some other Act, had any reference to the Bill which he now asked their Lordships to read a second time.
    LORD LAMINGTCONsaid, he believed that the severity of the penalty inflicted by the Bill was so great that the object of the Legislature would be defeated, and that in future the expenditure would be almost wholly on Election Petitions.
    THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he must protest against the Government bringing a Bill of pains and penalties of that character before their Lordships' House at so late a period of the Session, when it was impossible that it could be adequately considered. Such a measure, if presented to the House at all, ought to have been submitted at a time when they could have had a larger attendance of Peers to discuss it. He protested also against the excessive severity and the degrading nature of some of the penalties which the Bill would inflict on certain offences connected with elections, believing, as he did, that such rigorous punishments would not meet with the general sanction and support of public opinion.
    Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  SUEZ CANAL—THE PAPERS.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, On what ground the original concessions to M. de Lesseps have, in the present Session, been presented to one House and not to both Houses of Parliament? said: My Lords, some days ago I moved for the original concessions to M. de Lesseps which have been lately given in a separate Return to the other House of Parliament. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs endeavoured to persuade your Lordships that the Motion was uncalled for; and,
    706
    as I understood him, told us that these documents were in the Egyptian Correspondence of this Session. I was thus led to withdraw the Motion. Having inquired more assiduously than before, I now assert with confidence that they are not in any number of the Egyptian Correspondence lately brought before the House. It is quite possible that if you go back for years in a former series of despatches upon Egypt, these concessions might be found; and this, perhaps, is what the noble Earl intended to convoy to us. But it is well known to be within the limit of our usages to reprint documents which bear on urgent questions of the day, although they may be found in some remote or obsolete collection. As I before explained, Her Majesty's Government have acted on this principle with reference to these concessions in the present year, and in the other House of Parliament. In this House, equally, I ask them to supply a want, even if they do not recognize an error.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was the rule of the Foreign Office, when Papers were presented to the one House of Parliament, they should also, at the same time, be presented to the other. They had always observed that rule. The answer to the noble Lord's Question was that those Papers were presented in the year 1876 to both Houses of Parliament, and that they had not been presented to either House this Session. The noble Lord was under a misapprehension as to that. What had happened was this—as their Lord ships were aware, the individuals composing that House did not change at a General Election, whereas the result of a General Election often produced a great change in the persons composing the other House of Parliament. That was the case after the last General Election; and he understood that, for the convenience of new Members of the other House, a few copies of those Papers from the stock at the Foreign Office were sent to the Library of the House of Commons, and that House gave orders that they should be printed. If the noble Lord now desired to have an individual copy of the Papers which were produced in 1876, he should be very ready to furnish it to him; but, as far as regarded the House collectively, those Papers had been already presented, and he was not aware

    707
    that there was any occasion to print them again.
    LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: The noble Earl has said nothing to contravene my observation—namely, that there has been an undue disparity of proceeding on this subject in the two Houses of Parliament.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.