The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-09 00:00:00

at this period of the session, it was hopeless to oppose
the Government, because the attendance of members was
so small, that Ministers could if they chose make
bribery a capital offence ; and he should, VI • r efo re,
abstain from going to a division on the motion of the
noble lord. He, however, called upon the noble lord,
both for the sake of his own consistency and the cha-
acter of the house, to reconsider the determination he
had come to, and disagree with the Lords' amendments
so far as they related to the travelling expenses claim.
Some verbal amendments made by the Lords having
been agreed to,
Lord HOTHAM moved that the consideration of the
Lords' amendments, which struck out the travelling
expenses clause, be postponed until this day month.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree with the noble
lord in thinking that the house would be at all dis-
paraged in the estimation of the country by agreeing
in this amendment of the Lords. If the motion of the
noble lord were carried it would have the effect of de-
feating the bill for this session.
Mr. HILDYARD said there was no wish to de-
feat the bill altogether. All that his noble friend re-
quired was simply to negative this amendment of the
law; and if his motion would have the effect attributed
to it by the President of the Council there would be no
objection to alter its terms. The House of Lords, in
striking out this clause, had acted from caprice.
Mr. HUME said the Lords had a perfect right to
make the amendment if they so thought fit ; and it was
an insult to the House of Lords, nay, :t was revolution-
ary, to say that they acted from caprice in doing so.
With regard to this bill, he did not believe it would be
effectual unless the ballot were engrafted upon it ; but
at the same time he thought the Lords had done right
in rejecting these travelling expenses. If a man would
not take the trouble to vote without having his expenses
paid let him stop away ; give him plenty of polling
booths, but no travelling expenses of any kind.
Lord HOTHAM explained, that he should take every
opportunity of obstructing further progress of this bill
unless the travelling expenses were re-inserted in it.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE supported the Lords' amend-
ments, but strongly censured the upper house for at-
tempting to control the House of Commons by refusing
to read bills a second time after the 25th of July, which
was tantamount to trenching upon the rights of the
people and the prerogatives of the Crown.
Sir J. PAKINGTON approved of the resolution
which the Lords had come to, and hoped they would
adhere to it in future sessions. This bill in its present
form was a delusion, and it would be no great loss to the
country if it were altogether thrown out.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. G. Butt,
Mr. W. A. Wilkinson, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Malins, Sir 0.
Burrell, and Lord R. Grosvenor took part, the house
divided, when there appeared—
For agreeing to the Lords' amendments 7B
Against doing so
21
Majority
—57
Lord HOTHAM then moved that the house " do now
adjourn." His only desire was that the bill should re-
main in the state in which the House of Commons had
declared it should remain.
Mr. HILDYARD explained that if the House of
Lords had thought proper to reject the bill, he had said
the Lords would act capriciously, and to every word of
that he intended to adhere.

The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment l6
Against it B4
Majority
The motion was consequently lost.
Lord 110THAM then moved that the debate be now
adjourned.

After a few words from Mr. HILDYABD,
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the noble lord (Lord
Hotham) would try the question as to the decision of
the House of Lords, or that of this house.
Mr. V. SCULLY hoped the house would now be
satisfied that it was not the Roman Catholic members
of that house who were always instigated by factious
motives, when English and Scotch noblemen and gentle-
men, with small minorities, were equally pertinacious
when they believed themselves in the right.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE suggested that the noble lord
should reserve his forces until he had moved the amend-
ment of which he had given notice, to confine the
operation of the bill to one year—that, if carried,
would enable him to amend it in the course of next
session.

Mr. MALINS complained that no notice had been
given of agreement to those amendments being moved.
There were many at this moment within two miles of
the house who did not know what was going on, and
who had no reason to know what was going on. He
justified the course which he and his friends were tak-
ing, and which he admitted, upon ordinary occasions,
wa3 exceedingly to be deprecated, upon the ground
that they were asked to reverse the oft-repeated deci-
sion of the house, and to do it without reasonable
notice.

Mr. BENTINCK had not been in the house upon
the two former division, but should vote for the present
amendment, if it were pressed, upon the ground that it
was a most unjustifiable proceeding to attempt, at this
period of the session, and in such a house as was then
assembled, to force on a measure of this kind without
proper notice. It was a positive act of deception on
the house. A measure of this magnitude, and in-
volving such great interests, ought to have been brought
forward and discussed at such a period of session as
would have insured a proper attendance of members.
The house divided—

Ayes l5
Noes
Majority —66
Lord HOTIIAM then again moved the adjournment
of the house, and another division took place with the
following result

Ayes
Noes 7913
Majority —66
Mr. MALINS thought the noble lord the President
of the Council would agree with him, that it was not fair
that such a subject should be discussed without notice.
In order, therefore, that such notice might be given, and
that those hon. members who were absent might have
an opportunity of attending, he would propose an ad-
journment until Thursday. He would have preferred
Friday, but he understood [that the prorogation was to
be on Saturday, and he could see that Friday might be
inconvenient ; but he trusted that the noble lord would
think that, in proposing Thursday, he was suggesting a
fair compromise. There was another reason for the
postponement. It would afford the noble lord an oppor-
tunity of giving an answer to the question he had asked
just now, and which, he thought, respect for the country
and the house demanded should be answered, as to the
reasons which had led the noble duke (his colleague) to
move in the other House of Parliament to undo that
which the noble lord in this house had himself pro-
posed to do.

The SPEAKER said the hon. gentleman could only
move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. MALINS therefore altered his amendment ac-
cordingly, on the understanding that, if carried, the dis-
cussion should be resumed on Thursday.
Lord J. RUSSELL said a postponement so Thursday
would give hon. gentlemen opposite a great advantage.
It was obvious that they might pursue the same course
on that day and on Friday as they had pursued to-day,
and then the only alternative would be, that the proro-
gation must be postponed or the bill be lost.
Mr. BRIGHT said it appeared to him there was some-
thing not quite so honest as they might expect in the
course which hon. gentlemen opposite were taking.
They were objecting now to the further progress of the
bill, on the ground that a particular clause had been
withdrawn, but they had voted against the bill with that
feel areu,s e in it ;and
must
the
liee
gthhte ground
not
ia tho their
ef
withdrawal opposition,of
h
clause,
tere
but in the ancient inveterate hostility to the bill itself.
ethhaotfthae ocbojteivettioonf asla wto; want
wetrhea
that still t itlhl
ei ne
uthoj we
ent,
waanedtohah!
da
ngeodn ebeofuotre otfhetyo town,
)
whether there was any business which remained to be
o( (Hear,
noticee a r h ear
savourede verythought m u
d
stuhofliseeie hon.et n
ema members be ef r
knowing
who
haos cehrat
mustdi c discussed, s sheed
supposed
etsheadt
t e those
havew
transacted of sufficient importance to detain them. The
hon. and learned member claimed to represent a majo-
rity of the house. How did he know that ? The noble
lord the President of the Council, on whose recommen-
dation only the house had agreed to this clause, had
changed his opinion upon it ; and they all knew that
the noble lord's conversion was generally followed by
the conversion of a great many others. He remembered
to have heard it said of a certain cardinal that he had
baptised 4,000 or 5,000 people at once by the twirling of
a mop ; and when the noble lord changed his opinions a
great many other people changed their opinions at the
same time. (Hear.) He would put it to the noble lord
whether it was worth his while—as this was a temporary
measure--as a majority of the House of Commons had
adopted it—as the House of Lords had thought it of
sufficient importance to warrant a suspension in its fa-
vour of the resolution it had passed this session—as the
whole subject must be reconsidered at all events within
the next two years—it was worth his while to persevere
in a course which, supported by 13 members just "
baker's dozen"—against 79, could lead to no practical
result 1

Mr. HILDYARD contended that the objection made
upon the ground of want of notice was the objection,
not merely of a lawyer, but of a statesman, and defended
the course which the opposition had pursued.
Mr. BENTINCK maintained that it was perfectly
consistent with the opposition that had been given to a
bill which they believed to be bad, mischievous, and in-
efficient, to support the re-introduction of a clause, the
omission of which they considered made a bad measure
worse.
was
the establishment
l taoco et
him,
duty
himself
buotffbrroimberywhbicyh
Mr. WILLIAMS contended that if this clause were
to become law, bribery, rank bribery, would be, for the
first time, legalised. What bon. gentlemen opposite
nwere o
f Parliament. contending
Lambeth had asserted that this clause would legalise
Lord HOTHAM said the honourable member for
herig left
l hon.him tforfseentdtsle
utphoant qthueestTiorneawsuitrhy
blielisnnkcnhob,brwilehheoarynh‘al; d supported it upon four or five several
occasions. (Hear.) He thought the hon. member, who
always claimed great credit 'for the purity of his own
motives, should have avoided imputing motwivoelisnldttohhoiastvhpeeorisnsi.:
htdNi
cuooncfteel
lwdi it nhhhgii
ecnhhi
cu(owtLuaaol
sdrmdmnollooststot
trdlrecede sacred
distasteful
se sensettewof
tptl h 0 u t
sacrificingm
con-
scientious feelings, and consenting to
surrender of the privileges of the house. os moat unworthyhis
Tho house then divided--
For the motion......___ 11

11
Against it .................... '
Lord HOTLIAM then moved the adjournment of the
debate.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE here suggested that the noble
ord should accept the compromise which he (Mr. Dun 7
combe) had proposed— namely, that the bill should