The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-14 00:00:00

BILL.

Lord R. MONTAGU moved the second reading of this
bill.
Mr. M. GIBSQN said that before the bill was road a
second time he wished to make a few observa-
tions on it, as it proposed to place upon all the
foreign cattle brought into the metropolis the new
and serious restriction. He considered the bill contained
a very dangerous principle, and if it should be read a
second time, the bill should be referred to a select
committee, where evidence could be taken as to the effect
the provisions of it would have upon the consumers of
meat.

Lord R. MONTAGU said the bill was merely a pro-
tective and preventive one against cattle plague, and if it
was read a second time there would be no objection to its
being referred to a select committee.

The bill was then read a second time.
PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (EXTRA RECEIPTS)

BILL.

Mr. HUNT moved the second reading of this bill, the
object of which was to direct that all extra receipts be
paid directly into the Exchequer. The object of tho
bill was to cause the excess of all votes of money by Par-
liament to different departments to be paid into the Ex-
chequer, without being directed to other purposes, so
that Parliament might be fir 4 consulted in all matters
requiring the outlay of public money.

The bill was read a second time.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in moving
fcr leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to
election petitions, and for providing more effec-
tually for the prevention of corrupt practices
at parliamentary elections, referred to the manner
in which controverted elections were treated by the
Grenville Act, and also to the measure introduced by the
late Sir R. Peel in 1839, which was repealed two years
after it had received the Royal assent. Matters went on until
the year 1848, when the house decided to giyo s.legalcharac-
ter and shape to all matters of controverted elections, and
appointed a committee of elections, who should have the
power of appointing the members to try the merits of
election petitions, and that the members so appointed should
have the power of examining witnesses on oath. If it was
not thought advisable to depart from the fundamental
principle, he did not think a better tribunal could be
found than that which then existed. Yet it had failed to
give satisfaction, and it had been the intention of Her
Ilaj-sty's Government to deal with the matter last
year at the same time that they dealt with the
matter of Reform. But the matter was found
to be of such an extensive nature that it was thought pro-
per to introduce a separate bill. In that bill the Govern-
ment proposed that Mr. Speaker should constitute
a panel of eminent gentlemen of the long robe, and
whenever an election petition was presented to the
house that, by an order from the Speaker, a tribunal from
the panel should investigate the charges of the petition,
and that that investigation should be made on the spot.
The house, however, accepted the principle of the bill, but
ob;ected to the tribunal. The bill was referred to a select
committee. Various propositions were made and con-
sidered, one of which was that the tribunal which should
try the merits of an election petition should be one of the
highest in the land. The recommendations of the select com-
mittee had been fully considered by Government, and the
bill he now asked for leave to introduce was in strict con-
formity with the recommendations of the select com-
mittee. However, her Majesty's Government had not
been able to consult the judges on the subject,
and when it was considered how much their
time was occupied, he hoped the kouse would not
insist on thrusting the duty on the judges, but he must
say the Government had received the refusal of that
august body to become the judges of a court for the
purposes of deciding the merits of an election petition.
He thought that as one of the recommendations of the
committee, viz., to incapacitate an English gentleman
found guilty of bribery from sitting in the House of Par-
liament for seven years, and if found guilty a second time
that he should be totally incapable of ever taking his seat
therein again, was a matter of sufficient importance to
have induced the judges to have taken up that duty.
However, as they had been met by a refusal in
that quarter, the Government proposed to form a
now and original tribunal, and that was to
appoint three members of the learned profession,
with a salary of £2,000 per annum each, who would be-
come the Judges of the Parliamentary Elections Court,
and that all appeals from revising barristers should be
dealt with by the now tribunal. He concluded by asking
for leave to introduce the bill.
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said he was afraid
they would not be able to deal satisfactorily with bribery
at elections where the expense of proving it was thrown
on the candidates. With respect to the judges' refusal, he
could only say for
himself that he looked upon it in a
favourable light, because if the house were to make
them the arbitrators in political matters, they would lose
that confidence which the public now so implicitly placed
in them. He felt certain that the house would give its
best consideration to the measure, and without fettering
himself to any of the proposals he should wait
until the bill was regularly before them before entering at
length into the many serious matters that surrounded the
motion.

Sir F. GOLDSMID said he should. have an amendment
to move when the bill was in committee that would se-
cure that:the pure candidate would receive that which was
his light.
Mr. WHITBRED thought it monstrous to say that the
work proposed by the select committee could not be done
by the judges. (Hear, hear.)
Sir R. COLLIER thought that, considering the nature
of the provisions of the bill, it was greatly to bo desired
that such important matters as would arise on those elec-
tion inquiries should only be dealt with by the judges,
and not by a tribunal constituted as the Government pro-
posed.
Mr. R. GURNEY said he had heard the announcement of
the Government with extreme regret. If the election
petitions were not to b 3 dealt with by the judges, ho
hoped the house would well consider before they removed
them for c3nsideration to au inferior tribunal.
Mr. LOWE was rather disposed to resent the protest of
the judges, and doubted whether they had mere right
than any other public servants to refuse duties imposed on
them by Parliament. If the judges were not numerous
enough to discharge their additional duty, which was very
possible, let their numbers bo increased but it they were

Parliament ought not to be deterred by their remonstrances
from putting this duty upon them. That they were over-
worked was no reason for transferring this important
function to a vastly inferior tribunals, which, as he showed,
would discharge it very inadequately, and at considerable
expense.

Lord CRANBORNE defended the conduct of the judges
in this matter, as eminently wise and patriotic, and argued
that as most of them had been active party men, and might
still be supposed to retain party predilections, to throw
these semi-political duties upon them would be to weaken
the unlimited confidence at present vested in them. It
was idle to shove them into the dirtiest part of English
life and expect them to come out clean. Even the dimi-
nution of bribery would be dearly purchased at such a

price.
Sir R. PALMER thought the judges had done no more
than their duty if their motive for protesting against this
semi-political function was a belief that it would weaken
public confidence in their administration of the law. But
he denied altogether that the fact of their having been
aetive party men would affect their conduct as judges iu
any matter. Arguing against the employment of judges,
he pointed out that as election petitions usually all came
together after a general election, it would be necessary.to
have four or five nevk judges to try them with the neces-
sary expedition. That was an increase not needel by the
general business of the country,
Lir. HENLEY expressed a strong jealousy of the pro-
posed transfer of jurisdiction to a court of law, fearing
that the end would be to give the House of Lords the ulti-
mate decision in election matters, and believed that gene-
rally election committees decided honestly.
Mr. AYRTON thought the judges by their protest had
saved the house the trouble of discussing an untenable
proposition. The same objections made agaiust election
committees were urged iu turn against every court of law
and equity, and ho exhorted the house to consider how the
present system (which he defended) could be improved ra-
ther than how to abandon a jurisdiction which had always
been held to be one of the most important privileges of a
representative body. At any rate he strongly deprecated
its transfer to a second or third rate tribunal.
Mr. BOUVERIE, while justifying the. Government, held
the discussion to have shown how great were the difficul-
ties attendant on a change of jurisdiction. It was abso-
lutely impossible for the judges to undertake this duty,
nor it was necessary, for the present tribunal, as a rule,
was by no means so imcompetent to ascertain the truth as
was represented.
Mr. GLADSTONE pointed out two considerations in
favour of a transference of jurisdiction—one that commit-
tees could only deal with the questions between the two
candidates, and could not enter on a general examination
of the manner in which the electoral franchise had been
exercised in a particular borough; the other, that by the
present system the immense advantages of a local inquiry
were sacrificed. To the principle of a transference of
jurisdiction he did not object, but it must be to the supe-
rior judges. The question he held to be—would the house
give this power•to the highest authorities of the law, or
retain it in its own hands ? The defects of the present
system would be raised to a maximum by the creation of
an inferior tribunal.
Mr. BRIGHT denied that the case was so desperate as
to require the house to give up this important privilege.
But for the prevention of bribery he preferred to trust
rather to the inevitable enlargement of constituencies and
the adoption of the ballot.
Mr. Berkeley, Sir M. Beach, Mr. Locke, Mr. Bonham
Carter, Mr. Cioldney, and Mr. D. Griffith also made
observations, and the bill was then brought in and read a
first:time.
The house adjourned shortly after half-past seven
o'clock.