hands. the middle, with a puisne on either side of | presented by the House of Commons to of him, and the fourth was unable to com- King James at the commencement of his municate with anybody. With every pos- reign, they would find that this was one sible respect for the Judges, they should of the points most strongly insisted upon be invited to re-consider their decision. It by the Commons. What was the proposal might be necessary to add two or three to now made by the Government, with the the total number, and when a necessity sanction, apparently, of many hon. Memarose for sending down a special Commis- bers present, and with the approval of the sion connected with elections all the names hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread)? might be put together and a couple of It was to transfer to one person nominated Judges chosen by ballot. The Scotch by the Crown the trial of controverted Judges had very little to do, and they elections. The nomination of the Crown might be got to try the Scotch petitions. now-a-days was the nomination of the party The Irish Judges also, his friends told commanding a majority in that House. And him, had a great deal of leisure on their when party spirit ran high-and they knew hands; and if they were called upon to that Judges, before their appointment at take cognizance of the Irish elections, that any rate, had not been untainted with would be only "justice to Ireland." With party spirit-how long did the House supa little coaxing and encouragement on the pose that the decision of a single Judge part of the Prime Minister, backed by an sitting to try, without appeal, the character expression of opinion on the part of the of hon. Gentlemen and of constituencies, House, the Judges, he was convinced, would continue to be regarded with remight be induced to undertake the duties spect? However pure and upright a single which it was sought to intrust to their Judge might be they might rely upon that, after a time, there would be, rightly or wrongly, a weight of odium accumulating against his decisions, rendering it impossible for such a tribunal to continue. He did not say that the present tribunal was a perfect one; but, like a jury, it ceased to exist as soon as it had given a decision, and though that decision might be found fault with by people out-of-doors, no personal imputation rested upon those who had composed it. They were in the long run admitted to have acted honestly, even if imperfectly, and no odium attached to them. But would this be the case with a single Judge? If a gentleman of the long robe who had taken a warm part in Parliamentary conflicts became a Judge, as often happened, and if he had to decide absolutely upon the seat and the character of the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Opposition, would his decision be accepted as a pure and impartial one? He had spoken with eminent men of the legal profession on the subject; and they had urged with much force that such a jurisdiction involved an amount of odium and an imputation of party spirit which in the long run would assuredly destroy its weight and character. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, than whom there was no more competent authority, had stated this objection very forcibly, showing that Judges were now free from such imputations because they had not to try questions of this kind, and the argument was no mere ad captandum one, but was entitled to great MR. BOUVERIE said, that one suggestion made by the hon. Member for Westminster, to the effect that any transfer of jurisdiction to an external tribunal should be temporary in its character and renewable from time to time, was well worthy of favourable consideration. The experiment was a bold one, and he entertained great doubts whether it would succeed. The House seemed hardly to attach sufficient value to the constitutional privilege which, to a great extent, it still retained of appointing its own tribunal to try those important questions concerning the seats of its own Members. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin) had very properly objected to the proposal to place the trial of controverted elections in the hands of a Judge without a jury. For what was the present tribunal but a small jury selected with care by the House, and composed of men in whom it could trust, to try the question of facts, whether the sitting Member by his agents had or had not been guilty of bribery? Let the House bear in mind that this privilege had been only won from the Crown after a great struggle 250 years ago. It was thought then by our ancestors, who were as wise, perhaps wiser, than ourselves upon these matters, that it was essential to their independence that they should have the trial of these questions in their own hands. And if hon. Members thought fit to look back to the Great Remonstrance the House would weigh well the importance of parting with a privilege wrung from the Crown by our ancestors, he would recommend the hon. Member for Berwick-onTweed (Mr. A. Mitchell) not to divide the House upon his Amendment, since it was not favourably viewed, and he thought that in Committee the practical difficulties of the Government scheme would be so evident as to necessitate a preference for something like the existing system. weight. His hon. Friend (Mr. Whitbread) | the Crown, it would be much better than had urged that the plan proposed would the present proposal. While trusting that secure a trial on the spot and an immediate decision; but if, as the hon. Member for Westminster had suggested, there were a fishing inquiry into every election, there would be little prospect of an immediate decision, and even if only returns that were petitioned against were inquired into, he questioned whether the dilatoriness of the new tribunal would not far exceed that of the present one. Indeed, one of the advantages of Parliamentary Committees, whether with regard to election petitions or Private Bills, was that their administration of justice, however rough and unskilful, was rapid. A decision was given within a reasonable time, whereas, if forty, fifty, or sixty petitions had to be tried by two Judges in all parts of the country, with the host of witnesses which a local inquiry would produce, he doubted whether the proceedings would be completed in less than two or three years. He thought that a great deal of the public feeling which existed as to the unsatisfactory nature of the present tribunal was due to a misapprehension. The popular notion was that a Committee sat to try the corruption of a constituency; but in truth the simple issue to be tried was whether the sitting Member had been guilty, personally or by his agents, of bribery or treating, and the amount of evidence adduced by the petitioners was generally the smallest which could be adduced with safety to their cause. A Committee had not to inquire into the general corruption of a constituency, over which, indeed, all parties were more or less interested in drawing a veil; and the simple issue presented to them was one which a jury of English gentle men were perfectly competent to determine. Moreover, the expense, unless from an unforeseen accident the proceedings were unusually delayed, was not excessive. An inquiry on the spot would, he believed, be more costly-["Oh!"]-because the expensive part of the machinery would have to be taken down to the inexpensive part. He believed it would be dearer for the counsel and agents to go down from London than for the witnesses to be brought up. However that might be, he thought the local inquiry should be confined to the charge of corruption against a constituency; and if the Bill provided a permanent tribunal for the investigation of such charges, whenever made, without the cumbrous preliminary of an Address by both Houses to MR. AYRTON said, that the House was now discussing for the first time a measure of great importance, and, before going into Committee, they ought to know how Scotch and Irish petitions were to be tried. Were they to be tried in the same manner, or were they to be tried in Scotland and Ireland by the ordinary Judges? He would not attempt the disagreeable task of persuading hon. Members to retain an authority which they felt themselves conscientiously unfit to exercise; but he doubted whether this measure would improve the administration of the law. It had, apparently, two objects-first to deprive the House of its jurisdiction, in regard to the right of Members to sit in it, and secondly to repress electoral corruption. Now, would it not be better to pursue the latter object alone, without dealing with the question of jurisdiction? That question had important constitutional bearings; and its transference to the Judges might raise the question whether a seat had been vacated, or whether a writ had been properly issued, leading, perhaps, to a conflict between the House and an authority beyond its walls. It had been said that there was a law of the land as administered in Westminster Hall, and a law of Parliament administered in this House, and that a Judge thoroughly conversant with the former might be profoundly ignorant of the latter. Now, a Judge vested with this authority might enforce what he held to be the law of the land without taking due cognizance of the law of Parliament. So far from their being likely to repress bribery, he believed these provisions were artfully conceived for the purpose of encouraging bribery. [" Oh !"']. He would tell the House why. A Judge of Assize was to go down, with all the dignity of his office, to try a charge of electoral corruption. He would not go down like those ferrets, the Commissioners, who had no dignity to uphold, and who could pur sue their inquiries when and where they had 200 years ago extorted this privilege pleased, and ascertain the truth. The from the Crown. But the state of things Judge was to try an issue technically was very different 200 years ago from what raised under an Act of Parliament. Well, it was now. Then it was the law and custhe parties prosecuting might not appear, tom of Parliament to determine the right and then the Judge could no nothing; his of the different electors to vote for the diffunctions were practically at an end. In ferent places, and that law and custom of order to ensure that the Judge should have Parliament could not be interpreted by as little as possible to do, what did the Bill any authority but that of Parliament itself. propose? It proposed that a man should But the moment they turned the right of be compelled to give such a security as election into statutory law, then it was no would make him very unwilling to act at longer a question for the House of Comall. And, then, in order to insure a full mons to determine, according to the cusdisclosure of corruption, the Bill provided tom of Parliament, but according to the that, in the case of an inquiry into the rules by which Courts of Law decide that general corruption of a constituency, the and other questions. The question which expenses of the inquiry should fall upon was sent to a Committee upstairs to dethe inhabitants of the place. He could cide was not what the Parliamentary cusnot conceive any expedients better devised tom might be, but what the statute law to render the inhabitants indisposed to a was. Then, the second objection taken full and searching inquiry. Besides, the by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Judge would confine himself to trying the Stuart Mill) was to this effect, that they one simple and narrow issue-the right to were about to transfer to the Judges of the seat; and, the moment a single act of the land a power which they might exercise bribery was proved, the Judge would be in a manner not satisfactory to the House, called upon to decide the question of the inasmuch as they were appointed by the seat, as it was not for the interest of any- Crown. Such an objection as that would one to expose general corruption or to risk also have been very good 200 years ago, the disfranchisement of the borough. He when the Judges were removeable at the was perfectly ready to go into Committee pleasure of the Crown; but when once the for the purpose of seeing whether they Judges were made independent, they were could discover a mode for putting down as independent of the Crown as of that bribery and corruption, though he held House in administering the law. The next that the Bill would wholly fail to effect the objection was one that was urged by the main purpose for which it was said to have hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Wykehambeen introduced. He recommended the Martin), and there was some force in ithon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed to that they were giving power to a single withdraw his Amendment. Judge to try questions affecting the cha racter of individuals, and to inflict upon them very heavy penalties. Now, the Bill dealt with two different subjects-the one a question of law, the other of fact. With regard to the question of law, that would be referred back under the Bill to more Judges than one. But with regard to the question of fact, it might be worth while to consider in Committee, whether in some cases it might not be the privilege and right of persons whose interests were affected to insist upon having the matter tried by a jury under the direction of a Judge. The last objection was raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton)—namely, that they would by this Bill increase, instead of diminish, corruption and expense. But how could that be proved? The fact was, that if they sent these matters to an independent tribunal, where the Judges were not interested in the least degree in MR. WALPOLE said, he believed the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was very easy-namely, that, by the very provisions of the Bill now before the House, Her Majesty's Government must almost of necessity bring in a measure which, regard being had to the different circumstances of the country, would establish as nearly as possible the same system for Scotland and Ireland. The objections taken to this Bill were of four kinds. The first objection insisted on in the Amendment, and still more strengthened by the argument of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), was that it was proposed to take away the jurisdiction of the House. But the Secretary of State for India had shown very clearly that the privilege supposed to belong to the House was clearly imaginary. It was very true, as the right hon. Gentleman had reminded them, that the House upholding corruption or in screening it, the probability was that they would do more to put a stop to the vicious practices than if they were to keep the inquiry in the hands of those who might come personally into contact with the gentlemen implicated in the alleged crime, and who, therefore, might be disposed to be more lenient than a Judge of the land would be. On the subject of expense, his hon. and learned Friend could hardly be serious in arguing that to try these questions where the witnesses were not brought from a great distance, where large fees were not paid to counsel, and where constant adjournments would not take place, could be more expensive than it was at present where such inconveniences also necessarily occurred. It is true that by this Bill the alleged corruption of any particular constituency would not be investigated, because the issue would be raised not with regard to the general constituency, but with regard to the particular seat, and, in such cases, recourse must be had to a petition presented to that House, and the matter must be tried by a different tribunal when the charge of corruption was distinctly brought against a whole constituency. For these reasons he hoped the House would go into Committee, in order to constitute a better tribunal than that which they had been hitherto able to obtain. MR. HENLEY said, he was anxious to say a few words on this Bill. He thought it was incumbent on those who wished to make a great change to take away a privilege of 200 years' standing-to show distinctly that what they proposed would be an improvement, and that it would stop that corruption which it was its professed object to put down. Let them look to the tribunal constituted under the Bill. The House was now discussing a second proposal. The first proposal was for Judges of a certain standing; but now they had got to Judges of higher salaries and greater honours, and not only that, but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) said that they must have a jury also. But where were they to end? Now he, for one, was of opinion that they were departing from the old principles of our law and jurisprudence in putting crimes of such vast consequence not only to individuals, but to the country, upon the judgment of a single man. He cared not who that man was for; they could not show, in the whole range of our law, an instance in which issues of this kind were placed at the will of a single man without appeal. For what were they doing? They were not only depriving the individual of a seat; but they were putting it in the power of this Judge to stamp with infamy for seven years, any man whom he might condemn honestly, no doubt, but perhaps mistakenly. If the case were a simple one, where there was no conflict of testimony, it was not of much consequence what kind the tribunal was, for justice was sure to be done. But in these cases there was always a great conflict of testimony from the mouths of witnesses not the most reliable; for, generally, the class of witnesses on election petitions was tinged with party feeling. He did not mean that they said what they knew not to be true; but in the heat of elections people acted under the influence of strong feelings, and the most contrary evidence of what took place was given. The proper tribunal for such cases was a jury; and if the House wanted to have justice done they would take care to have juries where men helped one another to come to a right conclusion. Juries would do justice where a single Judge would not do it. In the conflict of testimony a single man would shrink from coming to a hostile conclusion. And why did they say that cases where a a man's life, or character, or property was at issue should come before a jury, and not merely before a Judge? Well, if they were right in that, on what principle would they hand cases of contested elections over to a single Judge? At present a Committee of five was a jury composed of a man's equals, and that was the principle of our law from beginning to end. He thought it was incumbent on the Government to show that the Court which they proposed to establish would be better, more in consonance with the usages of this country, and more likely to stop corruption. He did not believe it would be. He gave the Government great credit for endeavouring to deal with this very difficult subject; but he did not believe that their plan would be an improvement on the existing system. If this were so, it would be better not to proceed. He did not think that abstract Resolutions were convenient. It would be far better to have no abstract Resolution at all on the matter. He was sure that the House would even give up a privilege if by so doing they could stop bribery and corruption; but he repeated that he did not think this Bill would have that effect. MR. CRAUFURD opposed the progress of the Bill, on the ground that it would, by its operation, entail as much expense as, or more expense than, was caused by the present system. He thought that it was due to the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and to the House that the Head of the Government should meet the objections which had been urged against the Bill. He begged, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate. This Amendment met with no Seconder. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question,' put, and agreed to. that not only private soldiers, but officers, and even noblemen, were occasionally subject to the infliction. The question had very much progressed since it had last been discussed in that House, although in the House itself the cause had retrograded; their proceedings with respect to the practice having been something like the Pyrrhic dance a step forward and then another backwards. Although flogging had been abolished for certain offences, the distinction which had before prevailed was abolished. Formerly all soldiers when "first enlisted belonged to the first class, on which corporal punishment could on no pretence be inflicted; but, in a weak moment, the Minister for War yielded to the representations of Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and abolished the distinction of classes which Lord Herbert had pronounced to be the great protection of the soldier. It might be said that this question should not be discussed now, because the larger question of Courts martial was submitted to a Royal Commission. Of late an extraordinary theory of Government had been acted upon when difficult questions were for settlement, which was to relieve the Executive of its responsibilities by referring the matter to a Royal Commission. Passing that by, the Royal Commission in question could not command the confidence of the country. With the exception of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), until the Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. MR. DISRAELI moved that the Chairman report Progress. MR. AYRTON hoped that before the Motion was agreed to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would state the intentions of the Government with respect to Ireland and Scotland. MR. DISRAELI: We propose, when this Bill is carried, to introduce Bills for Ireland and Scotland analogous in their nature to this, though not exactly the same. We do not contemplate that it will be necessary to increase the number of Judges either in Ireland or in Scotland. Motion agreed to. House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Capupon Monday next. MUTINY BILL.-COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. (In the Committee.) Clauses 1 to 21, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 22 (Providing for the infliction of corporal punishment). MR. OTWAY said, that this question had been so often argued in the House that he should not dwell upon it at any length. Last year he showed that corporal punishment had failed as a remedial measure; that those soldiers who had been subject to it had become worse men; and that, in modern armies, with one exception, corporal punishment had been abandoned. In the Russian army he believed the lash was still administered; but even there it was more equitable than with us, seeing VOL. CXCI. [THIRD SERIES.] tain Vivian) was appointed the other day, the Members of that Commission had, by voice or vote, expressed themselves in favour of corporal punishment. Yet he assumed that the most important thing to be decided by the Royal Commission was this very question of corporal punishment. Pending the decision of this Royal Commission, he maintained that it was important that the punishment of the lash should be suspended. What would be the feelings of any man who was punished while the question was under consideration? And who were the men on whom we inflicted this degrading punishment? In all times, from the days of Cressy and Agincourt to those of Waterloo and Lucknow, the British soldier had been a model of valour and discipline, and yet he was to be subjected to the same degradation as a cowardly garotter or a convicted felon. Parliament had recently admitted the fathers and brothers of British soldiers within the pale of the Constitution; let them do one thing M |