in favour of the principle on which the made there was but one objection he could clause was framed; but should prefer the entertain-that it fell upon one kind of clause of which the hon. Member for property, and not upon the whole, as it Northumberland (Mr. W. Beaumont) had ought. Hon. Gentleman had promised given Notice that one half the expense their assistance to remove that, and he should be paid out of the rates. closed with the offer held out, and should claim it in due time and place, and upon that distinct understanding he would give his vote. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, that the point which had been for some time under discussion was undoubtedly one of very considerable importance; but as that point had no reference to corrupt practices, he thought the proposed clause would be very much out of place in that Bill. The principle of the clause was one which deserved more consideration than could be given to it on the present occasion. It might be said that the counties and boroughs ought to bear the expenses of the elections; but he thought that principle was open to question. Suppose a Member of Parliament accepted an office in the Government, his appointment to which made it necessary that he should go to his constituents, ought the expenses of the election to be charged on the county or the borough, as the case might be? MR. W. B. BEAUMONT, while preferring his own proposal, would give his support to the second reading of the hon. Member for Brighton's clause. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, it would no doubt be agreeable enough to Members not to be called upon to pay these expenses; but it should be remembered that the county rates were very heavy, and the borough rates so overpowering that in many places they could hardly be collected. Yet they were now asked to pass a clause which was admitted to have nothing to do with corrupt practices-the proper subject of this Bill. Far from lowering the expenses, it would in all probability increase them by diminishing the interest of individual candidates to keep them down. MR. J. STUART MILL: Is it fair or reasonable to take advantage of a technical difficulty in order to leave a question of this sort undecided until after the next election? If in a purely legal point of view it does not belong to the subject of corrupt practices, yet it belongs to a system of measures of which that relating to corrupt practices is the completion. Unless it be agreed to, the system will be left incomplete, and the Reform Act will, in some important respects, actually deteriorate the representation, for its practical effect will be to bring us nearer to a plutocracy than we ever have been before. I would most earnestly appeal to the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance), who has made so excellent a speech in favour of the proposition, to put for the present in abeyance his objections Noes 69: Majority 9. to any additional burthen on the local rates objections in which, as I have stated on a former occasion, I in part agree, and which will certainly, with the whole subject of the incidence of rates, come under the early consideration of the new Parliament. I beg him to trust the fairness and sense of justice of the future House of Commons, and not to resist a provision required for the beneficial working of our political institutions, because it involves a very small, and probably temporary, addition to the local expenditure. MR. CORRANCE said, to the proposal MR. WHITE did not hesitate to say that, taking into consideration the economy which would be practised if this charge were forced upon the constituencies, the burden on the property of the country would not exceed d. in the pound. MR. THOMSON HANKEY expressed his opinion that the Government were acting disgracefully in raising technical objections to the clause, which would certainly receive his hearty support. This was the first occasion on which any attempt had been made to diminish the expenditure at elections. Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time." The Committee divided: -- Ayes 78; MR. W. B. BEAUMONT moved an Amendment in the hon. Member for Brighton's clause as to expenses of returning officers, &c., to the effect that onehalf of these expenses shall be paid out of the rates. MR. BAINES trusted the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont) would not persevere with his Motion, which was founded half in injustice and half in justice. The whole of the official expenses at municipal elections were paid out of the borough rates. MR. FAWCETT said, he was under] the impression that there had been a distinct understanding between himself and the hon. Member for Northumberland to the effect that if his scheme were rejected the hon. Member should introduce his Amendment. On his part, he promised that, in the event of his own proposal being rejected, he would vote for that of his hon. Friend. He was somewhat surprised to find, therefore, that his hon. Friend had now deemed it necessary to bring forward his Amendment. MR. MONK hoped the hon. Member (Mr. W. B. Beaumont) would not withdraw his Amendment. He should not have voted with the hon. Member for Brighton if he had not understood that the hon. Member for Northumberland intended, if the clause were carried, to move his Amendment. MR. M. T. BASS said, he could not see that there had been any misunderstanding in the matter. He trusted that the hon. Member for Northumberland would not press his Amendment. MR. GLADSTONE was also of opinion that there had been no violation of any understanding; but at the same time urged the withdrawal of the Amendment. MR. HENLEY said, that they had been told that Gentleman went down to constituencies ticketed at the amount of money they could spend. He never heard of that before; but the authority was so good, he daresay the statement was true. If a candidate were saved the necessary expenses of an election, he would have so much more money to spend in bribery. MR. W. B. BEAUMONT said, he would withdraw his Motion. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. BOUVERIE objected to the proviso of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) providing that no candidate should be named unless before the day of nomination he should have deposited £100 with the returning officer. A proposal of that nature proceeding from the Liberal side of the House was calculated to make hon. Members' hair stand on end. It was the common right of the electors at an election to nominate anybody who was a subject of the Queen and of full age as a candidate for the constituency. MR. J. STUART MILL said, the House would be glad to learn that anyone could be nominated and elected who was not in possession of £100, but whose friends were willing to put down £100 for him. MR. LIDDELL said, he doubted whe ther it was competent for the House, except in Committee of Ways and Means, to impose burdens upon rates, as had been done by the last division. THE CHAIRMAN intimated that the vote was quite in Order. VISCOUNT MILTON said, the clause which had just been agreed to contained no reference to the county of York or those other counties which were split up into divisions. He moved the addition at the end of the clause of the words "Provided always that in case the county at which the county rate is made is or shall be di vided into two or more parts for Parliamentary charged and defrayed by and out of the county representation, then the same expenses shall be rate levied for that part of the county for which the election takes place." THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER thought the principle of the Amendment was sound, as it would be unjust to saddle a whole county with the expense of an election for one of its divisions, But in most counties at present the county rate was indivisible, and there was no machinery for separating it. It would, therefore, be necessary to add some words to the Amendment to provide ma chinery for dividing the rate. MR. W. B. BEAUMONT said, there were many parishes that were partly in one division and partly in another. MR. BOUVERIE regarded this as an example of the difficulties in which the House had involved itself by accepting the clause. He approved of the principle of the Amendment; but he suggested that the noble Lord (Viscount Milton) should withdraw it for the present, and bring it up in a more practicable form at a future stage of the Bill. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, the whole question was one of policy, not of words. The difficulty of dividing the rates would apply not only to counties but even to certain boroughs, where the pa rishes were not conterminous with the borough. There was neither time nor opportunity to carry into effect a policy of this kind, nor had the House given suffi. cient consideration to the subject. MR. SERJEANT GASELEE believed, that where there was a will there was a way, would not be frightened by the time argument, and would leave the counties to pay for divisional elections rather than sacrifice the clause that had been carried. MR. LEEMAN, as a practical man, said, there was no difficulty whatever in arranging the matter and properly apportioning the county rate. MR. LOCKE also thought that there would be no difficulty in apportioning the expenses among the different districts of a county. MR. CHILDERS said, the Committee had passed by a small majority, but after a considerable discussion, a very important clause, involving a new principle, and he thought it would be undesirable that they should now proceed to the consideration of matters of detail. He would therefore suggest that the noble Lord (Viscount Milton) should withdraw his Amendment, and that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) should allow the proviso to be struck out of the clause on the understanding that upon the Report these two questions would be fully considered, and provision made respecting them. MR. WYLD observed, that many hon. Members had voted for the clause who would not have voted for the proviso. He himself was under the impression that he was voting for the clause alone. VISCOUNT MILTON expressed his readiness to withdraw his Amendment, with a view to afford an opportunity for a more careful consideration of the subject. Amendment withdrawn. MR. FAWCETT intimated, that he would not press his proviso at that moment if it were understood that they should hereafter have an opportunity of considering an amended proposal for the attainment of the same object. If hon. Members should think it a better arrangement he would have no objection to provide that the £100 should be deposited when a poll was demanded. MR. WHITBREAD observed, that if the clause had been proposed without that proviso there were many hon. Gentlemen who would not have voted for it. He therefore suggested that the hon. Member for Brighton should withdraw the clause as a whole, and bring up a new one on the Report. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH thought that, before consenting to have the clause inserted in the Bill, the Committee should have a guarantee that some proviso would be inserted in it to prevent candidates who had no bond fide intention of contesting a seat from standing up on the hustings, getting themselves nominated, and then leaving the county or the borough to pay the expenses. MR. BOUVERIE moved the omission of the proviso from the clause. MR. HENLEY thought the proviso was a material element in the clause. The Committee were now asked to set aside the proviso and, for the present, to take the clause without it. He believed that there were many Members who would not have voted for the clause without the proviso. MR. GLADSTONE observed, that inasmuch as the clause had not yet been added to the Bill nothing had been done to embarrass the Committee. He, and he believed many other Members, had voted for the clause without the slightest idea that they voted for the proviso. They had no notion when voting that the principle which they wished to affirm had been reduced to a practical shape. MR. REPTON concurred in the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). MR. AYRTON thought the hon. Member for Brighton ought to make a statement of his plan. MR. CLAY said, the object of the declaration he proposed was to make it impossible for a gentleman to commit bribery and to hold up his head afterwards. He desired to make bribery an offence for which a man should be blackballed at his club and cut by his friends, for in that way alone could a proper stigma be attached to the offence. It was said that the declaration would catch the man with the sensitive conscience and not the unscrupulous man; but he must indeed be an unscrupulous man who could deliberately make the declaration at the table, knowing that it was false, and that its falsity was known to many others-those others his intimate friends and supporters. Some years ago, when he made a similar proposal, his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. | not trust hon. Members or believe that Osborne), in one of his most effective they would take it truly, but threatened stage whispers, expressed wonder that he to impose a penalty upon those who took could be so green. He was simple enough it improperly. The penalty could not be to believe that the House of Commons exacted until a man had been convicted of contained the pick, not only of the intel- bribery, and then he would be sufficiently lect, but of the honour of England. To punished, for he would be excluded from think otherwise would be treason to that the House for seven years and liable to great Assembly, the having been a Mem- imprisonment. The declaration would ber of which, now for many years, had been only suffice to keep out of the House the one only, and highly-prized illustration persons who might be afraid of the of his career. But if a man made the de- slightest accusation being brought against claration falsely, there must be many who them, and making them feel they were were acquainted with his lie; and if he henceforth unfit for the society of gentleescaped penalty, he could not escape men. disgrace, unless Englishmen were much changed indeed. Some years ago he proposed that making a false declaration should be treated as perjury; but on further consideration he thought it better to attach a penalty, to be given to the informer. He did not care about the amount, wishing it to be understood that it was not imposed as a punishment; for a man who had spent a large sum would think little of an extra £500. All he wanted was to offer a sufficient inducement to any one acquainted with the falsehood to come forward and expose it. By these means alone should we make the offence disgraceful and unworthy of a gentleman; and when we had made it so, he was certain it would not be committed by Members of the House. Clause (Declaration to be subscribed by Members,)-(Mr. Clay,)-brought up, and read the first time. SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN said, he hoped the Government would not accept the clause. They should pause before establishing new declarations like this when they had only just been engaged in abolishing a lot of the old promissory oaths. He believed that such declarations were only traps for tender consciences. They all knew when gentlemen had to make an oath that they had sufficient property qualification, that such oaths were constantly taken by persons who had not the qualification. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, the Government would oppose the clause on the simple ground that these declarations had been very often tried and had invariably failed. They were, in fact, merely a means of putting difficulties in the way of tender consciences. Another reason why he opposed the clause was that the hon. Member who proposed it (Mr. Clay) did MR. J. STUART MILL said, it was no great compliment to the House to represent that it consisted of persons whom a declaration upon honour would not bind. He himself thought a declaration on honour would bind the Members of the House, provided it was imposed with a serious intention of doing so. It had been too much the fashion to regard these declarations as mere forms; but they were so only when the engagement which they made was one which opinion did not really desire to enforce. The object should be to impress upon Members that the House was really in earnest and meant the declaration to be a sincere one. That object was sought to be obtained by the penalty of £500, and he thought this would be a means of enforcing the declaration. MR. J. LOWTHER suggested that a Member who could not subscribe to the declaration might wait until the time for the presentation of Petitions was passed. MR. CLAY denied that a declaration had been tried and failed. No man could take this declaration falsely without knowing it to be false and without knowing that the fact must be within the knowledge of others. When a man entered Parliament with a property qualification supplied to him by others for the purpose, the qualification was real and not fictitious, and the Member, therefore, could honestly make the declaration that used to be required. That a man was thus trusted with a property which he might appropriate to himself-and there was a case in which this had been done - was prima facie evidence that he was a man of honour. MR. NEATE said, he thought the declaration would not meet the worst cases those of boroughs, where it was wellknown votes were bought, for the man 1457 Tenure and Improvement of JULY 18, 1868) who informed would be considered the basest of men. Land &c., (Ireland) Bill. 1458 view of the Solicitor General, he did not wish to discuss the particular point before MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, the the Committee. He wished to induce hon. strongest practical argument in favour of Members who had clauses to consent to this declaration was that it would protect the Bill being reported, and to bring them candidates against the election agents. A up on the Report. He could assure the man might go down to contest a borough Committee that the nicest calculation had and tell his agents and canvassers that he been made on this matter, and it was of intended to do so honourably and honestly. the utmost importance to the progress of Under the old system agents might bribe of the Bill that that course should be unknown to the candidate until he received adopted. Examining the Amendments he his election bills. The candidate in future, fixed upon three of importance in which however, would be unable to take advan-it was desirable the Committee should extage of this device, because he would be unable to make the declaration. MR. AYRTON said, the great difficulty was to find words which would attain the object. He could not conceive of words more cleverly suggestive of scruples and difficulties to conscientious men than the words of the clause. The declaration went beyond the only matter they had to consider, which was whether a man had done anything to disqualify him from sitting in the House Any declaration beyond that was one they had no right to ask a man to make. In one of the grossest cases of bribery that ever occurred the candidate was out of England at the time of the election; and the tendency of the clause would be to encourage the system of a candidate keeping aloof from the election, and of its being understood that it was the express duty of everybody about him to say nothing to him on the subject. MR. SCHREIBER regarded the declaration as a protective in certain respects, which might prove advantageous. MR. M. T. BASS felt persuaded that every clause of the Bill might be dispensed with if the one now under discussion were passed. SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID said, he thought the clause would lower the character of candidates by deterring the conscientious from candidature. He wondered anyone should attach importance to declarations of this kind, when officers constantly made and violated the declaration that they would not pay anything more than the regulation price for their commissions. MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTIN said, the declaration would let in everybody who had no regard for their word, and would keep out the conscientious. MR. DISRAELI said, that unless he could induce the Committee to assist him he saw considerable difficulties in the way of the progress of the Bill. Adopting the press an opinion. They were those of the hon. Baronet the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid), the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), and the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay). They had yet to consider a most difficult questionthe application of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland. This was now under the consideration of the Government, and he was by no means without hope that they would be able on the Report to make a proposition which would be satisfactory. If the Committee, after deciding the issue now before it, would consent to report the Bill, and to take the other Amendments on the Report that would immensely facilitate the progress of the Bill, and he should not despair of carrying it. Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time." The Committee divided: - House resumed. Ayes 45; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 243.] SAINT MARY SOMERSET'S CHURCH, LONDON, BILL. Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members: - Mr. BENTINCK, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Mr. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. TITE, Mr. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE, and Mr. POWELL:-Three to be the quorum :-Leave given to the Committee to sit upon Monday. TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND, &c. (IRELAND) BILL. On Motion of Mr. REARDEN, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Tenure and Improvement of interests, and the reclamation of Waste Lands in Land, the sale and purchase of Land and Tenants' Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. REARDEN and Mr. MICHAEL BASS. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 244.] |