delinquencies of the corrupt. The elec-, passed last year, and which was identical tion of Dublin hung upon a balance, with the provision of the Corrupt Pracand the learned Judge found that cor- tices Act, it was enacted that if a Judge rupt practices prevailed to the extent stated in his Report that corrupt practhat he had named. If the right hon. tices had extensively prevailed, or if Gentleman the Member for Oxford Uni- there was reason to believe that they had versity had expressed a wish to have extensively prevailed at the election, the the Report of the learned Judge he (the House might promote an Address for a Attorney General for Ireland) would Commission. Now, Mr. Justice Keogh have moved the adjournment of the de- thoroughly understood what he was bate. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: I ap- about when he drew up his Report, and applied to the hon. Member at an early in that Report he absolutely negatived period of the evening.] He was then the idea of corrupt practices having exready to move the adjournment of the tensively prevailed by the words— debate if the House desired it, because he desired very much to see the learned Judge's Report. It appeared, from the notes of the evidence, that the wretched men who were bribed immediately after they had voted went into a lonesome place and there had a used railway ticket handed to them. One of the witnesses stated that when he got the ticket he was told to go to 76, Capel Street, where a man was waiting, who pointed to the door of the parlour. The witness went in, and was told to knock at a door, one of the panels of which was broken at the top. A hand was put out, and he gave the ticket, when an envelope, with a £5 note enclosed, was handed to him. Witness after witness deposed to this miserable organization, and if these corrupt practices were not inquired into they might as well shut up the statute book. MR. STAVELEY HILL expressed his sorrow that he was not able, like the learned Attorney General for Ireland, to rise above the miserable quibbles of an Act of Parliament. He would endeavour, notwithstanding the excited harangue to which they had just listened, to bring the House back to consider that what they were now doing was to discuss, as accurately as they could, the absolute meaning of an Act of Parliament, by which the Commissioners, if a Commission should issue, would, most certainly, be bound. If the Commission issued irregularly, it would spread at once that it was invalid, and the orders which the Commissioners might issue would be disobeyed. It was most essential, therefore, that the matter should not rest on what the Attorney General believed to be the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, but upon something far higher. If the House would be well advised, let them consider the proper construction of the Act. By Section 15 of the Election Petitions Act, which was VOL. CXCV. [THIRD SERIES.] "And I do further report that, save as I have reported respecting the said Freemen, corrupt practices have not been shown to have extensively prevailed, nor is there reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election to which the said Petition relates." He found that a considerable number of freemen had been bribed. He said— "I have reason to believe that corrupt practices Voters at the said Election for the County of the have extensively prevailed among the Freemen City of Dublin." And he absolutely laid down to what extent corrupt practices did prevail among the freemen voters. He said that fifteen persons whom he named, and twenty-five who were not named, making up fifty freemen, had been bribed. under a further section of the Act of last Why did he name them? Because, Session, penalties would be dealt out to those named by the Judge. The Judge named the parties who had made themselves amenable to justice, but he found that the borough was not amenable to justice. ["No, no!"] If he did not, for what purpose did he add the words he had quoted?— reported respecting the said Freemen, corrupt "And I do further report that, save as I have practices have not been shown to have extensively prevailed, nor is there reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election to which the said Petition relates." This was really no party matter. The Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Attorney General for Ireland, knew that to-morrow morning this matter would go forth to be canvassed by the Bench and the Bar of England and Ireland as to what should be the right construction of the law. He hoped the House would carefully weigh the subject. For himself, he was quite content to be bound by the judgment formed on the view which those on that (the Opposition) side of the House had taken, for 2 T he felt sure, after the most careful consideration of the clause, that the Commission could not legally issue under that Act, and except under the Act of Parliament it could not issue at all. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, some allusion had been made to the opinion of the Lord Chancellor upon the subject, and as he (the Attorney General) had been challenged on the point by the late Home Secretary, he might say that he had every reason to believe that the Lord Chancellor entertained the opinion that the Commission could issue. After the very able argument of the Attorney General for Ireland, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House at any length. He himself had no doubt that the Report of Mr. Justice Keogh was in the very terms and according to the letter and spirit of the statute. The Report of the Judge stated that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in his belief at the last election; and it was not the less a Report to that effect, because the learned Judge had designated the class among whom the corrupt practices prevailed. The Judge designated them for the purpose of directing the inquiries of the Commission. Because corrupt practices prevailed chiefly, or only, among a certain class, was it to be held that they did not prevail on the constituency? If a Judge reported that corrupt practices prevailed only among the voters below £10, or only among the shopkeepers, would any man say that that was not a case for inquiry? And that was not a hypothetical but an actual case, for Mr. Baron Martin, in the trial of the Norwich election petition on which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) himself warmly supported the Motion for a Commission, reported that the corrupt practices were principally confined to one class. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: I deny that.] Baron Martin reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in the borough, and then went on to say, in the next sentence-"So far as the evidence went the voters bribed were of one class-namely, work-people in the receipt of daily wages." The two Reports were, in substance, precisely the same. Would any man say that a Commission ought not to issue unless every class of voters was proved to be corrupt? In that case the law would not apply to any town except Totnes, where he believed every man was bribed. His hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) said there were less than fifty voters reported by Mr. Justice Keogh as having been bribed; but his hon. and learned Friend had omitted to notice that part of the Report in which Mr. Justice Keogh spoke of 200 voters who had signed agreements undertaking to give their services gratuitously to Sir Arthur Guinness, and which agreements the learned Judge said were colourable and framed with the object of evading the law. Under all the circumstances, he believed the Report was within the Act, and he trusted that the House would take that view of it. MR. O'REILLY DEASE said, that very few men had given the same attention to the subject of the freemen of Dublin as himself, because about ten years ago he was invited to contest the City. He therefore gave the matter his most anxious consideration. The whole thing lay in a nutshell. There were about 2,600 freemen, about 1,600 or 1,800 of whom were among the most highly educated voters in the kingdom. There were, however, also about 400 of the most corrupt in the world. The House would learn nothing more than it already knew from a Commission. If they abolished the freemen, they would do no injustice whatever to the respectable portion of the body, because they possessed the franchise already in other ways; and the only result would be that, instead of voting in a separate booth, they would mix with their fellow-citizens and vote with them. He opposed a Commission as a waste of time and money. DR. BALL said, he regretted to be obliged to differ from the Attorney General as to the construction of the statute. It obliged the Judge to find that corrupt practices prevailed at the election if such were the fact, and, although the corruption was confined to a particular class. What the Act contemplated was, that the Judge should find the corruption co-extensive with the borough; and that, if it were confined to a class, the corruption should, nevertheless, bear a sufficient proportion to the whole constituency. The House was asked to take upon itself to limit the inquiry to the corrupt practices of the freemen, although the Act of Parliament gave no such power as issuing an inquiry confined to a particular class. He happened to be familiar with this subject, having been Chairman of the Bribery Commission had reported that corruption extensively that sat in Galway. There was no bri- prevailed within a large portion of the bery in Galway except among the free-constituency of Dublin, the House were, men; but the Committee reported that on the ground that the Act did not percorruption extensively prevailed in the mit a Commission to issue, to issue a borough, and they were justified in doing Writ for a new election, and thus allow that because of the proportion of the free- those who had been guilty of bribery to men to the householders. There were exercise the franchise. On this account 2,630 freemen in Dublin. To 2,000) of he would vote with the hon. and gallant that body no one imputed any malprac- Member (Mr. O'Reilly) though he was tices; and why should they open an in- not quite sure whether it would not have quiry as to the whole 12,000 electors, been better, under the circumstances, to which would necessitate an inquiry, not pass a special Act authorizing an inquiry only into the last election, but into the as to the corrupt proceedings of the freeelection before, and even into the elec- men of Dublin. tion before that ? Question put. MR. CHARLEY said, he had no objection to the names of two of the Com The House divided :-Ayes 192 ; Noes missioners—Mr. Stephen Woulfe Flana 120 : Majority 72. gan and Mr. Charles H. Tandy—but he Main Question put, and agreed to. did object to the name of Mr. Hugh Resolved, That an humble Address be preLaw. He occupied a high position at sented to Her Majesty, as followeth : the Irish Bar, but he was the Blackstone Most Gracious Sovereign, of the Irish Catholics; and it was impos We, Your Majesty's niost dutiful and loyal sible that the Protestants of Dublin could United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Commons of the Subjects, the have any confidence in Mr. Hugh Law, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to when he sat in judgment on the Pro- represent to Your Majesty, that Mr. Justice testant freemen of Dublin. Keogh, one of the Justices of the Court of SIR GEORGE GREY said, he had Common Pleas in Ireland, and one of the listened with close attention to the dis- Judges selected for the trial of Election Peti tions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections cussion, and he was not free from some Act, 1868, has reported to the Ilouse of Comdoubt whether the Report of the Judge mons that corrupt practices did extensively brought the case within the Act of prevail amongst the Freemen voters at the Parliament. The case was a new one, last Election for the City of Dublin, and that and the peculiar terms of the Report of corrupt practices have not been shown to have save as reported respecting the said Freemen the Judge made it one of some difficulty; extensively prevailed, nor is there reason to be. but, after hearing the opinion of his lieve that corrupt tices have extensively prehon. and learned Friend (the Attorney vailed at the said Election. General) below him, he could not take We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause upon himself to say that it might not be inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of brought within the terms of the Act, be- the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth cause the Judge reported that exten- year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, “ An sive bribery prevailed, although it was Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the limited to a certain class. He had no existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,” by the appointdoubt as to another question, and that ment of Stephen Woulfe Flanagan, esquire, ono Was that, whether it was held that the of Her Majesty's counsel, Hugh Law, esquire, Judge's report came within the terms of one of Her Majesty's counsel , and Charles H. the Act or not, the Writ ought not to Tandy, esquire, one of Her Majesty's counsel, as issue for the City of Dublin until some into the existence of such corrupt practices. Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry means had been taken for purifying the Address to be communicated to the constituency from these corrupt prac- Lords, and their concurrence desired tices. The House might, if it pleased, thereto. proceed independently of the Act. At Yarmouth, he believed, when it was INCLOSURE ACT. shown that corruption had extensively MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. prevailed among the class of freemen, & special Act was passed, and they were MR. FAWCETT—who had given nodisfranchised. It would be casting con- tice of a Motion for a Select Committee tempt upon these inquiries, and laying to inquire whether the provisions of the the House open to the imputation of Inclosure Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118, so far screening corruption, if after the Judge as they relate to the Labouring Poor, a have been duly carried out in the In- And, on April 26, Committee nominated as closure Bills annually brought before follows :--- Mr. William CowPER, Sir Michael Parliament; and, further, to inquire nel Baritelor, Mr. Versos Parcours, Lord Hicks-REACII, Mr. KraTCHBULL-HEGESSEN, Coo whether, in order properly to protect the George Hamilton, Mr. Thomas Chambeas, Mir. interest of the public, the Act 8 & 9 Vict. Knight, Mr. Leveson Gower, Mr. LIDDELL, Nr. c. 118, requires amendment — under- Pease, Mr. William LowTHER, Mr. A xDELY standing that his Motion would be Johnston, Mr. Walsa, Mr. Paulip WTAREAN agreed to on his consenting to the MARTIN, Mr. Peek, and Mr. Fawcett :-Power to Amendment which had been proposed be the quorum. send for persons, papers, and records ; Fire to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. W. F. LOCAL OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION (IEECowper) said that he would accept the LAND) BILL. Amendment, although it would some- On Motion of Mr. Piu, Bill to enable Corpo what narrow the scope of the inquiry. rate and other Public Bodies in Ireland to grasi Superannuation Allowances to Officers in their Motion made, and Question proposed, services in certain cases, ordered to be brouglas is " That a Select Committee be appointed to in- | by Mr. Pix and Sir John Gray. quire whether the inclosure Act 8 and 9 Vic. Bill presented, and read the first time. (Bill 87.) c. 118, requires amendment."-(Mr. Fawcett.) House adjourned at Two o'clock. COLONEL BARTTELOT said, that he thought this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass, or be handed over to a Select Committee, without there being a full discussion in the House. MR. W.F. COWPER—after remarking that the original proposal of the HOUSE OF COMMONS, hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) would open too wide a field of inquiry Wednesday, 21st April, 1869. moved the addition of the following words :“In respect to the provisions for places of MINUTES.)-WAYS AND Means-considered in Committee-Consolidated Fund (£17,100,00 public recreation, and for allotments for the labouring poor.” Public Bills-Ordered— First Reading-Loca Government Supplemental * [90]. Amendment proposed, First Reading-Naval Stores At the end of the Questions, to add the words Second Reading General of India * [89]. Marriage with a Deceased " in respect to the provisions for places of public ' i Wife's Sister [23]. recreation, and for allotments for the labouring poor."—(Mr. William Couper.) MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFES MR. BRUCE, concurring in the re SISTER BILL-[Bill 23.] mark of the right hon. Gentleman the (Mr. Thomas Chambers, Mr. Morley.) Member for South Hampshire that the SECOND READING, Order for Second Reading read. wide a field of inquiry, said that the Go- MR. T. CHAMBERS, in moving that vernment would not refuse to accede to the Bill be now read a second time, said the Motion of the hon. Member for that the numerous Petitions which as: Brighton, as it was limited by the been presented in favour of it indicated Amendment of the right hon. Member though imperfectly, the interest felt by for South Hampshire. the country in the question. His object Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH re-was to remove from the marriage law & gretted that the Bill had not first been restriction which had been long passed, and supported the addition. plained of. The grievance had been Question, "That those words be there again and again brought before the added," put, and agreed to. House of Commons. In thirty-thre Main Question, as amended, put, and divisions of that House the law, as it at present stood, had been condemned; tre agreed to. Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed a measure to remove the restriction: ad times the House had virtually sanctioned to inquire whether the Inclosure Act 8 and 9 Vic . four times the House had sent up to the c. 118, requires amendment in respect to the visions for places of public recreation, and for House of Lords a Bill with that object allotments for the labouring poor. The subject had been amply discussed ia [88]; Gorerer a both Houses. The metropolitan, pro- expressly nor impliedly prohibited in vincial, and colonial Press had examined Scripture. Dr. Robinson, the well-known it thoroughly, and it had excited the author of Biblical Researches in Palesdeepest interest among all classes of the tine, regarded as a famous authority by population. Under these circumstances the Presbyterians, and Dr. Henderson, it might be supposed that he would, on and Dr. Pye Smith, high authorities the present occasion, spare the House the among the Dissenters, entertained a necessity of listening to any observations similar opinion. He might also appeal of his; but, as the present Parliament in support of his argument to the light was a new one, and as there were 250 in which an enactment so intimately new Members in the House of Commons, affecting social life had ever been rehe felt it his duty to state the reasons garded by that nation to which the law which had influenced him in bringing was given. Dr. Adler, the Chief Rabbi, this measure forward. The question was said, speaking of the marriage in queswhether the restriction upon marriage tionwith a deceased wife's sister was justi- “Not only is it not prohibited, but it is disfiable. Undoubtedly, liberty in relation tinctly understood to be permitted ; and, on this to marriage was the general rule, and if point, neither the Divine law, nor the Rabbis, nor historical Judaism leaves room for the least doubt." a restriction was to be maintained in a particular case, the onus rested with the So strong, indeed, was the conviction advocates of that restriction to show that of the Jews on the subject that the it was justifiable—that it was expedient practice was to allow a man who had in itself, and that it was proper to enforce children left by his first wife to contract it by penal laws. If there were any a marriage of this kind earlier after the justification for the restriction now under death of his wife than a marriage with consideration it must be found in the another woman. It, therefore, did aplaw of nature or the law of God, pear to him that there was no room for which he believed to be identical. Al- doubt as to the interpretation of the though there might be mentioned some passage. But then it was said that, by instances in which a marriage not speci- a parity of reasoning from something fically and in terms forbidden by the else found in the Bible, this marriage Scriptures, was nevertheless, by com- must be considered as disallowed. Parity mon consent, considered as unlawful, it of reasoning was a dangerous doctrine, was in the main true, that for the and could never be employed unless one marriage law, we must look to what the was certain of all the reasons for estabScripture had said, and be guided by it. lishing the specific enactments. With Now, the argument of the supporters of regard to the specific enactments of the Bill was, that as the Divine law re- Leviticus, it was undeniable that for all strained marriage with a deceased wife's that was allowed and for all that was forsister only under one condition, it must bidden they did not know the whole of be held emphatically to allow it in all the reasons. The law was laid down, other cases. The law in Leviticus for- but the reasons were not in every inbade such a marriage only during the stance assigned. Parity of reasoning lifetime of the sister. This was perfectly was supposed to be illustrated by the plain from the terms of the law itself, case of the brother's wife, marriage with which declared that a man should not whom was said to be forbidden; and it l take a wife to her sister to vex her in her was argued that, by analogy, marriage lifetime. It was, however, contended by with a deceased wife's sister was prohisome that that was not the correct inter- bited. But so far from the marriage of a pretation of the passage, and conse- man with his brother's widow being forquently, in order to come to a decision bidden, in the 25th chapter of Deuteroon that point, reference must be made to nomy, it was actually enjoined under authority. Among candid minds there certain circumstances; and even when could be no doubt as to the sense in the brothers had lived together, and which the best Hebrew scholars accepted formed part of the same family and the passage, and one of the highest household. Changing the case, therefore, authorities, the Rev. Alexander M'Caul, from the death of a brother to the stated that, after having re-examined the death of a wife, the enactment, if drawn question, he was confirmed in the opinion on the principle of parity of reasoning, he formerly expressed, that marriage would be that, if sisters dwelt together with a deceased wife's sister was neither and one of them died leaving a widower, a |