993 set its face against bribery had the opportunity of coming forward to prove it; and those interested in preserving the representation of the place had the opportunity of making out a case for that purpose. But let not the House suppose that because there are 600 electors not proved guilty of bribery that all these must be innocent persons to whom we should be doing wrong by disfranchisement. It is impossible that such gross corruption could have gone on without its being generally known. If all these electors had done their duty there might have been no necessity for the Commission. The Commission has heard the case and has reported. What, then, is the House to hear? This is not a question of private right. It is a question of public functions of which we are judges. No counsel could assist us in the duty of debate which will devolve upon us when it comes before us. We are the persons to argue this question on the ground of public right. It would be wrong to look at this as a matter of private right. When it is proved that a constituency has been guilty of gross and systematic corruption, it is for us to determine whether that constituency shall continue to return Members. That is not the duty of counsel; and if the House were to take the course proposed, it would, in fact, be calling upon counsel to participate in our debates. For this reason, I say such a course ought not to be followed. Enormous inconvenience would arise from such a precedent. If counsel were to come to your Bar, who could stop counsel? They might argue from the contents of these blue books to the very end of the Session-and they not improbably would, and bring business to a dead-lock. If it could be shown that sound principles of justice required this, then no difficulties ought to stand in the way. But no principles of justice do require it :-it is our business, when facts have been ascertained before a competent tribunal, to determine what ought to be done. My noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) gave forcible reasons why the cases of these boroughs should be dealt with singly rather than be mixed up with a Reform Bill; and it is only right to point out that the mode in which it is proposed to deal with these places is inconvenient on many accounts. Upon all former occasions of disfranchisement where there has been corruption established, the proceeding has been by Bill for that special purpose; and it has been shown, on the face of the Act, VOL. CLXXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] what were the grounds of disfranchise- MR YORKE said, he had understood SIR ROUNDELL PALMER said, that such a Report must have been made as to justify the issue of a Commission. It was for the House to address Her Majesty to issue a Commission. MR. YORKE said, he wished to point out that last year, from the inquiry which took place, it was shown that corrupt practices had prevailed extensively at the election which took place in 1865 for the borough of Galway. He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) whether it was his intention to move for a Commission to make inquiry into the circumThe right hon. Gentleman said stances. that he was unwilling to move for a Commission to inquire into the corrupt practices, as the Chairman of the Committee did not think fit to do so; but that if any other person moved for it he would assent to it. No Member of the Committee did move for the issuing of a Commission. He wished to know whether it was the right course that the Government of the day should allow the question whether a Commission should issue to depend upon the opinion entertained by the Chairof the Committee or the zeal of some Member of that body? It appeared to him that it was not right to allow a matter of this kind to depend on what the Chairman or the Members of the Committee might think fit to do. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he would remind the House that there was another case last year besides that of Galway. He alluded to Bridgwater. He had made an ineffectual attempt to prevent the issue of a writ for that borough. But the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) supported the Motion for the writ. Probably the right hon. Baronet expected to win the seat. At Both sides expected to win it. all events, both sides of the House assented to it, and both had won it one after the other. The Ministerial side had been outbid in that borough. It was not an im 2 K proper or extravagant assertion to say that I tigation of the Royal Commission shall be in all probability the same means had been conclusive. The second is that the House employed at Bridgwater as had previously may be induced-as I hope it will within been had recourse to at Yarmouth. a few days-to delegate part of their authority whenever there are these alle sors, who shall proceed to investigate the matter on the spot. If the House shall adopt these two proposals and adhere to them, I do hope and believe that we shall, if not entirely terminate, at all events greatly limit bribery and corruption. MR. SCOURFIELD said, he thought that there was one point to which attention had not been directed, and that was, what was to become of the voters in these corrupt boroughs? Were they, when the boroughs were disfranchised, to enter into the county constituencies? If so, it would place the Members for the counties in rather an unenviable position. He would suggest to those Gentlemen who were so fond of grouping that all the corrupt boroughs should be grouped, and that they should return one Member that was, if there could be found any gentlemen bold enough to canvass them. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that in the case of the borough of Galway the Chair-gations of bribery and corruption to assesman of the Committee objected to move for a Commission because he found that Commissions were not followed by the exercise of the penal powers of the House. He (Sir George Grey) endeavoured to dis. suade him from acting on that opinion, but unsuccessfully, and when the hon. Member (Mr. Yorke) applied to him he told him that it was perfectly competent for any Member of the Committee to move for a Commission, and that if that course were acted upon he had no doubt that he should be able to support the Motion made. Such a Motion, however, had never been made by the Government. It was always made by a Member of the Committee, because the Members of the Committee were familiar with the evidence. The practice had been for the Chairman or a Member of the Committee in moving for a Commission to give a short summary of the evidence, to point out the parts that bore most materi ally upon the question, and upon that to ask the House to issue a Commission. No Member of the Committee had taken that course. Therefore, he ventured to presume that no Member of the Committee thought that a sufficient case had been made out for the issue of a Commission; and he had not felt himself called upon to read the evidence through in order to move for a Commission. The case of Bridgwater was very different. The matter in that case was brought before the House, and one Member of the Committee after another said that though they felt there had been corruption at Bridgwater, yet they were unanimously of opinion that the evidence would not warrant the issuing of a Commission. It was in that case just as competent for the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) as for him (Sir George Grey) to move for a Commission. It was not a matter which rested with the Government. COLONEL FRENCH said, that in the case of Galway the attempt to move for a Commission was not carried out because it was felt that the evidence was not sufficient. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If the House wants really to put down bribery and corruption at elections there are two things that it is necessary to insist upon. The first is that the inves COLONEL WILSON PATTEN said, that he had seldom been more surprised than he had been by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Roundell Palmer) when he propounded the opinion that when a Commission went down to investigate the conduct of a borough it was the duty of the inhabitants to go before that Commission and to make their case clear. He (Colonel Wilson Patten) could only say that so far as the inhabitants of Lancaster were concerned they were totally ignorant of this being so. They were summoned before the Commissioners, and they went there like a flock of sheep. As to those 600 inhabitants defending themselves, or offering reasons why their borough should not be disfranchised, they were entirely ignorant that it was their duty or their privilege to do so. The hon. and learned Member warned the House against establishing a bad precedent by admitting counsel the truth being, that he was establishing a precedent, and that former precedents were all the other way. In former times there was no exception to the rule as he (Colonel Wilson Patten) had stated it. In modern times there was only one precedent, that of St. Albans, for the course now proposed by the Government. Some of the precedents were most forcible the other way. In the case of East Retford the investigation,. according to 997 the custom of that day, took place at glad to hear that his hon. Friend proposed the Bar of the House, and the examination to reserve the questions now pending beof witnesses was by Members of the House; tween the corporation and the Ecclesiastherefore, there might then have been some tical Commissioners with respect to certain reason for saying that they would not hear pecuniary claims which the Commissioners counsel. But even under those circum-thought they had upon the corporation. stances it was thought that the parties He wished, however, that the hon. Gentleshould not be condemned unheard. What man was in a position to state that the was more, from some cause or other on corporation were willing to accept the prothat occasion East Retford was not disposal which had been made to them for franchised. The same course was adopted submitting to arbitration all the matters in with regard to Penryn, and that place also dispute. was not disfranchised. Why, then, was Lancaster to be told that the place should be disfranchised without hearing the parties. He, however, felt that the opinion of the House was against him, and therefore he should not press his Motion; but on a future occasion he should take another opportunity to try to induce the House to review the question. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. BUNHILL FIELDS BURIAL GROUND MR. CRAWFORD said, he rose for the MR. MOWBRAY said, on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that there was no intention to oppose the introduction of the measure. The Commissioners never contemplated devoting the ground to any other purpose than that proposed. At present, however, he had not had an opportunity of reading the Bill, and until he had done so, of course he could not He was pronounce an opinion upon it. Motion agreed to. Bill for the preservation of Bunhill Fields Burial Ground, in the County of Middlesex, as an be brought in by Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. GoSCHEN, open space; and for other purposes, ordered to Sir MORTON PETO, and Mr. REMINGTON MILLS. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 107.] SUNDAY LECTURES BILL.-LEAVE. VISCOUNT AMBERLEY moved for leave 2 K 2 say, equally ineffectually, by Lord Abingdon. It was supported by the Bishops, and, indeed, its real author was a Bishop, and it passed by a large majority. It might be said, in order to prevent the effect of this Act in putting a stop to these services at St. Martin's Hall, that the simplest course was to propose its entire repeal. But to this there were objections. The first object of the Act appeared by the Preamble, which said that man of the Lord's Day Observance Society. | House of Lords, and in the House of Lords He (Viscount Amberley) made no imputa- it was opposed no less strenuously, but tions upon that gentleman, and did not doubt the propriety of the motives by which he was actuated; but he gave notice that if these services were not discontinued he would not only oppose the renewal of the licence to the proprietor of the hall, but would also sue for certain penalties under the Act of Geo. III. The services which met with this opposition were of a perfectly decorous and innocuous character. There was a musical performance, and admission was by money; but there was nothing that was in the least degree hostile to existing religious communities, unless, indeed, instruction in the mere facts of science could be looked on as hostile. There was therefore nothing that need have been offensive or abhorrent to any one of these communities. In spite of this, however, under the influence of the notice that had been given by Mr. Baxter, it was found necessary again to discontinue the services, and the last of them was held on the 10th March in this year. In order to render clear how it was that the services were stopped, he would briefly explain the provisions of the Act of Geo. III. It was passed in 1781, to prevent places of amusement being opened on Sundays; and to prevent also the discussion of theological matters by incompetent persons. The Act provided that any place of public entertainment or discussion open on Sundays should be deemed disorderly if money were paid at the door, or tickets for admission were sold, and that the keeper of such house should forfeit £200 for every one of these Sunday evenings; the chairman, moderator, or president was to forfeit £100, and any person advertising such an assembly was to forfeit £50. In order to fix upon any person who might be the keeper of the place, it was enacted that any person who should act as such was to be deemed the keeper, and any person might within six months recover the penalties by bringing actions of debt. The circumstances under which the Act was passed were rather peculiar. It was intended mainly to put a stop to a place called Carlisle House, which seemed to have been not only a place of amusement, but a place of immoral character. It was opposed in the House of Commons by two Members, and they went to a division upon the second reading; they were appointed tellers, but they were left in the unfortunate position of having nobody to tell. The Bill went to the "Whereas certain Houses, Rooms, or Places, within the Cities of London or Westminster, or in the Neighbourhood thereof, have of late frequently been opened for publick Entertainment or Amusement upon the Evening of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday; and at other Houses, Rooms, or Places, within the said Cities, or in the Neighbourhood thereof, under Pretence of inquiring into religious Doctrines, and explaining been held on the Evening of the Lord's Day, conTexts of holy Scripture, Debates have frequently cerning divers Texts of holy Scripture, by Persons unlearned and incompetent to explain the same, to the Corruption of good Morals, and to the great Encouragement of Irreligion and Profaneness." The next object contemplated by the Act was the suppression of places of amusement in addition to the suppression of such theological discussions as he had referred to. Now, those who opposed that Act laboured under the disadvantage of insisting on a general principle, resting their opposition upon the ground that the Bill was contrary to the principle of religious toleration, whereas the promoters of the measure argued that it was merely framed to meet a particular evil which required a remedy; that, in fact, it was meant to put an end to such practices as were carried on in Carlisle House. That appeared to have out-weighed what was advanced on the other side. In respect to what were called places of amusement, he did not propose to interfere with them. There was, however, a broad distinction between liberty of amusement and liberty of speech. Whether places of amusement should be altogether closed upon the Sunday he did not wish then to express any opinion upon. He believed, however, that the general feeling of the community was in favour of closing places of amusement on the Sunday, and he felt every desire to respect that feeling. There was nothing in this Bill which in the least proposed to alter the law in that respect. It would be a great injustice to those who had been conducting the services in St. Martin's Hall to mix them up in the slightest degree with those who had wished to open places of amusement on Sunday. They did not wish to re-open Carlisle House. They wished to hold meetings for what they considered religious worship, and they wished to conduct that service which most approved itself to their With reintellect and their conscience. gard to the liberty of speech, as he had observed, it differed materially from the They could not liberty of amusement. impose any restraint upon the liberty of speech without in some degree trenching upon that toleration now so much enjoyed and so highly valued by Her Majesty's subjects. If they said that ignorant or incompetent persons should not be allowed to carry on theological discussions, there was no power to decide who was ignorant or who was incompetent. The practical effect of an Act so framed was this-that any person however ignorant or incompetent who was able to speak from a pulpit might say what he pleased, but no such toleration would be allowed to those who spoke on religious subjects from a platform. The first object, therefore, contemplated by the Bill was to repeal so much of the Act of 21 Geo. III. c. 49 as related to the delivering of lectures, and the holding of public debates or discussions at places where money was paid at the door, or where tickets were sold for admission. Under the provisions of the Bill such lectures and discussions would be permitted. There would exist on Sunday evenings the same guarantee for the maintenance of order and decorum as on any other day of the week. There were, he had been informed, places in London where discussions were carried on on Sunday evening. They were not discussions of an edifying character. They were held in defiance of the law, and the Act of Parliament was unable to reach them. But if a serious or valuable discussion was to take place, it immediately became an object with the Lord's Day Society, and those worthy persons who thought they were charged with the spiritual welfare of their neighbour, to put a stop to such discussion. Therefore, the Act of Geo. III. was powerless for good and powerful only for evil. In order that the provisions of this Bill might not be extended to places which Parliament would not be inclined to sanction on the Lord's Day, it was suggested by a legal gentleman whom he had consulted that a clause should be introduced imposing penalties on those who sold refreshments in the room where such MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion. The question was no doubt an important one, and no one could complain of the manner in which it had been treated by the noble Lord, who with great propriety and clearness had stated the case upon which he proposed to legislate. He (Mr. Beresford Hope), however, thought that this was too serious and too complex a case to be dealt with by the Bill of the noble Lord. He was willing to admit that from the noble Lord's statement there appeared nothing against those he would not call them services, that would be begging the question, nor would he call them performances but he would use a neutral term, and he would call them those gatherings From what they in St. Martin's Hall. saw in the newspapers those gatherings seemed to be regular, and there was nothing about them that could raise any The two objection to them, except the incident of their being held on Sunday. |