Law, and it was by Statute Law that they were excluded. He had an Amendment down defining the law of Parliament, because he took it that a Resolution of the House was not the law of Parliament, and certainly not the law of the three Estates of the Realm. A Resolution had not the force of an Act, and could not be relied upon as Statute Law. He would request the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) to bring his Amendment to bear on the words "as are recognized by the Common Law," and allow the words after "law of Parliament" to be retained, because, otherwise, his Amendment would be cut away. Lewis), however, considered this a Bill | sit in that House by virtue of Statute of which every Member of the House of Commons ought to be ashamed. [Cries of "Question!"] Was there any credit in passing such an Act of Parliament? The introduction of the Bill was, practically, an admission by 658 English Gentlemen that they could not conduct their elections properly; that it was necessary to tie their hands, in order to keep them out of their own pockets. As a matter of fact, that was a degrading operation they were going through. The Commons House of Parliament had relegated the trial of Election Petitions to the Courts of the country; and, therefore, they ought to be particularly careful about what they were doing. With all these pains and penalties hanging round their necks they ought to avoid all vagueness under which punishment and evil consequences might ensue. He considered there was every reason why his Amendment should be adopted. Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words “ or are recognized by the Common Law or the law of Parliament."-(Mr. Lewis.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, he hoped the Committee would retain these words. MR. PARNELL doubted whether it was worth the while of the Attorney General to keep to these words, or attach very much importance to them; and observed that, as the clause had been constructed by the Amendments made to it, the question of the offences which were to be recognized by the Common Law of England or the law of Parliament would be narrowed to the three offences of bribery, personation, and aiding, abetting, and counselling personation. MR. MARUM said, there were two distinct and separate questions involved in this Amendment. One was as to the question of offences as recognized by the Common Law, and that was the one now in dispute. That was very vague; but, on the other hand, it would include possible corruption, and that might be desired by some who wished to extend the scope of the Bill. The second point was with regard to the law of Parliament. Minors, according to the Common Law of Parliament, could and did MR. WARTON said, he thought the Attorney General would run some little risk by retaining these words of injury to what he wished to preserve. He was quite aware of the Judgment of Baron Bramwell, and of the fact that that House had chosen to delegate to the Judges a certain amount of jurisdiction, although it still retained jurisdiction over elections. But he was prepared to hold that there was some kind of Common Law of Parliament still existing; but the way in which the section had been drawn would inflict some harm on the Common Law of Parliament which still existed. They had now got two groups of offences. The first consisted of treating and undue influence, as defined by this Act; and the second consisted of bribery, personation, and aiding and abetting personation, as defined in the Act of 1854. As the section now read, it seemed to him that it was only this last group that could be considered in any way to have checked Parliament; and he was afraid the anxiety of the Attorney General to keep in "Common Law of Parliament" would have the effect of showing that there was no Common Law. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, he thought there was some justice in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, and he would agree to strike out the words in question, and, if necessary, put in other words. Amendment agreed to. MR. MARUM moved, in page 2, line 2, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words [Fourth Night.] "And for the purposes of this Act it shall be deemed to be undue influence' within its meaning for any Lord of Parliament, or Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough in Great Britain to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland at such election in Great Britain respec⚫ tively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself or any others be proposed to be elected, or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his commission to influence the election of any Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament." The hon. and learned Gentleman said, his main object was to make the action indicated in the latter clause of this Amendment a statutable offence. At elections as they proposed to treat persons guilty of corrupt practices would be a serious innovation. MR. JOSEPH COWEN said, the Sessional Order was inoperative and useless, and ought to be removed from the Orders of the House. The Order had never been put in force, although there had been notorious breaches of it. Last Session he attempted to bring forward the case of a Lord Lieutenant of a county, and a distinguished Indian official, who telegraphed home an order for a subscription to an election; but the House refused to concern itself with the matter. A MR. BIGGAR said, he did not think that now the Ballot Act was in operation it was not justifiable to object to Peers taking part in elections; but the case was very different with regard to the Lord Lieutenant of a county. Lord Lieutenant held an essentially official position, and through that had very great power, especially in regard to appointing magistrates; and if he influenced an election he acted in a very corrupt manner. He suggested that the hon. and learned Member should confine his Amendment to Lord Lieutenants of counties. present the matter was only dealt with by Sessional Order; and the Sessional Order having declared that any such action would be an infringement of the Privileges of that House, he was not driven to the necessity of making out a case, though, if necessary, he could make out a very distinct case. A Lord Lieutenant was the political nomination of the existing Government, and it was not unnatural that he should dispense in the same way any political patronage he could exercise. The very fact of the Sessional Order established the necessity for this provision. What was the present law? That it would be a breach of the Privileges of this House for a Lord Lieutenant to interpose in an election; but the question was, whether this section brought that in under the title of the "law of Parliament ?" He hoped the Attorney General would take the proposal upon its merits, and not allow it to be thrown out upon a mere technicality. Question proposed, "That those words be impossible to explain its object in the be there inserted." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, this was not a matter of technicality, but of substance. As far as he knew, there was no law on the subject. The House of Commons asserted its rights and privileges by Sessional Order; but it had never received any assent from the other House to assert those rights. He thought it would be better to be content with the Ses sional Order, and so avoid any collision with the House of Lords. To treat Peers who might concern themselves in Mr. Marum MR. MARUM said, he had thought it his duty to bring this matter forward; but, looking at the feeling of the Committee, he did not wish to press the matter any further. He hoped, however, that the Attorney General would take into consideration that portion of the Amendment relating to Lord Lieutenants of counties. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he had an Amendment to propose; but as it would few minutes now remaining he would move that Progress be reported. When he did move the Amendment he should show that circumstances had arisen in this country which were, in a certain degree, analogous to circumstances which had long prevailed in the United States, and which had led to great confusion in the American electoral system. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Newdegate.) Motion agreed to. Motion made, and Question proposed, | inflicted; and similar Returns relating to the "That this House will, upon Monday Royal Marines [by Command]; to lie upon the next, again resolve itself into the said Committee." Table. LONDON BANKRUPTCY COURT. Address for "Return from the Messenger of the London Bankruptcy Court of the number of warrants he has received for the arrest of absconding debtors under the 33 and 34 Vic. c. 76, since the passing of that Act up to the present time, and the number of debtors arrested under such warrants."-(Mr. Samuel Morley.) The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock. The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock. ORDER OF THE DAY. MR. CHAPLIN rose to protest against the precedence given to this Bill over the Agricultural Holdings Bill. Unusual as it was for private Members to force the hand of the Government, the course pursued by the Government had been so unusual that they had strong grounds for protesting. There was a very long delay, in the first instance, in the introduction of the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Bill; but it was introduced before the Whitsuntide Holidays, and read a second time on the 29th of May. The Committee was then fixed for the 11th of June. In consequence of the fixed intention to take the Committee with as little delay as possible, many Members declined to express their views upon the second reading. When his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael HicksBeach) proposed that the Bill should be committed pro formá, for the purpose of incorporating several clauses of the old POOR LAW (IRELAND)-WORKHOUSE Agricultural Holdings Act, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) replied that so anxious was he to proceed with the Bill without any delay that he objected to the proposal on account of the loss of time that would be involved. It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day. MOTIONS. 1903 SUPPLY.-COMMITTEE. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." SCHOOLS.-OBSERVATIONS. MR. MOORE, in rising to draw attention to the state of the workhouse schools in Ireland; and to move condition of the workhouse schools calls for the ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS glad to say that in the greater portion of (NO. 7) BILL. On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Electric Lighting Act, 1882," relating to Barnes and Mortlake, Hackney, Islington, Saint Pancras, and Whitechapel, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JoHN HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Billpresented, and read the first time. [Bill 229.] NAVY COURTS MARTIAL. Copy presented, of Returns of the number of Courts Martial held upon Seamen of the Royal Navy during the year 1881, the offences for which the men were tried, the sentences awarded and the punishments inflicted at home and abroad, of the number of summary punishments the British Islands it was a thing of the past. He did not think if the Irish Government were represented in sufficient numerical strength in the House of Commons that that state of things could have existed. The right hon. Gentleman who presided so ably and couroverworked official in Her Majesty's teously at the Irish Office was the most Service. He combined in his Office a variety of Departments, each of which required the concentrated energy of a Minister in itself. The result was that the working of the Poor Laws in Ireland was left entirely to a Board out of harmony with the sympathies of the people, and in its policy dogged and saying that the House of Commons is dictatorial. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at a quarter HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 18th June, 1883. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- Royal Assent-Consolidated Fund (No. 3) [46 Vict. c. 13]; Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act (1882) Amendment (Audience of Solicitors) [46 Vict. c. 12]; Poor Law Conferences [46 Vict. c. 11]; Constabulary and Police (Ireland) [46 Vict. c. 14]; Lands Clauses (Umpire) [46 Vict. c. 15]; Broughty Ferry Paving [46 Vict. c. xix]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation [46 Vict. c. xviii]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental (Ireland) [46 Vict. c. xxi]; Tramways Order (Dublin and Blessington) Confirmation [46 Vict. c. xxx]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (Rathmines, &c.) [46 Vict. c. xl]; Education Department Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cummersdale, &c.) [46 Vict. c. xlii]. not so Radical as the country, and not so Radical as the Government; and then, after discussing questions of representation, he ends as follows: "Now, shall we put the dots on the i's ? What do we want? We want, in the first place, a suffrage from which no man who is not disqualified by crime or the receipt of relief, who is expected to fulfil the obligations of citizenship, should be excluded. We want equal electoral districts in order that every vote may have an equal value; and we want, I think, the payment of Members in order that any man who has the capacity to serve his country, who has honesty and intelligence, and who is selected for that purpose by his fellow-countrymen, shall not be excluded for want of means. That is what we want. What we shall get is a different matter. We may have once more to take a composition." Then he goes on to say that a composition will not be looked upon as a discharge. Of course, it is obvious that the plain and natural meaning of that language is that that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government; it follows so necessarily from what is stated in the rest of the speech, and the announcement is made in so uncompromising a manner, that it would be evident to anyone reading it that Mr. Chamberlain was simply doubting how much this Radical Government would get out of this Conservative House of Commons. I have ventured, using Mr. Chamberlain's own words, myself to put the dots on the i's in order that I may get-as I have no doubt I shall get from the noble Earl-the avowal of a policy which might be stated in a more formal manner, and in a more suitable locality, and which I shall be glad to have explained by the noble Earl. EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Marquess has, with his usual TRY-MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S SPEECH courtesy, given me Notice of a Question PARLIAMENT-POLICY OF THE MINIS AT BIRMINGHAM. QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl (Earl Granville) in his place, I wish to ask him a Question on a matter of some public interest-namely, Whether the intimations of policy that were given by Mr. Chamberlain, President of the Board of Trade, at Birmingham, last week, are to be looked upon as the views of Her Majesty's Government? The language to which I refer is reported as follows. The right hon. Gentleman begins by Mr. Moore as to whether the views of Her Majesty's Government are those expressed by Mr. Chamberlain on the subject of the lowering of the franchise, and on the question of the payment of Members. I think that the same Question is to be asked by Mr. Warton in "another place," where there will be the advantage of Mr. Chamberlain's presence. I was at Birmingham myself last week; but not at the same time as Mr. Chamberlain. But I had the pleasure of seeing my right hon. Friend as soon as I received the noble Marquess's note; and he informs me of what is obvious from the text of his speech, and from the no precedent for it in our political hiswords quoted by the noble Marquess-tory. Mr. Chamberlain, when joined namely, that his statement was the ex- with Her Majesty's Government, will pression of his own individual views, repudiate manhood suffrage, will decline and of what he believed to be the views to vote for equal electoral districts, and of his constituents. In no sense what- will refuse payment to Members. But ever was he stating those views as em- when he goes down to Birmingham he bodying what would be proposed as a will vote for all these. I do not underlegislative measure, by himself, or by stand this plan of splitting Cabinet MiHer Majesty's Government. I am not nisters in two. The noble Earl gave us sure that I need give any further a specimen of that the other night. We explanation on the subject; but, for blamed Lord Derby for announcing bethe information of the noble Marquess, forehand, on entering upon a negotiaI will say that I myself, and the tion, that he was in no case prepared to Members of the Government in this go to war. The noble Earl answeredHouse, entirely agree with the Members "Oh, yes; but when you were in Office of the Cabinet in the House of Com- Lord Derby said the same thing on your mons, who have all voted in favour of behalf. Lord Derby stated in reference getting rid of what to us is an unwise to Constantinople that in no case would and unjust anomaly-the difference be- England be allowed to go to war." So tween the franchise in boroughs and that in this particular case the noble counties. I believe I am right in think- Earl defended Lord Derby of the preing that all Members of the Cabinet sent against the attacks of his Colagree with what is stated to be the opi- leagues in the past by saying that when nion of many Members of the House of Lord Derby was your Colleague he did Commons, that any measure for the the same thing. That appears to me reduction of the franchise must be fol- precisely to be what has taken place in lowed by a measure for the redistribu- the case of Mr. Chamberlain. He talks tion of seats. It may be a want of of getting a composition. But what curiosity on my part, but I have never does he mean? He is a Member of the asked my noble and learned Friend on Government from whom the composition the Woolsack whether he is in favour of is to be obtained. So that Mr. Chamuniversal suffrage; I have never asked berlain, who is in favour of manhood the President of the Council whether he suffrage, equal electoral districts, and is in favour of equal electoral districts, payment of Members at Birmingham, and I have never asked my three noble will beat down the Government, and is Friends behind me whether they think kind enough to say that he will accept that Members of Parliament should be some composition from Mr. Chamberlain paid or should not be paid. I think in Downing Street. But he will not adthis signifies less, because I expect, and mit that this is a discharge for the future. indeed believe, that Her Majesty's Go- I do not think that Parliamentary annals vernment, during the present Parliament, contain precedents for this division of will be able to bring in a Bill or Bills character. But I have seen a precedent on Parliamentary Reform, which will in the case of a Predecessor of the noble give, in the most authentic and effective and learned Earl on the Woolsack, manner, the views of the Government whose acts and deeds are nightly repreon the subject. sented in a theatre in this town, and who was disposed to commit himself for a contempt of Court, because he allowed himself to make love to a ward in Chancery without obtaining his own consent. That is very much the division of character to which Mr. Chamberlain has committed himself. But while I object on Constitutional grounds to this division of Ministerial responsibility, I cannot deny that, on prudential grounds, it has its admirable side. It is delightfully safe. It is what we call hedging. He is safe against either event. He is THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as far as I understand the noble Earl, Her Majesty's Government do not themselves believe in manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, and payment of Members; but Mr. Chamberlain believes in them in a modified way. He believes in them in Birmingham; but he does not believe in them in Downing Street. There is some difficulty, however, in realizing the divided individuality which the noble Earl attributes to Mr. Chamberlain. We have, I believe, |