such giant strides should be retarded-we tion with that country, and that the reshould most earnestly desire that the re- taliatory measures we might adopt would strictions by which she now fettered her be calculated to relieve our own fellow-subindustry should be maintained. But he jects from any disadvantages to which they had no such wish. On the contrary, he were at present unfairly exposed. was most anxious to see France advance like ourselves in wealth and in commercial prosperity. He knew that the consequences of her doing so might be that in some branches of the commerce of the world, in which she had a natural superiority, she would vanquish our manufacturers, and drive them, perhaps, from some fields of production which they now partially occupied. But he knew also that she would only do this by driving us into other branches of trade in which we had the superiority, and that the result would be for the benefit of both. He knew that France could not relieve her own trade and become more wealthy and prosperous without becoming a better customer to us; and he knew, too, that in the markets of the world there was a demand for the produce of both countries as unlimited as the wants of mankind, so long as we continued to let every nation pay us for what we took from them by that which they could best afford to send us. He was in deed aware that France, with her extensive and productive territory, her numerous, industrious, ingenious, and persevering people, could not fail to advance most rapidly in wealth, if their industry was relieved from the restrictions which now pressed upon it. And with her wealth, no doubt, her power would increase, toofor, in this age of the world, naval and military power was to no slight degree a question of wealth. But he had no jealousy on that score. He knew that if France thus increased her wealth and power, she would, at the same time, increase the interest which she would have in the maintenance of the peace of the world, and would give us a new security against the recurrence of that greatest of all calamities, war. He felt confident that this would be the case; and it was on that ground that he earnestly hoped and trusted that France would at no distant period follow our example, and relieve her trade with us from the restrictions to which it was now exposed. Certain he was that the wise policy for us was to wait with patience until this took place, and to abstain at all events from attempting any measures of retaliation until we saw practically that we were suffering in competiEarl Grey LORD COLCHESTER said, that as both the noble Lord who had just sat down, and the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who addressed them at an earlier part of the evening, had both admitted the vexatious character of the restrictions imposed by France upon our trade, and the want of reciprocity on her part, and had stated that, when the proper time came to act on that opinion, they would be prepared to take such steps as were necessary to enforce reciprocity, he thought that point would be best left to the discretion of the Government. The noble Earl the VicePresident of the Board of Trade (Earl Granville) had stated that the predictions of those who opposed the repeal of the navigation laws had failed in every particular; and he grounded his assertion on the fact that the general commerce of the country had increased since the repeal of these laws. That fact could not be denied; but the repeal of the navigation laws was opposed not so much as a matter of commercial policy as because of the injurious effect it would have upon our means of defence. Since the repeal of the navigation laws, too, the tonnage of British ships employed in the direct trade had fallen off, while the foreign tonnage had largely increased; and this was not so much in the American marine as in that of the northern nations, who could build and navigate their ships most cheaply. The noble Lord indeed said that the British tonnage employed in the indirect trade had increased, but there were no documents or returns to prove this; and it must also be remembered that, since the repeal of the navigation laws, a large indirect trade had sprung up between the miners of California and China-an event which could not be foreseen by those who opposed that measure. The noble Earl also said that the character of the seamen and masters of merchant vessels had improved since the repeal of the navigation laws; but he (Lord Colchester) thought that this improvement should be ascribed rather to the Mercantile Marine Act than to the repeal of the navigation laws, which it preceded in point of time. Petitions ordered to lie on the table. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, June 17, 1851. MINUTES.] NEW MEMBER SWORN.-For Clackmannan and Kinross, James Johnstone, Esq. PUBLIC BILLS. -3° Survey of Great Britain, &c.; Court of Chancery (Ireland) Regulation Act Amendment. AYLESBURY ELECTION. The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved that the Report of the Select Committee on the petition of Thomas Hugh Bradford and John Strutt, be brought up. He said, that there could not be the slightest doubt that it was a breach of the Privileges of the House, inasmuch as by Resolutions of the House, in 1689 and 1774, persons were forbid to sign the names of others to petitions. He should, therefore, move that the House do agree to the Report of the Committee. Resolved. recommendation, considering that the edu- "That the said John Strutt and Charles Cunningham, be brought to the Bar of this House forthwith, in order to their being reprimanded by Mr. Speaker and discharged.” John Strutt and Charles Cunningham were accordingly brought to the Bar, where they received a Reprimand from MR. SPEAKER, and were ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying their fees. The Reprimand was as followeth, viz. : "John Strutt and Charles Cunningham, a Petition was presented to this House on the 28th of April last, purporting to be signed by Thomas Bradford, against the Return of Richard Bethell, Esq., for the Borough of Aylesbury; and it appears from the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the "That this House doth agree with the Com- case, that you, Charles Cunningham, with the mittee in the said Report." Ordered "That John Strutt and Charles Cunningham, having severally been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House, be for their said offence committeed to the custody of the Serjeant-atArms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly." Subsequently, the Serjeant-at-Arms reported to the House that John Strutt and Charles Cunningham were in his custody. The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved that they be brought to the bar of the House, and after being reprimanded by Mr. Speaker, discharged. He believed that in making that Motion he spoke the sense of the Committee who had reported upon this matter. He regretted very much the absence of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene), who presided over that Committee. It was at that hon. Gentleman's request that he made the present Motion. It appeared that Cunningham had signed the petition under the impression that Strutt had authority to direct him to do so. Had that not been the case, the Committee would not have been disposed to recommend to the House so lenient a course as that which he had suggested. A very gross breach of the Privileges of that House had been committed by these gentlemen; but he believed that the House "would sufficiently mark its displeasure with their proceedings by agreeing to the Motion which he had made. MR.FRESHFIELD thought the recommendation of the Committee a merciful sanction and by the desire of your partner, John Strutt, did most unwarrantably affix the name of Thomas Bradford to that Petition. "It is the bounden duty of this House, a duty which it owes to the people whom it represents, to protect the right of petitioning from abuse; and it is determined, by the just exercise of its authority, to check any practice which, by casting doubts upon the authenticity of Petitions, has a tendency to lessen their value and importance. According to the ancient Rule of this House, it is a breach of its Privileges for any person to set the name of another to a Petition; and your conduct in this instance cannot be palliated or excused on the ground that you were ignorant of this rule; because, engaged as you both are in the profession of the Law, and occasionally retained in matters connected with Election Petitions, you must necessarily be familiar with the usages and practice of Parliament. Your offence, moreover, is greatly aggravated by the fact that this Petition, which you so culpably signed, was to form the foundation of a judicial inquiry under the provisions of an Act of Parlioment. "Such gross misconduct on your part has received, as it deserves, the condemnation of the House. But, at all times anxious to exhibit as much lenity as is consistent with its dignity, this House is willing to hope that the position in which you are now placed, so painful to any honourable mind, and so discreditable to yourselves, will carry with it a sufficient punishment. I am commanded, however, by the House, to convey to you the expression of its marked displeasure, and in obedience to its commands, I now reprimand you for the offence which you have committed. I have further to acquaint you, that you are discharged, upon the payment of your Fees." Ordered, Nemine Contradicente "That what has been now said by Mr. Speaker in reprimanding the said John Strutt and Charles Cunningham, be entered in the Journal of this House." ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSION BILL. part with this inquiry and transfer its functions to other hands. He wished that the Order for Committee read. House in Commissioners should be possessed of the Committee. Clause 1. MR. BANKES said, he objected to the clause, as it involved the main principle of his objection to the Bill. He regarded the Report of the Committee as utterly inconsistent. The Committee declared that the candidate against whom the petition had been presented had been duly elected, and at the same time declared that they had not been enabled to institute a full and fair inquiry, in consequence of certain material witnesses having been improperly removed and kept out of the way. He was far from objecting to further inquiry; on the contrary, he thought further inquiry was necessary in reference to the character of that House; but he was also of opinion that further inquiry should be conducted in such a manner as not additionally to compromise the character of that House. The Committee ought to have adjourned until the missing witnesses were obtained; or, if a Commission was to be appointed, that Commission should consist of Members of the House of Commons, and not of paid Commissioners, as now proposed. He objected to proceeding against the parties who had been corrupted, and granting to the party corrupting all the benefit at which he could have aimed when he resorted to improper means for the purpose of procuring his election. Who had corrupted the electors? There was but one Member, but one seat vacant, and yet the Member was seated, and the Committee proposed by this Bill to proceed, not against that Member, but against the parties who were corrupted. Was it creditable to the House, or an expedient course to pursue, to authorise the Member to be seated (when, if there had been corruption-assuming that such was the fact-he was the cause of it), and to direct all their proceedings against those who had been corrupted, with the view of punishing them by disfranchisement? The Committee having proposed this Bill, he would accept it; but he would endeavour to amend the Bill and while he would do all which the Chairman of the Committee desired to have done, he would propose to do still more. He believed it was possible so far to amend this Bill as to ensure justice to the petitioner, and to preserve the character of that House. He hoped, above all things, that the House of Commons would not most stringent powers, and he could only entrust those powers safely to a Commission exclusively composed of Members of that House. He thought that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had been greatly to blame in this matter. The Bill for the prevention of bribery, brought in in 1842, had never been put in force. The defects of that Bill had been acknowledged from the first; and, had it been effectual, it would have been properly applicable in this case. There had been a greater number of allegations of bribery and corruption since the Reform Bill had passed than ever had occurred previously; and during the last general election fourteen boroughs had been charged with bribery and corruption. The noble Lord, who was then, as now, at the head of the Government, undertook to bring in a Bill which should effectually remedy these flagrant offences; and the noble Lord did introduce such a measure, bearing the title of a Bill to provide for inquiry into corrupt practices in the election of Members of Parliament. That Bill applied particularly to the fourteen boroughs to which he had just alluded, Aylesbury being the first, and Sligo the last, and it received much praise. He (Mr. Bankes) supported the principle. But when the measure went into Committee, clauses were introduced which, from their nature, were likely to give rise to difference of opinion, and the Bill did not receive that support which it ought to have had to have rendered it effective. The Bill went to the House of Lords at a late period of the Session, and Lord Redesdale, with other Peers, took objections, not to the principle, which met with entire concurrence, but to certain details which had been pointed out in the House of Commons to the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but the noble Lord resisted any alteration of the measure, preferring to pass the Bill in the shape in which it went up to the House of Lords. The measure might probably have been forced through had it not been for Lord Denman, who stated that he felt it to be his duty to come down for the sole purpose of opposing that Bill, for that it was liable to objections of every description in the details; while, at the same time, he entirely approved of the principle. It was the fact that Lord Denman, and every Peer in the House of Lords, concurred in the principle, while one and all objected to the ther reasons for the Amendments it was his intention to propose. The Government had put in a clause the names of three gentlemen who were to be appointed Commissioners. This was not in accordance with the Bill of Lord John Russell in 1848. The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Commissioners have been sanctioned by the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. MR. BANKES: That might be or might not be. details. Since then three years had passed, and although that Bill had been lost in the Lords, solely on account of the details, and not of the principle it contained, neither the noble Lord nor his legal advisers had introduced any similar measure in principle to remedy these evils. Thus they were still without sufficient legal remedy, and were called upon, when occasion required, to legislate for that particular occasion, the present being one which actually forced them to some legislation. But any measure that passed should be consistent with the dignity of that House. The ATTORNEY GENERAL: But It should be one likely to meet the approval I tell you that it is so, for I have communiof the other branch of the Legislature-cated with the Lord Chief Justice. one not obnoxious to the objections made by Lord Denman and the other Peers but one that should satisfy the House of Lords that the Members of the House of Commons had exercised all their powers, made all the necessary inquiries, and used all their endeavours to accomplish their object. It should be a measure which should show that they did not call upon the other branch of the Legislature to assist them in a measure for the preservation of their privileges until they had done enough to satisfy the House of Lords that there was groundwork for their interference. With regard to the general allegations before the St. Albans Committee as to former transactions in the borough, he found that the evidence came principally from ladies, if he might so call them, and from persons certainly not entitled to praise for the manner in which they had given their testimony. Could anything be more meagre or unsatisfactory than the Minutes of Evidence laid upon the table of that House? Loose and unsatisfactory as they were, and applying very slightly indeed to former corruptions, there was a strong presumption or corruption in the present case: "bell metal was never heard of until Mr. Bell went to St. Albans, and the street in which his committee rooms were situate, was not previously known as 66 Sovereign-alley; and yet the Committee had reported against the borough, and in favour of the Member. But that evidence was wholly insufficient as regarded former transactions; and, so far as it affected the present case, it did not establish that species of corruption upon which they could easily legislate. That was the reason the sitting Members were not reported against: and, further, because the evidence, such as it was, had been collected in a manner that was utterly unjust and unworthy. There were fur MR. BANKES: At all events it would have been more decorous to have left the appointment with the senior Judge of Assize. As a precedent the course now proposed was a bad one, and the whole Bill was a bad precedent. He (Mr. Bankes) proposed what would be a better precedent, that they should appoint three Members of that House as Commissioners. Let it not be said that it was now too late to do justice, for it was never too late to do justice, and they had now the time and the means of remedying an oversight by offering to the House of Lords a Bill which they could pass. But if they sent to the Upper House such another Bill as that sent by the noble Lord in 1848, it would meet with the same fate. He should propose, in the first place, that the clause be omitted, and that would raise the question whether the Commissioners should be paid Commissioners, nominated by the Government, and carrying on their proceedings away from the influence of that House and from the public eye; or whether they should be, as they ought to be, under the immediate supervision of that House, and under the public eye? Let them wait, if it were necessary, till those witnesses who were concealed could be produced. He cared not how long they waited rather than that the House should be set at defiance; and he was willing to wait until the pecuniary resources of these witnesses ceased to enable them to baffle the power of the House. He should, therefore, move that this clause be omitted, and if he succeded he should then substitute another clause, which should name other Commissioners, Members of that House, and selecting those who had been Members of the late Committee, if they would accept the service. If they refused, he would engage to find five Members of that House who would accept the functions, nature. clause. Motion made, and Question put, “That Clause 1 as amended stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided:— Ayes 66; Noes 17: Majority 49. and prove that they could form a tribunal as a precedent, the inquiry was only whefully competent to try questions of this ther any grounds existed for further inquiry. It had been alleged that the Houses MR. EDWARD ELLICE said, the of Lords and Commons combined in aphon. Member (Mr. Bankes) had admitted pointing this Commission; but was it so? the necessity of the Bill, and the necessity There was nothing which could put the of the inquiry. He (Mr. Ellice) could not Commissioners in the light of being apexpect the House to listen to a statement pointed by the Lords and Commons, exof the case, which had been given some cept as a mere matter of form. Was it two or three times already; and it could possible that the names of three Members have no attraction to the House whatever, of Parliament being in the Commission for that was not what was before them. would be objected to by the House of Lords? The case of the sitting Member for St. If there was anything objected to by them Albans was decided; he was, by Act of it would be that these three Members had Parliament, the sitting Member; and hon. not the confidence of the House of Lords. and learned Gentlemen opposite should As to jealousy in the House of Lords it did just read the Act which seated the Mem- not exist there, but on their own parts-s ber as soon as a decision of a Committee jealousy against sending up to the other was given in his favour, one particular House to decide upon their rights and priclause of that Act of Parliament saying vileges. He should vote against the that no after proceeding of any sort should affect the seat of the Member. So far as the sitting Member was concerned, the case was concluded, and the necessity of the Bill had been decided by a majority of that House. The only question then was, whether the Commissioners should be Members of that House or not? He (Mr. Ellice) stated on the last occasion that the Committee had come to the conclusion that the only satisfactory means of instituting an inquiry was by professional gentlemen independent of that House, as they would act not only as Commissioners of that House, but as Commissioners of the supe. rior branch of the Legislature. If the Commissioners were Members of that House, he doubted if the House of Lords would take their report as a guide for legislation, but would rather insist either on appointing another Commission, or of examining witnesses at the bar of the House. Looking to former precedents, the examination of witnesses in that manner had been wholly inefficacious; but in the case of the Sudbury Commission, the Commissioners being independent professional men, as was now proposed, the House of Lords accepted the report of that Commission. Believing that both Houses would be prepared to legislate on the report of this Commission, being constituted of Gentlemen nominated equally by the House of Lords as by the House of Commons, he saw no earthly reason to change his views, and he should certainly persist in dividing upon the clause. MR. FRESHFIELD said, that this was a case in which as a general principle there had been no substantial decision by the Committee. In the case of Sudbury, taken MR. W. MILES said, if it could be shown that these three Commissioners were appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, it would be more satisfactory. MR. EDWARD ELLICE said, he had consulted former precedents in which the Commissioners had been appointed by the Government, but he had referred the whole matter to the hon. and learned Attorney General. said, The ATTORNEY GENERAL that in the case of the first Bill for inquiry, the nomination of the Commissioners was left to the then Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench; but that not proving satisfactory, the Attorney General of the time took upon himself to name three Gentlemen. So, in this case, he had been applied to as Attorney General, and he did name three Gentlemen; but after he had been told of the Sudbury case, in which the nomination had been left to the Lord Chief Justice, he communicated with the three Gentlemen he had named informing them of the facts, and also with the Lord Chief Justice, to whom he stated that he had no wish to influence his judgment, if he could find three Gentlemen of the Bar who would aecept the Commission. The Lord Chief Justice answered that he had named three, but without stating who they were; but they proved to be the same that he (the Attorney General) had nominated. Two |