Punch (54.1868)

February 22, 1868 J PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

PUNCH’S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

hey met on Thursday, the Eve of
St. Valentine, and, appropriately,
the Lords heard something about
Promissory Oaths, but the Chan-
cellor would not then be explicit.
Lord Derby was unable to be
present, and Mr. Punch sincerely
regrets that podagra medicines
are still Rupert’s Drops. Lord
Clanricarde said something or
other about Irish land, and the
other Lords naturally went away.

New writs in the Commons.
Sir Charles Jasper Selwyn,
late the Solicitor - General, is
made a Lord Justice, and sits
beside Lord Cairns, so Cam-
bridge University wants a Mem-
ber. There be two Candidates,
Mr. Cleasby. Q.C., and Mr.
Bereseobd Hope. The latter
gentleman vacates Stoke-upon-
Trent. The new Solicitor-General
is Mr. Baliol Brett, Q.C.,
Member for Helston, a very
pleasant little place in Cornwall, not far from

“ The great Vision of the Guarded Mount,”

and whence you can go with much comfort and joy to the lovely sea
bays, and especially to the Lizard, where the inhabitants used to crawl
about on all fours till somebody came and informed them that was not
the way to use their hands, so they put them into their pockets, and
have kept them there ever since—according to their satiric neighbours.
Mr. Brett is promised a fight for his seat, which is attacked by Mr.
Rogers, a Liberal lawyer, and it is a question whether Solicitor or
Solicitor-General wins.

Heaps of petitions in favour of the Bill for Restricting the Sale ol
Liquor on Sunday. Some of them from the most unheard-of places,
We should like the House to have held a competition examination, and
given a prize to the man who stated, off-hand^ where to look for
Puddynyton, Shipton Sollars, Corsenside and Kettleboston. Punch
will not be answerable for the spelling. Also, the guardians of some
Union begged the House to lay a tax on all lucifer matches except
those which will ignite only on their own box.

Caledonia, stern and wild, was informed that her Reform Bill would
be presented on the following Monday.

Mortification and Disappointment. Absit omen, but these be ugly
words in an opening speech by the Leader of the House. He had to
announce that he had intended to follow the advice of the Select Com-
mittee, which recommended that Election Bribery Cases should be
taken away from the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, and should
be tried by the Judges. But the Judges, on being politely asked to
state their views as to the best method of managing this, imitated the
chickens who were consulted by their owner on the best method of
cooking them. “ But we don’t want to be cooked.” Mr. Disraeli
did not feel equal to the famous rejoinder. “ Confine yourselves to the
question, Gentlemen,” and in the first place felt the mortification and
disappointment above mentioned, and in the second caused a new plan
to be devised. He proposed to have a new tribunal, to be composed
of three barristers, at £2,000 a year each, to try election petitions, and
be appealed to against revising barristers. He further proposed that
any M. P., unseated for bribery, should be kept out for seven years,
and on a second conviction should be incapable of ever coming in
any more.

Our brethren the Judges objected to the original plan “ on constitu-
tional and personal grounds,” and declared that the new duties would
be incompatible with their oaths of office, their present functions, and
their duty to the Queen and country. This sounds very imposingly.
The plain English may be that they think they have enough to do
already. Inasmuch as the idea that British Judges would not try election
cases fairly because in earlier life those eminent persons are mostly
keen politicians, is simply all our eye and Mr. Justice Martin. We
won’t talk about the proverbial purity of the Ermine, because we
believe that the article in question is not appended to judicial robes,
and also because the story of the Mustela erminea, or stoat, being such
a particularly clean beast is exploded, like every other pretty story.
But Mr. Punch has too much reverence for his brother Judges to allow
such nonsense to be talked. The real objection is a valid one, but
might be got over by the appointment of more Judges. Mr. Punch,
however, while he detests, abhors, and abominates bribery in all its
forms, (even in the shape of a smile from a lovely Person) cannot be
'blind to the fact that the opinion of the majority of Britishers is not
yet sufficiently enlightened to enable them to perceive that the giving

or accepting a bribe is an offence which should send the culprit into
the felon’s dock. And unless public feeling backs the laws, they will
not be enforced. Argal, we must educate folks a little more before we
can, with advantage, proceed to dire severity in the matter.

The House of Commons showed considerable distaste for the pro-
posal that it should part with its power over its Members.

Mr Knatchbull Hugessen (precious ugly name, but awfully old,
that Knatchbull; learned Mr. Mark Anthony Lower guesses
that knatchis North Country for knock, and that some Knatchbull of
other days was a daring tauridor) who is a Liberal, could consent to
such a transfer only to the highest tribunal.

Sir Erancis Goldsmid (Liberal) was for putting the defeated can-
didate into Parliament, if he had not bribed, and his victor had.

Mr. Whitbread (Liberal) thought it monstrous to say that the
Judges could not do the work.

Sir Robert Collier (Liberal) had been on the Select Committee,
and was disinclined to part with the House’s power to any but the
Judges, and so felt Mr. Russell Gurney. Mr. Sandeord was for
retaining jurisdiction.

Mr. Lowe (Liberal) was for making the Judges do what the House
required, or for shoving them off the bench. They were the public
servants, and bound to do their duties like the meanest. If there were
not enough, make more. But do not part with the jurisdiction to any
one else.

Lord Cranborne (Conservative) thought the Judges had been wise
and patriotic, and he dwelt on the early politics objection.

Sir Roundell Palmer (Liberal-Conservative) was exquisitely
polite to the Judges (at whose head he means to be one of these fine
days) and thought that their number must be increased if more work
were given them.

Mr. Henley (Conservative) of course was against change.

So was Mr. Ayrton (Liberal), who thought that the aspersions on
election committees emanated from the impure minds of election
agents. Mr. Bouverie (Liberal) too, was for retaining the power,
but improving the committees.

Sir Michael Beach (Conservative), however, did not think much of
the wisdom of committees.

Mr. Berkeley (Liberal) implored Government not to take away
the jurisdiction.

Mr. Gladstone (Liberal-Conservative) thought that no blame
attached to Government in the matter. It was easier to condemn
than to suggest. The House was strong enough in the affections of
the nation to be able to cast aside ceremonial traditions needful to
weaker assemblies. He was in favour of transfer, but asked Mr.
Disraeli to note that some twenty gentlemen, some of weight, had
protested against its being made to any inferior tribunal. He should
give candid consideration to the proposed plan.

Mr. Bright (Conservative) thought that the case must be desperate
when a popular house would transfer its powers in regard to seats.
But there was no desperate case. Let us try to prevent bribery. It
was due to small constituencies and open voting. Let us make large
constituencies, and give the Ballot. The proposed remedy was
unpleasant and humiliating.

Mr. Locke (Liberal) was for maintaining the ancient rights of the
House. So was Mr. Carter, so was Mr. Golding.

Mr. Darby Grieeith (Liberal-Conservative) said something civil
to the Government, and was curious to know all that the Judges had
said.

Mr. Disraeli made no reply to him, or to anybody else, and leave
was given to bring in the Bill.

Yes, Mrs. Grundy, M’m, an uncommonly dull evening, devoted to
an uncommonly disagreeable subject. We can’t help that. There was
not an element of fun in the whole business. On the whole, it may be
thought rather scandalous. The first night of the resumed session of
the first assembly in the world is devoted to admissions that people
get into it in a disgraceful manner, and to a discussion whether it is
honest enough to deal out justice to such folks. We see nothing to
laugh at, Mrs. Grundy. Nor did a single Member venture on
jocularity. As Chaucer saith,

“ Certaine they knew of briboures many mo
Than possible is to tell in yeres two.”

But perhaps in less than yeres two we shall have new lights on the
subject.

Meantime, with tears in our eyes, we must own that the first night
of the Session was not a pleasant one for the Government, and as
Cowper says of the birds who would not wait for St. Valentine’s day,

“ Themselves were chilled, their eggs were addled.”

Friday. Loads of petitions in favour of the Sunday Liquor Bill.
Where is Brosterley, where is Compton Wyminster, where is Ubbeston,
and lastly, how came Brewham to petition against Beer ?

Mr. Sandford to Mr. Disraeli. Will you relieve the compound house-
holders from personal payment of rates ?

Mr. Disraeli to Mr. Sandford. There are no compound householders,