The debate of yesterday week on the Corrupt Practices' Bill
might fairly be called, after the manner of the old "Arguments," "the acts of Ayrton." Mr. Ayrton objected to the Government proposal that the judges of each Court should, by election, deter- mine the Elections-judge of that Court for the ensuing year, and wished to leave it entirely to the arrangement of the judges, and he moved words to ensure every election petition being tried within two months of its being presented. He was defeated on both points by a majority of 65,-148 to 83. He succeeded, however, in striking out some words which empowered the Secretary of State to decide whether the judges on the rota for election petitions would be equal to their work, and also in omitting the two years' probation of new judges as ordinary judges before power is given to nominate them on the rota for trying election petitions. But he wholly failed in forcing what he called the "assistance" of a jury on the election judge, and he failed again in trying to bind the judges to respect the decisions and judgments of the House, a majority of 132 (183 against 53) pronouncing in favour of the unfettered action of the judge. On the whole, Mr. Ayrton succeeded in his unimportant amendments, and failed portentously with his important ones. He seemed prepared with almost enough amendments to amend the Bill into non-existence.
