Commons Sitting of 26 June 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Charitable Trusts; Medical Profession.

BIRKENHEAD AND LIVERPOOL DOCKS BILL.
On consideration of the Report,
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to move as an Amendment the insertion of the words "such dues and such right," to prevent ambiguity in a clause which had been inserted, in order to preclude the question of the Liverpool town dues from being affected by the Bill. A Commission had been engaged in inquiring into the local dues levied upon ships and goods in various parts of England; and doubtless it was the intention of Parliament to legislate on the subject. The Board of Trade had likewise recommended that, in any Bill of this kind, for the amalgamation of the Liverpool and Birkenhead Docks, an object no doubt of great public utility, care should be taken that Parliament should not be fettered in dealing freely with any dues which were now levied, inasmuch as those dues would become security for the money to be raised under the Bill. The Select Committee upon the Bill, in their Report, stated that the question of the Liverpool town dues had only come incidentally before them, as a portion of the existing revenues of the corporation. The Board of Trade sent down a clause, which they advised to be inserted, "that nothing contained or to be done under the provisions of this Act shall be held to prevent any dues now forming part of the borough fund being dealt with by Parliament." The Committee, however, instead of accepting that clause, inserted another, which the counsel for the Liverpool corporation had so drawn up as if what it was sought to guarantee were the power of the courts of law to judge of the title of the Liverpool corporation to these dues. Now, that was not the real issue; and as great public interests were

155
involved, he wished to move this Amendment to give the clause the effect which was intended.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that as Chairman of the Committee, he hoped the House would not allow any alteration to be made which might hazard the passing of this most important Bill. There had been two Bills introduced, the Birkenhead Docks Bill and the Liverpool Docks Bill; the former of which involved works on the Birkenhead side of the river, at an expense of 1,500,000 l.; and the latter Bill to enlarge the dock accommodation on the Liverpool side of the river, the expense of which: would be not less than 3,500,000 l. It was evident that this immense extension on the Liverpool side was caused only by the jealousy which had been excited by the rising prosperity of Birkenhead. Under these circumstances, the Commitee took the unusual step of recommending the parties, instead of spending their money in a fruitless contest, to amalgamate the property on both sides of the river, and put the docks on the Birkenhead side and the Liverpool docks together under one public trust, elected by a public constituency, and responsible for the good management of the whole. The result of that arrangement was, that the expenditure to be authorised by the Liverpool Docks Bill was reduced to 800,000 l. It would, therefore, be much to be regretted, if the House should, upon any point of secondary importance, prevent the conclusion of an arrangement which was equally calculated to promote the prosperity of Liverpool, and of the great manufacturing district of which it was the outport.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he should support the Amendment, and he would at the same time remind the House, that the question involved amounted to no less than a matter of 150,000 l, a year, raised by the corporation of Liverpool upon goods which belonged not only to Manchester, but to the whole manufacturing district of the north of England, and was expended for municipal purposes in the town.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, if the clause of the Bill fully carried out the views of the Committee, and also the wishes of the Board of Trade, he would support it; but believing that the corporation of Liverpool had out-generaled both the Board of Trade and the Committee, he considered it his duty, on the part of the public, to see that the intentions of the Board of Trade were fully carried out, and that without any ambiguity of expression; therefore he should
156
support the Amendment. He believed the Committee were unanimous in respect to this question. The real object which the Board of Trade had, was to Secure the right of Parliament hereafter to deal with the town dues which the Corporation of Liverpool now possessed. The clause in the Bill created an ambiguity and doubt as to the future appropriation of these town dues, and the amended clause no proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) would obviate that ambiguity and protect the public rights.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he regretted the use by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken of the expression that the promoters of the Bill had out-generaled the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman had stated that there was no Opposition in the Committee, but there was a division in the Committee on this very question, and he trusted that the House would support the decision of the Committee. The promoters of this Bill never would have: gone into this undertaking if they had supposed that this clause would be altered in the way proposed in the Amendment.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he thought that if they did hot agree to the Amendment, parties who advanced their money might, when Parliament came to deal with the question of town dues, say that they had been unfairly dealt with.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he very much regretted that the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had thought it necessary to move this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that the Bill was before the Committee three months, and it was after full consideration that they adopted the clause. The clause was of that importance, that the promoters were advised that if the Amendment were carried it would be fatal to the Bill. [Mr. M, GIBSON: Why?] Because they felt that if it were carried, they must withdraw the Bill. [Mr. M. GIBSON: Why?] Because it would prejudice the rights of the corporation of Liverpool. The object of the Committee was to insert a clause which should not prejudge the rights of the corporation, and he therefore asked the House to support the clause which the Committee had framed for that Object.
MR.GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he was responsible for the clause as it stood. They altered the phrase, "the right of the corporation;" to "any right of the corporation," in order not to prejudice the question. There was no difference of

157
opinion in the Committee as to the principle of the Bill.
MR. CARD WELLsaid, he had listened with great interest to this debate, and it appeared to him there was one clear meaning that pervaded the House and the Committee—namely, that this Bill should stand on its own merits, to effect its own objects, and that there should be nothing in the Bill that might be pleaded in bar hereafter to any public measure that might be introduced in conformity with the Report of the Commission on the table. Now, they were not a good tribunal for the exact legal definition of different words, and he acknowledged for himself that he felt great difficulty in appreciating the precise difference of the meaning of these two words; but he did not expect, if the House passed this clause as it stood—he did not believe that at a future period his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) would get up in the House of Commons and say, the clause had an effect which they did not intend. He believed that when a measure affecting this subject was brought forward in the House of Commons that measure would receive a full and dispassionate consideration, and that they would utterly ignore the fact that this clause had been inserted in a private Bill. He should be sorry that they should prejudice the understanding by a division, and therefore he thought that his right hon. Friend would do well to accept the clause without a division.
MR.MILNER GIBSON: If that is the understanding clearly, that we all mean the same, that Parliament does not mean to prejudice the question of these dues, I will not divide the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS— MR. LINDSAY.
MR. MALINSsaid, that the House would doubtless remember, that yesterday he put a question to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to certain charges made by him against the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) as to his being interested in Government contracts. He (Mr. Malins) then appealed to Mr. Speaker as to whether this did not involve a question of a breach of privilege, and received the answer he had expected—namely, that anything affecting a Member's seat in that House involved a question of a breach of privilege. He then gave notice that he would bring the question before the House
158
that evening, and handed to the clerk a notice to the following effect—that he would call the attention of the House to certain statements in the speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty on Friday last, conveying to the House the impression that the hon. Member for Tynemouth was interested in the Government contracts. He found that an objection was taken to the form of this notice, because it referred to what had taken place in a bebate on Friday last; but, unless he could so refer to that debate, he felt it would be useless to bring this question before the House. The notice was given in direct terms, which would have required the hon. Member for Tynemouth either to admit or deny that he was interested in the Government contracts. If he denied that he was, the First Lord of the Admiralty would then have had to make the concessions which the case required. Finding, however, that he could not take this course, he was driven to give notice of an insignificant Motion, stating he should move for the contract with reference to the transport Robert Lowe. He was aware that, m moving for that contract, he should not be able to obtain, either for himself or the House, the slightest information on the subject he had in view, and he therefore wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, whether he was at liberty to refer to the debate of Friday last? for, if he could not do so, it would be useless for him to proceed with his Motion.
MR. SPEAKERin reply, said, that, the notice of Motion which was given by the hon. Member was most irregular, as it stated that it was given for the purpose of calling attention to a speech and statements which had been made on a previous night. If the hon. Member intended to take notice of the speech, he ought to have done so on the night on which it was made, or, at all events, the part of the speech on which it was intended to found proceedings ought to have been taken down at the time; but this had not been done. The hon. Member, no doubt, might refer to that speech in general terms, but he could not do so in the special and particular way of which he had first given notice.

SUNDAY TRADING BILL—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Sunday Trading Bill. He might state, that there had been a considerable manifestation of feeling

159
out of doors, in consequence of the progress of the Bill, and he had last night asked the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) whether it was his intention to use his influence, in order to prevent the noble Lord who introduced the Bill from proceeding with it; and the noble Viscount stated in reply, that it was not the intention of the Government to interfere with the measure, but that they should leave it to the House to deal with it as they might think fit. He wished now to ask the right hon. Baronet, because the provisions of the Bill would materially concern him in his capacity as Secretary for the Home Department, whether the Bill had received his sanction, and whether, in case it was proceeded with, it was his intention to support or oppose its further progress?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was not his intention, if his noble Friend (Lord R. Grosvenor) should persevere with the Bill, to offer any opposition to the House going into Committee upon it; but when it was in Committee he should state his opinion, as he had already done, in reference to any Amendments that might be proposed.
MR. GIBSONsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, whether the House were distinctly to understand that the Government assumed no responsibility whatever with respect to this measure?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Bill was not a Government measure, but it had been introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor), and supported, he believed, by almost all the metropolitan Members. [Cries of "No, no!"] The Government were not at all responsible for it, but he had already expressed his opinion upon many of its details, and he should be prepared to do so with regard to any other question that might be brought before the House.
MR. MASSEYsaid, he wished to inquire whether the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex intended to persevere with the Bill?
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he had no objection to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question, but he hoped the House would indulge him by allowing him to do so at some length. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman had put the question in consequence of what had passed in Hyde Park last Sunday. He begged to inform the House that since that meeting took place he had received several letters from working men in which they spoke of
160
the persons there assembled in no very complimentary language. ["Hear, hear."] He did not intend to speak in uncourteous terms of those persons, for he thought an expression of opinion on the part of the very humblest classes of society ought not to be treated with indifference or contempt, provided always that such opinion was expressed in a proper manner.
MR. ROEBUCK MR. ROEBUCK rose to order. He wished to know whether an hon. Member, in replying to a question, was allowed to make use of arguments which ought to be answered at the time they were used.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the noble Lord was certainly not in order, but he had appealed in commencing his reply, to the indulgence of the House. An hon. Member, however, having taken an objection to the noble Lord's proceedings, who was not strictly in order, he should suggest to the noble Lord to postpone his observations till the Bill came before the House.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR, in reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Massey), said the responsibility of the Bill did not rest with him, but with the House, and he did intend to press it.

OFFICIAL SALARIES—QUESTION.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in compliance with the vote of that House on the 22nd of May, the Government intended to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1850 respecting official salaries?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the recommendations of that Committee were maturely considered by the Government at the time—many of them were carried into effect, some were not, and explanations on the subject were then given to Parliament. What had passed on a former evening did not at all touch the question of official salaries, for the discussion turned entirely upon certain diplomatic appointments, and the salaries attached to some of those appointments. The resolution was carried, although the hon. Gentleman who had proposed it announced his intention of withdrawing it, by one of those surprises which sometimes took place when no one expected a division. He could only say, that he thought the regulations suggested in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution could not be carried into effect without great injury to the public service.
MR. AYSHFORD WYSEsaid, in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of

161
the noble Lord, he now gave notice that he should, on Tuesday, the 10th of July, more that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty may be most graciously pleased to issue Her Royal commands for a complete revision of the Diplomatic Establishments of the United Kingdom.

THE EXPEDITION TO KERTCH— QUESTION.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I wish, Sir, to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government in reference to the recent operations at Kertch and other places in the Sea of Azoff. Grave charges have been made against the character of Englishmen and English officers, which I do not believe, and which, if not true, ought to receive contradiction from the Ministers of the Crown. I have seen the same statement made in private letters and published in the public journals. It is stated in The Times newspaper, that—
"When the allies entered Kertch the following morning the population made their submission, and offered bread and salt to the conquerors, in accordance with the Russian custom, and they were assured that they would be protected, and that their lives and property should be spared."
The correspondent goes on to say that destruction of property followed; and more than that—
"Towards evening Turkish stragglers from the camp, and others who had fallen out of the line of march, flocked into the town, and perpetrated the most atrocious crimes. To pillage and wanton devastation they added violation and murder."
He further states that, the French patrols endeavoured to preserve order, and in one part of the letter there is this important imputation upon the character of an Englishman; it was, "the Lieutenant General whose apathy or neglect permitted the perpetration of disgraceful excesses." I do not believe this statement, but I ask whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government has received any information on the subject?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received no information with regard to the transaction to which my hon. Friend's question relates, but my attention has been called to the statement he has quoted from a newspaper, and my noble Friend at the head of the War Department will, without any delay, call for a report touching these transactions from the officer commanding in the Sea of Azoff.

CIRCASSIA—QUESTION.
LORD J. MANNERSsaid, the House was aware that all the forts on the Circassian coast were now in the possession of the Circassians, and that throughout the conferences at Vienna no mention was made of Circassia. The last despatch of Admiral Lyons stated that Mr. Longworth had been sent to Anapa to superintend the political part of the question. He wished to ask in what capacity Mr. Longworth had been sent to Anapa, and what were the relations at present subsisting between Her Majesty's Government and the Circassian chiefs?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, Mr. Longworth was Her Majesty's consul at Monastir; he had appointed that Gentleman when he held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in consequence of his having passed a great deal of time in the country, and being well acquainted with its manners, habits, and language. When an operation upon Anapa was contemplated, it was expected that the Circassian tribes would co-operate with the allies, and Mr. Longworth, being well acquainted with the people, was sent as an organ of communication between the allied commanders and those tribes. There were no relations subsisting between Her Majesty's Government and the Circassian chiefs, except those arising out of their co-operation in the attack upon Anapa.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to know in what capacity Colonel Lloyd was sent to Circassia last year, at a salary of 2,000 l. per annum?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in reply, that Colonel Lloyd was appointed to go to Circassia to open communication with the people, and to ascertain to what extent and upon what terms their co-operation could be obtained.

NEW WRIT FOR LONDON.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that yesterday he took the liberty of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether, under the provisions of what was commonly called "the Contractors' Act," Baron Rothschild had not vacated his seat for the City of London, by having entered into a contract with Her Majesty's Government for a loan of 16,000,000 l. for the public service, and whether, consequently, a new writ ought not to issue for the City of London? His hon. and learned Friend then answered that, if the question were put to the House, not in a speculative, but in a practical form, he would give his

163
opinion upon it. He now rose for the purpose of bringing the matter before the House in a practical form, and he had, therefore, put a Motion to that effect on the paper. He might have moved that the matter be referred to a Select Committee, but that would have been a sneaking and cowardly course, entertaining as he did a strong conviction that, according to the common sense and literal construction of the Act of Parliament, Baron Rothschild had vacated his seat. The House would recollect when the Act in question passed, and the purposes for which it was designed. The Act passed in 1782, and was brought forward with the avowed object of promoting the freedom and independence of Parliament. When the Rockingham Administration came into office they took up that Bill, which had been before Parliament for two or three years, and gave it their warmest support on the principle that the House of Commons was getting day by day more corrupt and the people of this country were becoming more dissatisfied with it. He would not insult the memory of the Rockingham Administration by calling them "Administrative Reformers." They were something more, for they were Parliamentary Reformers. They struck at the root of the evil, for they said that, if there were corruption in the State, it must be the fault of the House of Commons, and so far as they could remove that blot they would do it by reforming the House itself. That Administration contained among its Members Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Dunning, who had previously moved the well-known Resolution, that the power and influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. He should show by the Act itself, and by the debates upon it, that it was the intention of those who framed the Act, and of the Parliament that passed it, that contractors of Government loans should vacate their seats in Parliament, and he contended that the case of Baron Rothschild came clearly within its meaning. The heading of the contract was—
"The contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty's Government, on or about the 20th day of April last, for a loan of 16,000,000 l. for the public service."
Now, the preamble of the Act said—
"For further securing the freedom and independence of Parliament, be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament
164
assembled, and by the authority Of the same, that, from and after the end of this present session of Parliament, any person who shall, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any person whatsoever in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in the whole or in part, any contract, agreement, or commission, made or entered into with, under, or from the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, or of the Navy or Victualling Office, or with the Master General or Board of Ordnance, or with any one or more of such Commissioners, or with any other person or persons whatsoever, for or on account of the public service; or shall knowingly and willingly furnish or provide, in pursuance of any such agreement, contract, or commission, which he or they shall have made or entered into as aforesaid, any money to be remitted abroad, or any wares or merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public, shall be incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons, during the time that he shall execute, hold, or enjoy any such contract, agreement, or commission, or any part or share thereof, or any benefit or emolument arising from the same."
The Act also went on to say—
"And if any person, disabled and declared incapable by this Act to be elected, shall, after the end of this present Session of Parliament, presume to sit or vote as a Member of the House of Commons, such person so sitting or voting shall forfeit the sum of 500 l. for every day in which he shall sit or vote in the said House to any person or persons who shall sue for, the same in any of His Majesty's courts at Westminster."
It was contended by some that Baron Rothschild, not being ineligible by reason of this contract at the time of his election, had not incurred the penalties of the Act, and that, because for other reasons he had not sat or voted in that House, he had not forfeited his seat on that account. But he apprehended that there were very few hon. Members who would maintain that opinion, because, supposing for an instant that fifty or sixty Members held contracts with the Government for twelve months' duration, would the House say that they had not forfeited their seats because for that period they might abstain from sitting or voting in the House? The case of the Jewish question was a very different one. The hon. Member was incapable of sitting or voting in that House because he could not use the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and in that case the House was not justified in issuing a writ. But the hon. Member stood in a very different position as a contractor. It was alleged by some that hon. Members might contract for money, although they could not enter into contracts with the Government for ships or provisions. When the Bill was

165
under discussion, it was at first proposed that contracts for loans should be excepted, but if hon. Members referred to the debates they would find that that proposal was scouted by the House. Mr. Fox said, he rejoiced to see that a new sprit of government seemed to be rising, and that a period was approaching when corruption would be banished from the Senate; and those who had the management of public affairs might safely trust to the merits of their measures for support, without having recourse to corruption. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not know whether the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) would be disposed to indorse that opinion. Mr. Fox moved that the exception in the Bill should be withdrawn, and that no contractor whatever should have a seat in Parliament. It was also contended that contracts for money were more dangerous than any other species of contract. The exception was withdrawn upon the understanding that a special Bill should be brought in for the purpose. No Bill, however, was brought in for the purpose, and the only Bill bearing at all upon the subject confirmed the view which he had now stated—the 48 Geo. III., chap. 1, wherein persons were exempted from losing their seats who entered into any contract with the Government for Exchequer Bills on behalf of the Bank of England. If they entered into such contracts on their own behalf, they were not exempted; so it was quite clear that Parliament, with its eyes open, had intended by the 22 Geo. III., chap. 45, that no contractors whatever should sit in Parliament. He could not possibly understand how there could be any doubt upon the subject, and, as Baron Rothschild by other circumstances had been prevented from sitting and voting in the House, he had incurred no penalties, and so far the loss to him would not be, and ought not to be, very great. He particularly wished it to be understood that he made this Motion entirely upon public grounds, and without any reference whatever to the Jewish question. For eight Sessions Baron Rothschild had been nominally a Member of the House of Commons, but the question of Jewish emancipation did not seem to have been much advanced thereby. A short time since he asked Her Majesty's Government whether it was their intention to introduce a measure in the present Session for the removal of Jewish disabilities, and the answer he received was, that they had no such intention. The noble Lord the
166
Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) had since addressed a letter to some of his constituents, in which he told them fairly it was a hopeless case, in consequence of the decisions which had been come to in the House of Lords, and he believed the noble Lord was perfectly right in forming that estimate of the position of the question. He believed the prejudice elsewhere was so great, and the indifference of the public out of doors was also so great, that during the present generation, at least, there was not the remotest chance of gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion sitting in that House, so long as the House of Lords had any voice in the matter. Therefore Baron Rothschild had been thus long disabled, and the citizens of London had been deprived of their fourth Member. If three Members were quite enough for the City of London, let the House be told so, and let them give that Member to some other place. But this very disablement of Baron Rothschild had relieved him from any penalties with regard to this contract. What he said was, that from the moment a Member entered into a contract with the Government, not only was he disabled from sitting and voting, but his seat became vacant. He should be extremely glad to hear the opinions of hon. and learned Gentlemen upon this subject, but he contended that, according to the honest and fair interpretation of the Act, it was quite clear there was a vacancy in the City of London at the present moment, and would so continue, as far as regarded Baron Rothschild, until the 18th of December next, when the contract ceased. Under these circumstances, therefore, ought not the House to issue a new writ? They did not want any peddling or quibbling opinions. He knew lawyers could make that opaque which was clear to all minds but their own, but he hoped that would not be the case on this occasion, and he appealed to the House to restore to the citizens of London the power of electing a forth representative by agreeing to the Motion he now proposed, that the Speaker be instructed to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the City of London.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the City of London, in the room of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, who, since his Election for the said City, has entered into a Contract for the Public Service."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid: My hon. Friend, having brought this matter before the House in a practical shape, has the undoubted right to call upon me to state to the House the views which I entertain upon the subject. I have in consequence given to the subject the best attention, with a view to form an honest opinion upon it, and I am perfectly prepared to state that opinion to the House if I could only understand the course which the House might feel disposed to pursue in dealing with the subject. The first question which arises is, whether the House will deal with the subject immediately, as proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury, or send the case to a Select Committee. I understand that the latter is the course which is the most proper to be pursued upon the present occasion, and I have had put into my hand a precedent which is immediately in point. It is the case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, who accepted the office of Registrar of Hackney Carriages. Upon that occasion it was moved that the hon. Member had thereby vacated his seat, and that a new writ should be issued. Upon that Motion an Amendment was moved to the effect that "the papers relating to the appointment of Daniel Whittle Harvey, Esq., to the office of Registrar of Hackney Carriages, be referred to a Select Committee, and that such Committee be directed to report its opinion whether Daniel Whittle Harvey, Esq., has vacated his seat by the acceptance of the said office." That Amendment was agreed to, the Committee was appointed to take the papers into its consideration for the purpose of reporting to the House upon the subject, and in due time it did so report. Now it is a serious question whether that would not be the correct course to pursue in the present instance. Upon the best consideration which I have been enabled to give to the subject, I think the Statute is tolerably clear though not altogether free from doubt. There may be some parts of the clause which carry some degree of ambiguity, but these are not of sufficient force to override the general purport of the Statute. But there are one or two circumstances deserving of consideration in connection with this subject. In the first place, I am told that since the passing of the Contractors Bill, although a vast number of contracts for loans have been made by the Government, in almost every one of which some Member or Members of this
168
House have been concerned as contractors, it never occurred to any one to put this Statute in force against them. I am aware that it does not follow, because a Statute has never been put into operation, that it should therefore be considered as inoperative when the House is called upon to enforce the law. But if, throughout this long series of years, no person has ever thought of putting the law into force, it may be well worthy of consideration whether there may not be something in its conditions which may give to these contracts something of an exceptional character. I do not say that it is so, but I certainly think it is worthy of consideration. There is another circumstance which I confess also weighs in some degree upon my mind. Baron Rothschild cannot take his seat in this House, and cannot, therefore, answer for himself, nor do justice to his own case by any explanations which he might offer. If the course of appointing a Select Committee be a proper one, I think the circumstance of Baron Rothschild not being in this House to speak for himself might be an additional reason for agreeing to the proposal. I will submit, therefore, to the consideration of the House whether, in lieu of the Motion, it would be desirable to agree to the Amendment which I shall propose, that this matter be referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of considering whether the entering into this contract by Baron Rothschild has affected his seat in this House? If the House is of opinion that that course should not be adopted, I am ready at once to state my opinion as to the construction of the Act, and its bearing upon this contract, without regard to political or personal considerations. I believe, however, that the course which I have suggested would be the best for the House to pursue.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would second the Amendment, because he considered that the matter ought to be investigated by a Select Committee before the House gave any decided opinion on the subject. An instance had occurred of his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) having entered into a similar contract with the Government in the case of the Irish loan, but no notice whatever was taken of the subject by any hon. Member of the House, for it appeared to be understood that that loan did not come within the terms of the Act. He thought, coupling the fact with the absence of Baron Rothschild from the House, and his consequent

169
inability to offer any explanations, that the wisest course to adopt would be to refer the subject to a Select Committee, as recommended by the hon, and learned Attorney General.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty's Government, on the 20th day of April last, for a loan of sixteen millions for the Public Service, be referred to a Select Committee, and that they be directed to report their opinion whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild has vacated his Seat by his entering into the said Contract," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. FRENCHsaid, if the only reason for objecting to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury was that Baron Rothschild had not taken his seat, and consequently was not in a position to defend himself, he (Mr. French) would remind the House of the case of Mr. O'Connell when elected for Clare, who was allowed to speak from the bar of the House. It was impossible for any one who had looked at the Act of Parliament to get rid of the fact, that any person who entered into a contract for the public service with the Lords of the Treasury thereby vacated his seat. Such was the case brought forward by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and he (Mr. French) could see no ground for the doubt or delay which had been raised by the hon. and learned Attorney General. That hon. and learned Gentleman told the House he had considered the question and was prepared to give his opinion at once if necessary, and it was, therefore, most reasonable that that opinion should be ascertained before the House came to a decision.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, he felt himself in some difficulty from having to express a different opinion from that enunciated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole). He should be sorry to disturb precedent, or to adopt any proceeding upon the present occasion different from the course pursued in former similar cases, but he must say that he considered the precedent which had been alluded to was hardly applicable to the present occasion. He apprehended that the House was not in
170
the habit of sending matters to Select Committees unless there were some doubts upon questions of fact upon which it required information, and which the Committee was called upon to obtain and to report to the House. With respect to the case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey he was not acquainted with all the circumstances connected with it, but he presumed there was some question as to whether the peculiar nature of the office was such as to render the vacation of the seat in that House a necessary consequence, and that therefore the House desired to have the matter investigated and a Report from a Select Committee upon the facts, in order to come to a decision of the cases. But upon the present occasion what was there to refer to a Select Committee? The facts were all before the House, they depended entirely upon a Return which had been made to the House, of "a contract which had been entered into by Baron Rothschild, for the public service, with Her Majesty's Government." Was it suggested there was any other fact which, by referring the matter to a Select Committee, could be ascertained, by the House? Whatever the precedent might have been in Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey's case, or whatever the course of precedents might have been, it would be almost absurd in a case like the present, when the facts were so simple and already ascertained, that the House should delegate any portion of its functions to a Select Committee, it being clear that, when the Report of that Committee should be made, the House would be in no better position to decide the question than it was at present. Was there a single lawyer who entertained any doubt upon the subject that by a plain construction of the Act of Parliament the seat of Baron Rothschild had become void? The hon. and learned Attorney General had adverted to the circumstance that there had been several previous instances of persons who had been contractors for loans to the Government, and were also Members of that House; but the hon. and learned Gentleman had answered his own observation by saying, a blot was not a blot until it was hit. So he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) for discovering the objection and bringing it forward, and, the attention of the House having been called to the subject, it ought now to decide whether, upon a proper construction of the Act of Parliament, Baron

171
Rothschild's seat was or was not vacant. He asked again, could any one entertain the slightest doubt upon the matter? The hon. Member for Finsbury had omitted to call attention to the second clause, which enacted that if any person, being a Member of the House of Commons, should directly or indirectly, himself or by any other person in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, enter into, agree, undertake, or execute, wholly or in part, or accept any such contract, agreement, or commission, the seat of every such person in the House of Commons should be, and thereby was, declared void. Well, then, the question was, had Baron Rothschild accepted any contract, agreement, or Commission? His (Sir F. Thesiger's) proof was a Return made to that House of the "copy of a contract entered into by Baron Lionel Rothschild with Her Majesty's Government, on or about the 20th of May last, for a loan of 16.000.000 l. for the public service." The Act of Parliament in question declared that any person who directly or indirectly undertook, executed, held, or enjoyed any agreement with Her Majesty's Treasury was by the first section disabled from sitting and voting in Parliament, and by the second section his seat was declared void. The only doubt as to the first section which had been suggested arose from a subsequent portion of the clause which alluded to persons who in their own and others' names made agreements to furnish money to be remitted abroad, or merchandise to be used for the public service. But it was clear that, the moment the contract was entered into, from that moment the penalty attached to the contractor, who was disabled from sitting or voting, and his seat void; but, inasmuch as it was possible that contracts might be entered into, not in the Member's name, but for his use and benefit, to provide against any evasion of the Act the provision had been introduced, that any Member who should contract to supply goods, merchandise, or remit money abroad for the public service, should be in the same predicament of forfeiting his seat. No doubt could be entertained therefore that the clauses were perfectly distinct. The first related to the contract; and the moment that was entered into, although nothing might actually be supplied, yet from that moment the penalty attached and the seat became void. That was not a lawyer's question. There was no difficulty
172
in construing the Act of Parliament, even to non-professional men, and it would be extraordinary if, after sitting there night after night making laws, they should not be able to construe those laws when they were made. He thought the case was so clear that no person, whether lawyer or not, would say he entertained any doubt, and therefore, regretting to differ from the hon. and learned Attorney General and the right hon. Member for Midhurst, he thought this was not a case in which there was any necessity to resort to the machinery of a Select Committee. The case in his view of it was fully before the House, and he was quite prepared to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, if all the Members of this House were as learned as the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House, or as my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, it might, perhaps, be proper for the House to come at once to a decision upon this subject upon the best consideration which it was able to give to the question. But I must put in a claim on behalf of the great body of the Members of this House who have not that learning which the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) possesses. When the hon. and learned Gentleman says that if we make laws we ought further to be able to interpret them, I think he goes rather beyond what is a fair claim on the Members of this House. I confess for one, that if after a law were passed any one should ask me to give a legal interpretation of it, I should decline to do so, on the ground of my inability, and should refer him to some Member of the legal profession of which the hon. and learned Gentleman is so great an ornament. What appears to me to be a difficulty in this case is, that many years ago since this Act was passed numerous instances have occurred of persons contracting loans without the subject having been brought to the notice of this House, or their having been alleged to hare forfeited their seats thereby. Now, it is quite true to say that a blot is not a blot until it is hit; but let the House take a case in point as an instance. There was the Royalty Loan of 1797; great numbers of the Members of the House of Commons were concerned in that loan. Mr. Sheridan said on that occasion that those hon. Members came forward for the purpose of profit. Mr. Pitt said that it was not so; but he afterwards

173
brought forward proposals of giving 5 per cent interest to all persons who had subscribed to that loan. No question was raised in the House as to whether those hon. Members had forfeited their seats; but one question was raised, which was for a long time discussed, that was, that no person who was interested in the loan should vote for the measure which accorded them the interest. Not a word was said about hon. Members subscribing to that loan having forfeited their seats. The right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) was contractor for a loan, and again the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) was contractor for a loan in 1847. I was at the head of the Treasury when the loan was contracted. Taking these facts into consideration, it does appear to me that the practice which has hither to existed in the House might justly warrant the appointment of a Select Committee. They will consider, no doubt, not only the case as affecting Baron Rothschild, but the whole meaning of that Act, and also arrive at some opinion as to how far it extends. Taking this case, 10 per cent has been paid of this loan, any person who buys Omnium in the market thereby makes an engagement to the Government to pay the remaining 90 per cent of the loan. I think it hard in this case. Baron Rothschild has only engaged with the Government to pay 10 per cent of the loan. Those who buy Omnium are the persons who are engaged to pay the remainder, and not Baron Rothschild. It is the great body of the subscribers who are answerable for paying the remainder of the loan. Where is the House to stop in this matter? Is it to apply the Statute to other persons who take up part of this loan. Or is the House to say that every person who takes up a part of it disqualifies himself for a seat in this House?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, my difficulty is to make up my mind whether the disqualifying clauses are to stop with Baron Rothschild. He has admitted a great number of persons, possibly Members of this House, to have shares of this loan, to enjoy what the Act calls the "profits, benefits, and emoluments arising from the same." Now, all these Members enjoy the "profits, benefits, and emoluments" arising from the loan, and, if I have taken a correct view of this Act, they are in jeopardy as well as Baron Rothschild, and it would be competent for him or any other hon. Member, if the House at once agrees
174
to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to find out some hon. Member upon this list and take the House by surprise to-morrow evening, and move that a new writ be issued for the borough or county which he represents. We must therefore be cautious in this matter. For myself, I confess I have no particular knowledge of the law. I have read the Act, and I understand from it that any person who enjoys any benefit arising from the loan, either directly by having contracted himself, or indirectly through another, is equally affected. What I wish to direct the attention of the Government to is, the question as to how far they have discharged their duties in this matter. We have seen copies of the contract which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury has laid upon the table, and which I understand it is the duty of the hon. Gentleman to draw up. Now, the Act states, with respect to the mode in which this contract should be drawn up—
"Be it enacted that in every such agreement, the contract or commission to be made, entered into, or accepted as aforesaid, there shall be inserted the express condition that no Member of the House of Commons be admitted to any share or part of such contract, agreement, commission, or any benefit which may arise therefrom."
The Secretary of the Treasury has therefore laid himself open at least to the information of this House in not having carried out the provisions of the Act. But, still more, the Act applies to any person having made this contract with Government, enacting that any person who, having made such contract with Government, shall admit any Member of the House of Commons to any share or any benefit or emolument arising from this contract, renders himself liable to a penalty of 500 l. for each person admitted. This penalty may be sued for by any common informer, so that for each person who is a Member of this House whose name appears upon the list of Baron Rothschild, who has derived so much premium from the omnium, Baron Rothschild is liable to a penalty of 500 l. It is to be hoped that those Gentlemen who have enjoyed such emoluments and advantages, will make some sacrifices among themselves in order to pay the Baron's large penalties. Under these circumstances, I shall vote for the Select Committee. I cannot see my way—it is full of difficulty. I doubt, indeed, whether the contract is legal if in drawing it up you have not inserted all the conditions which

175
the Act requires to be inserted in it. There is one point not yet cited in connection with the question before the House. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) made some remarks about the Jewish question, and stated that in his opinion it would not be settled during the present generation. Now, I do not despair of its being carried out, and I believe if the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) were at the head of the Government, and made it a Cabinet question and took it up in earnest, it would have obtained the assent of the House of Lords, and we should have seen, as we yet shall see, Baron Rothschild taking his seat and voting in this House.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he could not allow such immorality as had just escaped from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester to pass without notice. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Act of Parliament might affect half the Members of that House, and therefore they should be cautious how they acted. Was that the morality of the Manchester school? He had long been of opinion that it was, but he had never heard it so completely and distinctly enunciated before. How different was the nature of those remarks as contrasted with those which fell from the hon. and learned Attorney General. That hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was our bounden duty, without fear or favour, to expound the law, and we were doubly bound to do so in a case where large numbers of that House might be affected. As for the statements of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, he was astonished that he should state in that House that any one who comes into the market to purchase scrip in the new loan becomes thereby a contractor to Government. It was nothing of the kind; all that a purchaser of scrip did was this; he offered to pay a part of the loan or lease the scrip. Such a doctrine laid down by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London particularly surprised him. The Act contemplated that the Government might not only debauch any Member of the House of Commons, but also that any hon. Member having this contract with the Government might use the influence of that contract for the purpose of affecting the proceedings of other hon. Members in the House; and the Act therefore imposed, not disabilities as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had stated, but prohibitions upon the contractor against making such use of their contracts.
176
He thought that the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) had put the case very fairly before the House. Was there a contract or was there not? Was Baron Rothschild a Member of that House or was he not? The contract lay upon the table of the House, and Baron Rothschild, although a Member, could not sit or vote in the House, was clearly brought within the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and he thought that the House had nothing to do but to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERALsaid, he wished the House to observe that it was dealing with a Statute which had not been enforced or applied for a long space of years. It was reasonable to suspect, therefore, some impediment or obstacle in the way of its application. If any Gentleman were bold enough to pledge himself to the opinion that the law had not been affected by any of our legislation subsequent to 1782, he might be competent to pronounce upon this question at once; but he (the Solicitor General) could not be so confident. The mistake committed by the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) should teach him to be more diffident, for when he said that in the latter part of the section the first alternative was intended to apply to persons who, under a contract made by others, supplied money to be remitted abroad for wares or merchandise for the Government, he entirely forgot that it contained these words, "in pursuance of any such agreement, contract, or commission which he or they shall have made or entered into as aforesaid;" so that it was impossible to apply this to a contract made by another; and it was confined to the same contract before mentioned. There might be a question as to whether the second alternative did not put a certain interpretation upon the first, and prevent us from arriving at the conclusion that merely entering into the contract, where nothing might have been done to fulfil it, was a sufficient disqualification. Another hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the Act of Parliament as if it did not at all apply to any individual Member of the House who had taken a part of the contract, but the words of the Act were express upon that point—"Any one who has been admitted to a part or share." He (the Solicitor General) would beg the House to remember that it was dealing with a Statute which had not been enforced upon similar grounds for more than

177
seventy years. Now in all cases of this kind every lawyer understood that the non-enforcement of the Act might reasonably be expected to be owing to some impediment or obstacle in the way of the Statute being carried into effect, and he did not think that any hon. and learned Gentleman would rise in his place and pledge his reputation that no Act had been subsequently passed which interfered with or modified in any way the provisions of the Act which was now under the consideration of the House.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, it appeared to him that a subject of this nature should be considered with great calmness, and that the House should not rashly adopt any course upon it without due deliberation. Now, what he felt was that they wanted that distinct proof which should be in the possession of the House, and which could be easily obtained, before they could come to a decision on a question of such consequenee. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said that there could be no doubt that Baron Lionel de Rothschild had contracted with Her Majesty's Government, and then he took up a contract, and pointed to it as containing that proof. But he (Mr. Disraeli) was not satisfied on this point; for if that was the only proof that the hon. Member for the City of London had entered into a contract with Her Majesty's Government, the evidence was very imperfect, as the contract bore not the signature of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, but of N. M. Rothschild and Sons. He thought that the question should be thoroughly proved, and that the House should not be placed in a position of being liable to a doubt on a matter capable of distinct proof. That doubt was in his mind sufficient for inducing him to think that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. The House had not the proof that the hon. Member for London had entered into a contract with Her Majesty's Government; but, on the contrary, the House had primâ facie evidence that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild had not signed such contract. He only said that it was of consequence that the House should have, in cases of this kind, complete evidence that the Member of the House so charged actually had entered into a contract with the Government. He would not refer to the other points which might influence the House on the present occasion. There was great ambiguity in the words of the Act. They
178
might be law, but they certainly were not English. If also they found that there was a prescription in that House, by which members who had entered into contracts of the kind had not been made to vacate their seats, although that might not be a conclusive argument, in the present instance, still it was good ground for supporting an investigation, so that they might clearly understand what the law was, and under what circumstances contractors should be obliged to vacate their seats. However, in the present instance he would confine himself to the point he had stated—that the contract on the table was not signed by the hon. Member for London as a reason sufficient for referring the matter to a Select Committee.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to ask a question of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Notwithstanding the assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) it would appear that not even lawyers—those learned in the law—could agree as to the interpretation of the Act; for the Solicitor General, who was a very clever lawyer, and the hon. and learned Member for Stamford who was as able, differed as to its interpretation. He was convinced, therefore, that they would be doing much better by referring the question to a Select Committee. But there was another point—it appeared to him that the time was about to come when the whole of this Act would have to be taken into consideration. It might operate now so as to turn Baron Rothschild out of that House, as it had operated to turn out Sir Samuel Peto some time ago, and recently the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Price) on whose behalf the Bill was brought in to save him from penalties, and then he was re-elected. A few years ago he remembered a Friend of his, Mr. Dixon, was returned for Carlisle; but he did not vote, because he learned that some collieries in which he had a little interest had been supplying a few chaldrons of coal for the use of the barracks at Newcastle and Carlisle. Now, it was well known that there were modes, either by the transferring of contracts or otherwise, of avoiding all difficulties; and he rose for the purpose of suggesting to the noble Lord that whatever might be the issue of the matter with regard to Baron Rothschild, it would be becoming in the Government to take into consideration the question of the Act, with a view of putting it on a more satisfactory

179
footing or of abolishing it altogether. Not long ago the noble Lord said it was very desirable that the army should remain under the control of the Crown, and not, like other public departments, liable to the interference of the House of Commons. He did not dispute that, but they all knew there were Members of that House receiving emoluments for military services, and who were themselves directly dependent for their promotion, not on the ministers, but upon the Commander in Chief, and through him upon the Crown. That was a sort of dependence which he thought might be urged as a reason for excluding such Gentlemen from the House. He believed they might abolish the Act altogether with perfect safety, for the influence of the press and public opinion, and the greater morality which prevailed among all classes of people, and eminently amongst Members of that House—upon all matters of this kind—would be complete safeguards against the occurrence of the dangers which the Act originally contemplated. He thought the House would act wisely in appointing a Select Committee, but mainly with a view of considering the repeal of the law on the subject.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought that what had fallen from different Members in the course of the debate showed that it would be expedient to refer the question to a Select Committee. If they had to discuss the application of a law which had been invariably applied in similar cases, and upon the interpretation of which no doubt could arise, there would be no necessity for a Select Committee. If they had a case in which a distinct application of the law was clear, and that on the interpretation of the law no doubt could arise—if hon. Members could get up and say that in consequence of an hon. Member's accepting an office under the Crown there was no doubt about the vacating of his seat, in such a case the House might proceed to a direct decision. But this was a case of a different nature. Many hon. Members were of opinion that there was no doubt as to the application of the Act; but there were others who might entertain considerable doubts on the subject. He himself was not prepared to express any opinion, but he thought that it was a question which was open to argument both ways, more especially when they considered the extensive collateral application of the Act which might flow through
180
the principal contractor. It appeared from what had been stated, that there was an almost unbroken chain of precedent against the application of the Act. At the same time, he did not say that that was any reason why the law should not be deemed to be applicable to the present case; but he thought that it was a ground upon which the House might fairly require to have that deliberate, calm, and dispassionate consideration of the case which an inquiry before a Select Committee could alone insure. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) that matters of this description were not conveniently or usefully discussed in debates in that House. The audience was composed of a great number of Gentlemen, who, from their education and habits of thought, were not qualified to be judges in such matters; and he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) that, because Parliament made the laws, Parliament was, therefore, the fittest authority for interpreting the laws. Such a duty was quite at variance with the functions of that House and with the acknowledged principles of the constitution. Upon the whole, he thought that the House would be disposed to agree with the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and for himself, he certainly thought that they would best consult their own proper functions by referring the investigation of the subject to a Committee, especially as there was no immediate necessity for coming to a decision with regard to it. The suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) was well deserving of consideration. This Act arose in times when the habits of public men were very different from what they were now, and the general principle of disqualifying persons for their seats in Parliament was in the abstract objectionable, and ought not to be had recourse to without strong grounds for so doing. He expressed no opinion on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Manchester, but thought that it was one well deserving the consideration of the House and of the Government.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he would beg to suggest to the hon. Member for Finsbury that he had better not press his Motion, as it appeared to be the general wish of the House that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that he was

181
entirely in the hands of the House with reference to this question. If there was to be a bonâ fide appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the law—though he thought it was clear enough—he should have no objection to such a course being taken. He considered that the statement of the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) but an ad misericordiam argument for the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring). This question had no sooner been mooted than the House had taken alarm; and he was afraid that it would stop in the Committee to be appointed; but if it did not stop there he was confident that the Committee would have to recommend that a new writ should be issued for the City of London, in the room of Baron Lionel de Rothschild.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, as the Motion now stood, it stated that the contract had been entered into by Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, though there was nothing on the face of the contract to show that such was the case.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild did not in his presence sign this contract.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the question just put to me is a proof of the inconvenience of discussing this question in its present form. I did not mean to state that it was not Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild who had virtually entered into this contract with the Government, but my remark merely applied to the wording of the Motion which states Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild entered into the contract with the Government, of which there was no evidence on the face of the contract.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: But that is no answer to my question. I put a direct and straightforward question, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel de Rothschild did not in his presence sign the contract in question.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he objected to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbary, which, if it were sanctioned, would place it in the power of a Minister who wished to turn a Member out of his seat to get up and put a question, having previously agreed upon the answer which would be given by one of his supporters, and they all knew how ardent a supporter of the Government was the hon. Member
182
for Finsbury. The question put by him was most unconstitutional, and one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be justified in answering.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that an hon. Member had been prevented from referring to a debate which had taken place on a previous night, and now the hon. Member for Finsbury wished an implied declaration which had been made in that House to be taken as the ground for their proceeding on the question before them. He (Lord J. Russell) thought that they had better proceed on the papers which were before the House.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he begged to inform the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that, however ardent a supporter he might be of the Government, there had been no collusion between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of turning a Member out of that House.
Amendment and Motion by leave withdrawn.
Ordered—
"That the Contract entered into by Messrs. Rothschild and Co. with Her Majesty's Government, on the 20th day of April last, for a loan of sixteen millions for the Public Service, be referred to a Select Committee, and that they be directed to report their opinion whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild has vacated his Seat by reason of the said contract."
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he thought that it had better be decided at once whether the Committee should be nominated by the hon. Member for Finsbury. [Mr. T. DUNCOMBE: I decline to do so], or by the Attorney General, or by the Committee of Selection.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that as the hon. Member for Fiusbury had thrown some doubt on the bona fides of the House in appointing the Committee, it would be satisfactory to the House if he would conjointly with the Attorney General name two Members who were to sit upon the Committee.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the House could not entertain that question without previous notice having been given.

SALE OF BEER, &c., ACT.
MR. HENRY BERKELEYhaving presented petitions from places in Somersetshire and Gloucestershire, for the repeal of the Sunday Beer Bill, said—Sir, I am about to ask this House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Act of last Session for the further regulation of

183
the Sale of Beer and other Liquors on the Lord's Day. The House may remember, that when that Bill was passed into a law, it was hardly known to any Members of this House. At the back of the Bill were the names of three Members generally respected in this House, and those names, I may almost say, would be warrant for any measure they might bring forward; but in this instance, I have no doubt, their views were erroneous, and their usual sagacity was at fault when they committed themselves in this Bill to an Act of Parliament which I believe to be contrary to the interests of the great mass of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, when this Beer Bill passed last Session, I ventured—unfortunately, much too late—on the third reading to take objections to its principle, and to point out that it would be an Act very much encroaching on the comforts and recreations of a highly respectable portion of Her Majesty's subjects, and that it was a Bill unequal and one-sided in its operations, encroaching on the pleasures of the working classes, but leaving the wealthier classes entirely untouched; a style of legislation which, as I apprehend, is at this time of day, highly objectionable. Such were the objections which I ventured to urge, and the very first Sunday on which this Act came into operation, that which I had foreseen was proved to demonstration. Thousands of the working classes who had gone forth in the morning to get a genial breath of fresh air in the country, returned after ten o'clock at night, and found that they were thrown on a town where every place of refreshment was barred against them. What was the consequence? Great discontent, almost amounting to riot, and the police were called on to do their most unpleasant, and, I will say, un-English duty, which they did with that quietude and firmness which mark the character of the corps. Now, since that time, every succeeding Sunday has shown more forcibly, the injustice and severity of the Act. I do not believe I stand alone in this House in thinking that one of the greatest blessings you can bestow on the working classes of this country is the facility now afforded them of going forth and witnessing the beauties of nature and art at a distance from their homes. Fifteen years ago there were thousands of Her Majesty's subjects who lived and died within five miles of the place of their birth, without ever having visited a spot beyond it. Thousands of the inhabitants of this island have lived
184
and died without ever having seen the sea. I say that the increased power of locomotion now placed within their reach tends to expand the mind, and is a leading step towards education. Yet there are those pious ascetics who would stand by and see the departure of a Sunday train laden with a load of human happiness, fathers, mothers, and children going forth on the tiptoe of expectation, to see the beauties of nature, to behold the wonders of the deep, and pass a happy and innocent day, at once uniting pleasure with health—who would stand by and say the steam-engine so employed was a device of the Evil One, and a snare of the Devil. They would say that those working men, who had been employed six days out of the seven in a smoky city, with half-ventilated houses, and a half-drainage pervading them, should pass the seventh day in some dingy chapel or church, listening to the oily outpourings of some Stiggins, or trembling at the blatant bellowing of some Boanerges. I do not envy those pious gentlemen their feelings. They may be very good religionists, but I think they are very bad Christians. Let me not be understood as advocating the absence of the observance of religious rites, or as intending to cast any slur upon the sincere professors of religion. Far from it; that is not my intention. I can, on the contrary, show you that those who are thought godless for resorting to Sunday trains for fresh air are a God-fearing portion of the people. It is a fact that wherever these Sunday trains deposit the inhabitants of distant parts—the people of this metropolis, for instance—the chapels and churches in those places are found to overflow. Speaking from my own experience, I can say, it is a custom for Sunday trains to depart from the city of Bristol to the neighbouring watering places—Weston-super-Mare and Clevedon, and for citizens to go by those trains sufficiently early to attend places of Divine worship on their arrival, and then repair to the seaside to spend a day of happiness with their families, returning to Bristol in the evening. Again, since locomotion has brought Bath and Bristol, though twelve miles apart, within twenty minutes communication, it is not an uncommon custom, at some seasons of the year, for the inhabitants of Bristol to visit Bath, and attend Divine worship in the abbey there, returning to their own cathedral at Bristol in the evening. I have said thus much to protect myself against the charge of advocating want of religion

185
in the people. But it is not only on account of the hardship to the working classes and the interference with their means of recreation that I object to this measure, but it is on account also of the one-sided way in which it operates. This can be very well shown if the House will allow me to trace the course of one of the working classes on the Sunday, and then to follow one of the higher classes. The poor man, the working man, when he has determined to take his pleasure by an excursion train, quits his house very early in the morning. He has not much to lock up. He has no well-found larder, no well-stored cellar, and if he leave any living thing in the house, when he takes his wife and children, it is the cat. He goes forth with his key in his pocket, and he depends for his refreshment on the public-houses he may meet on his way. He goes down by the train, and arrives at a time when you have closed the houses against him. Well, then, no dinner can he have. It is in vain to talk about your Act permitting a man to be fed under the pretence of his being a bonâ fide traveller. Why, the very name at the present moment, after the conflicting decisions of your magistrates, is so terrible to your innkeepers, that they exclude such a man immediately, unless dressed in broad cloth, and attended by a servant. He can get nothing to eat or drink, and thus deprived of his dinner, on his return he finds himself too late to obtain supper, and thus, dinnerless and supperless, he goes to bed. By the present hours of closing he is defrauded of his dinner and supper. That was not the way in which they ought to tamper with the working classes. Now, let them look at the course of the rich man. He goes forth, wends his way to whatsoever city he pleases, and he should like to know the inn that would refuse him admitance at any hour. He should like to find such a case. He got his luncheon or dinner, and returned at his leisure to London. What did it signify to him that public-houses were shut? He could do without his Bass or his or one day; or, if not, there was his well-stocked cellar at home. But suppose he had not, then there was that unlicensed victualler's house—his club, to resort to. He could get there at any hour, and what did it matter to him that the public-houses were shut? Then he said that the poor man was differently treated from the rich man. To a poor man, Sunday should bring recreation and a breath of fresh air, which was everything.
186
Why, the primrose or cowslip, or the meanest wild flower plucked under a hedge by the child of a poor man has more value in that child's eyes than the richest exotic had to the wealthy possessor of a green-house. Why, then, should they interfere with the poor man and his enjoyments? That was not the way to deal with the working man in the nineteenth century. The next point to which he would allude was the monstrous contradictions, anomalies, and absurdities daily perpetrated by all the family of paid Midas and Radamanthus throughout the country. Every one of the great unpaid had different ways of interpreting this Statute. Take, for example, some instances he would give them—
"On Sunday, April 23, the landlord of the Angel Inn, Sutton, had his brother and sister to see him from London. As they were having supper, preparatory to their return journey, at about twenty minutes past ten o'clock, two policemen knocked at the door of the house and were admitted. After looking into the parlour, and such public rooms, they walked into the private apartment of the landlord, where the family were at supper. Seeing two decanters of wine on the table, they departed, and on Friday the master of the house had to appear at the Epsom Court, and was fined
10 s., and 15 s. costs, although he informed the magistrates that the lady and gentleman were his brother and sister. The magisterial answer was, 'then you must not have your sister and brother to supper.'"
Persons going to Jack Straw's Castle, Hampstead, to dine there, are held to be travellers by Mr. Long, of Marylebone Police Court; but, on the other hand, Mr. Paynter, of Wandsworth Police Court, holds that persons going to Putney, even if walking, are not travellers, and that the exception must be confined to persons travelling from place to place, through obligation or duty, and not for mere pleasure. Likeminded is Mr. Trail, of Greenwich, who holds that people coming from London, Croydon, Bayswater, and Dartford, to Blackheath—one of the lungs of London—for pleasure, are not travellers, because the Act never intended that persons leaving their homes for amusement should be considered travellers. On the other hand, the more liberal bench of Ilford, Essex, held that a man going five miles along the Mile End Road, for any purpose, is a traveller. On the other side of the Severn, the justices of petty sessions at Pontypool, hold that going three miles by rail from Merthyr to Twedyrlieu is travelling, within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Hardwick thinks that a man coming from a journey by rail

187
omnibus, and stopping for a pint of beer at a public house near his own home, is not a traveller; but Mr. Norton, of Lambeth, thinks a man walking from London to Norwood, and stopping for beer within a mile and a half of his own door, is a traveller. The Rhadamanthus of Highgate says a man walking from Hampstead to Highgate is not such a traveller that he may drink beer; and Alderman Cubitt holds that the drivers of omnibuses from any place out of town are not travellers. A similar decision as to railway guards and labourers was given by the justices of Chelmsford. The Lancashire justices at Salford, at Hoo Green, hold that persons who on Sundays go four, five, or six miles on foot or horseback, or in carnages, may not drink on the way, the presiding magistrate evidently deciding it on the ground that a man may, or must not, or should not move about on Sunday for pleasure. A different interpretation is put on the Act by Derbyshire justices, who, by their decisions, allow any person going six or seven miles, whatever be the reason of their going, to moisten their clay as they go. From numerous places in all parts of the country the complaint is, the justices have laid down no rule to guide the publican in deciding traveller or not. Do what he will, he can in no way escape the fangs of the law.
The complaint was universal—that the magistrates had laid down no rule to guide their decisions as to what was and what was not a traveller. He had a letter, from a person of great respectability, which showed the state of the great port of Liverpool—
"The operation of the Sunday Beer Bill in Liverpool and neighbourhood is of a very contradictory and oppressive character, and numerous informations have been laid against licensed victuallers for infringing it. The Act is carried out very stringently at Liverpool, and great inconvenience, is experienced here in consequence of it, from the circumstance that a vast number of strangers are constantly arriving from, and departing for various parts of the world, by ship, rail, or steamer; and passengers are continually refused admission into the houses of licensed victuallers, who would have informations laid against them, and they would then be put to the trouble and expense of proving that their guests had been bonâ fide travellers, in many cases involving an impossibility. The result is, that such passengers fall into the hands of lodging-house keepers and others, most of whom contrive to have stocks of ale, porter, and spirits in hand, and the licensed victualler is thus deprived of the legitimate object of his business, which flows into channels never intended by the Legislature, and thus leads also to the direct effect of defrauding the Excise.
188
The clause in the Act exempting a bonâ fide traveller is construed in a very singular manner in this neighbourhood. A person crossing the river Mersey to Seacombe, a distance of three-quarters of a mile, is considered a traveller, and may have refreshment at the nearest public-houses. A person crossing to Birkenhead is not a traveller, and he can get no admittance as such. At Egremont, two miles down the river, a person from Liverpool is a traveller; while at New Brighton, a mile lower down, he is not a traveller. At Rock Ferry, three miles up the river, a person from Liverpool is a traveller; but at Eastham, six miles from Liverpool, he is not a traveller. At Runcorn, eighteen miles from Liverpool, myself and wife were refused admittance on the ground that we were not travellers. Such are the various readings of the word bonâ fide traveller; and this Act, in the hands of our justices, has been a complete scourge to the people. Last Sunday afternoon, May 5, I drove with a friend to the village of Wavertree, three miles from Liverpool. Before we got there the rain fell in torrents, and we were indebted to an intimate acquaintance with the proprietor of the hotel for shelter. While we were there a funeral passed, attended by 214 persons all on foot. It was raining fast at the time, the distance from the house of the deceased to the church was about three-quarters of a mile. They returned in procession to the village and broke up. Now, although it was still raining, and many of them had come two and three miles previously, they were refused admittance into the hotel where we were, the landlord declining the risk of an information. Our stipendiary magistrate has decided that a seaman is a traveller when he is going to sea, and he may have refreshment, but that he is not a traveller when he returns from sea, because he has arrived at the end of his journey. Innumerable other cases could be adduced of the inconsistent readings and baneful operation of this Act, but the above will slightly show the manner in which it interferes with the comfort and convenience of the public in Liverpool and its neighbourhood."
He had no reason for specially praising licensed victuallers, but they were generally a very respectable body of men, and if they were not it was the fault of the upper classes and the magistrates, for there was no body of men so completely under the surveillance of the magistracy as they were, and it reflected deeply on the magistrates of this country if they were not as they ought to be. But no men should be treated in such a way as they were. If they were in Russia they would not be subject to worse treatment. Why were not the licensed victuallers to have the same privileges as other classes? Why were they to be interfered with, and not allowed to have their relations to supper? That alone rendered a repeal of this Act imperative—for any law so loose in its language as to render the practice of such tyranny possible should not be on the statute book. To exhibit in a stronger

189
light the hardships and tyranny of this Act, will the House pardon me if I put an hypothetical case? Let me call their attention to the clubs of this City. At one of these clubs, at half-past eleven o'clock on Sunday night, there are sitting at supper in this unlicensed victualler's house one of the metropolitan magistrates—a most respectable man—and his brother. He had been, say to Richmond or to Greenwich, where he had enjoyed his venison or whitebait, and its usual accompaniments. No one would presume to question his worship's right to these enjoyments. But returning to town, in rather a hungry state, there he sits, at half-past eleven o'clock, eating the devilled legs of a turkey, and washing the Cayenne pepper down with whiskey punch, &c. At twelve o'clock they go home—he would not say ebrii, nor vino cibo que gravati—but comfortable. The next morning the magistrate went in due time to the police court, where the very first case brought before him was that of the licensed victualler who had been guilty of giving his brother a beefsteak and a bottle of wine on the Sunday night. And what happened? Why, this very magistrate, with the taste of the devilled turkey and the whiskey punch still in his mouth, knocks the publican down with the Statute, and fines him 1l. 5s. That certainly put me in mind of the words of the poet—
———"Handy, dandy,
Which is the justice, and which is the thief?"
I will close my opinions by quoting those of two metropelitan police magistrates on the impolicy of this Act—Mr. Corrie, the magistrate of Clerkenwell police court, said, "It is too stringent on the trader and throws an arduous and impossible onus on the officers." Mr. Norton said, "The Act is one which, in my opinion, must be repealed, as it is not suited to the convenience or necessities of the public." I now come to the purpose for which the Act was passed. That was to check drunkenness on the Sabbath. Now, had it had that effect? I most conscientiously and sincerely believe it has not. It had been truly said that you could not make a man moral by Act of Parliament. You could not make them either religious or moral, but you may make them hypocrites. You have stopped drinking at certain hours in public-houses, but the consequence was that it went on in holes and corners. Drunkenness had been created in every
190
corner. As long as it was in public-houses, under the surveillance of the police, you knew the evil, but when it became contraband, and went into holes and corners, it was worse for morals, and worse for the people, than when it was under the surveillance of the police. I find, from evidence before me, that drunkenness takes place in those shops which are permitted to sell small beer. They were called three-halfpenny beer-shops. At these places alcoholic drinks might be had to any extent. Not only there did it take place, but drunkenness was carried on also in coffee-shops, and worse than that, in low brothels, from which persons resorted to "public hells," producing a state of immorality frightful to contemplate.
There was a Committee last year which pointed out this fact, that at these shops drink might be had to any extent. If that was so in 1854, the evil had been increased a hundredfold in 1855. In seaport towns the effect was still worse than in other towns. Poor Jack, on returning home from sea, generally met Poll and Sail; and if they had a strong pull at his pocket heretofore, what must it be when they became contraband sellers of drink. It had been said that drunkenness had diminished in 1855, and was less than in previous years, and that, therefore, sobriety had been secured by the operation of this Bill. Nothing, however, could be more erroneous. In 1852–3–4, drunkenness prevailed of course to a greater extent than in 1855; for it ought not to be forgotten that we were now under the pressure of a war, high prices, and diminished wages. There had also been a considerable number of drinking characters taken off by the war, some 30,000 or 40,000 young men having been removed from the country by recruiting for the army. In addition to the demand for the army and the navy, there had been a large number of young gentlemen, who used to amuse themselves by searching hen-roosts, wiring hares, and finishing their amusements in the taproom, who were now become the Bashi Bazouks of our militia. But let the House see what the returns would show—
"A return of persons taken into custody by the police for drunkenness from twelve o'clock on the Saturday night previous to Whit Sunday, and up to eleven o'clock on Whit Monday, 1854, obtained by Mr. Stephens, chief of police, Birmingham, from the chiefs of police of ten of the largest towns in England, including, according to the census of 1851, a population of 1,414,403 souls. The return was made at the request of Mr. Joseph

191
Stinton, a town councillor of Birmingham, and given in evidence by that gentleman before a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public-houses on the 20th of June, 1854. Mr. Stinton remarked, 'Whit Sunday is a great holiday in the country, and I thought that would be a very fair day to test the drunkenness of the country."
I will now read Mr. Stinton's return for 1854, and also a similar return obtained by a gentleman in whom every reliance might be placed, for Whitsuntide, 1855. The numbers returned for the two periods in the several large towns are as follow—

In 1854—

In 1855—

In 1854—Birmingham

5

In 1855—Birmingham

6

In 1854—Bristol

6

In 1855—Bristol

6

In 1854—Bath

0

In 1855—Bath

2

In 1854—Bradford

1

In 1855—Bradford

0

In 1854—Hull

1

In 1855—Hull

3

In 1854—Leicester

2

In 1855—Leicester

2

In 1854—Leeds

4

In 1855—Leeds

2

In 1854—Liverpool

51

In 1855—Liverpool

87

In 1854—Nottingham

0

In 1855—Nottingham

3

In 1854—Sheffield

15

In 1855—Sheffield

7

Total,

85

Total,

118

Consequently there was an increase of drunkenness, since the passing of the Act, of thirty-three cases. Such were some of the reasons why I ask the House to grant me a Committee to inquire into the operation of this Act. In the first place I am of opinion that the Act tends very much to the inconvenience and discomfort of the working classes, while it leaves the rich completely unfettered. I also contend that the Act has not had the effect which it was intended it should produce. It was one of a class of Bills called "Bills for the better observance of the Sabbath." I remember once reading in the Examiner an article, in which the writer said—
"These Bills ought not to be called measures for the better observance of the Sabbath, but for the 'bitter' observance of the Sabbath."
This was indeed a "bitter" observance Act. It was an Act very much encouraged by those gentlemen who had descended lineally from the person who was found
"Hanging of his cat on Monday,
For killing of a mouse on Sunday,"
and who were determined to put down all who amused themselves on the Sabbath Day. But I consider that the House, in legislating that way, is not adopting the right means for obtaining the end it seeks. I read, some time ago, in Mr. Dickens's Household Words, an article referring to the very Act which I am now discussing, in which it was said that they were legislating as if they had some great ruffian in
192
their minds, whom they wished to punish at all risks. In the case of this Bill one Sloggins was supposed to be the object, a man always with a black eye and a bulldog, who beat his wife, and boxed with his neighbours, and was perpetually drunk; but to catch this Sloggins, you punish the families of Simmons, of Perkins, of Tomkins, and Hopkins. You do not care what happens to these individuals so that you get at the man with the black eye and the bull dog. So it is, for statistics show that one man in 5,000 is a drunkard, and to punish that one man you punish the 4,999 who are not drunkards. And, after all, you do not get at Sloggins; you cannot get at him, and he would get drunk, and no one could prevent him. Why, then, did you not do with him as you do with the Slogginses who beat their wives? You have passed an Act of Parliament which throws upon them heavy penalties for their brutality, but which did not persecute the well-disposed. Why not punish Sloggins for getting drunk, and not punish the innocent in order to reach a man whom you really do not touch. Drunkenness is a terrible curse, and should be punished and repressed. Every one would applaud such a course, and none more than the publicans themselves. I hope my right hon. Friend will give me the chance of proving some of the allegations which I have made. I have given some proofs of the evil operation of the Act. But if a fair inquiry is granted, and it eventuates differently to what I expect, I will be the first to submit; but, as I have a full conviction that the people of this country are suffering great discomfort from the present law; and as I am sure that the great body of victuallers are placed in positions of great difficulty by it, and that it is a measure oppressing the humbler classes, without interfering with the rich, I will leave the matter in the hands of the House, and therefore now move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act for regulating the Sale of Beer on the Sabbath.
MR. COBBETTsaid, he willingly seconded the Motion, being convinced that inquiry was necessary, and that the Act required revision. The Manchester Courier of the 28th of October stated that the open space near the Cathedral church presented a singular spectacle the preceding Sunday afternoon; that no one could fail to be struck by the crowd of decently-dressed men and women, tender infants

193
and almost equally tender mothers, huddled together near the north door; that they were exposed, dripping and shivering as they were, to all the inclemency of a cold and inhospitable day, and that two policemen, who might have been otherwise better employed, were placed there to keep order. Those persons were the fathers, mothers, godfathers, and godmothers of infants brought from places miles off to be christened at the old church; there was no room in the church for them; that a landlord, whose house they resorted to for shelter, had been fined under the Sale of Beer Act of last Session, notwithstanding it was proved that the persons in his house at the time had come from Bury, a distance of seven miles; and that, consequently, all houses being closed against them, they were thus deprived of the means of shelter in very inclement weather. He had also received a letter from a gentleman at Oldham, stating that the Act was complained of chiefly by persons attending funerals in that district—that in one case in severe weather a clergyman, being a magistrate of forty-five years' standing, sent to the landlord of a public-house near the churchyard, requesting him to open his house to give the attendants refreshment, hut that the landlord had been fined under the new Act, notwithstanding the clergyman wrote to the bench, stating that it was done at his request. In the north of England funerals were much more numerously attended than in the southern part of the kingdom—not only were all relations invited, but acquaintances; and consequently there was often a long funeral procession, perhaps conveying a body some miles to the place of interment. He thought it most unjust that they might not be allowed to obtain refreshment while waiting for the clergyman, or even afterwards. He hoped the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) would define what was meant by a "traveller." According to Johnson's Dictionary, a traveller was a wayfarer, and he wished that word had been inserted in the Act instead of "traveller;" for he was certain it would have received a more liberal construction. He believed that magistrates were very much puzzled, and had no distinct notion of what a traveller was in the Act in question. No word admitted of more definitions. The Travellers' Club, he believed, did not admit a man to be a traveller unless he had been out of Europe; but
194
of course that could not be the sense in which the word was used in the Act. Anybody would say a gypsy was a traveller, for he was never anything else. Were gypsies to be exempt from the operation of the Act? They might say truly, "We are travellers, and bonâ fide travellers, too." Then, again, what was the distinction the hon. Member drew between a traveller and a bonâ fide traveller? Some magistrates said a bonâ fide traveller meant something more than a traveller, but they did not know exactly what more; and others that it meant a traveller travelling. If the hon. Member would give the phrase a distinct definition he would greatly assist the magistrates and give valuable information to the country. He (Mr. Cobbett) must, however, say that he thought they were getting into a vein of legislation which, unless they acted prudently, was of a most dangerous tendency. He did not allude to what had happened in Hyde Park last Sunday, but he thought the House would do well to look to the condition of affairs in America, the accounts from which stated that the ferment which had resulted from a similar course of legislation was so great that there was a regular organized opposition to settle the matter at the hustings. And it was already asserted that the "liquor question" would materially affect the election of the President of the country. It was very desirable that the House should as soon as possible institute an inquiry into the working of the present Act, which would, of course, result in the settlement of the question, whether it should be repealed or not. It was impossible, however, he feared, that a Committee would, if appointed, be able to close its labours in the present Session, and therefore there ought to be an understanding to that effect, so that the country should not be deceived. He must also complain of the hurried manner in which the Bill had been passed through Parliament last Session. He understood that not one of its stages had been gone through until after 12 o'clock, so that it was a piece of midnight legislation upon a subject which ought not to have been dealt with except upon the most mature consideration.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not concur in all the opinions that had been expressed by the hon. gentleman the Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), nor was he prepared to admit the force of all the arguments on which he had founded his

195
proposition; yet he was prepared, as he said some time ago, to consent on the part of the Government to an inquiry into the operation of the Act of last Session. He must say at the same time that a very incorrect idea would he entertained from the speeches of the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion as to the way in which that Act was passed, and as to the motive with which the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten), proposed it to the House of Commons. It must he borne in mind that a very strong feeling was expressed throughout the country in favour, not of the limited Bill proposed, but of the total closing of public-houses during the Lord's Day. In the Committee, over which his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate so ably presided, a great deal of evidence was received, from which it appeared that Sunday was the great day on which drunkenness prevailed among the working classes; and that on Monday mornings the greatest number of them were summoned for that offence before the Police magistrates. The question for the House to consider was, how they were to remove that temptation to drunkenness by a limitation of the hours during which public-houses should be open on Sundays, without interfering with the comforts and convenience of the great mass of the people; for he readily admitted that the latter object should not be lost sight of. The Bill underwent discussion, and was modified in passing through the House. He thought the licensed vic-tuallers were prepared to agree to the Bill as it was modified by the House, and that there was no difference of opinion about it amongst the great body of the people. As to the operation of the Act, from all the information he had received, he had arrived at a different conclusion from that adopted by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe). He believed the effect of the Act to be beneficial, but he should not go into statistics, because he thought it would be infinitely better that the statistics on both sides should be examined and sifted in the Committee, than that they should be stated in the House, where allegations could be made without being subject to cross-examination, and therefore must be received with all the qualifications that belong to exparte statements. He (Sir G. Grey) would allow an opportunity for the fair inquiry which the hon. Gentleman asked for, and he thought the hon. Gentleman had acted judiciously in seeking for
196
an inquiry rather than in asking the House to retrace its steps and repeal the Act. All the inconvenience complained of was assuredly not chargeable upon the Act. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was directed against all limitation of the hours during which public-houses should be opened on the Sunday; but the hon. Gentleman should remember that in the year 1848 a limitation was made, and it was enacted that public-houses should be closed until after the ordinary hour of divine service on the morning of Sundays. There was, at the commencement, as much objection to the operation of that Act as there was to the present one; but before the Committee over which his right hon. and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, presided, they received a great deal of evidence respecting the operation of that Act, and the testimony was universally in favour of it, in consequence of the beneficial effects produced by it in diminishing drunkenness and promoting the comforts of the people, including the licensed victuallers themselves, and it was admitted that not one of them would wish to have it altered. With regard to the statements of the hon. Member for Bristol, and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr.Cobbett), as to the conflicting opinions of the magistrates, some of the decisions appeared to be so extraordinary that he should doubt, without further evidence, unless the hon. Gentlemen themselves were personally acquainted with the facts, that any magistrates could so decide. [Mr. H. BERKELEY: I gave the names.] He would beg further to observe that the exception with respect to travellers was not one that for the first time was introduced into the Bill of his hon. Friend. The exception was introduced into the Bill of 1848, and when the law was administered by different tribunals they could not fail to find conflicting decisions, because different views would be taken of an Act of Parliament by the different magistrates who had to decide the question. No doubt there was difficulty in deciding who were bonâ fide travellers, and there must be conflicting decisions on the subject; and it was therefore desirable that in this Committee some means should be adopted to procure uniformity in the administration of the law. With respect to the inconvenience that had been experienced at Manchester, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cobbett), who had referred to the subject must know, as a lawyer, that previous to this Act, and even previous to the Act of 1848, it was

197
illegal for a public-house to be open during the hours of divine service on Sundays. He (Sir G. Grey) believed that the complaints of this Act did not come from the people generally, but came from a limited class. He believed, if universal suffrage could be acted upon with reference to the question, it would be found that the desire of the people would be that the public-houses should he closed throughout the Sunday. He believed the objections to the Act came from the licensed victuallers and publicans, and not from the lower class of the people, but from those above them, who found their convenience affected by the operation of the Act. If there was to be an inquiry, they must have a full and fair one, and it would not be satisfactory if it were conducted in a small Committee just at the end of the Session. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Berkeley), wished to have the Committee now appointed, he (Sir G. Grey) should have no objection to the nomination of a fair one, who might arrange their course of proceedings, call for documentary information on the subject, and so long as a full attendance was obtained, prosecute their inquiry; but it was for the hon. Gentleman himself to consider whether the inquiry could be fully prosecuted before the commencement of the next Session.
MR. BRADYsaid, he must express his satisfaction that the Government had consented to the proposed inquiry; but he would most strongly urge the hon. Member for Bristol not to postpone the appointment of the Committee till next Session, for he was convinced that if he did so some new obstacle would then be interposed. It was impossible to stop drunkenness by legislation, because he knew for a certainty that in the low public-houses and coffee-shops of London, spirits could be obtained at all hours of the day and night. He fearlessly asserted that the general and universal opinion of the people of this country was opposed to this measure, and if legislation of such a character were carried to a much greater extent, a feeling would be aroused which it would be difficult to repress. He trusted that the Government therefore would be warned in time.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, that from the first he had stated that, when this Act had been allowed time to manifest its operation throughout the country, he would support an inquiry into it, if it were deemed necessary. He was not so bigoted to the measure, though his name
198
was attached to it, as to wish to pass it to the injury of any one; and if the hon. Member for Bristol could substantiate his case, and particularly that portion of it in which he stated that the effect of this Act had been rather to increase than to diminish drunkenness, then he (Mr. W. Patten) would assist the hon. Member in his endeavour to obtain its repeal. It would be the duty of the Committee to inquire into and decide on the cases which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Bristol; but, with respect to some of those cases, it must be stated that, if the hon. Member had not been more fortunate as to his information on general points than he had been in those cases, he would find that his information was not so well-founded as he thought. The hon. Member had cited the interpretation put upon the Act by the magistrates of Liverpool, and the neighbourhood, and he (Mr. W. Patten) could assure him that he had only correctly stated two out of all the cases he had mentioned. At the same time, he (Mr. W. Patten) was bound to say that he had watched the operation of this Act, and saw that there were defects in it. The term "bonâ fide traveller" had led to a variety of decisions; he believed, however, that the number of these had been considerably exaggerated, but, at the same time, he thought than an Act of Parliament, in order to be just, ought not to he liable to a great variety of opinions on the part of the magistrates who had to carry it into effect. The hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett) had called upon him for an interpretation of the term "bonâ fide traveller;" he might with great justice say that the term was none of his, as he had drawn the Bill without that particular sentence; but he was told that he ought to make the Act conformable to those which had gone before, and he, therefore, put in the terms in which the former Acts had been framed. He had, aided by the best legal advice, drawn a clause defining the term "bonâ fide traveller," but had omitted it, because he was told by some licensed victuallers, to whom he had submitted the clause, that he had better leave it to the magistrates to act upon the old definition of the term, which they had been accustomed to do from time immemorial. It was stated that the present Act interfered with the comforts of the lower classes, and had been introduced by the upper classes. There never was a greater mistake

199
than this. The circumstances of the case were as follows:—a Committee had sat upon the public-house question for two years; before this Committee the licensed victuallers were represented by their agents and evidence taken, but in consequence of the shoals of petitions which poured in—with the signatures of not less than 480,000 persons—begging that public-houses might be closed on a Sunday, he was requested to take up the matter and to bring in a Bill restricting the hours of public-houses being open on Sunday. He never received a letter from the upper classes on this subject; the letters he received were from mechanics, from mechanics' institutes and literary societies, and from persons what had in his own county devoted their lives to improving and instructing the lower classes. He never received a letter from a gentleman which affected him as to his decision on the Bill. The Bill might, or might not, be a wrong one; but he could, at all events, state that it had sprung from a body of men who felt upon that subject with an intensity which the House was little aware of. He would not undertake to say what would be the result of an appeal to universal suffrage upon that point; but he was perfectly convinced that a large and not an uninfluential portion of the people of this country had ardently devoted themselves to the temperance cause as a most important means of raising the moral and physical condition of their fellow countrymen.
MR. HENRY BERKELEYsaid, he must beg to explain that it was never stated that the Bill was brought in by the upper classes, but that it had the effect of creating a difference between the upper and lower classes.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, that it was never intended that the Act should give rise to that difference. It was said that the rich had their clubs, but the poor had not. He had turned his attention to the question of these clubs, but he was assured that they were constituted on such grounds that they could not by any possibility come within the operation of an Act of Parliament. He agreed in the opinion that, if they prevented the sale of liquors to the poor on a Sunday, they should also do so to the rich; but he thought that there had been some exaggeration with regard to the habits of the rich at these clubs. He belonged to one of the most popular clubs in London, situated
200
in Pall Mall, and he had on Sunday last asked the steward to take notice of the spirituous liquors and wines distributed during the restricted hours on that day; and it was found that in the height of the London season, in a club numbering about 1000 members, during the restricted hours only two bottles of wine, one glass of brandy, and one glass of Curacoa were ordered. It was stated that the Bill was brought in on very short notice, and that the public were not aware of its provisions; but he had, early in the Session, given notice of his intention to introduce the Bill, and had postponed bringing it in until the Committee made their Report. He was in continual correspondence with licensed victuallers and others, in various parts of the country, who made inquiries of him with reference to the Bill, and this proved that the public were aware of his intention to introduce it. When the Report of the Committee came out, it contained much more stringent Resolutions than he had at first introduced in his Bill, and, feeling that it would be impossible to run counter to them, he adopted and embodied them in his Bill. He was informed that if he altered the hours adopted by the Committee, and relaxed some other restrictions, the Bill would not only not be opposed, but would be supported in that House, and receive the unanimous support of the licensed victuallers. He had since been told that the information given him was erroneous, but he was induced to believe it at the time. He had taken pains to conciliate all parties, and what, he asked, had been the operation of the Act through out the country? He believed that in the Metropolis, and other large towns, inconvenience had been felt by those persons who were accustomed to go out for recreation on the Sunday, but with respect to other parts of the country he had received accounts of the great good effected by the Act. The object of the measure was to put a stop to the state of drunkenness which was proved to have existed before its passing, and if the Act could be shown to have failed in effecting that purpose, he would no longer be its advocate. He did not, however, think that that was the case, and if the proposed Committee, in the appointment of which he was perfectly willing to concur, were fairly constituted, he should be quite ready to abide by the result of its investigation.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he must assert that this was not a fit subject for

201
legislation. No one was more sensible than himself of the evils of intemperance; but he thought it was beginning at the wrong cud to shut up the public-houses. The proper mode was to educate the people, and then they would shun intemperance. Why did not all the Members of that House get drunk on the Sunday? He believed that the habits of the upper classes were much improved of late years, and he hoped to see the improvement extend to all classes. When he was a young man, if a party of a half-a-dozen met, they never thought of separating till they got drunk. He hoped the House would see that this was not a proper subject for legislation.
SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he fully concurred with the bon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) in opinion that the impression prevailing out of doors that this was an aristocratic question, and one on which the upper classes were desirous of legislating against the lower, was most erroneous. On the contrary, he had the fullest conviction that the principal promoters of this kind of legislation were to be found in the ranks of the middling and lower orders; and among the most honest and sincerely religious portion of the community. Nevertheless, he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson), that in attempting to legislate on the subject now under discussion, the House was departing from its proper functions, and he believed that when they tried to regulate all the moral habits of society they would not only fail in the attempt, but would bring about a reaction unfavourable to the object they had in view. He thought that objection applied strongly to the Act, the operation of which was now about to be referred to a Select Committee, as well as to other Bills drawn up in a similar spirit, and he could not help hoping that the House would pause before proceeding further in a course of legislation which would alienate the feelings of a large portion of the population, without tending to promote the ultimate success of the meritorious objects contemplated by the authors of such measures.
MR. C. VILLIERSsaid, by the last speaker's test, the regulation of public-houses was not a fit subject for legislation; that might be so, but he thought it was rather late to make the discovery, as that had certainly been the policy in this country for the last four centuries at least, and
202
an Act passed a few years ago, causing these houses to be closed earlier on particular days had been, by universal assent, attended with the greatest public advantage. It had been said, that limiting the hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors could have no influence on the vice of drunkenness. Let those who held that opinion refer to the evidence taken before the Committee in question. He owned that he went into that inquiry prepossessed himself against interference, and doubting if legislation could do the good intended, but he had been completely converted by the unquestionable proofs to the contrary which had been submitted. In the first place, it was shown beyond doubt, that there were times when the poor were especially tempted to spend their money in drink, to the great injury of their families, by the circumstance of these houses being open when no public convenience required them to be so—for instance, on the nights when they received their wages, followed by a day when they did not work. This was on Saturday night and Sunday morning. A few years since ale and spirit houses might be open the whole of that time; and, upon the concurrent testimony of competent witnesses of every kind, it was shown that in all the great towns of the country, as well as the metropolis, scenes of riot and drunkenness occurred in consequence that were attended with the worst effects to the poor themselves, and which have ceased since the Act was passed closing the houses during those hours. He believed that now neither the publicans nor the poor repented this Act. What had, moreover, struck him peculiarly on the Committee was, the difficulty in getting evidence from the poor themselves against the proposition, which was at that time supported by a greater number of petitions than upon any other subject—namely, that of preventing the sale of intoxicating liquors at all on Sundays, and placing that business upon the same footing of all other trades on that day. He had been anxious himself that both sides should be fully heard, believing himself that such a measure as the petitioners prayed for would not be practicable; but he was told, that though it would probably become very unpopular, if it was passed, yet, that the poorer classes were very unwilling to take any active part against it, and it was stated by very respectable witnesses before the Committee, that many of the working class had, in

203
their presence admitted the infirmity of their own nature with regard to drink, and that many had signed these petitions with the view to getting the Legislature to protect them against temptations that they were of themselves unable to resist. Certainly, during the inquiry, there had been held two great public meetings at Leeds, one of them the largest ever held in that town, to consider the question of closing the public-houses altogether on Sunday, and it was carried at this open-air meeting in the affirmative by a majority of two to one; and at the other one, also a large public meeting, the Maine law was discussed, and a resolution in its favour carried unanimously. He was not himself expressing any opinion in favour of this kind of legislation; but in answer to what is alleged, that this legislation was only aristocratic, or merely emanating from religious bodies, he wished to call the attention of the House to the facts, that meetings of this kind were held last year in different parts of the country, and the same conclusions had been arrived at, though they were attended chiefly by the working people themselves. Then, with reference to the Act of last year, into the operation of which it was proposed now to inquire, he must make one observation on what had fallen from its author, the hon. Member for North Lancashire. He said it was precisely the measure recommended by the Committee over which he presided. That was not exactly the case; it was the rigid part of the whole recommendation of the separatist report from the rest, and proposed as a substantive measure. The Committee were bound not to overlook the very strong evidence which had been adduced before them in favour of closing the public-houses on Sunday, but they were unwilling to impose further restrictions of this kind without proposing, at the same time, some relaxation of the law, which precluded the people from access to places of innocent recreation on that day. The Committee had considered that the Legislature ought to act simultaneously on both recommendations. They had done this, after very full and due consideration, in no way wishing to shackle the religious feelings of the country, or to violate in the least degree the sanctity of the Sabbath. They had, indeed, suggested that it should be left to the discretion of some appropriate authority to determine at what places and at what hours this counter-attraction to the publichouse should be
204
offered. He had no objection to the inquiry that had been now moved for. He should vote for it, and if it were a fair one, he thought nothing but good would result from it, as the truth on this subject might possibly be ascertained by it.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must express his satisfaction at the statement he had just heard, and at the decision of the House to grant an inquiry. The question was a very narrow one, for all that the Act did was to shorten by some three hours the time at which public-houses could be kept open, and it prevented publicans from being harassed by informations to which they sometimes rendered themselves liable from not knowing the time of the commencement and the termination of afternoon services. Every one must wish that the truth should be elicited, and he hoped the Committee would be a good one, and would not hurry the matter over. Many statements had been made with regard to the inconvenience caused by the operation of the Act to the people who went upon excursions and took walks upon Sunday, but he much doubted whether the beneficial effects of the measure would not be found to counterbalance any such inconvenience. He believed that the poor were in favour of the measure, and that if the inquiry were fairly conducted it would appear that it had not given rise to much inconvenience. A large portion of the outcry against the Act had been created by an erroneous idea that it had given rise to the difficulty as to the definition of "bonâ fide travellers," whereas that difficulty, he believed, would occur if the Act were repealed to-morrow.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he rejoiced that there was a prospect of a full and fair inquiry. He had no doubt the result would show that the people at large were in favour of some such restriction as had been imposed. Much of the unpopularity of the measure arose from the use of the unfortunate term "bonâ fide travellers." He thought it might be desirable to extend the time for the sale of liquors in the summer for the convenience of excursionists. This and other matters had been overlooked last Session, owing to the hurried way in which the Bill was passed. He was convinced there had been much exaggeration as to the effect of the measure. It was his intention to propose that the Crystal Palace should be open to the people on Sundays, and he hoped to have the support on that Motion of all

205
those Gentlemen who professed themselves anxious to promote the moral and social welfare of the working classes.
MR. E. BALLsaid, so far as his experience went, he believed the Act at present in operation had been attended with the most beneficial results. Two arguments had, however, been used against the measure which he felt called upon to answer. The first was, that Parliament had no right to legislate in such matters, but should rather leave the moral improvement of the people to the advances of education; and the other was, that all such legislation affected the poor without interfering with the privileges enjoyed by the rich. Now, with respect to the first argument, he would be content to ask, what would be the state of the morals of the people if Parliament was content to leave all such matters to the progress of education? And, with regard to the second, he would simply observe, that if such legislation did not affect the rich, it was just a reason why it should be extended, in order that all classes might be alike subject to its influence.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he was glad it had been decided to have an inquiry on this subject, but still the question remained, when was that inquiry to be? He believed, considering how public opinion was divided upon the matter, that it would be impossible for a Committee fairly to terminate their labours during the present Session; and, even should they do so, no fresh legislation could be devised until the Session following. He should, therefore, advise the postponement of the inquiry. As showing the difference of opinion, and the want of correct information which prevailed upon the matter, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had mentioned that he believed, if the entire country could be polled upon the subject, it would be found in favour of the entire closing of public-houses on Sunday, while, according to the return of the petitions which had been presented upon the subject, it appeared there were 358,000 signatures against the present Bill, as opposed to 128,000 in its favour. This contrariety of opinion showed the desirability of dispensing with the inquiry until it could be conducted in the fairest and fullest manner. They would, too, find some difficulty to get fifteen gentlemen to sit out the dog-days upstairs in order to inquire into the matter, while during the summer it would
206
be impossible to get that amount of information respecting the application of the present Act to excursion trains, which could be obtained in the winter when they had ceased running. Under these circumstances, he was in favour of the inquiry, but was opposed to its adoption during the present Session.
MR. HENRY BERKELEYsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Finsbury entertained a wrong estimate of the character of the House of Commons when he stated that fifteen gentlemen could not be obtained to inquire into a matter so important as the present during the prevalence of the dog-days. He believed the Committee could make a short Report, and the grievance would be alleviated.
Motion agreed to.
Select Committee appointed—
"To inquire into the Act of last Session, for further regulating the Sale of Beer and other Liquors on the Lord's Day."

INCOME TAX ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
MAJOR REEDsaid, he rose to move, pursuant to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill
"For conferring the Elective Franchise upon persons—not being Aliens—who are assessed to the Income Tax, but are not upon the Register of Electors for any part of Great Britain and Ireland."
He would endeavour to avoid exposing himself to the severe criticisms of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), of which, on a former occasion, he had had the proud distinction of being the object. There were in this country many gentlemen of high position and of great intelligence, who did not choose to undertake the onus of housekeeping, but who lived in apartments, and who, although contributing a large amount to the direct taxation of the country, were still deprived of the privilege of voting at Parliamentary elections. The landlords of such people, although they might live in their kitchens, and be almost entirely dependent upon the rental paid them by their lodgers, possessed the franchise, while the superior beings who lived above, and who were generally far better qualified to exercise the franchise than their landlords, were not allowed to do so. Indeed, persons who possessed a large amount of funded property, and who were qualified to sit in that House, were yet incapable of voting for Members of Parliament. It sad been always an objection to propositions

207
for an extension of the franchise that such extension was likely to lower its character by placing it in the hands of a class who were likely to abuse it; but such an objection could not, in fairness, be made to the proposal which he was now bringing under the consideration of the House, since he desired to extend the franchise to those who, from their position in the country, might justly be supposed to constitute the educated classes. He would appeal to the Administrative Reformers to give him their support on this occasion, for they could not have administrative reform unless they had representative reform. This was exactly the time when the House should extend the franchise in the direction in which he was proposing to extend it. The Government called on the people to contribute the sinews of war—to give their money and their blood towards the prosecution of the contest with Russia—and if they could make the people a recompense for that, it was surely their duty to do it. Therefore, in the name of the people of England, he appealed to the House not to call on them to subscribe to the income tax, unless they had a voice in the expenditure of the money. The poor curates in the country were especially interested in this question. They were not at all adequately represented in the House of Commons. It might be said that they were more than amply represented through the bishops in the other House; and that might be so in theory, but not in fact, for no one supposed that those big-wigs took any very great interest in the smaller fry of clergymen connected with the Established Church. Again, there was the case of the commercial travellers. He had not the honour of knowing many commercial travellers; but he did not think that any of them would reflect dishonour on that House. That class of the community amounted to something like 30,000, and they spent yearly in the country something like 900.000 l. or 1,000,000 l. per annum, including their stipends and the money they were allowed for travelling expenses. One-half of them might be married, and had houses, in respect of which they enjoyed the franchise, but the remainder had no votes, although they had a stake in the soil. The next class were the clerks of the public offices and of private establishments, many of whom, although men of great intelligence and independence, had no vote because they lived in apartments.
208
[Cries of "Divide!"] He was not to be put down by unstatesmanlike clamour. Hon. Members might bear with him for a very short time, for he often listened to others in debates in which he took no interest, and he should never think of interrupting other hon. Members in that way. Hon. Members opposite might find his Motion inconvenient, but they could go. He would now move for leave to bring in the Bill, though he could not hope to carry it through the House at that late period of the Session.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I do not doubt, admit that it is rather late in the Session to bring in a Bill on a subject of this kind, especially as the Bill takes under its scope one part of a very large question that has excited a considerable variety of opinion in this House. However, the hon. and gallant Member, in bringing in this Bill, probably only desires to state his own opinion and to submit it to the consideration of Parliament, and does not expect this Session to carry his Bill to a conclusion in this House. Without, therefore, being so discourteous as to offer any opposition to the hon. and gallant Member on the terms he has proposed, I must say that I do not think his Bill is very likely to be adopted. At the same time, I do not at all mean to imply that when an extension of the suffrage comes to be considered, some extension to the suffrage, in proportion to direct taxation, may not be a very fair subject of consideration. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems, however, to have selected as a test of qualification an interest that, whatever may be anticipated as likely to happen from the course of events, is not one which, in its nature, is likely to be permanent. Under these circumstances, so far as I am concerned, I shall not offer any obstacle to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in bringing in the Bill.
MAJOR REEDsaid, he was extremely obliged to the noble Lord for the kind manner in which he had assented to the proposition.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that last year great complaints were made as to the increase of the printer's bill, which was thought to be a subject worthy of the consideration of the House. Nevertheless, they had already that evening added an item to the bill of next year which he thought scarcely justifiable, while the extreme readiness with which the noble Lord

209
had assented to the introduction of the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon would tend still further to increase the public expenditure. It was important, also, that hon. Gentlemen who gave up their energies to the service of their country should, during the recess, have that tranquility which was necessary to prepare them, when they met again, to fulfil their duties to their constituents. Whether the agitating question introduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman would conduce to that end, was a point which Government should have considered before consenting to the introduction of the Bill. On that ground, he thought it would have been as well if the noble Lord at the head of the Government, giving the hon. and gallant Gentleman full credit for his intentions, had, for the sake of the public expenditure, and for the tranquility of the Parliamentary mind, not consented with such facility to the introduction of the measure. No doubt, the question was an important one, and it had been brought forward in a manner quite worthy of it; hut they ought to consider whether gentlemen living in chambers and clubs, and not performing those duties which every father of a family was obliged to discharge, should enjoy the privilege which it was now sought to confer upon them. For his own part, as a householder, paying a great many rates and taxes, and endeavouring to fulfil all those duties which he owed to society, he was not prepared to admit that gentlemen who lived in apartments, and enjoyed clubs, were entitled to the privileges which the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon seemed to think were their due. However, after the able manner in which the question had been brought under the notice of the House, and the graceful assent which had been notified from the treasury bench, he would not give the House the trouble to divide, though the noble Lord had spoken with a volatile rashness which he could not entirely approve of.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Reed and Mr. Apsley Pellatt.

STAGE CARRIAGE DUTIES.
GENERAL WYNDHAMsaid, he was desirous of bringing under the consideration of the House the state of the supply of troop and artillery horses, and the effect of the duties levied on stage carriages and omnibuses in diminishing the supply of
210
useful and seasoned horses, suitable for the army, and also in discouraging the breed of horses generally. He considered that great injustice was done to the proprietors of stage carriages by the heavy duties at present inflicted upon them. By the mode in which the duties upon stage carriages were at present levied an enormous sum was exacted from the proprietor of stage carriages, while the owner of a private carriage was comparatively untouched. It was said that the sum raised by the tax could not be spared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already remitted taxation to the same amount in other instances, and there was no reason why a concession might not be made in this case. With regerd to the diminution of the supply of horses for the artillery and cavalry, he believed it was well known that in the late war 100,000 stage-coach horses were employed in the army, while during the present war there had been only 40,000 of these horses employed. He thought that it was highly desirable that the breed of this description of horses should be encouraged as much as possible. He therefore asked the House to agree to the Motion of which he had given notice.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYseconded the Motion. He believed that, while the duty on railways had been reduced from 5 to 3½ per cent, that upon stage-coaches was now something like 15 per cent. The railway was taxed upon its earnings, whereas the coach proprietor was taxed by mileage, whether his vehicle took its full complement of passengers or none. Now, where such competitions existed as there was between railways and coaches, the burden borne by both ought certainly to be the same. In addition to railways, however, these omnibuses had to meet the direct competition of cabs, in the duty upon which the House of Commons, last year, had made a great reduction, the result being that, while cabs had increased, omnibuses had diminished in number, and the revenue was falling off in the same proportion. He thought it behaved the Chancellor of' the Exchequer to consider whether the same privilege should not be granted to the omnibus proprietors here which had been granted to certain parties in Manchester, where the duty had been reduced from three-halfpence to one penny per mile. Believing that the loss to the revenue would be nothing like that which

211
was expected; being of opinion, too, that, whether the country was at war or peace, an act of simple justice ought to be done, he cordially seconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the Laws relating to the Assessment of Duties on Stage Carriages in England, Scotland, and Wales, should be immediately modified."
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he was desirous of stating that the remission of the duty at Manchester had been productive of benefit both to the public and to the revenue.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that this was a falling revenue, and he believed it was universally the case that a partial remission of taxation in such an instance was attended with benefit to the revenue. There was one point in respect of which he was anxious to have an explanation from his right hon. Friend. The deputation which had recently waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented their grievances to him, and it was understood that all those grievances were alike. Judge, then, of their astonishment on finding afterwards that this duty had been remitted in the case of three firms at Manchester, while throughout the whole omnibus trade of London not one single halfpenny had been remitted. He should be glad to know the grounds upon which this distinction has been drawn?
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he felt convinced that the present duty was highly injurious to the omnibus proprietors, and he thought that great relief would be afforded to the public by the removal of the present high taxes upon horses. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his best attention to the subject with a view to the repeal of the duty. It was not only injurious to the omnibus proprietors, but, by diminishing the number of omnibuses, entailed upon the public serious inconvenience.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Cocker mouth divides itself into two portions. In the first part he proposes "to bring under the consideration of the House the state of the supply of troop and artillery horses, and the effect of the duties levied on stage carriages and omnibuses in diminishing the supply of useful and seasoned horses suitable for the army, and in discouraging the breed of horses generally." With respect to that
212
part of the Motion, I will only say, I am not aware that the duty to which he refers exercises any prejudicial influence on the supply of horses to the army, or generally on the breed of horses in this country. The mileage duty upon horses drawing public carriages is a duty which has not only existed since the peace of 1815, but during the late war, at rates higher than the present; and it has never been argued, and certainly never proved, that that duty, which falls generally upon the owners of horses employed in that manner, can be said to exercise extensively any prejudicial influence on the supply of horses to the army. I was not quite able to follow all the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member; but I venture to assert that he has not adduced such facts as will induce the House to attach any great weight to that part of the Resolution. The material part for the consideration of the House is that in which he proposes that "the assessment of duties on stage carriages shall be immediately modified. By "duties on stage carriages" I presume he means the mileage duty on horses drawing public carriages, and not the licences on the carriages themselves, to which I do not understand that any great objection applies. I shall take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the fact that the mileage duty on horses drawing stage carriages, which at present is 1½d. per mile, is a reduced rate, as compared with the duties paid in former years. By the Act passed in 1815 a scale of duties was adopted, varying from 2½d. to 5½d. per mile according to the number of passengers, and the average charge per mile for each horse drawing a public conveyance was about 4d, as compared with l½d. That scale continued until 1842, when a new one was adopted varying from 1d. to 4d. per mile, also determined by the number of passengers, and the average charge per mile under that Act was about 3d., or double the existing duty. That rate existed until about two years ago, when the present rate of duties was imposed. It has been stated that the present is a diminishing duty in the amount returned to the revenue, and there is no doubt that statement is true to a certain extent. I will inform the House of the exact figures. In 1849 the total amount of mileage duty was 188,848 l. In 1854 it was 185,378 l. Therefore, it may be said to have been rather higher, taking the last six years for a comparison; but, although it has slightly

213
fallen, it is really nearly stationary. In the metropolis, where the greatest portion of the mileage duty is produced, the result is very much the same. In 1850 the duty in the metropolis produced 113,123 l. It was greater in the three following years, but in last year it only produced 112,961 l., leaving, as in the former case, a slight diminution, but exhibiting a state nearly stationary. I have had communication with gentlemen from different parts of the country, and I am fully prepared to admit this interest is subject to considerable pressure. But the chief part of that increased pressure is, in my opinion, due to causes unconnected with the duty. It is owing partly to the high price of forage. It is owing to the increased price of horses. It is owing to the increased competition of railways and of steamers on rivers. With regard to the metropolis, I may also add, a disadvantageous effect has been produced on omnibuses by the increased number of cabs in consequence of the measure of two years ago, by which the radius within which hackney cabs can ply for hire was extended, from four to five miles of the General Post Office, to the whole metropolitan district, which is about fifteen miles. The result has been, that whereas in 1848 the number of hack cabs in London was 2,849, in 1854 that number had risen to 3,720. All these circumstances, coinciding with a somewhat high and not very well arranged duty, have caused a combined and accumulated pressure on this branch of industry, and the result is, that this interest is at present in a suffering state. I am quite free to admit that if I were bound to submit to the House a supplementary budget, and bring under consideration a plan for the modification of duties, in addition to those modifications which it has already been my duty to submit to the House, this mileage duty would be one entitled to a prominent place. There are also questions of its relations to the taxation of railways, which, perhaps, are not adjusted on terms of perfect equality. If gentlemen who wish to bind the House by abstract propositions, that the assessment of certain duties shall be immediately modified, without sketching, even in general terms, the nature of the modifications which they propose, would take the trouble to investigate the subject, they would find how difficult it is to select one duty of this sort for alteration without including other duties in the same plan, and they would hesitate before submitting such propositions
214
to the House. After what I have stated, I can only add that if a favourable opportunity should present itself for the reconsideration of this class of duties, I am fully alive to the objections which exist to them in their present form, and I am quite ready to admit that they occupy a prominent place among those duties which require revision, whenever the state of the revenue shall be such as to admit of a diminution of the income of the country. Perhaps the House is not aware that, to carry into effect the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member, we must make an estimated sacrifice of 50,000 l. of revenue, and, although I do not say it is not possible to make up 50,000 l. in other ways, the House must see that, if claims of this sort are admitted with respect to one duty, similar claims will be made for the remission of other duties, and the difficulty will be to make an equitable selection without taking a more general view of the subject. I have already said there are circumstances which render a consideration of this subject necessary; but at present I hope the House will not agree to the Motion.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I would observe that this is no new grievance. This question has been brought before the House on previous occasions, and I am sure it has been brought under the consideration of former Chancellors of the Exchequer. Now I want to know in what way redress can be obtained for a grievance which all admit to be a real grievance, because it is not founded upon merely momentary circumstances. In what manner can this question ever be brought to a satisfactory issue unless the House takes it up? We have had deputations for years, represented from both sides of the House, and we have had those representations sympathised with by those who have had official responsibility, and, notwithstanding the remarkable opportunities which have occurred during the last few years for adjusting the balance of taxation, no redress has been afforded in this particular instance. When in office I felt myself it was a case which demanded attention at the earliest opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer publicly acknowledged it was a case demanding attention. Let the House consider the causes alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the depression of this interest, and consider whether they are temporary or not. They are occasioned by

215
railways, although nobody could expect that railways would cease to carry traffic; by steamers, but no one fancies that steamers are likely to disappear; by the high price of forage; it is possible that forage may not always be so high in price as now; by the high price of horses, but there is no great probability, at all events at present, of the price of horses diminishing. We want to know in what possible manner can redress be obtained for a grievance which has existed now for a considerable time, and has become permanent, unless the attention of the House is called to it by some Motion similar to that of my hon. and gallant Friend (General Wyndham). His motion has been called an abstract Resolution. Now I never heard a Motion which appeared to me to be less abstract—it complains of a practical grievance and indicates a practical remedy. It says that the duty is too high, which occasions unjust pressure, and it asks the Government to modify that high duty. If my hon. and gallant Friend had indicated the details of a measure by which those modifications should be carried into effect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have said "Leave them to me;" but if the tax is unjust, we say, let it be modified. Then it is said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has modified the tax. I thought he rose to explain that point. I did not think he rose to announce that the steam-engine had been invented, that railways had been constructed, that forage was dear and the price of horses high. I thought he rose to explain that he had done that which my hon. and gallant Friend practically recommended him to do; why he had modified this grievous impost at Manchester; and why he had not done that in London, where we are told the grievance presses more than in any other part of the country. I really think we ought to expect from the Government some satisfactory explanation of the experiment which, according to the testimony of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) has been so successful and satisfactory. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or some of his colleagues, will give us that information upon this interesting topic which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accidentally omitted to do. The right hon. Gentleman tells us the tax was settled in 1842. We know it is only within the last ten years that the railway communications of the country have been
216
brought into complete play, and produced that intense competition with the suffering industry, the depressed condition of which is now under our consideration. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself must admit that the principles which railways so successfully carried on are taxed, and the principles of taxation upon the old mode of communication, are quite opposed to each other and are essentially unjust. The tax on successful industry is calculated on its profits, while the tax on depressed industry is really calculated on its capital. Now I ask can the House vindicate such a principle? It is hardly necessary to notice the previous portion of the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, because the practical remedy is not directly stated, but I would only observe, that all your taxes upon horses are too high, while at this moment you are in want of horses. You are obliged to go to foreign countries for animals, and this land, which once was famous for its breed of horses, is absolutely unable to supply the public demand. You take no steps to diminish the high amount of taxation imposed upon them. I shall feel it my duty to support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I think it one of the most proper and justifiable Motions ever brought before the House. I never wish to see any Chancellor of the Exchequer unduly pressed, but I put it to both sides of the House what chance there is of obtaining redress for a grievance which is now universally acknowledged to exist, unless the House takes the matter into its hands? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he will lose 50,000 l. if he assents to the proposition. It is inconvenient and quite unnecessary to enter upou that point until it is put forth in a more business-like manner, and I shall content myself with saying I view that estimate with very great suspicion. After what has occurred this year with regard to taxes on newspapers, when 250,000 l., with very questionable discretion, in a very improvident measure, which was accepted by those who first agitated and recommended the change in a very unthankful spirit, was given up, I think it would have become the Government to accede to this practical Motion, in which an important interest is concerned; and I further think they ought to have come forward in proper time to grant that redress which, I think, it is now the duty of this House to give.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

217
I wish, Sir, to make an explanation with regard to the case of Manchester, which has been alluded to in the course of this discussion. It is quite true that the Board of Inland Revenue has by special indulgence allowed certain persons in Manchester an abatement of duty, but it was on the ground that their competition was exclusively with railways. I have had communication with the Board of Inland Revenue as to whether the same circumstances would not apply to the London trade, and I have received a most distinct assurance that the grounds on which alone this remission of duty was granted at Manchester do not apply in London.
MR. WALPOLE: I really, Sir, do not think the last observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to pass unnoticed. Here is a general tax imposed. The people of this country are given to understand that it is to affect a particular class, and a few individuals of that particular class, upon application, are exempted from its operation. I think it is far too serious a question to pass over, and I trust the House will support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he was informed that in February, during the tremendous frost, the omnibus proprietors of London made application for a month's concession of the boon granted to the Manchester proprietors, and were refused.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the concession made to the people of Manchester was not a peculiar concession made to them; but was an exercise of an unquestionable power given to the Board of Inland Revenue, which had been exercised both before and since it was given to Manchester. For instance, the Board of Inland Revenue compounded for the duty with the proprietors of the stage-coaches which ran in the Lake district for a part of the year only. He did not say that this case was analogous to what had been done in Manchester. All he said was, that what had been done was done by the Board of Inland Revenue on their own authority, and in the exercise of their unquestionable power, and not as some hon. Members seemed to suppose for political purposes.
MR. MILESsaid, that the question of concessions made at Manchester had alone been referred to by the hon. Gentleman; but he understood that a similar concession had been made in the metropolis to Messrs. Chaplin and Horne, and he did not understand why they should not be placed on
218
the same footing as all other omnibus proprietors.
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would yield to the Motion. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had referred to the case of the Lakes districts in England; but in parts of Scotland it was the summer traffic alone which could remunerate the innkeepers for keeping post-horses, and yet in their case no exemption had been made.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished to remind the House that this modification of the duties in the case of Manchester had not been made by the Treasury, but by the Board of Inland Revenue, and therefore it was a mistake to call upon his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to explain the grounds of an arrangement which was not made by the department to which he belonged. With regard to the question before the House, it must be admitted that the duty stood in a somewhat unsatisfactory condition, because, whether rightly or wrongly, modifications had been made which placed different places on different footings. Seeing, therefore, that the Government had the authority of the House to take the matter into their consideration, with a view to the modification of the existing duties, he was not disposed to oppose the Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.

ADULTERATION OF FOOD.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the adulteration of food, drinks, and drugs. Adulteration had so greatly increased of late years that some inquiry was absolutely necessary; but if fraud had increased so as to outstrip existing legislation, the means of detecting fraud had been still more increased by the knowledge which had been acquired of organic chemistry. A gentleman who had been a Member of that House, Mr. Wakley, to whom the public owed a debt of gratitude, had made some startling disclosures with regard to the adulteration which took place, although in the course of that task he was subjected to various annoyances, and even to threats of personal violence, and some of the details which that gentleman had published were well worthy of attention. He could adduce numerous and startling instances of the adulterations in food, &c., which wore practised, but he would content himself with giving the House a few samples

219
to show the average condition of those adulterations. He found that out of thirty-four samples of coffee all were adulterated except three; and in many instances there was really no coffee at all in the compositions. Chicory itself was adulterated very considerably with ground acorns, carrots, horse chestnuts, and stuff mixed with bullocks' liver. Out of fifty-six samples of cocoa eight only were genuine, and 30 per cent of the adulterated cocoas was clay. The adulteration of food, however, was not the worst. After people had been injured by adulterated food they were obliged to have recourse to medicine, but he was sorry to say that the adulteration in drugs was equally great, if not greater; in fact, there was hardly a single article in the materia medica but what had been found to be adulterated. Efforts to arrest the evil in France, America, and Prussia had been successful, and there was no reason why they should not be so in England.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that after the revelations that had taken place on the subject it deserved to be inquired into, but he doubted whether the inquiry could be completed during the present Session.
Motion agreed to; Select Committee appointed,

BLEACHING, &c., WORKS.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he would now beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the employment of females and young persons under eighteen years of age in bleaching, finishing, and dyeing works.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that notwithstanding the Bill was founded on the Report of a Committee, the Report was a long one recently made, and he knew there would be considerable opposition to the Bill. He would not, however, object to its introduction, on the understanding that it should not be brought under discussion at an early day, nor without due notice.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he trusted that the Government would bring in a general measure to set at rest the interests of masters and servants, not for one part of the country, nor for one trade, but for all parts of the kingdom, and for all trades.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he thought, if legislation was desirable at all on this subject, the Government should originate it.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ISAAC BUTT, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Viscount GODERICH, and Mr. CROOK.

POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS (WATER- FORD, &c.)
Mr. Meagher, Mr. Henry Herbert, Mr. Fagan, Mr. Maguire, Mr. De Vere, Mr. Liddell, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Wickham, Viscount Monck, and Mr. Wilson, nominated Members of the Committee.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he objected to, he Committee as nominated, on the ground that there were only six Irish Members upon it.
MR. WILSONsaid, he thought that Ireland was fairly represented. He saw no reason why Irish Members should not sit on English Committees, and English Members on Irish Committees. In the present instance there were six Irish representatives and another Member who was intimately connected with Ireland.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he must complain of the systematic exclusion of Irish Members from important Committees and offices of high trust. It was notorious that there was not a single Irishman in the Cabinet, and that, with one exception, there had been no Irish Member on the Sebastopol Committee. That one Irishman had been withdrawn, and was no party to the preparation of the Report. As a general rule they were shut out from everything of importance, and if they possessed a particle of talent they were certain to be excluded.
MR. HUTCHINSsaid, he should move the omission of the name of Mr. Gordon, which already appeared upon another Committee. It was impossible for one Member to serve on two Committees simultaneously.
COLONEL DUNNEseconded the Amendment.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he thought that no hon. Member's appointment would give greater confidence to Ireland than that of the hon. and gallant Member for Port-arlington (Colonel Dunne). There was no Irish Member on his (the Opposition) side of the House nominated for this Committee.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he also must complain of the system of selecting Members to serve on Committees generally. Having expressed himself desirous of serving on the Committee on the military education of Sandhurst College, he was told that he must make friends with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) if he really wished to be appointed; but he had declined to do anything of the kind. Young Members like the hon. Member for Beverley

221
(Mr. Gordon) ought not to be put upon two Committees at once, while other Members had not an opportunity of learning their duties.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he considered it premature to object to Mr. Gordon's nomination. If that Gentleman were a fit person to act on this Committee he should be elected; and then, when the second Committee came to be appointed, his name might be struck out of it if necessary.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) did not recognise on the Committee the names of the hon. Member who sat next him (Mr. Maguire) and the hon. Member behind him, the Chairman (Mr. Meagher). He also denied that there were no other Irish Members in whom the public would have confidence but the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he considered it absurd to appoint Committees and introduce new Bills, when the massacre of the innocents had commenced.
Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Gordon be one other Member of the Committee."
The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 34: Majority 18.
Mr. Lowe nominated one other Member of the Committee.—Power to send for persons, papers, and records: Five to be the quorum.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.