Commons Sitting of 23 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o International Patent Right.
2o Probates and Letters of Administration Act Amendment; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment.
3o Civil Bills, &c. (Ireland) Act Amendment; Militia Pay.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION BILL.—CONSIDERATION.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for Consideration read.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [22nd July]—
  "That the Clause, ('That it shall not be lawful for the collector of rates and taxes of any borough, county, or city, or his partner or agent, to act as agent, clerk, or canvasser for, or to be employed on behalf of, any candidate fur such borough, county, or city; and any such person who shall so offend shall, for his said offence, be liable to forfeit the sum of fifty pounds to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full costs of suit,') be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BASSsaid, he wished for an opportunity of more deliberately considering this subject, and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would be satisfied with a mere continuance Bill during the present Session. He believed that the provisions of this Bill would either be found unworkable or would lead to corruption.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he thought that nothing could be more objectionable than the practice of a tax collector, with his rate-book in his hand, walking into a voter's house to solicit his vote in aid of any particular candidate. He hoped the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart) would press his Motion.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the proposition was entirely new. It was that, for the first time, the collector of rates should not act as agent for a candidate. Hitherto the Legislature had left the candidates to select whom they pleased as their agents; and if once they began to say that certain persons should not be allowed to be agents he did not know where they should stop. They must go much further certainly than this clause went. He did not think that the clause had any bearing upon the points sought to be remedied by this Bill, but that it would raise question after question as to who is entitled to be an agent. He was quite prepared to consider this clause at a future time, in connection with the general subject of election law.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHobserved, that the clause would be a mere trap to the honest candidate. How could he know who was the partner of a rate collector?
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he did not think much advantage would be gained by the clause. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the
  2022
  Home Department that this was not the time for a general revision of the electoral law. But that argument applied to the Bill altogether. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with a mere continuance Bill, and would not attempt to carry out this patchwork piece of legislation.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he could not support the clause in its entirety. He would suggest the omission of the words "partner or agent." If that alteration were made he should then be inclined to support it.
  MR. GREERhoped the hon. Gentleman would persevere with the clause. Collectors of rates and taxes had a great influence in reference to the registration of voters; and in Belfast that influence had been exercised in a most extraordinary degree. In any district the collectors of taxes might abstain from calling upon voters for their taxes until after the time when they should be paid to enable them to vote, and thus persons really solvent, and willing to pay their rates when asked for them, found themselves disfranchised when the revising barrister came round.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the clause either went too far or not far enough. It singled out one particular class of persons, but tax collectors were not the only persons who had an undue influence over electors. Let them take, for example, the steward of a nobleman who had a large estate, and who could knock 10 or 15 per cent off the rent if it would in any way suit his employer's purpose. The tax collector was a public servant, and any candidate might avail himself of his services. The tax collector could not remit taxes, and it was not to his interest to remit them, but the steward of an estate could remit any amount his employer might choose to allow. The clause aimed at one particular class of individuals, while they knew that there were hundreds of others who were equally open to objection. He objected to legislation of this piecemeal kind being introduced into the Bill, which he considered should be merely a continuance Bill. If it were necessary to legislate on the ground of intimidation, it should be done fairly and honestly.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, if they could not get a large measure of Reform they must be content to take it piecemeal. There was something more than intimidation in the action of a tax-gatherer. That functionary had a power which a landlord or a steward did not possess, and it was

  2023
  quite right, therefore, that he should be excluded from acting as an agent in contested elections.
  MR. BAINESsaid, that the best thing in the face of so many difficulties would be to snake the Bill a mere Continuance Bill of the Act of last Session. He felt favourable to the principle of the clause, which was directed to check illegitimate influence of a very well defined kind. He did not think it was a reason for doing nothing that they could not prevent the exertion of all kinds of illegitimate influence. The words "partner or agent" ought, however, to be omitted, and the clause ought to be amended so as to make it apply to the collector of poor rates of any parish situated in a borough. At present it only applied to a collector of the borough, city, or county rates.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, he thought they ought to avoid partial legislation on the large subject of election law. He could not understand why they should single out municipal officers not recognized by the Act. It was opening the door to a course in which they might find it difficult to stop.
  MR. BYNGsaid, he considered that the clause contained a very sound principle, and he should vote for it, subject to the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines).
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he did not think the Home Secretary was justly open to the charge of attempting to wake the Bill more than a mere continuance measure. He had only sought to clear up some doubts which had arisen in the working of the existing Act. For himself, he did not like homœpathic doses of reform, and he should, therefore, oppose the clause.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he thought it unreasonable that a Bill of this kind should have been introduced at this late period of the Session, and that they were wasting time in discussing it. He should vote against the clause, because he desired that the Bill should be merely a continuance Bill. He wished they would take an example from Scotland, where there was no such absurd regulation that a man should pay his taxes before he was qualified to vote. He objected to the clause for another reason, that they ought not in such a case to pick out one class of society rather than another. If they excluded tax collectors, they should exclude solicitors and
  2024
  members of the legal profession from being agents, for he held that they were a much more dangerous class in this respect than tax collectors. He said that in his capacity of a member of the legal profession himself.
  MR. W. VANSITTARTsaid, he should be happy to adopt the Amendments suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr.Warren), and the right hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines).
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 66: Majority 13.
  MR. NICOLLrose to move the following clause:—
  "Every candidate at any election for any county, city, or borough, shall be required to make and sign the following statutory declaration, and present, or cause to be presented, a copy of such declaration to the election auditor on or before the day appointed for the audit of bills, charges, or claims:—'I [A. B.], a candidate at the election of a [] to Represent the [] in Parliament, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I have not knowingly made, authorised, or sanctioned, and that I will not knowingly make, authorise, or sanction any payment, or make any gift of money or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, by way of private gratuity to any solicitor, agent, or canvasser, acting for me on account of the said election, otherwise than is described by the bills, charges, and claims rendered to the election auditors, save as excepted and allowed by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1851.' And every candidate who shall neglect to make and send in to the election auditor a copy of the declaration as aforesaid on or before the day appointed by the election auditor, shall be liable to the penalty of £20, and to a further penalty of £10 for every subsequent week of wilful default or neglect in making or sending in such declaration, to be recovered by any person who will sue for the same, together with full cost of suit. Provided always, that in 'case any such candidate shall be absent from the United Kingdom at the time of such election, he shall send in to the election auditor a copy of the declaration as aforesaid within one month after his return to the United Kingdom, which shall be of the same force and effect as if the same had been sent in as herein provided."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he individually, had no objection to a declaration being made by the candidate either at the polling booth or the table of the House to the effect contained in the clause. On the contrary, he thought it might become one of the most effective modes of obtaining the end they had in view; but this was one of those clauses which in the discussion which took place when the existing Act was introduced some years ago, had

  2025
  elicted more controversy than almost any other. It was necessary to confine the operation of the Bill to the cases contained in its provisions. Other cases might come under consideration in a permanent measure which could not be delayed beyond the next Session of Parliament. The House had signified its approval of the course he had taken of making this as nearly as possible a continuance Bill, merely being so far declaratory as to render the measure more intelligible. The course he had taken had nothing at all unusual in it. He hoped the House would dispose of the proposed Amendments. If any of the clauses provoked opposition, let the elimination of the clauses objected to be distinctly proposed. If the feeling of the House were declared against him he was ready to make this merely a continuance Bill, otherwise it would be a dereliction of duty in him to desist.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the clause was a good one.
  MR. GREERsaid, that such a clause was absolutely necessary.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he did not think the clause would meet the evil complained of.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that he could not assent to the clause. Unless they could trust to the honour of Members of that House not to deal in corruption, no declaration that could be framed would prevent hon. Members evading the law. The clause only imposed upon a Member a declaration that he had not paid other money than that returned to the election auditor, but hundreds of thousands of pounds might have been paid on his behalf by others.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEremarked, that it would be impossible to get through the Bill as it stood. If it were not made a mere continuance Bill he would move the omission of all the new clauses.
  MR. WALPOLErepeated, that if a majority of the House were against him, he would make the Bill a continuance Bill the next day. That question might be tried on the first clause.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he should support the clause, although he admitted it would not meet all the evil. He did not believe the House wanted to put down bribery, because he had noticed that, whenever an effective measure was brought forward it was sure to be opposed on both sides.
  Motion made and Question put—"That
  2026
  the said clause be now put a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 83; Majority 31.
  The clause was therefore lost.
  MR. GREERthen moved the following clause:
  "And whereas it is expedient to provide for increasing the number of polling places, and for altering polling districts in Ireland, Be it therefore enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, from time to time hereafter, on Petition from the Justices of any county or riding in Ireland, in quarter sessions assembled, or from one or more of the Representatives in Parliament for the said county or riding, or from at least one hundred of the registered electors for the said county or riding, representing that the number of polling places for such county or riding is insufficient, and praying that the place or places mentioned in the said Petition, may be a polling place or polling places for the county or riding within which such place or places is or are situate, and that a district or districts in said Petition mentioned and described by the barony or baronies, half barony or half baronies, or by the parish or parishes, and townlands contained therein respectively, may constitute a district or districts for polling at such polling place or polling places respectively, or praying that any polling district or polling districts may be altered, and that any barony or half barony, parish or parishes, or townlands, may be detached from any such polling district, and be annexed to any other polling district, as the case may be, to declare that any place or places mentioned in the said Petition, shall be a polling place or polling places for that county or riding, and that the district or districts in such Petition mentioned, or with such alterations thereof as may be deemed suitable and convenient, shall constitute a district or districts for polling at such polling place or polling places respectively; and that the other polling districts of the said county or riding shall be altered accordingly; and every such Declaration or Order for creating additional polling places, and the polling districts for the same, or for altering any polling district or districts, shall be certified under the hand of the Clerk of the said Privy Council, and when so certified shall be published in the Dublin Gazette, and shall be of the same force and effect as if the same had been made by the authority of Parliament: Provided always, That if the said Petition be from registered Electors or from a Representative or Representatives of the said county or riding, proof must be given of the publication of the said Petition in two newspapers, circulating within the said county or riding, at least ten days before such declaration or order shall be made.
  "And at the next Registration of Voters for the said county or riding, after such declaration or order shall have been made, separate alphabetical lists shall be made of the Electors entitled to vote in each polling place, according to the baronies Or to the parishes, or portions of parishes, constituting the said polling districts respectively,"
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  LORD NAASobjected that as this clause had nothing to do with corrupt practices, it did not come within the scope of this Bill. More than this, no practical inconveniences arose from the existing state of the law. At present the registered electors on consultation with the magistrates at quarter sessions could apply for additional polling places, and he had never known a case in which such joint application had been refused. There could not, in his opinion, be any fairer arrangement.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he rose to support the Amendment, and would frankly avow that he did so in order to protract the debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on a former occasion told the House that a combination of twenty Members would any time, by availing themselves of the forms of the House, upset the British constitution. He (Mr. White) did not accept the right hon. Gentleman as a very great constitutional authority, but taking his dictum for as much as it was worth—he would then announce his determination to oppose this Bill in every stage; and would fain hope, that some score of other Members at least, would co-operate with him, and, if possible, prevent this pernicious Bill, as now presented to the House, becoming the law of the land. Moreover, he would assert that the Government, in introducing the declaratory clause (the payment of voter's expenses) had wholly misread or perverted a great constitutional principle. By the clause in question they went on the palpably unconstitutional assumption that an elector, in voting, was not performing a public duty, but was conferring a private favour on a candidate. On the introduction of the Bill be had opposed it, and then declared his invincible repugnance to the clauses foisted therein, and, whilst he was not then inclined, and never had been, to give a factious opposition to the Government, still he (Mr. White) would persevere in his opposition to this Bill unless it was reduced to its proper proportions—namely, as a simple continuance Bill, as it ought to have been and none other, at this fagend of the Session. He would add no more, but reiterate what he had said on a former occasion, to wit, that the title of this Bill was a misnomer, and that, instead of being called a "Corrupt Practices Prevention Act," it was neither more nor
  2028
  less than a Corrupt Practices Protection Act.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he concurred with the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) that this clause was unnecessary, and would, if adopted, only tend to increase expenses.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he thought the arguments advanced by the noble Lord against the clause perfectly satisfactory, and indeed unanswerable. He hoped the hon. Member for Londonderry would withdraw it. Ample power was already possessed for the end aimed at. The Privy Council in Ireland had considered whether the power so constantly granted should not be exercised more sparingly.
  MR. COXsaid, he should support the clause. He looked upon the Bill as one to legalize bribery and increase the expenses of candidates. That being so, he thought that they should provide that the candidates' funds should be spared as fat as possible, and he should therefore move that the expense of providing polling places should be paid by the county or borough.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member could not move the Amendment at that stage. The Bill must be recommitted for the purpose.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if the first clause of the Bill were retained, he would move the recommittal of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the said clause be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 112: Majority 86.
  MR. GRIFFITHthen moved the following clause:—
  "The admission and payment, on behalf of any candidate at an election, of any claim or demand in respect to such election, by the election auditor, in accordance with the provisions of the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 102, shall be sufficient protection to such candidate against any action or suit at law in respect to the legality of any such payment; and it shall be the duty of the election auditor to refuse to pay any claim or demand on behalf of such candidate which is not in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned Act of the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 102."
  The adoption of this clause would make the election auditor a real check upon corrupt expenditure, instead of, as he was, a trap and a sham.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if they agreed to this clause, they would at each election

  2029
  have 350 courts of law. He thought that was sufficient argument against the clause.
  Motion made, and Question "That the said clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, he then rose to move that the words "within such voter's county or borough, and seven miles from the boundary thereof," should be inserted in Clause 1, line 17, after the word "voter." His object was to limit the expenditure for bringing voters to the poll by merely allowing the word candidate to bring to the poll those who lived within a restricted district. He could not conceive any principle on which the House could sanction the bringing of voters from remote parts of the kingdom.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEexpressed his intention to support the Amendment. The conveyance of voters to the poll was carried to a ridiculous extent, and the expenses incurred fell heavily upon the candidate.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he should support the clause, as he thought the system of bringing voters from great distances entirely wrong
  MR. ROEBUCKexpressed himself strongly against the present system, the result of which was that entire constituencies had to be brought to the poll in cabs. His intention was to move the rejection of the entire clause, but to provide against all contingencies, he would in the meantime support this Amendment, which would at any rate improve the clause. A more mischievous clause was never introduced into any Bill.
  MR. GARNETTsaid, he would support the Amendment, but some provision would be necessary to meet the case of the Universities.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he should vote for the Amendment. He thought in the case of the Universities the voting might be conducted by letter.
  MR. GREERsaid, the words "county" and "borough" were those used in the Amendment, which would not include the case of the Universities.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwick a very proper one, and should therefore give it his support. However, in his opinion, the only efficient way to prevent bribery at elections would be to introduce the system of vote by ballot.
  MR. CRAWFURDsaid, he thought they ought to restrict these expenses, which were often very extravagant.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 78: Majority 3.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would move an Amendment, with the view of preventing the provision of conveyances for any other purpose than that of bringing voters to the poll.
  MR. WALPOLEassented to the Amendment, which was agreed to.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he rose to oppose the introduction of the clause into the Bill before the House. The Home Secretary said that this was simply a continuance Bill, with the exception of removing a doubt with respect to the payment of travelling expenses. But a doubt might be removed by settling the law. To render the payment of travelling expenses legal, was in truth to render it imperative; for every voter would think himself treated with contempt if he was not conveyed to the poll. It could not be said that a borough voter would be disfranchised if this clause was not agreed to, for he could walk to the poll; and in the case of counties it would favour the rich candidate at the expense of the poor one. He regretted that the proposition embodied in the clause had come from his own side of the House. He believed that its author had done more to render corruption effective than any other man who had ever attempted to legislate on the subject.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BRADYopposed the clause, and commented strongly upon the unusual silence of the author of the clause in its present shape (Mr. Ayrton) throughout the debate. He could only ascribe that unusual circumstance to the consciousness that he had done wrong.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he would again suggest that this should be a mere continuance Bill. If the Home Secretary had originally assented to this, he might have saved himself great inconvenience, and he must have observed that there was a diminishing majority on each occasion. This Bill seemed to involve two things—that they believed that the voters of this country disregarded their right of voting, and the other, that none but a rich man should become a candidate.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that this Act of Parliament having always been a temporary Act, he thought that the time had come for a permanent measure. He in-

  2031
  tended to redeem his pledge to introduce such a measure in the next Session of Parliament. This measure had been discussed at three morning sittings, and on every occasion when this clause had been discussed it had been supported by considerable majorities. That was a sufficient justification for the course which he had taken in introducing a clause to settle the law on the subject. This clause was not introduced to purify elections. He believed that the Act would have that tendency, but the purpose of this clause was to settle the law. If the clause was struck out, gentlemen would just as before pay the expense of providing conveyances for bringing voters to the poll. And if there was no corrupting influence on the mind of the voter, a candidate, who provided conveyances for bringing him to the poll, was simply enabling him in a fair manner to exercise his constitutional privileges. If, this clause was not passed, neither the candidates nor the Committees up stairs would know what was the state of the law on this subject. Was that a state of things which should be allowed to continue? They might, it is true, forbid the payment of travelling expenses altogether, but he did not believe that public opinion would go along with them in such an enactment.
  GENERAL THOMPSONsaid, be wished to know, if hon. candidates paid for bringing voters to the poll, and the said voters voted against them, did the Bill provide proper means of recovering the cabhire. All flesh was not the same flesh; and so of bribery—there were different kinds. The provision for the conveyance of electors was gross bribery, neither more nor less.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he thought the clause should be allowed to stand.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the object of the Bill was merely to legalize bribery and thus give the Conservatives the advantage of bribery as they had never done before at the general election, which was expected to take place next year. He complained of the introduction of new matter in what had been declared to be a mere continuance Bill. A society had been established called the Conservative Land Society, by which more votes had been manufactured than by the whole Liberal party. The members of that society might have votes in five or six counties, and under the Bill as it stood they might be carried about in any manner they most preferred.
  2032
  And it being ten minutes before four of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the debate till this day.

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE MANCHESTER COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

  PETITIONS.
  MR. TURNERsaid, he rose to present two petitions, one from certain legal practitioners of Manchester, the other from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, complaining of certain irregular practices on the part of Mr. Jemmett, the Commissioner of the Manchester Court of Bankruptcy, tending to prejudice the true administration of justice in that court. At the same time he wished to give notice of a Motion for printing the petition.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in his opinion these petitions ought not to have been communicated to the House without some notice; that would have enabled justice to be done to the gentleman whose name was mentioned. He (the Attorney General) should not at present trespass on the House further than to observe that he had received a communication from Mr. Jemmett, who expressed his anxiety to come forward and meet the chares against him; and if the hon. Member (Mr. Turner) took another opportunity during the present Session of bringing the case under the consideration of the House Mr. Jemmett was anxious to come before the House, and court the fullest and most scrutinizing investigation.

REINFORCEMENTS FOR INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control what reinforcements are going, or preparing to be sent out, to India?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he had no doubt the House would be glad to learn that between last January and the present time nearly 17,000 troops had been despatched from this country to India. With regard to the future it would probably be enough for him to state that Her Majesty's Government were well aware of the great importance of striking a decisive, and if possible, a final blow in the course of the approaching cold season, and that they were prepared to take measures, with that object.

THE OYSTER FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he

  2033
  would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the inquiry he has instituted respecting the complaints made by the parties interested in the Deep Sea Oyster Fisheries of the operation of the Act 18 & 19 Vict., which imposed very injurious restrictions on their Trade, and which they consider were not contemplated by the Convention with the Government of France of August, 1839?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the inquiry to which the hon. and gallant Admiral referred was instituted before he had the honour of holding the office which he now possessed. He might state that that inquiry was still going on, and he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend the Government had not lost sight of the question.
  On the Motion that the House at its rising should adjourn to Monday,

THE SLAVE TRADE.—RIGHT OF SEARCH.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the present position of the question of the right of visiting ships suspected of Slave Trading, and to ask what course the Government has taken upon that subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I must venture to ask the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue) whether he really considers the question that he is now going to introduce is one that may fairly be brought forward on the Motion for adjournment. I know that by a severe exercise of his privilege the hon. Member may do so; but really to discuss such a question under ordinary circumstances would require a whole evening. Now, this objection to the Motion of the bon. Gentleman is irrespective of that general consideration which the language of the notice gives rise to. The language of that notice is—
  "To call the attention of the House to the present position of the question of the right of visiting ships suspected of slave trading, and to ask what course the Government has taken upon that subject."
  Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that at this moment communications are going on between the Government of England and that of the United States, which certainly would not be assisted by any discussion in this House. But my appeal to the hon. Gentleman is based on the broad ground that the question is one of
  2034
  such magnitude and interest that it would be hardly fair to enter upon it on the Motion for adjournment? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's motive in his setting down his Motion as one to be moved on the adjournment was an impartial one; for I find that an hon. Friend of mine (Sir J. Elphinstone) has proposed, under the same machinery, to call the attention of the House to the Resolution of "the East India (transport of troops) Committee." This, too, is a question of such magnitude this it is impossible it can be fairly discussed without taking a very considerable period of time. Each of these subjects would afford materials for a night's debate; and both are questions which ought not to be introduced unless they are fairly discussed. I therefore put it to both hon. Gentlemen whether they do not think it will be rather an abuse of a privilege, the legitimate use of which I have always advocated, if they bring forward, on the Motion for the adjournment of the House, topics of this nature.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that in putting this Motion on the paper he was not aware that he was taking any unreasonable course. He thought it was quite reasonable before they broke up for the Session, that the Government should be asked to state their intentions on this important subject. The intentions of the Government had not been announced to the House in that clear and satisfactory manner which might have been expected, and he thought it very natural that some Member of the House should make inquiries on that subject. He had intended, in introducing the question, to make but a very short statement, showing the present position of the question as left to the present Government by their predecessors, a point in connection with the subject which he thought had not met with the attention it deserved. The Government appeared to have ignored the acts of their predecessors, and he wanted them to tell the House whether they departed from or adhered to the policy of the late Administration. The Minister of the United States stated at a recent meeting in this country, that our policy had been changed, and that some great concessions had been made on points for which every Government of this country hail hitherto contended, and against which the country he represented had as long struggled. He thought it a perfectly legitimate question to ask whether that statement was true? The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs explained on a

  2035
  previous evening that negotiations were in progress for bringing about a convention with the United States for regulating not the right of searching each other's ships, but for conferring the right of mutually verifying the use of the national flag. That was all very well; but the language used by the Government on the occurrence of those unfortunate events in the Cuban waters was such as appeared to him to concede everything for which this country and the predecessors of the present Government had always contended. What he wished to ask was, whether they intended to adhere to the policy of the Earl of Aberdeen, or to sanction the principle that by hoisting a foreign flag, no matter of what nation, it should be in the power of any vessel to stop all further proceedings on the part of our cruisers, and render such vessel sacred and inviolable, whatever might be her character? Because, if so, we had better withdraw our squadron from the waters of Africa and of Cuba. For his own part, he protested against thus imperilling the position of England as the first maritime Power of the world.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I am sure the House will not expect me to enter into any lengthened statement in reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman. I think that in reference to this question there has been a general feeling in the House and in the country that we could not be too cautious. Certainly the circumstances which have taken place within a short time in the Cuban waters are not such as, in my opinion, to make it desirable that we should on this occasion enter on any discussion. Sir, I stated on a former occasion we had the assurance of the United States Government that they would consider not only with care, but with a desire to do justice to the question, any proposition that we had to make to the United States. Our propositions have not been made. They are still under the consideration of the Government; and it is impossible, therefore, for me to give the House any further information on the subject. I think the hon. Gentleman can scarcely be serious when he asks the Government to state what our policy will be in the event of such communication as is not yet made being unfavourably received by the United States Government. I certainly have every hope that this matter will be brought to a satisfactory termination; and the language of the United States Government and of the United
  2036
  States Minister in this country is such as to perfectly confirm Her Majesty's Government in that anticipation.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the prevalence of aggravated assaults upon women and children, and to urge upon his consideration the necessity of making some alteration in the law relating to such offences. The recent Assaults' Act had done much good, but he could not think it had altogether worked well. By imprisoning the offender, it too often deprived the wife of her means of support and obliged her to go to the workhouse, so that the victim was punished as much as the brutal assailant. In 1856 and 1857 he submitted proposals for inflicting shorter terms of imprisonment and corporal punishment. On those occasions he was met by the objections that the new Act had not yet had a fair trial, and that corporal punishment was not the proper mode of dealing with this or with any other offence. His own belief was, that corporal punishment would very materially check these assaults; but he was not now advocating his own nostrum. All he wished to impress on the Home Secretary was, that the law in its present state did not operate so satisfactorily as could be wished. In 1854 and 1855 there were in this metropolis alone 878 of these crimes, or 439 per year; In 1856 the number was 377; and last year it was 421. From these figures, it appeared that assaults of this kind were on the increase, and that there was an average of more than one a day of those offences. He believed it to be a libel on the English character to say that the minimum could not be brought below that. He earnestly hoped that during the recess the Home Secretary would give his attention to this subject, and would, if he found that these unmanly assaults were not reduced, bring forward next Session a measure to check a crime the frequency and atrocity of which were a disgrace to the country.
LUNACY COMMISSION (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that he understood that the Commissioners to inquire into the subject of Lunacy in Ireland had made their Report, but that one of the Commissioners dissented from the others, and had given his reasons in a Report of his

  2037
  own. He wished to ask the Home Secretary if that Report would be laid on the table?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that with reference to the question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald), he really wished that when Commissions were issued the Commissioners would agree upon their Report. It was not fair to the majority who concurred in a Report that an individual Commissioner should afterwards send in a separate Report which his colleagues, perhaps, had no opportunity of seeing. He had received the Report of Dr. Corrigan, and the question it involved was so important, that he would undertake to lay it on the table of the House. With reference to the subject commented on by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he agreed with him that the subject to which he had alluded was one requiring the strictest attention of the Home Secretary. The statement made by the hon. Gentleman was quite correct. The aggravated assaults of which he had made mention were less numerous this year than they were in 1854 and 1855, but somewhat more numerous than they were in 1857; but it was desirable to analyse these offences before drawing any general conclusion. A great many of them were assaults not upon women, but upon children, and an immense number of them were assaults by women, and not by men. Another circumstance to be borne in mind was, that in many districts, even in the last year for which he had returns, there was a great diminution of these offences, while in others there was an increase. As far as he had been able to form an opinion from the information with which he had been furnished, he had reason to think that the present Act, which he believed was introduced by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Palmerston), had worked well, and if it required any addition, he would be prepared, after inquiry, to state in what respect he thought it should be amended. In the meantime, however, his attention would be strictly turned to the subject, but he owned that he should not like, unless constrained to do so by the strongest reasons, to have recourse to corporal punishment.

REINFORCEMENTS FOR INDIA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
  2038
  chequer, he did not think it would be possible to go into the question which he (Sir J. Elphinstone) had given notice of his intention to bring before the House, for undoubtedly that question was a long one. The order of reference to the Committee on the transport of troops to the East Indies was divided into two portions. The first was, as to the conduct of the Government in sending out troops. The second, as to the most advantageous route by which troops could be sent. From the beginning he had considered the latter the more important question. He trusted that the matter would be fully discussed and finally decided next year; but in the meantime it was necessary for him to put himself and the other Members of the Committee right before the country, by stating that they were distinctly of opinion that it was the duty of the Government to, in the meantime, lose no means in their power to perfect the overland route to India as a means of transporting our troops. He was quite sure, from the information he had received, that they could be conveyed cheaper by that route than round the Cape; and on a fitting occasion he, and those who thought with him, would be ready to prove that the fact was so.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he should be glad if the hon. Baronet obtained another opportunity of bringing on this question, when the whole of the evidence was before the House. He was one of the Members of the Committee whose conduct had been animadverted on by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) for rejecting his Report. He was content then, as he was now, that the House should on a future occasion, when they had had an opportunity of reading the evidence, judge itself of the weight and importance of the circumstances connected with this question.

THE STATE OF INDIA.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to take this opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control respecting the condition of affairs in India. It had been the custom of late years at the close of the Session, for the Minister for India to make a general statement to the House relative to the affairs of India. He was not, however, about to express any wish that the noble Lord should bring forward an Indian budget, as the noble Lord could make the same excuse as he (Mr. V. Smith) had made last

2039
year, namely, that the finances of India were in such a state of confusion that it was impossible to make any accurate statement with regard to them. But though nominally a budget, that statement was accustomed to contain a review of the affairs of India. The House was about to separate for five mouths; they were giving great powers to the Government with regard to India, and it was advisable that the noble Lord should make a general statement with regard to the exact position in which we were placed. The noble Lord had stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries, that 17,000 additional troops had been sent out to India. He (Mr. V. Smith) had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, but had not received an answer, whether the troops were really to be regarded as an addition to the ordinary establishment of Queen's troops already stationed there, or were to be looked upon merely in the light of reliefs. Judging from the number of men who were being sent out, he should be inclined to believe that the Government had the former object in view; but then it would appear from the newspapers, which constituted the only source of information open to him, that, owing to disease, and other causes, the diminution in the number of our soldiers in India had been so great that it was necessary to send out very considerable reinforcements. It was, he thought, desirable under these circumstances, that the House should have some information as to the end which the Government proposed to themselves in sending out the troops to which he had referred. The noble Lord, in answer to a question put by him (Mr. V. Smith), when he asked if he would lay the papers relating to the Military Commission on the India army on the table, said he would take an opportunity of making a statement on the subject. He saw that the noble Lord had omitted the civil part of the Commission; the reason for that, and the objects of the military Commission, ought to be stated. Moreover, under existing circumstances, something ought to be told them with regard to the probable financial resources of India. A Bill had passed last year to enable the East India Company to borrow £8,000,000, which was to last them till next December. Perhaps, as the loan in India had been taken up better than was expected, it ought to be stated how much the East India Company had borrowed, and whether what they had would last them to December, or whe-
2040
ther it would be necessary to call Parliament together in the winter, in order to give them new powers. There was a third point on which he wished information, and that was, whether it was intended as soon as the Act providing for the future government of India had been passed into a law, to issue a general proclamation announcing the assumption of the authority of the Queen in India? Every one seemed to think that this would have a great effect, and would be likely to put an end to the mutinies, but such a step must be taken with caution. There was also another and a delicate point, and that was whether a Proclamation should be issued, having reference to the condition of the Natives of India, and giving an assurance that their religions and customs would be duly respected. He made these observations with no wish to embarrass the Government or the public service. He had the greatest confidence in the noble Lord, and believed that he would act with judgment and vigour, but it was well that Parliament should be acquainted with the present condition of India, what was to be done to put down the mutiny, and what course the Government proposed to pursue in the six ensuing months.
LORD STANLEY: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous manner in which he has put the series of questions he has just addressed to me. At the same time, I must observe that of no one of these questions had he given me notice, except that which relates to his intention to ask me whether I intended to make any statement as to the financial affairs of India in the course of the present year. Upon that point I can answer him distinctly. Looking at the present state of affairs in India, the varying character of the circumstances occurring there, and to the fact that any statement which I might make now would not represent the actual state of Indian finance, I do not think that it would be of any public advantage to enter into a detailed statement with regard to Indian finance at the present moment. As to the military operations which are passing there, the right hon. Gentleman, as well as every other hon. Member, has the means of acquiring all the information he can desire upon that subject. With respect to the question whether any proclamation is to be made of Her Majesty's authority in India, I think it will be right, when the transfer of the government from the Com-

2041
pany to the Crown has taken place, that some formal announcement of that transfer should be made to the people of India. In what form it should be made, or what should be the nature of the announcement, is a matter which the Government will require some time to consider; and they will have that time, because I may remind the House that the Act does not come into force until thirty days after its passing into a law. I have said that I do not intend to make any general statement to the House with regard to India; but, if upon any specific point information is asked by hon. Members, I shall be glad to furnish it so far as it may be consistent with the requirements of the public service.
SIR DE LACY EVANSwas understood to express his regret that the Committee on the transport of troops to India had not had an opportunity of stating their opinions, and to say that he had therefore no alternative but to postpone the discussion of the question to next Session. In reference to the force of 17,000 men to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had alluded as being about to be sent out to India, that it was extremely desirable the House should know whether that force was composed of really efficient men or of mere raw recruits. He also concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that it was most expedient the House should be furnished with some information with respect to the objects and constitution of the Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the organization of the Indian army. He saw no good reason for excluding civilians from it. The last news from India showed how great were the exertions that we had still to make. The victory obtained by Sir H. Rose was not gained without a corresponding loss, and the hot weather must materially affect our forces. Oude was still unconquered, and the British could not say a foot of ground belonged to them in that province except what was occupied by our forces. He had a letter from a gentleman who was fully competent to speak upon the subject, in which it was stated:—
"You will understand that, although the great events of the war are at an end, the difficulties of it are by no means so. We are committed to a very long contest, of which I suspect we have as yet seen only the beginning. I trust I may be in error. The insurgents are very easily dispersed; but then, on the other hand, they gather together as easily. I am very desirous to see Government step forward and lend a hand to us by judicious
2042
proclamations of amnesty. There has been too much blood already, and by denying mercy altogether, as we now do, to the vast mutinous masses, we perpetuate the civil war, and by our own act retain a large army for the insurgent nobles of the various provinces. Until an effort is made to detach these two interests from one another the struggle will grow in intensity. As soon as we succeed in dissolving the alliance it will die out, but not till then. This might have been done some time ago; now it would not be so easy. At any rate, in considering the subject, we must always look at the Sepoy mutiny as one side of a great national insurrection, and I think, for freedom."
Now, if those opinions were sound, as he believed them to be, it was clearly the duty of the Government to adopt the shortest route for the despatch of troops to India. Troops could be sent from Plymouth to Bombay in thirty-five days, and to Calcutta in forty-five days, and he hoped during the recess the Government would give their earnest attention to that means of expediting the reinforcement of our army in India.

STAMPED LETTER PAPER.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he had intended to make some observations at length in calling attention to the advantage and convenience of the use of stamped letter paper and the necessity for its speedy issue by the Board of Inland Revenue; but he thought he should satisfy his object by asking the Secretary to the Treasury to explain how the matter stood. He did not wish for a compulsory use of stamped letter paper, but it was of importance in commercial transactions that instead of using a sheet of paper enclosed in an envelope, which might be lost, that letters should be written on stamped sheets of paper. An envelope was no proof that it contained a particular letter, and frauds were often committed by the substitution of envelopes; in proof of which he could refer to cases which had come before the Judges of Assize and the Bankruptcy Court in Ireland. He thought it would be a great advantage if stamped letter paper could be used.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that arrangements were made for putting stamps on sheets of paper by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who stamped all sheets of paper that were sent to them. The demand was not great, but they were always ready to stamp the paper sent to them.

PROMOTION IN THE ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for War when the Report of the Royal Commission on Promotion in the Army would be laid on the table?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that on the same day that he received the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of promotion in the army, he forwarded it to Her Majesty for her approval, and as soon as it was returned to him he would, with Her Majesty's permission, lay it on the table of the House.

THE WELLINGTON TESTIMONIAL.
  QUESTION.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be willing to give him time on Monday next for the discussion upon the Wellington testimonial.

INDIA AND AMERICA.—OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer answers the questions which have been put to him, I should wish, in the first place, to say a few words as to what fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) concerning the transport of troops to the East Indies. In my opinion, if you send anything more than small bodies of men to India, I think it is far better to send them by sea than on the overland route across Egypt. It is not a matter of sound policy that this country should make her military communication with India dependent upon a passage through a territory belonging to another Power. I think it is far better to keep the means of communication in your own hands so as to be able to send troops when you like, and as you like. It has been stated by the noble Lord that a Commission has been appointed to consider the best method of reorganizing the Native army of India. That course I do not presume to criticise. I do not condemn the reasons which have led the Government to appoint such Commission in England; but certainly the late Government thought that that inquiry could be best and most usefully conducted in India by military men who had recent experience of the value on the one hand, and on the other of the dangers of the peculiar component parts, of the local Native forces. It may be that the continuation of hostilities in India has
2044
led to the dispersion of military men whose judgment would be of importance in such an inquiry—men whom it would be difficult to assemble at present, or even at an early period; but this, at all events, must be clear to the House, that if the Commission consist of men in this country,—not even the future members of the new Indian Council—can be equally competent to give a sound opinion as to the best method of composing and reorganizing the Indian local army as those persons who have mixed in recent transactions in that country—who know the tendencies of the army, the difference of races, the influence of castes, and in what manner, with the greatest safety to the public interests, such an army can be composed. The noble Lord said that he did not intend to make any general statement this Session upon Indian affairs, but that he was willing to answer any questions on particular points. The noble Lord forgot to answer one or two points to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Vernon Smith) directed his attention. My right hon. Friend asked him, especially with regard to the Indian loan, whether the amount which has been authorized by Parliament will be sufficient for the service of the Indian Government until the beginning of next year? I think when the noble Lord looks back to see what were the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend he will think that, without entering into any general statement of Indian affairs, he might be able to give an answer to some of those questions on Monday next. I must say the statements which have been made by the hon. Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in regard to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue), were to me anything but satisfactory. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Louth was perfectly justified, in the present state of things, in not allowing the Session to close without asking some definite information from the Government upon the point to which he directed the attention of the House. I wish the House to remember a little the state of this matter. Unfortunately there have been differences between this Government and the Government of the United States in regard to transactions in the waters of Cuba. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us two months ago that certain concessions had been made to the British Government. The public has since then been informed by the Minister of the Uni-

2045
ted States, who stated with great parade, and in a manner which his assembled fellow countrymen received with shouts of triumph, that great concessions had been made by this Government to the Government of the United States—that this Government had abandoned some rights, or pretended rights, for which preceding Governments of England had always contended. Of course I am quite ready to admit—and no man has more urgently asserted the doctrine than I have—that it is inexpedient to make inquiries pending negotiations; and therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Louth was right in saying that he did not propose to ask what was the nature of the convention which we propose to the United States. I thought with him, from what fell from the hon. Under Secretary on a former occasion, that some proposal had been made to the United States. It appears now that none has yet been made, though it is a matter of great public interest and some urgent importance, and I quite agree with my hon. Friend that he was quite right in not asking the Government to state in any degree what was the nature of the proposal that was made. But although this House properly abstains from making inquiries with regard to pending negotiations, I think it is right that it should be informed as to completed facts; and if I am to judge by the statement reported to have been made by the Minister of the United States, there is some completed transaction between the two Governments in regard to our maritime rights, real or pretended. Now, what I wish the right hon. Gentleman to state is simply this—Is it that we have given up a pretension which we never made—that we have disclaimed a right which the Americans thought we pretended to, but which former Governments of this country never asserted? Is that the nature of the transaction which has taken place, or is it that we have abandoned a right which former Governments have claimed and insisted upon? In the one case, I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, if we have given up any pretension to the American Government, what that pretension is? On the other hand, if a right which we formerly claimed and insisted on has been abandoned, I wish to know what that right is which has been so conceded I think that is a perfectly fair question, it has no reference
2046
to anything at present in a state of negotiation, for the statement of the American Minister was that the matter was complete. As no doubt, according to their system of government, every person in the United States is by this time made aware of what the transaction is, I think this House and the people of this country naturally interested in our maritime prosperity have a right to be put on an equal footing with the people of the United States. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain what the pretension or the right we have abandoned is.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:—Sir, it is not for me to inform the House what may have been the pretensions advanced by the late Government. All I can any is, that when this misunderstanding—I cannot call it an interruption of friendly relations—took place in consequence of what had occurred in the waters of Cuba, several controverted points were brought into discussion between the two Governments. We consulted the law officers of the Crown, and upon their opinion of the legality or illegality of our conduct we acted. The communications which took place between the two Governments in consequence were of a friendly nature; but the result was that all claims were left in abeyance. Nothing has been decided upon beyond that settlement which may be described as in a state of abeyance, during which the Government of the United States, having made to us a friendly overture that we should offer to them a plan for their consideration which should accomplish the object that both Governments have in view—namely, to put down as much as they possibly can, the Slave Trade, without producing those misunderstandings which have occurred, WO accepted the offer, and we have under our consideration a plan which we think will be satisfactory to both countries. That plan will be shortly submitted to the Government of the United States, and we have sanguine expectations that it will meet the wishes and necessities of both parties, prevent in future the repetition of misunderstandings between the two countries, and at the same time obtain that which the Government of this country sincerely desire, and which we believe the Government of the United States also desire—namely, the discouragement of the Slave Trade. In reply to the right hon. Member fur Bute (Mr. Stuart Wortley), he did not think it likely that the discussion

2047
on the Wellington monument would take place on Monday, but thought it might come on on Tuesday or Wednesday.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, since the Motion for the adjournment of the House at its rising until Monday had been made he had found it necessary that the House should meet to-morrow (this day), for the purpose of advancing certain Bills a stage; and he begged, therefore, to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment until Monday.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CIVIL BILLS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that, regarding the measure as an infringement upon a constitutional principle, the independence of the Judges, who, if it passed into a law, would be removeable in case of infirmity, by order of the Privy Council, he should meet the Motion with a direct negative, and ask the House to divide on the question.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 54: Majority 29.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSbrought up the two following clauses:—
  "No works upon the bed or shores of the said River Thames below high-water mark shall at any time be commenced or executed, under the provisions of this Act, without the same having been previously approved of by the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral; such approval to be from time to time specified in writing under the hand of the Secretary to the Admiralty."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he objected to the first of these clauses, on the ground that as all the works would be done below high-water mark, it would follow that nothing would be done without the consent of the Admiralty. He would suggest an Amendment, giving them power to interfere only
  2048
  with those works which interfered with the navigation of the river.
  Amendment proposed, after the words "high-water mark," to insert the words "which shall interfere with the navigation of the river."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member a very proper one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS LORD JOHN MANNERS moved the following clause:—
  "That it may be lawful for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at his discretion, on representation or complaint made to him of any nuisance committed in execution of any works, or in deodorizing any sewage, or in disposing of any sewage or refuse from sewers, or in any other manner under this Act, to cause inquiry to be made into the matter represented or complained of to him, and to direct such prosecution or prosecutions, or to take such other proceedings as he may think fit, in order to ensure the prevention or abatement of such nuisance as aforesaid."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, be rose to propose a clause, the effect of which was that in case the metropolis should afterwards be divided into municipal districts, with one central Board representing them all, nothing in this Act should preclude these works from being handed over to such central municipal body. He made this proposition because he was not satisfied with the composition of the present Metropolitan Board, and he thought it was desirable, by some such clause as this, to protest against its being supposed that their powers were to be continued to them for ever.
  Clause,
  "That in the event of the whole Metropolis being at any time hereafter brought under the government of one or more municipal bodies, and any new Metropolitan Board of Works being hereafter created, composed in whole or in part of members deputed from the council or councils of such municipal body or bodies, nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the transfer of the powers granted by this Act to such new Board,"
  brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could not agree to the clause. The object of the Bill was, by showing confidence in the Metropolitan Board, to fix upon them re-

  2049
  sponsibility. But the clause went far to destroy all confidence in them by contemplating their untimely death. He hoped, therefore, his right hon. and learned Friend would not press the clause.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he also hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the clause, for which there was no necessity, as if any such change as he contemplated were made, there would be nothing then to prevent the transfer. But he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had made the proposition, as it showed what was going on in his mind, and that when the Bill for the reform of the Corporation came before them, the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to hold that the tolls and metage dues, and other funds belonging to the Corporation, and which were given to the Corporation at a time when the City was the metropolis, should no longer be confined to one small locality, but should be applied in executing works that benefited the whole metropolis.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he was glad that the Government did not assent to the clause, which he hoped would not be pressed. He hoped Parliament would at least reserve the power of knowing what sort of Board was likely to be appointed.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing, his object being to elicit the opinion of the House that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent such a transfer as he contemplated taking place.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PULLERsaid, be wished to propose an addition to the first clause, providing that the sewage should not be discharged into the river at such an outlet as would allow it to be brought back within the metropolitan limit by the action of the tide. His object was not to fetter the Metropolitan Board as to the means by which they were to accomplish their object, but to explain clearly to them what was the object which the House of Commons expected them to undertake. In the Report of the Committee of the House upon the subject it was stated that no plan ought to be regarded for the sewage of the metropolis which did not provide for one of two things—either that it should be taken down the river so far from the metropolis that it could not be brought back by the action a the tide; or else that it should be deodorized, mid only the purified liquid part of it discharged into the river, By
  2050
  the clause as it stood at present there was nothing to prevent the Board passing the sewage, undeodorized, immediately below the boundary of the Metropolis. Besides, it was the more important to prevent the sewage being brought back by tidal action, because it had been found that the removal of such a quantity of water out of the river for household purposes caused the tide to flow much higher up the river than it formerly used to do, and this was also the probable cause why the nuisance of the smell was always greater at high than at low water, contrary to what might be expected.
  Amendment proposed,—
  In page 1, line 17, to add at the end of Clause 1 the words, "or from being brought within the boundaries of the Metropolis by the action of the tide."
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not agree to the Amendment, but would give the Board credit for some little common sense. It was not to be supposed that any body of gentlemen would lay out £3,000,000 of money to remove the sewage out of London, and then allow it to be brought back again. Such a clause would only stultify the Board of Works.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it would not only stultify the Board of Works, but the House of Commons as well, for the House would see that this was only a roundabout way of coming back to the point they had agreed to abandon that of fixing the points of outfall. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment; if he did he must divide against it.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he could not see that this was a question of trusting to the common sense of the Board at all; if they were to do that they might as well give up making Acts of Parliament altogether. Under the Bill as it at present stood there was nothing to prevent the discharge of the sewage at Blackwall or opposite Woolwich at any stage of the tide, and might from thence be carried back into the centre of the town. He could not see the objection to the Amendment. It fixed no points of outfall; it only declared that it should not be discharged at such a point where it would be brought back again within the metropolitan limits by the action of the tide; and surely it was necessary at least to make that point clear in the Bill.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he believed that the

  2051
  Metropolitan Board of Works were as sensible as this House was that it would not be right to bring back the sewage within the metropolitan boundaries; and he hoped, therefore, that the whole work would be left in the hands of men who, he believed, were sincerely anxious, and quite competent, to discharge their duties.
  MR. D. GRIFFITHsaid, the proposed clause raised again the question which they disposed of two days ago, when they determined not to interfere with the plans of the board.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the objection to the Amendment would be good if the Bill was intended to leave the Board of Works to discharge the sewage where they pleased. But that was not the Bill, which declared that the outfall should not be within the limits of the metropolis, unless the sewage was deodorized. [Several hon. MEMBERS: That clause is withdrawn]. Withdrawn is it? Then I must say this Amendment is all the more necessary. He understood the whole meaning and scope of the Bill to be that the metropolis should not be annoyed with the sewage floating about within its limits. Now, to secure that they ought, without prescribing any plan, to say that the outfall ought not to be at any point where the sewage would be brought back to the metropolis.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was unfortunate the noble Lord had been absent from their discussions yesterday morning, as he would have known that the second clause was omitted, as well as the reasons why it was omitted. It was originally inserted with a view to conciliate the opponents of the measure, but the Government were from the first aware that it was opposed to the principle of the Bill, which was that the Board of Works should be left absolutely unfettered as to the measures on which they might decide. After a good deal of discussion yesterday the Committee unanimously agreed to omit the clause, and it appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) was only going back to the ground that all wished it was expedient to abandon, because it would to a certain degree fix upon Parliament the responsibility of the works that might be undertaken, and would lay the foundation for the Board of Works turning round upon them hereafter, if the works should prove a failure, and say, You restricted us in our plans, and therefore you must be visited wit a portion of
  2052
  the blame. He wished the whole of the operations to rest with the Board of Works, and he trusted that the House would not by a side wind seek to diminish that responsibility, or to bring the Government into any relations with the Board of Works except those strictly of a financial character.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought the proposal was a very good one, but he did not consider it necessary, because he was quite sure the Board of Works would do all that was requisite to be done.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  MR. ALDERMAN CUBITThe would suggest an Amendment in Clause 13, agreed to yesterday, which would have the effect of imposing the rate in relation to this measure upon the assessments adopted in regard to the ordinary sewer rate.
  Amendment proposed,—
  At the end of Clause 13 to add the words, "but in the City of London the said rate shall be made upon the assessment adopted in making the Sewer Rate in the said City."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.

DRAFTS ON BANKERS LAW AMENDMENT BILL.—CONSIDERATION.
Order for Consideration read.
MR. HANKEYsaid, he would take that occasion to state that he had been absent when the Bill had been under consideration upon the previous evening, simply because he was under the impression that, owing to the assurance which had been given some time since by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that no opposed business should be taken after twelve o'clock, the measure would not be proceeded with after that hour. For his own part, he regarded the Bill as anything but satisfactory. It had originally consisted of two clauses, one of which provided that the crossing upon a cheque should be held to be a material part of the cheque, if the crossing were put on at the time of issue; the second clause giving to any person receiving a cheque the right of putting on the crossing, provided it was done by the lawful holder thereof. Now, he had opposed the Bill in that shape, because he believed it to be really impossible that any banker could carry on business if he were obliged to

2053
examine every cheque, and to ascertain in the first place whether it had been crossed at all at the time of issue, or at any subsequent time, by the lawful holder. He looked upon the measure as imposing difficulties in the way of the due discharge of business which were not at all justifiable. The bankers of London—forty-three out of forty-five of whom had signed a petition against this Bill—had no wish to throw any obstacle in the way of crossing cheques, but merely to simplify the operation. Therefore, as an Amendment, moved by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), had relieved the bankers from much of the dilemma in which they were placed, he would offer no opposition to the passing of the Bill, though it was still far from being satisfactory.
MR. MALINSsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the House to a suggestion which had been made by a gentleman named Chorley, a solicitor, who proposed that at the end of the cheque next the counterfoil there should be printed the words "uncrossed cheque," and that it should be enacted that no cheque without these words should be paid, except through a banker. Any person, whether drawer or holder, desiring it to be treated as a crossed cheque, would simply have to tear off those words. That suggestion had been most favourably received by many bankers, and appeared likely to meet all the difficulties attaching to this subject.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he regretted the misapprehension which had arisen should have led to the absence of any hon. Members on the occasion of the second reading, but he had suggested that any Amendment which might be proposed in the Bill should be made on the third reading. He would take the opportunity of saying a few words on the object of the Bill. It was well known by every man who had a banker that for nearly a quarter of a century a custom had prevailed in London of crossing cheques, with a view to prevent any loss from the cheque being lost or stolen. It was thought that the crossing of the cheque afforded a protection, but it turned out some few years ago that this pratice was unavailable, for a cheque which had been crossed with the name of a banker, and the name of another banker substituted being presented at Coutts and Co's, the question arose and was tried at law, and it was decided that the crossing of the cheque was not a binding part of the instrument, and that it was lawful for a
2054
banker, whether the cheque was crossed or not, to pay it across the counter. Of course the whole benefit of the system was then lost. Under these circumstances a Bill was brought in by Mr. Apsley Pellatt to legalize the system, and to provide that no crossed cheque should be paid except through the banker to whom it was crossed. But some little time after that Bill had been passed a cheque, the crossing of which had been obliterated by chemical means, was presented and paid. An action was brought, and the question arose whether the banker was liable, and it was found that the Bill was not entirely effectual. Under these circumstances he had brought forward this Bill at the request of a great many mercantile men of the City of London, and when the hon. Member (Mr. Hankey) said that forty-three bankers had petitioned against the Bill, he was bound to say that he (the Attorney General) had presented a petition signed by 1,300 persons in favour of it. This Bill made the crossing a cheque a material part of the cheque itself, and made it forgery to obliterate the crossing, and hereafter it would be compulsory when a cheque was crossed with the name of a banker to pay the cheque to the banker with whose name it was crossed and to no other person. The only point was as to whether they could provide for the case of paying a cheque the crossing of which had been forged or obliterated. That was a case which did not happen once in fifty years, and therefore did not seem to require legislation; but the House had thought fit to admit a clause, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Guildford, (Mr. Bovill) providing that if the obliteration was such that the banker could not reasonably be expected to detect it he should not be liable. The object of the hon. Member therefore had been obtained.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he regretted that the Amendment had been agreed to. He would have preferred that it should have been made imperative upon bankers to print their cheques upon paper on which no obliteration could be effected without being detected. There was such paper.
MR. INGRAMsuggested, that obliteration would be impossible if cheques were printed upon paper bearing a water-mark.
MR. PULLERremarked, that cheques were often drawn upon pieces of plain paper, backs of letters, &c.
Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.

PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was hardly to be expected that in an Act like the Probate Act, which introduced an entirely new process, there should not be some defects. The object of the present measure was to amend those defects, and the alterations were principally of a mere technical character. Thus, there was a provision that the Judge of the Admiralty might sit in relief of the Judge of the Probate Court, and vice versa, but the Judge might sit in chambers; and clerks who had served their time to proctors might become attorneys, and the like. He proposed to go into Committee on the Bill the next clay; but if there were any clauses which excited difference of opinion, he would postpone them till the next Session.
  MR. MALINSsaid, as it was now determined to proceed with the measure, he hoped that the Bill would be considered in Committee on Monday,
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he had an objection to the 24th Clause, as he thought it would have an injurious effect upon country practitioners. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman intend to insist on that clause?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he intended to propose the clause, but he would leave it wholly to the Committee.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he would bog to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of two Amendments of which be had given notice—namely, to throw open the non-contentious business to the Bar, and the Court of Admiralty to the legal profession generally. It was his intention to persevere with those Amendments.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that in reference to the question alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Warren), he would remind the House that it was in consequence of the other House having struck out a clause from the Bill of last Session that the non-contentious business was not thrown open to the Bar generally.
  Bill read 2o and committed for To-morrow.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (WEST INDIES) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he had given notice
  2056
  of a clause to extend to the West Indies the principle contained in the Irish Act, according to which facilities were given to obtain a declaration of indefensible title; but as he understood the introduction of such a clause might cause some difficulty in passing the Bill, which he considered a very useful measure, during the present Session, he should not press the clause, but he trusted the Attorney General would consider the question during the recess.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he concurred in the spirit of his hon. Friend's Amendments, but at that late period the introduction of these Amendments might be fatal to the passing of the Bill during the present Session. The country was very much indebted to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland for the Landed Estates Bill, which he had introduced, and which had been passed for Ireland during the present Session. He (the Attorney General) hoped to be able, at an early period next Session, to submit a large and comprehensive measure to extend the principle of that Bill not only to the entire of the West India colonies, but to this country and other parts of the British dominions.
  Bill to be read 2o To-morrow.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving the second reading said that he only wished to insist on those clauses which remedied certain intolerable evils in the working of the law, as for instance the necessity of bringing up witnesses from the most distant parts of the kingdom, for the simple purpose of swearing an affidavit before the Court. It was not his intention to insist on the clause which had caused so much, but unnecessary, alarm, namely, that which extended the powers of the Court to persons domiciled abroad or in the colonies.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would suggest that they should go into Committee pro formâ, and reprint the Bill as amended.
  Bill read 2o and committed for To-morrow.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for Consideration read.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned

  2057
  Debate on Question [this day], "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, the question the House had to consider was, merely whether the Bill should be simply a continuance Bill? The right hon. Gentleman opposite said he was willing to take that view of it; and he (Mr. Duncombe) hoped that the House would likewise do so. This was an open question, and the first clause, instead of being a Government clause, was the child of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he hoped the House would not dirty their hands with it. If they struck it out, they would get rid of other bad clauses, as for instance the fourth, which he considered abridged the constitutional rights of the electors. He thought the best course would be to make this a mere—what it pretended to be—a mere continuance Bill, leaving the Attorney General, who had bestowed so much attention upon the subject, to prepare a more comprehensive measure during the recess, and he would, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he did not consider the first clause perfect, but thought it was a considerable improvement of the law. He denied that there was any ground for the invidious language which had been lavished on the clause He did not think it undesirable to expect a candidate or his friends to make some sacrifice, He was quite prepared to admit that the average Cost of conveying voters in counties was a considerable sum; namely, £1,600; but he did not think that by adopting this clause they would be establishing a new form of bribery. He was far from desiring to exclude poor men from that House, but unless candidates for seats in Parliament possessed the confidence of their supporters to such an extent that they were ready to provide funds for the payment of the travelling expenses of voters, he thought such Members could not possess that feeling of independence which had hitherto been the boast of the Commons of England.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, that although there were inconveniences on both sides, he thought it the best policy to put a stop entirely to the practice of paying the travelling expenses of voters. The clause was clearly a step in the wrong direction. It was said that by disallowing these ex-
  2058
  penses you would be practically disfranchising a large number of voters. Now, if conveyance to the poll was a part of the franchise conferred on every voter, he admitted the force of that argument; but the fact being that conveyance to the poll was not a part of the voter's vested right, he could not admit that this could in the proper sense of the term he called disfranchisement. The number of voters might, indeed, be diminished; but the same result was no doubt produced by prohibiting bribery, and would be produced by prohibiting paid canvassers, and yet no one could consider either of these measures as measures of disfranchisement. With respect to boroughs no hardship whatever would be inflicted by compelling voters to walk to the poll, and though perhaps some inconvenience might arise in counties, he thought on the whole it would be best to prohibit the payment of these travelling expenses. He was also induced to think that voters would value the franchise more if its exercise were attended with some trifling difficulty.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought that this was not a case on which the House should be theorizing. Let them come to practice, and they would find that out of the general body of voters, there was a large number who could not afford to pay for a conveyance to go some six, eight, or ten miles to vote. On what principle should such electors be disenfranchised? What, he might ask, were they to do in the case of a man who was sick? Would the house impose on such a person the chance of endangering his life or disenfranchisement? He contended, first of all, that it was right that they should provide a conveyance; and secondly, if it were not right, that human nature was so constituted people would still do it. Did the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle mean to say that any Gentleman would lose his election rather than provide a conveyance for his voters? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in case of a tie with his opponent, lose his election rather than send a carriage for a voter? The thing was nonsense; and any one who believed it would have a greater amount of credulity than he had ever been possessed of. Without intending, then, to advocate anything like corruption, let them make that the law which they knew would be the practice. The House already knew that it was not illegal to provide carriages for voters, and therefore it

  2059
  was unnecessary to discuss that question now. Did not every hon. Member at the last general election consult anxiously with their committees whether they should or should not provide means for a poor voter who could not provide means himself, or an opportunity to record his vote? The law was, however, at present a snare and a difficulty. He was for removing difficulties and uncertainties. Let them either pass an Act distinctly declaring the payment of expenses to be illegal, or agree to the clause now proposed. He heartily rejoiced that the House was about explicitly to declare that a conveyance might be provided.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he fully agreed that in principle it would be well to abolish expenses of every kind, but that would be most unfair to the voters until greater facilities were afforded to them for recording their votes. He saw no reason why they should not be allowed to send their votes through the post, without coming up to the poll. The franchise to a man who could not afford to go up to the poll to record it was practically no franchise at all.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he thought all the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), as regarded the expenses of poor voters, would be equally applicable to the whole system of bribery. Indeed he (Mr. Gilpin) thought the Bill might more appropriately be called a Bribery Enactment Bill than be designated under its present title, if the clause under discussion were passed into a law. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department would make the measure simply a continuance Bill. For his own part, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose its passing at every stage if the clause were inserted. It was said it was unfair to expect that a poor man should go a particular distance to record his vote without having his expenses paid, but the manner in which any such inconvenience ought to be remedied was by multiplying the number of polling places. Be that as it might, however, believing, as he did, that the clause would open the door to an untold amount of bribery, and that its operation would not be limited simply to the payment of travelling expenses, he deemed it to be his duty to oppose it by every means in his power.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was of opinion that the passing of the first clause, to which so much objection
  2060
  had been taken, instead of encouraging bribery, would render it much easier to put it down. Whatever they might say about its being right or wrong to pay the expenses of a voter who went to the poll, hon. Gentlemen would admit there was a great and material difference between the reimbursement of the voter's actual expenses, and, under cover of paying his expenses, giving him money for his vote. If they thought they could put an end altogether to the payment of expenses in any form they might be consistent in endeavouring to do so. In a county election last year, at which he was one of three candidates, there was a mutual agreement that the travelling expenses of voters from a distance should be paid, not by the candidate for whom he polled, but from a common fund contributed to by all the candidates. There was nothing corrupt in that arrangement, but there could be no doubt that it might be held to be an infringement of the law. The alternative, however, now presented to the House was either to pass the clause or simply enact a continuance Bill, and leave the law in its present unsettled state. In the latter case they might find that travelling expenses were paid where parties had no intention of bribing at all; and unless they were able to put down the system of paying travelling expenses altogether they ought to place the matter on such a footing that they could distinguish between what was corrupt and what was not, and he believed the clause referred to would enable them to make that distinction, Therefore, with no intention whatever to screen the briber, but wishing to put down bribery, he should support the clause.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he would remind the House that although provision might be made for conveying the poor voter to the poll there was none for conveying him back to his home.
  MR. FOXsaid, he considered that the real object of the Bill was to assist, if not to extend, the power of the purse at elections. To that he would always give his hearty opposition. The less money considerations entered into elections the better it would be for all the parties concerned. The poor voter should be provided for either by additional polling places, or by relieving him from any travelling expenses, but these expenses should not be paid by the candidate. He had gone through five elections, at three of which there was a fierce contest, and they had not cost him

  2061
  5s. From first to last the electors had acted on the principle that if a Member bought them, he would be liable to sell them. They returned him (Mr. Fox) on independent grounds, and they expected he would not compromise their independence by receiving favours from any party, or act otherwise than according to his conscience. And he had such faith in human nature that he thought such would be the conduct of constituencies throughout the country if they were only left to themselves. If the Ballot were adopted, and elections made really appeals to opinion, and not to fear or hope, much would be done towards the purification of that House, and the exaltation of its character.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, there is much to be said on both sides of this question; but, on the whole, I am inclined to think that the clause as it stands is one that ought to be adopted. It is, no doubt, desirable to do away, as far as we can, with all unnecessary expenses at elections. I think it was quite right to prohibit bands and colours, and those other things which do not contribute in any way to the exercise of the franchise, and only afford a screen for bribery; but I do not myself see how furnishing conveyances for voters can be called a mode of bribery. If you are to give a voter money to pay his expenses, then you may give him double or three times the amount he has spent in travelling, and you will open a door for almost unlimited bribery; but if you are restricted to providing a conveyance for him, I do not see how that can amount in any case to bribery, because you only give a ticket for conveyance to the voter who has promised you his vote beforehand. No candidate would bring up to the poll an elector about whose vote he was uncertain, because in doing so he would expose himself to considerable danger; but if he brings up a voter who has promised his vote, I do not see that he will thereby exercise an improper influence on his mind. It is said the difficulty may be overcome by providing additional polling places. No doubt the multiplication of polling places would give additional facilities to voters, but that would not accomplish the purpose in counties. We cannot in counties have polling places in every village, or within walking distance of every voter. Multiply them as much as you will, you can only put them in towns; and then there will be a great number of voters who will be shut
  2062
  out from voting, unless the candidate for whom they have previously promised to vote is enabled to bring them up to the poll. If you prohibit conveyances, you will disfranchise a large majority of voters for Universities. I had the honour of sitting for a great many years for the University of Cambridge; I experienced three contests, and if the candidates on those occasions had not been allowed to provide conveyances for the voters, the contest would have been decided simply by the resident members, who form a very inconsiderable part of the voters. In that case a great number of the voters for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge would be disfranchised. I think there can be no greater evil than leaving a point of this sort undecided. As far as I understand the matter, no one can tell distinctly whether a candidate who provides conveyances is or is not liable to the penalty attaching to bribery. That is a great evil, and I would much rather that the Committee came to a wrong decision upon the question than that it come to none at all. I think the candidates ought to be allowed to provide conveyances; but however that may be, I entreat the Committee to declare what the state of the law is. If an election were to take place before August of next year, see what a state of peril the electors would be placed in from the present uncertainty. I shall give my support to the clause.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he was sorry to differ from his noble Friend on any point, but he must say his noble Friend's success at elections had been so great that he could not be said to have had the experience of contested elections which had fallen to the lot of many other Members of that House. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Well, I don't know; I have stood six of them.] He thought he had always seen that his noble Friend had been returned by acclamation wherever he had presented himself as a candidate. When, therefore, his noble Friend asked how it could be bribery to pay for the conveyance of a voter to the poll, he (Mr. Osborne) could acquit him of having had much knowledge of the practices at a contested election; but the truth was, that the system of conveying voters to the poll had a direct tendency to bribe a whole host of livery-stable keepers, stage-coach proprietors, and the like, at every contested election, and the electors generally, whatever their political opinions might be. He did not hesitate to say that if the House legalized travelling expenses,

  2063
  the outlay of candidates at elections would be increased three-fold. The result would be to present a bad example to the electoral body throughout the country, for it would be doubted whether the House was sincere in its desire to obtain purity of election. It was plain that they still wanted to maintain the influence of the purse, and that, though they had removed the property qualification, still they were determined to take care that no poor man should contest a seat. The hon. Gentleman who had just been returned to that House (Sir Stafford Northcote) talked of a joint-stock purse having been provided by the candidates, of whom the hen. Gentleman was one, to defray the expense of conveying the voters to the poll at a contested election for Devonshire a few years ago. He believed the expense at that election was such that it nearly ruined the hon. Gentleman, so much so that he had been obliged to fall back on a borough where there was no need of the services of stagecoach proprietors and livery stable-keepers at elections. It was merely hypocrisy in that House to say that they wished to put down bribery. His (Mr. Osborne's) opinion was, that the prevalent desire in that House was to admit none but men of large property within its walls, and this Bill would be one of the instruments by which that would be attained. He held that the whole tendency of the measure would be to demoralise the constituencies, and therefore he should vote with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield.
  MR. GREERsaid, he thought if they were to sanction the expenses of conveying voters to the poll, the clause under consideration was the most convenient form in which they could do it; but he could not conceal from himself that its tendency would be more or less in the direction of bribery. He wished, also, to call the attention of the House to the fact, that this clause, if it passed, would very seriously enhance the cost of elections. At present, in the uncertain state of the law, and while the legality of conveyances was doubtful, their cost at an election was admitted to be tenfold what it was on ordinary occasions. But if this clause passed, they might be sure that everybody would be conveyed to the poll, and they might reckon that the cost would be at least double what it was now.
  MR. BRADYsaid, persons were compelled to attend the assizes at the county towns of England and Ireland, and why
  2064
  should not ratepayers do so, not once or twice a year, but once in four or five years? He would call this Bill the Tower Hamlets Patent Safety Corruption Bill. He would give the measure all the opposition in his power.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he believed that every hon. Member who had been unseated for bribery or intimidation during the present Parliament sat on the opposite side of the House.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to make an observation in reply to certain personal remarks which had been made on him by the hon. and learned Members for Southwark and Sheffield, and especially by the former (Mr. John Locke), who suggested that the clause suited him. Now, at his election he began by proposing that no conveyances should be provided at all, but that was declined by the other candidates, and he was obliged to employ them; but that item of his expenses was smaller than those of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, though his constituency was much larger than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could not claim the merit of having invented the clause. It only occurred to his mind as a means of giving a practical exposition of the law as it had been recently defined. In the returns of the election auditors he found that almost every candidate had an item for carriage hire. This showed that whatever the law might be the practice of conveying voters to the poll was all but universal. Then he found that the law did not declare the conveyance of voters to the poll illegal; it only condemned the payment of conveyance expenses with corrupt intent, and his clause was in harmony with that declaration of the law. The law was, however, in an unsatisfactory state, and this House could not leave it as it stood. They were bound to declare either that the conveyance of voters was legal or illegal. He had thought that if no conveyance were provided, the effect would be to throw the elections more than ever into the hands of the rich. There was nothing to prevent the rich from taking voters to the poll in their own carriages, and at elections all the rich friends of a candidate might place their carriages at his disposal. He wished to provide for the poor voter, and he thought that this was a provision in the interest of the poor voter. Was he, who was in favour of extending the franchise, to say that the people were so base and miserable as to be bribed by the offer of conveyance to

  2065
  the poll. A poor man forfeited his wages if he did not get to the poll and back within a short time. Affording facilities to the poor voter to go to the poll enabled him to exercise the franchise. The House was bound to settle the law, which was now unsettled.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished the hon. Gentleman had only carried his argument one step further. If the poor man was to be carried to the poll, lest he should lose his wages, why not authorise the candidate to pay him for the wages he lost. But the hon. and learned Gentleman said that was a mere declaration of the existing law. If so, what need was there for a declaration of the law at all? The declaration would introduce not clearness, but confusion. Besides, it was not a declaration of the law, but an alteration. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the law at that the voters' conveyance expenses might be paid. This clause said no; the expenses shall not be paid, but the conveyances may be furnished. He wished that this question had been made an open one. If the Government had not adopted this measure he ventured to say that there would be a large majority against this clause. It appeared to him most marvellous that the Government should press a clause like this. There must be some reason which did not meet the eye. He trusted, if they went to a division, they would be able to expunge one of the most objectionable pieces of legislation ever attempted.
  MR. HOLLANDdeclared, from practical experience, that the greatest advantage had been gained by the measure which increased the number of polling places, and he considered that the adoption of the present clause would still further benefit the country.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 66: Majority 28.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN moved an Amendment to the effect that persons who are candidates at an election shall be exempt from penalties or expenses if he did not go to the poll.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he must object to the Amendment as a material alteration of the clause. The object of the clause was that every person who offered himself as a candidate, and incurred expenses—or at least should put his opponent to expenses—should be liable for his expenses. He
  2066
  hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived, and the clause agreed to.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he would propose to add at the end of Clause 3 a proviso that nothing contained in the Act should be construed to impose any liability on any person nominated without his consent.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had explained on previous occasions his intention that the Act should be both a declaratory and a continuance Act. It had been objected that this clause effected neither one nor the other of those objects, and, feeling the force of this objection, he thought, as the clause had not been introduced by himself, that it had better form part of the permanent measure which would be introduced next Session. He proposed, therefore, to omit this section from the Bill.
  Clause struck out.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would then move that the Bill be recommitted. The House had determined to keep in the first clause, and to allow the travelling expenses of voters, the whole of which would therefore fall upon the candidate. In taking this course, he understood the intention of the Government to be, that the poorer voters should be saved from expense, and from being disfranchised. Now, he took this to be a public object, and in that case he thought the public ought to pay for it. He did not hold that the position of a Member of Parliament was a personal object to attain. He had to perform responsible and onerous duties, and ought not to be called upon to pay any expense. He should move that the Bill be recommitted, in order that he might have the opportunity of adding at the end of the clause that any candidate having paid expenses to bring voters to the poll should be reimbursed from the county rates.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That the Bill be read the third time upon Monday next, at Twelve of the clock."
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out from the word "Bill" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be re-committed," instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 46: Majority 46.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid he would appeal to the Government not to put the third reading for a morning sitting.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the question had been debated and decided three or four times, and, considering the period of the Session, and that an important question would be raised on Monday evening, he hoped there would be no objection to proceeding at twelve o'clock on Monday.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought there was no ground to object to the early sitting.
  Bill to be read 3o on Monday next at Twelve o'clock.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.