Commons Sitting of 22 February 1859

Preamble
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Adulteration of Food or Drink; Conveyance of Voters; Manslaughter; Evidence by Commission.
2o Municipal Elections.

THE NEW TERRITORIES IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India whether orders have been sent out to the Government of India for the introduction of a Bill making it penal for any European to enter or reside in any of the new territories, Nagpore, Oude, Pegu, and others, without a licence, or to remain after the licence is withdrawn? And if such orders have been sent out, Copy thereof.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that no order to the effect stated had been sent out to the Government of India, nor was it intended to instruct the Government of India to introduce a Bill making it penal to enter without a licence into any of the new territories alluded to. But in fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he (Lord Stanley) ought to explain the circumstances which have probably given rise to the question. By the Act of 1833 it was declared illegal for any European to enter into or to reside in, without a licence, any of the territories acquired by the East India Company since the 1st of January, 1800. It was left to the Governor General of India to frame laws to enforce that Act, and

  693
  accordingly a penalty on its infringement was inserted into all the drafts of the code which had been so long under consideration by the Legislative Council at Calcutta. But that code had never become law. The Government of India had recently exercised a power of preventing the entrance into or the residence in the lately acquired states, without the proper sanction. That power had been exercised in Nagpore against Major Ouseley, who subsequently brought an action in the Supreme Court of Calcutta, which resulted in a verdict, with damages against the Government. The state of India, therefore, presented this anomaly; there was an Act of Parliament by which the Legislature of this country declared expressly that the presence of Europeans in certain of the territories of India was an offence against the law, but for this act, confessedly a violation of law, no penalty was provided, and the authorities were unable to enforce it. They had been directed to take into consideration the state of the law, and to decide what steps should be taken to amend it; but more recently instructions had been sent out to postpone definitive action until they should hear again from the Government in this country. But whatever step might be taken with regard to preventing Europeans entering the Native states, it certainly never was intended to enforce that part of the Act of 1833 which limited the right of Europeans to reside in the British territories.

THE PRINCIPALITY OF DHAR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any steps have been taken by the Government of India to carry into effect the orders of the Home Government, to restore the Principality of Dhar to its Native rulers?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, a letter had been sent to the Government of India upon the subject referred to, in the month of June or July last, but no official reply to that despatch had been since received. A private letter, however, from Lord Canning, dated the 28th of August, had reached him, in which reference was made to the difficulties which surrounded the question of the restoration of the Principality of Dhar, and it was intimated that an official communication would shortly follow. None such, however, had arrived.

THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD DUNKELLINsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Her Majesty's Government propose taking any steps to give effect to the suggestions contained in the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the condition and progress of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland?
  LORD NAASsaid, his noble Friend would recollect that one of the principal recommendations of the Commissioners was that the Presidents of the Colleges should permanently reside therein. As soon as the Report was published, he made a communication to the heads of the three Colleges, drawing their attention to the suggestions made in their Report on that subject. He was happy to say that each of the Presidents replied in the frankest manner, and stated that it was their intention to act up to the recommendations, and that for the future they would make the Colleges their home in the sense expressed by the Commissioners. As to the recommendation relative to the increase of the salaries of the Professors, that subject was under consideration; but he could not say it was the present intention of the Government to propose any other alteration in these institutions.

  THE CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENT AT JAPAN.—QUESTION.
  MR. WISEsaid, he had to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the proposed Consular Establishment in Japan, and what will be the salaries of the Consul General or Consul, of the Vice Consuls, and of the other officials connected with the Consulates at Jeddo, Simoda, &c.; and whether it is true that Mr. Hare, lately in the Royal Horse Guards, has been appointed Vice Consul at Simoda.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he also wished to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question, of which he had given notice. In looking over the papers respecting the Charles et Georges affair, he was unable to find the despatch which had been lately published in the public newspapers, from the Earl of Clarendon, urging the Portuguese Government to put an end to everything like the slave trade in their dominions. If there were such a despatch in existence, he wished to ask whether there was any objection to

  695
  lay a copy of it upon the table of the House?
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that in reply to the noble Lord he had to state that there was such a despatch as he alluded to, but that it was not given in the Charles et Georges papers laid before the House, because it had already appeared in the Slave-Trade papers which had been presented to Parliament. If it were considered more convenient by the House to have that document placed on the table in a separate form, he should have no objection to produce it. In reference to the question of the hon. Member for Stafford, the proposed Consular Establishment in Japan would be constituted as follows—namely, in Jeddo, there would be a Consul General, with a salary of £1,800 a year; a Vice Consul, £750; an Interpreter, £500; an Assistant Interpreter, £405; two Student Interpreters, £200 each. In Nagasaki, a Consul with £800 a year; an Interpreter, £500; an Assistant Interpreter, £324. In Hakodadi, the Consular arrangements and salaries were the same as Nagasaki. In reference to the latter part of the question of the hon. Member, as to "whether it is true that Mr. Hare, lately in the Royal Horse Guards, has been appointed Vice Consul at Simoda," he (Mr. FitzGerald) begged to say that Mr. Hare had not been appointed to the post of Vice Consul at Simoda, nor to any other post in Japan or China; nor had it ever been in the contemplation of the Government to appoint that gentleman to any such office.

  REPORTS OF INSPECTORS OF EDUCATION.—MOTION.
  MR. W. COWPERsaid, he rose to call attention to the Circular of the Committee of Council on Education, dated the 22nd day of May, 1858, and to make a Motion in connection with this subject. He was sorry to find fault with anything which had been done by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but the letter in question had given much dissatisfaction among persons interested in education; it had been strongly protested against by the Inspectors of schools, it was so mischievous, and so faulty in principle, that it was his duty to appeal to the House, with a view of obtaining its reconsideration. The inspection of schools was the keystone of the edifice which during many years they had been raising on the foundation of Parliamentary grants, and it afforded to those who looked
  696
  with anxiety at the largeness of the grants, the best means of ascertaining whether the expenditure secured an adequate return. Of all blue-books, the Reports of the School Inspectors had the most readers. They were full of interest to managers of schools. Schoolmasters were as proud of being honourably mentioned in those documents, as soldiers were of appearing in a general's despatch. They enlightened the public about popular education and contributed to the formation of public opinion on the subject. Instructions had been from time to time given with respect to these Reports—that they should be concise and practical, and that the compilers of them should avoid vague speculations, and find the materials in the circumstances of the schools which they inspected. From 1844 up to the present year the annual Reports of the Inspectors of Schools themselves had been published; but the new circular announced that a general Report to Her Majesty from the Committee of the Privy Council for Education would be substituted for those Reports. Henceforth, the Reports of the Inspectors would not be given to Parliament, but would be made use of as materials for the Reports of the Education Department. This was open to great objection. These Reports should be impartial, and independent, and attractive. The impartiality of extracts would be questioned. People were influenced by their opinions in estimating the relative importance of different parts of a Report. The Vice-President of the Education Department might think it most important to extract what favoured the existing system, while the Member for Droitwich might attach greater value to passages which spoke of its deficiencies; when these Reports had been digested and perhaps assimilated in the Department, they might acquire a meaning different from their original intention. Parliament wanted the genuine expression of experienced and able men in their own words, and not in selected fragments. A selection would want independence. Amongst other things the Inspectors had to state the impressions they found prevailing in their districts as to the minutes of the Committee of Council, and as to the regulations which the Government had made. It might frequently be their duty to report that certain regulations had failed to meet the wants and desires of the persons engaged in education in their district, and had not worked well in practice; or, on the contrary, they might

  697
  have to report that the measures of the Committee of Council were generally approved of. Such observations came appropriately from the Inspectors as impartial and independent witnesses, but would be ill-placed in a Report composed by the head of the department. One advantage of these Reports had been that they had not combined to promote any one particular plan or method, but they gave the authentic impressions produced on different minds by experience in different parts of the country, and were very practical both in their facts and inferences; but if these Reports were to be superseded by an aggregate Report, this multiform character would be lost in the general impression of the Minister of Education. A condensed summary, moreover, prepared in the office, would not be so interesting or so much read as the personal narratives, The heads of other departments did not profess to assume any such functions. It was true that the Poor-law Board did make a statement of statistical facts and figures, but they did not make an abridgment of the Reports of the Poor-law Inspectors, and it would not be desirable that the Home Secretary should assume an authorship with respect to the Reports of the Inspectors of prisons and factories, instead of presenting them as they were written. If the Committee of Education undertook to select passages from these Reports for publication, they would be regarded as responsible for whatever they inserted, just as in countries where a censorship of the press existed, everything which was allowed to appear was presumed to have the sanction of the Government. It was alleged on the other side, that the Reports of the Inspectors were not in all respects such as ought to be published, but the Committee of Council had it in their power to lay down the strictest rules with regard to the character and nature of the Reports they desired to have sent up to them. By the original agreement between the Committee of Council and the Bishops, with respect to the National Schools, it was agreed that the Report of the Inspectors should be shown to the Bishop of the diocese in which the schools were situated; so that the Bishops must still see the Reports of which Parliament was to be deprived. For these reasons, he urged the expediency of allowing the original Reports to appear unaltered and unabridged. The withdrawal of publicity from the tabulated Reports would be most
  698
  mischievous. There could hardly be a greater drawback to the progress of education than to discontinue their publication, and if the reason for so doing was to save the expense of printing, then considering that the Reports of these Inspectors were the best guarantee that existed for the proper expenditure of an amount of £620,000, it would be the most absurd penny-wise and-pound-foolish kind of saving that was ever proposed. With regard to the discontinuance of the tabulated return of schools, he was now given to understand that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would abandon that part of the new regulation. From the circular letter of June last, it appeared that the Reports on individual schools would no longer be printed, but communicated in manuscript to the several schools. This was indeed a retrograde step, in the nineteenth century, to give up printing, and return to manuscript. In conclusion, this circular would retard the progress of education, and would establish a bad precedent for other official Departments. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the General Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors, when prepared in accordance with the instructions of the Committee of Council on Education, should continue to be laid upon the Table of the House unaltered and unabridged; and that the detailed Reports, tabulated according to districts, should be printed and made public as heretofore."
  Question proposed.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he thought he should be able to remove from the mind of the right hon. Gentleman a great deal of misapprehension upon which this Motion was based. The Motion was somewhat different in form to what it was when first entered upon the notice paper. He had told the right hon. Gentleman that his only objection to the Motion in its original form was, that it would call on the House of Commons to affirm that it was right to do that, which, in fact, was actually being done at this time. The right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of that remark, had introduced the words, "unaltered and unabridged;" but he (Mr. Adderley) could not consent to that addition. There were two kinds of Reports referred to in the Motion, and it was necessary to distinguish between them. There were, first, the general Reports of the Inspectors, which were now presented by the Education Department to Parliament; and there were, secondly, the detailed Reports

  699
  on individual schools, which had never been presented to the house of Commons, but printed by the Department and gratuitously distributed to the schools. With regard to the second kind of Reports, there was no difference between the right hon. Gentleman's views of what ought to be done, and what was done by the office at that moment except that a great deal more was done by the office than he asked. The Reports of the Inspectors on individual schools were not only printed in the manner that was now asked, but a great improvement had been added. Heretofore, it had been the practice to keep the Reports on individual schools in the office until the conclusion of the year, when they were all put together in a summary, printed, and published in one volume, and distributed. The consequence was, that each Report did not reach the School Committee to which it referred in many cases until some twelve months after the inspection. He, himself, as manager of several schools could say from his own experience, that in this way the Reports, whether for praise or blame, were rendered absolutely useless. Who would care whether an Inspector's Report stated that a school had been well or ill managed twelve or fourteen months previously, when, perhaps, the master had since been changed, and the conduct of the school had become materially improved with the lapse of that time? It was essential to the efficacy of these individual school Reports, whether for censure or approval, that they should follow immediately on the inspection of the school; and this was now carried out, so that every school within a short time after the inspection, received the sentence passed on it by the inspector. The tabulated summary of these returns at the end of the year was certainly also useful for the purpose of statistical comparison, and convenient for Members of Parliament and others to refer to as a general statement of the condition of schools throughout the different districts of the kingdom. It had, after securing the more important immediate returns, only been a question of expense, and he was happy to say he had obtained the consent of the Treasury to this tabulated statement being printed, and sold at cost price to anybody who wished to obtain it. It was well known that in May last, a Treasury Minute was issued restricting the number of copies of Parliamentary Reports to be gratuitously distributed; and, indeed, it
  700
  was found to be absolutely necessary to place a limit on the expenditure for that purpose. It had now been arranged, however, that these tabulated summaries of individual school Reports would be printed and sold at cost price, besides the immediate manuscript communication of each to its own quarter, which he considered a very material improvement. But with regard to the general Reports of the Inspectors, a considerable alteration, which he also regarded as an improvement, had been proposed by the Committee of Council in the mode in which those Reports were to be presented to the House. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to misapprehend the intention of the Circular to which he had referred, if he supposed the Committee of Council undertook to digest and assimilate these different Reports, and make a combined Report, for which they themselves would be responsible. He (Mr. Adderley) agreed that it would be very unwise in any Department to take such a course. What the Committee of Council had undertaken to do was to address the whole of the Report from themselves to Her Majesty in Council, as the Poor Law Reports were addressed, treating as an appendix, but in the same type, a volume of Reports addressed by the Inspectors to the Committee. The individuality of the Inspectors' Reports would not be lost, they would not be digested or assimilated, but at the end of the Report of the Committee of Council would be printed all such extracts from the Reports of the Inspectors as might be considered to come under its proper head. The Inspectors were very able functionaries, and nothing should be done to diminish the value of their Reports; it was therefore important that the Reports of each Inspector should not be published in extenso without extracting all irrelevant matter from it which did not come properly into a Report. The actual facts embodied in each Report would be given ipsissimis verbis, but the Government should not undertake to print any disquisitions upon moral philosophy or other irrelevant writing in which the Inspectors might choose to indulge. In his circular of 1851, the Marquess of Landsowne complained of the extravagant length to which these documents ran, and requested that the Inspectors should be more concise in their observations for the future. The same circular stated that the bulk of the volumes interfered with their usefulness; that they

  701
  were not convenient media through which to advocate particular theories or schemes of education; that what was wanted was not speculation or inference, but data and facts for the information of Parliament. Similar directions were issued in 1852 by Lord Lonsdale; and their effect had been to confine the Reports within more reasonable limits, and to render them more germane to the subjects they had to treat. The Report which formed the climax of abuse rendering this interference necessary, was a volume of 211 pages, including five maps, and travelling over every possible subject, with disquisitions on the difference between the Celtic and Saxon races. That Report alone cost £100 in printing. There was a Report in the very last volume on the beneficial effects which would be produced by education upon the habits and morals of the people, on the prevalence of a taste for sensual indulgences, and other equally irrelevant matters. Now, it could not be denied that the heads of a Department were responsible for the character of the papers which they presented to Parliament, and the improvement now proposed in the mode of publishing these Reports would render them far more useful and more practically available as Reports. It would be a mischievous principle to lay down, that the heads of each Department of the State should be compelled to print indiscriminately at the public cost everything sent in to them by their subordinate agents. What would be thought if the Inspectors of Prisons included in their Reports to the Secretary of State lengthy dissertations upon moral philosophy; or if the Sanitary Inspectors sent in disquisitions upon homœpathy, hydropathy, and every medical theory extant? The right hon. Gentleman's Motion was based on an erroneous idea of the functions of these educational Inspectors. They were very able men, capable of performing an important duty, but if they were treated as colleagues of the Committee of Council, that body would be regarded as dispersed over the whole country, would become exposed to pressure and solicitation from all quarters, and would be considered as putting out feelers to encourage every nostrum and experiment, and would become pledged or implicated in a most multifold and mischievous manner. The tendency was already dangerously great towards yielding to the pressure from rich and stirring quarters where education would advance of
  702
  itself, and therefore Government should not undertake the task better done without them. Voluntary action would be superseded and overlaid, while the public grant would be wasted where it was unnecessary, and withheld from places where it was most wanted. There was one point worthy the attention of the noble Lord the Member for London. If the system of national education increased, as it was to be hoped it would, until it attained three times its present dimensions, the number of Inspectors would, of course, have to be proportionately augmented. In that case what would happen if the country was put to the expense of printing everything without distinction which the larger staff, numbering, as the noble Lord had himself proposed, as many as eighty, sent in for publication In regard, then, to the second or tabulated Report, the right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that all which his Motion sought was already obtained, and a
  great deal more besides. As to the general Report, a greatly improved form was to be adopted, of which the House would soon have a specimen before it. If it should then be dissatisfied with what the Government had done, the House would have nothing more to do than to agree to a Resolution requiring on its own responsibility that the Reports furnished to the Executive should be published by them in extenso as first sent in.
  MR. M. GIBSONsaid, that although there was not so much difference between the two right hon. Gentlemen who had just addressed the House, as at first appeared, they were very far from being agreed. It appeared from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley), that with reference to the Reports of the Inspectors on individual schools considerable improvements had been introduced, inasmuch as the Report on each school was communicated in manuscript to that school almost immediately after the Report was made, so that the promoters and managers had the opportunity of attending to any observations which it might contain. With respect to the tabulated statements it appeared that instead of being given gratuitously they were now sold. He was disposed to advocate economy, but certainly he should not have complained if the Government had continued that gratuitous distribution, and thought it was too much the habit to make a parade of economy in these little matters. The principal question before the House was the manner of dealing with the general

  703
  Reports of the Inspectors, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford contended that they ought to be given entire, and in the language of the Inspectors. Now the Government, as he understood, proposed to make a sort of digest of these reports, and submit them as Reports from the Committee of Council to Her Majesty in Council on the subject of education. Now he infinitely preferred receiving the Reports of the Inspectors in their words and in their own form, without any change on the part of the Government. [Mr. ADDERLEY: The Reports are to be given in the words of the Inspectors.] But the Report was to be given in the shape of extracts, and not entire. He had a great dread of the system of extracts, because passages might be excluded which if inserted, would give a different meaning to the Report on the whole. He was willing to admit the force of the objection that Inspectors were apt to expatiate and speculate on general principles rather than to give the facts that came under their own observation. But the Committee of Council had the remedy for this evil in their own hands, for the Inspector was bound report according to his instructions, and all that was now asked for was, that the Reports made according to these instructions should be submitted in their entirety to the House. The words of the instruction were very precise:—
  "Her Majesty's inspectors shall make their annual Reports with the utmost conciseness which may be sufficient to show the state and progress of education in their several districts, as it may have come under their own observation in the course of their inspection since the period when their last Reports were made."
  Now, if an Inspector indulged in speculations, all the Committee had to do was to call his attention to his disregard of their instructions, and desire him to amend his Report. But when a Report was accepted by the Committee of Council it ought to be submitted in that form to the House, and to that extent he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper). The power of altering the Reports of the Inspectors might be abused, and if the right hon. Gentleman pressed his Motion to a division he would give it his support. The words of the Motion were, that the general Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors, when prepared according to the instructions of the Committee of Council, should be laid on the table. Surely there could be no objection to that proposition, and he trusted the Govern-
  704
  ment would not think it necessary to divide the House on the question.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he thought that the Government were acting wisely in endeavouring to lessen the expense of printing the Reports. The printing of one Report had cost no less than £5,000. Loads of blue-books were sent into the library every year, but the size of the volumes was alone sufficient to deter any man from opening them. He had had some experience in giving instructions to authors as to the limits within which they should write, and he knew that if he fixed it at ten pages it would probably be fifty. He was certain condensation would raise the value of the Reports, and would give hon. Members some chance of understanding the subject of them.
  MR. PULLERsaid, it was impossible not to sympathize with the horror expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken of those voluminous blue-books with which their shelves were encumbered and the greater part of which it was quite impossible for any one to read, but he could not help expressing his regret that while the Government were loading the table of the House with Report upon Report they should have selected for a special display of their economy those particular Reports which were studied with so much interest and attention by the promoters of schools all over the country, and which had conduced so much to that great improvement which had taken place in our national education during the last ten years. Those Reports were of the highest value. The Inspectors themselves were a body of some forty or fifty men of the highest intellectual attainments, picked men from the universities, men who had already won their spurs in the fields of literature and science, and whose opinions were entitled to respect not merely on that account, but still more fur their practical knowledge of the subject of education, attained by visiting all the best schools in the country. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) asked, "Were they to be put in the place of the Committee of Council?" Most assuredly not. Still there could be no doubt that if upon any particular educational question the united opinion of the Inspectors was opposed to that of the Privy Council, the country would endorse the opinion of the Inspectors in preference to that of the Committee of Council. The House no doubt remembered how last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  705
  had expatiated on the gradual increase of the educational grant, a grant which then amounted to more than £600,000, and would probably this year be larger still. Well, these reports of the Inspectors were the only means which Parliament had of ascertaining how the vast sums of money so granted for education were spent, and whether the nation had money's worth for the expenditure thus incurred. He would ask, therefore, if the House was prepared to allow this information to be previously passed through the mill of the office which distributed the money, and whether instead of having the evidence undiluted and unaltered, it would be content with passages picked out here and there, and dovetailed together by the Secretary to the Privy Council—a man of great ability, but who had not had the same opportunities of personally inspecting schools himself? Would the House be satisfied if that process were to be gone through with any other important question—our foreign relations for instance? He ventured moreover to say that if the new system were continued—if instead of feeling that they were working as it were under the eye of the public, with fair opportunities of obtaining credit and distinction—if their work was well done, the Inspectors were in future to be the mere drudges of the Privy Council Office with no reward for their labours but their pecuniary stipends, it would not be possible to obtain the same class of men to act as Inspectors, and so the country would he deprived of the advantage arising from having its system of education superintended by those who, from their abilities and acquirements, were most competent to perform that duty. This was evident from the able remonstrance which had been drawn up by Mr. Brookfield, and which had been signed by almost all the other Inspectors. He would not detain the House by dwelling at any length on the other subject comprised in the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Hertford, he meant the detailed Report of individual schools, as the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Committee of Council had consented that those Reports should in future be printed as heretofore and sold at cost price. At the same time he must say, that the selling them at cost price would not, in his opinion, be nearly so useful as the gratuitous distribution which had been allowed heretofore. It was not merely the three or four shillings which the manager
  706
  of a school would have to pay for the book, although, considering the difficulty which existed in many cases of supporting a school, every additional item of expense would be a hardship; but the having to write for the book, and to get a post-office order to pay for it, would be practically so many obstacles to that general circulation of these Reports, which, in his opinion, was most desirable for the progress of education.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped that the Vice President of the Education Committee might be disposed to yield to the reasonable appeal which had been made to him. If he understood him correctly, the main difference between him and his right hon. Friend is in this, that the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the Reports of the Inspectors should assume the shape of a Report from the Committee of Council to Her Majesty, embodying under certain heads such passages in the general Reports of the Inspectors as the Committee might think useful for public information; whereas the right hon. Member for Hertford and those who agree with him are of opinion that the whole of the general Reports ought to be presented, either in the shape of an appendix to the Report of the Privy Council, or, as heretofore, as an independent body of Reports to be laid before Parliament. He was sure the sagacious mind of the Vice President must see that there was an important difference between selections made from Reports and the publication of the Reports themselves. With the best intentions different persons took different views of so wide and complicated a question as that of education, and those in the office of the Committee of Council who had the task of selecting passages from the Reports, while meaning to give the best and truest information to the public, might choose their extracts according to their particular opinions, and involuntarily omit passages which many Members of Parliament might deem of great importance. It was much better, therefore, that the Reports should be given in full, than that they should appear in the shape of selected extracts classed under different heads. But the Vice President had given a picture of the helplessness of the office to which he belonged that almost excited compassion. The Inspectors, it seemed, pour down upon the Committee of Council whole volumes upon moral philosophy, the history of races, the question of sensual enjoyments—surely a strange matter to

  707
  enter into the education of the younger generation—and other subjects entirely unconnected with the duties of their office. The Committee, in the opinion of its Vice President, had no alternative but either to lay that huge mass of matter before Parliament, or to select such passages as they might deem it important for the House and the public to know. It appeared to him, however, that there was another course which might be pursued with advantage. The Committee of Council had the appointment of the Inspectors who were under their control, and might, if they pleased, require them to send in their Reports under separate heads, with such limitations and restrictions as they might choose to impose. If the Inspectors, instead of obeying their instructions, should persist in writing voluminous Reports upon a variety of subjects, why should the Committee not say to them, "Gentlemen, you are too good for us; you are above your work; you may set up as professors in some university, but you are no longer fit to be Inspectors of schools under our directions?" Surely every department conducted with proper vigour and decision should be able to control its own officers, and compel them to furnish the information required without adding to it matter unfit and unnecessary to be laid before Parliament. The reasoning of the Vice President certainly was not calculated to convince anybody that the arrangement he had adopted was either necessary or convenient; and he therefore hoped, as both sides of the House seemed to be agreed upon the other points, the right hon. Gentleman would either acquiesce in the Motion or give an assurance that he would revert to the old system of laying before Parliament the whole of the Reports, taking care, however, that the Inspectors did not wander beyond the limits prescribed to them by the Committee of Council.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to say a few words upon the subject before the House, because to a certain extent he represented the department through which a pressure had been put, not only upon the Committee of Council, but upon all the other departments of the Government, to do what they could to diminish the great expense incurred in printing. That expense was really very considerable, amounting to something like £150,000 or £160,000 a year. Of course such an expenditure as that required the most careful control and supervision, in
  708
  order to prevent its running into an abuse. With reference to the statement of the right hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), that the Government were attacking a useful branch of expenditure in this case, he might say that the same rule had been applied, as far as possible, to all departments of Government; that was to say, to restrict as much as possible unnecessary printing, and as far as possible gratuitous distribution. And with regard to gratuitous distribution, and to sales where sales could be commanded, he hoped that what had been done was satisfactory. The diminution of unnecessary printing was, of course, a matter of great delicacy to arrange. Everybody felt that it was of the utmost importance that the ungarbled views of the Inspectors should be laid before Parliament. It was, however, one thing to say that that should be done, but it was another thing to give those Gentlemen a roving commission to go about the country and write and print voluminous essays upon all sorts of subjects. If, however, a gentleman of reputation, with the taste and education of these Inspectors, were requested to write a Report generally upon the state of education in his district, he would, no doubt, feel himself bound to write something that was worth reading, and be apt to diverge into questions with respect to which information was not required. His right hon. Friend did not propose to digest the Reports of the Inspectors, but to give those gentlemen such instructions as would induce them to digest their own Reports as they sent them in, and confine those Reports to such matters as it might be desirable to lay before the House and the public. If that were the object of the right hon. Member for Hertford, then the difference between the two sides of the House resolved itself into nothing. His right hon. Friend would find no difficulty in framing instructions that would bring the Reports within the narrowest possible compass, and at the same time furnish all the information that might be required.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not understand from the hon. Gentleman whether he meant to comply with the wish of his right hon. Friend. But whatever instructions the Committee of Council might think fit to give, some confidence should be reposed in the Inspectors. It would not do to throw a slur upon the Inspectors, as being utterly unfit to have any discretion. If they were told to bring their Reports not within the narrowest possible compass, but within a very moderate compass, and to re-

  709
  port upon the subjects on which they were wished to report, and not on other subjects, then he thought all that his right hon. Friend desired would be granted. He was rather inclined to think that would be done, but he did not clearly understand. He did not think it desirable that a Resolution should be carried; but he hoped the wish of his right hon. Friend would, with restrictions, be granted.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was clearly of opinion that, as a general rule, that when Inspectors were employed to make Reports those Reports should be published without alteration or omission. But it had been found in practice to lead to abuse, and a number of dissertations and treaties had been furnished to the office quite suitable for the Edinburgh or Quarterly Review, but not exactly of the businesslike character which might be expected in such documents. His right hon. Friend, who was responsible for the conduct of the office, thought it expedient to take some steps in order, not only that the information should be furnished in a more condensed style, but also that economical considerations, though apparently of no great importance to some hon. Gentlemen, might not be entirely disregarded. He thought the Committee of Privy Council quite justified in wishing to accomplish that object, but he also thought the right hon. Gentleman who lately presided over that department right in asking the House whether they would sanction a system which placed on the table, instead of the full Reports, what might be considered, not garbled, but perfect representations of the opinions of the Inspectors. He thought all were agreed that, although it was convenient the Reports should be published in a complete state, it was also equally desirable that they should be confined as much as possible to relevant subjects. He thought that, without asking the House to come to a division, if there were a clear understanding that the Government would take the matter into their consideration, and endeavour to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, so far as to have the Reports of the Inspectors placed before them in a perfect state, but at the same time to prevent their appearing in a form which had attracted notice and disapprobation, all that was necessary would be obtained by the discussion. He was sure his right hon. Friend understood the feeling of the House, that it was desirable the Reports should be published in
  710
  a complete form. At the same time, he thought it was the general opinion that some change should take place in the form of these lucubrations. The Inspectors had launched into subjects on which they need not have treated, and treated them with an amplitude which was undesirable. He had no doubt that after this discussion there would be a considerable improvement in the shape and materials of the Reports, and he therefore trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division.
  MR. EWARTsaid, that a suggestion had been thrown out that the Inspectors should be requested to digest their own Reports. Now he could conceive nothing more absurd than to request an Inspector to digest his own Report. He trusted that the Inspectors would be instructed to prepare these Reports in a practical and business-like manner, and that they would require no subsequent digestion either on their own part, or on the part of the Government, and that they would be presented without any expurgation.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he believed that what had been done with respect to the Minute was in exact conformity with the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. Instructions had been given that the Reports were to be prepared under different heads, which were specified, and when sent in they were neither to be digested by the Inspectors nor abridged, nor altered. The only abridgment that would be made would arise from the Inspector deviating from his instructions and reporting on irrelevant matters. As there was no difference of intention on either side of the House, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) the propriety of waiting until the Reports should be printed; and then, if he was not satisfied, the Government would be prepared to consider any suggestions which he, or any other hon. Member might think it desirable to offer.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the practice of the Home Office, when Inspectors, as he knew they would do, branched into irrelevant matter, was to refer back the Report to the Inspector, pointing it out, and he had generally found that the Inspector at once expunged it. The Report of the Inspector, revised by himself, was then printed and presented to Parliament.
  SIR ARTHUR ELTONdenied that Inspectors were guilty of the redundancy

  711
  which had been attributed to them. He thought the Reports would be much more valuable if the Inspectors were allowed the same freedom as they had before the circular was issued. It was treating the Inspectors like children to lay down heads under which they were to make observations, and not to allow them to diverge in the least from a given line. He would submit that it was better to change the Inspectors if no confidence could be placed in them. He spoke, he believed, the unanimous feeling of all the Inspectors when he expressed a hope that the tabulated Reports would be distributed gratis among the schools, as heretofore, or at all events to the extent of so much as related to each district.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the difficulty with him was to know exactly what right hon. Gentlemen opposite meant. The right hon. the Vice President of the Council seemed to him to raise an entirely false issue. He seemed to think that the object of this Motion was to insist that everything which the Inspectors chose to write ought to be printed. No such thing. The question he raised was, whether the President of the Council was to be allowed to thrust himself between the Inspectors and the House of Commons, and to keep back the Reports of the Inspectors, but to give the House a mere digest of them. As he read the Minutes of Council upon this subject the Government proposed to use the Reports of all the Inspectors, and to make of them one annual statement. [Mr. ADDERLEY: Look at No. 8.] Well, he found that, according to No. 8 of the Minutes it was proposed to present, either in gremio, or in the appendix, the Reports of the Inspectors, at least in all essential points. That was the very thing he objected to that the Committee of Council should decide what points were essential and what were not. Such a system would be destructive of all confidence in the fidelity of the Reports, and it would disgust the Inspectors themselves, who, as men of education, could not be well pleased to find their Reports cut up by the scissors, and printed under different heads. What he wanted was to see the whole mind of the Inspectors in dealing with their districts during the past year. If the right hon. Gentleman intended to adhere to his circular he must press his Motion, because he thought the doctrines laid down in that circular were opposed to right views in the case. But if the right hon. Gentleman would agree that
  712
  when the Reports were prepared according to instructions, not otherwise—and remember one of those instructions was that no Report should exceed 20 pages—then they should be printed, he would be satisfied.
  MR. MILLSsaid, he understood the Government had agreed that these reports should be printed in extenso; but reserving to the Government the power in certain cases of cutting out extraneous and irrelevant matter. The statements made with regard to the tabulated Reports was to his mind much more important. But even on this point the difference was so minute between the Government proposal of selling those printed reports at cost price and sending them gratis to certain parties, that he thought it was hardly a subject for dispute. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bath (Sir A. Elton) he had not heard one word drop from the Government which could be construed into a slur upon the Inspectors. He had the honour of knowing one or two of those gentlemen, who were most intelligent men, and if he had heard a slur thrown upon them he would have joined the hon. Baronet in resenting it. He certainly understood that Government intended to print the Reports of the Inspectors, though in this department, as in every other, they claimed the right to exercise a control.
  MR. CROSSLEYsaid, a few years ago he sat on a Committee on the printing of the House, when it certainly appeared to him that a great deal of money was unnecessarily spent on that head—especially in printing long Reports. He thought, therefore, the thanks of the House were due to the Government for thus endeavouring to save the public money. At the same time, he certainly agreed with the right hon. Member for Hertford, in thinking that the House ought to have the Reports of the Inspectors themselves, and not merely digests of them, and wherever the Reports contained irrelevant matter, he would suggest that the Government officials should run their pen through it and send it back to the Inspectors for alteration, so that it might be presented to the House as the Report of the Inspector, not of the Government. As the matter stood at present, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman pressed his Motion to a division he must go with the Government.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the expense in this case hardly deserved the consideration of the House. They were now spending

  713
  £600,000 a year in the work of education; £40,000 was spent in the system of inspection, and £2,000 was all that was spent in making the results of this machinery perfect.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, there seemed to be some doubt as to the extent of the alterations proposed by the Government. He confessed that, if their object was to simply prune the excrescences of the Reports of the Inspectors, he should be much inclined to agree with them; but there was a well-grounded fear among the Inspectors themselves that something more was intended. Nothing could be more opposed to the feelings of the people of England on the subject of education than one Report made up from the Reports of all the Inspectors. Indeed, it was not possible—and if it were, it would be most unadvisable—to give a systematic summary of their Reports. Those gentlemen themselves represented different religious denominations, and their opinions were adapted to the opinions of the different religious bodies; so that, if their Reports were to be of any use at all, they ought to be presented separately. He hoped the Government would agree to the Motion of the right hon. Member for Hertford.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he really thought the House was about to divide on an issue which had no existence. His object was exactly what the noble Lords the Member for London and the Member for Tiverton had insisted on; and taking the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Motion as they and the right hon. Member for Ashton had explained them he would have no difficulty in voting for it. The Reports of the Inspectors would be prepared henceforth in accordance with instructions, in which all the information they had to communicate was to be divided into six heads—number of schools inspected—management—finance—premises—scholars—efficiency of masters—methods of instructions, and suggestions either as to abuses that ought to be corrected, or improvements that might be made. If there was anything in the Report which did not fall under one or other of those heads, he would send it back to the inspector for excision. Nobody on the part of the Government had ever conceived such an absurdity as a digest into one Report of the various Reports of Wesleyan, Dissenting, Roman Catholic, and Church of England and of Scotland inspectors. Nobody had ever proposed, nor did he conceive that
  714
  any one would ever undertake, to make such a digest. He understood that what he meant to do was exactly what the noble Lord proposed.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman desired to assume the power of altering or abridging the Reports of the Inspectors? [Mr. ADDERLEY: No.] Would he then give the Reports as they were written, or in disjointed fragments?
  MR. ADDERLEY: We shall give each Report as far as it comes under the six heads, prescribed with the names of the Inspectors attached to each, and each Report so limited will be given in the ipsissimis verbis of the inspectors.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise to ask a question. Is it intended that the Report made by the Government shall begin under one head, and give a portion of the Report of each of the Inspectors relating to that head, so that we shall have the Report of each Inspector in disjointed fragments; or do the Government propose, what I think is the far preferable mode, that the Report of each Inspector shall be given whole under different heads, that the others shall follow in order, each repeating his own division of heads, so that the continuity of each Inspector's Report shall not be broken?
  MR. ADDERLEY: The last statement of the noble Lord is exactly what we intend, and, in fact, are now doing.
  MR. COWPER: Then I do not divide.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MASTERS AND OPERATIVES.—LEAVE.
  MR. MACKINNONsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to establish equitable councils of conciliation and arbitration to adjust differences between masters and operatives. It was not his intention to occupy the time of the House with any arguments in favour of his measure, as he believed that no opposition was to be offered to its introduction. He would, therefore, reserve his remarks until the discussion of the second reading, and he would content himself with remarking that, connected as he was with the mining and coal districts in Lancashire, especially in the neighbourhood of Ulverstone and Bacup, he could state that the workmen there were unanimous in favour of the measure, which they believed would go far to prevent those strikes that had done so much injury to that neighbourhood.
  Leave given.
  Bill to establish Equitable Councils of Conciliation and Arbitration to adjust differences between Masters and Operatives, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACKINNON and Mr. SLANEY.

EVIDENCE BY COMMISSION.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for taking evidence in suits and proceedings pending before tribunals in Her Majesty's dominions in places out of the jurisdiction of such tribunals. It was well known that when evidence was required in Great Britain in suits pending in the Colonies, the form of getting it was by a Commission issued by the superior Courts of those Colonies to some persons residing in Great Britain; witnesses then appeared before the Commissioners, and the evidence was sent to the Colonies. That was all very well when everything went smoothly and the witness appeared; but the evil that required to be remedied was that the witness might appear or refuse to appear at his option, without assigning any reason. Last year a Bill had been passed making it compulsory upon British subjects to appear as witnesses before Commissions issued by foreign Courts; but by some mistake Commission's issued by colonial Courts were omitted in the Bill. The object of this measure was to remedy that defect, by making it obligatory upon witnesses to appear upon the payment of their expenses.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, no doubt the object the hon. Member had in view was an extremely desirable one if it could be attained; and so far as our Colonies were concerned, he apprehended that the end which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view might be arrived at. But with respect to foreign countries, it was impossible that any Bill passed in this House should enforce the attendance of persons not subjects of Her Majesty as witnesses. He had no objection, however, to the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had somewhat misunderstood the scope of the Bill. The colonial Courts often sent Commissions to this country to examine witnesses, but they had no power to enforce their attendance, so that a good deal of expense was often wasted. The Bill proposed, therefore, to give power to Commissions sent from colonial Courts to examine witnesses in this country.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, there was no objection to the introduction of the Bill, but the Government must see the machinery of the Bill before they could express an opinion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for taking Evidence in suits and proceeding pending before Tribunals in Her Majesty's Dominions in places out of the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, ordered to be brought in by Mr. YOUNG, Lord ALFRED CHURCHILL, and Mr. LOWE.
  Bill presented and read 1o; to be read 2o on Friday, 4th March, and to be printed.

  CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS.
  MR. COLLIER MR. COLLIER moved for leave to introduce a Bill to prohibit the payment of the expenses of conveying Voters to the Poll, and to facilitate polling at elections. Towards the close of the last Session, and when more than one-half of the Members were absent—driven away, he believed, by the stench of the river—when all the common-law lawyers were on circuit—an Act was passed, which he believed was one of the worst—and that was a bold word—one of the worst passed in modern times. It was an Act passed mainly for the purpose of getting rid of the effect of a decision of the House of Lords in the case of "Cooper v. Slade," which he believed was sound in law and wholesome in application. The effect of the Bill of last Session was to establish a new property qualification in the room of the one abolished, and a far more mischievous one, for the other was a sham, while this was a reality. Had he been in the House when the Bill was brought in he should certainly have opposed the measure; and, as it was, he lost no time in proposing to repeal it. He knew that he should be met by dilatory pleas. He should probably be told that the Act he asked to repeal was only a continuance Act, which would expire in July next, and he would probably be asked to postpone this matter until "the dog days," when no doubt the Government would produce some comprehensive measure on the subject. The Act of last Session was passed by a worn and jaded House, and he wished to take the opinion of the House when it was fresh. He did not believe that the Act of last Session represented the feelings of the Liberal majority of that House; for it was the fact, that although we had a Tory Government the majority of the House were Liberal, and if the Government wished to

  717
  remain in office they must do the bidding of that majority. He should probably be told that the Government were about to introduce a Reform Bill, which would include provisions on the subject; but he must beg to say that he had no confidence in that Bill or any other Reform Bill passing this Session. If it were a bad Bill it would probably be rejected by that House, and if it were a good Bill it would probably be rejected once or twice in "another place." In the meantime this matter was urgent, and he believed it would be a public misfortune if there should be a general election whilst the present Act remained in force. He believed that the effect of the Act would be to increase almost indefinitely the difficulty which poor men had in finding their way into that House. He must be acquitted of any discourtesy to the Government when he said that he must press this Bill on without reference to any Bill which they might intend to introduce. Let them for a moment consider this question. He apprehended that the Act of last Session had been passed on a misconception of the purpose of an election, and of the duties of the candidate and the constituency to each other. if a Member of Parliament were elected for his own benefit—if every vote conferred on him was a personal obligation enabling him to obtain a position of honour or profit for his own advantage—then the Act of last Session was right. But, as he maintained, and he believed the majority of the House held, that a constituency, in choosing a Member of Parliament chose a public servant to exercise a high trust; that the vote was a high constitutional privilege; and that the object of an election was to secure the best possible public servant, by the true and unbiassed vote of the constituency; then he maintained that the Act of last Session was fundamentally wrong. He maintained it was the business of the voter to exercise his franchise, and that if a man were so apathetic, or so idle, or indifferent, that he declined to exercise his vote—if he refused to take the trouble or to incur the expense of exercising his vote—it was far better that he should not exercise it, and should leave the election to those who were in earnest. He apprehended that there could be scarcely any better test of the fitness of an elector to exercise the franchise than the test whether he would take the trouble and bear the expense of doing so. It was said that there were some voters who resided so far
  718
  from the poll, or were so ill or so infirm, that they were unable to vote unless conveyance was provided for them; and that, without such conveyance, they would be practically disfranchised. Another way of stating the argument was, that if a voter could not exercise the franchise, the candidate was to enfranchise him. He denied that it was the duty of any candidate to enfranchise an elector. Let them see to what that principle led. A poor man might well say, "I cannot afford to vote unless I am paid for going to the poll;" and if the candidate was to enfranchise that voter he must pay him for his time lost in going to the poll. Another voter might say, "There is no use in providing me with conveyance to the poll unless you give me something to eat and drink," and if the candidate was to enfranchise that voter, the candidate must provide him with meat and drink, or, in other words, "treat" him. A sick man might say, "I cannot get there without medicine," and the candidate must provide him with medicine. Let them go a little further. A voter was too poor to pay his rates—was the candidate to pay those rates? He was too poor to rent a £10 house—was the candidate to provide him the means of renting a £10 house? Where was the system to stop? He recommended to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who exercised his ingenuity in framing this clause. [Mr. AYRTON: No, no!] He understood that that was so; but, at all events, he recommended him to exercise his ingenuity in carrying out the principle of the candidate enfranchising the voter; let him provide that the candidate might pay the voter's rates for him, but not give him money to pay them himself. The candidate was to provide the conveyance, but not to give the voter the money to pay for his conveyance. These were the quibbles on which the Act was based. What was it but splitting hairs to say that a candidate might provide conveyance, but not give the voter the money to provide conveyance for himself? There was no difference between giving a voter 5s. to purchase a railway ticket, and giving him a 5s. railway ticket. He supposed hon. Gentlemen opposite would go to the extent of saying that all expenses might be paid; but it was enacted last year that that was illegal. It was unlawful to pay travelling expenses, or to give a voter money or valuable consideration—those were the words of the Act. He might be told that

  719
  the decision in "Cooper v. Slade" went only to this—that it was bribery to pay a voter's travelling expenses on the condition that he would vote for you. But the principle of the decision went beyond that. If the principle of the Bill of last Session was worth anything, it was the duty of the State, not of the candidate, to pay them. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to the House with a Vote for the expense of carrying poor voters or idle voters to the poll, and do not carry out the thing, if it were right, by a side-wind. Or let the proposition of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Osborne) be adopted, and the expenses of the candidate be paid out of the county rate or Consolidated Fund; and then see how the country would like it. There were many who thought it was not desirable that persons should sit in that House unless they were able to pay a very considerable sum—£1,500 was a low figure—for his seat. He, however, thought that it was more important that the intelligence than the wealth of the country should be represented, and those who most accurately represented the intelligence of the country were not always those who represented its wealth. But if the views of those persons were correct, let them re-enact the property qualification; or let them enact that no man should sit in that House unless he could spend £2,000 to do so, or, as an hon. Friend suggested, unless he had actually spent it. If hon. Members thought that a property qualification was necessary, let them enact something like that. Those who thought a property qualification necessary would be perfectly consistent in doing so, but among those who thought it necessary there certainly would not be the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because he told them last Session that he had been during the whole or the greater part of his life opposed to a property qualification. [Mr. WALPOLE: No!] He had understood that it was so. He did not wish to misrepresent him; and he was quite sure that although he gave such cogent reasons why he had always entertained the view that property qualification was not necessary, he always found it his duty to vote in favour of it. The present Act made it absolutely necessary for a man who stood for a large borough or a county to have considerable funds available for the purposes of the election. It seemed to him a mockery to repeal the property qualification, and in the same Session to re-enact another pro-
  720
  perty qualification more stringent than the last. Under the Act of last Session voters would think that they had a vested right to be conveyed to the poll, and would deem it a slight if carriages were not sent for them. At every contested election there would be a rush to obtain all the hackney cabs, carriages, and omnibuses; and the omnibus and livery-stable interest would be in a state of great excitement. They would, of course, charge according to the demand. The whole of that interest would be bribed and bought. The corruption would not stop there. Many payments would be made, not really to obtain conveyances for voters, but as a cloak for illegal payments, and corruption would be carried to an extent which it was impossible to calculate. He ventured to think that the Act of last Session was at variance with the whole current of modern legislation, and that it was a retrograde step. In 1834 a Committee of that House made a Report which was one of the most valuable on their Journals, and which had been acted on by legislating in accordance with it for many years. That Committee reported on the best means of carrying on an election, and among other sentiments there was this, "Your Committee maintain the principle that a candidate should be elected and sent to Parliament free of expense." It was admitted by no less an authority than the Early of Derby that the Act of last Session would greatly increase the expense of elections—an admission, indeed, which was made on all sides; and the admission was a conclusive argument against the Act. Entertaining the views which he had detailed, he deemed it his duty to propose a Bill to repeal the Act of last Session, and inasmuch as he did not think it desirable that the law should remain at all uncertain, he proposed to enact that the payment of travelling expenses of all kinds by candidates should be illegal, and that the person doing so should be guilty of bribery. It had been said that it might be illegal for a candidate to take a voter to the poll in his own carriage; but that would be illegal under his Bill. He also proposed by his Bill to increase the power of the Government to establish polling places in counties and boroughs where necessary. That seemed to him the only legitimate way in which they could assist voters—by providing polling places in situations convenient for them. He proposed to give to the Government power of establishing polling places wherever they thought pro-

  721
  per. This was the outline of the measure which he proposed to submit to the House; and in conclusion he would only say that he believed that the public were deeply interested in this question, for there had been scarcely a political meeting during the vacation at which hon. Members had not been taken to task about the matter by their constituents, and at which great disapprobation of the Act had not been expressed. It was complained that they had passed an Act which had a direct tendency to vest the possession of seats in that House in those who had property, and an indirect tendency to encourage bribery and corruption; and if that Act were allowed to remain on the Statute-book it would be very difficult to persuade the people that the House was earnest in its desire to open the House to all classes of the community and to maintain the purity of elections. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the payment of expenses of conveying Voters to the Poll, and to facilitate polling at Elections.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, the hon. and learned Member had informed the House that the measure of last year passed at a time when a considerable number of lawyers were absent in the discharge of their professional duties. He was not prepared to say whether that was an advantage or a disadvantage, but certainly there was no want of close reasoning on either side of the question, and if the hon. and learned Member had been in the House when this subject was discussed he would hardly have produced on this occasion arguments that had been refuted hundreds of times, and had been brought forward and repeated till the House was perfectly nauseated with them. He would not, therefore, follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his arguments, but he would suggest, that as a Reform Bill was to be brought before them in a few days, it was hardly necessary, and would be premature, to discuss any part of the subject beforehand. The hon. Member for Birmingham and others were constantly telling them that it would be of the greatest advantage to the country that the labouring classes should have a voice in the election of Members of Parliament. Now, he (Sir W. Fraser) could not help thinking that it was a perfectly legitimate mode of enabling the poor man to exercise that privilege to convey him to the poll. It appeared to him something like mockery for a rich man
  722
  to go to a poor man and ask him to go and vote for him, and yet refuse to put his hand in his pocket to pay his expenses of going to the poll. He believed those classes would be led to take that view of the matter. There was one kind of sympathy and kindly feeling for others not uncommon, which had been described by the Rev. Sidney Smith, as A pitying B and earnestly wishing C would help him. That was about the character of the sentiment that generally came from the quarter of the House from which the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, before the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman was introduced he wished to say a few words upon the immediate subject alluded to. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that the House had been taken by surprise when the Bill of last year was passed at the end of the Session. The facts, however, were these. Early last summer attention was called to the uncertain and unsatisfactory state of the law in regard to the conveyance of voters to the poll, by an hon. and learned Gentleman sitting on the Opposition side of the house (Mr. Serjeant Deasy.) A decision given in the House of Lords was supposed to have left the question in a more uncertain state than before, and the Government were pressed from both sides of the House to introduce such a measure as would place the law on the subject upon a clear and intelligible footing. On referring to official records I find that the Bill was introduced early in June, and on the 2d July it was read a second time without a division. On the 16th July this question about the conveyance of voters was discussed, and a division was taken, when it appeared that the Ayes were 133, and the Noes only 58. Division after Division followed: and on the third reading, which took place on the 26th July, the tenth division on the Bill took place, when the third reading was carried by a majority of Ayes 93, against Noes 60. Now, lie was anxious to remind the House of those facts, because, in saying that the House was taken by surprise, it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman was inclined to rely too much on the draughts of oblivion generally supposed to be quaffed during the recess. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine that his Bill would have the effect of settling the question, which at all times was one of great difficulty to deal with; and to think that his measure, if

  723
  carried, would prevent bribery and corrupt practices at elections. He (Mr. Walpole) however, thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would find, when he moved the second reading, that he had raised quite as difficult a question as the one he was attempting to settle. By the Bill he was about to bring in, he found fault with that provision of the last Act which declared that the bona fide expenses attending the conveyance of the voter to the poll might be paid for by the candidate, and he now proposed to repeal it; but he went further and said the very reverse of the Act of last Session, for he proposed to enact that the payment of any of the expenses of the conveyance of any voter to the poll was in future to be viewed as an act of bribery. He wished the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether he might not be running too fast in attempting to put down in the name of bribery an innocent instead of a guilty act. He (Mr. Walpole) would go as far as any man in his desire to put down everything that had a tendency to bribery or corruption; but the hon. and learned Gentleman must prove that the mere fact of simply paying the bona fide expenses of carrying a voter to the poll can have a corrupt influence upon the voter. But the hon. and learned Gentleman showed even by his own Bill that he had no faith in any such proposition, for he said, although he would not allow the conveyance of the voter to the poll to be paid for, he would nevertheless allow the candidate to convey the voter to the poll in his own carriage.
  MR. COLLIERexplained. He merely said, that taking your friend for a drive in a carriage during the day should not be considered as illegal. He did not speak of driving a voter to the poll.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would give the hon. and learned Gentleman full credit for his explanation; but he would find difficulties in his Bill quite as great as those he proposed to remove. The hon. and learned Gentleman's objection to the Act of last Session were, first, that it tended to a species of bribery, and, secondly, that it gave a rich man an advantage over a poor man. But, had not the man who had his own carriage an advantage over the man who had none? And how, if he could carry a voter to the poll in his own carriage, could he prevent his friends carrying other voters in theirs? Would it not equally be bribery in either case? He should have wished to have abstained from any discus-
  724
  sion at the present moment upon this topic. If the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed that the Act of last Session had not had a fair discussion, by all means let the question be fairly discussed upon his Bill. He was not one who thought that even the solution of the question last Session was satisfactory; but he did say that to lay down the law as it was now proposed would, he believed, induce a far worse state of things than to declare that the expenses attending the conveyance of the voters to the poll should be permitted where no corrupt influence had been exercised. He did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's solution of the difficulty was satisfactory. What he (Mr. Walpole) contended for was, that the law should be laid down plainly in the Statute-book one way or other. He would beg to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement of the law laid down upon this subject by the House of Lords last year. The highest tribunal of the land decided that it was not illegal to pay the expenses of conveying the voter to the poll; but that if a candidate gave a previous promise that be would pay the expenses of bringing a voter to the poll, and that promise was followed by the actual payment of those expenses, that act might have a corrupt influence on the voter's mind, and was therefore illegal. By the other portion of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill he proposed to facilitate the taking of the poll by allowing the Government to increase the number of polling places. Now, let the hon. and learned Gentleman consider well what he was doing. He was placing in the hands of the Government the power of saying what polling places should or should not be established. By the existing law they had guarded well against any impropriety in the selection of the polling places, inasmuch as no change of place or increase of number can be made except on the recommendation of the magistrates of the county-then only has the Executive Government the power to determine whether there should or should not be more polling places. Now he confessed he doubted the wisdom of transferring such a power from the magistrates to the Government. He should be glad to see the Bill introduced, and he honed he should not be again told that a fair opportunity had not been given for the discussion of its provisions. He also hoped, when they came to the discussion, that they might be able to settle the question in a clear, sensible, and definite

  725
  manner; but the difficulties of the question were very great, and he believed the settlement proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would make the matter worse than it was before.
  MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he could corroborate the statement that the attention of the House was called to this question early in the last Session. He had himself alluded to it; and he did also on account of the confusion into which the law had fallen. Committee after Committee of that House had decided that the payment of money to the voter for his traveling expenses, if bonâ fide, was perfectly legal; but the decision of the House of Lords in "Cooper v. Slade," reversing the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, had since affirmed that the payment of a voter's travelling expenses in pursuance of a conditional promise previously made constituted bribery. It was his duty as Chairman of a Committee which had to consider the question, to call the Home Secretary's attention to the embarrassment in which candidates and their agents were placed by this decision; and it was therefore quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that the suggestion of the necessity of a remedy for this evil had emanated from that the Opposition side of the House. Whether the particular mode then adopted for supplying that remedy had been the right one was quite another question. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) seemed to underrate the difficulties resulting from his Motion. So far from his Bill facilitating the entrance of men of small means into that House, it would place the seats for the counties especially entirely in the hands of the great and wealthy, because it would leave it perfectly open for the landlords to bring their own tenants to the poll, while candidates who had not the support of the landlords, if they hired conveyances, would be exposed to all the penalties of bribery. As the right hon. Gentleman had said it would be most unwise to attach to an act, which everybody believed to be innocent, the stigma of corruption. It was to be hoped that all their constituents would profit by the hon. and learned Member's lecture as to the duties incident to the possession of the franchise—that they would no longer be apathetic, or require to be canvassed or conveyed, but would rush to the poll to elect the men of their conscientious choice. The Bill, however, of the hon. and learned Gentleman would practically disfranchise
  726
  some three-fifths of the entire constituency of the kingdom. Nor was that all. They must go a step further and prohibit canvassing, and the employment of paid canvassers. It might or might not be expedient to establish more polling places, but nothing could be more objectionable than to leave the whole polling arrangements of the country in the hands of the Executive Government for the time being. The Bill, as it now stood, was crude and imperfect, but he would give every assistance to improve it.
  GENERAL THOMPSONwished to sift the question of morality propounded by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, by putting a case of his own. Suppose he were a candidate for Bradford, and a poorer man than himself were against him, might he not by the natural instinct of a candidate—presuming the present legal arrangements to be continued—send down some acute man to London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Manchester, and any other of the great emporia of manufactures and commerce, and tell him to find out how many Bradford men were there,—to go round to them and say, "Does any man want to settle a little business that he has left undone, and which he would be the better for doing at my expense,—or does he want to go and kiss his cousins?" Nothing must be said about their voting for me; that should be left to their honour. A reputable man would not take his money, and do nothing for him in return. He would trust that to the agent, observing to him, "You know how to do things of this kind; do it well, and you shall be paid for your trouble." Would or would not all that, be gross bribery? What was bribery but the holding forth to a voter a pecuniary or other inducement to vote for a particular candidate? Some men looked for money, others looked for those pleasant exhibitions of family amity at which he had hinted. Every candidate who, by dint of his purse, gave this pleasure, whatever it might be, to the voter, with the result of having his vote in return, was within the whiff and wind of bribery. The importance of providing for the poor voters getting to the poll had been urged. His remedy for that was this,—turn all paupers ruthlessly out of the Reform Bill. If a man was not rich enough to carry himself to the poll, let them not make the candidate convey him. Let anybody pay for it except the candidate. The Bill of last Session passed, as the hon. Mover had stated, at rather an unfavourable period. It pasted at the

  727
  time of the bad smell, when there was a considerable inattention to legislative duties. Another unhappy circumstance of that time was, that those on that (the Opposition) side laboured under the misfortune of finding one of their own friends and companions miraculously taking part against them. In conclusion, he must express his wonder that a Government which had acquired a considerable hold upon popular opinion, and which, if the reports circulated in Parliament Street were true, might any day in the week be called upon to exhibit its Strength, should, after gaining credit by removing the Qualification of Members, have fallen into the snare which had been, whether designedly or not he knew not, laid for them. £1,500 a year it had been said in that House,—he heard it,—was the proper sum for a candidate to expend. Was not that creating a worse property qualification than the old one? He wondered much at the conduct of the Government, because he thanked them for the good things they had done, his gratitude not being without that component part which looked for benefits to come.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the clause which he had proposed in the Bill of last Session had been so much altered by hon. Gentlemen introducing a word here and a word there, that when it passed out of Committee it expressed a different idea from the one he had intended. It was an entire mistake to suppose that they had not gone further into that question than the discussion of any mere abstract proposition. The House got a step beyond that. They discussed it in a practical point of view, and then it was that the difficulties of the subject presented themselves. If his hon. and learned Friend should succeed in passing this Bill, and it should have the effect of putting an end to all bribery of the kind contemplated, no one would be more gratified than he (Mr. Ayrton) should be; but he was bound to say there had been a great deal of talk about this question in the recess, and he was induced to think he had rendered great service to some hon. Members whose votes in that House did not seem popular with their constituents. He could not but say, in reference to a point which had been mooted during the Debate, that to place in the hands of the Executive Government the management of elections, instead of leaving it with some local authority, would be to violate a principle of the constitution, and to embark in a career more dangerous to the enjoyment
  728
  of political liberty in this country than any course which could possibly be conceived.
  MR. COXsaid, the main question was whether the House did or did not desire to put an end to corrupt practices. He saw no difficulty whatever in the matter. The objection of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton) against the Government appointing additional polling places was wholly absurd. What more easy than to enact that there should be one or more polling places in every parish throughout the kingdom? He was glad the Government had consented to the introduction of the Bill. It would be discussed at every stage, for there was a feeling abroad since the passing of the hon. and learned Gentleman's insidious clause that the House was not sincere in its efforts to prevent corruption. That Bill had passed last July, when they were "stunk out" by the Thames; it was not a fair expression of the opinions of the House; the votes on the third reading being only ninety-three to sixty, not a quarter of the House.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid he did not rise to speak in opposition to the Bill, but in consequence of an observation that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier). If he (Lord Hotham) were allowed to assimilate the proceedings of this place to the proceedings of a certain place of which he (Mr. Collier) was a distinguished ornament, he would say that the hon. and learned Gentleman, availing himself of the opening of the Parliamentary Term, had that evening moved for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted of a cause heard and determined last Session. The hon. and learned Member had laid three grounds for his Motion. One, that the House had been taken by surprise; another, that the Bill of last Session had not been sufficiently discussed. He (Lord Hotham) thought his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had shown that there was no ground for these allegations. That the House was not taken by surprise had been shown by the hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) also. The division list gave evidence of the same fact, and there was as much discussion on the Bill as could possibly be expected at the time of year when it was passing through the House. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) had alluded to the paucity of the Members who took part in the discussion; but when that hon. Gentleman had more experience of that House he would find that

  729
  no business whatever would secure a large attendance at that season of the year. He (Lord Hotham) had, however, no desire to refuse the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Collier) his "rule" on the ground that he had failed to make out a case of surprise or of insufficient discussion; but the hon. and learned Member had brought forward a third ground—namely, the absence of members of the common-law bar on circuit. Now, the principle involved on that ground was one against which he (Lord Hotham) thought the House was bound to set its face. He was sure the members of the learned profession would not forget the great indulgence shown to them when it is necessary for the fulfilment of their professional duties. An hon. and learned Gentleman never failed to receive leave of absence to enable him to go on circuit. Members of the learned profession were almost entirely excused from those laborious duties on Committees which other Members of the House had to discharge. The House did not complain of that, because it felt that the maintenance of the high feeling and education and standard of the Bar was a matter of importance to the country; but he hoped the members of the profession to which the hon. and learned Member belonged would not make so bad a return for the indulgence which they always received from the House as to expect, in addition to that indulgence, that the exertions of the House should be paralysed while they were attending to the duties of their profession, or that Parliament would reverse any decision come to whilst they were absent attending to their private avocations. He had his own opinion on the question at issue; but into that question he would not at present enter. He had, as one of the oldest Members of that House, felt it necessary, as no other hon. Member had done so, to protest against the principle which the hon. and learned Member had laid down in respect of the absence of lawyers—one which he hoped would not receive the sanction of the other hon. and learned Members in that House.
  MR. D. NICOLLsaid, the second division on the Bill of last Session was taken after one o'clock in the morning—an hour at which, according to his experience, there never was a large attendance of Members.
  MR. MELLORsaid, that Lord Hotham had mistaken his hon. and learned Friend's remark's respecting the absence of lawyers. There undoubtedly were occasions when
  730
  their presence was felt to be an advantage; and he thought that too much had been made about the indulgence shown to them; which was nothing more than this: they were asked, the same as other Members, when it would be convenient to them to attend on Committees, and therefore were not put on Committees when they were about to proceed on circuit. When the Bill of last Session was introduced, he certainly understood from some one on the Government side that it would not be pressed if serious opposition was offered. Finding it in the paper he came up from circuit to oppose it; but it was postponed for the convenience of Government to another day; and when he came up again he found the clause had been passed. He strongly disapproved of it, as opening a wide door to fraud. The practice of paying travelling, expenses had been condemned on this ground by Lord Mansfield, and other authorities. The real remedy was to bring the polling places to the voters; for if they were too poor or apathetic to go to the poll the House could not legislate for them. It had been well said by Mr. Justice Willes, in the trial of "Cooper v. Slade," that,
  "Whatever may be the better opinion as to the justice of payments between candidate and voter, it may well have been the intention of the Legislature to prohibit them as very likely to engender corrupt practices which would be the more dangerous from being plausible."
  He sincerely hoped that the Act would be repealed before a dissolution took place. The expense that had been incurred already at isolated elections was enormous—much more titan equal, in the case of each candidate, to a property qualification.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought it right to bear his testimony to the fact that the Bill of last Session was very fully and fairly discussed, and that the attendance of Members at the time was what, under the fluctuating circumstances which governed attendances from day to day, might be considered a very fair average attendance. At the same time, he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend, the introducer of this Bill, that he had gone out of his way to lay a ground which was quite unnecessary for the purpose he had in view. He might have admitted that the Bill had had the fullest and fairest discussion last year; but that was no reason why any Member who was of a different opinion should not call upon the House to reconsider its decision. It was not necessary, in order to bring an im-

  731
  portant matter under the consideration of the House in one Session, to show that the thing had not been fully discussed before; on the contrary, they all knew that the most important questions which had come from time to time before the House had been fully and fairly discussed in one Session, had been brought under consideration also in the succeeding one, and that many had only been carried after repeated discussions. He was one who had supported the Bill as it stood; and he owned he had not heard in the course of the discussion anything that very much shook his belief that, on the whole, the course pursued by Parliament last year was the best. He could not bring his mind to conceive that paying the expense of conveying a voter to the poll was an act of bribery. He really could not bring himself to believe that a voter would give his vote merely for the sake of a five minutes' ride in a cab, especially when he knew that whoever he voted for would give him the same advantage. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, it is a quibble to attempt to draw a distinction between paying a voter's expenses and giving him the money to pay it himself. But it seemed to him that there was a very real and practical distinction between the two; and that was the subject of the many discussions on the Bill last year. If it were permitted to give money to the voter, that would open the door to any amount of bribery; because if, under the guise of giving him money to pay his travelling expenses, any money passed between the candidate and the voter, it was impossible to prevent any amount of bribery. And the reason why he thought the law a good one as it stood was, that it prohibited money from passing between the voter and the candidate, and only permitted the latter to pay the expenses attendant on the conveyance of the voter to the poll. It would be very difficult indeed to frame a measure which would completely carry out the views of those who supported this proposition. Not only must the candidate, but also his friends and supporters, be prohibited from providing the means of conveyance; in short, they must enact that every voter should find for himself the means of going to the poll. How far that would be acceptable to constituents he could not take upon himself to say; but the result would be, that a great many poor electors, who lived at a distance from the places of polling, would be pre-
  732
  cluded from exercising their franchise. He quite agreed that they ought to multiply polling places as far as possible both in counties and in boroughs, so that no man should be able to say that he could not get to the pull to give his vote. But on all those matters there was much to be said both ways; and hon. Members must recollect that the creation of additional polling places would throw additional expense on candidates for extra clerks and the erection of booths. He feared that they would mislead themselves if they supposed it possible to make a contested election an enjoyment free of all expense. Like every other luxury it must be paid for. He wished it to be as cheap as possible. He had enjoyed it himself several times, but not so cheaply as he could wish. He thought that they would not promote the public service by stigmatizing as bribery and corruption acts which in themselves were innocent and blameless. He was quite disposed to give this Bill every consideration when it was brought in; but he should be rather apprehensive of their falling into one error in endeavouring to avoid another. Of this, however, he was perfectly sure, that every Member of the House would be anxious to do his utmost in support of any measure which would really tend to the prevention of bribery and corruption.
  MR. COLLIER, in reply, said that in remarking on the absence of lawyers, he had merely meant to excuse himself for not opposing the Bill of last Session. This Bill would reduce the expenses of elections, and on that ground he claimed the support of the learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Deasy). As to polling places, he would merely give the Government the power to ascertain whether additional polling places were necessary, and if so, to make the requisite Order in Council.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLLIER and Mr. MELLOR.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

MANSLAUGHTER.—BAIL UPON CORONERS' INQUISITION.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. ADAMS, in rising to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to enable Coroners in England and Wales to admit to Bail persons charged with manslaughter, said, he

  733
  desired to remedy what was considered to be a great grievance connected with the administration of public justice. The Coroners' juries were quite incompetent to decide what was manslaughter and what was not. It often required great discrimination to draw the line, and it was a very common thing to hear Judges at assizes tell the grand jury that the evidence against persons committed on Coroners' inquisitions was not sufficient to support the charges on which they had been committed. But at present, after the verdict had been found, Coroners had no power to admit to bail persons charged with man slaughter; and, consequently, persons were sometimes detained for five or six months in prison, waiting for the assize, who were immediately acquitted upon their trials, or only sentenced to very light punishment. A poor man, committed under a Coroner's warrant, not having the means of applying to a Judge in London, must lie in prison, and even in the ease of those of better means, there was some imprisonment and some expense. An act of manslaughter might be committed by some slight act of negligence; as in a recent case, where a man employed in a mine omitted to place properly a stage, and consequently a truck fell into the mine and unhappily killed a man passing underneath. There was no intention in that case, and it was impossible for any man not a lawyer to say whether the negligence amounted to man slaughter. In another case of a different kind, where an epidemic prevailed in a village remote from medical aid, the clergy man of the parish provided himself with powders prescribed for the disease by a book of competent authority. One of those powders was given to a child of weak frame, who subsequently died. Upon an inquest the medical men admitted that in all probability the child would in any case have died from the disease; but one of them said he thought the death had been hastened by the administration of the powder to a child of delicate frame. The jury returned a verdict of "Manslaughter," and the Coroner was obliged to commit the clergy man to gaol, where he had to remain until an application could be made to a Judge in London for his admission to bail. When the case came on at the assizes the Judge said it was impossible to say that this act amounted to manslaughter, and the grand jury at once ignored the Bill. Now, under those circumstances, there could, he thought, be no reasonable objection to the
  734
  introduction of the measure which he proposed, and he should therefore simply add that it contained no provision dealing with the somewhat complicated subject of Coroners' fees, on which a Committee was then sitting, or the question of whether magistrates were in the habit or not of interfering to so great an extent with those officers in the discharge of their duties.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to enable Coroners in England and Wales to admit to Bail persons charged with the offence of Manslaughter, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ADAMS, Mr. SMITH CHILD, and Mr. GARD.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

TOLLS ON BRIDGES (METROPOLIS).

  MOTION FOR ADDRESS.
  MR. ALCOCK MR. ALCOCK moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that further Instructions be given to the Royal Commissioners appointed to consider the best means of abolishing Turnpike Tolls within six miles of Charing Cross, to the effect that they will also take into consideration the best means of abolishing the Tolls on the Bridges within the same area."
  The hon. Member took occasion to state that the present moment, when the above-mentioned Commissioners were sitting, was the most favourable time for dealing with the subject of Tolls levied on Bridges in London, and dwelt upon the expediency, for the convenience of the inhabitants of the metropolis, of having Waterloo, Southwark, and Battersea Bridges thrown open free of charge to the public.
  MR. INGRAMseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the Commissioners on Turnpike Tolls were pursuing their investigation on the subject up to the present time; that there remained much matter in connection with it through which they had still to wade, and that if any additional labour were thrown upon them they would not be in a position to issue their Report for a considerably longer period than would otherwise be the case. He might add that there would be great difficulty in procuring the funds which would be required to be raised in order that the abolition of turnpike tolls should be effected, and he should, under those circumstances, suggest to his hon. Friend whether it would not be desirable to allow the Commissioners to proceed with the inquiry which they were now engaged in pro-

  735
  secuting, and to wait until he had seen their Report to ascertain whether the investigation which he proposed in reference to bridges would or would not be likely to be attended with advantage. For his own part, he was perfectly alive to the inconvenience which, in more than one instance, resulted to the inhabitants of the metropolis from the maintenance of the tolls to which the hon. Gentleman's Motion related, and should be very glad to find that some reasonable remedy for that inconvenience could be provided. At the same time, he could not help thinking that his hon. Friend would act wisely in withdrawing his Motion for the present.
  MR. ALCOCKsaid, he would act upon the suggestion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  MR. CROSS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, briefly explained its provisions. One of its objects was to provide for a more equal division of wards. Since the passing of the Reform Act, some wards had greatly increased, whilst others had scarcely increased at all. Such was particularly the case with regard to outlying wards; and in one instance the number of voters had increased from 488 to 1053, and in another from 246 to 1487; and he thought it was extremely desirable that a better apportionment of these mini-hers should be effected. The Bill also contained a provision for throwing the costs on parties who made frivolous objections. He knew a case where nearly one-half of the constituency had been objected to for vexatious purposes. The next object of the Bill was to simplify the mode of electing councillors. At present, although there was to be no contest, the candidates were put to inconvenience and expense. They had to print voting papers, to hire clerks and committee rooms, because they did not know that a candidate might not start up in opposition at the last moment, and it happened sometimes that candidates were started for vexatious purposes. He provided against this by proposing that, four days before the election, the names of the persons to be nominated, and those of the persons nominating them, should be sent to the town clerk, who was to have them posted on the Town-hall one day before the day of election. The next object of the Bill was to prevent the perso-
  736
  nation of voters, which was sometimes carried on to a great extent. As the law stood at present the presiding officer had no power of himself to put questions to the person who came up to vote. His mouth was absolutely closed unless he had two burgesses to put him in motion. The Bill provided fur this by giving power to inflict an imprisonment of three months on the person who personated a voter. He likewise proposed to extend the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act to municipal elections, with a view to the prevention of bribery. The penalty at present was too severe, namely, a fine of £50 and disfranchisement, whilst the remedy was too expensive, for there was no power of giving costs. He proposed that the fine should be 40 s., and that the disfranchisement should be for two rounds only of municipal elections. He knew of one case where £200 had been spent in bribing a constituency consisting of only 432 voters. There was also a new provision for appointing a public prosecutor to carry on prosecutions at the request of two burgesses. That clause might create some laughing from its novelty; but he believed there were good grounds for it, and he should be prepared to defend it in Committee. Since he gave notice of the measure he received communications from all parts of the country, pointing out various parts of the Municipal Reform Act which required amendment, but he though it better to confine his attention to a particular blot and to apply a remedy, than to open up the whole question of a general reform of that act.
  MR. FOXsaid, that some Bill seemed to be required on the subject. He rose for the purpose of giving notice, that when the Bill was in Committee he should move a clause for the abolition of the property qualification in the case of town councillors.
  MR. RIDLEYwould give his vote for the second reading of the Bill, but there were one or two points in it which would require serious consideration. He saw no reason why the system of voting by papers should nut be introduced, or why those who personated voters should not be subjected to the same penalties as attached to persons who were guilty of bribery. He doubted also whether it would be advisable to commence in this Bill the institution of a public prosecutor, or whether it would be expedient that the cost of those proceedings should be defrayed from the borough fund. He would rather suggest that the

  737
  two burgesses who should set the law in motion should be bound to find security for the cost before the proceedings were instituted. This would be a necessary protection to those who might otherwise be subjected to vexatious annoyance. The Bill, on the whole, was considered by many as of even more urgent importance than the great subject of reform which would be brought under the notice of the House next week, and he hoped hon. Members would pay earnest attention to its details.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, one object of the Bill was to increase the number of wards, but he doubted whether such divisions in a borough were sound in principle at all. Anciently, wards were adopted as a matter of police, but now they were useless divisions, and often enabled persons to obtain an ascendancy which they could not obtain if the municipal elections extended over the whole borough. With regard to the institution of a public prosecutor, he thought if that principle were adopted at all it should be in the form of a general measure, and that it should not be introduced as part of such a Bill as the present.
  MR. ADAMSsaid, he would have great pleasure in supporting the Bill; but he had an objection to the nomination of persons to be elected as town councillors being restricted to a few days before the election. He thought there were many reasons why it should be in the power of candidates to come forward at the last moment. Besides, he thought some time was necessarily occupied in printing the voting papers and distributing them. Reference had been made also to the difficulty of finding and opening Committee Rooms. He should therefore object to the length of time made necessary for nomination before the election. He objected also to the proposal of referring questions of bribery to juries in County Courts. Juries in the County Courts were only five in number, they must necessarily be selected from the locality and therefore would be composed of persons who were necessarily partisans. He suggested that it would be better to decide such questions by information at Quarter Sessions; he would give an appeal, not to the Recorder of the town, but to justices of a neighbouring county. He objected also to the nomination of a public prosecutor by the town councillors on the same ground of the probability of a partisan being appointed to the office. He should be sorry to see the great general question of a public prosecutor prejudiced
  738
  by its introduction in a matter of such comparatively trifling importance. He mentioned these objections by way of suggestion to his hon. Friend and not with any view of prejudging the measure.
  MR. WALPOLEconsidered this an important measure. Many parts of it were valuable; but there were other parts on which he wished to reserve his opinion at present, and therefore he hoped that the hon. Member would not object to postpone the Committee on the Bill for a week or ten days.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Wednesday, 2nd March.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock