Commons Sitting of 19 February 1863

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Somerset (Western Division), William Henry Powell Gore Langton, esquire.
RESOLUTIONS IN COMMITTEE.— Prince of Wales (Queen's Message) [17th February]; Partnership Law Amendment.
PUBLIC BILLS. — First Reading. — Register of Voters [Bill 25]; Partnership Law Amendment [Bill 26].
Second Reading.—Corrupt Practices at Elections [Bill 8]; Union Relief Aid Act (1802) Continuance [Bill 17]; Telegraphs [Bill 10]; Malt Duty [Bill 20].
Committee. — Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) [Bill 9]; Qualification for Offices Abolition [Bill 4].
Re-committed. — Illegitimate Children (Ireland) [Bill 13], in respect of Clause 4.
Report. — Illegitimate Children (Ireland) [Bill 13]; Qualification for Offices Abolition [Bill 4].
Considered as amended. — Drainage of Land (Ireland) [Bill 7].

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to take that occasion to protest against the Bill passing into law in the shape of a private measure, conferring, as it professed to do, such arbitrary and extensive powers on the Thames Conservancy Board. It proposed to interfere with the trade of the river from the Nore to Staines, and to tax certain parties who carried on business on the banks of the river. He thought a measure of that kind ought to be public and not private, and he would therefore move that it be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
MR. W. WILLIAMSseconded the Motion. The House had the other evening given a check to private legislation by rejecting two measures of a similar nature, and he hoped they would follow the same course on that occasion. The Bill proposed to levy a tax on the inhabitants, and that ought not to be done by such a measure introduced in a private manner. The President of the Board of Trade, or the Government, ought to undertake the supervision of such a Bill, and not leave it in the hands of two private Members.
MR. NORRISsaid, he should support the second reading. The Bill was not a taxing one, but simply for the purpose of enabling the conservators of the Thames to alter the licence tax charged on each journey a boat plied or travelled on the Thames to a tax on the passengers. The Bill was further to enable the conservators to take care of the health of the inhabitants of the metropolis, by preventing bargemen and others emptying filthy matter into the river, and he hoped the house would send it before a Select Committee.
MR. TITEcontended that the Bill ought to be proceeded with, as anything which Captain Birchell and the other conservators of the Thames proposed to do

495
was worthy of the consideration of the House. He thought the Bill was anything but objectionable in principle, and that if enacted into a law, it would tend to prevent the pollution of the river.
MR. LOCKEobserved, that he should oppose the second reading, on the ground that the conduct of the conservators was extremely arbritrary and unconstitutional.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he had given great attention to the provisions of the measure, and to the arguments advanced both for and against it, and he had come to the conclusion that it ought to be rejected. His opinion was, that the whole matter of the Thames conservancy, which affected the greatest commercial interests of the City of London, ought to be referred to a Select Committee for a full and rigid inquiry. He entreated hon. Members to lend their assistance in throwing out the Bill.
MR. MASSEYsaid, he was inclined to think that some inquiry was needed into the manner in which the Conservancy Board had discharged their duties; but that was no reason why the House should not give them the powers which they said were essential to the discharge of their functions. He recommended that the Bill should be read a second time.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, his objection to the Bill was, that it sought to disturb the compromise which was come to in the year 1857, and referred to matters which ought to be dealt with by a public measure. It proposed to remove the Lord Mayor from the presidency of the Board, and to substitute a paid chairman.
MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, he should vote against the Bill on similar grounds.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Chairman of Committees had placed the House in some difficulty. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think an inquiry absolutely necessary, and at the same time said that the Bill had nothing to do with the conduct of the Board. Now he (Mr. Henley) thought it had everything to do with the Board, inasmuch as it proposed to give it more powers—he believed more taxing powers. He thought that the inquiry should precede, not follow, the granting of those powers. That appeared to him to be the wiser course.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill put off for six months.

METROPOLITAN BRIDGES AND RAIL WAYS.—QUESTION.
MR. TITEsaid, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the intention of Government to institute any inquiry into the nature of the various Railway projects which propose to intersect the Metropolis, or to subject to any control the architectural character and construction of Bridges crossing the River Thames, or the streets and roads which are interfered with?
MR. COWPERin reply said, that some of the great railways which brought travellers into the heart of the metropolis had been carried out at a sacrifice of appearance, and to the great disfigurement of several of our principal thoroughfares. The approach to London Bridge, which used to be handsome, was now intercepted by a huge mass of iron winding above the heads of persons on the level of the roadway, and obscuring St. Saviour's Church. The same disregard of beauty was seen in the bridges recently erected, and especially Lambeth Bridge, which, though doubtless very economical and convenient, was, in his (Mr. Cowper's) opinion, constructed in a manner unnecessarily plain, rude, and ugly. As regarded inquiries by the Government, he would beg to refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Board of Trade, which had been laid on the table of the House. The questions relating to the architectural character and construction of metropolitan works could not be in better hands than in those of the hon. Gentleman himself, whose eminence in his profession, and position as President of the Institute of British Architects, would give great weight to any suggestions which he might make. He also thought it very likely that Members representing the metropolis would be prepared with some proposal on the subject.

ARRANGEMENT OF THE CIRCUITS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether Her Majesty's Government proposes to bring in, and, if so, when, a measure for re-arranging any other Circuit beside the Northern, and for holding an Assize for civil busi-

  497
  ness in other counties beside Lancashire, and for removing the inconvenience of accumulating country causes for trial in London and Middlesex, and for so arranging the town sittings as not to interfere with Circuits?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied that the state of the Northern Circuit and of other Circuits was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to effect such rearrangement as might seem to be expedient. But, whether a measure on the subject would or would not be introduced into Parliament depended on the nature of the proposed change; for, as his hon. and learned Friend well knew, the powers capable of being exercised by an Order in Council, without the intervention of Parliament, were very extensive. There was no present intention of holding a third Assize for civil business in any county where one was not already held; and there was no such measures in contemplation as was referred to in the last part of the hon. and learned Member's question.

PHOENIX PARK (DUBLIN).—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If a detailed survey and examination of the Phoenix Park, Dublin, has been made by the Commissioners of Public Works; if any Report as to the condition of the Park has been made by them; and if he will lay such Report upon the table of the House?
MR. PEEL, in reply, said, a Report of the nature referred to by the hon. Member had been received from the Board of; Works, and various improvements and new works, such as draining and replanting the Park, had been suggested. Those suggestions had been adopted, and provision for part of the necessary outlay would be made in the Estimates. There was no objection to lay the Report on the table, but the Estimates would contain all the necessary information.

SPIRIT DUTIES.—QUESTION.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is at liberty to state the intentions of the Government in reference to the Spirit Duties, and whether any alteration in their amount is contemplated?
THE CHANCELLOR OE THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the subject to which the hon. Member had alluded was of such importance both to the revenue and to the trade that last year he had departed from the usual practice, by stating the course he intended to adopt with regard to the Spirit Duties at a period when the financial arrangements for the year were not yet under consideration. For the same reasons he was quite willing to reply to the question just put. Her Majesty's Government decidedly did not intend to propose any change in the Spirit Duties now payable by law.

PRINCE OF WALES (QUEEN'S MESSAGE).
Queen's Message [17th February],— considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, to propose to the Committee Resolutions for the purpose of providing, in the words of the Message, "an establishment for the Prince and Princess of Wales suitable to the rank and dignity of their station." In doing so I would remind the House of the happiness which we enjoy by living under a constitutional Monarchy. The people of this country not only are now more than at any former period sensible by positive experience of' the blessings which that form of Government confers, but they have also an opportunity of appreciating its value by contrasting it with events which are passing in other parts of the world. We see in the East some of the evils which are incident to arbitrary sway. We witness in the West the widespread misery and desolation which are sometimes created by democratic and Republican institutions. We enjoy a happy medium between the extremes of these two forms of Government. Our institutions not only confer happiness and tranquillity upon the people of these realms, but enable them to enjoy the most perfect freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, and of action, unawed and uncontrolled either by the edicts of despotic authority, or by the Lynch law of an ungovernable mob. Well, Sir, I trust that the people of this nation will long continue to enjoy those advantages, and that their hearts will be turned to the Almighty Dispenser of events with thankfulness—with reverential thankfulness for the lot which has thus been assigned them, and I am

499
persuaded that their bosoms will be full of the most affectionate attachment towards that Sovereign and family under whose mild and beneficent sway, humanly speaking, those blessings have been conferred. Sir, there are occasions in the course of human affairs in which events that are matters of joy and rejoicing produce pleasure that begins and ends with the occasion on which it arises; but there are other occasions where joyful events link and connect the present with the future—when the happiness which mankind enjoys at the moment is an earnest and a security for happiness in the future. Such an occasion is the present, when the Heir Apparent to the Crown is going to contract a marriage which will, I trust, not only be productive of domestic happiness to the family in the midst of which it is to be celebrated, but holds out to this country a prospect of a long line of succeeding Sovereigns, who by virtue of transmitted qualities and of the recollection of the conduct of those who went before them, will imitate the virtues of the stock from which they spring, and will contribute as much as the present family do to the happiness, the welfare, and the dignity of the country over which they rule. Sir, the people of this country have always been disposed readily to give whatever may be necessary to maintain the due dignity which is essential to our monarchical institutions, and I am persuaded that upon the present occasion the proposal which it will be my duty to make will be acceded to with readiness and pleasure by this House, and will be sanctioned by the country. In considering, Sir, that which it may be fitting upon the present occasion to grant to the Crown for the establishment of the Prince and Princess of Wales, it is right to look back a little, and see what has been, done upon similar occasions in times gone by. Now, if hon. Gentlemen will look to the speech of Mr. Pitt, when in 1795 he proposed an establishment for the then Prince and Princess of Wales, they will see he stated that the Prince of Wales in 1745, and the Prince of Wales, at an earlier period, in 1715, had each of them a net income of £100,000 a year, in one case in addition to the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. It is not quite clear, from the words made use of, whether in both cases that income was in addition to the £100,000. I rather infer that it was. Now, every-
500
body is aware what a great change has taken place in the value of money since either of those remote periods, and how little a sum of the same nominal amount represents in the present day the command of things which it did either in 1745 or 1715. Coming down to a later period, in 1795, when Mr. Pitt proposed and the House assented to an establishment for the then Prince and Princess of Wales, the arrangement was not a simple one, because it was complicated by another for the payment of the large debts at that time due by his Royal Highness the then Prince of Wales. But the total amount of allowance which was granted, including that portion which was set aside for the liquidation of the Prince's debts, was £138,000, charged partly upon the Civil List, and partly upon the Consolidated Fund; and although for a certain number of years the appropriation of a large portion of the amount to the payment of debts reduced the available income of the then Prince of Wales to something, I believe, between £60,000 and £70,000, yet I apprehend that about the year 1806, the debts having been liquidated, the Prince of Wales entered into the receipt of the £138,000. Now, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, nor is it the desire of Her Majesty, that the present appropriation by Parliament should be founded upon what was then proposed for the Prince of Wales. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is in the enjoyment of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall; and to the honour of Her Majesty and of the late Prince Consort be it said that whereas in former reigns it was understood, and the practice was, that during the minority of the Prince of Wales the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall were added to the available income of the Crown, in the present reign those revenues have been carefully and studiously set apart to accumulate for the benefit of the Prince of Wales till he came of age. The funds thus accumulated are very considerable—part of them have been invested in the purchase of a landed estate in the county of Norfolk, which cost, I believe, about £220,000, the nominal rental being £7,000 a year —but it may be that there will be deductions, as hon. Gentlemen will well understand, and there may not be more than £5,000 available income. Part of the accumulations must be set aside for

501
the outfit of the Prince of Wales and to form an establishment, and part also will be required for the purpose of building upon the Norfolk estate a mansion more suitable than the present one to the dignity and station of its new occupants. Making these deductions, the details of which I will not trouble the House to go into, the probable income of the Duchy of Cornwall, together with the income arising from the investment I have mentioned, and from the remaining accumulations, may he taken in round numbers at about £60,000 a year. Well, we think that a sum of £100,000 a year would not be disproportionate to those expenses which must fall upon a person in the exalted position of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and I shall therefore have to propose to the House to grant £40,000 a year out of the Consolidated Fund for the establishment of the Prince of Wales. Such of those whom I am now addressing, and who, fortunately for them, are not in the single and bachelor state, well know that there are expenses which the Princess of Wales must incur, and which require that she should have a separate and sufficient income; and by the treaty of marriage recently concluded between Her Majesty and the King of Denmark the allowance undertaken to be secured to Her Royal Highness was £10,000 a year for her own separate use. The grant, therefore, which I shall to-night have to ask the Committee to assent to will be one of £50,000 a year; namely, £40,000 for the aggregate establishment, and £10,000 for the separate use of the Princess.
I should explain that up to the time when the Duchy of Cornwall was managed under the Commission at which the late Prince Consort presided, it was, in former times, the custom of the Duchy to grant long leases, or life leases, at a reduced rent on payment of heavy fines, and these fines formed a material element in the annual income of the Duke of Cornwall. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is quite sensible that this is not a proper mode of management, and is willing that an Act should be passed restraining him from granting such leases in future, and directing that the Duchy property should be managed in the usual way in which property is generally managed, not allowing the occupier in possession to take advantage of fines on renewals in granting leases, to the detri-
502
ment of those who may follow him. I am told by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) that such an Act is in actual preparation, and will be without delay submitted to the consideration of the House. Hon. Members will naturally be desirous of becoming acquainted with more ample information than it would be proper for me to detail on the present occasion respecting the condition of the Duchy and the state of its present revenues and prospects. On this subject there is a Report—a very accurate account in detail—which I shall have to lay on the table this evening, and which will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow or on the following day. That Report will give the fullest information with respect to all those details of the Duchy which hon. Members may wish to know. There is now only one point which I have to add to what I have already stated. There, of course, must be provision made for a jointure to be given to the Princess of Wales in the event of the Princess surviving her husband. In the case of the Princess of Wales, the wife of George IV., the jointure was fixed at £50,000. We do not propose that in the present instance it should be to so high an amount. We think that £30,000 a year will be a sufficient amount; and therefore, though the allowance to the late Princess of Wales, during the joint lives of herself and her husband, was less than the amount stipulated for the present Princess, yet, putting one thing against the other, though the present allowance is greater, and I think not greater than it ought to be, the jointure will nevertheless be reduced to the amount I have named. I am not aware that I have anything to add to what I have already stated, and I now move the first Resolution.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he considered the proposition of the noble Lord to be moderate and reasonable, except that the information as to the Duchy of Cornwall on which the Vote was founded was not on the table of the House. They were placed in considerable difficulty in dealing with the matter, because the whole question turned upon the condition of the finances of the Duchy of Cornwall. A promise had been made the other night that the fullest information would be given; but, in the absence of that information, they were called upon to agree to a Resolution. It

503
appeared that £700,000 or more had been received from the Duchy in the course of the minority and that during the last twelve years £460,000 had been received as net revenue. He did not object to the allowance of £100,000 a year—that was a fair and reasonable charge, but, he repeated, the Committee was not in a position to form a judgment as to the charge to be made upon the Consolidated Fund until they had seen the accounts. He did not quite agree in the historical account given by the noble Viscount, because he did not believe that Frederick Prince of Wales, in 1737, had £100,000. He believed that the allowance on that occasion was £50,000 a year, and that it was not till some years had elapsed, and His Royal Highness had a family grown up, that he had £100,000 a year.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was not disposed to object to the proposition; but he trusted, that in addition to the Report promised by the noble Lord, there would be laid before the House a full account of the accumulation of funds effected during the minority.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought that the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall could, by good management, have been made to yield the whole of the required £100,000, without coming on the Consolidated Fund for £40,000. The Committee ought to remember that £16,000 a year- had been regularly paid over to the Prince during his minority. Besides which, the nation had voted £20,000 for Marlborough House, £6,000 for stables attached to the house, £17,000 for the Duchy of Cornwall Office, an allowance even for making him a Knight of the Garter, and for the trip to Canada. In fact, there had been a variety of charges during the minority of his Royal Highness, which made the expenses incurred on his behalf by the country not less during that period than £20,000 a year, and there was still an over plus of between £600,000 and £700,000; and he therefore hoped that the Committee would pause before they determined on the proposed addition to his Royal Highness's income out of the Consolidated Fund. With that large sum available, and with the rising revenues of the Duchy, which could not be set down at less than between £40,000 and £50,000 a year, of which £16,000 was paid over regularly from the Consolidated Fund, and therefore without any expense to the Duchy, there ought
504
to be a sufficient income. He was glad to hear that a Bill was to be introduced relating to the Duchy, because the necessity for it was shown by the fact that the expenses of management were about 20 per cent of the income, and that fact showed how expensive it was to provide for the Princes of the Royal family by landed estates. With regard to the dowry of the Princess of Wales, he thought it ought to be charged on the revenues of the Duchy, instead of on the Consolidated Fund. The revenues of the Duchy were so peculiar that he believed, on the death of a Prince of Wales, they would not go to a son, supposing he had one, but would revert to the Crown. It was quite clear that an additional revenue of £60,000 a year to the Sovereign would be altogether waste; and therefore he hoped the Government would consider whether it was not wise and just that the dower of the Princess of Wales should be settled on the revenues of the Duchy. ["Oh, oh!"] He wished to mention one or two other points. Was the Sandringham estate, which had been purchased out of the surplus accumulations of the revenues of the Duchy, to be regarded as the private property of the Prince of Wales, or was it to be settled in such a way that it should hereafter form, part of the public estate? He was endeavouring to point out incidents connected with the settlement, so as to prevent the public being unfairly charged with expenditure which ought not to fall upon them. He reserved to himself the privilege of making some suggestions in future.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I was in hopes that the Resolution before us might have been passed unanimously and without debate. But, as it has led to some unexpected, and I must say unnecessary, discussion, I think it my duty to express what I believe is the feeling on this side of the House, and, as I can hardly doubt, of the House generally. We are of opinion that the proposition made by Her Majesty's Government is a temperate and, as we presume, well-considered proposition. We trust that it will be adequate—no one can say that it is excessive. What has struck me as not very reasonable in the observations of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken is that they have brought forward the good management of the Duchy of Cornwall as a reason why we should not assent to this proposal. It appears to me that we ought to be

505
thankful for the successful administration of the Duchy, and not make it an argument for reduction in the Vote proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers. It is very possible that the Duchy may be even better managed in the future than it has been in the past. It is very probable that the rents and revenues of the Duchy may with time increase in the same manner as the rents of almost every other estate throughout the land. But I do not believe the country is disposed to grudge to His Ro5'al Highness the advantage of such increase. It is not at all impossible, with all his prudence and discretion, His Royal Highness may find the means of applying to a good use any increase that may occur. I hope the Committee will allow the Vote to pass, if not without a dissentient voice, at least without a dissentient Vote. If there are any points of detail in regard to the management of the Duchy on which any hon. Gentleman wishes to be informed and to offer his opinion, an opportunity will be afforded to him during the stages of the Bill which will be introduced to carry this Resolution into effect.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I wish to say on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that we admit the perfect fairness of the claim of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) and others to reserve their own private judgment on the proposition which has been so favourably received by the Committee generally until they have had an opportunity of examining carefully the Report of the Council on the Duchy which my noble Friend is tonight to lay on the table. I fully concur in the spirit of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). I think it is very desirable that the Committee should, as I do not doubt it will in the result, give a cheerful and undivided assent to this proposal. In order to prevent misunderstanding, it is necessary, however, that I should say a word or two of explanation on one or two points of detail. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham has impeached the accuracy of my noble Friend's history, and said that Frederick Prince of Wales did not obtain the allowance of £100,000 per annum from the Civil List until a later period than the year named by my noble Friend. The noble Lord named 1745, and it does so happen that his history was in a very minute point open to im-
506
peachment, for instead of Frederick Prince of Wales obtaining that allowance later than that year, he obtained it earlier—it was granted in 1743. However, I am more anxious to advert to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith). My hon. Friend holds that the jointure of the Princess of Wales ought to be charged upon the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. That might be a point of moment for consideration were we in circumstances in which, while we had a Prince of Wales and a Duke of Cornwall, there was a likelihood of our being without one to follow; but looking to the state of the Royal Family, no such contingency is, happily, to be apprehended; and I conceive, that so long as you have a Prince of Wales and a Duke of Cornwall to provide for, it is immaterial to the public purse whether the jointure is taken out of the revenues of the Duchy in the first instance, which would leave so much more to be provided from the Consolidated Fund, or whether the more simple, and, I am bound to add, the usual course, is taken, and the jointure charged on the Consolidated Fund. It would be well for the Committee to understand that, of course, the moderate sum which has been named by my noble Friend as the jointure for the Princess of Wales, will be a jointure for her own establishment. It is obvious it is not a jointure out of which it would be possible for any Princess of Wales to defray the very considerable expenses which may be connected with the education of children, and which would form a very legitimate subject of reference to this House. My hon Friend the Member for Truro was not entirely just in the observations he made with regard to the charges which, as he said, the Consolidated Fund had already had to bear on account of the Prince of Wales. It is quite true that we paid a large sum of money on account of Marlborough House. We had, however, value received. We had had the use of it for important public purposes, which would otherwise have cost a considerable sum of money during a number of years. We had taken great liberties with it; we had, in homely phrase, pulled it to pieces; and the sum the House voted was intended simply for the purpose of replacing Marlborough House in as good a condition as we had received it. Therefore, we are not in position to say that that sum was voted to the Prince of

507
Wales. The Vote for the tour in Canada and the United States has been mentioned, but the House will recollect the grounds on which the sum was voted. It was not voted in aid of the personal expenses of the Prince of Wales, but for the purpose of curtailing the expenditure which was undertaken by the Prince of Wales, while a minor, on behalf of her Majesty, and for purposes strictly political; and I may venture to say, whether we regard the journey in Canada or in the United States, and the reception the Prince there met with, it was money well laid out, and it forms no part whatever of the question the Committee has to consider on the proposition of my noble Friend. One other point, with still less justice, was referred to. It was said that the Prince of Wales receives £16,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund. No doubt he does; but what is the History of it. It is a composition in lieu of revenues of which the Prince of Wales would otherwise have been in receipt as the Duke of Cornwall. There were certain tin duties which were deemed inconvenient and oppressive; his right to them was as unquestionable as if they constituted a landed estate. It was thought expedient for the public interest, with a view to the extension of commerce, and especially with a view to the benefit of that part of the country which my hon. Friend represents, that those duties should be abolished; and the Prince of Wales receive compensation, exactly as any other proprietor would have received it. If so, it is perfectly obvious a consideration of that kind cannot possible enter into this discussion, because, to the full extent— nay, possibly to a greater extent, if that arrangement had not been made—he would have been receiving money on account of the tin duties to which he was entitled as the Duke of Cornwall. I am desirous of obviating the misapprehension that would prevail if it were supposed that that was a Vote in addition to the charge on the Consolidated Fund, whereas there is no foundation in fact for such a supposition.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he was surprised at the ignorance which prevailed on the Treasury bench with respect to some of the most important facts connected with the Duchy of Cornwall. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, seemed not to know what would become of the revenues of the Duchy on the death of
508
the Prince of Wales. He recollected on a former occasion, when a settlement was made on the Princess Royal, assuring the Prime Minister that, according to the peculiar tenure of the Duchy, on the death of the eldest son of the Sovereign, the property would revert to the Crown. On that occasion it was maintained that he was wrong, but it afterwards turned out that he was right, though no one in the House was aware of the fact he had stated except himself and his hon. Friend (Mr. Augustus Smith). But the point to which he wished to call attention was a passage in a celebrated speech delivered by Burke on economical Reform. Towards the end of that speech Burke proposed that the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster should be sold, and the proceeds handed over to the public exchequer. His object, no doubt, was to make the Crown dependent solely upon votes of Parliament for any sums of money it might require. The proposal of Mr. Burke might be carried out with advantage. There was plenty of room for improvement in the management of the Duchy property, which was spread over about ten or eleven counties. If the property were judiciously sold, the sales taking place at the right time, very large sums would be secured, and it would not be necessary for those who were in office, backed by those who expected to be in, to come forward with a proposal which would not be approved by the public out of doors. [Cries of No, no!] There was a time when the Conservatives were bold enough to propose the reduction of a grant of this sort, and he was sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite were so ready to acquiesce in the present proposal, not allowing the public feeling to have any weight with them. He joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon another point— namely, that the duties formerly payable on tin in Cornwall could fairly be regarded as the property of the Duchy. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in office when those duties were abolished, he would doubtless have said, "I am a Free-trader; I do not like duties on commodities; the tin duties in Cornwall ought to be abolished, because they are part of a bad system;" and, if consistent in his principles, he would have refused to give a charge of £16,000 upon the Consolidated Fund in lieu of them. But the right hon. Gentlemen now

509
twitted Cornishmen as if they alone had benefited by the abolition of the tin duties, forgetting his own doctrine that such taxes were paid by the consumers as well as by the producers. It was not his intention, however, to throw an apple of discord into the Committee on that occasion, and therefore he would not further oppose the Resolutions proposed by the noble Lord the First Minister, but he could not help expressing his regret that more attention had not been paid to the feelings and wishes of the public out of doors.
MR. KENDALLsaid, that in former times there was a very onerous local tax which crushed the tinners of Cornwall, but upon their application to Parliament a compromise was made, by which the £16,000 was charged on the Consolidated Fund, and while Cornwall was relieved, the public generally were also benefited. Such being the case, he very much regretted that any Cornishman should have spoken against an arrangement for which the county felt deeply grateful.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEobserved that his hon. Friend was somewhat unreasonable in complaining that the advice of Mr. Burke had not been taken. If that advice had been acted on in 1778, and the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster sold, Parliament would now have been called upon to provide the full amount of revenue which by common consent was necessary to maintain the dignity and station of the Prince of Wales. What was the case with respect to the Duchy of Cornwall? In the days of Burke the whole of the revenue was eaten up by those fastened upon the Duchy. He had been informed by a noble Lord, who had taken an active part in the management of the Duchy, that when the Council commenced their labours at the beginning of the present reign the net rental was no more than £12,000 a year, and that the expenses of management amounted to something like the same sum. By dint of good management, which formed another item in the debt of gratitude due to the memory of the Prince Consort, the income of the Duchy had been raised to £50,000 per annum, while the cost of management did not exceed between £7,000 and £8,000. That, he thought, was a sufficient reason why they ought to be glad that the advice of Mr. Burke was not followed by the Government of the day. But he had risen mainly to say that he totally disagreed
510
with the statement made by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny), that the public would grudge the Vote before the Committee. His impression was, on the contrary, that they would feel a sensation of agreeable surprise at the moderation of the proposal made by the Government. From what he had heard in conversation, he believed that the general opinion out of doors was that a much larger proposition would have been submitted to the House. The public, too, would rejoice at the intimation, voluntarily given, that for the future the income of the Duchy was not to be anticipated by grants of leases for life. If that power had been retained, the managers of the Duchy would have had the means of raising a very large sum of money, ultimately at the expense of the country, and he was persuaded that the announcement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give great satisfaction to the public at large.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask if the accumulations were to be regarded as the private property of the Prince, or whether they were to be treated as the property of the Duchy.
THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERstated that the accumulations having been made out of income which was legally the property of the Duchy of Cornwall, were of course to be regarded as belonging to the Prince of Wales, but their amount had been taken into view by the Government in considering the Vote before the Committee.
1. Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
That the annual sum of £40,000 be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, towards providing for the Establishment of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandra of Denmark, to commence from the Day of the Marriage of their Royal Highnesses.
2. Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
That the annual sum of £10,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the said Consolidated Fund, to be paid quarterly to Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, for Her sole and separate use, during the period of their Royal Highnesses' Marriage.
3. Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
That Her Majesty be enabled to secure to Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandra, in case she shall survive His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, an annual sum not exceeding £30,000 during Her life, to support Her Royal Dignity.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL— [BILLS 8.]—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He was induced to do so from the consideration that it was not a measure calculated to present a specimen of an electoral law worthy of the country. He was perfectly well aware that he might subject himself to certain taunts from his right hon. Friend below him, that he could not see any perfection in any measure except that particular measure which he had often brought before the attention of this House; but he could assure his right hon. Friend, that if he would produce any measure that should be effective in putting down the corruption of the electoral system, whatever that measure might be, he would throw aside all his preconceived opinions, and lend him his warmest cooperation. Now, the Bill (for he supposed it was in the form of a Bill) had been an Act of Parliament ever since the Earl of Aberdeen's administration. At that time there was an election, which was so corrupt that the Earl of Aberdeen expressed the opinion that our electoral system was such that nobody could well be enamoured of it. So flagrant were the acts committed during that election, which was a fierce contest between the parties on each side of this House, that it was thought necessary to do something, or to pretend to do something, to abate the evil. A Committee of that House was formed, consisting of a great many lawyers, and on their recommendation the Government of the day formed this Act of Parliament. Since that time it had been our electoral law. It had been tried; it had been weighed in the balance and found wanting; it was now found not only perfectly useless, but it was literally the laughingstock of every attorney's clerk. This Bill was now in the hands of his right hon. Friend. The objections he had to it might be concisely stated. In the first place, he objected to its principle, which was to punish the elector, and not the candidate. It was in every way to protect the candidate, and to such an extent was that carried that with common care and attention any candidate's seat, do what he might, except personally or through one agent, was perfectly safe. Now, in the first place, her Majesty's Government thought proper to alter the law of agency,
512
and by it nowadays the candidate was ordered to name his agent or agents, by whose acts he must stand or fall. To illustrate his meaning, he would suppose that Brown was named the agent. That being so, all that Brown would have to do would be to keep his hands clean and to take care that through him directly the candidate was drawn into no illegal proceeding. Meantime, however, Jones and Robinson, not being agents in the sense laid down in the Bill, might do as they pleased, and the candidate would not be held responsible for their acts. When the measure containing a provision which so operated had first been proposed, an analysis of it, to which were affixed the initials of the late Mr. James Coppock—than whom no man was better versed in election law —appeared in The Times newspaper, and his expression in relation to the clause was, "When the House of Commons passes it, the country will know what to believe;" while the journal in which the analysis was published summed up its estimate of the Bill with the words, "It is evident this is one of those pompous professions which are meant to be inoperative." Nothing could, in his opinion, be more just than that view, and what, he would ask, was the sugar-plum which induced the House of Commons to swallow so noxious a dose? It was the curtailment of the election expenses, the doing away with bands and other causes of outlay, in lieu of which the candidate might, by good management, indulge in illegal expenditure at discretion without running any risk. Such was the way in which the Bill dealt with the question of agency, but how did it provide against corruption generally and intimidation? Everybody knew that one of the most effectual modes of corruption was treating, and that the most successful mode of treating was the giving breakfasts to the electors on the morning of the day on which the poll was to take place. A stranger, for example, in company with some person well known in the locality, went into the house of a licensed victualler—he was speaking on the evidence of facts which had come within his own knowledge—in the town in which the election was to be held, and said to him, "I want forty breakfasts at seven o'clock on the election morning." The innkeeper, pulling off his hat, replied, "Certainly, Sir; the breakfasts shall be provided." The breakfasts were provided; they were duly eaten by a corresponding number of

513
electors at the appointed hour, who went to the poll early, and thus opened the proceedings with an éclat which had its effect throughout the day; while if those breakfasts were not given to them, they would get breakfast at their own homes, would probably continue at work during the first half of the day, and then go to the poll after dinner. But the men who were breakfasted had another advantage. Their employers in the factory or the shipyards, or the overlookers, told them, "There is an election to-morrow," and they were excused the whole day; but their wages were paid. Now, was that bribery, or was it not? And they did not interfere with it by the Bill. Thus they went on, blindly satisfying themselves with ineffective legislation, and imagining that everybody else was satisfied. So much, then, for the law of agency and the way in which they abandoned corruption to take care of itself. Let them look now at what they had done with intimidation—a subject on which there was no division of opinion that it was the great evil of our electoral system. He knew that hon. Gentlemen who did not think proper to go with much minuteness into the question considered intimidation a part of the due influence of property. He was unable to consider it in that light, but rather as connected with the undue influence of property. Well, what did they propose to do on that subject by the Bill? They had proposed a wretched clause by which they said they would fine any individual who should affect with loss a man for giving his vote. Thus, if they took their custom away from the butcher, or baker, or turned a tenant out of his house, the aggrieved party might recover a penalty; but the recovery of the penalty was dependent upon the specific offence of the customer or the landlord making the giving of the vote the reason why he so acted. Could anything be more ridiculous? To show, indeed, how easily the provision could be evaded, it was sufficient to refer to what occurred after the late election for East Kent, when a landlord gave a tenant notice to quit, but added, "Take notice that it is not because you voted against my wishes at the election." That was, indeed, a state of things upon which, as was said by the late Sir Robert Peel and Lord Macaulay, they could not legislate. They could not legislate against a man for discharging or getting rid of his tradesman or of his tenant; and
514
if they attempted to do it, they would be guilty of injustice. The Bill, then, would do nothing with regard to intimidation; and he thought, as the Government were pleased to reject the measure which he particularly advocated, and which he believed would be effective, they were bound to give the country a Bill that would at least palliate the evils of the present system. The last clause, by which the auditor was done away with, might be beneficial, but the Bill was so rotten and so had that he had thought it necessary to call it to the attention of the House. It was not his intention, however, to ask for a division upon his Motion, but he had done his duty in bringing it forward, and he told the Government that under cover of this Act of Parliament at the next election, whenever that election should come, the richest party would win.
MR. M'MAHONcomplained that the Bill repealed parts of several Acts of Parliament, leaving only one or two sections or half sections in force, and suggested that it would be desirable in Committee so to alter the clauses as to repeal the entire Acts, and re-enact in the Bill those provisions which it was thought desirable to retain in force, and thus consolidate the Law into one general statute.
LORD HENLEYexpressed his approval of the Bill generally. The auditorship, so called, had been a farce, and he was glad that it was abolished. He considered, however, that the provision that paid agents should not vote at elections was too stringent, and would produce greater evils than arose from the existing system. As it was necessary in contested elections to poll as many votes as possible, each candidate would have either to bring his attorneys, messengers, and doorkeepers from some other town, or to employ the relations only of voters, themselves having no votes, or else to give notice to all his agents that he would not pay them, and leave it to be understood that if elected he would exert his patronage to obtain places for them.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not but venture to think that the annual discussion upon bribery and intimidation was neither more nor less than an annual farce. It was very much like the annual discussions which took place upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol in reference to the ballot. The fact was, it led to no good result. The difficulty

515
arose from the fact that neither in or out of the House was there any feeling that the act of bribery involved any moral culpability. That was the secret of the whole thing. The speeches on these occasions were very much like platform speeches, which in almost all cases had no meaning in them. The hon. Member for Bristol's great objection seemed to be that the candidate would escape detection and punishment, but the electors would not. And he said that it was perfectly impossible for the House to put an end to bribery and intimidation. The noble Lord the Member for Northampton gave the House to understand that in a contested election where matters were run hard everything was fair. After such expressions of opinion from two Liberal Members, was he overstating the case in maintaining that legislation such as the present was altogether a farce? It appeared to him that there was another view of the subject, which was always omitted upon these occasions. It was an old principle that charity ought to begin at home. Now, without entering upon a discussion whether that was a sound moral principle or not, he would ask the House to let justice begin at home? And how had the House proceeded in this matter? It appeared that a person keeping a post-office, with a wretched salary of £4 a year, was not allowed to vote, from a belief that some imaginary temptations to corruption were thereby guarded against. What must be the feeling of those men when they saw noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen in receipt of as many thousands as they had pounds giving votes in direct opposition to their public pledges? Was that justice? Was it a fair way of dealing with the people of this country? The whole proceeding was monstrous. A messenger rendered services for the remuneration which he received, and yet he, too, was to he precluded from voting, though gentlemen in the enjoyment of large pensions, and whose services it would be hard to define, were freely allowed to sit in that House and vote. A stronger case than any he had previously mentioned was afforded by the "testimonials" which hon. Members were allowed to receive. The gifts dignified by that name were neither more nor less than money paid for the price of a particular vote, and the Member receiving them was unmistakably bound to continue to vote in the same spirit. As long as
516
such a system was upheld, they were bound in consistency to allow voters to receive every shilling they possibly could for their vote.
MR. POWELLsaid, he rose to express his regret, that while he could not support the Motion of which the hon. Member for Bristol had given notice, he could only give the second reading of the Bill a qualified support. He did not desire the Bill to be rejected, because (the measure being a continuation Bill) the country would thereby he deprived of some useful provisions which it contained. The Bill was, however, defective both in form and substance, and contained some clauses which were unnecessarily harsh, and to which he decidedly objected. The Bill was decidedly inferior to the measure introduced last Session by the right hon. Gentleman. That was to some extent a Consolidation Act, and as such very desirable, but the Bill before the House would merely add one more to the sixty or seventy Acts of Parliament to he found in the statute-book professing to regulate the election of Members of Parliament. That was a great evil in itself. If it were for the benefit of all classes that the law on the subject should be well defined and easily ascertained, it must be especially so in the case of Acts regulating the exercise of the franchise by great masses of the people. Now, however, if an elector wished to learn the obligations imposed upon him by the Legislature, he was bound to commence with the reign of Edward I., and to continue his examination of the statute-book down, and in-including the various Acts passed in the present reign. The right hon. Gentleman doubtless hoped, by avoiding the question of consolidation in the present Bill, to escape the innumerable Amendments which clustered round the measure of last year. But that was not a mode in which the Government or the House ought to legislate on topics so deeply affecting the people. It was rather a mockery of legislation, and he therefore hoped the present was merely intended to operate as a temporary arrangement, until the advisers of the Government had time to frame a Consolidation Act. There were also grave omissions from the Bill. It legislated at the wrong end, for, containing as it did very stringent provisions with regard to offending electors and constituencies, it failed to touch the root of the evil. If constituencies were corrupt, who corrupted

517
them? If electors were bribed, who found the money? The candidates in truth; and among those candidates some, of course, were returned to that House. Before the Committee which sat on this subject two years ago several suggestions and propositions for meeting that difficulty were made, but the right hon. Gentleman had not adopted any of these; he contented himself with proposing what had hitherto been found inoperative in practice. But his objections were not limited to the omissions from the Bill. To one proposition introduced into the Bill he decidedly objected, representing as he did a constituency which had suffered by anticipation from the effect of such a clause. It would be in the recollection of the House that after the last general election commissions of inquiry appointed to examine into corrupt practices at Wakefield and Gloucester reported that at Gloucester, with a population of 17,000 and a constituency of 1,700, there were between 300 and 400 corrupt electors; and that at Wakefield, with 950 electors, there were 250 corrupt voters. The House on that occasion adopted a course which, speaking with the greatest humility, he ventured to think was unconstitutional. Of its own mere motion, without intending or professing to legislate, it took on itself to suspend the issue of the writs in both those boroughs, thereby confounding the corrupt with the incorrupt and punishing the innocent with the guilty. After an interval of two years the House, as indiscriminate in its mercy as in its severity, allowed the writs to issue once more, without restriction or legislation, although it knew the name of every person guilty of corruption in either place. It was contrary to every principle of justice to disfranchise the guilty and the innocent alike. There was not the least necessity for it. The commissions upon the Gloucester and Bristol elections were to all intents and purposes judicial inquiries; they were presided over by men of a great deal of judicial experience, and were armed by statute with great powers. They were, in fact, actual trials of the guilt of the persons who were brought before them; and if the Commissioners reported that certain persons were guilty of corrupt practices, and certain others were not, what justice could there be in disfranchising the whole constituency; and thus involving the innocent in the punishment of the guilty?
518
The Commissioners reported that at Gloucester there were a number of gentlemen who had for many years associated themselves together for the express purpose of insuring purity of election, and that they had been sometimes successful, as for instance in 1852, when they brought about a perfectly pure and free election. But because those gentlemen had not always succeeded, and because in a large constituency a comparatively small number of persons were corrupt, those gentlemen who had so greatly exerted themselves to secure purity of election would, nevertheless, be disfranchised by the Bill. That was a grave matter, and he ventured to say that a Bill with such a clause in it would prove inoperative, for the reason that all would be desirous of evading the law. He believed that a more futile measure had never been presented to the House of Commons. The fact was, they were taking too much trouble with the subject, and were seeking by a complex machinery to do that which might be done by a very simple process, which was to excise from the register and disfranchise inexorably not only every one who took, but every one who gave a bribe. With the view of providing for such a course of proceeding, he would propose Amendments in Committee.
MR. PHILLIPSsaid, he thought that much might be done to mitigate bribery, and that every one's experience would satisfy him that the expenses of elections were a great deal heavier before the Corrupt Practices Act than they had been since. Sums were formerly spent on elections to which recent times afforded no parallel. Absolute extirpation, of the evil it was impossible to effect, but they ought not to rest under the reproach of not attempting to do what they could. The House would act imprudently if it would not give a second reading to the Bill, and its defects might be amended in Committee. There was this check upon bribery, that every one who practised it extensively fined himself. In many cases candidates had gone down to boroughs with the bonâ fde intention of paying no money unduly, arid yet they were made responsible by persons over whom they had no control. It was therefore found necessary to provide a check for this practice. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Powell), that the proper remedy for

519
bribery was disfranchisement. On the other hand, the House ought not to confound the innocent with the guilty, for if any severe penal enactments were attempted, the Bill would fail. He trusted that the Bill would be read a second time.
MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, that having much considered the subject, and having heard a great deal of evidence on corrupt practices, he was convinced that the clauses of the Bill would have a very valuable effect in repressing corrupt practices. He did not agree with those who objected to the second clause, which was designed to stop up a very extensive source of corruption—namely, the employment in the business of the election of a number of persons whose services were required only for the purpose of securing their votes. The second clause was, in his opinion, the most valuable in the Bill. The tenth clause was also valuable, for nothing could be more futile than a pretence on the part of the Legislature to discourage bribery and intimidation, and yet to employ a machinery so cumbrous that in not more than one case in a hundred could the law be carried out. He did not concur with the hon. Member for Gloucester that there was injustice in suspending the writs of places guilty of corrupt practices. It was an ancient and equitable principle to hold a community infected by any crime responsible, and that, it was well known, was done in the ease of the hundreds. Thus it would be the interest of the leaders of parties to prevent corruption becoming extensive and systematic. He was of opinion that the Bill had some very valuable provisions, and that the House would do well to read it a second time.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he thought the Bill was not likely to be valuable to any but the Government; who, having lost the name of reformers by abandoning reform, were desirous of doing something to win the name back again. There were many forms of bribery which the measure in no way touched. He would explain a very common form of bribery, by reference to an actual occurrence. When a Gentleman now representing a county in that House had stood for it, all persons, except one gentleman, had thought he had no chance of being returned. That one person said that the hon. Gentleman would be returned, and
520
stated the majority by which he would gain the election. He was returned by a majority within two of the number named. Upon the individual who prophesied the result being asked how he had been able to predict it so accurately, he said that he held the maxim that politics had nothing whatsoever to do with an election; and he merely considered in which way it would be for the interest of persons to vote; that attorneys gave as many mortgages as possible to the surrounding farmers. It was then the interest of the candidate to retain the attorney for the sake of those over whom he had a hold. The attorney received his daily fee, and accompanied the candidate. If the voter was recalcitrant, the attorney said he was in want of money, and must call in the mortgage; and as a renewal of the mortgage would put the farmer to a great expense, the attorney was sure to be bought off by a promise of the vote. This sort of influence was not touched by the Bill. There were many other modes of bribery not touched by the measure. He would, for example, refer to the influence of Lords Lieutenant of counties. A person had been elected as captain in a volunteer corps, and had applied to the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Kent, the present Lord Chamberlain of the Household, to give him the nomination. The Lord Lieutenant, he had been informed, refused, observing that the person in question was a mere costermonger, for he had twice been chairman of the election committee of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Chatham. This person afterwards he-came High Constable of Chatham, and gave a grand dinner to a noble Lord, an eminent Minister of that House, who was brother-in-law to the Lord Lieutenant. After which, the commission so much sought by the person in question was very soon granted. Then, again, a Minister might barter his patronage for votes, and squander the interests of the country in order to benefit a faction. If the Minister were of a cool and cautious temperament, a significant gesture, or a whisper over the shoulder, might be quite sufficient to obtain the desired object; or the Minister might be of a more jovial turn of mind—might love hilarity and good cheer, and become most liberal with his patronage when his cheek was flushed with wine, and his heart was warmed by unwonted fire, and his tongue loosed with unaccustomed eloquence. He would

521
mention a fact that had occurred on October 29, at Chatham. As it concerned the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, he had given him notice of his intention to refer to it. The noble Lord went down to Chatham when every one thought a general election was impending, and took with him his brother-in-law, Mr. Otway. Mr. Otway had been rejected by Tynemouth, Stafford, and Chatham, and was again likely to become a candidate for Chatham. At the public dinner the noble Lord made a speech. The noble Lord commenced by apologizing for his appearing there at all; representing, as he did, "another part of the county, the different constituencies of which were like families, somewhat jealous of each other;" for he had not yet visited his own constituency, when he went to Chatham to canvass for Otway. He then went on to say, he might be asked why he had come to Chatham. Now, that was a pertinent question. But the noble Lord himself had answered the query by saying "he went in obedience to superior orders; he had heard a voice saying, 'Paget, you are wanted at Chatham.' "
Now, that voice could be no other than that of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government; no one would have ventured to make such large promises as the noble Lord made, without the noble Viscount's authority. The noble Secretary of the Admiralty, however, went on to tell his hearers that "Chatham was about to become one of the most important naval stations in the kingdom." Now, that was a proposition involving probably the expenditure of millions, and of course met with "loud cheers" from the electors of Chatham. The noble Secretary then told them that Chatham was "about to possess the most magnificent arsenal that England, or, in fact, all the world, had ever possessed;" that "the basin accommodation of Chatham would surpass the whole of the boasted basin accommodation of France put together." This was, no doubt, a very good way of conciliating the electors of Chatham, but was not calculated to win the favour of the taxpayers of England. It was for the House to say whether these great works were to be constructed, and those large sums expended. It was not for the noble Secretary to make promises in our name, which we were only to ratify and fulfil. The House was not to be let into the secret of its future conduct by a
522
speech of a Secretary to an after-dinner audience in a dockyard; as if the House were unworthy to be more than that Minister's instrument. But the noble Secretary went somewhat further than that, by telling his audience, the electors of Chatham, that they had no fear of France, for that England "was never in a better position to enter into war nor with a navy in a more efficient state." That speech was certainly not complimentary to the French; nay, it was insulting to them. Although, indeed, the braggadocio may have been in reality directed, not to the conquest of France, but to the corruption of Chatham. Or if it were said in excuse that this speech was merely an after-dinner indiscretion, then it was another instance of what was so common last year—namely, "ministerial mudlarking." After those lugubrious civilities had passed at Chatham, the noble Lord returned to London with his brother-in-law by a special train. Now he (Lord Robert Montagu) should like to know how that train was paid for? Perhaps that transaction was quietly managed by a draw upon the civil contingencies? or, seeing that it was after dinner and wine, was it paid by a vote in excess? He mentioned those facts for the purpose of showing one way by which a Minister might bribe the electors without being restrained by the proposed Bill. Some just remarks had been made, in regard to intimidation. He gathered from the public prints that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty was accused of having intimidated some of the electors of Totnes into voting for the man of his choice. He had been informed that the noble Duke had issued a threat to turn the electors out of their holdings and deprive them of their cowsheds. He also saw in the leading journal an extract from a local paper stating that "Mr. J. Fender had placed the magnificent sum of £1,000 at the disposal of a committee in order to be applied to the general welfare of the inhabitants of Totnes." But that "the gift had not been promulgated because the election was going on," but the writer of the paragraph said "he saw no reason why it should any longer be kept a secret." Such were the acts of Liberal Members. It was only the name of "Reformers" which' screened them from the ire of the people. He put it to the House to say whether the Bill would, in the least, restrain bribery and corruption from being practised in the three

523
or four modes he had pointed not; and whether the sole object of the Government in bringing it forward was not to recover for themselves an empty reputation as Reformers? For any other end he thought the Bill would be wholly inoperative.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he should support the second reading, he-cause he believed the Bill would effect an important amendment of the law, while he thought that its rejection would have the effect of throwing the whole law in respect to bribery into confusion.
MR. PACKEsaid, no person was more opposed to bribery than himself. He would, therefore, cordially support the second reading of the Bill. There was, however, one clause very comprehensive indeed, inasmuch as it took within its provisions every agent, attorney, poll-clerk, messenger, and other person employed at elections. It should, however, be recollected that there were many persons employed at elections who were not interested for either of the candidates. It ought to be carefully considered whether those parties, however neutral, ought to he included in the general charge. He totally disagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Powell) as to the operation of the 11th clause. He thought that that clause conveyed a wholesome warning to constituents against bribery. But there was another class of persons who sinned in a different way. He was concerned some years ago in the investigation of a serious riot, arising from the circumstance that voters had been prevented going to poll in consequence of the crowds of non-electors that assembled round the doors of public-houses, which were kept open during the whole time in close proximity to the polling-places. He thought much mischief might be prevented by requiring those public places to be kept closed during the days of nomination and voting.
SIR GEORGE GREY:—As the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) has waived his objection to the second reading of the Bill, it will only be necessary for me to advert to some of the objections made to particular clauses. I readily admit that the Bill will not put a complete and effectual stop to all corrupt practices at elections. I am not presumptuous enough to suppose that I could frame a measure which would achieve that result. As long as human nature remains as it is,
524
as long as there are objects of ambition to be sought after, and persona willing to accept bribes, it will be impossible for any law entirely to prevent corruption. All that can be done is to render bribery as difficult as possible, the detection of bribery as easy as possible, and the punishment of offenders as certain as possible. The noble Lord opposite, who professes to be conversant with all the arts of bribery and corruption, practised in county elections, said he would undertake to evade the Bill in fifty different ways. That may be quite possible; but although we cannot do everything by legislation, that is no reason why we should not attempt to do anything. I do not claim credit for any originality in this measure. It is based on the Resolutions of the Committee of the House which considered and reported upon the Acts in operation some three years ago. A complaint has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Powell) that the Bill is directed rather against electors than candidates; but in that respect it has followed the recommendations of the Committee, and I think he has not drawn the distinction between those recommendations and proposals that were made and rejected. An hon. Member made a proposal in the Committee, to require a declaration from Candidates, but it was not pressed to a vote. With respect to the clause disqualifying agents, I have to observe that it was contained in a former Act, and evidence was given before the Committee that its omission from the last Act has led to a great deal of bribery. Since the Bill has been printed I have received letters testifying to the importance of the clause, and stating that large numbers of electors have been employed in some places as messengers or in some such capacity to influence their votes. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) has complained that we have disfranchised country postmasters who may not receive more than £4 a year from the State, while leaving in possession of their votes persons in receipt of fixed incomes from the public revenue. I do not propose any change in the law with regard to the holders of post-offices. Their exclusion is part of the existing law which was in force in the last century, which prohibits all persons engaged in the collection of public revenue from voting for Members of Parliament. It is obvious, on the other hand, that retired officers and others in receipt of fixed incomes

525
not held at the pleasure of the Crown may be quite as independent as any other persons in the country. There is no analogy between them and those employed in the collection of revenue. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Mr. Serjeant Pigott) as to the clause which provides a new mode of dealing with the reports of Commissions of Inquiry, when those Commissions report that extensive bribery has prevailed in certain constituencies. I also agree with the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Powell) that the course pursued by the House as to the writs for Wakefield and Gloucester was open to objection. For this House, without the authority of law, to continue the suspension of writs for any considerable period, is a course which I think should not be encouraged. What is now proposed is that the House should be empowered by law to suspend writs for a limited period in cases where corruption, though not universal, is general and extensive. I believe such a provision, if enacted, would create a general desire in a borough to prevent bribery and corruption, and would induce persons of influence, instead of looking on such practices with indifference, to exert themselves to put down all illegal practices. Some proof of this is efforded by the fact that no complaint of bribery or corruption has been made with regard to the last elections for Gloucester and Wakefield. The hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) said, that in amending any Act we should take the opportunity to consolidate the whole law on the subject. An attempt of that kind was made last Session; but, as has been already said, a number of Amendments clustered round every clause, and I believe it would be found impossible within any reasonable time to pass such a measure through the House. I have, therefore, thought it better to make this Bill more moderate in its pretensions, embodying in it the main provisions recommended by the Select Committee, I am glad to find that the Motion for the second reading meets with the general assent of the House, and I trust that when we go into Committee the Amendments will be discussed with an earnest desire to make the law as effective as possible.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had not objected to the officers on half-pay having votes; but what he said was, that
526
so long as Members of that House, receiving large salaries and pensions, had votes in that House, it was a hard measure to prevent a post-office employé in. a country town from exercising his right of voting.
MR. BRADYsaid, he had consistently opposed the Bills which had been introduced on the subject, as he did not believe that the House was honest in its desire to put down bribery. If it were, it would punish, not the offending electors, but those who bribed them.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHmaintained that all illegal payments should be made bribery, and punished accordingly. He announced his intention to propose some Amendments in Committee.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday next.

UNION RELIEF AID ACT (1862) CONTINUANCE BILL.

  [BILL 17.] SECOND READING.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill. The policy of the Act which this Bill sought to continue had been discussed a few nights since, when several suggestions, as the House would remember, were made by hon. Members well entitled to speak upon the subject. Their observations were not opposed to the principle or the purpose of the Bill, but were chiefly intended to render legislation upon it more complete. He had promised, at the time, that the suggestions then made should receive the fullest attention of the Government, and that he would take an early opportunity of stating the course it was intended to pursue. As time was pressing, the Act expiring on the 1st of March, it would perhaps be convenient that he should then state what it was proposed to do. The first suggestion was made by the noble Lord the Member for Kings Lynn (Lord Stanley), who, founding his opinion upon what he considered was their imperfect experience of this Act, and the uncertain character of the circumstances that had led to its necessity, recommended that the period of its continuance provided for in the Bill should be shortened. That suggestion was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), and others, including the hon. Member for North Lancashire, who were of opinion that the whole subject should receive a more de-

  527
  liberate consideration during the present Session. Since then he had had many communications from the districts most affected, and he had received an important deputation that had waited upon him upon the subject; and he was bound to say there was a general concurrence of opinion that the time should be limited, be as to admit of another discussion. He had not changed his own opinion, because he believed that the more experience they had of the Act, and the more they reflected upon the circumstances which had led to its enactment, the more they would see that a longer continuance would be necessary. But as he believed it would be re-enacted, and not wishing to expose himself to the charge of desiring to save himself trouble, he was not disposed to resist the general feeling in favour of further curtailing the duration of the Bill. He therefore proposed that the Act should be renewed only for the next two quarters, and that about June, when it would expire, the House should have an opportunity of renewing the Act or of allowing it to cease. Another suggestion had also been made, which he thought had received even more general support than the last, and that was that the period for repayment of loans should be extended over a greater number of years. When the power to raise money by loans was first conferred upon the boards of guardians, some apprehensions were entertained lest the power of borrowing might influence the guardians, in their mode of administering the Law, and some persons, indeed, thought that the distress was hardly sufficient to warrant such exceptional legislation, and that it would probably cease before Parliament met again. In that hope they had been disappointed, for the prospects were hardly better than they were at the close of last Session, and in some respects perhaps they were more gloomy, but he was bound to say, from all the information he had collected, that the Act had not had the smallest effect in producing irregularity or rendering the administration of the Poor Law by the guardians more lax. The manner in which the Poor Law had been administered during the last six months had shown no disposition to neglect the rules and orders under which the guardians usually acted, and there had been almost an indisposition to avail themselves of the
  528
  new powers conferred upon them. Under these circumstances he could not feel any scruple in conferring further facilities upon the ratepayers to enable them better to meet the extraordinary charge thrown upon them by this peculiar distress; and he was ready to accede to the proposition which seemed to unite the greatest amount of opinion in its favour, which was, that the annual instalment paid with a view to the liquidation of the debt should be one fourteenth, instead of one-seventh; or, in other words, that the period for repayment of the money should be extended from seven to fourteen years. He believed that this might further encourage the unions to borrow money where there was an excess of expenditure, or perhaps strengthen the disposition which had already been shown to raise money in that way, rather than by seeking contributions in aid from other unions. There was only one other alteration in the Bill which he would propose, and that was rather the correction of an error in the original Act than any real change. In the 5th section it was provided that unions whose expenditure for the relief of the poor reached 3s. in the pound should not be required to contribute to other distressed unions; but, in consequence of the peculiar wording of the clause, it had been held that they were not entitled to include as expenditure for the relief of the poor contributions which they had been called upon to make to other unions. Such could not have been the intention of Parliament, and he proposed therefore in this respect to amend the section in the original Act. With these alterations, from information he had received, he thought he was justified in believing that those who were most interested in the subject would allow the Bill to be now read a second time, and to pass subsequently, and postpone to a future day any discussion upon other points. Even any discussion on points connected with the particular Bill would, he trusted, not be pressed then, but would be reserved for the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he for one was not at all desirous of offering any obstacle to the progress of the Bill. He had stated, on a former occasion, that he believed that a renewal of the Act of last Session was necessary, and he felt bound to tender his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in

  529
  which he had met most of the objections raised upon the former occasion. But he could not conceal from the right hon. Gentleman that he had not met all the objections to the present Bill. He had, by his Amendments, met two of the chief objections, but there was another with which he had not dealt, which was well worthy of his consideration. Last Session his right hon. Friend said he preferred a rate in aid to a simple loan raised upon the security of the rates of the township or union, because it was more in accordance with the Act of Elizabeth; and the noble Lord the first Lord of the Treasury, said, that as the land in Lancashire had reaped the benefit of its proximity to the manufacturing districts, it ought to be called upon to assist in bearing the burden before help was demanded from any other part of the country. No doubt that was a just principle to lay down; but when the Act came into operation, it was found that the rate fell exclusively upon the tenants and occupiers, and not upon the landlords. His constituents said with truth, that though the farms and houses which they occupied had been enhanced in value by their situation, yet in taking them the occupiers had always to give their full value for them, and all the advantages of situation were considered in the rent. Lancashire farmers were thus in no better position than farmers in any other part of England. It was true that they had a better market for their produce than some possessed. But they paid for that advantage in their rent, and they thought it very hard, therefore, that the distressed unions should come upon them. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would consider that matter well before the Bill came into Committee. He was himself a landlord, and his interest thus lay the other way, but he thought there was much reason in the argument which he had mentioned; and if his right hon. Friend would only accede to the proposal which he had made last year, the objection would be met. There was another matter which, he trusted, would be maturely considered. His right hon. Friend should give more easy powers of raising the money than now existed, and then he should go a little further and enable the unions to take advantage of an Act of 1848, in which the Exchequer Loan Commissioners were empowered to ad-
  530
  vance money for works connected with the health of towns, and one or two other objects The unions were allowed to raise money for fourteen years, but there was always a disadvantage in getting money in that way. In proof he might state that the banks of Manchester had refused to lend money to the different unions upon the terms of the Act, as being contrary to their principles of business; and the consequence was, that the limits within which the unions could borrow money being contracted, they had to pay a higher rate of interest than would be otherwise necessary. The lowest rate they were paying was 4½per cent; but if they were allowed to borrow under the Act of 1848, they would be able to raise money at 4 per cent. Another grievance was, that unions which had paid a comparatively heavy rate should be called upon to afford assistance to unions which for a number of years had paid a much lower rate. For instance, one union which had to pay a rate of more than 2s. was now called upon to afford aid to unions whose average rate of relief for many years past had been 7d., 9d., 10 d., or 11 d. Such unions complained that it was very hard that in these bad times they should be obliged to help those who had been so much better off than they were themselves. With regard to the complaint of the occupiers which he had already mentioned, it might be said, "Let the landlords come forward and pay the increased rates." But during the last six months the landlords had voluntarily contributed a rate in aid greater by an immense amount than any rate which they would be called on to pay as landlords. He thought that the rate in aid should in justice cease, and that on the other hand greater facilities should be given to the guardians to raise the necessary funds by loan.
  MR. GREGSONsaid, he must beg to compliment the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken upon the part he had taken during the distress, and the time and attention which he had bestowed upon the work of relief. It was important that the House should consider the circumstances in which the distressed districts were placed, and the prospect that existed of a termination or diminution of the distress. If the calamitous war which unhappily raged in America were to end immediately, of course they would receive

  531
  a supply of cotton to employ the operatives for the present; but, looking at the uncertain continuance of slavery in the South, the question presented itself whether they could prudently retain so many thousands of people in the cotton trade, expecting their former full and permanent employment at satisfactory wages? Again, if the war should continue, though other countries would send increased supplies of cotton, there was little prospect of a supply sufficient to employ all the operatives as before; and therefore, instead of remaining in hopeless and demoralizing idleness, would it not be kind and wise to recommend some portion of them to look out for other employment? Another question arose whether, if, as was now expected, they were receiving cotton enough to give work for three or four days in the week, the production would not be ample for the consumption of the world, especially as that consumption must necessarily be checked by an increase of price. That was a third reason for seeking other fields of labour for many of the cotton operatives. That the production of our cotton manufacturers had been too abundant was generally admitted. On that point he had received a letter from Calcutta, dated December 8, 1862, in which the writer said—
  "I do not think that people at home take into due consideration the extreme incredulity of the natives here in any representations made to make them pay more than they are accustomed to do for goods of any kind. They have no idea (up country at least) of the extent and reality of the cotton famine; they believe it is all got up by the Feringhees to get money out of them, and they will not give the long prices now asked, unless under very extreme pressure. I believe them to be very much better prepared to hold out for a year than the poor of England are. A decently respectable poor man here will give up to a certain price for cloth enough for a change of raiment, but will rather go without the change— aye, and will rather wear his dhootie for six months longer—than give an anna more for his cloth; and remember that clothing in this country is not such a necessity as in Europe, and that an enormous proportion of those who consume our English cotton goods, are people who will much sooner go all but naked than pay for such cloth a price which makes a hole in the proportion set aside for purchase of food. I mean to say, after this, that consumption has been so very seriously affected, apparently by the high prices, that it is Vain to count upon it with any certainty at all. I believe, from all that I can gather and all I see, that prices will advance very little indeed while the natives know we have such stocks here."
  Instead of allowing the people to remain in idleness and to some extent in demoralization, it appeared to him they should
  532
  be recommended to seek employment elsewhere. The supply of cotton from India depended very much on the continuance of high prices. He had seen a very curious document the other day—namely, a bond from the Southern States of America for 50,000lb. of Orleans cotton, at 6d. per lb., deliverable at any port of shipment, free of export duty, forty days after the presentation of the bond. He thought the purchase of such bonds would be a good speculation, and was himself rather tempted to buy one. By these bonds the South was enabled to obtain the sinews of war.
  GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he considered the limitation of the Act to six months as very judicious. At the expiration of that period its provisions could be much more satisfactorily discussed, after the information and experience which its full operation would afford. He fully concurred in the objections which had been urged to the working of the rate in aid. He had presented a petition from the board of guardians of Wigan, where the local contributions for the distressed unions had been extremely liberal, where the rates had been kept down below the maximum of 3s. in the pound, and where they had hitherto been able to keep their people as well, if not better, than those in other towns of Lancashire. But they now found themselves called upon, being a distressed union themselves, to pay for other distressed unions. This was felt to be a very considerable grievance by the small class of shopkeepers, whose poor rates would be increased; and the hardship was felt all the more because the cotton business in Wigan was comparatively very small. He trusted that the right bon. Gentleman would turn his attention to this subject.
  MR. E. C. EGERTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the sixth clause of the Act of last Session which constituted a special grievance on some of the unions in Cheshire. It declared that where the union applying for aid shall extend into two or more counties, the contribution in aid shall come from that county in which the greater part of the union is situated; and where the union required to contribute shall be situated in two or more counties, it shall only contribute in that county in which the greater part of it shall be situated. Now, any one reading the clause would imagine that the contribution was to come from the county in which the largest portion of the rateable

  533
  value of the union was situate. That was the reasonable construction; but, to the surprise of many unions, the Poor Law authorities held that geographical area, and not rateable value, decided the liability. In that way Cheshire was called upon to contribute to Ashton-under-Lyne; and that was a hardship which called for immediate remedy, as there was an enormous extent of rateable value in Ashton, far exceeding that in Cheshire. During the last three years the town he had the honour to represent (Macclesfield) had paid higher rates than any district in Lancashire or Cheshire. The town was principally dependent on the silk manufacture, which had been unusually depressed, so that for the last three years the poor rates in Macclesfield had been nearly 4s. 6d. in the pound; and now, after paying all their own burdens without obtaining relief from other unions, they were called on to contribute their quota to the relief of the district of Ashton-under-Lyne. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to meet the grievance of such a case.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, that the measure was at first intended to last for another twelve months; but the right hon. Gentleman had since consented, not in accordance with his own judgment, but in deference to opinions expressed in that House, to curtail its operations to the next six months. He considered the proposal to extend the term for the repayment of the money borrowed by the union a very hazardous one. Great anxiety, too, had arisen in those unions which were to be made liable to the support of distant districts under the question of the rate in aid system; and that anxiety would naturally increase for the future if, as there was reason to apprehend, the contributions of individuals for the mitigation of the distress were greatly to diminish. The Poor Law must have broken down in the most disgraceful manner but for the £800,000 contributed by voluntary subscriptions to the relief of the distress. Under the circumstances, it was astonishing that the Legislature were so supine. It could not be expected that the sufferings of the manufacturing districts would terminate in six months; and therefore the general Poor Law ought to be at once dealt with in a comprehensive spirit. The people of Lancashire felt that the present distress was a great national cala-
  534
  mity, and that the Consolidated Fund ought to bear its pressure. ["No!"] Why should they wait for an emergency like that to teach them the common principles of justice? If the maintenance of the poor was to be regarded as a national charge, it was not right that the property of Lancashire should be borne down while other districts were comparatively unaffected. There were gross inequalities in the taxation of different places for the relief of the poor, and an undue burden was thrown upon the poorer parts of that metropolis, while the richer parishes were allowed to escape their fair contribution. The whole question of the Poor Law ought to receive the attention of the Legislature, and be dealt with in a large and statesmanlike spirit. In Committee on the Bill the Government should be urged to extend the principle of the rate in aid to the entire country.
  MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, he saw no necessity for pressing on the measure with undue haste. Before being passed it ought to be well considered, and the country should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consider the Amendments he proposed to make in the Bill previous to its going into Committee. Great hardship was inflicted on unions in the county of Chester by the construction put on the Rate in Aid Act of 1862, as described by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. E. C. Egerton). Cheshire had been called upon to contribute upwards of £8,000 towards the union of Ashton-under-Lyne, which lay partly in Lancashire and partly in Cheshire. The portion of the population of that union which belonged to Lancashire exceeded 80,000, while that which belonged to Cheshire was about 50,000; and the greater proportion of its rateable property was also situated in the former county. He thought greater facilities should be given to unions for borrowing money. The rate in aid was vicious in principle, calculated to produce a reckless expenditure, and tended to check private benevolence. If, however, there was to be a rate in aid, he could not see why it should be confined to the two counties in which the cotton distress prevailed. It there were a rate in aid, the proper course to adopt, he thought, would be to make it a national rate, and he would further express a hope that the President of the Poor Law Board would

  535
  give greater facilities of borrowing to the Unions, and that the Exchequer Loan Commissioners would be enabled to make advances at a moderate rate of interest. If that were done, the unions might be placed in a position to tide over the difficulties of the present crisis without having recourse to a rate in aid, which in itself was open to objection. He would, in addition, simply ask the right hon. Gentleman not to hurry the Bill through, but to allow the country full time to consider its provisions.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he had to tender his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board for the zeal and courtesy which he had brought to bear on the discharge of the duties of his office, so far as they related to the distress in the manufacturing districts. He (Lord E. Howard) had been horror-struck at having heard the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten) declaim against a rate in aid. Nor was it to be wondered at that such was the case, inasmuch as he happened to live in a union in which, unfortunately, the destitution was so great that the relief of the poor was provided for only at the enormous rate of 24 s. in the pound. In that union, indeed, scarcely anything worth while could have been effected but for the splendid liberality which had been manifested in all directions, but which it would be too much to expect would be continued for any lengthened period. What then, he would ask, was to be done in localities so situated, of which there would be many if the war in America were not before long brought to a close? He, for one, saw no resource under the circumstances save a rate in aid judiciously administered. It was, he might further observe, on the frugality and honesty of the inhabitants of the manufacturing districts—those qualities which were so much held up to the admiration of the country—that the rates in the North were now levied. Their burden fell most heavily on the man who, having bought a cottage, which was, perhaps, for part of its value mortgaged to a building society, had no large margin to spare even in ordinary times, but who in times of exceptional pressure found himself in the greatest possible difficulty. The small shopkeeper, too, who had saved money barely sufficient to set himself up in business and to support his family in tolerable comfort, felt their weight most
  536
  sorely, while the small farmer on the hillside, who held some twenty or twenty-five acres of land, and who now could find no market for the produce of the few cows he happened to possess, would be exposed to utter ruin if the rates were long to continue at their present high level. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board was therefore, he thought, entitled to the gratitude of the country for having extended the short term originally embraced in the Relief Act to fourteen years, and he should wish that the right hon. Gentleman would also see the expediency of lending Government money to the distressed districts. He knew an instance in which £50,000 had been lent to a Railway Company whose line ran through an impoverished locality, to carry on the works there; and if that was done then with the object of affording aid where it was needed, why should not a similar course be pursued with advantage in the case of Lancashire? Only the other day money had been borrowed in the county for the relief of the poor at the rate of 4 per cent, and negotiations were entered into for the loan of several thousands more at the rate of 4½ per cent—a large sum to pay in the shape of interest. Now, the Government would, he could not help thinking, confer a great benefit on a district so situated by the simple process of lending them money at the rate of 3¼ or 3½ per cent, or some rate so small that they would not suffer a loss by the loan. He was glad, he might add, that the present Act was to be renewed for a shorter period than twelve months, because long before the expiration of that time they might see a better or a worse state of things prevailing in Lancashire, and because he did not believe the wisest man in the country could predict what its condition would be—he would not say six, but even one month from the present time. The manufacturers of Lancashire might just then have a small supply of cotton, which enabled them to employ a certain number of hands, though at a loss, but they would soon work that supply out; and when they required more, they might at any moment find the price so advanced by the speculators of Liverpool as to render it impossible that their trade could be continued. So it would be with the large imports of cotton expected from India, which, judging from the experience of 1862, would be so spread over the year as to afford great room for specu-

  537
  lation. Those things being taken into account, it would at once be seen how critical was the crisis which the House had to meet, and he for one thanked the President of the Poor Law Board for the spirit in which he had dealt with it.
  MR. EVANSsaid, that his constituents felt themselves aggrieved by the operation of the Act, but he hoped that their opposition, would be mitigated by the announcement that the Act was to be continued for only six months, and that the time for the repayment of loans was to be extended from seven to fourteen years. He thought that it was worth the consideration of the Government whether they should not themselves make loans to boards of guardians.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board had not acceded to one of the two suggestions which he had made the other evening—that of empowering the Government to lend money to the boards of guardians. The feelings of the different boards of guardians were decidedly in unity upon that point, having found very great difficulty in borrowing money from private sources. There were some other points which deserved the consideration of the House—one was with respect to the time when the borrowing powers should commence, and another with respect to the time when the rate in aid upon other unions should commence. The borrowing powers in the Act of last Session commenced after the expenditure had exceeded the rate of 3s. in the pound. Now, it was felt to be a very great hardship in many unions that they were obliged to expend an amount equal to the rate of 3s. in the pound before they were enabled to get any relief under the Act; and it would be a very great relief if the borrowing point were reduced from the rate of 3s. in the pound to 2s., for the rate of 2s in the pound was fully equal in pressure to a rate of 3s. when the Act of last Session was passed, considering the means of those who had to pay. The other point was with respect to the rate in aid. Last Session he had felt a strong aversion to that principle. He was in favour of liberal borrowing powers. But he would be sorry now, after they had brought the rate-in-aid clause into operation, to see it struck out of the Bill. He would, however, offer the suggestion to his right hon. Friend, whether it would not to some extent do away with the hardship
  538
  imposed upon many contributing unions if the point at which the rate in aid should commence were raised from 5s. to 6s. He trusted the House would be inclined to give liberal powers to Lancashire, as she had not come thither asking for national aid.
  MR. COBDENsaid, that he accepted with satisfaction the proposal of his right hon. Friend to extend the time during which the repayment of loans might take place; but as the discussion had taken a hostile tone towards another part of the Bill, which might probably increase the intensity of the opposition out of doors before they met again, he would say a word or two with regard to it. He was not last year at all enamoured of the rate in aid. What he then desired was that greater facilities of borrowing should be given to boards of guardians. He still entertained that opinion, and he believed that it was shared by all the boards of guardians in Lancashire. They were thwarted, however, in that wish — not so much, he believed, by his right hon. Friend, who, in his political career, had never been much afraid of a reform or an innovation, as by the Board over which he presided, which had a great objection to any change in its traditional policy of a rate in aid. Had the desired facilities for borrowing been given, he did not believe that the rate in aid would have been called into action, or that the question would have arisen to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) had devoted so many remarks. That hon. and gallant Gentleman had complained of the inconvenience which this rate in aid occasioned to occupying tenants whose rents had been fixed without any anticipation of such an increase of poor rate. That was an evil which was not very easily remedied, but it might in some degree be met—not altogether without difficulty, however—by the adoption of a clause enabling them to charge the whole or part of the increase of rate upon the landlord. That to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was that the principle of a rate in aid was inherent in our Poor Law legislation; that it was part of our Poor Law code, not so much in the interest of property as for the protection of the rights of the poor. A part of a county might arrive at such a state of pauperism that it could not

  539
  support its poor, and in that case it must call upon the rest of the county for assistance. That might be considered as part of our Constitution, and must be preserved as an alternative. They could not dispense with it, whatever checks or guards they might surround it with. If a district of Lancashire became utterly pauperized and property valueless, the people could not be allowed to starve; but he did not contemplate the possibility or necessity of that, provided there were no obstacles thrown in the way of the guardians for an easy mode of borrowing money. The manufacturing districts of Lancashire were quite in accord with the agricultural districts in the opinion that facilities should be given to borrow money rather than resort to the rate in aid, because with liberal borrowing powers, with free borrowing powers, and with the aid of the great fund in hand, it was likely that every union in Lancashire would, for the next twelve mouths, be able to maintain its poor without applying to the rest of the county. Why, then, as he said last year, should any restriction be, for twelve months at least, placed in the way of these unions borrowing money to meet their difficulties? In Rochdale, a borough which was not so badly off as some others, because there was in it some production of flannel, 20,000 were receiving relief, at the rate of about 2s. per week per head, which amounted to about £100,000 a year. The yearly value of the rateable property of Rochdale was £225,000, and taking this at a very low estimate would be worth £3,000,000. Finding itself, with all this property, in a dilemma, which they hoped would prove hut temporary, and naturally wishing to relieve itself from so unpleasant a position, how was Rochdale to act? How would an individual act? Because that was always the best test in such matters. How would an individual act with £3,000,000 of property unencumbered and wanting £100,000 on an emergency during the next twelve months? Clearly, he would borrow the money. It would be a legitimate transaction, and he would get the money on easy terms. Then, why not allow Rochdale to do the same? The guardians of Rochdale had been unanimous in their wish to he allowed to exercise unchecked control over their property in that way. What said the Legislature, however, on the subject? It
  540
  said, "Before you can borrow you must have paid poor rates at the rate of 3s. in the pound per annum for the preceding quarter." That in round figures, taking Rochdale as an illustration, meant this —that before that union could borrow £5,000, it must have raised in poor rates £9,000. Now, that in the present condition of that Borough, amounted to a sort of slow torture. He then in the name of that union, with an assessed rental of £225,000, worth at least £3,000,000, asked the House to let those people do what they like with their property for another twelve months. No, he did not say even with the whole of it; he repeated the suggestion he made last year—let the House insert in the Bill, if they would, a limitation as to the amount which might be borrowed, and let it be in proportion to their rateable property. As in the case of Rochdale, which would be an illustration of other unions, let them insert, if they would, a clause restricting the borrowing powers of that union during the next twelve months to the limit of 50 per cent on the amount of the assessed annual value of their property; in other words permit Rochdale to borrow, during the twelve months, £100,000 upon the security of their property, worth £3,000,000. He asked again, in the name of common sense and humanity, by what conceivable stupidity could anybody step in and say, "No, they shall not borrow until they inflict upon themselves this pecuniary fine just at a time when so many are unable to pay it." What was the effect of levying those rates? In Oldham, they had heard, that for every rate they levied they squeezed out of existence 4,000 ratepayers; that was they compelled 4,000 ratepayers to go to the magistrates, plead poverty and their inability to pay. It was all very well for the rich to write out a cheque for the amount of the poor rate; but by every rate levied they were driving into the ranks of pauperism a large number of ratepayers. Now, he asked his right hon. Friend to shake off altogether the influence of those hereditary red-tapists with whom he was associated, and take the matter into his own hands. Let him meet the Members who represented the manufacturing and agricultural districts of Lancashire, and let them talk the matter over, and arrange it upon a principle of common sense before the House

  541
  went into Committee upon it. If the right hon. Gentleman would only consult his own excellent sense and his courage, then he would no doubt deal with the matter in a way acceptable to the manufacturing districts, by which they might avoid the difficulty which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel W. Patten) referred to in the operation of the rate in aid, and thus perhaps enable the parties interested to carry themselves through that great calamity in a way the least hurtful to themselves and the least injurious to their neighbours.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he felt the full force of what had been urged in favour of the giving of liberal borrowing powers. He was sorry to say that he had been engaged in the administration of relief in a district where the rates had been not merely 3s. in the pound, but 8s. and even 9s.; and therefore he was in a position to estimate the weight of the pressure upon the manufacturing districts. The suggestion he wished to make to the right hon. Gentleman was, that the borrowing powers should be resorted to a certain point before the rate in aid was brought into operation. The reason was the difficulty which had been found, in the administration of relief, to prevent the relief, whether contributed by the bounty of the public or the rate in aid, if that money was not raised by the locality immediately distressed, being subjected to the abuse of the old Poor Law—that was the payment of the money in aid of wages. He was sorry to say that his own experience had brought him face to face with that difficulty, to obviate which he had made the suggestion. Now, with respect to the rate in aid, if they once threw that upon the owner instead of the occupier, they would plunge at once into the difficulty of a maladministration of that fund, because the owners, being few in number, and exercising little influence upon the administrative body, they would find the old abuse growing up, and money distributed in aid of wages. Once get into that system, and there was no remedy: they never knew to what extent their expenditure would go, and could not tell at what period it would stop. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of the Bill being amended, he would be prepared, upon evidence of the existence of sufficient distress, to admit other districts than those of Lancashire, Cheshire, York-
  542
  shire, and Derbyshire to come within the provisions of this Bill?
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, he thought there was great force in the arguments of the hon. Member for Rochdale, that unions should be left to the exercise of their common sense in such great difficulties as presented themselves at the present moment. It was not the amount but the principle of a rate in aid which was objected to in Derbyshire. A great number of the old-fashioned cotton mills, which were worked by water power, had succeeded in keeping their hands employed upon the Indian cotton, and they naturally objected to being called on to pay a rate in aid of other mills, where, either the machinery was more expensive and could not be readily converted, or where, perhaps, equal efforts had not been made. It was worth while considering whether in the present emergency the same facility of borrowing money from the public funds should not be given to some of the most distressed unions which was extended to the landlords for the improvement of their estates shortly after the passing of the free-trade measures.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to ask when it was intended to go into Committee on the Bill?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: On Monday next.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, the interval proposed was much too limited.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the Act, which it was proposed by the Bill to continue, expired on the 1st of March. He hoped the House would allow the Continuance Bill to be passed with as little delay as possible, and after the experience of a few months they would be in a better state to discuss the general question. If Monday was too soon, he hoped there would be no objection to fix Thursday next for going into Committee.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday next.

MALT DUTY BILL— [BiiL 20.]

  SECOND READING.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that the necessity for bringing in a Bill of that character showed how necessary it was to do something with respect to the malt duties at large; for it showed how oppressively those duties worked, not only for the maltsters, but for the agricultural

  543
  interest. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would only apply to the malt duties the principle which he had so successfully applied to so many other taxes—namely, reduction up to a certain point, the duty might rebound, in consequence of the relief, and the revenue be more than made up. Such a measure would stimulate the production of barley, and enable persons to malt it, which at present they could not do. He would not enter into the whole question of the malt tax, because he hoped that on a future day the subject would be fully discussed; but he would say, that if there was to be any remission of taxation, the agriculturists had some right to expect from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the favour with which he had already regarded the manufacturing interest. With regard to the Bill, the relief to the maltsters was not at all what they desired. It was proposed that they should pay interest at 4 per cent on the duties for malt made between April and October, but it was well known that they did not get the money for malt made during that period until after Christmas; and therefore they would be called on to pay interest at 4 per cent for three months on money which they had not received. It would be a hard case for them and of small benefit to the revenue. If any measure of relief were given it should be such a measure as would benefit the trade, and he hoped in the Budget the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the agricultural interest, which he had hitherto neglected.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he recollected going up with a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and he confessed that his right hon. Friend did not seem disposed to accept the suggestions then offered to him. He must have felt, however, that in reducing the credit from eighteen to six weeks he would so embarrass the small capitalist as to render it very difficult for him to carry on his business, Those who paid in the six weeks were called on to pay the duty before they got their malt into the market for sale, and they were also compelled to sell often when the market was very low to enable them to pay the duty. And when his right hon. Friend gave three months for the payment of the duty and asked 4 per cent interest, it was like asking men to pay interest on their own money, and in Committee he should oppose the charging
  544
  of interest. The Bill was, no doubt, intended to give small relief, but from the conversation he had had with maltsters in Ware he gathered that they were of opinion that it afforded no relief comparatively to what they felt themselves entitled to. The whole question required consideration, and he hoped an opportunity would soon occur for discussing it.
  MAJOR WINDSOR PARKERsaid, he fully concurred in the observations of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. Two years ago the table was literally covered with petitions from persons who felt themselves aggrieved by the oppressive nature of the malt tax. Farmers complained, and not without reason, that while, from time to time, other classes of the community received relief, while the paper duty was abolished, while the wine duties were reduced, and while the agriculturists in Sussex got the hop duty taken off— which he trusted was the prelude to the total abolition of the malt duty—the general agricultural body had received no corresponding benefit. The right hon. Gentleman now came forward with a miserable boon in the shape of an extension of the malt credits for six weeks on the understanding that the maltsters would pay 4 per cent interest. When the question of the abolition of the malt duties came before the House on some future occasion he believed that one of the most powerful arguments for that measure would be the usefulness of malt in fattening cattle.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped he should not be considered disrespectful if he did not enter on the general subject of the malt tax; but as they were promised a full discussion on a future day, he thought it better to reserve himself for that occasion. With respect to the particular provisions of the Bill, he concurred in the opinion that when they were in Committee it would be the best time to consider whether the relief proposed required further extension.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, their legislation on the subject was extraordinary. A few years ago they limited the period of the malt credits, and by that process, in the course of two years, £2,000,000 were obtained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for purposes of revenue, which really ought to have been considered as capital and not as revenue. They now found themselves under the necessity of

  545
  extending the period of the malt credit; and although they were extending the period, they charged interest to the maltster before he had got a return of his money. Therefore, they were doing very little benefit to the maltster by returning to a system which had been done away with a little too unguardedly.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he thought it was not quite fair to confine the discussion to the merits of the Bill. It was perfectly true that in Committee was ordinarily the time to discuss particular clauses; but the Bill was of a peculiar character, and if in Committee they succeeded in altering it as to the payment of 4 per cent interest, the right hon. Gentleman, not being satisfied, could drop the measure. There was a point, however, on which he wished to set himself right with the House. In the course of the debate which took place on the first reading, he ventured to state that the result of the contraction of credit in 1859 and 1860 was to drive a considerable number of maltsters out of the trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not contradict him, but confined his speech entirely to the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for East Essex (Mr. Dodson). That hon. Member had stated that he (Mr. Puller) had been in error, for so far from there being a decrease in the number of maltsters, they had actually increased. He had taken the trouble to look into the Parliamentary statistics on the matter, and he found that they bore out the statement he had made. In 1859 the number of maltsters was 6,909, but in 1861 the number was 6,448, being a diminution of no less than 461. Turning to the main question, he could not but express his surprise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he felt the injustice under which the maltsters suffered, arid proposed to confer a certain amount of relief, should clog the boon with a charge of 4 per cent for the extension of time. The proposition was manifestly so unfair that it needed only to be stated to refute itself. Living as he did, near one of the greatest malting towns in England (Hertford), he had endeavoured, by communication with some of the leading members of the trade, to make himself master of the question; and the information which he possessed led him to the conclusion that nothing could be more unfair towards the maltsters than to impose
  546
  a penalty of 4 per cent upon them for the proposed extension of credit.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he should support the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the most he could obtain for the revenue. He could not see why the country should furnish capital to the maltsters to carry on their business. He thought the boon to the maltsters ample, and on commercial grounds he should object to any further extension of it.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that as long as the malt duties existed, all talk about the prevalence of the principles of free trade was only a farce. It appeared to him, that on that side of the House there had been an expression of hope for which he feared there was little foundation, as well as on the part of some Members an expression of surprise at the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What ground was there for ever hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would be the means of reducing the taxation which bore so heavily upon the rural districts of the country? The farmers had had only too much cause to complain of the injustice which they had experienced in financial matters at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. As the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had contrived to alter the system of malt credits in such a way as to confer no benefit on those whose position it was proposed to improve. What was proposed was a most unfortunate system of legislation, for it would alter the system without conferring any benefit upon the sufferers under it. It was impossible to conceive any proposition, he might say, so absurd as that of asking a man to pay 4 per cent for money that was in the pocket of somebody else. He quite agreed that this was not the time for discussing the details of the measure, but he must say that it evinced most strongly the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not abated one iota of that hostility which he had always shown to the rural districts of the country, and he hoped that on a future occasion the House would succeed in inducing the right hon. Gentleman to deal justly with the parties interested.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 9.]

  INSTRUCTION- MOVED. COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  LORD NAASsaid, he rose to move that it be an Instruction to the Committee to make provision for the registration of marriages in Ireland. A registration of marriage was quite as important as a registration of births and deaths. The Report of the Registrar General for England showed that the register of marriages was a complete barometer of the welfare of the people, and in all cases of property which depended on questions of legitimacy and descent it was of the greatest importance to have a complete system. In London alone last year there had been 1,178 searches into the marriage register, which showed how largely it was made use of by the people of this country, and what a benefit it was likely to be to the people of Ireland. Nothing was more common than for cases to occur in which the want of some such means of proving the legitimacy of children was painfully felt; for Irishmen frequently went abroad, and when they died out of the country, leaving property, great difficulty was often experienced by their representatives in establishing their claim. Many instances had come to his knowledge of property having been wholly lost to the rightful heirs in consequence of the absence of an authentic marriage record. The matter had been very fully inquired into by a Committee in 1861, and most important evidence was given as to the value of such a register. A system of registration should have nothing whatever to do with the question of the la\v of marriage, which many persons thought ought to be assimilated in the three kingdoms. Three plans had been proposed for the purpose of giving the country the great boon he sought to confer upon it. One, contained in Bills brought forward by himself and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was that register books should be furnished to Roman Catholic clergymen, which should be forwarded to the Registrar General, through the local registrars. His hon, and learned Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr.
  548
  George) proposed another plan, imposing on all clergymen the duty of transmitting certificates of the marriages performed by them to the Registrar General, without the intervention of a superintendent registrar. A third plan was proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), and provided that Roman Catholic clergymen should transmit copies of the certificates to the Registrar General through a Roman Catholic diocesan ecclesiastic. Any one of those plans would effect the desired object. It would, perhaps, be wiser to leave the system at present in force as to the marriages of members of the Established Church and the marriages of members of Dissenting bodies as it existed, and merely provide for the registration of Roman Catholic marriages. That ought to be done in the manner most acceptable to the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church and to the Roman Catholic people at large, and he was persuaded that it was quite possible to do it without giving offence or imposing undue trouble on the parties concerned. He knew there was an impression abroad that the registry of Roman Catholic marriages might lead to a neglect of the religious ceremony, but he believed it would have quite the contrary effect, for he had known instances of persons who were married before the registrar merely for the purpose of availing themselves of the facilities of registration, which such a proceeding put within their reach. He was astonished at the timidity shown by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in declining to approach the subject, believing as he did that there would be no serious opposition to a proper system of registration of Roman Catholic marriages. The Bills which he (the noble Lord) and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had already introduced had been lost merely on account of the pressure of business, and a dissolution of Parliament, and not because they had met with any serious opposition. The present was a most favourable occasion for taking up the subject once more, and he trusted that the opportunity would not be let slip.
  MR. GEORGEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for the Registration of Marriages in Ireland."
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he was surprised to hear the noble Lord confine his Motion to the marriages of Roman Catholics.
  LORD NAASsaid, that the law already provided for the registration of marriages between members of the Establishment and of Protestant dissenters.
  MR. HADFIELDwould cordially support the Motion, but he wished to see the same privileges extended to members of all denominations.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, his hon. Friend who had just sat down had fallen into a mistake. He had confounded the registration of marriages with an alteration of the marriage law. He entirely concurred with his noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) in thinking it advisable to deal with the registration of marriages and the operation of the marriage law as two separate questions. For the present they ought to confine themselves to the former. He did not think the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to be accused of timidity for not having taken up the subject in connection with the registration of births and deaths; because, clearly, his wish was to avoid a matter which up to that time had excited a great deal of uneasy feeling in Ireland, arising from an apprehension that there was an intention of making an alteration in the marriage law. As to registration itself, no doubt there was an objection on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland to perform functions for the Government, and that could not be wondered at, seeing that they were not recognised by law; but he would remind the House, that after many attempts at legislation on the subject, a Marriage Registration Law was passed for Scotland in 1854. By the provisions of that Act parties contracting marriage were obliged, under penalty, to register their own marriage. Immediately after the ceremony a schedule obtained from the registrar was filled up by the clergyman, the parties, and witnesses; and, within three days, that schedule was sent to the registrar of the district, to be by him forwarded to the Registrar General. Since the Scottish system had been found to work so successfully, he thought it might, with advantage, be introduced into Ireland. The noble Lord referred to a suggestion he made in the Committee of having a Catholic ecclesiastic to which Catholic clergy should send certificates of the marriages solemnized by them. That might work well, but they had had no ex-
  550
  perience of it, while they had had experience of the Scotch system. They had already a system of registration of the Protestant marriages in Ireland, and it behoved them to provide for the registration of the marriages of Catholics, who comprised three-fourths of the population. He understood that one of the first measures of the new Pasha of Egypt had been to give orders for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages; and he trusted that, in that respect, Ireland would not be allowed to remain behind other civilized countries.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he would venture to repeat his advice to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) to persevere with his Bill for the registration of births and deaths, reserving to a future Session the question of the registration of marriages. He agreed in the proposition that it was desirable to have in Ireland a complete system of registration of marriages; but before they could effect that there was one obstacle which they must get rid of, and that was the law relating to mixed marriages in that country. That law would prevent the application of the Scotch system to Ireland, because the clergyman would have to sign the schedule; and if the marriage were a mixed marriage, he would be liable to a penalty. Moreover, he objected to the proposed mode of legislating on the subject. The Bill purported to provide for the registration of births and deaths, and it was moved that the Committee be instructed to insert provisions for the registration of marriages. Such a mode of legislation, he contended, was most objectionable.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he saw great difficulty in dealing with the subject of marriages in connection with the registration of births and deaths. There was no objection to the Bill as it stood; on the contrary, he believed it would give general satisfaction in Ireland.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would admit that the time had come when there ought to be a registration of marriages in Ireland, but he thought the machinery of the present Bill was not suited to such registration. One of the best things the Irish Members could do would be to avail themselves of the example of Scotland. It was a mistake to suppose that the Catholics of Ireland were opposed to the registration of marriages; but the fact was that the existing marriage law was penal

  551
  against Catholic clergymen. There might be cases where, in the cause of morality itself, a Catholic clergyman might be compelled to solemnize a marriage between two persons of different religious persuasions, and where, if he did not celebrate the marriage, the greatest injury might be done to the woman. In such a case, as the law now stood, it would be dangerous for the clergyman to register the marriage, because he would be registering his own condemnation. While, however, he adopted the principle of the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth. he did not think it would be wise to push the House to a decision at the present time. Let the House pass the present Bill, and then the Government, if they so pleased, might introduce another for the registration of marriages, assured that they would not meet with any factious opposition from the Irish Members.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he was anxious to see a registration of marriages, but he thought that was not an opportune time for proposing it. A system of registration in Ireland must be established by a distinct measure. To attempt to carry out that system by the Bill before them would, in his opinion, defeat the present measure. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would not adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that no two men in the world were more capable of expressing the real feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland than the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire). Both agreed in the desirability of having a registration of marriages, and both denied that such a measure would be distasteful either to the Roman Catholic clergy or to the Roman Catholic laity in Ireland. The right hon. Member for Limerick had suggested a plan which would give satisfaction to all classes—namely, that the registration should be made by the parties interested in the marriage, and, for his own part, he could see no difficulty in so altering the Bill as to make it applicable to marriages as well as to births and deaths. Another argument in favour of dealing with marriages now was a pecuniary one. The Bill as it stood would entail great expense upon the counties of Ireland; and if we were to have another measure for the registration of marriages, the cost of the two would constitute a burden of no inconsiderable magnitude.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped that the
  552
  noble Lord would press his Motion to a division, for the Bill as it stood was not worth the £16,000 a year which it would cost the country. If the Bill were delayed beyond Easter by including marriages in its provisions, so much the better, for the opinions of the country would thereby be ascertained. The law which made it penal for Roman Catholic priests to celebrate mixed marriages ought to be repealed, and the registration placed on the same footing as it was in England and Scotland.
  MR. BUTTcontended that they could not have registration in Ireland till the question of mixed marriages by the priest was settled, and that could not be settled till arrangements of a synod of Roman Catholics was adopted by the Legislature. A Roman Catholic priest might marry persons of his own persuasion in any place or at any hour; but if he attempted to celebrate what was called a mixed marriage, he was liable to be indicted for felony. That was too serious a state of things to be settled in the manner proposed by the noble Lord. The difficulty could never be got over till the validity of marriage was rendered independent of the religion of the parties. It was easy to deal with registration of births and deaths, very difficult to deal with the registration of marriages; and he therefore said, "Deal with the easy case at once, and make the difficult case easy as soon as you can."
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would admit that it would be very important, if possible, to establish a registration of marriages in Ireland; but, looking merely at the discussion which had taken place that evening, the opinion of the House, he thought, was rather in favour of the Bill going on as at present framed than that he should introduce into it a subject which would require a material alteration in the machinery, and, he believed, render the measure impracticable. His noble Friend seemed to think he had showed timidity in dealing with the subject. Now, "he dared to do all that might become a man;" but if he were to undertake that subject, he believed he should meet with great opposition. His noble Friend on two or three occasions had attempted to legislate on the subject, and, through no fault of his own, but owing to the general feeling of the House, had signally failed. His noble Friend said that the proposal he made did not entail any alteration in the marriage law of Ireland; but he maintained most confidentially that it would. Looking at the

  553
  present law of marriage in Ireland, it would be impossible to attempt to legislate on the subject without introducing into it very material alterations. His right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) said he must not, in treating the subject, confound alterations in the law of marriage with registration of marriages; but he differed from his right hon. Friend. At that moment Protestants and Presbyterian Dissenters in Ireland had great cause of grievance in consequence of the Act of 1844. It did not deal with the position of three-fourths of the population, the Roman Catholics of Ireland. They might not celebrate mixed marriages, but they could marry at any hour, in any place, without any registry, without any registrar being present. The Act of 1844 laid great restrictions on the Dissenting bodies, and they would never allow the removal of grievances affecting the Roman Catholics till their own were removed. Besides, he thought it would be unfair to endeavour to impose on the Roman Catholic body in Ireland a course of proceeding to which they said they had conscientious objections. His right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick said, if he proposed alterations, they would be accepted; but he did not think so. His right hon. Friend last year had himself presented a petition signed by twenty-seven of the Roman Catholic hierachy in Ireland, protesting against the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns). They stated—
  "That your petitioners are willing to co-operate in every fair way with the State in making these registers available in courts of law, and even for statistical information; but they object to the legal imposition of such obligations as the Bill before your honourable House would enact.…… It brings Roman Catholic marriages under the general provisions of the pro posed Act, thereby subjecting such marriages to restrictions which Roman Catholics must hold the State to be incompetent to attach to the celebration of marriages, and creating penalties from which in the worse days of the penal laws Irish Catholics were free."
  There were restrictions which members of the Established Church were bound to submit to, and why should they exempt Roman Catholics from what they obliged Protestant ministers to regard, with respect to hours and places of celebration r Again, if he had proposed that the Roman Catholic clergy should send their returns to any except the Vicar General of their Church, they would not have as-
  554
  sented. He believed it would be impossible to deal in one and the same Bill with the subject of the registration of marriages, and that of births and deaths. He felt very strongly on the subject. He hoped the House would not force on him the painful duty of placing obligations on, Roman Catholics which they would conscientiously refuse to accept, and which might raise agitating discussions in that House. That the Bill imposed a charge of £16,000 could not be for a [moment compared with the advantages which it would confer, and could form no reasonable ground for opposing it. Precisely the same charge was levied upon the local rates in England and Scotland, and he could not understand why Ireland should be placed upon a different footing to those parts of the kingdom. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) said, that all the Dissenters of Ireland approved the Bill of the right hon. Member for Belfast; but that was not the case, as a large body of Protestant Dissenters in Ireland opposed it, and he had himself presented petitions of unimportant bodies in the north of Ireland. In order to show the difficulty of dealing with the subject, he would read to the House a history of the recent attempts at legislation in that direction:—Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Bill, introduced by Lord Naas, read a first time 8th March, withdrawn 6th April, 1859, previous to dissolution of Parliament; ditto, introduced by Lord Naas, read a first time 8th May, and second time 17th May, 'i860, withdrawn 5th July; ditto, introduced by Mr. Cardwell, read a first time 10th May, and second time 17th May, 1860, considered in Committee and reprinted 21st May, withdrawn 5th July; ditto, introduced by Mr. Cardwell, read a first time on the 11th of February, and second time 15th of April, 18G1, referred to a Select Committee 15th April, reported 11th July, withdrawn 23rd July; ditto, introduced by Lord Naas, read a first time on the 22nd February, and second time on the 15th April, 1861, referred to the same Committee. Marriage Law Amendment Bill, introduced by Lord Chancellor Campbell, read a first time, in the Lords, 11th March, and second time on 23rd April, 1861, passed the Lords 4th of June; ditto, introduced by Sir Hugh Cairns, read a first time on the 24th of July, 1861. Marriages, Solemnization and Registration of, Bill, intro-

  555
  duced by Sir Hugh Cairns, read a first time on the 19th February, and second time 12th March, 1862, considered in Committee 2nd April, withdrawn 2nd July. In the course of a brief period the noble Lord was courageous enough to propose three Bills, but all were withdrawn, and therefore he (Sir R. Peel) did not think he could fairly be accused of undue timidity in declining to deal with a subject involved in almost insuperable difficulty by including it in a measure for the registration of births and deaths, for which there existed adequate machinery.
  MR. GEORGEobserved that two of the Bills referred to by the right hon. Baronet had been referred to a Select Committee, who, after a careful inquiry, came to the conclusion that it was not only possible, but easy to adopt a mode of registration of marriages that would be acceptable to the great body of Roman Catholics, and to the clergy and laity of all denominations. Upon that Committee eight were Roman Catholics and seven Protestants, and by a majority of ten to four they adopted their report, the minority even being favourable to registration, but differing upon details. How, then, could it be said that there was any difficulty in dealing with the subject? He hoped the noble Lord would press his Motion to a division.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he was very anxious, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary, to disclaim, on behalf of the Roman Catholics whom he represented, any intention to shirk the registration of their marriages. He believed, that on the contrary, they were desirous of having them properly and regularly registered; and that the right hon. Baronet had entirely misunderstood the purport of the Petition of the Roman Catholic Bishops to which he had referred. The right hon. Baronet had brought in one Bill for the registration of births and deaths, and another respecting illegitimate children, but none in relation to marriages. Indeed, to judge from the right hon. Gentleman's measures one would fancy that there were no such things as marriages in Ireland. Nobody in Ireland had any confidence in the Irish Government, and the Chief Secretary knew nothing about the country. He trusted the House would insist on improving this Bill.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, he should sup-
  556
  port the Bill as proposed by the Government.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he thought it would be a pity to endanger the passing of the Bill, which undoubtedly was important, by tacking on to it another proposition, which could not be carried out without considerable difficulty. The registration of marriages was a most important object; but it ought to form the subject of a separate measure.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he should support the instruction to the Committee, as every Roman Catholic Member who had spoken was in favour of a registration of marriages. The very Petition which the Chief Secretary had quoted I showed that the hierarchy of that communion wished for such a registration, and were prepared to give it every assistance in their power; but they would not have their church or their religion interfered with. Without a scheme for the registration of marriages the Bill would be only a ridiculous system of ' statistical pedantry.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 89: Majority 23.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would move that the Chairman report progress. He thought it very desirable that the Bill should be postponed until after the assizes in Ireland. He thought it most unfortunate that Bills relating to that country were generally brought forward when the majority of the Irish Members were absent.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLI TION BILL— [BILL 4.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." — (Mr. Packe.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read 3° on Wednesday 4th March.

  PARTNERSHIP LAW AMENDMENT.
  Partnership Law Amendment,—considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Partnerships.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. STANSFELD.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 26.]

  REGISTER OF VOTERS BILL.
  Bill to provide for an Alphabetical Index to the Register of Voters in Counties in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE KING and Mr. KER SEYMER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 26.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.