Commons Sitting of 5 March 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Limited Liability Acts appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Game Preservation (Scotland).
First Reading—Game Preservation (Scotland) (65).
Second Reading—Sale and Purchase of Shares [38].

ABYSSINIA—IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the British artisans who have been or are about to be taken out by Colonel Merewether to Massowah are to be exchanged for the captives now detained in Abyssinia, or are to be sent into that country after the latter are released; and, if so, whether it will not require great care and attention to prevent the transaction from simply resulting in the change of one set of prisoners for another?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, strict orders have been given to Colonel Merewether that these artisans are under no circumstances to go into the interior until all the prisoners now detained by the King of Abyssinia shall be released. They have gone by their own free choice and upon their own responsibility. I took care before they went out that the position and the whole circumstances of the case should be carefully explained to them. As to the last part of the Question, it is rather a matter of argument than of fact. All I can say is, that, as the House very well knows, the whole question of the release of these captives is surrounded by difficulties; and we believe that the course we have adopted, though it may be open to some objections, is still open to fewer than those which presented themselves to the adoption of any other course, and presents the best chance of success in the object we have in view.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to a Bill introduced by the Mersey Docks and

1337
Harbour Board for raising a further sum of £1,100,000 for new works, the entire bonded debt of the Mersey Board already amounting to nearly £14,000,000, and the Birkenhead docks and works being still unfinished, and particularly to Clause 3, authorizing the raising of the sum of £334,000, to replace money expended on unauthorized works at Liverpool, in contravention of Clause 5 in the Mersey Dock Act of 1864, which provided that no part of the money to be raised under that Act should be expended on any works at Liverpool until the northern entrances of the Birkenhead Docks "shall have been completed, to the reasonable satisfaction of an officer to be appointed by the Board of Trade," and which certificate has not yet been obtained; whether his attention has been called to Clause 12 in the same Bill, authorizing the payment of local rates out of the sinking fund specially directed to be maintained by the Act of 1859, instead of paying such rates out of revenue; and whether any Report from the Board of Trade upon this Bill will be presented to the House?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in reply, that the Question was one which had excited a good deal of interest on account of the magnitude of the points at issue. The attention of the Board of Trade had been directed to this Bill, both by its promoters and by those who opposed it. But his hon. Friend would see that it would be very inconvenient to attempt answering the Question when there could be no discussion, or to give any intimation of au opinion upon the merits of the case. If it had been the will of the opponents of the measure to challenge its merits upon the second reading, there would have been an opportunity of discussion, and no doubt statements would have been made on both sides adequate to the occasion. But that course had not been taken, and he felt that it would be undesirable that he should now express any opinion upon matters which would be much better left to the Committee upon the Bill. The Board of Trade had now given up the practice of reporting, as a matter of course, upon Bills of this description, and there was no intention of making a Report upon this subject. He understood that at one time there was some hope of an arrangement between the parties on either side, and thus avoiding the necessity of sending this measure before a Committee. He would have been very glad if that course had
1338
been adopted, or if in any way the Board of Trade could have brought about a settlement between the parties. He did not see, however, any probability of such a course being taken.

LANCASTER, YARMOUTH, &c, COMMISSIONS. —QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House a Return showing the expense of the Royal Commissions appointed to inquire into Corrupt Practices at Elections for Lancaster, Yarmouth, Totnes, and Reigate?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If the hon. Gentleman will move for that Return it will not be opposed.

CASE OF THE "TORNADO."

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If eight of the crew of the Tornado are still kept close prisoners by the Spanish authorities; and, seeing that it is admitted in a despatch to Sir John Crampton, dated Foreign Office, February 8, 1867, that all the crew of this ship have been "arbitrarily detained, on one pretext or another, for many months," and that "they have been subjected to hardships as unnecessary as they were cruel," whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps to obtain redress for these unfortunate and ill-used British subjects?
  LORD STANLEY: I regret, Sir, to say it is true that eight of the crew of the Tornado are still detained by the Spanish authorities. I cannot say that they are detained as close prisoners, because the captain, and one other person, whom I believe to be an officer, have been allowed to go about on their parole. But, perhaps, a better idea of the present state of the case will be obtained if the House will allow me to read a telegram which I received yesterday from Sir John Crampton, in answer to one which I sent making inquiries on the matter. The telegram is as follows:—
  "The present state of the case of the Tornado is this, there are two appeals pending against the Prize Court at Cadiz, on the ground of its being illegally constituted and incompetent to take cognizance of the case. Until this question is decided, the Prize Court takes no steps to continue the proceedings, nor the Spanish Government any to maintain or enforce the sentence which they do

  1339
  not consider to be definitive. The detention of part of the crew is grounded on the requirements of the captors for their evidence as witnesses, either in case the Prize Court is declared competent, and the proceedings already held by it carried to their termination, or else in case the Prize Court is declared incompetent, and the affair is entered upon de novo, and treated administratively, or tried by another tribunal."
  As to the question of indemnity, that is a matter which cannot well be disposed of until the course finally taken by the Spanish authorities with respect to the prisoners shall be known. I shall, however, be ready in a very short time to lay the papers upon the subject on the table.

CANADA—EXTRADITION OF M. LAMIRANDE.—QUESTION.
MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When he will lay upon the table the Correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Governor General of Canada, as also with other persons in the colony, regarding the extradition of M. Lamirande?
MR. ADDERLEY: Sir, the Papers containing the Colonial Correspondence on the subject have been ready for some time for presentation, and there is no wish whatever to delay their production; but it is thought desirable that they should appear at the same time as the Foreign Office Correspondence with the French Government on the same subject, as the two elucidate each other. We are waiting for an answer from the French Government, and when it is given the correspondence will appear.
LORD STANLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that we have received the communication which I said a few nights ago we were waiting for, and the papers will be prepared for presentation in a short time.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, "That the House at its rising do adjourn till To-morrow at Two o'clock,"

MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to take this opportunity of making some few remarks upon a subject which was treated yesterday, as some thought, too cursorily, but I think only from misapprehension. I believe my noble Friend the Member for Stamford is now present, and
1340
I will now make some remarks upon the course which has been taken by the Government. It has been said that I was hardly justified, when I announced yesterday the secession of three of our Colleagues, in stating that secession to have taken place in consequence of the majority of the Cabinet having arrived at a decision in favour of our original policy, because he original policy had been intimated to the House. Now, I think that criticism is not accurate, and, because not accurate, not just. On the 25th of last month, in intimating to the House the measures which a united Cabinet were prepared to recommend to Parliament, I most distinctly adverted to other propositions which it had been our wish to bring forward, but which we had not felt authorized in making. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I am glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite admits the accuracy of that observation. I distinctly stated on that occasion that there were other measures which would have enabled us to deal with the borough franchise on a more extensive scale, but which we had felt ourselves obliged to relinquish. Well, Sir, in bringing forward the measure which I introduced on the 25th of February, I hope to satisfy the House that we were not influenced by any thoughtless spirit, and that in the course which we took, we were impelled only by those principles which ought to influence public men, under the circumstances in which we were placed. And here I must remark, with reference to some expressions which have come to my notice—though they were used in "another place"—that there is no foundation for the charge which has been made against the present Government, that they neglected for a long period the consideration of the important subject which now so much engages the attention of Parliament, and that it has been taken up by us without sufficient thought, with indifference, and after a delay, characterized, probably, by negligence. Now, Sir, there is no foundation for that charge. Early in the autumn Lord Derby wrote to me, and told me that, after grave deliberation, he had arrived at the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to deal with the question of Parliamentary Reform, and that it must be dealt with in no niggard spirit. That communication was made to me by Lord Derby early in the autumn, and he requested me to give my best attention to the subject. Sir, I do not say that Lord Derby, charged with the responsibility of State affaire, and

1341
anxious, if possible, to bring to a happy solution one of the most difficult problems of modern politics—I do not say that the feelings or even the conduct of Lord Derby, in the interval between the time when he made that communication to me and the first meeting of the Cabinet, were not modified, as the conduct of every public man must be modified, by the circumstances of the time, by the temper of the nation, by observation of general or particular opinions, by acquaintance with the obstacles which he should have to encounter, and the various combinations which it might be necessary to enter into to obtain the end which he desired. He must, indeed, be constituted differently from other statesmen if his course were not modified, even sometimes arrested, by such circumstances. But this I will say of Lord Derby, that what was his first opinion early in the autumn is his last opinion, and is one upon which he is prepared to act. Sir, we had more than the hope, we had the expectation, that we should have been able to propose to the House a measure conceived in the spirit which had influenced Lord Derby when he made that communication to me in the autumn, and sanctioned and supported by all his Colleagues. After having entertained, however, an expectation of that character, we were unhappily, and I must say unexpectedly, disappointed in that hope. Sir, I impugn no man's conduct under these circumstances. I am confident, for my own part, that every Member of the Cabinet of Lord Derby, whatever his opinion on the subject, or whatever the course he may have taken, acted only in duty and in honour. That, however, being the case, called upon somewhat unexpectedly to arrive at a decision, and feeling that he had entered into an engagement with his Sovereign and with his country to bring this question, if possible, to a solution, Lord Derby sanctioned the measure which on the 25th of last month I brought before the House. Upon that measure I shall make one remark. The House must not think, because we were unable to carry into effect the more considerable measure which we had planned, that we had recourse to a scheme which we had only suddenly adopted. The measure I proposed on the 25th of February was one which had engaged our attention, and especially the attention—the mature attention—of Lord Derby. We had always been of opinion that if, unfortunately, we should
1342
not be justified in introducing the measure which we wished, that was the one which ought to be brought forward, because it could be defended upon principle. I speak of it with impartiality, because it is not and need not now be concealed that it was not the one which I myself should have preferred; but it is one, in my opinion, which I could consistently and honourably recommend to the House, because it is founded upon a principle, and between that measure and the policy which Lord Derby would have preferred there is in our belief no other course possible. The principle upon which the measure which I described on the 25th of February is founded is this—it seeks to restore, and I would restore the labouring classes to that place in our Parliamentary system which they forfeited by the Act of 1832. If, for example, it had been carried, the constituency of England would have consisted probably, allowing for double votes, of 1,400,000 persons, and the labouring classes would have possessed of that constituency exactly one quarter. Then, take the great landed proprietors and the various classes in connection with them, and give another quarter to them, and a moiety of the constituency between those two sections would have been left to the various sections of the middle class. That, therefore, was a policy which was founded on a principle, for it would have offered to the country a constituency which bore in its various classes a due and harmonious relation to each other, and which, adapted no doubt to different places and to different circumstances, would have placed the working class in the position from which they were expelled in 1832. ["Oh, oh!"] That was a measure, moreover, which we had reason to believe might have been accepted by Parliament. It was brought for ward by a united Cabinet, and we entertained an expectation that there were many influential Gentlemen opposite who would have accepted it. But what was the fact? I must say this, though individually I was not surprised at the result, that it did not give satisfaction to the great Conservative party of the country. I am not speaking merely of those influential Gentlemen who have the honour of representing the Conservative party in this House, though I have reason to believe this they entirely represent the feeling of the country in this respect; but I may say this, that not a day lapsed after the measure was brought under the consideration of the House with-

1343
out persons of the highest authority in the country, men of the greatest stake and standing, who are distinguished by what are called Conservative opinions, expressing their regret that this measure had been adopted, and that the course which Lord Derby was supposed to uphold—and which, indeed, he had, without circumlocution, taken the opportunity of intimating to his followers his wish to support, had not been pursued. Sir, there was a general feeling throughout the country, or at least, through the most important Members and communities connected with the Conservative party, that the question of the introduction of the working classes into our Parliamentary system should not be dealt with in a contracted spirit. Then, Sir, how did that proposition fare with Gentlemen opposite, on whose support in some degree we had hoped we might have counted? Why, the very next day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lancashire called his friends together—very properly, for I do not condemn his conduct, or the decision at which they arrived—and after consultation they came to the conclusion that the proposition was unsatisfactory, and that no settlement could be satisfactory unless it were based on a £5 rating. [Cries of "No, no!" from the Opposition.] That, at all events, was the information which reached us. Probably it was not accurate, and much of the information that reaches you about us is equally unauthentic. I think, however, it will not be disputed that our proposal was not popular with the Liberal party, and that, in fact, some counter-proposition was to be made. It seemed to us, therefore, that we were fast sinking into that unsatisfactory state which distinguished last Session, when one proposition was met by another not materially differing from it, and that the attempt to bring this great question to a solution would have been fruitless in the present as it had been in preceding Sessions. But, Sir, we are conscious that there is some difference between this and the preceding Session, and we did believe and hold that if the question were not seriously and earnestly and vigorously grappled with, it would not be for the honour of Parliament or the advantage of the country. Well, Sir, under these circumstances, Lord Derby called his Colleagues together, and wished them to re-consider the course which had been pursued, and the course which he had formerly and originally wished to pursue.
1344
And he expressed his strong opinion that the course which he originally wished to pursue was the only one that would lead to a solution which would be satisfactory to the country, and enable Parliament to agree to a measure, and would, on the whole, be most conducive to the interests of the country, present and future. I regret to say that under these circumstances, although a majority of the Cabinet supported Lord Derby, we had the great misfortune of losing three of our Colleagues. Sir, I know there may be some in this House who think that the circumstance of losing Colleagues, although it may be a disagreeable incident, is one which, like many of the casualties of life, must be encountered and endured. Some, indeed, think that the breaking up of a Cabinet is like the breaking up of a social meeting, and that these things are easily forgotten and passed over. But I see some right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have had the misfortune of parting with Colleagues, and I think they will agree with me that the disruption of that tie—that separation from men with whom you have long been bound by a tie of the most intense interest—that of attempting to manage the affairs of a great country in the hope that you may be contributing to the public welfare—is one of the most painful and saddest incidents that can occur. I rank it among the calamities of life. If my resignation of office could have prevented that unfortunate result, that resignation was at the command of my noble Friend. It was at his command then, as it has always been. And whether I have sat on that side of the House or on this, those who know me know that I have always said that no personal sacrifice on my part should I hesitate to make to maintain a united party or a united Cabinet. But the state of affairs would not have been bettered by my retiring from office. We lost Colleagues with whom it was a pride and pleasure to act; and my only consolation under the circumstances is that I feel certain the services of such men, whatever may become of myself, will not be lost to their country. And there is one among them whose commanding talents, whose clear intelligence, capacity for labour, and power of expression will always, I am sure, qualify him for taking a leading part in the affairs of this country. But, Sir, it is unnecessary, as I am sure it must be painful, to touch upon these personal questions. The spirit of honour and the sense of duty will maintain

1345
us, I hope, in the trial which we are now undergoing. Lord Derby, had he quitted office, would only have increased the embarrassment which public men now feel. He retains office with the most earnest determination to carry into effect the policy which he approves. I hope that, without entering into any unnecessary details, which might afford amusement to the curious, but which feeling this House has at all times repudiated, it will be thought that I have fairly placed before the House the position in which the Cabinet is placed. It is our business now to bring forward, as soon as we possibly can, the measure of Parliamentary Reform which, after such difficulties and such sacrifices, it will be my duty to introduce to the House. Sir, the House need not fear that there will be any evasion, any equivocation, any vacillation, or any hesitation in that measure. That measure will be brought forward as the definitive opinion of the Cabinet, and by that definitive opinion they will stand. The right hon. Gentleman last night uttered some prophetic deprecations of the character of that measure, which I thought somewhat gratuitous. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be painfully afraid that its character might be complex. I know well the singular plainness of mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and how he shrinks at all times from anything that is intricate. I do not think that the measure which I am about to bring in will perplex Parliament; but of this I feel quite sure, that it will be perfectly intelligible to the country.
GENERAL PEEL: Sir, I hold everybody responsible for the maintenance of his own honour, whether it be personal or political. I do not know whether he is at all times the best judge of what that honour may require, because there is a species of false honour which sometimes induces him not to apologize although he knows he is wrong, and which induces him to persist in a course although he has begun to doubt the propriety of that course. I hope I have not been influenced in the course I have pursued by this principle of false honour. On the contrary, when a person has changed his opinion I honour him, Sir, for acknowledging that change and acting on it. And I confess to having altered my opinion with regard to that great question which we discussed last year. It is perfectly true, as has been stated by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), that when his Govern-
1346
ment was formed no pledge was given to bring in a Reform Bill. If any such pledge had been required, I certainly should not have accepted office. Since that time I have changed my opinion. I have changed it, first as to the indifference of the great mass of the people upon it. I changed it because I then thought it was absolutely necessary for the Government to bring in a Reform Bill, and that the question should be settled as soon as possible. Having come to that conclusion, I was satisfied that it could only be carried out by every one of extreme opinions either on one side or the other being prepared to sacrifice his extreme opinions. I was therefore prepared to unite with my Colleagues, if possible, in framing a Reform Bill. When I came to that conclusion I was perfectly prepared for all the sacrifices I might be called upon to go through, I was prepared to hear passages of my speech of last year quoted against me constantly, and received with cheers from the Gentlemen opposite. I am extremely sorry that by the course I have taken I deprive hon. Gentlemen opposite of any portions of the speeches they may have been preparing. There were some expressions in that speech which I deeply regret. There was one especially about the Thames flowing with blood which I have never ceased to regret. I was also prepared for another punishment, which I think the hon. Member for Lambeth very good-naturedly said, was the only one he wished to see inflicted upon me—that of walking out in the lobby in support of a Reform Bill. I am fully prepared also to undergo that. It was not until the fifth Resolution was proposed—that fatal fifth Resolution—by which it was proposed to extend the franchise down to household suffrage—that I found myself unable to agree with my Colleagues, and I then and there tendered my resignation. I objected to it in the first place on the ground that it could not be carried out in conformity with the fourth Resolution, which said that no class should have a predominant influence in the representation. I also objected to it because I thought that in many instances it would entirely overwhelm and swamp the old constituency, especially in small boroughs; but when this matter was discussed in the Cabinet I must say that the opinion of my Colleagues was unanimous, that this was a mere matter of figures—a mere question of compensation, although I must say that

1347
with regard to the compensation derived from a plurality of votes I have no very great faith either in securities or pledges. My experience of forty years in this House has led me to the conclusion that a security as a security is of no use whatever. If it is right in itself it may be maintained, but as a security it is of no use. Therefore, on that ground I objected to the extension to household suffrage. But when I was assured that it was a mere question of figures and would prove a Conservative measure, I consented to become a party to bring in the Bill—not that I had changed my opinion, but, knowing that everyone must to some extent sacrifice his opinions to carry a great measure, I consented to sacrifice mine to what I believed to be the unanimous opinion of my Colleagues. It was not until Monday morning week, or very late on Sunday night, that I heard for the first time that two of my Colleagues, in whom I placed the greatest confidence, and with whom I had acted with the greatest cordiality, had, without any communication with me, or any reference to me, come to the same conclusion as I had done. On an analysis of the figures, they had come to the conclusion that the effect of the proposal would be what I had always feared it would be—namely, that in some of the small boroughs it would swamp the constituencies. I therefore refused to take any share in the responsibility of the measure. The ground upon which I had consented to it was entirely removed, and I could no longer take upon myself the responsibility of any share in bringing in that measure.
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: Sir, since I gave my answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) yesterday, I have received the permission, through Lord Derby, which enables me now to speak on this subject; and the details into which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entered, and still more the details entered into by my right hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, impose upon me—although I dislike as much as any man the disagreeable egotism of these discussions—the necessity of briefly saying what my own course has been, and what the circumstances were under which I, on Monday last, tendered my resignation. At the time when the fifth Resolution—that fatal Resolution, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has called it—was laid upon the table, no detailed and definite agreement, as I understood it, had been come
1348
to. A general view was entertained; but the actual figures were not arranged, or the mode in which it should be applied. It was, as I then understood it, to be applied according to principles which I believed to be just, although I confess I did not at the time think the House would accept them. But that seemed to me a small matter. My only question in assenting to the proposal was to ask myself "Was it just? was it arranged upon a principle that seemed to be just, and which would at the same time afford an opportunity of admitting to the representation a very large class who do not now possess the franchise?" My right hon. Friend objected to that proposal, as he has told you; and it was in the hope that the figures might be so adjusted that the desire of the great majority of my Colleagues might be carried out with perfect safety to the Constitution, and in a manner that was likely to settle this much vexed and most difficult question, that I was one of those to urge him to remain. But after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 11th of February, it became evident—at least, it was the belief of many of my Colleagues—that the original view of the application of the fifth Resolution was untenable; and proposals which to me—I only say to me—were new, were then entertained by the Government. I desire particularly to be understood here. I do not for a moment wish to suggest that my Colleagues acted in a hasty or precipitate manner. But anybody who knows the working of Cabinets will know that with so large a body matters are matured and considered in the first instance by a small number of Members, and that many, especially of those who hold offices with heavy Departmental work, such as mine was, are not in the first instance consulted as to measures which are about to be proposed to the Cabinet. Well, it was on the 16th of February, I think, that I first heard of the proposition which I believe has now received the formal sanction of Her Majesty's Government. I then stated at once that it was a proposition which to my mind was inadmissible. I believed at the time that it had been abandoned. But on the following Tuesday, the 19th, I think, the proposition was revived, and revived with the statement of certain statistics. Now, the House will perhaps allow me just to point out the special value of statistics in this particular matter. The idea of the fifth Resolution was to give an enfranchisement

1349
with a certain compensation or counterpoise. Of course, therefore, the whole value of any arrangement of which a counterpoise is to form a part must depend upon the accuracy of the calculations on which that counterpoise is framed. The figures on Tuesday, the 19th, were imperfect, and, after considerable discussion, it was, as I understood, agreed that the matter should be resumed with fuller information, to be obtained with aid from the Departments, on Saturday, the 23rd. The statement of the measure which was to be introduced to the House, it will be recollected, was to be made on Monday, the 25th. On Saturday, the 23rd, the figures were produced. I was asked whether I desired a further discussion of them. I said that they seemed to be favourable; but I am not aware that I gave any further assent to the proposition than was conveyed in those words. I say this on account of an expression that I can hardly acquiesce in which has been used elsewhere. But after we separated on Saturday, the 23rd, I naturally gave myself up to the investigation of those figures. The position was one of extreme difficulty. The materials which I had were, in my opinion, exceedingly scanty. The time which I had for decision was forty-eight hours. On the Sunday evening I came to the conclusion that although the figures, on the whole, had a fair seeming, and although it appeared, when stated in block, that upon them the proposed reduction of the franchise might be safely adopted, yet it appeared to me that, with respect to a very large number of boroughs, they would scarcely operate, practically, otherwise than as a household suffrage. As soon us I came to this conclusion, I consulted with one or two of my Colleagues, who happened to be near at hand, and then I wrote to Lord Derby to state that, with those figures before me, it was utterly impossible for me to concur in the measure which he proposed, As my right hon. Friend has said, on the Monday morning following we assembled somewhat hastily. I then naturally tendered my resignation, and implored my noble Friend to accept it; because, as I urged on him, a Government in which there were dissensions was not a likely Government to satisfy either the House or the country. But Lord Derby, actuated by a kindliness of feeling for which certainly I ought not to be ungrateful, but which I still think was mistaken, rather preferred to put it to me and the others who were
1350
dissatisfied, whether we would consent to a compromise—whether we ought not to consent to a less extensive measure which had been under the consideration of the Cabinet, and which was brought forward by my right hon. Friend later in the day. In the course of last week Lord Derby again came to the conclusion that what I had suggested originally was correct—namely, that it was not expedient to go on with a divided Cabinet. He resumed the proposition which he had urged in the I preceding week; and, of course, I again tendered my resignation. I am very glad to have the opportunity of making this explanation to the House; because, from some words which dropped inadvertently yesterday both in this and in the other House, I fear some impression might I have been created that we had acted precipitately—that we had consented for a long time to a measure which had been prepared long beforehand, and that then, at the last moment, we had unfairly come, forward with our objections. I hope the House will feel that, under the circumstances, it was impossible for me to act otherwise than I did with the conviction which I held. I need not say to all who have gone through it how painful it is to part from friends with whom one has acted, and to appear to stand in any position even of temporary antagonism towards those I with whose convictions generally one thoroughly sympathizes. But I felt that I never could consent to a measure which appeared to me to introduce into the majority of boroughs what was in effect pure and simple household suffrage. In saying this, I do not wish to give the impression that I am insensible to those considerations which acted so deeply on the mind of my right hon. Friend. My noble friend Lord Carnarvon has expressed elsewhere the sentiments which he entertain'; on this question in language which I willingly would adopt for my own; and I should be very glad if it should be possible, in spite of all these unfortunate dissensions, during the present Session to pass a measure which shall give satisfaction to those who undoubtedly are dissatisfied, and which shall remove from the arena of politics a matter of such fierce and such dangerous controversy. But I am sure that this question never would be settled if any who entertained sincere convictions against the propositions that were made allowed the suspicion to fall upon them that for any party or personal considerations they

1351
were suppressing their own convictions, and acting against them. It is only by the most perfect sincerity, and by earnestly striving each in our own sphere as much as we can to take this subject out of the category of those questions which tend to give rise to party struggles, that we can get rid of a difficulty which has become serious, and remove what has also become in effect a disgrace to the efficiency of the House of Commons.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: The House may well believe that I would not for a moment presume to trespass upon it on an occasion of this kind merely for the purpose of continuing a discussion in which I have no desire to interfere. I only wish to clear up a particular transaction of which an account has appeared in the public press. On Wednesday last, the 27th of February, there appeared in The Morning Advertiser, a statement in these terms—
"After the withdrawal of the Resolutions last night Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli had a long interview in one of the retiring chambers of the House. On that occasion Mr. Gladstone intimated to Mr. Disraeli that at the meeting of the Liberal party, held at Carlton Gardens that afternoon, it was the general opinion that no effort should be made to turn the Government out upon the Reform Bill."
That statement in itself was perhaps of little importance; because immediately afterwards it was contradicted, in a manner which, I think, it is not presuming too much to say, shows that the contradiction must have emanated from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone)—
"We are," said the article of the following day, "authorized to contradict the report that a conference has taken place between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Gladstone on the subject of Reform. There is no foundation whatever for such a rumour."
That contradiction, according to the usual practice of public life, must have come from an authoritative source, and I should have made no remark upon it had it not been for the circumstance that this morning The Morning Advertiser has another article upon it; which, after reviving the first statement, and appending the contradiction, repeats that—
"After the discussion on the withdrawal of the Resolutions on the 25th of February, Mr. Disraeli had an interview with Mr. Gladstone in the Ministerial retiring-room behind the Speaker's Chair. The interview was adjourned to the following day, to the room of the hon. Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel Taylor) who holds a Ministerial office."
I think that such a statement having ap-
1352
peared in the public papers it ought to be further elucidated, and I submit it to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker—I shall have no difficulty, I think, in setting at rest the mind of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down with respect to the communications supposed to have taken place between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. There is no foundation whatever for the idea that has been promulgated from certain quarters of such communications having taken place. What did take place was this—and it affords a curious illustration of the manner in which what is great may occasionally grow out of what is small. On the evening to which the hon. Gentleman referred a question of a very different nature from Parliamentary Reform was upon the paper. That question I was anxious to support, provided Her Majesty's Government would adopt a certain course, to which they already seemed inclined, and which I believed would tend to the public advantage. I spoke with the right hon. Gentleman not for twenty minutes, but for about twenty seconds, behind the Speaker's Chair. In the course of that interview I inquired of the right hon. Gentleman if they intended to pursue that course. He said they did, and I believe I then used the words "Quite proper." Probably those words were overheard, and the interpretation which was given to them by an over-heated imagination proves it to be still true that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Sir, having disposed of that matter, I may turn to the statements which have been submitted to the House this evening. I do not think it would tend to the public advantage were I, at the present juncture, to comment upon the state of things which has prevailed in the Cabinet with regard to the question of Parliamentary Reform. I shall not therefore attempt to comment upon the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, still less upon those made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the late Secretary for War, and by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, who have evidently been actuated by the desire to maintain that character for public honour in the recent proceedings from which I am quite certain no man could suppose for a moment that they would deviate. But, Sir, there

1353
is a particular portion of the statement I of the right hon. Gentleman which, even without the direct appeal of the hon. Member for Devizes, it would be necessary for me to notice, The right hon. Gentleman has given to the House to-night a defence and justification of the plan of Parliamentary Reform which was so hastily submitted and so hastily withdrawn by Her Majesty's Government, and he has distinctly and intelligibly attempted to fasten upon those who sit upon this side of the House the responsibility of having brought that project to its untimely end. Sir, I must comment upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the plan of Her Majesty's Government was a plan founded upon a principle. When I heard those words fall from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman I confess I was curious to learn what interpretation they would receive from his following remarks. There are high authorities of recent date for the expression of surprise on Parliamentary occurrences, and I must confess that it was with surprise that I heard the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman. He stated that if that plan had been adopted the effect of it would have been to raise the constituency of this country to the number of 1,400,000. Of that number one-fourth, or 350,000, would have been members of the working classes, one-fourth would have been connected with the landed interest, and the remaining moiety would have belonged to the various sections of the middle classes. I do not intend to question the accuracy or propriety of that description, to which, perhaps, I should be inclined to demur. Nor will I at present canvass the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, which, however, I should find it impossible to admit. But I come to a point which is more material—the statement that the measure was founded upon a principle because it proposed to 'admit the working classes to the benefit of the franchise in the proportion of about one-fourth of the constituency of the country. It is the first time that I ever learnt in this House that to admit the labouring classes of this country to the numerical proportion of one-fourth of the constituency could be justly described as founding a measure upon a principle. During the whole of the last Session of Parliament there was a measure under discussion in the House of Commons with regard to which the objection most commonly and constantly raised was that it
1354
was not founded upon a principle. I believe, if the arithmetical proportions established by that measure were carefully examined, it would be found that as nearly as possible it invested the working classes with one-fourth of the votes to be given to the constituencies of the country. Therefore, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman be serious in the opinion he has expressed to-night, that the measure which was born and died on Monday evening, the 25th of February, was founded upon a principle, I can only regret that the discovery was not sooner made. Had it been made during the course of last Session, much of the trouble which besets us at present and possibly awaits us in the future might have been avoided. But what is more material is the description the right hon. Gentleman has given of the prospects and intentions with which Her Majesty's Government introduced that ill-fated measure, and also the cause which led to its withdrawal. At this point I must enter my most distinct and unequivocal protest against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which is, from beginning to end, full of errors, totally unintentional no doubt, but still of the gravest nature. It is necessary to point these out, because it is evident that they have been the foundation of a proceeding on the part of the Government which cannot but be regarded as of cardinal importance. The right hon. Gentleman says that if he has received inaccurate information, we also are subject to the like misfortune. That may be so, but the difference is this—we do not found our statements in Parliament upon it, nor do we, upon inaccurate information, base decisions of vital consequence in matters of public policy. The right hon. Gentleman says that the measure which he introduced upon a basis of a £6 rating franchise was introduced with either the knowledge or the apprehension that it would not be acceptable to the Members of the party who sit behind him, but that he had the greatest reason to expect that it would be favourably regarded by hon. Gentlemen sitting on these Benches.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to correct him on one point. What I said was that I believed such a measure would not be unfavourably received by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House, and that it might at the same time be accepted by the House generally.
MR. GLADSTONE: After the correction of the right hon. Gentleman I withdraw the remarks I made upon that point. But the right hon. Gentleman thought the measure was fairly entitled to the support of hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House. I would ask, however, what reason the right hon. Gentleman could possibly have for forming such an anticipation, and founding upon it so important a proceeding as the submission of a plan of Reform to the House of Commons. In the month of June last, when I unworthily occupied the place now filled by the right hon. Gentleman, we had occasion to state our views upon the subject of a £6 rating franchise. In the name of the Government of that day, and at a time when our Ministerial existence and the settlement of the question depended upon the adoption of our views, I stated that it was impossible for us to accept a £6 rating franchise. How, then, could the right hon. Gentleman suppose when we had resigned the Government, subjected the country to the risk attending agitation, given up the conduct of the question, and indefinitely prolonged its discussion, rather than adopt it that we should submit to the same proposal when made upon his recommendation? I must say I think that was a groundless and an unreasonable expectation; and if it be true, as I infer from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that this expectation had a material influence in determining the course of Her Majesty's present Administration on Monday last week, I can only say it shows there was not due care and diligence exercised in ascertaining the solidity of the ground upon which they were to build. But more than this. It appears that this expectation was disappointed by some proceeding which was taken by the Liberal party; that they met together to discuss the plan of the Government; that at that meeting they determined upon supporting nothing short of a £5 rating franchise; and that in consequence of that condemnation of the plan by the party sitting on this side of the House, the Government felt that its withdrawal had become necessary. I have endeavoured to re-state with accuracy what fell from the right hon. Gentleman. He has in this respect been completely and grossly misinformed. The right hon. Gentleman has not only conceived an expectation without any warrant, but he has proceeded, with respect to the sentiments of the Liberal party on the occasion to which he refers, upon some
1356
rumour and report as groundless as that to which the hon. Member for Devizes has just drawn attention. I had almost said that the £5 rating was not mentioned in the discussion upon that occasion, but that would not be literally, though it would be substantially, true. It was for a moment mentioned by a single Member, but only to draw forth from another Member, with the evident assent of those around, the observation that any mention of such a subject was altogether premature. So far from a determination being expressed to offer opposition to the proposal of the Government, what was stated, and what I may say was accepted, was that at that moment we were only in possession of the plan of the Government in the shape of a speech; that much might occur between the delivery of the speech and the introduction of the Bill—an observation applicable to all states and circumstances, and not the least to the condition in which we now find ourselves—and that until the Bill was produced it would be impossible to decide what course we should take with respect to the earlier stages of the measure. It was, however, an object of general desire among us that we should find ourselves in a position, when the Bill should be produced, to support it on the first and second reading, and on the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair, and then it would be for us to propose such Amendments in Committee as we might deem necessary. Under these circumstances, I put it to the House whether the right hon. Gentleman was justified in the account he has given, and in the attempt he has made this evening, the ungenerous attempt—to use an epithet I, for the first lime this Session, most unwillingly employ—to fasten on those who sit on this side of the House the responsibility of the failure of the scheme he referred to. I have only one more word to say, because I feel there is before us all a paramount duty and purpose, well and forcibly described in the closing words of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, and the constant iteration of these collateral discussions, multiplied and prolonged as they are, create obstacles in the way of our attaining that object. I therefore refrain from further comment on what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly do not feel it necessary to take notice of the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman has made on the infirmity of my own mental constitution. Every man who makes observations of that character

1357
—though it may be doubtful whether or not he does justice to himself, or to the House in which he makes them—confers a favour on the person who is the object of them, because to be made fully acquainted with our own infirmities is one of the most effectual means of attaining mental improvement. I have repeatedly received assistance in that respect from the right hon. Gentleman, and I sincerely return him my thanks. The right hon. Gentleman referred to expressions of mine used yesterday with respect to the nature of his forthcoming proposal, and he said that those expressions were gratuitous. I must at any rate say this—that they were deliberate, and, in my opinion, they were opportune. The vague and indefinite shape in which the Government plan, as outlined in recent discussions, has been brought before us does not load me to repent, but lather leads me to be well satisfied, that I submitted to the House those observations, the object of which was to impress on the Government a full sense of the responsibility of their present situation in respect to the proposals they may make on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. We are told that the Government are the best judges of their own responsibility, I admit it. Out it is often the duty of Members of this House, both to the public and to the Administration, at times when we think that serious issues are about to be raised without sufficient consideration of the means of meeting them to express, in terms becoming and respectful, the apprehensions we may entertain. I am supported in those observations by the pithy sentences of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the late Secretary for War, who told us that he had no faith in securities; that if securities were good in themselves they would stand, but, merely as securities, they would not. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have thought those expressions also gratuitous; but I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend, not only because he has sustained me in words I used yesterday, but because, in the observations he has made, be has done a public service. That is all I will say on this subject at the present moment. The time will come when we shall make another advance in our information on this question, and, as far as I am concerned, I have no disposition to prolong or multiply discussions of this nature, which have occurred before and may possibly occur again.
MR. LOWE: There is one cause, Sir, which no one seems to have any interest in defending, and with respect to which I ask permission to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) naturally supports the £7 rental franchise of last year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as naturally supports one of the two franchises, between which he has divided his affection—a £6 rating or household suffrage. I want to point out to the House, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer states that there is a principle in his proposal of a £6 rating franchise, that this principle is only a translation of the £7 rental franchise of last year into a £6 rating franchise. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, by implication admits that there was a principle in the Government measure of last year. Such being the case, the right hon. Gentleman has the onus thrown on him of telling us on what principle he assisted those who laboured so hard and so successfully to destroy the measure of last year and the Government with it. I have no doubt that most of the supporters of the Government measure of last year supported it because they believed that the £7 rental franchise was a point at which they could rest, and that it carried with it a sufficient safeguard. I believed that it did not. I believed that it was only a stage on the road to that household suffrage which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced. I wish, therefore, Sir, on behalf of myself and of those who voted with me on such grounds, that we should not be confounded with those who suppose that a measure containing no principle at all in one form acquires it when stated in another, and that we should not be assumed to be turning round with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, after opposing the £7 rental franchise of last year, acquiesce in his view to-night, when, for the first time, the Minister of the Crown pronounces the fatal and ominous words, "household suffrage." If we wanted this household suffrage our way to it was very plain. We might have got it much more easily than by placing the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues in office, with much more facility and much less expenditure of time. Of course, there is no "understanding" in such matters—no indenture drawn, no engagements interchanged, but I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it was for the purpose of bringing

1359
forth household suffrage that we combined with the right hon. Gentleman last year to defeat the Government measure. And here I feel it my duty to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, who, at meetings called in favour of manhood suffrage, manfully resisted giving his adhesion to that principle, and always declared his opinion to be in favour of household suffrage. The hon. Member for Birmingham approached that point from below; the Chancellor of the Exchequer approached it from above: at last they have met. You might try in vain to draw any practical distinction between the policy of the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Conservative party and the policy of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
"So like they were, no mortal
Might one from other know."
The one resisting pressure approached household suffrage from below, and the other dropped down from above upon it without any compulsion at all, but from a natural attraction and affinity which exist between the two. We have now an alliance of a new kind.
"These be the Great Twin Brethren
To whom the Dorians pray.
Home comes the Chief in triumph,
Who, in the hour of fight,
Has seen the Great Twin Brethren
In harness on his right.
Safe comes the ship to haven,
Through tempests and through gales,
If once the Great Twin Brethren
Sit shining on its sails."
I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, with whom it rests whether this alliance shall take effect or not, what they have to say to it. Are they consenting parties to it? Do they agree that the victory attained last year for the principle that the ancient constitution of the country should be preserved in its integrity, shall give way to the alliance between the hon. Member for Birmingham and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The decision rests with them; the country and all of us pause to see what decision they will pronounce. I could not help saying this, because it appears that the majority of last year has now nobody to defend it. We cannot expect defence from those whom we defeated, while those whom we placed in office, those to whom in an evil hour we intrusted the destinies of the country, have underbid those whom they then opposed for going too far, and placed themselves in a position which differs from their opponents only in this—that it is infinitely
1360
more democratic. I have only one more word to say. We have heard a great deal about figures, and about the construction which noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen, who sat up all Sunday night to read them, put upon them. We are told we are to have a Reform Bill on the 18th, that then the matter is to be hurried on with the greatest possible speed, and that after the next stage the House is to sit de die in diem. Sir, we have had delays enough for want of information on this matter, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he really wishes the House to form a decision on his Bill, the best thing he can possibly do is to place on the table, without loss of time, those very figures which have been the subject of discussion. At present we have them not. We have the book of last year, in which we find a number of statements in regard to the municipal franchise; hut, as is shown by an excellent letter in The Times the other day, written by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Schreiber), there are only seventy-three boroughs which have conterminously the municipal and Parliamentary franchise, and where we can make comparison between them. It would be a great service to the House, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman would, without loss of time, furnish us with the opportunity of going through the process which three Secretaries of State have gone through in order to see the real effect of the measure proposed. If we are to have these figures after the Reform Bill is brought in we probably shall not be in a condition to go on with it as the right hon. Gentleman wishes. Therefore, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some means of judging of the proposal he intends to submit, that we may not always be in the position of receiving communications, but unable to act upon them for want of information. I thank the House for allowing one evidently of a past generation—who represents that which was a power last year, but which has been taken over by the right hon. Gentleman to the other side—to say a few words on this subject. The truth is, what was a conflict last year has become a race this year, and two parties are trying not which shall attack or which shall stand up for existing institutions, but which shall pass the other in attempting to reach first the goal of a perfectly level democracy.
MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to offer a word of explanation with regard to a re-

1361
mark which has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe), an inaccuracy not at all intentional, but which was the result of a very natural misapprehension. He said at the commencement of his speech that I had supported tonight the £7 franchise proposed last year had no intention of entering into a defence of that franchise. The meaning of what I said was this—that as the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) appeared to me to found his claim for a principle in the measure of last Monday week upon a numerical relation, it appeared to me that it would have been just as applicable to the measure of last year.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Perhaps, in explanation, I may just observe that there were two misapprehensions by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) on which, in fact, his speech was mainly founded. In the first place, when I referred to Gentlemen opposite, I did not refer to the front Opposition Bench, the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, but I meant to speak generally of the party opposite. It was clearly my intention to refer to the Benches opposite. My Friends around me know that I had no intention to refer to the right hon. Gentleman. The second misapprehension was, that the right hon. Gentleman thought I withdrew the intended measure in consequence of the assumed want of support from the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends. On the contrary, I stated that the main reason why we withdrew it, was the general discontent of the Conservative party.
MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I was not aware that any discussion was to take place, or that any explanation was to be given this evening. The noble Lord's statement has rather taken us by surprise. If personal explanations only had taken place, I should have borne no part in the discussion; but I must say I agree with what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, that it is very difficult to sit still under the provocation given to us by the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What we have heard to-day from the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, makes a great change in the situation. The Liberal party, I trust, will not withdraw from the resolution they expressed to give the Government every assistance to settle the question of Reform. But I must say that we give that
1362
assistance under different feelings every day, under greater difficulty and under greater responsibility. When a Ministry, in a confessed minority in the House of Commons, undertakes to carry a Reform Bill, such a state of things can only be tolerated because that Ministry make up, in character or ability, what they want in numbers, or because they are supported I by an opinion which is in itself a force. Is that the case with the present Government? Sir, they are the weakest Government that ever in our time has sat upon those Benches dealing with the greatest question of the day. And how are they dealing with it? There has been a general determination on this side of the House to give effect to the very judicious counsel which was tendered to us by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire at the commencement of the Session, to combine for two objects—namely, to effect a settlement of Reform, and to effect it, if possible, without a displacement of the Government. But I must say that every speech which we hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer renders the reconciling of these two results more difficult. The Ministry have undertaken to deal with the question of Reform, and how are they dealing with it? The revelations which have been made to-day, following on all that has occurred this Session, show us that so far as official confusion and legislative weakness go, there has been everything on our part to complain of; and now, in addition to that, there is apparently an abandonment of principle and a breaking down in credit and in character unexampled, I in the modern history of Parliament. What is the next step? We learn that a Conservative Government, existing upon sufferance, is about to launch what they themselves would last year have termed a democratic Reform Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Peel) says that he has changed his opinion, and that he respects men for changing their I opinions. But let us consider for one moment the value of a change in the circumstances in which this was made. In 1859 the present Cabinet changed their opinion and brought in a Reform Bill. They had been anti Reformers up to 1859. They brought in, I say, a Reform Bill in 1859. But the moment they abandoned office they abandoned their conversion to Reform, and it was only after a lapse of nine years, when they returned to those Benches, that the convictions which they had left in their

1363
red boxes were again found when they reopened them, and we then had a second conversion. Now, I do not hesitate to say, that I hold it as a rule, and an invariable rule, that any great party holding itself free, the moment it finds itself in office, to turn round upon the opinions it has consistently and persistently maintained in opposition, is politically wrong and morally indefensible. I do not know of any instance which history gives us which is not a confirmation of that opinion. Even those cases which are relied on of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel rather confirm than shake this opinion. The Duke of Wellington, who was the most powerful and popular man of his time, having passed Emancipation was driven from office, which he never resumed; he lost his influence, and, for the time, broke up his party. A common danger, however, united the party once more in a common defence, and, nine years afterwards, Sir Robert Peel, by a rare union of sagacity and skill, reseated them in power. But he brought forward free trade, and once more he was driven from office: his party was broken up, his influence was gone, and he never regained the position he had lost. But there was this great difference. Those Ministers commanded great Parliamentary majorities, and they were sincerely converted. If the Duke of Wellington had been driven from office before the passing of the Emancipation Act he would have voted for it in opposition. If Sir Robert Peel had been driven from office before the passing of the great free trade measure, he would still have been a free trader. But the present Government, driven from office in 1859, changed their opinions, and opposed the Bill of the Government of 1860. ["No, no!"] I repeat they opposed the Bill. After six years they return to office. I ask what proof have we that the second conversion is more sincere than the first, when we learn that their new conviction is that Reform is not a question which should decide the fate of Governments, and that they have given us a choice of measures, with perfect indifference as to which we take, acting not so much as Ministers as auctioneers, knocking down the Constitution to the loudest bidder. I will not refer to the £6 rating franchise Bill, which fell stillborn. Forty-eight hours after its appearance, we heard no more of it. But we hear immediately afterwards that the Government return to their original policy—a policy
1364
which, if there be any truth in language, there was not one Member in the Cabinet who did not, twelve months ago, loudly and earnestly declaim was, in his inmost conviction, a policy of revolution. This may I be supposed to be the road to popularity. In my opinion, the road to popularity in England runs parallel with that of political morality. It should always be borne in mind that any Government to be popular in England must commend itself to the morality of England, and political power I in this country must be based on personal and political respect. I do not think that the course which the present Government are taking is likely to secure for them that respect. We respect rather the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Peel) and the noble Lord (Viscount Cranbourne), who have abandoned their places for their principles, than those who retain their places by abandoning the principles for which they have so long contended.
LORD STANLEY: I will not, Sir, occupy the attention of the House for more than one or two minutes. The speeches of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and of the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) have been founded upon the same idea, which is an utter misrepresentation of the intentions of the Government. The right hon. Gentlemen have spoken as if it were the intention of those who sit upon these Benches to go in a more democratic direction than even Gentlemen opposite would be inclined to take, and to bring in a Bill which would reduce the franchise to an almost unlimited extent. I say, plainly and frankly, that I can conceive no circumstances which would render the adoption of such a course by us in our position, and with our antecedents, either expedient or honourable, and certainly we shall not follow it. I say this distinctly, because I wish to save some hon. Members on that side of the House disappointment. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, or any of those who sit near him, believe seriously that it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill which shall be in accordance with the views which have always been so ably and so consistently advocated by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), they are greatly mistaken. I hope the House will recollect that they are discussing a mea I sure which is not before them, of which they have heard no statement from those who are to introduce it, of the effect and purport of which it is impossible that

1365
they can know anything, or can accurately judge, even by the aid of any casual criticism which may have been applied to some portion of it by Gentlemen speaking in explanation of their own conduct. We are perfectly ready to stand or fall by the judgment of the House and of the public upon the measure we shall bring in; but I do ask you for ordinary fair play, and to wait until the measure is before you, before you proceed to pass an opinion upon its merits.
MR. BRIGHT: I shall not prolong the discussion more than two or three minutes; but I cannot help saying that I think we have had a very instructive evening. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, perhaps, some right hon. Gentlemen on this side, could have seen in vision a year ago what they sec to-night, possibly the results of our deliberations in the last Session of Parliament might have been different. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) admits that he is pretty much out of court, and that he ought not to be hero at all. But he was the great adviser last year to certain weak-minded Gentlemen, and to certain very passionate and fierce politicians who now sit in a very meek state opposite. Recollect his speeches: the violent, and I will say, notwithstanding their eloquence, the illogical things which he said, and which he much regrets to have said. [Mr. LOWE: NO!] Then the things which I very much regret he said. The right hon. Gentleman fanned the flame of discontent among a number of right hon. Gentlemen, for, somehow or other, nearly all the leaders of the discontent were those who, in former times, had been in office, and these, combined with Conservative party spirit, threw out a Government which had offered to the country a measure which the country distinctly approved. When I say the country, understand me. I mean that if there were any who did not approve of that Bill, they did not signify their disapprobation; but the multitudes at whose request or demand the Government now propose to act, did in some hundreds of public meetings signify their approbation of that Bill. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to dismiss for ever from their councils the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne. He once led you into a great difficulty, and if you take his advice now, he will greatly increase that difficulty. He is against extending the franchise by any reduction of it, to any portion of his countrymen. That is not the opinion held, as he himself
1366
admits, by any other individual in this House. If that be so, as this is clearly the question of the Session, he is out of court as adviser, and if he does not withhold his advice in the future, I recommend you at least not to follow it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) is very angry with the Government. But he has not so much reason to be so as I have. Nobody grieved more than I did at the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite last Session in contributing to the failure of a Bill which I greatly wished to see passed. But what did the right hon. Gentleman expect, when he coalesced with Gentlemen opposite to drive out Earl Russell, and to bring in the Government of Lord Derby. Had he so little knowledge of the state of public opinion as to believe that Lord Derby could hold office and refuse to deal with the question of Reform? The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, Lord Derby knows, and every man in this House knows perfectly well that, if the Premier had met Parliament and declared he had no measure of Reform to offer, and should resist any proposal for the extension of the franchise, the first week of the Session would have been to him and his Government a week of extermination. His Government would have been at an end now and for ever. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) is very angry because the word household suffrage was mentioned. Why the right hon. Gentleman has a household suffrage Bill in his pocket, and I came down to-night with the expectation that it would have been brought on. But we scarcely know, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, and the right hon. gentleman the Member for Stroud, where we are or where we shall be. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud has a Bill for household suffrage with certain limitations, and I am not sure that it has not been under—what shall I call it—under the examination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Derby. The right hon. Gentleman has been taking it first to St. James' Square, then to Carlton House Terrace, and there being no market for the article—which I am not at all surprised at—he tries to damage the wares of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, let me say one or two words to Gentlemen opposite. You know that what the right hon. Member for Calne has said is true—that I have, so long as I have discussed this question, thought that household suf-

1367
frage was in boroughs the true basis of the franchise. I have been willing to support measures in that direction, and I am willing to support now, if the House could not agree to that, a measure short of that; but I believe that is the just foundation of the borough franchise of this country. You have been accustomed to have a dread of a large increase of the number of votes at elections. You have a constituency narrow and contracted, and you have some sort of idea that the things which are safe in the hands of 1,000,000 would be unsafe in the hands of 2,000,000—as if the second 1,000,000 of your countrymen would not be filled with the same ideas as the first 1,000,000, and would not have the same interest in the well-being of the country. There is no other country in the world in which the monarchy, or the aristocracy, where there is one, or the ruling classes of whatever grade, are afraid of numbers of votes at elections. Whether you go to America, or Australia, or to the kingdoms of Europe, you never find discussions in their legislative bodies such as we have here. The legislators in those countries have no dread of their countrymen, and they have no fear that giving votes would be destructive to the interests of any order of society, or of the constitution under which they live. I ask you whether last year the great body of the workpeople who met to express an opinion respecting Lord Russell's Bill were not moderate and judicious in the course which they took in regard to that Bill, and in the judgment they expressed upon it? I venture to say they took a part which was much more patriotic in its results than that which you were unfortunately advised to take by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe). I will undertake further to say that such is their moderation and such is their comprehension of this question, that they will judge with great fairness any measure which the present Government shall lay before the House, or if they should fall, any measure which shall be brought forward by the Government which will succeed them. You know I am not speaking in the interest of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, or of his friends who may hereafter occupy these Benches, or in the special interest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom I have no political connection. I speak in the interest of a great cause, and of the millions of people who, from day to day, read every syllable uttered in
1368
this House on this question. And I ask you to deal with them as one class, party, or section of a people should deal with every other section of that people, with a generous and liberal estimate of their character and that which is due to them. Do not try by any tricks to hinder them from obtaining that which they have a right to expect from the declarations which you have made. If you cannot go so far as I want to go, let it be something less; but let us have it simple and distinct, so that the people shall know that what you profess to give they will really receive. If I understand aright, the measure which the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) intends to introduce is rather the product of the brain of Lord Derby than of his, and Lord Derby is not supposed to be rash in his conduct, or an innovator on the institutions of the country. Well, Lord Derby is in favour of that wide extension of the suffrage which it is hoped Gentlemen opposite may, by-and-bye, consent to. I recollect, in the demonstration which was held a short time ago—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne says the demonstrations left no echoes behind them (I think Lord Derby could tell a very different story)—well, in that demonstration there were flags carried along the street, and upon one of them, which was carried by the carpenters, there was a motto which, though it is not in the choicest English, will still be understood by many present, and I commend it to the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of the House, as conveying in it all the wisdom which I could possibly hope to put into any number of words. It was—"Deal with us on the square; we have been chiselled long enough."
MR. SMOLLETT: Sir, I simply rise to say that as many Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House have endeavoured to extract the opinions of Gentlemen who have the misfortune to sit on the right hand of your Chair, I wish, as an independent Member, and as one on whom the ties of party sit very lightly, to put a question to hon. Gentlemen opposite, to which I hope I shall receive a distinct and explicit answer. The question I wish to put is, why docs not the great Liberal party, seeing the very unsatisfactory manner in which they believe Reform has been dealt with by this side of the House since the commencement of the Session—why does not the great Liberal and united party opposite take serious action in the matter,

1369
bring forward a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Ministers of the Crown, assume the responsibility of office, and deal with Reform in the way which they think will redound to their credit and to the satisfaction of the country? I am astonished to see the amount of forbearance shown by hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, and I think their disinclination to assume office should be explained to the House and the country, and that it should be made clearly to appear why they do not take the responsibility of, and settle this question in a proper manner. But I have heard it said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, whom I do not now see in their places, that there is no unanimity in their party. They said they had a very satisfactory meeting in Carlton Gardens, but that in reality there is no unanimity amongst them. When asked why they do not take action in the matter, their answer is that they distrust their leaders—that they have no faith in them, and that they do not believe if they were transferred to the Government side of the House they would produce a satisfactory measure of Reform. If that be the answer I shall receive to-night, all I can say is that it will be most unsatisfactory. I shall be sorry to hear that the leaders of parties in this House are so sunk in the estimation of their followers that no faith can be placed in them. I therefore trust that I shall receive a clear and satisfactory reply to the question why hon. Gentlemen opposite, having a great numerical majority, do not transfer their leaders to this side of the House, and obtain from them a Bill which shall be satisfactory to the country?
MR. BANKS STANHOPE: I must, Sir, express my great regret and surprise at the position in which the Reform question is placed. We are met on a most solemn occasion, not for one party to taunt the other, but for both to endeavour to carry out, by mutual concession of opinion, a settlement of this difficult question. As one of those who opposed the Bill of last year—and I in no way regret the step I then took—lean tell you clearly the reason why I approach the question in a different spirit from hon. Gentlemen opposite. You have taken the ground from under us. I will not express an opinion on a measure which is not yet before the House. In common fairness we ought to wait until it is produced in its integrity; but I will say at once, as a follower of Lord Derby, that I see no reason to believe he would run
1370
any race towards democracy. I see no reason why a measure should not be introduced, founded on some permanent basis. At the same time, responsibility will be thrown upon each of us, individually and collectively, to provide, after due consideration, just and adequate protection to the property and capital of the country.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that as a consider I able interval would elapse before the 18th instant, when the Reform Bill would be proceeded with, he wished to know what business was to be proceeded with in the meantime. Would the Army and Navy Estimates be brought on? It was advisable that the ground should be cleared before the consideration of the subject of Parliamentary Reform.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to ask when the papers referring to the electoral statistics, submitted to the Members of the Cabinet, and alluded to by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) would be laid upon the table?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have given direction for the J preparation of the papers, and I hope in a few days they will be in the hands of Members. With respect to the course of Public Business, I believe I may say that the Army Estimates will be moved on Thursday. If they are not moved, my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board will proceed with the Bill which stands in his name.

LIMITED LIABILITY ACTS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. WATKIN MR. WATKIN moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Limited Liability Acts. He defined them as the "Companies Act, 1862," and the "Partnership Act, 1865." The Commission appointed in 1854, to inquire into the law of partnership, reported that in their opinion the reputation of the British merchant at home and abroad would not be raised, but, on the contrary, might be lowered by the operation of limited liability. The question was one which not only affected special interests but the whole business operations of the country, and also involved the high credit which had hitherto attached to the commercial honour of the merchants and traders of England. The Act of 1862 per-

  1371
  mitted, for the first time, the application of the principle of limited liability to every form of enterprize. The Act of 1865 merely dealt with the relations of partners, and permitted those persons who chose to take a share of the profits of a business instead of a fixed interest to enjoy all the advantages of partnership without making the whole of their fortunes liable in the event of failure. Limited liability had been objected to on the ground that it established competition between a trader whose liability continued unlimited, and another who was able to place his affairs under the Limited Liability Act; that it gave the creditor permission to evade his moral obligations; and that, as a noble Lord in another place said, "it encouraged the demon of speculation." The old law of partnership provided that any combination of men, who went into business, were all liable for the operations of each other; the losses, profits, and mistakes of each partner were shared or borne by the whole. The modern joint-stock principle began by granting limited liability in special cases by Royal charter, letters patent, or special Acts of Parliament. In time the Acts establishing limited liability were passed, and much difference of opinion existed among well-qualified persons at the time as to the probable consequences. The author of the Law and Practice of Joint-Stock Companies, presuming that he was addressing those who might take advantage of the Act, sarcastically said—
  "You are permitted to incur debts without limit, but to prescribe your own limit for payment of them. You may invest £20, and trade to the amount of £250,000; if you succeed, your profits will be enormous; if you fail you can lose only £20; the rest of the loss will fall upon creditors. You are placed by this law in the advantageous position of a man who has everything to gain, and nothing to lose … Again, you enjoy another privilege, greater even than that of speculating for unlimited profits with liability only for limited loss. As you are not liable for debts beyond your £20, so you are equally exempt from performance of inconvenient contracts. With limited liability you are enabled to refuse to perform your contract if the price has fallen, while the person with whom you deal, not being equally privileged with yourself, will be compelled to perform his contract, if it should be for your interest to enforce it."
  But Mr. Baron Wilde, a great legal authority, has said—
  "It seems to me that the Act of Parliament is framed on principles on which the Legislature now constantly acts—that of making every one take care of himself, and giving the greatest possible latitude to the forming of companies. That is a sound principle."
  1372
  He (Mr. Watkin) presumed that meant that every man must take care of himself and act as he pleased, so long as he did no ill to his neighbour. He, however, was of opinion that Parliament should not lend its sanction to anything which permitted or facilitated deception or wrong-doing, and an enormous amount of wrong bad been done under the provisions of the Act of 1862, if not in consequence of, at least coincident with limited liability. Another distinguished gentleman, Mr. Charles Wordsworth, Q.C., had said, in 1865, in his work on The Law of Joint Stock Companies as Altered by the Act of 1862—
  "The commercial problem of the day was, I think, to find the form of partnership with limited liability, which should unite large capital with unity and promptitude of action, and it has been found by Mr. Lowe and the authors of the measures of 1855 and 1856."
  He did not wish to question that; but he alleged that by some means the Act of 1862 had failed in the anticipations which were held out with regard to it, and that it had given rise to an amount of speculation unparalleled since the time of the South Sea bubble in 1720.
  There were at present 2,200 joint-stock companies of all kinds in existence, having a nominal capital of perhaps £1,000,000,000, probably 750,000 shareholders, and 12,500 persons of another class which had grown up, and who were interested in them as trustees and directors; in fact, we were approaching the condition of things described by Dr. Channing, when writing many years ago of America. He said—
  "One of the most remarkable circumstances of our age is the energy with which the principle of combination or of action by joint forces, by associated numbers, in manifesting itself. It may be said without exaggeration that everything is now done by societies."
  The number of joint-stock companies which started in 1863 under the Companies Act of the year before was 807; in 1864, it was 933; in 1865, 995; and in 1866, 745; making a total of 3,480 companies, representing no less than £706,000,000 of nominal capital. Of this enormous number twenty-seven were finance companies, with a capital of £40,250,000, of which £9,500,000 was paid up; seventeen were insurance companies, having a nominal capital of £11,650,000 and a paid up capital of £1,100,000; fifty-four were banks, with £90,000,000 of capital and £17,500,000 paid up; and six were discount companies, with a capital of £10,100,000 and with

  1373
  £2,200,000 paid up. Thus these four classes of companies alone had a nominal capital of £151,900,000, and a paid-up capital of £30,300,000. Turning to the other side of the account, he found that out of this group no less than £42,000,000 of nominal capital was in process of liquidation, and that, he thought, was a very significant fact. But he found the matter were a still more serious aspect. Overend, Gurney, and Co.'s nominal capital was £5,000,000, but when they stopped payment their liabilities were £24,000,000; so that the £42,000,000 of nominal capital now in course of liquidation must he small compared with the liabilities of those companies if represented on the day of their failure. Those liabilities might have been £100,000,000. He asked, therefore, whether it was not expedient to inquire into the operations of the Limited Liability Acts, with a view, if necessary, to improve their principle or machinery, or both. He had ventured last year to speak of the operation of those Acts as included in the large number of causes which produced the panic; he desired, however, to keep the two matters totally distinct for fear of confusion. Considering what had been said by the President of the Board of Trade last July, he thought the House had not been treated quite fairly. In reply to himself and those who supported his Motion for a Commission of Inquiry into the causes of the panic, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "If the Government were indifferent to the sufferings of the commerce of this country, no doubt they would be greatly to blame. If they were unwilling to investigate the possible application of remedies so far as these sufferings were occasioned or aggravated by legislation, no doubt they would be greatly to be blamed. In assuring the hon. Gentleman that the Government will look into this matter most carefully, and that it is their earnest desire, if possible, to legislate on the subject, or to invite the attention of the House to the subject at the first moment at which they can give practical effect to their views, which cannot be earlier than the commencement of the next Session, I would venture to press upon him the importance of allowing us time to legislate calmly; and, after due consideration, I would press upon him to withdraw the Motion he has now brought forward upon that assurance."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiv. 1741.]
  That promise had not been fulfilled. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night that the Government bad no evidence to lay before the House, and did not intend to propose legislation, and all that he suggested was that it might be a convenient occasion for mixing up the question with an inquiry into the causes of the
  1374
  panic of 1866. He trusted, however, that if his present Motion were granted, the questions would be kept distinct. He could not allow the right hon. Gentleman to mislead him into mixing up this question with the larger and much more important one; but he hoped that an opportunity would be afforded to the House seriously to debate this most material question.
  Of limited companies in liquidation, as it was called, there were at this moment no less than 266, representing a nominal capital of £100,000,000, and the shares of the rest of the limited companies were, for the most part, cither at a discount, or their operations were so circumscribed as to show that they were almost in a state of collapse. After four years' experience of the operation of the limited liability principle which was widely extended in 1862, the time had arrived, be thought, when the House might carefully review a law containing so much that was novel and experimental. Great evils had certainly followed the recent operation of the Act, and it was important to inquire whether these had arisen necessarily from the provisions of the measure itself, or from other considerations outside legislation. It should also be seen whether its very complicated machinery was adapted to the circumstances of the time, or ought now to be altered. Another matter provoking much unfavourable comment was the enormous amount of litigation connected with the winding-up of these companies and the vast number of Chancery suits which had grown out of the system. Occurrences which had cast the deepest discredit on the commercial honour of the country, and which outraged all that men were accustomed to value in the conduct of business, had become notorious, and the House could not long refuse to investigate, and, if necessary, to expose them. It was not, perhaps, to be wondered at that the largo business profits made in banking operations by the Bank of England, by several joint-stock, and by some private establishments between the years of 1844 and 1866, should have led many persons to think that, by engaging in similar pursuits, without the clog of unlimited liability attaching to private banks, they would be upon the high road to fortune. The course of legislation had afforded undue temptation to enter into speculations of the kind. He did not deny that some portion of this evil was to be placed to the account of the Act of 1844.
  One of the things which this Act of 1862 permitted was extraordinary; the Act did not prescribe any minimum or maximum amount of shares, which might be issued at the nominal value of one farthing each, and the consequence was that any seven persons might subscribe a piece of paper, each taking a share merely to this nominal amount, and upon presenting a memorandum of incorporation to the Registrar who was bound to register it, the company might be constituted, and the statement might be made that the capital of the company was £500,000. Mr. Wordsworth gave an account of the law as existing upon this point, which would hardly be credited if asserted of any other country. The statute, he said, does not prescribe any minimum or maximum amount of a share, and it is a fact that shares may be issued of the nominal amount of a farthing each. The statute grants incorporation—that is, makes the members a body corporate in perpetuity, which there is no power to dissolve unless it gets into difficulties and is subjected to winding-up. The result is, that any seven persons may subscribe a piece of paper, each engaging to take one share only of the nominal amount of one farthing, and thus by presenting the paper (called "Memorandum of Association") to the Registrar of Joint-Stock Companies become entitled to a certificate which incorporates the company in perpetuity. There is no power in the Registrar to refuse a certificate. The same memorandum so signed and thus framed may at the very time contain a statement that the company's capital is £500,000. This seems an absurdity, but the law is so. The amendment required would seem to be to fix a minimum sum which each share is to represent, and a minimum number of shares to be held by every person signing the memorandum of association. This is the more reasonably necessary, because the parties so signing and having so little interest in the concern may advertise to the world that it is a company with £500,000 of capital. The absurdity is still greater when it is considered that by the law, as it stands, the same seven persons, each having one share only of a farthing, are the directors of the concern, unless there are articles of association (in conjunction with the memorandum of association) providing otherwise, and may the very next day transfer their shares and yet remain directors. There is nothing in the Act to the contrary, They may also borrow as much money as
  1376
  they please. [An hon. MEMBER: If they can get it.] Difficulties at present would be experienced, no doubt; but till very recently, what with the system of deposits and the high interest allowed by finance companies, directors not only could but did borrow money very largely. But, further, the law required that the capital of a limited company should be stated in its memorandum of association, and allowed that capital to be increased, but prohibited any other alteration of the memorandum. There was consequently no power to diminish capital, or reduce the shares without winding up. There ought to be a provision to meet this difficulty. Tate the case of a £50 share, upon which the holder had paid £5; although the necessities of business might require only a further payment of £20, yet he would have the remaining liability of £45 hanging over his head, and the result was that capital had to be kept in reserve which might have been employed for useful purposes thus capital was kept locked up, and uncertainty was extended. All this showed the necessity of an inquiry into the operation of the Act, to see if protection could not be introduced, and alterations in the machinery made, which would prevent the recklessness, wrong, and abuse which resulted from the operation of a system founded on a principle essentially sound. It was a question whether the principle could not be so modified, as, for instance, by the adoption of some of the provisions contained in the French law, that its working might be rendered just and equable. A great defect in the principle now adopted in English operations was that the managing partner upon whom the great responsibility rested had no interest distinct from those of the sleeping partners. In France the combination of the principle of limited with unlimited liability was very effective. The person who was commandite was under no liability except to audit the accounts, whereas the commanditaire, a person who took the most active part, was under unlimited liability. But the moment the person under limited liability in France interfered actively in the concern, and took any part in the operations of buying and selling, his position changed, and with it the extent of his liability. The promoters of those companies did not ordinarily put all they had into the concerns, and therefore the breaking up did not involve the ruin of those parties; but persons who led others into

  1377
  such speculations were bound to do all in their power to save those who had invested on their advice. It was notorious that a great number of concerns, which had been rotten from the first, were floated in the market entirely on false representations. Such things could not happen if the directors and promoters of these companies were under unlimited instead of limited liability. He did not mean to argue that in many cases very good results had not followed from unlimited liability. He had recently received a letter giving details of the operation of a limited company whose works had been carried on with such success that, after large profits had been made, an adjoining property was purchased. In this case the purchasers would not have gone into the affair at all, except on the principle of limited liability. The letter stated—
  "Some years ago, Mr.—,an eminent coal master in South Wales, died. He had with great care, and during many years, brought his collieries into such a state of working as to be capable of yielding large annual profits. He had previously been obliged to expend large sums and take great trouble to make the produce of his collieries known and appreciated in all parts of the world, and was about to reap the fruit of his arduous labours when he died. The business was left to his three sons, of whom one only took an active interest in the colliery. The difficulties of distribution of property and the unequal interest taken by the sons soon made it necessary to realize the estate, and I doubt very much whether that realization would have proved beneficial to the family. After some attempts to value and distribute among the parties, Mr.—,of—,the eminent colliery engineer, was called in, and he valued the colliery at £300,000, and found parties who were willing, on the principle of limited liability, to become purchasers of the concern. The purchase money was spread over a period of years, so as to make the payment easy for the new proprietors. The company has been eminently successful. They paid their first instalment out of their subscription, and I am informed that the whole of the other instalments, now amounting to nearly the whole sum, will be paid out of current profits. Besides this, they have purchased large adjacent properties—and given in one instance £125,000. You may take this, then, as an instance of the successful application of the principle of limited liability. I know the parties on both sides. It suited the vendors to find parties willing to buy, and the purchasers are perfectly satisfied with their purchase, but they would not have gone into it except on the principle of limited liability."
  He was far from wishing to be understood as expressing a general condemnation of that principle; what he contended for was that in the interest of the public generally the law required amendment. The abuse of the articles of association was very
  1378
  serious. When the case of Barned's Bank came before the Master of the Rolls it appeared that, after a recital of the various objects for which the company was formed, the articles had a recital to this effect:—"And for such additional or extended objects as the directors may from time to time decide on." Lord Romilly remarked that this was almost equal to a bank taking to brewing. Something should be done to lessen the difficulty, the litigation, and the costs connected with compulsory winding up. The law should be made more explicit, and greater power should be placed in the hands of shareholders and creditors. He found it stated that Vice Chancellor Wood in a late case, when refusing to convert a voluntary winding-up into a compulsory one, commended the discretion of the shareholders in voting for a voluntary winding-up. He said—
  "He could not see that any course could be so beneficial both to creditors as well as shareholders (unless there were strong reasons to the contrary on the circumstances of the case) as a winding-up under supervision. By that means they would command as much of the control of the Court as could be wanted; they were able to submit questions of law to the judgment of the Court, and they were able to interfere instanter with the official liquidator if they thought the assets were about to be wasted; and it had always appeared to him that those persons who were interested in the concern—shareholders on the one hand and creditors on the other—must best know their own interests, and must be much better capable of managing them than the Court could ever be. Considering the weight of the applications that had been made to him with reference to the management of mercantile concerns, where he was in one case asked to authorize the advance of £200,000 by telegraph to India, he felt himself wholly incompetent to deal with such interests."
  Four courts were now engaged in the solution of questions connected with public companies, and their decisions had been by no means uniform. In some cases they had been conflicting. To the process of compulsory winding up there was attached an official called the chief clerk. His offices were crowded. His fees were very oppressive, but in that respect he was nothing to the official liquidator. Without mentioning names he might refer to the case of an important banking company, which, owing to misfortune rather than to imprudence, got into difficulties. After much struggling among the official liquidators, one of them succeeded in getting charge of the concern. After he had carried on operations for some time, the shareholders thought it advisable

  1379
  to re-construct the company. The official liquidator claimed a vested interest in it but ultimately, on putting his demand in figures, his bill amounted to £38,000, the concern having been five months in his office, and twelve clerks having been employed by him. It was to be remembered, too, that in all probability this official liquidator was engaged in a host of other matters, besides those of the bank, at the same time that the bill of £38,000 was being run up. He was informed by a gentleman of high reputation in the City that the cost of winding-up all the different companies which came to an end in that way last year was not less than £1,000,000. Some liquidators thought it their duty to get as much as possible for the creditors, while others believed that it was to the interest of the shareholders they ought to look. He was told that the new arrangement of paying the liquidators so much a day was not working in a manner satisfactory for either the creditors or the shareholders. As long as the liquidators had so many guineas a day, it was probable they would continue to find matters constantly arising which required great deliberation and grave consideration. He wished the House to consider the enormous amount of money which was kept in people's pockets and tills, because of the overhanging weight of uncalled capital which might be called for by these concerns. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give his attention to some immediate legislation whereby a company which had an overhanging liability of £1,000,000 when £500,000 was amply sufficient to carry on all their operations, would be allowed to reduce their liabilities by a simple resolution of proprietors, instead of by the process of winding-up, care being of course taken to provide for the rights of present creditors. Hitherto, the corner-stone of British commerce has been a feeling of entire reliance upon the faith and honour of the British merchant. It was necessary that events which had seemed to cast a stigma upon that faith should be brought to light, so that we might see who was to blame. He believed it would then be shown that the area of irregularity was very small, and that the evil approached with boldness might with case be removed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Limited Liability Acts."—(Mr. Watkin.)
  MR. MORRISONsaid, he thought this was a peculiarly opportune moment for an inquiry of this sort. Our new law of partnership had lasted a sufficient time to enable us to judge of its character and results, and, above all, we were last year affected by a monetary crisis that was distinguished from all other crises in this, that while the general trade of the country was hardly at all affected, the ruin had fallen upon these limited liability companies, and especially those of them which dealt in monetary transactions. The facts of the crisis were fresh in our memories; while, having passed through the panic, we were not now likely to form any other than a calm judgment upon the facts before us. Having passed the crisis, and weathered the storm, we might also fairly believe that the great body of the companies left were placed upon so firm a basis that they need not fear an inquiry. It must be admitted that in one great division this limited liability bad been productive of an enormous amount of good; he alluded to those enterprizes that were more or less of a philanthropic character, and carried out for public purposes rather than individual profit. Such were the numerous associations for improving the dwellings of the working classes, and the companies which were formed for supplying gas and water to provincial towns. These were enterprizes upon which many would not enter if they were to risk their whole fortunes by so doing, although they might be perfectly willing to risk a certain fixed sum. No doubt the hon. Member's inquiry would be more particularly directed to those companies which were formed from private motives for the purpose of obtaining as large an interest as they could. One thing connected with the late panic was the extended scale of its effects, and indeed it affected classes which were wholly different from those which had suffered in prior crises. The ruin which last year brought down so many families to the ground, had affected classes which before had never been known to be much connected with joint-stock enterprizes; and, in fact, all classes were involved in it—farmers, tradesmen, domestic servants, peers, and peasants; and those who were least able to take care of themselves were most deeply involved, because they had in many cases invested their last penny. In addition to the limits of the inquiry which had been sketched out, he would suggest one or two other subjects of inquiry. The

  1381
  hon. Member (Mr. Watkin) had spoken a great deal about the evils of the present system of liquidation under the supervision of the Court; but it was to be hoped that he would also carry his inquiry into the evils of the system of voluntary liquidation, without the supervision of the Court, also. The practices which were said to have been adopted, the extortions said to have been attempted, should be brought to the test of truth, and if they proved to be true—though it was of no use crying over spilt milk—they would serve as a very useful warning to the companies that should come after them. He trusted also that the mode of getting up companies would also be inquired into. There were a race of men who were known as "promoters," and whoso business it was to get up companies. All business men were acquainted with the system, but that knowledge was not quite so widely extended as one could wish it to be. The stock-in-trade of a company promoter was very limited. A Directory by the help of which he might send out his circulars, and the countenance of some Finance Company, were pretty nearly all he wanted. But then he had to get together a board of directors. Now, to speak of this in the House of Commons was probably to tread upon delicate ground. He (Mr. Morrison) would only say that during the few years he had been in the House he could have turned the prestige of his position as Member of Parliament to very good account, and could have made thousands of pounds if he had consented to sell his name for the purposes of these company promoters. He repeated that this was a delicate matter, and he believed that the hon. Member (Mr. Watkin) could do no greater good than by going thoroughly into this question, and showing how the system worked; and possibly a remedy might be found for a good deal which was complained of. As to giving to companies power to reduce the amount of their shares, he did not altogether agree with the view which bad been taken. They all knew that since the panic many Companies had taken the step of reducing the amount of their liability, but this was a thing which might be carried too far. If too large a portion of the capital of a company were paid up, there would be no reserve to fall back upon in an emergency, and the credit of the company would be altogether gone. It was always a delicate matter to interfere in commercial enterprize in any way; but
  1382
  Parliament had interfered by placing the word "limited" upon the names of these companies, and it might be a question whether some limit should not be placed to the amount of capital to be paid up. Another question was whether it would not be desirable to carry into limited companies generally the provisions as to publishing the names of the shareholders, the same as those provisions existed in reference to banks. It was known that one of the practices of promoters was to fill up the list with the names of men of straw, so as to induce those who had capital to follow the example thus set of taking shares, and there was at present no protection by law against practices of this sort. He most cordially supported the Motion for the Committee; but whilst doing so he must say that he firmly believed in the principle of limited liability, and that it had nothing to fear from investigation. Further, he believed that as time went on this principle would tend more and more to supersede private enterprize in carrying out commercial undertakings in the country. The change which had been made in the law of liability enabled the poor to invest their savings, and was the means of effecting that for which social philosophers so much longed—namely, uniting together the interests of all classes. Its operation was destined to grow to such an extent that no time should be lost in improving the law before the transactions in connection with it became so large that it would be almost beyond the power of Parliament to deal with it.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that the House was greatly indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) for having brought this important and difficult subject under its consideration. The old law of unlimited partnership was such as to deter rich men from entering into trading companies, whilst the new law of limited liability had rendered such undertakings extremely popular. He was one of those who looked favourably on the system of limited liability, notwithstanding all that had occurred, provided that the business was conducted by capital and not by credit. But, instead of that, what did they see? There was only an inconsiderable amount of capital called up, and the conductors of those enterprizes relied for the rest upon bills of exchange, and credit accommodation of a similar kind. When rash and immoral speculators saw that the law made it easy to set on foot companies

  1383
  with small paid up capitals and enjoying limited liability, they immediately rushed into the making of them, and the only wonder was, that more calamities had not taken place. It was believed that great mistakes had been committed in drawing up the Act by which limited liability companies were constituted. If they looked to France, where the principle of limited liability was well understood, everything there was made to depend on publicity. But here, while there were several documents connected with such associations which shareholders ought to see, one only, perhaps, was made public, and the rest were kept out of sight. In France, on the other hand, all the documents were obliged to be published, and everybody was made acquainted with the minutiœ of the concern. There was not such a separation of documents to be sought out by shareholders, as first a prospectus, next a memorandum of association, and third, articles of association, which had to be studied before a person could ascertain what were the objects and constitution of a company of which he proposed to become a member. He thought, however, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Watkin) was mistaken as to what he said in reference to the system of having gérants in France. He said that companies there were administered by means of persons who were wholly responsible and whose liability was unlimited; but if they were responsible, they had also all the control of the capital of the company; and he believed that they would be simply going from the frying pan into the fire if they altered the constitution of our joint-stock companies so as to give to one or two gérants the whole power over the capital of a company. He believed that a well-chosen Committee would investigate this matter much better than it could be investigated in any discussion in the House. Very great discredit had fallen upon the commercial character of this country in consequence of the ruin into which many of those companies had sunk, and of the difficulties which the law threw in the way of reaching the insolvent parties. As to liquidators they were reputed as nothing more nor less than a nuisance—not only from the extraordinary delays which they occasioned, but also from the fact that no information was to be obtained from them. Nothing more important could engage the attention of the House than an inquiry into the mode in which these companies were got up and conducted, and providing
  1384
  remedies for the defects of the law but without interfering with the principle of limited liability.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, that this question can be more profitably discussed before a Select Committee than in this House. After hearing the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Watkin) as to the grounds on which he asks for this inquiry, and finding that it is not his intention to impugn the principle of the Limited Liability Acts, the Government make no objection to granting this Committee. They think, indeed, that good may arise from it. There is no doubt that there has been of late great uneasiness, and very naturally so, in the public mind in reference to the proceedings that have been referred to, and many of these unfortunate transactions have been, perhaps hastily and without sufficient consideration, attributed to the operation of the limited liability laws. I think that these laws have been made to bear a greater amount of the burden than is really clue to them, and it is one of the advantages of having a Committee of Inquiry that we may learn to distinguish between that which is good and sound in the principle on which they rest, and those things which are only incidental accessories to the working of the principle, but which have perhaps conduced to results we all deplore. We may thus perhaps find safeguards that may prevent some of those effects I allude to. I am only anxious to have it understood distinctly that in assenting to inquiry we do not intend to impugn in any way the principle of limited liability, and to say that we are quite aware that there are many points upon which it is desirable that inquiry should take place, and that those points that have already been referred to are well worthy of consideration. As to the question how far it would be possible for companies to reduce the amount of their nominal capital, it is one that has been seriously pressed upon the consideration of the Government. I think that the attention of the House was directed to it last year; and it may become our duty to direct the attention of the House again to the subject. At the same time, it is obvious that it is a question of some difficulty, for it is very essential in giving such a privilege to companies that great care should be taken to prevent injury to the creditors, and that considerable precaution must be used as to the form of notice to be given, so

  1385
  as to prevent any fraudulent transaction in the shape of a reduction of a company's liability. I think that this is one of those points that might be very well considered before the Committee; and from the labours of that Committee perhaps some plan may be suggested to provide sufficient notice of a reduction of capital. As to the mode of liquidation of companies, the hon. I Member has made out a good case. I think that it should be looked into, and that this inquiry also might with advantage take place before the Committee. As to the general ground of complaint—that the system gives rise to a great deal of speculation, and that a certain amount of fraud has taken place since the passing of the Limited Liability Acts, and that therefore we are to attribute that speculation and fraud to the operation of these Acts, I may say that I should be disposed to question the accuracy of that suggestion. If we carry our recollections a little farther back we shall remember that, at a time before this principle of limited liability was introduced, there were inquiries into the law connected with the establishment of joint-stock companies, and that similar complaints of fraud and undue speculation were then made. But I will not enter into that question. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman directs his attention rather to practical points of detail, and into those we are quite ready that an inquiry should take place. I think it is unnecessary that I should enter into a general discussion of the subject, especially as the general feeling is that inquiry is desirable; and therefore there is only one other remark that I wish to make. It is with reference to a matter that is, perhaps, not strictly connected with the Motion before us. The hon. Gentleman has reminded the House of some expressions that were used in a speech of mine made upon another Motion of his last year, and also to observations of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to his present Motion. Towards the end of last Session, during that melancholy period of commercial and 'monetary pressure from which the country was then suffering, the hon. Gentleman brought forward a Motion for an Address to the Crown to issue a Commission to inquire into the causes of the commercial distress, and also into the operation of the currency and banking laws. At that time I was authorized, on the part of the Government, to say that, although we objected to the appointment of a Commission, we would under-
  1386
  take to inquire into the subject during the recess, and in the beginning of the present Session we should be prepared to state our views on the matter, whether we would propose legislation or assent to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. On the occasion of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, although the operation of the Limited Liability Act was mentioned as one of the causes of the distress that prevailed, great stress was laid by the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members who supported him, on the operation of the banking laws as that to which the distress was mainly attributable. The Government fulfilled their promises, and during the recess they carefully discussed the operation of the banking laws. They did not make any formal inquiry, or take any formal evidence; but they communicated with several gentlemen of high position, who were intimately acquainted with the subject, with a view of, as far as possible, ascertaining the operation of the banking laws and to consider whether it was desirable that legislation should be proceeded with this year, or an inquiry should take place. The inquiries which we made, and the consideration we gave to the subject, tended to strengthen our view of last Session, that the present monetary laws of the country were founded upon a sound principle, and that it would not be wise to propose any legislation to reverse them. At the same time, we felt that there were many points connected with those laws, on which an inquiry might take place with some advantage, and that there were many points of detail which deserved the consideration of the House with a view to legislation. If the circumstances of the present Session had been other than they are, it was our wish that there should be an inquiry into the banking and currency laws, and we were prepared to state to the House those particular points to which we thought it desirable to give attention. The matter, however, did not appear to Her Majesty's Government to be one of such urgency that it might not be postponed for a short time and considered at our leisure. On the very first day of this Session the hon. Member for Stockport gave notice of his intention to bring forward the question which he has opened to-night; and, shortly after such notice by the hon. Gentleman, he put a question to the Government as to their intentions respecting the banking laws. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he

  1387
  would himself take an opportunity of submitting a Motion on the subject, when he would state the views of the Government respecting it. Now, it was the intention of my right hon. Friend at that time to suggest that the two inquiries asked for, being to a great extent on kindred subjects, should be joined. My right hon. Friend thought it would be difficult, if not impossible, to have two Committees sitting at the same time which perhaps would require the presence of the same gentlemen. But the more we considered the matter the more we felt the difficulty of combining together the two inquiries. Looking, therefore, at the peculiar circumstances of the present Session, feeling the impossibility of my right hon. Friend being able to give that attention to the subject which he wishes, and the inability of many Members well qualified to do so to take part in the inquiry, we have abandoned that course and postponed the intended inquiry into the currency laws. In doing so, however, let it not be supposed that we ignore the importance of the subject. By no means; but considering that it is one upon which there is no immediate hurry to legislate, because we are agreed in the general soundness of the principle on which the currency system rests, we feel it is much better to legislate upon it cautiously and leisurely rather than hastily. In respect to the constitution of the Committee which the hon. Gentleman proposes to appoint, I have only now to express a hope that he will communicate with us in respect to the constitution of such Committee, in order that gentlemen the most experienced and best qualified to investigate the question shall be placed upon it. That object being obtained, I think the best results will follow, and that we shall obtain from this inquiry a large amount of useful information.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of the Limited Liability Acts.—(Mr. Watkin.)
  And, on Friday, March S, Select Committee nominated as follows:—MR. WATKIN, MR GOSCHEN, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Mr. GEORGE GRENFELL GLIN, Mr. BRETT, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. LOWE, Mr. FINLAY, Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, and Sir. VANCE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  And, on March 11, Mr. W. E. FORSTER added; March 12, Mr. KIRKMAN HODGSON added.

GAME PRESERVATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. M'LAGAN MR. M'LAGAN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the preservation of Game in Scotland. He said, its object was to remove some of the causes of that discontent about game which, not unreasonably, in many instances prevailed among the tenantry of Scotland. Of late years several circumstances had tended to increase that dissatisfaction. The relationships between the different classes connected with land had been considerably modified. The modern system of farming rendered a farmer more subject to loss and annoyance from game. Rents had risen, and farming had been conducted on more strictly commercial principles. The palmy days of farming were past, and the tenant was obliged to calculate on every small return he might obtain from his outlay; this being the more necessary, when this annual outlay on manures and feeding stuffs often exceeded the rent paid to the landlord. Cotemporaneously, however, with this increase of rent and expenditure, and diminution of profits, there had been an immense increase in game, caused by excessive preservation, and if to these causes of dissatisfaction were added the difference in the mode of conducting the sport from that in which it was formerly carried on, the discontent which prevailed could be no matter of surprise. Formerly the sportsman, content with a moderate amount of game, rejoicing in the healthful exercise which he was obliged to take in pursuit of it, and knowing that he had always the goodwill of the tenant on whose farm he shot, was always sure of a pleasant day's sport, and never forgot to give a kindly greeting at the farmhouse and deposit some of the spoils of the day. Now, however, in too many instances, the object of the sportsman appeared to be to have a large bag with as little trouble as possible. For months the game had been strictly preserved; and at the proper time he sallied forth accompanied by his keepers, his beaters, his dogs, and the game cart. A wholesale slaughter took place, and the game cart was filled and dispatched to the nearest poulterer or game dealer, without the slightest acknowledgment to the tenant on whose crops the game had been reared. Irritating as such conduct must be to a tenant of spirit, even when the sportsman was the proprietor of the lands, it was still

  1389
  more so when he was a stranger, who, paying a rent for the game, endeavoured to reimburse himself by selling most of what he shot. No wonder a tenant felt discontented when he saw the fruits of his great outlay, his anxieties, his skill, and his labours not merely eaten up, but destroyed by animals which he himself had not the power to keep within reasonable bounds, and which were a source of income and profit to another. It was said, however, that a tenant had no cause of complaint, since, when he took his farm, he agreed to conditions reserving the game to the landlord, and depriving himself of nil claim to compensation on account of any injury done to his crops by that game, some leases, indeed, the tenant was converted into a gamekeeper, and was bound to preserve game and to prevent poachers entering on his farm. The following is a specimen of the game clauses often inserted into leases in Scotland:—
  "As also reserving the whole game, deer, fish, rabbits, and wild fowl, which now are, or may hereafter be, upon any part of the said lands with the exclusive right of hunting, &c.; and that, notwithstanding of any alterations or modifications that may take place in reference to the laws for the preservation of game; and the tenant is hereby taken bound to warn off said lands all unauthorized persons who may be hunting, fishing, shooting, or trespassing thereon. And the tenant and his servants and dependents are hereby prohibited from keeping any dog or dogs on the farm, except one collie or sheep-dog, which dog shall not be allowed to go at largo or to go about the fields unless accompanied by the shepherd, and then only for the purpose of tending the sheep; and any dog found at large or following game, the keeper shall be entitled to shoot or otherwise destroy, and the tenant shall have no claim or recourse there for against the proprietor or his keeper, and the tenant shall not be entitled to carry a gun on the farm, except for the purpose of scaring crows or wood pigeons, which gun shall not be loaded with shot, and the keepers shall be entitled to satisfy themselves on any occasion that said gun is not loaded in contravention of the stipulation. Moreover, the servant of the tenant shall not be entitled to carry a gun on any pretence whatever; but the tenant shall have power to furnish one of his servants with a short pistol for firing powder only, for the purpose of searing crows, &c."
  So that a tenant is not allowed to keep that most companionable of animals, a Scotch terrier. But before condemning them for signing clauses so derogatory to their position as independent yeomen and as men of intelligence and capital, it should be remembered that there was at present a very great competition for farms, owing to many who had made money in other occupations becoming com-
  1390
  petitors for farms. Moreover, these clauses were stereotyped and unalterable in the leases of many estates, and were till recently, and even now, in some instances regarded by competitors for farms as mere formal sentences which, owing to the great competition, they were inclined to overlook or consent to. They were induced the more readily to agree to them, because, on examining the farm with the view of giving an offer for it, they observed no unusual number of game, and trusted to the honour of the landlord that, at all events, there would be no increase of it so as materially to damage their crops. It had been argued that a tenant on looking over a farm should have satisfied himself as to the amount of game on it; but this was impossible, for, at particular hours of the day, the game retired to the covers, or might, for the occasion, be driven off the farm by the keepers. He knew a case where a tenant, himself a sportsman, having year after year had fields of turnips destroyed by the deer and hares, complained to the landlord of the superabundance of the game, and the landlord, who lived at a distance, resolved to have a day's shooting on the farm to reduce the numbers. An intimation was sent to the keepers, but when the landlord made his appearance very little game was seen. The tenant afterwards discovered that previous to the arrival of the landlord, the keepers had driven the game off the farm, so that their master might not have cause to complain of their excess of zeal in preserving it, In too many instances, indeed, the keeper was the sole or main cause of disagreement between landlord and tenant; and so great was the damage done to a tenant's crops, that he was under the necessity of giving up his farm if the evil were not soon remedied. It was alleged by some that the damage done to the crops by game, even on strictly preserved estates, was immaterial. Such, however, was not the opinion of gentlemen well qualified to judge. He knew a case in which the damage done to the crops and the expense of protecting them from the game on a farm of 560 acres amounted to upwards of £900 for the last two years. The late Mr. Pusey, once a Member of the House, and an eminent agriculturist, gave evidence before a Select Committee of the House on the Game Laws, about twenty years ago. He said that he was once a strict game preserver; but, seeing the evils that arose from the system, he discontinued it, and by so doing, he had more satisfaction

  1391
  in the farming of his estate, and his tenants were more contented. His principal reason for ceasing to preserve game was that he was convinced the farmers had grounds for complaining of the quantity of game that was kept, and of the injury which their crops suffered from hares and rabbits. He also stated that game had become a source of serious loss and annoyance to tenants in those parts where it was highly preserved, and that the landowners would find great advantages from relaxing the protection, or abandoning it altogether. This evidence of Mr. Pusey was corroborated by that of Lord Hatherton, given before the same Committee. His Lordship was at one time a strict game preserver, before he became an extensive improving farmer, when he had seldom less than 2,000 acres of land under improvement. He stated, in evidence, that a very extensive and strict preservation of hares and rabbits was most injurious to land in every way, and he found that to pursue the two occupations—a rigid preserver of hares and game generally, and an improver of his land by planting and farming—was perfectly incompatible. He soon found, as a farmer desirous of introducing among his tenantry and into the neighbourhood a better system of cultivation, that it was utterly hopeless to do so unless he completely destroyed the hares. And, again, he should have thought it perfectly idle to invest capital in the improvement of land if he had not the power of destroying hares. The Duke of Grafton also stated, before the same Committee, that he had destroyed all the hares on his estate in Suffolk on account of the injury they did to the crops of the farmers. Sir Harry Verney also stated it as his opinion that the preservation of game in great abundance was a serious discouragement to good farming. All practically acquainted with agriculture agreed in the opinion of these noblemen and gentlemen that the animals most destructive to the crops of the farmer were the hares and rabbits. It was most difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the damage done by hares, for their depredations were not confined to one place, but extended sometimes for miles; and it was not so much what they consumed as what they destroyed. He had seen a field of turnips destroyed during frost by the hares passing along the rows and taking a bite out of almost every turnip, thus exposing it to the frost and rendering it useless. He had seen fields of grain cut up with their
  1392
  roads and the ground strewn with the heads of grain which had fallen from the straw being gnawed through at the joints by these pests. He had seen fields nearly ready for harvest trampled on and beaten to the ground by them in their mischievous gambols. He had seen a young plantation of firs irreparably injured by the tops of the finest plants being cut off by them. He had seen pastures so polluted by their manure that more useful animals refused to graze on them. He knew some farms where certain crops, such as winter vetches, could not be cultivated. His observations and experience had led him to the same conclusion arrived at by Lord Hatherton—that the preservation of hares and the improvement and the proper farming of land were incompatible. Various estimates had been given as to how many hares were equal to one sheep in the amount of food destroyed by the one and consumed by the other. The estimates had varied from two to six and eight hares for one sheep; and he was certain that, if he took into account the damage done to the different crops mentioned, the lowest estimate would be much nearer the truth than the highest. He recently read of an estate in Aberdeen-shire on which 30,000 rabbits and 1,400 hares had been destroyed annually for the last twenty years. Suppose that three rabbits were equal to two hares, and four hares to one sheep, and that there must have been fed on the estate at least double the number annually destroyed, we had a number of hares and rabbits kept constantly on that estate which would be equivalent to about 11,000 sheep. The estate contained about 6,000 arable acres, about 3,000 acres of hill pasture, and about 5,000 acres in wood. Thus, there would be as much food destroyed by hares and rabbits on that estate as if nearly two sheep were kept on each arable acre, or about one and a quarter on each acre in cultivation and in hill pasture. Lord Hatherton, in his evidence before the Committee, stated that—
  "He would be extremely glad to see hares taken altogether out of the class of game, and put on the same footing as rabbits. He believed it would correct a great amount of evil, affecting material interests both of tenant and landlord, and affecting the moral condition of the lower orders; and it was the simplest and greatest improvement that could be made in the Game Laws."
  Fully sympathizing in these views, he proposed that hares and rabbits should be dropped from the game list. He knew that some of his friends considered that this

  1393
  was going too far; but he was ready to consider favourably any Amendments that might be proposed in Committee, provided the tenants' interests were protected, and no encouragement was given to poaching. It might be said that rabbits were not game; but they were included in the Act 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 68, or the Day Trespass Act; in the Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 69, or the Night Trespass Act; and also in the Act for the Prevention of Poaching of 1862. He proposed, next, to abolish cumulative punishments—that was, punishments imposed by several statutes, under each and every one of which a person might be prosecuted and convicted for one single act. Contrary as this was to the principles of justice and jurisprudence, and opposed as it was to the spirit of our laws, it was still true. For instance, under the Game Qualification Act of 1621, no man could hunt or hawk, "who hath not a ploughgate of land in heritage" under a penalty of £8 6s. 8d. A ploughgate varied from fifty to 100 acres, so that not a few Members of this House rendered themselves liable to be punished when enjoying their autumnal sports on the Highland hills. Then if the unqualified person committed the offence, or wilfully took, killed, destroyed, or had in his possession any moor fowl or ptarmigan out of the proper season—that is to say, between the 10th of December and the 20th of August, he was liable to be fined both £8 6s. 8d., under the Act of 1621, and £5 for each bird he killed or had in his possession, under the Act 13 Geo. III. c. 54, and at the same time to forfeit his gun under the Act 1707. Further, if he were a trespasser, and he was convicted before a justice of the peace of being in the pursuit of game between the beginning of the first hour before sunrise and the end of the last hour after sunset, he would forfeit and pay £5, or in default be imprisoned under the Day Trespass Act, 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 68. But if he were convicted of being in the pursuit of game between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the beginning of the last hour before sunrise, the trespasser would be visited for the first offence, under 9 Geo. IV. c. 69, or the Night Trespass Act, with imprisonment with hard labour for three months; and he would be bound to find caution for £10 that he would not trespass again for one year; or, if he could not find caution, he must suffer imprisonment with hard labour for an additional six months.
  1394
  For a second offence the penalty is doubled, and for a third offence he might be transported. And lastly, if the trespasser had not taken out the game certificate, he would have the punishment imposed on him under the Game Certificate Acts. The next clause of the Bill dealt with the tribunal before which all offences against the Game Laws were tried. At present, these were all within the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. In nine cases out of ten the justices before whom these offences were brought were game preservers, or, at all events, being proprietors of land, were interested in the supply of game being kept up. It was very like appointing a man to be judge in his own case. Under the Day Trespass Act a trespasser was liable to be brought up, and, on the oath of the gamekeeper, to be convicted before the master of the keeper, who was at the same time the proprietor of the land on which the trespass was committed. Every gentleman acting as a justice of the peace under the circumstances would conscientiously discharge the duties which the law had imposed on him, and would endeavour to decide according to the Act. But he could not change human nature, and it could not be denied that a game-preserving justice was very apt to be prejudiced against a poacher; and the sentence, even if according to law, might on that account be unduly severe. This appointing a man to be a judge in his own case was, fortunately, quite an anomaly in our legislation, and quite at variance with the spirit of all recent enactments. No road trustee, who was generally a justice of the peace, could act at quarter sessions in an appeal from a meeting of road trustees of which he was a member. No occupier, or father, son, or brother of an occupier, could act as a justice of the peace under the Factory Act; no coal master or tenant of coal works under the Mines Act; no miller or baker under the Bread Act; and no brewer under the Licensing Act. It was proposed to remove all Game Law cases from the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace to the sheriffs of the county in which the offence was committed, who were somewhat similar to the County Court Judges in England. This met the wishes of many justices of the peace, who were desirous of being relieved of what to them was an invidious and irksome task. In most leases there was a clause reserving the game to the proprietor, and frequently there was such a large increase of game during the

  1395
  currency of the lease as to involve a serious loss to the tenant. At present, the tenant had his remedy at law if he had not signed some foolish clause depriving him of his rights. But litigation was generally so expensive, from each party having a right to appeal to a higher court, that few tenants were willing to raise an action for damages from game. The clause provided that the amount of damages in cases of injury caused by increase of game during the currency of the lease should be determined by the sheriff, whose decision should be final. An objection was made to this clause, that the increase of game might have been caused, not by the landlord of the tenant suffering the injury, but by a neighbouring proprietor. It was not difficult to distinguish a game-preserving landlord, who would encourage an increase of game, and one who was contented with a moderate amount of game; and the decision of this point might safely be left with the sheriff. He proposed that there should be a reservation of the rights under all existing game leases, and that the Act should not extend to England. He asked the House to consider the provisions of the Bill in a fair, generous, and conciliatory spirit, remembering that if any concessions were to be made, they must be made by that class which was most powerfully represented in that House to a class whose peculiar interests were but poorly represented. He trusted he had said nothing that would tend to stir up class against class, or to increase the heart burnings which, unfortunately, in too many instances existed between landlords and tenants on account of this question. His object had been, not to widen but to repair the breach between them. He might have detailed many cases of great hardship to the tenant from excessive game preservation; but he only touched on these, preferring to leave his case more to the love of justice and the generosity of the landlords. Legislation could do much in this question, but liberal concessions in private agreements could do quite as much. Let them not be too tenacious of their rights when these operate to the loss of others and the injury of the country. Among no classes of the country was it so desirable to have an amicable understanding as among those connected with the land, for upon a thriving and intelligent tenantry, and a contented and educated peasantry, depended the prosperity of the landlord and the success of agriculture.
  MR. FORDYCEsaid, the general provisions of the Bill ought to be accepted by the tenant farmers of Scotland as a satisfactory compromise on the game question. In some respects its provisions went too far. In others it did not go far enough; for instance, it did not propose any settlement of the vexed question of game preserving clauses in leases. But it grappled with the question, and was worthy of support. Public opinion in Scotland was very strong against game preserving, and it was very desirable that the provisions of the measure should be discussed in that country, whether the Bill passed or not, as it would pave the way to future legislation. It might appear a miserable question to engage the attention of Parliament; but he could assure the House that in many counties in Scotland it was driving the tenants to desperation. He trusted that something would be done to put an end to the present state of affairs with reference to the preservation of game in Scotland, and restore that good feeling between landlord and tenant which was so essential in a country district for the welfare of every one.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to thank his hon. Friend for a Bill which appeared to be plain, simple, and admirably adapted to the end in view. Legislation on this subject was absolutely necessary, and some measure like the present would greatly benefit the agricultural interest in Scotland. His hon. Friend had not exaggerated the frightful damage inflicted by hares and rabbits in some parts of the country. He hoped there would be no opposition to the passing of the Bill.
  MR. DYCE NICOLtrusted the Bill just introduced by the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire would be favourably received by the House, calculated, as it was, in some degree to meet the grievance under which so many of the tenant farmers in Scotland were now suffering; and to allay that painful and increasing agitation arising from the excessive preservation of game; and by its systematic sale exacting a second rent from the tenant. He hoped that there would be little difference of opinion as to those provisions in this Bill by which the jurisdiction in game cases was transferred from justices of the peace to the sheriff or sheriff substitute, and giving to the same authority power as to the valuation and payment of damage from the increase to an unreasonable extent of game. As there would be other

  1397
  opportunities for its discussion in the progress of this Bill, he would only ask of the House its support of a measure essential to the prosperity of both landlord and tenant.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Laws relating to the preservation of Game in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAGAN, Sir WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELL, and Mr. FORDYCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 65.]

SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES BILL.
(Mr. Leeman, Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie, Mr. Goldney.)
SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES BILL.

  [BILL 38.] SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [27th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Fildes.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. NEATEsaid, his object in moving the adjournment of the debate on a former occasion was to give further time for the consideration of the provisions of this Bill. They talked of applying the strict principles of political economy to the measure, but he saw no reason why they should not be made to give way under certain circumstances. The principles of political economy had been made to give way in many cases—for instance, in our sanitary laws—and if the Stock Exchange so abused their liberty as to endanger the stability of the pecuniary interests of the public, Parliament had a right to step in and purify its atmosphere, enlighten their consciences, improve their morality, and, if necessary, control their transactions. There was an important distinction between shares in joint-stock banks and the shares of other companies. With regard to rumours circulated to the disadvantage of railway companies, it only injured those who were weak enough or credulous enough to listen to them; but in the case of joint-stock banks, a rumour of that kind affected the stability of a bank, and a run upon the deposits of one bank spread with rapidity to others, and thus affected the credit of the
  1398
  country. Many of these banks were also banks of issue, and thereby the currency of the country was affected. These joint-stock companies were limited in various ways, and therefore it was not just to apply to them the strict principles of political economy. It might, however, be said that it would be dangerous to depart from those principles in regard to these companies, because the adoption of such a course would lead to such an interference being carried further. It was contended that freedom of trade partly consisted in leaving people to calculate chances; but still it was the policy of the law to reduce to its minimum the element of uncertainty in financial transactions. But look at the difference between transactions of the Stock Exchange and the commercial operations of those persons who brought to our shores that which was the essential wealth of the kingdom. It was commonly imagined that the men of the Stock Exchange were better acquainted than other people with the affairs of Europe. So far, however, from that being the case, there was not a more ignorant set of people in the world, [Laughter.] He meant to say that their success was a proof of their own ignorance. The only chance for a stockbroker to be successful was not to know whether Berlin was the capital of Prussia or Vienna the capital of Austria. All that a stockbroker knew was what certain great people who represented great interests were doing, or who were the friends of particular people. They bought shares, not for themselves, but for others, and the information they obtained was a sort of back-stairs information, which was not obtained, in a creditable manner or used in an honest way. The game on the Stock Exchange was like the game which children played where cheating was made fair. It was like a game at cards where all the cards were marked, and where those who were the cleverest in detecting the marks won the most money. The freedom of dealing in shares, no doubt, tended in some slight degree to increase their value, when the bank or other concern was fully established; but it was within the knowledge of many in that House that, so far from its being considered an acknowledged benefit, a great many of the best concerns in the City kept their business from the knowledge of the Stock Exchange. If they wanted to find out the best investments, they must go into the quiet corners and little squares in the City where the grass grew up between the pavement. They

  1399
  would there find good and honest companies from which the light of the Stock Exchange was entirely excluded. He knew something of these things, and he did not believe that any gentleman connected with the City would deny what he had stated in that respect. The dealing in railway shares might have been advantageous to the great railway companies like the Great Western, or London and North Western, whose transactions were of public notoriety and whose credit could not be affected by rumours; but the doings of the Stock Exchange with reference to them had been the means of keeping them out of the hands of a better set of proprietors and directory, and had most prejudicially affected the general railway system of the country. If it had not been from fear of the Stock Exchange, country gentlemen and landed proprietors would have held their proper place in the management of railway companies. They did not choose to have their money played with on the Stock Exchange. In the country a concern was frequently recommended on the ground that it had nothing to do with that place. He knew that it was commonly said to them, "You may safely invest in this, for it will not be known in the City." If the country gentlemen and landed proprietors had held their proper place in the railway management of the country, they would not have sold their property to each other for four or five times its value, nor would they have claimed heavy compensation for severance, for interruption of prospect, and other things which had run up the bills of companies to such an extravagant amount. The effect of the joint-stock system, therefore, as applied to railways, had been most prejudicial, and had saddled the public with an expense which was daily interfering with their safety and convenience. It was said that the Stock Exchange did no harm to the banking companies during the late panic, but that they brought it on themselves. There could be no doubt that the difficulties attending the Agra and Masterman's Bank were increased by the sort of dealing he had described on the Stock Exchange. If it had been left alone, and had not been subjected to such hard trials, it would have righted itself with much less loss to many deserving and innocent people than had been entailed by this freedom of banking. City gentlemen talked much at their case on these things; perhaps they did not embark deeply in those speculations, but they noticed the
  1400
  oscillation of the pendulum, and as soon as the thing burst asunder they, like wreckers after a storm, said, "It was a merciful dispensation of Providence, and all for the best, that the ship that was brought on the rocks could not be expected to live—that it was an ill-founded ship, and must have been wrecked somehow or other—the thing had done no harm to any company, and had done them a great deal of good, and that they had been enabled to invest their money at the rate of 15 or 20 per cent in the best securities." Sir John Barnard's Act had failed partly from the difficulty of procuring evidence, and partly because nobody was interested in enforcing it. It had, therefore, fallen into disuse. They had by their legislation put down gambling houses and lotteries, and had in consequence concentrated the whole gambling spirit of the country in the Stock Exchange. Having done so it was too powerful to be dealt with in that House. He only wished to deal with a part of it. It was said that the question was too difficult to be dealt with. He believed that the real objection was that it would be too easy to deal with. There could be no difficulty in carrying out the provisions of the bill, because there would be numbers of joint-stock banks anxious to do so in order to protect themselves. The bill might be an experiment; but he believed this exceptional legislation was called for in the interests of the joint-stock banks and of the public in general.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that every one must sympathize with the motive which had led to the introduction of the present Bill. A man who speculated in the misfortunes of others, and made his gain out of their losses, was not a man for whose protection the voice of any Member of that House was likely to be raised. The question, however, was whether, upon the whole, the proposed legislation was expedient, and he owned he had grave doubts upon the point. The hon. Member for Oxford had advocated the abolition of the Stock Exchange, and seemed to think country gentlemen would invest in railway shares if they were deprived of the means of selling them. But he was right in thinking that such a measure should be more general. He (Mr. Cave) felt several objections to the Bill before the House. In the first place, it was legislation which touched only one of a large class of cases which could not be distinguished in principle, though the effect upon them might not be equally mischievous. On what

  1401
  ground was a man to be prevented from selling on the chance of buying at a profit, and yet not be prevented from buying on the chance of selling at a profit? The former was the regular course of dealing in many trades. When the debate on the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act took place in 1860, the cases of tallow and opium were adduced. The French were ready to sell beetroot sugar of the coming crop. The Dutch sold refined sugar for future delivery; in no case had they the goods; they took the chances of buying before the day. Nor were these practices so innocent as the hon. Member seemed to suppose. Many holders of cotton for manufacturing purposes had of late suffered much from rapid fluctuations caused by speculators. Again, as a matter of principle, was there any more reason why, when a broker was instructed to sell bank shares, he should ascertain that his principal had them ready to deliver, than when he was instructed to buy he should insist on seeing that his principal had the bank notes in his pocket to fulfil his contract? Again, on principle, the public had as much right to complain of the price of commodities being raised by speculative purchasers as shareholders had to complain that their property was depressed by speculative sales. No one would seriously propose to interfere with the former. In old times, indeed, the laws against forestalling, regrating, and engrossing were levelled against those practices, but those laws had fallen into oblivion; and it was allowed on all hands that legislative interference was mischievous, bringing the law into disfavour, and tending to its constant evasion. It was that argument which was chiefly urged for the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act, entitled, as the House knew, "An Act to prevent the Infamous Practice of Stockjobbing"—an Act passed, it was said, by misadventure, and which had for 130 years been powerless to prevent transactions of a similar nature to those against which the present Bill was directed, There was great difference of opinion in the House in 1860 on that subject. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to repeal the whole Act, relying on the Act of 1845 to prevent gambling. But the late Solicitor General (Sir William Bovill), objecting to that, brought in a rival Bill. What was that measure? It was simply a proposal to "repeal so much of Sir John Barnard's Act as prevented persons selling stocks and securities of
  1402
  which they are not possessed." So that the Bill before the House was doubly retrograde, both in reference to the Government Bill of 1860, which was passed, and to the more moderate and cautious measure of the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Well, then, was there any special evil which would justify such special legislation? Certainly, events had taken place in the commercial world which they all deplored. It had been said that certain banks and other establishments had been pulled down by the sellers of shares spreading false reports; but the spreading of false reports was itself illegal, and visited with heavy penalties. He admitted that one argument in favour of the present Bill was that it might enable such delinquents to be fixed with what was so difficult of proof; but the real cause of the downfall of those establishments and companies had been the inherent weakness of the shareholders—a weakness which was in itself almost fraudulent. When a man bought a £50 share for instance, with £25 paid, he rendered himself liable for the other £25, and ought to be able to meet his liability. If he could not, he was prone to take fright when shares fell in price, sold at a loss to relieve himself of a liability, and played into the hands of speculators. Could it be shown that any concern had been brought to a standstill solely by the sale of its shares? Had it not been a knowledge or strong conviction of unsoundness which had caused the sales, not the sales which had caused the unsoundness? He did not mean to say that solvent companies had not been attacked by these speculators for a fall. That had been done in some well-known instances: what had been the result? Why, that the attacking party had been severe losers, because, owing either to defensive purchases or to the natural change of the market, shares were dearer on the settling day than on the day of sale. The House would see how great the risk was which these speculators for a fall ran, bound as they were to deliver what they had contracted to deliver at any price. He thought that risk was quite sufficient protection to the public in ordinary times, and it was for ordinary times only that we ought to legislate in commercial matters. He believed that the best and most wholesome check to gambling transactions was the reduction of the time between contract and delivery to the shortest possible date. He confessed he was, in the first instance,

  1403
  disposed to acquiesce in the measure under discussion. It was one which appealed to our best feelings; but he was afraid, on further consideration, that while aimed at gambling in shares—that was to say, at a colourable contract between parties, in which no stock was to be delivered, but the difference only to be paid according to the rise and fall of the market—while aimed against that which, according to a decision of the Court of Common Pleas, was now illegal under the 8 & 9 Vict, it would place serious difficulties in the way of entirely legitimate transactions, and they all knew that the effect of such impediments was the artificial diminution of the price of such securities as compared with others which were not affected. So that the hon. Member for York would really injure those whom he intended to benefit. In conclusion, he would say that it was because the Bill was confined and partial in its operation, because it partook of the character of panic legislation, because it was retrograde, reversing the decision to which Parliament came so lately as 1860, and because now that commercial confidence was restored—if, indeed, it was restored—it would be found inconvenient, and therefore, like Sir John Barnard's Act, become inoperative, or only operative in giving facilities for morally, though not legally, fraudulent repudiation of bargains—it was for these reasons that, although heartily sympathizing with the object of the Bill, he thought the House ought to hesitate before adopting it.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that he would willingly have allowed the matter to rest on the statement of his right hon. Friend who had just sat down, but as one who represented the parties that had come under the invective of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), he felt bound to add a few words. There was no one more disposed than himself to give credit to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) for his intentions in bringing forward the present measure; but he believed that the proposed Bill would not check the practices referred to, and that it belonged to that class of exceptional legislation which the House should be very cautious in adopting. It had the appearance of legislation under the feeling of panic, and the transactions against which the Bill was directed were exceptional in character and did not often occur. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke had rightly said that the houses which suf-
  1404
  fered from the operations of these speculators were in every case in circumstances rendering them suitable objects for attack, and it was notorious that with respect to banks of another class their attacks failed. There was one subject he approached most unwillingly; but the hon. Member for Oxford, when he named the Agra and Masterman's Bank as one of the establishments which failed entirely in consequence of the proceedings of those speculators, stated that which was not at all founded in fact. The cause of the suspension of that bank was that it was founded on wrong principles of business, and that it was badly conducted. If, like other banks, it could have offered sufficient securities to the Bank of England, it would have received assistance. He would now say a few words on the constitution of the Stock Exchange and the nature of the transactions there carried on; because he did not believe that ten men in the House unconnected with the City understood the nature of its operations. The gentlemen of the Stock Exchange consisted of brokers and jobbers or dealers. The brokers were persons who bought or sold for clients on commission, while the business of the dealers was to deal in certain shares, stocks, or securities, which they selected for the purpose, neither buying nor selling for clients on commission. The dealers were always ready to buy or sell at a price. A broker having stock to sell or buy went to a dealer and asked him to name a price for the stock he dealt in. The dealer named a price, and at that price he was bound to purchase or to sell. The advantage to the public of this kind of transaction was considerable. If a person possessed of a certain amount of stock—to the amount, for instance, of a broken sum, like £8,550—wished to sell, his broker went into the market, and sold the whole amount to a dealer at its fair market price. Such operations as that would, however, be put an end to if the present Bill were to pass; and then the selling broker would be compelled to try and find some one desiring to buy the same amount as he had to sell of that particular stock, which in many cases he might not find it easy to do. The broker would also be obliged by the Bill to declare the respective numbers of the shares, or the seller's name. Now, in the case of a bank, if it were published that the principal person connected with it was selling the bank

  1405
  shares, their price would go down immediately, and he would not be able to get the fair price for them. Under the existing system the dealer was a most useful man, the person of the highest honour, and necessarily possessed of capital. The hon. Member for York had on a previous occasion referred to the committee of the Stock Exchange in a manner, though it might not be so intended, calculated to disparage that institution, and had complained of a certain resolution adopted by a majority of 15 to 12 out of a body consisting of thirty members; but what had happened since? Either at the end of last week or yesterday, these thirty gentlemen had been summoned to attend again; nineteen attended, and they came to the conclusion that this Bill ought not to be proceeded with by a majority of 18 to 1. The hon. Member for Oxford had characterized the people of the City as "wreckers." He seemed to be under a sort of impression that people sat there as crows on a tree, watching the progress of the plough to see what would be turned up. No one could agree with such extraordinary sentiments. It was said that collusion would take place, and that fictitious sales were made on the Stock Exchange. He begged to state on authority that fictitious sales never occurred there, and that collusion was impossible from the way in which business was carried on. The only object of collusion could be to sell the price of particular stock down; but what would be done if the price of any stock went down in an extraordinary degree? If a sale was recorded or put up at a great margin below the market price of the day, inquiry would be instantly made by the committee as to who was the seller, and what was the cause of the great fall in price. If there was collusion it would come to light instantly, and any parties who had lent themselves to such a transaction would be immediately expelled the house. The method pursued by the Stock Exchange secured equability of price, and that was one of the great advantages it gained for the public. The persons against whom this Bill was directed were not Stock Exchange men, Like Cain, they had a mark upon them. They were people outside the Exchange, and carried on their transactions by giving a commission to a broker. This Bill would not cure the evils complained of. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Cave) had so well stated his objections to
  1406
  the Bill that it was unnecessary to supplement them. Its object was exceptional, retrograde legislation, and it would inflict great disadvantage on the public occasionally resorting to the Stock Exchange.
  MR. ALLENsaid: I think the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. Member for York, and which we are now asked to read a second time, is one of a most important character, and one which is calculated to be most beneficial to the interests of the joint-stock banks of this country. The simple object of the Bill is to prevent any sale of shares in a joint-stock bank which is not a real bonâ fide sale of shares which are actually in the market at the time for disposal. This Bill will consequently prevent all that system of bearing the market, and speculating for a fall, which has been carried on to so great an extent, and which has, in some instances, seriously affected the stability of various joint-stock banks. Now, it is important to notice that this Bill places no obstacle in the way of any bonâ fide holder of bank shares selling any shares which he may actually possess, at any time or at any price he may choose; and it likewise places no obstacle in the way of any bonâ fide buyer buying any shares which may be actually in the market; but, on the other hand, it does strike at the very root of that rotten and gambling system of buying and selling shares which are not in the market for disposal, on the speculative chance of procuring them by a certain day on paying the difference in price. Now, it has been asked, why should not this Bill be extended to consols and railway shares as well? and to this I answer, that there is not the same necessity for restriction in those as there is in the case of bank shares, because their stability cannot be damaged in the same way by a combination on the Stock Exchange. Take, for instance, the case of consols. You may indeed, by bearing the market to a great extent, bring down the price of consols in a fractional degree; but you cannot materially affect them, and you cannot at all affect their security, because they are backed up by the whole wealth and credit of the nation as security. Then, again, with respect to railway shares, you may indeed, by a combination on the Exchange, bring down the price of the shares of any particular line; but still you cannot materially affect them, because railways are not dependent in the same way on credit for their stability as banks, and, above all, from the fact that the borrowed

  1407
  money of a railway is borrowed on debentures for a term of years, and cannot be suddenly called in in case of a panic. But, on the other hand, under the present system joint-stock banks are entirely dependent on their credit for their very existence in this way: a joint-stock bank, with a paid-up capital of say £1,000,000, will probably have deposits to the amount of from £5,000,000 to £15,000,000. Now these deposits, amounting to between five and fifteen times the amount of the entire paid-up capital of the bank, are at call, or at a very short notice; but, on the other hand, the banker is obliged to employ them in his business in discounts and advances, by which they are locked up for one, two, three, or more months, as the case may be, thus rendering them not available for a sudden emergency. Now, this being the case, the bank is entirely dependent on its credit with the public for its stability; because the banker labours under this great disadvantage, that he is a trader who trades for the most part with borrowed capital, and with borrowed capital of the most dangerous description, as it is liable to be demanded from him at a moment's notice. And the consequence of this is, that, as he is dependent on his credit for his stability anything which shakes the credit of his bank alarms the depositors, who hasten at once to withdraw their deposits; and, whether there is just cause for alarm or not, if a run on the bank takes place of a sufficiently severe character, the soundest joint-stock bank must stop payment, from the inherent weakness of the present system—that their deposits are at call, while the banker is compelled to employ them in the legitimate course of his business for a lengthened period of time, so that they are not available if suddenly called for. Now, this being the case, a combination on the Stock Exchange by interested parties, by means of fictitious sales, coupled with rumours as to a bank's soundness, may very soon bring down the price of the shares of any particular bank; and this without a single share being actually in the market, and without a single bonâ fide holder offering his shares for sale. Then when depositors see that the shares of a bank are falling in price, and hear of rumours against its soundness, they very naturally feel alarmed, and begin to withdraw their deposits; and if the withdrawal of deposits goes on to a certain extent the bank must become embarrassed, and ultimately suspend payment;
  1408
  and all this mischief having arisen from a combination on the Stock Exchange to injure a bank by means of these fictitious sales. But it has been said that this Bill is an interference with the freedom of trade, and I boldly assert that it is nothing of the kind, because it will not place the slightest chock on any real bonâ fide sale of shares; it will only prevent that cruel and wicked system of bearing the market which has brought ruin to hundreds of innocent persons. This Bill cannot injure any one, except it be a few dishonest and unprincipled stock jobbers; and when, on the one hand, there are the interests at stake of the great classes of shareholders and depositors in the different joint-stock banks of this country, and, on the other hand, the interests of a few unprincipled men, who care not for the amount of misery they inflict, I trust the House will not hesitate for a moment as to its decision with respect to the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. BASSsaid, he should oppose the second reading of the Bill. There was in the late panic not a single bank which failed that did not do so through some inherent weakness. He had received communications from many commercial men, to the effect that in their opinion the Bill of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) would operate most injuriously to the holders of shares. So far from its being a protection to them it would be almost impossible after the passing of such an Act to have any large transactions in the shares of joint-stock banks, for no broker would hold £20,000 worth of such stock in hand on the chance of meeting with a purchaser for so large an amount. On the one hand, the public would be the sufferers by the limitation of the business; while, on the other hand, the shareholders, instead of finding a ready sale for even the largest number of shares, would have to haggle with buyers, who would probably only buy a few at a time, and the consequence would be that the market being so restricted they would fall in value accordingly. Again, it might operate very injuriously to individuals; because, whenever a large number of shares were offered for sale, it would get abroad that Mr. So and So was selling his bank shares, and probably the effect would be that when 100 out of say 500 were sold, there would be no market for the rest. The House would do well to recollect that there could not be "bears" without "bulls;" there could

  1409
  be no sellers where there were no buyers. Both buyers and sellers were bound to look after themselves, and the less Parliament had to do with them the better.
  MR. WEGUELINsaid, he was afraid that the opinion of the House was against the Bill, but he thought a good deal was to be said for its principle. He could not agree in the statement of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), that no joint-stock bank failed in the panic that was not inherently weak. Could he point to a single one in which now, after the panic was over, the creditors did not expect to get every farthing of their money? and if so that was a proof that, had it not been for the alarm and consequent run, and had they had time to call in their capital, or even their securities, they would have been perfectly solvent. Such operations as those complained of by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) would, if persisted in, go far to ruin almost any bank. Their object was to cause a run on the deposits, and thus lower the price of shares. The House knew that, even in ordinary times, it was almost a ruinous thing for a bank to make a call. The public, who were depositors, immediately took the alarm, rushing to the conclusion that the bank must have made some enormous bad debt, and at once proceeded to withdraw their deposits, thus precipitating a catastrophe which would never have taken place but for the operations complained of. The only resource a bank had was its credit. The business of a bank was carried on with other people's capital, and any blow to its credit that induced depositors to withdraw their capital must lead to its ruin. Taking the best and most substantial bank in London—the London and Westminster—it would be found that the £20 shares were worth £95, £55 of which represented the value of its good-will and credit, and this part of their property was exposed to the attacks of unprincipled speculators, combinations which it was the object of the Bill to destroy. The limitation of the sales to those of actual shares would not in the least limit the real bonâ fide business, and although it was quite true that it would limit the speculative transactions on the Stock Exchange, the sufferers would be clearly not the public, but the stockbrokers, who formed these combinations. It was said that the law would be constantly broken—that Sir John Barnard's Act was; but that might equally be said of all laws. In legislation affecting interests it was a right
  1410
  principle to give the greatest weight to the interests of the greater number. It was plain that there were concerned in these matters two parties, one including shareholders, depositors in banks, and the general public, who were injured by the combinations complained of; and on the other side the stockbrokers for whose benefit these combinations were made. He asked which of these parties ought to be most considered? It was all very well to reason calmly now that there was no crisis, and men said how foolish it was in shareholders to be alarmed. But he was not at all sure that if there were a financial panic at this moment a Bill of this kind would not receive the support both of the Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cave) and the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford.)
  MR. MILLERsaid, he should support the Bill, considering that the reasons advanced against it were entirely fallacious. One of the arguments used was that it would curtail transactions in banking shares. That was not a consideration for the public, though it might be for sharebrokers and stockjobbers in the City. The hon. Member for Reading seemed to think that if people put money into a business which they did not understand and lost it, it WHS their own fault, and there was nobody to blame. He could not subscribe to that doctrine, neither could he believe that in such cases widows and orphans were not entitled to the protection of the law. The Member for Finsbury had mixed up two questions when he opposed this Bill on the ground that it was an attempt at legislating for trade. He (Mr. Miller) had always understood that the evils which the Bill was intended to meet sprung from illegitimate trade. What were the means adopted by these conspirators when they thought they could get a profit by trading on the fears of shareholders? They marked out a particular bank, got at the names of the depositors, scrupling not to employ bribery for that purpose, and then, having spread false rumours, brought them to the notice of the depositors in anonymous letters; while, on the other hand, they wrote anonymous letters to shareholders, advising them, if they wished to save anything, by all means to sell. Why did they do this? Because they themselves had sold large numbers of shares of a fictitious character to be delivered on a certain day, and the difference between the price of the shares on that day and the higher price at which they had sold them

  1411
  would go into their own pockets. He thought this Bill should pass, if only as a tentative measure. It did not go beyond banking shares; and, inasmuch as banking was an exceptional business, it was entitled to protection against such unholy combinations.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that although banks subject to the attacks of conspirators might not be broken they were always grievously injured. It was not the custom for banks to keep sufficient money in their drawers to meet extraordinary emergencies. The soundest bank in the country, of which he had been one of the first six shareholders, never kept in its drawers sufficient to meet an extraordinary emergency, but only sufficient to meet ordinary requirements. Therefore, in a case of an extraordinary emergency money must be realized, and securities must be sold at a depreciated value, all of which would be prevented should the Bill of his hon. Friend become law. The evil complained of was of no modern date. Fifteen years ago an old-established, highly respectable, and perfectly solvent institution, paying a moderate dividend of £8 per cent, actually lost £70,000 in one half-year by the spreading of these wicked reports. He attached very little importance to the resolution passed the other day by the stockbrokers, because they would naturally be opposed to any measure which was likely to restrict their business. He could not agree with the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford), that this measure, if passed, would be inoperative; nor could he agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cave), that the restrictions which it would impose would affect the value of banking shares, because he did not believe that such sales as those which it would prevent, raised the value of securities. The shares in the old waterworks and insurance companies never came upon the Stock Exchange, and yet he had never known any one experience difficulty in selling them in a day or two. The Bill might need some amendment in Committee, but its principle was a sound one.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that there could be no question that the circumstance, that a security could be immediately turned into money, increased its value. In some cases, weeks elapsed before sellers of the class of shares referred to by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), could obtain their money.
  1412
  This Bill provided that dealers should not sell the shares of joint-stock banks unless they complied with certain formalities. If the observance of those formalities was impossible or inconvenient, dealers might refuse to trade in these securities, the trading in which, without those formalities, would subject them to be punished for a misdemeanour. That would place the shares of joint-stock banks at a disadvantage in comparison with all other shares, because it would be almost impossible to convert them readily into money. He considered the middle men, or jobbers, on the Stock Exchange a most valuable class, and was surprised that disparaging remarks should have been made with reference to them. Undoubtedly their dealings had a tendency to support prices, and therefore they benefited the holders of this kind of stock. Seeing the enormous amount of this kind of stock that was held by the public, it was to the public advantage that there should be a ready means of disposing of the shares in the market. If the law was not strong enough to reach the conspiracies of which complaints had been made, he should be glad to see it strengthened; but he believed that if this Bill was passed, the remedy would be worse than the disease.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he desired to say something in behalf of the commercial public. Those who had watched the panic of Inst year knew that the commercial public had suffered more than any other body from its consequences. The right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken highly appreciated the services of middle men. He appreciated them very lightly, especially in relation to banking shares, and if bank shareholders were polled to-morrow they would be found of the same opinion. They would rather do without the middle man, even at the cost of accepting a less price for their shares. He appreciated the difference between moral and immoral trading, and he would therefore vote in favour of the Bill, in the hope that it would stop the plottings of the blacklegs of the town.
  MR. THOMAS CAVEsaid, he was too deeply interested in this question to permit himself to give a silent vote. He had listened with pain to the seeming levity with which the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford)—he had almost said Member for the Stock Exchange—had treated the subject. It was absurb to say that this Bill would depreciate a bank's shares when its chairman sold any quantity,

  1413
  because everyone knew that now, even without the Bill, the fact that such a sale had been made was known in a few days, because a transfer must be signed. The hon. Member for the City forgets the widows and orphans and other holders in joint-stock banks who suffered by the panic of last year. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) had overstated the case, but there was a good deal of truth in what he had said. There were no doubt many honourable men engaged in transactions in these shares, but there were unfortunately a great many others who fully deserved the appellation of "wreckers." Good banks did go down in consequence of this wrecking system. He knew of a good bank that was placed in the utmost peril by this system. It required the assistance of its friends and customers to carry them through it. He was afraid the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) had damaged his own case when in introducing the Bill he had spoken ill of the members of the Stock Exchange, who were a very estimable body. The Stock Exchange had been too often regarded as the offender. He, however, knew of a case in which an auditor who thus had access to the books of a certain bank, had become possessed of information as to a weak point in its affairs; he thereupon sold 3,000 of its shares which he did not possess, then circulated damaging reports about the concern, brought the shares down with a run, bought in before his settling day, made a fortune, and retired from business.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he thought that his right hon. Friend fell into error in supposing that this Bill, if passed, would put an end to the transactions in bank shares on the Stock Exchange. Those transactions were confined to two sets of dealers—those who dealt having shares to sell, and those who dealt having no shares to sell. Those who had shares to sell by legitimate directions from their clients, would sell them with more satisfaction if this Bill would pass than at present. He would support the Bill because he believed it would give great satisfaction to all bonâ fide holders of stock, and because the banks throughout the country were in favour of it.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, he must call attention to the remarkable changes which had taken place in the minds of certain hon. Members in regard to this measure. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Fildes) who moved the Amendment had expressed
  1414
  to him on a former occasion his satisfaction that the Bill, as originally introduced, had been reduced so as to apply only to joint-stock hanks. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member said "No;" but he (Mr. Leeman) had in his hand the original Bill, with the words, "and other joint-stock," obliterated by the hon. Gentleman, and the words, "joint-stock, finance, and other companies," written by him in the margin. Subsequently the hon. Gentleman put a Motion on the paper to move the omission from the preamble of the words he had obliterated, and to make the Bill applicable only to joint-stock banks. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) made a statement on "Wednesday last in reference to the Bill which surprised him. Last year he (Mr. Leeman) prepared a question to be put to some Member of the then Government, inquiring whether their attention had been directed to the practices then being carried on at the Stock Exchange, and he showed the notice to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, who on that occasion made the suggestion from which the Bill emanated. His hon. Friend said, "Do not ask any question; bring in a Bill." The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) stated that a change had also come over the minds of members of the Stock Exchange, and that whereas there had been a minority of 12 against a majority of 15, of opinion that legislation was needed—now the minority had been reduced to one gentleman, who continued of that opinion. He could not help thinking that the distance of the fatal 11th of May had operated on the minds of some Gentlemen. Hon. Gentlemen were mistaken in supposing that the great banks of the City of London were opposed to the Bill. He had himself presented petitions in its favour from four of them, and he had the authority of two others for saying that they were also in perfect accordance with the views he sought to enact by the Bill. The petitions presented from all parts of the United Kingdom left no doubt as to the opinion of the joint-stock banks throughout the country on the subject. In fact, the opposition to the Bill came only from the City of London, and the arguments were conducted as if the City only were affected. Not a single Member representing a country district had ventured to utter a word against the Bill. The Vice President of the Board of Trade was connected with one of the largest institutions

  1415
  in the City of London. The hon. Member for the City much misunderstood his remarks on Wednesday, when he said that he had sought to disparage the Stock Exchange. He (Mr. Leeman) appealed to the House whether he did not say, as regarded the Stock Exchange, that it was composed of gentlemen as honourable as any in England; but there were others who had allowed themselves to be the vehicles of transactions last year which required some legislation on the part of that House, seeing that the Stock Exchange would not take action to put an end to them. The reasoning against the Bill was based on the assumption that the real investors in joint-stock banks were persons who perpetually bought one day and sold another. A comparison of the names of the shareholders of those banks, published from time to time, would show that the assumption was groundless. There were no fewer than 50,000 investors in joint-stock banks, and an examination of the lists would show that they did not go in one day and out another, and that they did not require the assistance of jobbers and dealers on the Stock Exchange. It had been said that there were no fictitious sales last year. He had it from members of the Stock Exchange that not one in a thousand of those transactions resulted in actual transfer. If so, were not the sales fictitious? The sale notes were no more than mere registers of bets—records of wagers that stock on a given day would stand at the price mentioned in the sale note—and that was the state of things he sought to check. It was said also that investments should never be made except in solvent and well managed concerns. Why, the Bank of England itself many a time in the present, as well as in the past century, had been in no better position than some of the joint-stock banks last year. He hoped the House by its decision would sanction this measure, the object of which was to give security to permanent investors. It was a simple proposition, easily understood. It had been contended that the Bill would inconvenience real holders of bank stock. The fact was, that real investors were seldom in the market at all. The only persons the Bill would affect, were those who dealt in fictitious sales. The permanent investors were interested in the Bill; but there was another class also deeply interested—namely, the depositors, for whom he was desirous of obtaining the security which the Bill would afford.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he had never in any way given the remotest encouragement to his hon. Friend to bring in a Bill like that before the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided;—Ayes 86; Noes 41: Majority 45.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

EXECUTION OF DEEDS BILL— [BILL 26.]
(Mr. Goldney, Mr. Leeman, Mr. Powell.)
EXECUTION OF DEEDS BILL— [BILL 26.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was anxious to hear from his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) what object he had in view in making the alteration in the law which this Bill would effect. When the Bill was read a second time, he was unfortunately absent from the House, and did not hear his hon. Friend's explanation. It seemed to him no good object would be gained by passing the measure, for it could not be said that the law in force did not work well. The present law was settled upon recommendations of the real property Commissioners, and he could not see why it should be altered.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, his object was to get rid of a cumbrous mode of proceeding at present in existence, and which was no security to married women, or to the public, but which put parties—particularly those having small properties—to unnecessary expense. The law now required that a married woman should acknowledge every deed executed by her, which purported to pass her estate or interest, before two commissioners, but only one of them was required to be a disinterested party, and the other was generally the married woman's soicitor. The certificate of such acknowledgment, and an affidavit of the facts, had now to be sent to London to be registered; but what he proposed was that there should be an endorsement upon the deed itself, instead of such registration. Since the Act of 1834 was passed, he understood that the expenses under it—and what he deemed wholly unnecessary expenses—had amounted to £1,500,000.

  1417
  His Bill would give every protection to married women's rights. They would have an independent person to explain to them their rights, and to ask them if they knew what they were about before they would be allowed to execute a deed. The Law Institution had accepted the measure after making one suggestion, which would be remedied in Committee. As there was nothing in the Bill which at all militated against a married woman's rights he hoped the House would allow it to proceed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Jaw which his right hon. Friend sought to alter was settled after much consideration, and was adopted on the recommendation of some of the most eminent lawyers of the time, with a view to protect married women in disposing of their property. These piecemeal reforms, brought in to disturb a large plan of legislation, were not desirable. As it now stood the Bill merely dispensed with the certificate of the execution, and with the registration of that execution. He could not agree with his hon. Friend that this was a matter of no importance. The opportunity of search which this registration afforded was of such importance that since 1860 no fewer than 700 searches had been made. That showed the necessity of the existing system. He also objected that the Bill abolished the employment of the officers employed under the present Act, and provided no compensation. He trusted the House would not pass a Bill, the object of which was to disturb what had been so carefully settled by legislation. Thinking that no sufficient grounds had been shown for altering it, he moved that the House do go into Committee on the Bill that day six months.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he must persist in taking the sense of the House. His object was to get rid of an unnecessary, cumbrous, and expensive machinery, and to remedy the inconvenience felt by parties sending home powers of attorney for the sale of laud from the colonies. The oppo-
  1418
  sition was not to the measure itself, but was founded upon the fact that the Bill would remove the present registrar and I the two clerks employed under him.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he opposed the Motion for going into Committee—not because the Bill would deprive an officer of salary without providing compensation, which would in itself be a hardship, but because the measure was unnecessary. Under the present law ample protection was afforded to married women according to rules laid down by the Court of Common Pleas. Those rules gave the utmost security to married women in transferring their property, and it was for exceptional cases, where a spendthrift husband, attempted to get possession of his wife's, property, that the protection was necessary. The hon. Member, to be consistent, should have proposed to abolish the acknowledgments altogether. That the certificate was not useless was proved by the fact that since 1860 there had been 700 searches, and during last year and the present year about 150.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Friday 15th March.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.