Commons Sitting of 18 July 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Royal Gun Factories nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Tenure and Improvement of Land, &c. (Ireland)*; Schools and Training Factories (Ireland).*
First Reading—Tenure and Improvement of Land, &c. (Ireland)* [244]; Schools and Training Factories (Ireland)* [245].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation*; Hudson's Bay Company* [240]; St. Mary Somerset's Church, London* [228].
Referred to Select Committee—St. Mary Somerset's Church, London* [228].
Committee—Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (re-comm.) [63].
Report—Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (re-comm.) [63–243.]
Third Reading—Danube Works Loan* [227]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 4)* [235]; Colonial Shipping* [236]; Admiralty Suits* [234]; Railway Companies* [237].
Withdrawn—Probate of Wills, &c. (Ireland)* [129].
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

CUSTOM-HOUSE OFFICERS' GRIEVANCES.—QUESTION.
MR. GRAVESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Commission appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the grievances of Customs' Officers in London has made its Report; and, if it is intended to extend the investigation to the outports, when the inquiry may be expected to commence?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied that when, a similar Question was put to him a few days ago he stated that the Commission would probably report before the close of the Session, and he had still reason to believe that this would be so. With regard to the outports, that was a matter which the Treasury would have to decide. Certainly the Commission in its present form would not continue the inquiry, but it was intended that the whole subject should be investigated.

ARMY—EXPERIMENTS AT SHOEBURYNESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. O'BEIRNErose, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the recent experiments at Shoeburyness with reference to the proposed Plymouth fortifications.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHexpressed a hope that the hon. Gentleman would post-

1427
pone his Notice and allow the Appropriation Bill to pass its present stage, so that the House might at once proceed with the discussion on the Corrupt Practices Bill. This Bill was one that the Government had done everything they could to carry, and it was necessary that it should be carried to complete the Reform scheme. Sonic thought should he bestowed upon what would be the position of hon. Members if they had to go before the new constituencies without the protection that this measure would afford; and it should also be borne in mind that, while some Members were staying in the House and doing their duty in reference to this Bill, other Members were surreptitiously canvassing behind their backs, and thus obtaining an advantage over them. The hon. Member might very well delay his Question, which would not lose by waiting.
MR. O'BEIRNE: I think, if the hon. Member had recollected for a moment, he would have scarcely made that request. This Motion stood in a fair position on Thursday last for discussion. It is one which has been watched with considerable interest by many Members of this House, and also by a large number of persons outside; and, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, I at once postponed it, in order that the other Public Business then on the Paper might be proceeded with. The right hon. Gentleman at that time informed me that I should have an opportunity of bringing the matter under the notice of the House to-day, and therefore I am prepared to do so. I may state that I do not intend to occupy the time of the House at any great length. I therefore hope I may be permitted to call attention to the Motion. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes, that the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill is one of great importance, yet I think the House will scarcely say that the question I desire to discuss is one of less importance to the country generally, inasmuch as it affects the safety of the kingdom, and also the interests of the ratepayers, involving as it does an enormous amount of expenditure. Before entering on the question of which I have given Notice, I wish first to say one word to clear away a misconception which has arisen. I never entertained the opinion, much less expressed it, that the policy already decided upon—that a certain amount of expenditure for shore fortifications should be incurred—was an
1428
erroneous policy. I believe that a system of fixed fortifications is a necessary and proper expenditure. What I did object to was the principle on which the fortifications were being constructed, and not the policy which dictated their construction. I also wish distinctly to state—and I hope the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War will give me his attention—that he was under some misapprehension when he answered a Question which I put to him some time ago. He then intimated that I ought to be in a position to satisfy myself on the information and figures for which I asked, because I was in connection with one of the contracting firms. This is a personal matter; and I now assure him that the statement was entirely without foundation; that I had no connection with any company, or any firm of contractors; and that I had no interest in the matter beyond that which I take as a private Member of this House and as one of the general public. Sir, in February, 1867, a Report was issued from the War Office giving us a very lengthened and precise account of the several fortifications which it was proposed to construct for the purpose of defending our arsenals and dockyards, and describing, with a considerable amount of detail, the principles and plans on which these fortifications were to be erected. As soon as the information given in that Report came to the hands of hon. Members, and reached the public out-of-doors, very many Gentlemen who had given great consideration to this question were struck with the insufficient character and faulty principle of the fortifications as proposed. The subject was much canvassed, and when the right hon. Gentleman last Session introduced the Appropriation Bill, asking for a further Vote of £800,000 to be applied to this purpose, I took the liberty of placing on the Records of this House a Motion to the effect that no further expenditure should be incurred on account of fortifications until sufficient experiments had been made for the purpose of testing the principles upon which it was proposed to construct them. In that Motion I was ably supported by my noble Friend below me (Lord Elcho), who moved an Amendment to my Resolution of a more moderate effect, that experiments should be undertaken to test the efficiency of the War Office plans. The result was an assurance from the right hon. Baronet that sufficient experiments should be made, and that the

1429
principles of the fortifications and shields should he fully tried. I am hound to say that these experiments have been largely and satisfactorily undertaken and carried out. And I now wish to deal with the results, and I think the House will agree with me that they are of a very remarkable character. The first experiment was to prove the power of the shields. The House is already aware of the result of that experiment, as it has formed the subject of a Report by the Committee which was appointed by the right hon. Baronet at the end of last year. That Report was delivered in the beginning of this Session. It contains an unqualified condemnation of the shields, thirty-five of which had been most unfortunately and prematurely sent to Gibraltar and Malta for the protection of those colonies. The experiments with reference to the Plymouth and Bermuda forts took place on the 16th of last month. There was on that occasion a large and influential attendance of gentlemen, many of whom were Members of this and of the other House of Parliament; the Commander-in-Chief was present, and many other distinguished persons who are interested in the subject. The firing on that day, although it was by no means of a satisfactory character, so far as any real test was in question, was quite sufficient to show that the Plymouth fortification which has been so much relied upon was an exceedingly inefficient mode of defence. But on the second day of the firing the result was still more disastrous to the target. As I have promised the House to be brief, I shall not enter into details as to the effects of the firing on the several days. Nor shall I attempt to describe the extraordinary damage done by each shot; it will be sufficient for my purpose to state that the effect of the three days' firing was to completely destroy the fabric, and to leave the impression on the minds of all present, that it was a most ill-adapted, and, I may say, a most useless structure. In order to give the House some idea of the general result of the firing, I will read a short extract from The Times, describing the effect of the shells, which penetrated completely the targets on the third day. The Times on the 9th of July states—
"The next round, also a 10-inch shell with charge for 1,000 yards, was more successful, striking a little above the left-hand corner of the porthole. It did great damage, carrying away the whole of the shield above the embrasure up
1430
to the level of the under side of the roof. An enormous mass of iron, weighing about a ton and a quarter, was projected into the gun chamber, and two short pieces of iron planks, each weighing about 2cwt., were hurled, one nearly 150 feet, and the other nearly 100 feet to the rear. The shell burst inside the casemate, setting fire slightly to the rope mantlet, and sending fragments of iron flying in all directions. This was the most formidable result yet produced. Had it occurred in action it would have disabled the gun, and made a clean sweep of all the defenders in that part of the building."
Such is the account, given by The Times' reporter, of the third day's firing. But the Committee were not entirely satisfied, and on the 8th of the present month they decided to fire what is called a salvo of guns at the structure. Four guns were laid in position,—one of them missed fire, but the shots from the other three struck the target. As soon as the smoke from the discharge had cleared away, the first object which met the view of those on the ground was the active effort of a gallant general to get through the breach which had been made in the face of the target—an effort in which he succeeded without much trouble, his purpose being to examine the damage sustained by the interior. This fact, I think, is sufficiently conclusive as to the target's inefficiency for defensive purposes. But before I leave this part of the question I am anxious to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the fact that that target was not a true representation by any means of the fort contracted for and to be constructed at Plymouth. The fort as contracted for was less than the target erected at Shoeburyness by 5 inches of iron in the interior supports, on which such structures mainly depend. The fort to be constructed at Plymouth presents also on its surface 15 inches of iron in three thicknesses, while the target shot at at Shoeburyness consisted of a thickness of twenty inches. The Shoeburyness target was strengthened materially on the inner side, and, in point of fact, as I am assured by those who examined both, was a very different structure to that which was contracted for in 1867. But this is not the most remarkable circumstance connected with this matter. The fort which was contracted for in February, 1867, and that which is being completed under a modification of that contract at this moment, are completely different in their characters. The alterations in the contract have added a great amount of strengthening, in fact, many changes have been made, but at great expense,

1431
which have altogether altered and increased the resisting power of the fort. I think it is perfectly right, wherever any improvement presents itself to the minds of those who have charge of the construction of these fortifications, that those improvements should be at once adopted; but I think these alterations fully and completely justify my noble Friend and myself in the course we adopted last year, when we urged upon the House the entire inefficiency of the proposed structure, and endeavoured to stop further expenditure upon it, the more particularly as many of the points of weakness to which I then referred have been since rectified by orders from the War Office. What has recently taken place has abundantly shown that, at the time we interfered last year, no experiments which could be relied upon had then been undertaken, and also proved that the experiments which have since been carried on have not been nearly sufficient to tell us what is the true system which ought to be adopted. The target representing the Plymouth and Bermuda forts has now been proved to be utterly useless for the purposes for which these forts were intended, and if this be the case it will scarcely require much argument to show that the forts which are now being contracted for in the North of England and on the Thames are utterly useless, and that the money which has been expended upon them up to the present time, amounting to little short of £35,000 for each fort, has been totally lost to the country. Now this, I say, is a serious question, which the House would do well to consider, and which requires that we should receive from the right hon. Baronet who has charge of this Department some assurance that the present system should be discarded, and that no further outlay should be permitted until the question shall be fully inquired into. I must also call the attention of the House to another remarkable circumstance. Two years ago, before the Plymouth contract was entered into, a casemate, called the War Office casemate, had been erected at Shoeburyness. That casemate was built upon a very peculiar system, with great care and after mature deliberation, I think after the plan of Colonel Jervois, one of the officers of the War Department, and I think that the principle of that casemate does that officer very great credit. It was designed at a time when the 12-inch guns had not been tried against any of our armour plates,
1432
and was simply intended for the purpose of resisting the artillery then known—the 7-inch and the 9-inch guns—and I am bound to say that it completely succeeded in throwing off the shot and shell fired from those guns. The casemate now offers the fullest evidence of its own success at Shoeburyness, where it stands perforated in many places by the 11-inch and 12-inch guns, having perfectly resisted the smaller class of artillery brought against it, which entirely failed to do it any mischief, although forty-two rounds were fired against it, or nearly double the number fired at the Plymouth target. It certainly does appear somewhat singular that such a structure, which stood ready at the hand of the authorities to be tried as a test of the resisting power of forts so constructed, should have been left undisturbed on the sands of Shoeburyness for so long a period, and that, notwithstanding the opportunity of learning something of the subject was thus offered to the War Office they should not have availed themselves of it, but should have entered obstinately and without trial into the large, and as I believe useless, contracts which I have described. I believe the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War is now pretty well aware that the experiments asked for last year were very necessary and very desirable, and that a great amount of advantage will be gained by the country from the result of those experiments. Probably the right hon. Baronet will consider it within the line of his duty to tell us, in the observations he will doubtless make in reply to me, whether he does not think that the advice given to him, even by amateur Members, as he chose to call my noble Friend and myself last year, was not sound and good advice. I regret that the right hon. Baronet did not accept the caution which we then offered to him. I am sure it was offered in the very best spirit, and without the slightest feeling of hostility to the War Office. I have only one or two words to add. I desire to call attention to the last experiment which was made the day before yesterday, and I do so because it refers specially to the question of shields. The House will remember that the shields to which I have alluded as being sent to Bermuda and Gibraltar turned out to be failures. The question was then raised whether a shield could be constructed which would resist the heavy ordnance which could now be brought against it. Almost coeval with

1433
the War Office casemate was the shield constructed by Mr. Hughes, of the Millwall Iron Works on a principle he had long advocated. This shield was constructed and finished in 1865; but the War Office authorities did not believe in it, as the principle on which it was constructed was not their principle, and in consequence found no more favour in their eyes than the casemate, and therefore it was never tried. The contract for the construction of shields for our foreign colonies was entered into although this shield remained within the control of the War Department, to be experimented upon when they pleased, and, singular to say, it was not shot at until the day before yesterday—nearly two years and a half or three years from the date of its construction. The Committee appointed to superintend the experiments very properly and very fairly submitted this shield to precisely the same ordeal that was applied to the Gibraltar shield. The guns were the same, the distance was the same—seventy yards—the charges were the same, the shot the same, and, if I remember rightly, the number of rounds was the same; and the result was that the artillery entirely failed in producing any effect whatever upon it; as may be seen from the morning papers of to-day, it absolutely resisted without any injury the effects of the heavy firing against it. In fact, it was completely successful in beating the guns, as I believe the right hon. Baronet will admit when he receives the detailed Reports, which will no doubt be presented to him on the subject. I think, therefore, it is also very much to be regretted that this shield was not tried before the contracts which have cost the country so much money were entered into. It appears to me, Sir, that those who advised the right hon. Baronet to hesitate about having that shield and casemate tried, did not offer that sound, good and unprejudiced advice which they ought to have given. If the shield had been tried this time last year, when it was quite ready, a large amount of perfectly useless expenditure must have been saved, and we should by this time, if they were to be used at all, have had structures that would repel any shot that could be fired against them, so far at least, as the ordnance at present known could be brought to bear upon them.
Notice taken that forty Members an not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present,
MR. O'BEIRNEresumed, I much regret that so much time has been lost by so useless a proceeding as has just been adopted by the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Monk). It will of course be a question between the hon. Gentleman and his constituents whether the latter will approve of this attempt of his to keep back what I have stated is a grave public question, involving the expenditure of millions of money which, as I have asserted, has so far been uselessly expended, and with reference to which I have been earnestly, and I hope briefly, endeavouring to explain to the House the grounds upon which I have formed these opinions. The immediate object which led me to draw attention to the subject at this late period of the Session was this—I desired to impress on the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War the necessity of giving to the House some assurance as to what his future policy will be with regard to this matter. I wished to recall the attention of hon. Members before the close of the present Session—before this House had sat for the last time—to a subject which I believe to be of serious moment, which has frequently and for a long period occupied public consideration, and which I believe to be second to no other in the general interest it has excited throughout the country. I have now only to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether after the various experiments to which I have alluded, and the results which I have stated, he will give the House some hope that he will stop further expenditure on fortifications and shields until we shall have attained, either by the Report of the Committee which he has himself appointed, or by further experiments, should they be considered necessary, such a degree of certainty as our present scientific knowledge will enable us to reach with reference to this most intricate and difficult question? I ask the right hon. Baronet whether he means to stay his hand and to prevent further outlay, or whether he means to accept before the House and before the country the grave responsibility which will fall upon him and his Colleagues should he persevere in the wasteful application of the public money to a system of fortifications which all the information we now possess emphatically and beyond all question declares to be entirely unsuited to the purposes of defence of our arsenals and dockyards for which they were intended?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had no reason to complain of the course taken by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Beirne) in bringing this matter under the consideration of the House; and he thought the practical reason assigned by the hon. Gentleman at the close of his speech for submitting this question was fair, just, and reasonable. He (Sir John Pakington), however, regretted, under the peculiar circumstances of the Session, that the hon. Gentleman should have felt himself compelled at that moment to raise such a question, because he confessed that he was not in a position to give so distinct and decided an answer to the hon. Gentleman's inquiry as he should be able to do if the matter were mentioned a few days later. The important experiments which took place at Shoeburyness upon the Plymouth target were carried on under the superintendence of the Committee especially appointed for the purpose. From that Committee he expected a full Report of their judgment of the result of those experiments, and until he had received that Report he thought the hon. Gentleman himself would admit it was impossible for him to come to a conclusion upon the course he should think it his duty to take. He could not, however, help remarking he thought the hon. Gentleman had a little exaggerated the effect of the firing on the Plymouth target. The Plymouth fort was no doubt designed to resist most powerful artillery, but not precisely the guns of that day. The hon. Gentleman had indeed pointed out the distinction between the guns in favour some few years ago and those at the present period; but he did not apply that distinction as he ought to have done to the experiments which were tried the other day at Shoeburyness. Those experiments of firing to which the target was exposed were of extraordinary force. The order which he (Sir John Pakington) had given upon this subject was that the fort to be fired at should be placed at the nearest possible distance at which an enemy's ship could approach in a time of war—namely, about 200 yards, and that it should be exposed to the fire of a 22-ton gun, with a full charge like the Armstrong gun. The hon. Gentleman must, however, candidly admit that the fort was not originally designed to bear the firing of a gun of that kind, such a gun not having been known at the time the fort was designed,
1436
and he was sure that he would also admit that an enemy's ship could hardly approach to within 200 yards of the fort, considering the ordinary chances of war. The hon. Gentleman said that the target on that occasion was knocked to pieces after a few days' battering. He (Sir John Pakington) indeed believed that the target was in a very infirm condition; but it must not be forgotten that it had been exposed to a trial of most extraordinary severity, and competent judges were disposed to think that the resisting power of the target was very considerable. There existed no defect in the principle on which the fort was constructed, and there was nothing to prevent its being made a very valuable and efficient one by taking advantage of the experience derived from the trial, and adding to the strength of the structure. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman was justified in his remark that the result of the trial showed that the fort was entirely inefficient for the purpose it was designed for. The old complaint had been revived that some alteration had been made in the construction of the fort; but on questioning some persons concerned in its construction he was informed that, though in one part there was an additional layer of iron, in other parts the alteration was very trifling. He did not admit that it was right to refuse permission to individuals who had the responsibility of building such structures to avail themselves from time to time of fresh inventions and discoveries, so that the fortifications might be as fit for their purpose as it was possible to make them. In reference to the trial of the Millwall shield, which took place within the last few days, it would, he thought, be premature to express any opinion upon those experiments. Judging, however, from the newspaper reports he had seen he had reason to believe that that shield had stood the firing to which it was exposed extremely well. He should be the last person to refuse the credit that was justly due to the contriver of that shield; but still, he repeated, it would be premature to pronounce an opinion upon its merits merely from the statements they read in newspaper reports. He would remind the hon. Gentleman, when he said that the Millwall shield the day before yesterday was exposed to the same kind of trial as was the Gibraltar shield last autumn, that it was not exposed to the same trial to which the Plymouth fort was

1437
exposed with the 22-ton gun. If he (Sir John Pakington) were not mistaken he had seen a further statement in the newspaper accounts of the Millwall experiments, which strongly contrasted with the complete success reported to have been achieved—namely, a statement to the effect that great pains had been taken to give support to the Millwall shield by certain artificial erections behind it. If that were the case it must necessarily deduct from the value of the construction; but he should very shortly receive a Report of the experiments from the same Committee that had superintended the experiments with the Plymouth target. In reply to the inquiry put to him by the hon. Gentleman, he should certainly exercise what appeared to him to be necessary caution under such circumstances. He could not give a definite answer to the hon. Gentleman until he had in his hand those interesting and important Reports referred to. Whilst, on the one hand, he was unwilling to interpose any unnecessary delay in this matter, on the other hand he felt that the result of those experiments imposed a heavy responsibility upon the Government not to proceed further in this direction without the fullest consideration of the Reports which were yet to be presented.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman who brought this subject forward deserved the thanks of the House, for his observation led him to the conclusion that the most ungrateful task which could fall to the lot of any Member on his side of the House was to submit for discussion any question relating to mal-administration in a great public Department, or to endeavour to bring about a reduction of expenditure. On such occasions the financial Reformers were generally absent, or, if present, cheered anything which fell from a Government official with a view to throwing a shield over mal-administration. No sooner did an hon. Gentleman propose to bring forward an important question like that under consideration than he was asked not to take up the time of the House, and thereupon the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) cheered. Immediately afterwards another great financial Reformer, the hon. Member for Gloucester, got up and moved that the House be counted. The subject under discussion was one which concerned the national safety, and the due and proper expenditure of a vast amount of public money,
1438
and the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) had brought it forward that day upon a clear understanding with the Leader of the House. What he complained of was that these forts had been, contracted for without the system upon which they were constructed having been previously adequately tested, and the result had been that a large sum of money had been expended upon forts which were totally inefficient. On entering the railway carriage to go down to witness the trial of the Plymouth shield a paper was put into their hands which informed them that the trial was to be inductive only and not actual; that the guns were to be fired with reduced charges, at 200 yards, in order to ascertain the exact effect that would be produced were the guns fired at 1,000 yards with full battering charges. They were informed by that paper that no ship could come within 500 yards of a fort, whereas Admiral Dacres, Admiral Milne, and Sir John Hay told them that vessels could easily be taken within 200 yards of the forts, and that if a vessel was to be sunk a captain would sooner have her sunk in shoal water than in deep water. On the matter being pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, he at once, on arriving at Shoeburyness, directed that the experiments should be conducted with full battering charges, an alteration in the programme that greatly astonished the Committee. The Plymouth fort was designed and tendered for to meet the gun of the period, but instead of that it was tested with the 22-ton gun, which was now said to be invented after the fort was designed. That was the whole point at issue. The Gibraltar shield and Plymouth fort were never tested before they were designed and constructed, and the consequence was that they went to pieces. If the subject had not been brought before the House the Bermuda and Gibraltar shields would have been put up at all the important ports. The fact was that they were designed by a Gentleman in the War Office on his own hook, without taking any account of the valuable information on the point possessed by the Admiralty. That Department had conducted a series of experiments, and had laid down certain data, which, if followed, would have prevented these continual complaints; but in spite of that they went on constructing Department shields at a great expense, which were proved defective, happily under fire of our own guns; whereas, if the course of these financial

1439
Reformers had been adopted on this point, which involved national safety, honour, and economy, the first notice the public would have had would have been the crumbling of these forts under the fire of the enemy's gun.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was under the impression that the 22-ton gun was invented when the Plymouth forts were invented.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that owing to the assistance which the Government received from amateurs or from some other cause, the expenditure upon the army and navy had been enormously increased of late years. He protested against the time of the House being occupied by a discussion of this kind when they had met for the purpose of considering a specific measure.
MR. MONK, in reply to the taunt of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) denied that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were anxious to obstruct measures for the reduction of expenditure. Few Members were more regular in their attendance than he (Mr. Monk) was when Supply was taken, and he invariably voted for reduction of expenditure; but he was unaware that any practical good would result from the discussion which had been raised to-day. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) and the hon. Member (Mr. O'Beirne), however, had doubtless accomplished their object, which was to "air their oratory."
MR. FAWCETTprotested against the unnecessary attack which the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had made upon him in accusing him of not being a sincere financial reformer. He expressed disapproval at this Motion having been brought forward at a time when they were brought down to consider a most important Bill for the prevention of bribery and corruption at Parliamentary Elections. So far as he (Mr. Fawcett) knew the noble Lord had never yet voted in favour of a Motion for the reduction of expenditure.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 63.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir Stafford Northcote.)
ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 63.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID moved the following clause:—
  1440
  "Whenever any person who shall have been a candidate at any Election (whether he shall or shall not have been returned at such Election) shall be reported by the Judge who tries a Petition complaining of such Election, to have been, by himself or his agents, guilty of bribery or treating at such Election, all votes which shall hare been given for such candidate at such Election shall be deemed to have been thrown away, in like manner as if he had, at the time of such Election been incapable of being elected, and as if notice of such incapacity had been given to every elector immediately previous to his voting: Provided always, That no other person who shall have been a candidate at such Election shall be deemed to have been duly elected thereat, in consequence of the votes given for the candidate who shall be reported guilty of bribery or treating being deemed to have been thrown away, unless at least one-third of the registered electors entitled to vote at such Election shall have voted thereat for such other candidate."
  The hon. Baronet said his proposition was founded upon the principle, not of inflicting penal consequences upon those guilty of bribery, but of removing all temptation to commit the offence, and making bribery defeat its own object by leaving the briber outside that House instead of bringing him into it.
  Clause (Votes for candidates guilty of bribery thrown away,)—(Sir Francis Goldsmid,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had done everything he could and adopted every suggestion that appeared likely to put an end to bribery and corruption, unless the proposal were carried to an extent that seemed to him unjust. It was once said that a Judge put an end to a practice which during his time was very rife, of captains ill-treating their seamen, by hanging an innocent captain. The practice might have been put an end to by hanging that captain, but he objected to the means by which the end was accomplished. He objected to this clause because he believed it to be unjust to the constituency. The question was not how it would work in one but in every instance. He would take the case of a constituency of 3,000 electors, one candidate polling 1,000 and the other 2,000. If four or five cases of corruption among the majority were proved, the effect of this clause would be practically to disfranchise the great majority of the constituency, against whom there was no imputation. That seemed to him unjust. Besides, the successful candidate would be exposed to great danger. What a temptation would be held out to any four or five persons to come forward and say they had

  1441
  voted for the successful candidate and were improperly dealt with. It would be impossible to meet such a case. The minority would be represented during the Parliament, the successful candidate would be disqualified, and the great bulk of the constituency practically disfranchised.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the House was on its trial. The principle of the plan proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Goldsmid) was introduced by the present Government in the Reform Bill. They had paltered with electioneering corruption till the money question had become the disgrace of English electioneering, and they must apply a drastic remedy by the establishment of a pure tribunal. He should support the clause.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, the clause would lay candidates open to all kinds of tricks and snares; and any Member's seat could be taken from him if it were passed. A couple of clever lawyers could put upon it any interpretation they liked.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not think they would succeed in stopping corruption by attempting to do so by means of such gross injustice as formed the basis of this clause. It would admit to the House Members who had polled only one-third of the number of electors. The good feeling of even man must revolt against it.
  MR. LOWEmaintained that the argument of the Solicitor General was put too high when he placed it on justice and the rights of the majority. How did they respect the rights of the majority now? In cases of bribery the votes of the majority actually went for nothing; but the question, which was one not of justice but expediency, was this—given, a case of bribery proved against the successful candidate; given, another candidate petitioning who had polled one-third of the votes; was it most for the good of the public and for the cause of purity—which they all had at heart—that the minority should be represented during the then Parliament, or that those who had had their pockets filled should at a new election have an opportunity of reaping a double harvest? As the votes have been thrown away so far as the return of one candidate is concerned, they should be equally thrown away as against his opponent. He thought the clause offered a great encouragement to purity. There was no injustice or iniquity in it of any kind.
  MR. KINGLAKEexplained that he had
  1442
  on the Paper a Motion to add to the clause a provision that any candidate petitioned against shall be able to present a counter Petition, and the defeated candidate must clear himself of imputation before his Petition against the elected candidate shall be heard. The question was whether the House would not merely constitute a tribunal, but make it the duty or interest of some one to put its machinery in action. Under the present system it was neither the duty nor the interest of any one to be a Petitioner. It was very rare indeed that the person petitioning gained the seat by it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALcontended that the clause would operate with the greatest possible injustice to the large majority of the electors in a borough. A successful candidate who was perfectly innocent would be exposed to this danger—a person who represented himself to be an agent who had opened a public-house and fraudulently treated or bribed some three or four individuals might come forward and say, "I bribed these men; I can show you how not only to unseat the Member, but to disqualify him, disfranchise the great majority of the constituency, and transfer the seat to a candidate who had polled only one-third of the voters." This was a question, not of expediency, but of justice. The clause seemed to him to carry the penalty too far.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, there was no such thing as an immaculate borough, with only two or three black sheep. The character of a borough was well known in the bribery market. The clause of the hon. Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) went directly to the root of the evil. The Bill was the keystone of the arch of Reform.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, the great objection to this clause was that by its operation an injustice would be done to the opinions of the majority. Now, either that majority was tainted with the corruption of the candidate, or it was not. If it were, it ought to be punished as well as the candidate; if it were not, then it would be only too glad to get rid of a corrupt Member.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, the objection was, not that they got rid of a corrupt Member, but that they were also saddled with one to whose opinions they had the greatest objection.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 48 Noes 79: Majority 31.
  MR. FAWCETTbrought forward a clause, the substance of which, and of a supplemental clause, he explained to be to throw the expense of elections upon the county or borough rates; but that, with a view to prevent clearly unnecessary and vexatious contests, a condition was annexed which was adopted with good effect in Australia, that the candidate should deposit a sum with the returning officer ns a pledge of his sincerity in the contest. He had fixed the sum at £100, but he was willing to consult the feeling of the House, and either to diminish or to increase the sum. In order to prevent the constituency being put to unnecessary expense, he proposed that this sum should be forfeited if the defeated candidate did not poll one-tenth of the number of votes recorded for the successful candidate who was lowest on the poll. Here, again, he was in the hands of the House as to the exact numbers, as he only was anxious to affirm the principle. It was objected to this plan that the constituencies might not like it, and that Members might be afraid to disoblige their constituencies. In answer to that he could only say that the subject had been before the public for a long time—it had been discussed in all the papers, and he had received many hundreds of letters upon it; but there was not a single one that did not express the warmest approval of the scheme. Then it was said that this scheme would encourage unnecessary contests; but he did not think that would be the case. Everybody knew that at present the contests were got up mainly by solicitors and agents, and this scheme would rather have a tendency to check that course. Besides, the expenses of the municipal elections were all defrayed by the rates, and he was at a loss to understand why the county elections should not be defrayed in the same manner. It was the general opinion that the cost of elections was the great danger to the Constitution. If something were not done, and that speedily, to check the evil, it would be impossible in a few years to obtain a seat in the House except by a large expenditure of money, and he thought there was a danger to the Constitution in such, a state of things.
  Clause—
  (Providing for returning officers' expenses out of rates.)
  "At every Election for any county or borough, the expenses lawfully incurred by the returning officers for the provision of hustings, poll clerks, polling booths or rooms, and any other necessary; requisites for the conduct of the Election, shall be defrayed in the case of any county from the county rate, and in the case of any borough out of the monies, and in the manner and proportions mentioned in the Act of the sixth year of Victoria, chapter eighteen, section fifty-five, with respect to the expenses of carrying into effect the provisions of that Act; and the account of such expenses shall be made, allowed, and paid in the manner provided in the said Act: Provided, That it shall not be lawful for any person to be nominated as a candidate at any such Election, unless he or some person on his behalf shall, before one o'clock in the afternoon of the day preceding the day of nomination, have paid to the returning officer the sum of one hundred pounds to be applied in the following manner (that is to say): where a poll shall take place at any such Election, the returning officer shall apply the monies so paid to him by any such candidate who shall not, at the close of the poll, have received a number of votes equal at least to one-tenth part of the votes received by the successful candidate, if only one, or by such one of the successful candidates if there shall be more than one, as shall have received the smallest number of votes, in and I towards defraying the lawful expenses of the returning officer relating to such Election; and after any such Election the returning officer shall forthwith repay to any such candidate who shall have been declared elected without a poll, or who, whether declared elected or not, shall have received a number of votes equal at least to such tenth part, the monies so paid by or for him as aforesaid,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, the question in which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was interested had also been, treated by another Member of the House—the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere)—and he confessed that if the House were to adopt the principle of the measure the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex seemed to him to be the simplest and the most sensible of the two. But he objected to the proposition, because the rates of the county had been so burdened of late that he thought they ought to lie fallow for a time, and that it would be unwise in a Bill for the suppression of corruption to introduce this invidious principle of increasing the rates. But there was another objection. This was a Bill to prevent corrupt practices, and he had yet to learn that the payment of the expenses of the returning officer by a candidate was a corrupt practice. It was not connected with the subject-matter of

  1445
  the Bill, and on these two grounds he must oppose the clause.
  MR. LABOUCHEREobserved that the payment of returning officers' expenses became a corrupt practice by the excessive charges which were made in some cases.
  MR. CORRANCE: Knowing that some difference of opinion exists on this side of the House upon the merits of the question now before us, I may ask to be allowed to say a few words, which will, at least, explain my own conduct upon it. It seems to me an eminently unsatisfactory result of the present Reform Bill that it should tend, both in county and town, to increase the expenses of elections. And no less so, that on the part of Her Majesty's Government no effort of a bonâ fide nature has been made, at least as far as counties are concerned, to lessen that expense. First, the voting papers were quietly dropped out, and no further effort was made to retain the principle, even as far as out-county voters were concerned. On two occasions I endeavoured to bring this question before the House. I met no support, notwithstanding its importance to Members on this side the House. Let me confess that it caused me great regret. Then came the question of conveyance; and Clause 23 was struck out. It was, indeed, revived as far as the boroughs were concerned; but, although we were warned of its importance to ourselves by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, I was once more unsuccessful in calling the attention of the Government to the point. No alternative was offered to me, and no effort made to meet the obvious want. On the other hand, by every provision of this Reform Bill, the expenses will be increased. Now, let me ask, to what result? The return of rich men, no doubt, and the representation of wealth. Now, there does seem to me to be a certain amount of danger in this if pushed beyond a certain point. I know it may seem to some a consistent thing that in a wealthy county representatives should be rich, and very consonant to social conditions that we should be governed thus: but let the House remember this—that among the constituencies there will not fail to be men, and these of no ordinary class, who will object to be thrown in with the lot, and who view with great repugnance a Government based upon such a mercantile principle as this; and that there may arise no small danger and inconvenience from such, a source. It seems
  1446
  to me that we have already experienced the disadvantage of this; and it is as the representative of an agricultural community that I say this. I have asserted that we have something to complain of, and even some wrongs to be redressed; and though this is denied by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, I repeat it as a fact. Well, perhaps it is our own fault, due to the state of our representation in this House. From such a cause our estates have been wasted and our choice of Members restricted greatly to our loss. There has been wanting even the stimulus of competition to such men to induce them to qualify for the post; and of this we feel the result in our present position in this House. Now, of these things I speak as one personally unconcerned, and I ask hon. Members to place themselves on the same footing while they consider this. It is a public question of no slight importance, and should be considered in no other light. One thing alone prevents us from accepting it—that it adds even slightly to the rates. I have stated my opinion firstly fully upon this, that such taxation is often illegal and always unjust upon its present base. I cannot consent to add to such burdens, even for so great an object as this; and unless the hon. Gentleman can propose some alternative I must decline to record my vote.
  MR. BAINESargued that the Act of last year would greatly increase the necessary expenses of elections; and if those expenses were to be thrown on the candidates, it would be tantamount to restoring the old property qualification for Members, which had been abolished some years since by Parliament as wrong in principle. In Leeds the number of electors had been increased from 7,000 to upwards of 35,000; and as no more than 500 votes could be recorded under the Reform Act at any one polling-place, there must be between sixty and seventy polling places. It was customary to have at each polling-place a deputy returning officer at three guineas, a clerk at a guinea, besides messengers; and without the check which municipal management would certainly impose the expenses would be enormous. However prejudicial this might be to candidates, it would be still more injurious to those lately admitted to the franchise; for the votes conferred upon them would be of no use if we diminished the number of those out of their own class

  1447
  who could be returned to Parliament, by increasing the expenses of elections and throwing them on the candidates. A greater evil could not be inflicted on the constituencies than to reduce the number of those who might be fairly and justly called upon to represent them; and the House had been repeatedly appealed to from both sides to enable those to enter it who in interests and feelings were identified with the classes forming so considerable a portion of the large constituencies. The objection to imposing a new tax upon the rates was met in principle by the fact that the Reform Act extended the franchise to every ratepayer. When comparatively few of the ratepayers had votes, it would have been unjust to throw the expenses of elections on the whole body; but now that all the ratepayers were enfranchised, it was just and reasonable that all should contribute to the expenses attendant on the giving of their votes. The Parliamentary Committee of the Leeds Town Council had considered the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett), and approved of it. It was idle to suppose that any undue number of the working I classes would be returned to Parliament. It would always be so expensive to live in London and to devote one-half of the year to Parliamentary Business, that there was no probability that any large number of Members in bumble circumstances would enter the House; there was no fear that property would not always be well represented; and, under these circumstances, it seemed that the Amendment proposed was the necessary corollary of the extension of the franchise which had already been made.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he was much interested to hear the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines) so well describe the evils and dangers of a system of which he had been a most distinguished advocate. Not one of the labouring classes, if his statements were true, would ever be able to set his foot within those doors as the advocate of his class. It was an excellent illustration of the maxim—Necis artifices arte perire sua.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must give his vote in favour of the clause. He viewed with great regret the addition of any charges to the rates of this country; but the chief importance of the clause was as to its effect on the borough franchise. On the part of the community at large it would really effect a very considerable
  1448
  economy, because it had a tendency to prevent wasteful expenditure. It was a mistake to suppose that the expense connected with contested elections fell upon the candidate alone. In a multitude of ways it was a burden upon the community; and with a view to the interests of the ratepayers it would be desirable to have this provision. He regarded the clause as proceeding upon a sound principle. It was time Parliament expressed a judgment, especially with the widely extended constituency, as to the true nature of Parliamentary duties, and decided whether sitting and voting in the House was a privilege to be enjoyed by the individual or a duty to be performed towards the community. In his judgment it was a duty performed towards the community, and preaching upon the subject would be greatly strengthened by enactments showing that it was regarded as a duty. Of course, it would be unjust to impose upon the community any election expenses which could be regarded as optional; yet the essential and necessary expenses ought to be borne by the community. As to the bearing of the clause or some such clause upon the admission of rich men and poor men into the House, it was impossible not to feel the force of the arguments of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines). It would be worse than ridiculous to admit all classes to the franchise, and yet to continue arrangements which practically limited the choice of candidates. He thought that to hold it was necessary for the safety of our institutions to prevent poor men from coming into that House was a most pernicious doctrine. On the contrary, in his opinion, nothing could be more desirable, with reference to the safety of those institutions, than that the artizans—the working classes—should be represented by men of their own order. Of course, they could not have many of that class in the House of Commons. There were barriers to it which no legislation had imposed; but let not Parliament impose other barriers—hard legal ones. The coming into Parliament of such men would be most beneficial to all classes. It would do more than anything else could do to strengthen the confidence of the people in the Imperial Parliament. He did not think this clause would effect much in the way of admitting those men; but, at least, it would remove a very odious barrier to their admission.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, he was

  1449
  in favour of the principle on which the clause was framed; but should prefer the clause of which the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. Beaumont) had given Notice—that one half the expense should be paid out of the rates.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the point which had been for some time under discussion was undoubtedly one of very considerable importance; but as that point had no reference to corrupt practices, he thought the proposed clause would be very much out of place in that Bill. The principle of the clause was one which deserved more consideration than could be given to it on the present occasion. It might be said that the counties and boroughs ought to bear the expenses of the elections; but he thought that principle was open to question. Suppose a Member of Parliament accepted an office in the Government, his appointment to which made it necessary that he should go to his constituents, ought the expenses of the election to be charged on the county or the borough, as the case might be?
  MR. J. STUART MILL: Is it fair or reasonable to take advantage of a technical difficulty in order to leave a question of this sort undecided until after the next election? If in a purely legal point of view it does not belong to the subject of corrupt practices, yet it belongs to a system of measures of which that relating to corrupt practices is the completion. Unless it be agreed to, the system will be left incomplete, and the Reform Act will, in some important respects, actually deteriorate the representation, for its practical effect will be to bring us nearer to a plutocracy than we ever have been before. I would most earnestly appeal to the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance), who has made so excellent a speech in favour of the proposition, to put for the present in abeyance his objections to any additional burthen on the local rates—objections in which, as I have stated on a former occasion, I in part agree, and which will certainly, with the whole subject of the incidence of rates, come under the early consideration of the new Parliament. I beg him to trust the fairness and sense of justice of the future House of Commons, and not to resist a provision required for the beneficial working of our political institutions, because it involves a very small, and probably temporary, addition to the local expenditure.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, to the proposal
  1450
  made there was but one objection he could entertain—that it fell upon one kind of property, and not upon the whole, as it ought. Hon. Gentleman had promised their assistance to remove that, and he closed with the offer held out, and should claim it in due time and place, and upon that distinct understanding he would give his vote.
  MR. W. B. BEAUMONT, while preferring his own proposal, would give his support to the second reading of the hon. Member for Brighton's clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it would no doubt be agreeable enough to Members not to be called upon to pay these expenses; but it should be remembered that the county rates were very heavy, and the borough rates so overpowering that in many places they could hardly be collected. Yet they were now asked to pass a clause which was admitted to have nothing to do with corrupt practices—the proper subject of this Bill. Far from lowering the expenses, it would in all probability increase them by diminishing the interest of individual candidates to keep them down.
  MR. WHITEdid not hesitate to say that, taking into consideration the economy which would be practised if this charge were forced upon the constituencies, the burden on the property of the country would not exceed ¼d. in the pound.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYexpressed his opinion that the Government were acting disgracefully in raising technical objections to the clause, which would certainly receive his hearty support. This was the first occasion on which any attempt had been made to diminish the expenditure at elections.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 69: Majority 9.
  MR. W. B. BEAUMONT MR. W. B. BEAUMONT moved an Amendment in the hon. Member for Brighton's clause as to expenses of returning officers, &c., to the effect that one-half of these expenses shall be paid out of the rates.
  MR. BAINEStrusted the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont) would not persevere with his Motion, which was founded half in injustice and half in justice. The whole of the official expenses at municipal elections were paid out of the borough rates.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was under the impression that there had been a distinct understanding between himself and the hon. Member for Northumberland to the effect that if his scheme were rejected the hon. Member should introduce his Amendment. On his part, he promised that, in the event of his own proposal being rejected, he would vote for that of his hon. Friend. He was somewhat surprised to find, therefore, that his hon. Friend had now deemed it necessary to bring forward his Amendment.
  MR. MONKhoped the hon. Member (Mr. W. B. Beaumont) would not withdraw his Amendment. He should not have voted with the hon. Member for Brighton if he had not understood that the hon. Member for Northumberland intended, if the clause were carried, to move his Amendment.
  MR. M. T. BASSsaid, he could not see that there had been any misunderstanding in the matter. He trusted that the hon. Member for Northumberland would not press his Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONEwas also of opinion that there had been no violation of any understanding; but at the same time urged the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that they had been told that Gentleman went down to constituencies ticketed at the amount of money they could spend. He never heard of that before; but the authority was so good, he daresay the statement was true. If a candidate were saved the necessary expenses of an election, he would have so much more money to spend in bribery.
  MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BOUVERIEobjected to the proviso of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) providing that no candidate should be named unless before the day of nomination he should have deposited £100 with the returning officer. A proposal of that nature proceeding from the Liberal side of the House was calculated to make hon. Members' hair stand on end. It was the common right of the electors at an election to nominate anybody who was a subject of the Queen and of full age as a candidate for the constituency.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, the House would be glad to learn that anyone could be nominated and elected who was not in possession of £100, but whose friends were willing to put down £100 for him.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he doubted whether it was competent for the House, except in Committee of Ways and Means, to impose burdens upon rates, as had been, done by the last division.
  THE CHAIRMANintimated that the vote was quite in Order.
  VISCOUNT MILTONsaid, the clause which had just been agreed to contained no reference to the county of York or those other counties which were split up into divisions. He moved the addition at the end of the clause of the words—
  "Provided always that in case the county at which the county rate is made is or shall be divided into two or more parts for Parliamentary representation, then the same expenses shall be charged and defrayed by and out of the county rate levied for that part of the county for which the election takes place."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the principle of the Amendment was sound, as it would be unjust to saddle a whole county with the expense of an election for one of its divisions, But in most counties at present the county rate was indivisible, and there was no machinery for separating it. It would, therefore, be necessary to add some words to the Amendment to provide machinery for dividing the rate.
  MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, there were many parishes that were partly in one division and partly in another.
  MR. BOUVERIEregarded this as an example of the difficulties in which the House had involved itself by accepting the clause. He approved of the principle of the Amendment; but he suggested that the noble Lord (Viscount Milton) should withdraw it for the present, and bring it up in a mare practicable form at a future stage of the Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the whole question was one of policy, not of words. The difficulty of dividing the rates would apply not only to counties but even to certain boroughs, where the parishes were not conterminous with the borough. There was neither time nor opportunity to carry into effect a policy of this kind, nor had the House given sufficient consideration to the subject.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEbelieved, that where there was a will there was a way, would not be frightened by the time argument, and would leave the counties to pay for divisional elections rather than sacrifice the clause that had been carried.
  MR. LEEMAN, as a practical man, said, there was no difficulty whatever in

  1453
  arranging the matter and properly apportioning the county rate.
  MR. LOCKEalso thought that there would be no difficulty in apportioning the expenses among the different districts of a county.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Committee had passed by a small majority, but after a considerable discussion, a very important clause, involving a new principle, and he thought it would be undesirable that they should now proceed to the consideration of matters of detail. He would therefore suggest that the noble Lord (Viscount Milton) should withdraw his Amendment, and that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) should allow the proviso to be struck out of the clause on the understanding that upon the Report these two questions would be fully considered, and provision made respecting them.
  MR. WYLDobserved, that many hon. Members had voted for the clause who would not have voted for the proviso. He himself was under the impression that he was voting for the clause alone.
  VISCOUNT MILTONexpressed his readiness to withdraw his Amendment, with a view to afford an opportunity for a more careful consideration of the subject.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  MR. FAWCETTintimated, that he would not press his proviso at that moment if it were understood that they should hereafter have an opportunity of considering an amended proposal for the attainment of the same object. If hon. Members should think it a better arrangement he would have no objection to provide that the £100 should be deposited when a poll was demanded.
  MR. WHITBREADobserved, that if the clause had been proposed without that proviso there were many hon. Gentlemen who would not have voted for it. He therefore suggested that the hon. Member for Brighton should withdraw the clause as a whole, and bring up a new one on the Report.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought that, before consenting to have the clause inserted in the Bill, the Committee should have a guarantee that 6ome proviso would he inserted in it to prevent candidates who had no bonâ fide intention of contesting a seat from standing up on the hustings, getting themselves nominated, and then leaving the county or the borough to pay the expenses.
  MR. BOUVERIE MR. BOUVERIE moved the omission of the proviso from the clause.
  MR. HENLEYthought the proviso was a material element in the clause. The Committee were now asked to set aside the proviso and, for the present, to take the clause without it. He believed that there were many Members who would not have voted for the clause without the proviso.
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that inasmuch as the clause had not yet been added to the Bill nothing had been done to embarrass the Committee. He, and he believed many other Members, had voted for the clause without the slightest idea that they voted for the proviso. They had no notion when voting that the principle which they wished to affirm had been reduced to a practical shape.
  MR. REPTONconcurred in the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley).
  MR. AYRTONthought the hon. Member for Brighton ought to make a statement of his plan.
  MR. FAWCETTexplained, that his whole speech in moving the clause was based upon the supposition that the proviso was to form a part of the clause. He would withdraw the proviso, in order to bring it up in an amended form on the Report.
  Proviso, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 76: Majority 8.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. CLAYsaid, the object of the declaration he proposed was to make it impossible for a gentleman to commit bribery and to hold up his head afterwards. He desired to make bribery an offence for which a man should be blackballed at his club and cut by his friends, for in that way alone could a proper stigma be attached to the offence. It was said that the declaration would catch the man with the sensitive conscience and not the unscrupulous man but he must indeed be an unscrupulous man who could deliberately make the declaration at the table, knowing that it was false, and that its falsity was known to many others—those others his intimate friends and supporters. Some years ago, when he made a similar proposal, his hon.

  1455
  Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne), in one of his most effective stage whispers, expressed wonder that he could be so green. He was simple enough to believe that the House of Commons contained the pick, not only of the intellect, but of the honour of England. To think otherwise would be treason to that great Assembly, the having been a Member of which, now for many years, had been the one only, and highly-prized illustration of his career. But if a man made the declaration falsely, there must be many who were acquainted with his lie; and if he escaped penalty, he could not escape disgrace, unless Englishmen were much changed indeed. Some years ago he proposed that making a false declaration should be treated as perjury; but on further consideration he thought it better to attach a penalty, to be given to the informer. He did not care about the amount, wishing it to be understood that it was not imposed as a punishment; for a man who had spent a large sum would think little of an extra £500. All he wanted was to offer a sufficient inducement to any one acquainted with the falsehood to come forward and expose it. By these means alone should we make the offence disgraceful and unworthy of a gentleman; and when we had made it so, he was certain it would not be committed by Members of the House.
  Clause (Declaration to be subscribed by Members,)—(Mr. Clay,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept the clause. They should pause before establishing new declarations like this when they had only just been engaged in abolishing a lot of the old promissory oaths. He believed that such declarations were only traps for tender consciences. They all knew when gentlemen had to make an oath that they had sufficient property qualification, that such oaths were constantly taken by persons who had not the qualification.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Government would oppose the clause on the simple ground that these declarations had been very often tried and had invariably failed. They were, in fact, merely a means of putting difficulties in the way of tender consciences. Another reason why he opposed the clause was that the hon. Member who proposed it (Mr. Clay) did
  1456
  not trust hon. Members or believe that they would take it truly, but threatened to impose a penalty upon those who took it improperly. The penalty could not be exacted until a man had been convicted of bribery, and then he would be sufficiently punished, for he would be excluded from the House for seven years and liable to imprisonment. The declaration would only suffice to keep out of the House persons who might be afraid of the slightest accusation being brought against them, and making them feel they were henceforth unfit for the society of gentlemen.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, it was no great compliment to the House to represent that it consisted of persons whom a declaration upon honour would not bind. He himself thought a declaration on honour would bind the Members of the House, provided it was imposed with a serious intention of doing so. It had been too much the fashion to regard these declarations as mere forms; but they were so only when the engagement which they made was one which opinion did not really desire to enforce. The object should be to impress upon Members that the House was really in earnest and meant the declaration to be a sincere one. That object was sought to be obtained by the penalty of £500, and he thought this would be a means of enforcing the declaration.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsuggested that a Member who could not subscribe to the declaration might wait until the time for the presentation of Petitions was passed.
  MR. CLAYdenied that a declaration, had been tried and failed. No man could take this declaration falsely without knowing it to be false and without knowing that the fact must be within the knowledge of others. When a man entered Parliament with a property qualification supplied to him by others for the purpose, the qualification was real and not fictitious, and the Member, therefore, could honestly make the declaration that used to be required. That a man was thus trusted with a property which he might appropriate to himself—and there was a case in which this had been, done—was primâ facie evidence that he was a man of honour.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he thought the declaration would not meet the worst cases—those of boroughs, where it was well-known votes were bought, for the man

  1457
  who informed would be considered the basest of men.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the strongest practical argument in favour of this declaration was that it would protect candidates against the election agents. A man might go down to contest a borough and tell his agents and canvassers that he intended to do so honourably and honestly. Under the old system agents might bribe unknown to the candidate until he received his election bills. The candidate in future, however, would be unable to take advantage of this device, because he would be unable to make the declaration.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the great difficulty was to find words which would attain the object. He could not conceive of words more cleverly suggestive of scruples and difficulties to conscientious men than the words of the clause. The declaration went beyond the only matter they had to consider, which was whether a man had done anything to disqualify him from sitting in the House Any declaration beyond that was one they had no right to ask a man to make. In one of the grossest cases of bribery that ever occurred the candidate was out of England at the time of the election; and the tendency of the clause would be to encourage the system of a candidate keeping aloof from the election, and of its being understood that it was the express duty of everybody about him to say nothing to him on the subject.
  MR. SCHREIBERregarded the declaration as a protective in certain respects, which might prove advantageous.
  MR. M. T. BASSfelt persuaded that every clause of the Bill might be dispensed with if the one now under discussion were passed.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he thought the clause would lower the character of candidates by deterring the conscientious from candidature. He wondered anyone should attach importance to declarations of this kind, when officers constantly made and violated the declaration that they would not pay anything more than the regulation price for their commissions.
  MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, the declaration would let in everybody who had no regard for their word, and would keep out the conscientious.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that unless he could induce the Committee to assist him he saw considerable difficulties in the way of the progress of the Bill. Adopting the
  1458
  view of the Solicitor General, he did not wish to discuss the particular point before the Committee. He wished to induce hon. Members who had clauses to consent to the Bill being reported, and to bring them up on the Report. He could assure the Committee that the nicest calculation had been made on this matter, and it was of the utmost importance to the progress of of the Bill that that course should be adopted. Examining the Amendments he fixed upon three of importance in which it was desirable the Committee should express an opinion. They were those of the hon. Baronet the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid), the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), and the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay). They had yet to consider a most difficult question—the application of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland. This was now under the consideration of the Government, and he was by no means without hope that they would be able on the Report to make a proposition which would be satisfactory. If the Committee, after deciding the issue now before it, would consent to report the Bill, and to take the other Amendments on the Report that would immensely facilitate the progress of the Bill, and he should not despair of carrying it.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 85: Majority 40.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

  SAINT MARY SOMERSET'S CHURCH, LONDON, BILL.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members:—Mr. BENTINCK, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Mr. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. TITE, Mr. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE, and Mr. POWELL:—Three to be the quorum:—Leave given to the Committee to sit upon Monday.

  TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND, &C. (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. REARDEN, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Tenure and Improvement of Land, the sale and purchase of Land and Tenants' interests, and the reclamation of Waste Lands in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. REARDEN and Mr. MICHAEL BASS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 244.]

  SCHOOLS AND TRAINING FACTORIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. REARDEN, Bill for the Establishment of Primary and Industrial Schools and Training Factories in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. REARDEN and Mr. LEADER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 245.]
  House adjourned at Five o'clock.