Commons Sitting of 21 May 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Water Supply*; Metropolitan Police Funds*; Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement (Loans) Act Amendment*; Curragh of Kildare.*
First Reading—Water Supply* [131]; Metropolis Police Funds* [132]; Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement (Loans) Act Amendment* [133]; Curragh of Kildare* [134].
Second Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [120]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation, &c* [118]: West Indies* [124]; Unclaimed Prize Money [India)* [122]; Medical Practitioners (Colonies)* [125].
Committee—Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (re-comm.) [63]—R.P.; Reformatory Schools (Ireland)* [65]; Vagrant Act Amendment* [102].
Report—Reformatory Schools (Ireland) * [65]; Vagrant Act Amendment* [102–130].
Third Reading—(£17,000,000) Consolidated Fund,* and passed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I will now state the course which Her Majesty's Government propose to take with reference to the votes which this House arrived at in Committee a few nights ago on the Scotch Reform Bill. In the arduous labour of attempting to re-construct the electoral system of the United Kingdom Her Majesty's Government are not conscious that they have shown any want of sympathy with the claims of Scotland, or any desire not to treat those claims with the utmost respect and with every wish to arrive at a conclusion which would be generally satisfactory to the House. And I am bound to say, on the part of the Government, that those efforts have been appreciated by the Scotch Members, and that we have received from them, especially last year—that is, from Gentlemen who are not politically connected with us—a warm and generous support in carrying the principal provisions of the great English measure. And we are sensible of the value of that support, and in no instance more than in our efforts to establish a household rating franchise, against the opinions of those who would have advocated one on a principle of restriction. When I say "restriction" I mean an arrangement similar to that which was familiarly described last year in this House as a "hard and fast line," and which had been proposed both for England and Scotland. I felt that in those efforts when we have attempted at all times to uphold a rating franchise against any artificial restrictions of the kind, we have received much, support from Members from Scotland who are in no degree connected with myself or my Friends. Now, the other night—on Monday night—two important decisions were arrived at with respect to the Scotch Reform Bill. The first related to the distribution of seats. It is unnecessary for me to remind the House that by the plan which Her Majesty's Government proposed they hoped they might give, if not an adequate, at all events a considerable addition to the representation of Scotland, in a manner
  620
  which would be consistent with maintaining the general privileges of the other portions of Her Majesty's dominions. That plan, we ascertained, was one which did not find favour in this House—or at least not sufficient favour to insure its passing; and there were many of our Friends—Gentlemen of influence—who were opposed, though, as we thought, on insufficient grounds, to any plan for increasing the number of the Members of this House. Then there were two other propositions made in order to satisfy the claims of Scotland—or, at any rate, partially to satisfy them—and which were before the House—one proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), and the other by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Sir Rainald Knightley). Neither of these propositions was agreeable to Her Majesty's Ministers—they were not in harmony with our original views; but, as we were very anxious to carry a measure for Scotland which should be on the whole satisfactory, and desirous, as every Member of this House is, to bring these great labours to a happy conclusion, we expressed our willingness to defer to the feeling of the House, and whether the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, or that of the hon. Member for the county of Northampton were adopted we said we would consider the decision of the House, and endeavour to frame upon it such a proposition as would on the whole give general satisfaction. I need not dwell further on that point—I think I have said enough to remind the House of what they will in justice admit—namely, that there has been at no time any desire on our part to meet the claims for the increased representation of Scotland in a niggard spirit, or, indeed, any other desire than to bring about, if possible, an arrangement which would be satisfactory not only to Scotland, but also to the other portions of the kingdom.
  And now, Sir, I come to the decision arrived at under different circumstances, and which is, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, of a different character. I refer to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), which, if adopted, would establish a household suffrage in Scotland without any qualification or condition whatever, and this, too, in a country where, we should remember, householders do not dwell in houses. Therefore, that proposition was of a very serious

  621
  character. Now, Sir, with regard to that decision, I must say on the part of Her Majesty's Government that I deeply deplore that the Committee should have arrived at it. But it is their opinion that the Committee arrived at that conclusion under a considerable degree of misapprehension. I can say certainly for Gentlemen who sit generally on this side of the House, that after the vote had been taken I upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose there was a general apprehension—indeed, I may say it was founded on an authoritative statement made by one who, from his position, influences the conduct of hon. Gentlemen as far as their attendance in the House is concerned—there was a general apprehension from the nature of that vote that our proceedings in Committee would close, and that Progress would be reported in order that the Bill might be adapted to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. ["No!"] I do not say it was a just apprehension, but undoubtedly there was such an apprehension. Hon. Gentlemen were not at that time aware that the first part of the Bill referred merely to the franchises of Scotland, and that, therefore, it was open to us to proceed with the Committee, and impossible for us to resist any claim for continuing the business of the Committee. But there is no doubt whatever there was a general apprehension on the part of hon. Gentleman—certainly on this side of the House—that the Committee would close, and report Progress after that division; and, therefore, the greater portion of the House broke up without any idea that we were going to proceed further with the consideration in Committee of the Scotch Reform Bill. I believe that to be an accurate statement: and think there were signs even on the other side of the House that there was not an apprehension that we should be proceeding in Committee after the vote on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. I will not, however, dwell further upon that. Statements have been made to me that such was the case, but of course cannot speak with the same knowledge as can with regard to Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House. I think that under these circumstances the Committee arrived at a somewhat precipitate conclusion—that it was a conclusion not preceded by that degree of discussion or accompanied by that attendance which should have expected, whatever their decision
  622
  might be, and which was especially desirable when the decision was to be taken on a point of such paramount importance. I do not wish to conceal from the House that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on this Motion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock is such that it would have the most serious consequences on their conduct as regards their responsibility in carrying on the Bill; for it is not only in itself, as we believe, highly detrimental and disadvantageous to Scotland, but in its ultimate consequences on the whole electoral fabric of the kingdom it must be of the most injurious description. And therefore do hope that, with that anxious wish which pervades both sides of the House to carry the Scotch Reform Bill to a satisfactory conclusion, I may induce the Committee to re-consider the determination which they came to on Monday night, so that with a larger attendance and a more complete discussion we may all of us clearly understand what point we are arriving at, that we have contemplated all the consequences of the issue at stake, and that if we do feel it our duty to uphold the Resolution adopted by the Committee the other night, at least it shall not be said if us by those whom we represent that we have arrived at that conclusion in a precipitate and careless spirit. With these views, it is my wish to propose on Monday next certain words in Committee which will obviate the inconveniences and injury which we think will accrue if we do not take some remedial course of that kind. I shall not propose to restore the two clauses which have been struck out by the Committee. I shall propose to add words—which we shall place on the table in the course of the evening—to the effect that no elector in a Scotch borough shall be entitled to exercise the suffrage who is not rated to the poor and who has not paid his rates. That will assort the principle which we wish to uphold, and will provide against the infringement of the principle of the English Bill. In answer to those Gentlemen who have talked of innovation, and who spoke the other night as if we were proposing regulations which were perfectly unknown to the people of Scotland, and to which they were quite unaccustomed, beg to state that the language in which shall endeavour to secure this end and to vindicate the principle which have already vindicated for England in a House of more than 600 Members, is the language which find in

  623
  a clause regulating the exercise of voting under the Poor Law Act of Scotland. Therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite need not be afraid of any innovation or of anything to which the people of Scotland are not accustomed, because the provision will be the same as that which has so long influenced their conduct in the performance of one of their most important municipal duties. With this view I shall place these words upon the table in the course of the evening, so that they will be in the hands of hon. Members tomorrow morning; and I do hope we shall come to a unanimous conclusion, by accepting the words to which the people of Scotland are accustomed, and which entirely vindicate the principle of the English Law, which the House adopted so decidedly last year. And if that be so we may, I trust carry the Scotch Reform Bill to a happy conclusion, and that within a few days.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he desired to say a few words on this question; and, to put himself in Order, would conclude with a Motion. He should not have ventured to obtrude himself, had he not thought the statement they had just heard would have been more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had told the House that, in the event of his not succeeding in inducing the House to reverse the decision arrived at the other night, Her Majesty's Government would resign. Let hon. Members look back for a moment upon what they had lately seen in that House within the last few days. He would not dwell on the votes on the question of the Irish Church carried by majorities sufficient at any other time to make Government resign their places; but what could they say of the conduct of a Government who had seen the House disallow the proceedings of a Royal Commission, that Royal Commission being appointed by themselves? He would not say that the Instructions to that Royal Commission were not imprudent and unjust ones; but having given those Instructions, and having limited and restricted the Commissioners, he maintained that, by not making their decision the starting point for the decision of that House, but by going through the farce of appointing a select Committee to consider the subject, the Government had shown a disrespect to the Commissioners. Would the House, or the Government, respect the decisions of the Committee? From the way the Government had treated the "whole Boundary business, nothing was
  624
  clearer than this—that every question relating to it would be decided upon the floor of that House, and nowhere else. This would set all the electioneering agents in the country agog. The fact was the government of the country and the direction of legislation on all important questions no longer remained in the hands of the Government; it did not even rest with the Opposition, as a distinct body properly so called; it rested in the hands of the House, as a whole—that is, in a vast Committee of nearly 600 Members, fluctuating in their attendance, and who arrived at decisions of the greatest importance by a mental process, which could be described only as drifting. The result was that hon. Members—the hon. Member for Birmingham and those who agreed with him—were able to obtain all the changes they desired, without the least responsibility attaching to them. He gave those hon. Members more credit for patriotism than to suppose they wished to attain their ends by means of a state of things in that House which was drawing down upon it the contempt of every thinking man in the country; and which, if persisted in much longer, would render the present system of Parliamentary government impossible. He was aware that some hon. Members on the Government side of the House thought the Opposition did not treat the Government with generosity and forbearance; but he was not at all certain that forbearance was a word you could admit into politics. Gentlemen were sent to that House to further their own views; but because a weak man—to which he compared the Government—gave up to his antagonist an advantageous post as soon as it was demanded, his antagonist knew that it was given up because it could no longer be withheld, and not on any ground that entitled him to forbearance or respect. Some years ago, when Lord Palmerston was in Office, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) in Opposition, at the beginning of the Session he issued to his supporters a manifesto, in which, after enumerating the important negative victories which had been won by the Conservative party—the putting a stop to a Church Rate Bill among others—he made use of this expression: "Place without power may gratify the vain, but it can never satisfy the nobly ambitious," Either the right hon. Gentleman did not fall within that category, or he had much changed his sentiments on the question.

  625
  He wished to speak of the Government with all the respect that attached to their high position, and which he felt for many of them individually; but he must tell them, when they put forward principles which they were always ready to withdraw; when, Session after Session, time after time, they exhibited what they called their principles—as a showman draws his puppets from a bag to be dangled awhile before the eyes of their supporters and put away again when they had served their turn—although they might continue to be Ministers of the Crown, they were permitting themselves to sink into the position of a mere joint-stock company for the division of places among themselves. He did not suppose that anyone who supported the great and important measure passed List year believed it to be, in the old acceptation of the term, a Conservative measure; on the contrary, it must be clear to every one that we were on the eve of great and important changes; and, it was all-important how we met these changes. The right hon. Gentlemen at the head of the Government had been saying to their supporters—"The talisman of safety lies in the Boundary question, and we will appoint a Royal Commission and secure it;" and "The real basis of the electoral franchise—the old pathway of the Constitution—is in rating and not in rental." Of these two principles they had already given up one—the other they would give up when it suited their purpose, and they met the difficulties of the day in this most unwise and unstatesmanlike manner. His objection to the right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government continuing in power was that his vitality as a Minister of the Crown appeared to be in direct inverse ratio to the vitality of his principles as a politician; and, as they one by one disappeared, slain by his own hand, the tighter did he stick to Office. We were coming upon dangerous times; there was a limit to everything, and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that there were some at least of his supporters who would refuse to be dragged through the mud, in order to enable the Government to remain on those Benches, and that there was a limit to the fidelity and patience of the right hon. Gentleman's followers. To put himself in Order, he would move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Percy Wyndham)
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I have no intention of taking up the discussion at the point at which the hon. Gentleman has left it; but I think the statement made by the First Minister is one that, on this side of the House, we have a right a little to complain of. Now, my view of the discussion on Monday night was this: that it was a very wise thing, as I said then, to go with the great majority of the Scotch Members on a matter with which they were more familiar than the House generally could pretend to be. The Scotch Members in the House being about forty or forty-one on that evening, thirty-five or thirty-six—nearly all—voted in opposition to the view of the Government, and of the four or five who voted with the Government, at least two if not three are members of the Administration or in some Office. Well, now, I think farther, that although the right hon. Gentleman and the House last year had agreed to rating—what we call the ratepaying clauses of the Bill of last year—that in that case he was following the Act of 1832, which has produced enormous inconvenience in England. I have a letter this morning from a gentleman connected with the town of Blackburn, who says that, in consequence of there not being any rate made in that town before the 5th January last, any person in Blackburn occupying a house of any value will be placed on the registry in the autumn of this year. So the system is one which, being connected with a system of voting and the franchise, will create, the more numerous your electoral body, difficulties continually in a great many boroughs. But in Scotland the Reform Act of 1832 did not apply this principle; and therefore think that, as the Scotch Members were of opinion that it would be accompanied with great inconvenience—with even more inconvenience than in England—and as they were nearly unanimous in that opinion, they were the best judges, and that the House was wise in following their advice. But to come to that night's debate—the right hon. Gentleman accepted the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire—the hon. Member having made up the little difference which existed some time ago. [Sir RAINALD KNIGHTLEY: No, no!] I am sorry to hear that, because like to see harmony in a political party. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, or somebody who acts for him, was well aware of the Notice being

  627
  given. In point of fact it was offered to the House as the proposition of the Government, in substitution for that of the hon. Member for Montrose. I do not think there was any great difference between these two; but the Government made a very fair offer in the matter. At the same time—although will not say that should not have liked the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire quite as well, looking to the future, believe that the House did really decide in a proper manner in giving the preference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. The right hon. Gentleman allowed the debate to go on, and the House to go into Committee; and nobody on his side of the House had a right to believe, and I am sure nobody did believe, that he was about to make a great catastrophe of any vote in connection with the Scotch Bill. He had agreed not to increase the numbers of the House—which in his speech at Edinburgh he had held out as a great bait, and he had consented to the destruction often "centres of representation," which, as a principle, was thought more of last year, I imagined, than the principle of rating, though next year in all probability, the centres of representation in Ireland may follow the same fate, and at the same hands. The right hon. Gentleman, say, had already agreed to this important alteration, and surely no one had a right to expect that a difficulty would arise upon any further clause. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman even heard any of the discussion upon the proposition of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock; and how was the question debated? We are warned now that this was a vital principle, and that if it failed the Bill might be defeated, the Government might resign, or something still more impossible might take place. But how was it defended? Did ever Minister defend a great cause in such a manner? The Lord Advocate spoke, but certainly he did not speak with enthusiasm in the matter. He pointed out that he was merely seeking to introduce into the Scotch Reform Bill a principle approved in the English Bill—a fact of which we were well aware. The clause was also defended by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), who spoke upon it, as he always does—he spoke very fairly, with a certain feeling, which possibly was real. "Who else defended it? Why, it was defended by an erratic Mem-
  628
  ber of the House, the noble Lord (Lord John Browne) who sits below me, who generally sits upon this side of the House and votes on that; but who, with perfect consistency, upon that occasion, addressed the House from the opposite Benches. He, an Irish Member, took up the cudgels for the Government. And that was about the only defence which was made. When the House came to a division, there were 224 Members present, and there were 240 others who had paired, most of them after the first division; and they paired knowing that this very question was coming on. ["No!" and Cheers.] Well, I have taken some pains to inquire, and I find that the great bulk of them paired till ten o'clock; and it was a reasonable supposition that, in their opinion, the discussion would last until ten o'clock. The fact is, they did not come down very punctually, and the division took place, unfortunately for them, five minutes before ten o'clock; and the result was the great calamity which has brought the Government and the House into a position of some difficulty. If I might, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more explicit. I have no unfair object; I do not want to put him into any difficulty. I have felt it my duty to speak with a certain severity upon one occasion, when I thought that severity was deserved; but the House will bear me witness that I have not been active except in the fair discussions of propositions before the House during this Session. The speeches that have been made most offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, speaking generally, have come from Gentlemen that see opposite. I am told—though I do not pretend to have that secret understanding with Gentlemen opposite which the right hon. Gentleman always assumes that he has with some upon these Benches—that the Gentlemen who have spoken unfavourably of the Government from the Benches opposite represent the feelings of a great many who are silent. ["No, no!"] We are placed in an unpleasant position, and what I say shall be uttered with the simple and honest object of helping us to get out of the difficulty; for I agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last as to the discredit which attaches—a great deal of it to the Government, some to the House, and I am afraid some portion of it especially to this side of the House—that the present state of things is not terminated. The right hon. Gentleman came into Office having,

  629
  as we know, a minority only at his back he has had but a minority during the whole period of his official career—by which I mean the existence of Lord Derby's Government as well as of the present Administration; and he has been maintained in Office because there was an opinion upon this side of the House that hon. Gentlemen opposite do much less harm to our principles when in Office than when they are in Opposition. I think that is true, as the past has shown, and the sequel may still further illustrate. But at this moment the right hon. Gentleman holds over the House a threat to which reference has been made before—a menace which I say it is not right for a Minister to employ, and not right for this House to submit to. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in one sense this is the most corrupt House of Commons that ever assembled within these walls. ["Oh!"] When hon. Gentlemen hear the explanation of that statement, I think they will agree with me. I believe it cost more money to place the 658 Members now in this House within these walls than any 658 Members who ever sat here at any former period. And it is because of that excessive cost that the right hon. Gentleman has the power—I am sorry that, under any circumstances, he should have the will—to hold over the House the menace of dissolution, A penalty, probably, of £1,000,000 sterling will be entailed upon those who contest the seats—that is to say, upon the Members now here who will come back from the General Election—the Members who will fight and be defeated—the new Members who will be returned, and the constituencies who return them; and the great bulk of that expenditure will go into the hands of a certain number of lawyers, a great number of publicans, and a considerable number of printers. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has proposed that we should go back from the Vote of the other night. I will only say what I said then—that I think the Scotch Members are the best judges of this matter; and, if they can find any satisfactory solution of this difficulty, I shall be extremely glad, and feel perfectly confident that I am right in giving my vote with them. Therefore, I shall say no more on that point; but leave it till the question comes on again—I suppose about Monday next. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has given a Notice to-night with regard to the Bill of which the right
  630
  hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire is to move the second reading, I believe, to-morrow. I do not know exactly what is the object of that Notice—whether it means more than a debate or a division, as we had on the first Resolution. Clearly, the First Minister was right when he said that the second and third Resolutions followed naturally and inevitably from the first; and he would be right now if he were to get up and say that the Suspensory Bill followed more inevitably—if such a thing were possible—from the second and third of those Resolutions. There is no doubt that, even if the propositions for changes within the; Irish Church, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission now about to report were accepted by the Government and the country, it would be wise for Parliament to pass a Suspensory Bill, in order that money might not be wasted in filling offices between the time of the presentation of the Report and the passing of the Bill for giving effect to its; proposals. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was intending to get the House into smooth water; and I wish he would. If he is resolved to sit there till the House is prorogued in July or August—to remain in Office till Christmas, until after the General Election has taken place, I have I no power of myself to move him from his seat. I dare say there are many persons; in this House and out of it who are more anxious to eject him than I am. But, if he wishes for smooth water, let him not be a disturber of the pool. On this very question of the Scotch Bill possibly there may be some half-way house, some proposition or solution which may be fixed upon as the way out of the difficulty. There is no wish to drive him out of Office on that Bill, or to cause the failure of the Bill. On this side, I believe, there is perfect unanimity in wishing that the Bill should pass, and that it should be, as it promises in the main to be, a measure satisfactory to Scotland. But, if we are to be asked to make concessions in this matter, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to make concessions also? Do not misunderstand me. I am not speaking for anybody else—for anybody I upon those Benches, or upon this side of; the House. Nobody knew or supposed that I was going to make any observations of this kind. But suppose the right hon. I Gentleman considers it due from us to make any concessions with regard to this

  631
  matter, surely it is not the business of the Government to raise any question that can bring us during the next few weeks into any dilemma of this kind again. After all, a crisis every week—twice a week, some hon. Member says—is not a creditable thing for a Minister; and it is not a pleasant thing for this House. There is some advantage occasionally in having a little excitement; but I confess that the excitement which we have had during the last two months since the right hon. Gentleman came into Office has been rather too much for my nerves; and, if it continues much longer, some of us will have to ask leave to go to a purer atmosphere and to more pleasant occupations. I have risen to say that, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks he has a claim to ask this side of the House to make any concessions, as regards the Scotch Bill, surely it is time for him, and those who sit with him—many of whom very seldom get up to say anything themselves, though their voices are enthusiastic when cheering the right hon. Gentleman—to pursue a course which will not lead the House into any difficulty hereafter. Now, only one other observation upon that. The House has decided by majorities of from 60 to 70 in favour of the Resolutions on the Irish Church. No one can deny—even the right hon. Gentleman himself or the Home Secretary cannot deny—that the House is agreed—for a vote by a large majority must be held an agreement—that the Bill that has been brought in is a just and necessary measure. If the Parliament that shall meet next spring, elected by the new constituencies, shall decide that the Irish Church shall remain as it is, then the Bill of my right hon. Friend, being only for twelve months, will expire, and there will be an end of it. Moreover, if the plan of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is considered better, the Suspensory Bill will be equally useless. I say, therefore, that, under these circumstances, if the right hon. Gentleman takes this opportunity of picking a quarrel, or what may be intended as a quarrel, it is from the love of the quarrel itself, and for a purpose which does not arise naturally out of the question or out of the Bill. Well, then, if the right hon. Gentleman asks Members on this side of the House to step back one hair's-breadth from the line they have taken, I say he should be careful to deal with the House in as frank and fair a spirit as we on this side are disposed to deal with him.
  632
  I think it will be understood that, in the observations I have made, I have not been speaking so as to aggravate the position of the right hon. Gentleman. I have said nothing to add to the irritation that might have been caused by the speech from the other side of the House. I have spoken my honest sentiments with regard to the position the House is placed in. If the right hon. Gentleman behaves, as I have known him to behave, as becomes him—though sometimes I have known him to act otherwise—if he behaves as becomes a Minister in a minority, possibly we may be saved in the next few weeks from many of those tumults and disorders which are not pleasant in the House, and which will not add to its influence with the country.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the hon. Member for Birmingham had expressed his satisfaction at the present state of things, because Her Majesty's Government, according to the hon. Gentleman, were very useful to the principles which he advocated. It was not surprising that the hon. Gentleman, while thus using the Government for his own purposes, was satisfied that they should continue to hold Office while in a minority. This state of things might not be pleasant to hon. Members on the Government side of the House, but for one definite purpose, he (Mr. Newdegate) thought that Her Majesty's Government should remain in Office. They had carried a Reform Bill for England, and it was their duty, although in a minority, to test the forbearance of the House as to whether they could complete their scheme by carrying Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland. With respect to the question which had arisen as to the re-distribution of seats in the Bill for Scotland, he had been inclined to vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Sir Rainald Knightley) to take one Member from the smaller boroughs which had two, in order that they might be given to the counties; but when he found that the county Members would not stand together with the object of adding two county Members, one selected from each side of the House, to the Select Committee on Boundaries, he gave the larger and subsequent object up as hopeless, and then he voted distinctly for the alternative of transferring the scats to Scotland. The truth was that the seats for the small boroughs had long been felt to be due either to the counties of England or to Scotland. Under the circumstances he thought the House had done well in

  633
  allotting them to Scotland. The hon. Member for Birmingham had accused Her Majesty's Government of bringing forward measures not connected with the Reform question to disturb the House. Now it was with reference to one of these questions that he wished to obtain some information, A Bill on the subject of Promissory Oaths had been sent down from the House of Lords, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow Members a few days to consider the constitutional questions which arose in connection with that Bill. And this he must say, that he so far agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that, in the irregular state of things which existed, with the Government in a minority in a House not adequately representing the country, it was not just to the people that that Assembly should deal with great constitutional questions other than Reform. Why, yesterday they were considering the law of libel, and Member after Member told him that they had been so distracted that they had not read the Bill until that morning, and many had not read it at all. In this crisis the House was really so distracted that Members could not give their attention to those great subjects as they ought, and as under other circumstances they would have done. The hon. Member for Birmingham had alluded to the question of the Irish Church; but Her Majesty's Government were not responsible for the introduction of that measure. He had held from the first that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had incurred a deep responsibility for thrusting upon a House, which he had declared to be imperfect because it inadequately represented the country, a question which had stirred, and would stir, the feelings of the people; and for raising it in anticipation of the decision of a Parliament, which, according to himself, would more fully represent the nation. With sincere respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, for whom he had no feeling of personal enmity whatever, and whose great talents he admired, he must say that he thought it unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman's antecedents—both as a constitutional authority and as a good Reformer, to endeavour, as he was now doing, to anticipate to a certain degree the decision of the next Parliament, which was not likely to be in accordance with the wild declarations with which he had
  634
  introduced the Resolutions. He begged to conclude by expressing a hope that the Prime Minister would allow the House a few more days to consider the Promissory Oaths Bill before asking them to come to a decision upon it.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I respectfully beg leave to demur to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister—that in the decision at which we arrived on Monday night there was something like misapprehension or surprise. No doubt it is very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman, when he is making an attempt—and I believe it will be an unsuccessful attempt—to induce the House of Commons to swallow a well-considered decision, and to reverse what they have already resolved; it is very convenient, I say, for him to make such a representation. But not only is the fact not so, but I beg leave to say that the fact is the exact contrary to what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman. The more fact mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham is conclusive—that out of forty Scotch Members who were present in the House that evening thirty-five voted for it. In short, all who are familiar with the subject, and who know how the matter will work, were practically unanimous. And so far from its being a hasty and sudden impulse of the Scotch Members—and let me say in passing that we, as a body, are not very liable to hasty and sudden impulses—the Amendment which I had the honour to submit, and which was carried, was the result of long and careful deliberation by the great body of the Scotch Members; Notice was given of it, and it was put on the Paper before Easter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham that if a way out of this difficulty can be found, consistent with the already expressed opinion of the House, and the decided opinion of the Scotch Members backed by the great body of the Liberal Members—if a way can be found out of the difficulty so as to enable the Government to go on with the Bill in a satisfactory manner, well and good. But, as I understood his proposal, the right hon. Gentleman intimated that it was his intention simply to ask the House to reverse the decision which was come to on Monday, and which, as I have paid, was a well-considered and not a hasty one. Now, the Scotch Members, no doubt, with their ordinary prudence and caution, will take time to see what the Amendment of the

  635
  right hon. Gentleman is, and how it will fit with their views; but I must say for myself, if it is simply the reversal of the decision of Monday that is proposed, I shall not be induced to consent to it; and I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman, consistently with the common forms of Committee, will be able to call on the House to reverse its decision. The fact is, that the right hon. Gentleman has at last come to a point when he thinks he can no longer go on and take the consequences of the situation in which he has been during the last two months. The right hon. Gentleman, however, must be content to accept the consequences of that situation. If he is willing to be a Minister in a minority, he must—as he said last year he would—bo guided by the majority of the House. He has no right to set up his views, or the views and wishes of the minority, against the well-considered decision of the House. It comes to this—which is to play the part of Ancient Pistol and which of Fluellen? Are we still to go on offering the leek to the right hon. Gentleman, and forcing him to bite it, or is he, stung by the various defeats of the last two months, to come forward and say, '' Well, this is my last vital point; all the rest I have surrendered; every one which I insisted upon, and on which I educated my party, they are all now abandoned but this one of rating. On this I stand, and I insist, whether it is right for Scotland or not, on the House upholding my consistency?" Well, I trust he will not succeed in persuading the House to take that course. Now, important as this question of a clause in the Scotch Reform Bill is, there is a graver question behind it, on which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Percy Wyndham) made so strong and able a speech. The greatest man of our times once asked, in "another place," with reference to the Reform Act of 1832, "How is the Queen's Government to be carried on?" Now, it appears that the right hon. Gentleman has discovered the solution of that question. The recognized and ancient practice of the House, to which we were all accustomed, which we all understood, which worked well, and which, whether it worked for or against either party, was accepted by them as a natural consequence of the system, was that the majority should rule, that the Government should express the mind of the House, and should give efficiency to its acts. That was the time-
  636
  honoured and well considered practice. But now, it appears, the minority are to rule. Any number of defeats do not signify. "Thrash me, kick me, beat mo, insult me, outrage me," says the right hon. Gentleman, "but still I say, like Mr. Toots, it doesn't signify, I feel quite comfortable where I am." Now, I am astonished that the Tory country Gentleman have submitted to this state of things so long. I am a Whig country Gentleman, and I am not ashamed of the designation, and according to my notion, this state of affairs is degrading to the Crown, disgraceful to the Minister, and destructive of the just rights and privileges of this House. That is not the only reason why I am astonished at the Tory country Gentlemen submitting to a continuance of this. I must say, that had I been sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman I should have been aghast at seeing all that I most valued and honoured gradually swept away under his protection. You have had the benefit of this system for two years, and under its auspices you have seen carried a measure which I do not myself dread or dislike, but which you viewed with the greatest dislike and alarm—a democratic Reform Bill. Under the same process we are likely to have an inroad upon that great institution which you value above everything else—the Church—for it is no doubt far easier to make an inroad upon that deep-rooted, long-established institution when we are in the position we now occupy than if we were sitting on the opposite side. That is the reason why some of us are very unwilling to see a change of Government. Again, the financial arrangements of the Government are no doubt acceptable to this side of the House, because they are in conformity with our views; but it has been a matter of the greatest astonishment to me that not a single Tory country Gentleman has been found who has had the courage to rise up and protest, in conformity with the doctrine taught him for twenty years by the right hon. Gentleman, that it was not fair or right to the landed interest to raise the whole of the increased expenditure of the country by direct taxation. I do not make these remarks in any spirit of hostility. There is a story told of Lady Mary Wortley Montague that she once said—
  "Most people wish their enemies to die. That is not my wish at all. My prayer is, give my enemy the gout; let him feel what the pleasure of that is; let him have the stone; let him know what torture is."

  637
  Now, the worst that I could wish an enemy would be that he should sit as a Minister on the Treasury Bench in the circumstances in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed—for I cannot conceive a position more humiliating to one's sense of dignity, and more derogatory to constitutional Government. If I were hostile to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends—if I were animated by feelings of personal dislike, my prayer would be that they should continue in that position, endeavouring ineffectually to carry on the Government of the country, endeavouring ineffectually to support principles to which the majority of the House will not adhere, and endeavouring to maintain their position by a policy which I must designate as a policy of legerdemain.
  MR. J. HARDY, as the representative of one of the ten unfortunate boroughs which were condemned on Monday, wished to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) had just related a story of Lady Mary Wortley Montague; but he thought a much milder saying was that of Lord Chesterfield, who held that the worst wish he had to an enemy was that he should be married and settled in the country. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman chose to retire into the country he would not be regretted by hon. Members who sat opposite to him. Now, with reference to the proposed alteration of the vote of Monday last—for his own part, he should not be satisfied by the mere rescinding of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, for he considered that a vital principle of the English Reform Bill had been attacked by the previous Amendment, affecting ten English seats. Members on both sides were induced last year to support the Reform Bill, under the express condition that there should be no total disfranchisement; and it was a, most monstrous thing that ten English boroughs that had committed no sin should be swept away in order to give additional seats to Scotland. Ten independent English Members were to be sacrificed for the benefit of the most narrow-minded constituencies in the Empire. As for the boasted success of the grouping system, why, such a rude and rigid line was enforced that no independent man dared to offer himself, and if a Scotch Member ventured to show any independence he never appeared in the House again. Everybody knew exactly what the ten additional Scotch Members would be like; they
  638
  would be like so many brace of grouse. His own borough (Dartmouth) had, he thought, been treated in the most shameful manner; indeed, the honour of the House was at stake in the matter. Last Session a proposal to disfranchise these boroughs, made by the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee), was defeated in a full House by a majority of 52; but on Monday, in a much thinner House, there was a majority of only 21 for it. Now, he regarded that as a very unfair decision. He did not say that he should have supported the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire (Sir Rainald Knightley), for he had no great fancy for giving additional Members to Scotland. He was quite aware that Scotch Members were most respectable persons at home; but when they entered the House it seemed to be their business to vote away everything which a Constitutionalist held dear in Church and State. He would not go far as Charles II. in saying that Presbyterianism was not a religion for a gentleman, for religion was not concerned in this question; but he regretted to say that the dominant religion of Scotland was not conservative. The Scotch Presbyterians were banded together with Irish Roman Catholics to carry their measures; how then could they expect the Constitutional party in England to support them? The hon. Member for Birmingham, ready to give advice, he would not say with less than his usual obtrusiveness, and who, as he had told them, was the last man to get the House into troubled waters, had laid all the blame of what had taken place during the last few months upon that (the Ministerial side) of the House. But that side had not been at all to blame. Surely they were not called upon to accept everything offered to them from the other side. The Government, pledged as they were not to disfranchise totally, could not have supported the proposal of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), and he wanted to know why the vote on that proposal should not be re-considered? If this were not done he only hoped the Bill would be thrown up or withdrawn; for Scotland could exist very well for another Parliament without these additional Members. Several of the condemned boroughs were in Devonshire, and he protested against the representative power of that county being thus diminished. His own borough, moreover, had once been, and might again be, an important port, and he felt bound to protest

  639
  against its disfranchisement. If the vote of last Monday were supported he hoped the Government would throw up the Scotch Bill.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he neither voted nor paired the other night, and was not pledged on one side or the other; but he did not feel disposed to establish a principle of rating in Scotland that had been hitherto unknown there. He supported the Government on the ratepaying clauses of the English Bill last year, and was in favour of maintaining it; but he could not admit that by agreeing to a different principle for Scotland, they would necessarily weaken the principle adopted for England. The law and circumstances of the two countries were quite different. It appeared to him that the question at issue was one the solution of which only called for a little practical common sense on both sides of the House. What was the object of the Government? That those who were too poor to pay the rates should not be put on the poor-rate book and be eligible to be placed on the register. That was equally the object of the House. He would suggest an addition to the clause providing that all persons exempted from the payment of poor rates should not be placed on the register. Such a provision would only leave out a small number of persons in Scotland; for he had been told that throughout Scotland the rates were collected within 9 per cent, so that the collectors did not allow many persons to leave their rates unpaid. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accept some such compromise on this question, and he had no doubt that some arrangement satisfactory to both parties might be arrived at.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he was a Tory country Gentleman, and he hoped he was as independent and as little influenced by personal motives as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). No man felt it more deeply and painfully than himself the existing state of things, and the only consideration that induced him to tolerate it was his hope to put a stop once for all to any further agitation on the question of Reform. Last year the Conservative party had made enormous, and, as he thought, most disastrous sacrifices, and he for one deeply regretted the course taken by the Government. Those sacrifices, however, were made, and the only hope was that they would have a little peace for the time to come. He wished to see the Scotch and
  640
  Irish Reform Bills settled. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not settle them—they had tried their hands at Be form for a good many years and failed. He did not say whether those on his or the other side of the House were most to blame for that; his own party had their share of the blame, but not, he maintained, so large a share as hon. Gentleman opposite, because when in opposition they were not so factious. He would tell hon. Members for Scotland, "If you wish to pass a Scotch Reform Bill, and to obtain ten additional Members for Scotland, do not turn out the Government at the present moment." Just let them try what chance they would have of passing such a Bill through the House of Lords with the Conservatives in Opposition. He did not wish to see the Government retain Office longer than to settle the Reform question in Scotland and Ireland. Let the Government pass those two Bills and then let the House turn them out next day if they would.
  MR. KENDALLsaid, he was in the House on Monday night, and being very suspicious about what was going on he would not go away to dine or pair. "What was the state of the House? The hon. Member for Birmingham said that no questions were asked and no objections taken in opposition to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie). The reason was there was no one there to take objections. "When he came in he found five Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, two behind them, and three near him. He also found the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) pressing for a division. ["Oh!"] He heard that hon. Member frequently say "Divide, divide." Although he was getting old he was very quick of hearing and of eye. The hon. Member urged to-night that as the Scotch Members were agreed the English and Irish Members ought also to agree to pass the Amendment. But why should forty or fifty Scotch Members destroy the principle of the Reform Bill for England? It was not a fact, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), that his Amendment had been fully discussed and duly considered on the Conservative side of the House. No one expected it to come on so early. Many Members were prepared for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), but there was not the slightest expectation of the Motion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock coming on. He did hope, notwithstanding the

  641
  manner in which he had been treated, that the First Lord of the Treasury would give Scotland a further chance, because the vote of Monday night was a catch vote. It was passed in the absence of those who were dining and taking care of themselves. Hon. Gentlemen were too quiet on the other side of the House, and so he stayed; there to watch them.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, they were constantly hearing hon. Members on that side of the House taunting the Government with more or less bitterness, on the ground that their retention of Office was calculated to bring the House into a humiliating position. Bat nothing was more calculated to produce that result than language such as had been heard that night from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). What could be more degrading to the House and the country than the constant practice in which some hon. Members indulged of casting the vilest imputations upon Her Majesty's Government—he did not speak of the present Government in particular. If they were to sit there as an assembly of Gentlemen, they ought to give credit to any Government for acting on principles; of policy in the performance of what they considered to be their duty to the country, Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were always telling them that the sole; object of the right hon. Gentleman and; his Colleagues was to retain their places; but if the Opposition were always throwing such imputations on the Government, might not the Government retort by pointing to Members who might be very anxious to succeed them, and might they not say that these hon. Gentlemen were hungry for place? But if hon. Members went on making these imputations and foul aspersions, that House could not fail to be degraded in the eyes of the country and in the eyes of the world. Let them give the right hon. Gentlemen who might sit upon the Treasury Bench credit for holding Office with a sincere desire to perform their duties; and even if they did not believe they were actuated by a sense of duty, let them at least have the good manners to suppose they were, and not make these charges, which degraded the House and the whole country in the eyes of Europe. The hon. Member for Birmingham and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) appeared to suppose that because the Scotch Members were agreed in supporting the Amendment adopted on
  642
  Monday night the representatives of England and Ireland were practically to abdicate their functions on the question of Parliamentary Reform for Scotland, and leave the matter to be settled by the Scotch Members alone. Any more unconstitutional doctrine he could not imagine, and he was surprised to hear such comments from the hon. Member for Birmingham, who had been for many years a Member of that House, and ought during that time to have learned something about the English Constitution. The question touched the constituencies of the United Kingdom, and of course affected the constituency of England as well as Scotland; and an Instruction had even been moved in Committee upon the Scotch Reform Bill to disfranchise a number of English boroughs. He should have thought such a proceeding most irregular; but the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that it was a thing that might be done. If it were really within the rules that governed their proceedings it was pushing those rules to an extent bordering upon licence to disfranchise English boroughs upon an Instruction on going into Committee on a Scotch Reform Bill, and thus to repeal an Act of Parliament passed last year after the greatest deliberation and the fullest discussion, That appeared to him, he owned, to be an abuse of the proceedings of Parliament. The other question upon which the Government were placed in a minority was upon the Scotch franchise. Now, if there were to be a simple household franchise without rating for Scotland they would have to apply the same principle to England. He denied most emphatically that the Scotch Members should be left to decide this question upon principles which the other Members of the House thought were not right. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had done no more than his duty in affording the House an opportunity of re-considering this subject. He was certainly under the impression that after the decision of the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), on Monday evening, the House would not proceed with. the consideration of the Scotch Reform Bill in Committee; and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire was not present during the discussion which ensued. ["No!"] The right hon. Gentleman was absent, at 1 all events, during a portion of the discus-

  643
  sion; and the division was a snapped one and was taken under a misapprehension. It was therefore right that they should have a re-consideration of so important a subject. He thought the hon. Member for Birmingham was again exceedingly unfair in saying that the Government called on them to re-consider the decision on the Scotch Reform Bill under the threat of a dissolution. He certainly had heard no threat of the sort, and his belief was that no threat was intended. Any such threat held out to the House of Commons in a case of that kind would be a crime. He believed that the Government were not capable of that crime, and that, whether they were or not, they would not commit it. With regard to the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Percy Wyndham), who had moved the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of enabling them to enter upon that discussion, he was perfectly at a loss to know what was the object of the hon. Gentleman in making that speech. The hon. Gentleman dealt largely in that species of declamation which he had already deprecated, and which he still most sincerely deprecated. On a question regarding the Scotch Reform Bill the hon. Gentleman had gone into a mere attack of the Government; and he could not but think it would have been better to avoid a discussion which must necessarily be of a personal and offensive character, and which could not conduce in any manner to the decision of the important questions which they had before them. In conclusion, he had spoken as an impartial observer. ["Oh!"] It was not very often that he took part in what might be called party debates in that House, and, he repeated, he had spoken as an impartial observer, uttering freely what he believed it to be his duty to say, as no one else had said it.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, the remarks that had just fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) were made in the same spirit in which he himself wished very briefly to address the House; for after the taunts thrown out by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock against Conservative country Gentlemen he could not allow his speech to remain wholly unanswered. The right hon. Gentleman said he was astonished that country Gentlemen on that side could continue to support a Government which was conducting public affairs in the more than questionable manner he had described. For his own
  644
  I part he (Colonel Lindsay) was astonished that a country Gentleman could impute such mean and paltry motives to any body of Gentlemen who were endeavouring to serve Her Majesty and the country. His own feeling was that Her Majesty's Ministers were, under great difficulties, fulfilling a most important duty at great personal sacrifices to themselves. [Laughter.] It might cause a laugh to some hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Members of a Government should be supposed capable of doing their duty to their Sovereign and their country at some sacrifice of their own feelings; but he was sure that many hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Opposition Benches must be perfectly ashamed of the manner in which not only in that House, but constantly in private on all occasions, the most mean and paltry motives were I attributed to the Government for remaining in Office. He regretted exceedingly that a speech of that character had been made that evening from that (the Ministerial) side of the House. Such an attack I as that which the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had directed against those by whose side he sat and to whose party he professed to belong ought not to be made in the hasty and precipitate manner they had just witnessed. If an Independent Member below the Gangway might give advice to the Government as to how long they were to continue in Office and what course they ought to pursue, he hoped that one Independent Member might give advice to another; and availing himself of that privilege he would ask the hon. Member for Cumberland to listen to a few words taken from a well-known classic author. The Spectator, describing the establishment of Sir Roger de Coverley in the country, and speaking of Sir Roger's pack of hounds, said—
  "I was at the same time delighted in observing that deference which the rest of the pack paid to each particular hound, according to the character he had acquired among them. If they were at fault and an old hound of reputation opened but once, he was immediately followed by the whole cry; while a raw dog might have yelped his heart out without being taken notice of."
  He trusted that Her Majesty's Government might continue to carry the very important measures they had in hand, which everyone knew they were endeavouring under a conscientious sense of duty to bring to a satisfactory issue. Let those measures be carried, and he was convinced that nothing would induce the Government to remain

  645
  in the very unpleasant position they now occupied.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member who had just addressed the House had not dealt with the real difficulty of the present circumstances. He charged the Opposition with imputing unworthy motives to Her Majesty's Government; but the main point to be dealt with was whether the Conservative Members themselves did not disapprove the course pursued by the Government. The statement he ought to have grappled with was what they had heard from the lion. Member for Northamptonshire (Sir Rainald Knightley), who said that the Government had carried measures which were disastrous and fatal, and that the great body of the Conservative party so regarded them. That was the light in which they were viewed by the men whom he had been accustomed to look upon as the chief Gentlemen of England. The hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire said that his party had supported measures which they themselves believed to be disastrous. ["No!"] Aye, but they did, though. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) charged the Opposition with imputing motives to, and speaking harshly of, their opponents; but he must say, as one of the oldest Members of the House, that he had never heard anything spoken there against hon. Gentlemen opposite which was nearly so violent or so strong as the language used by one of their own most respected Members. The right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) had told them the Treasury Bench ought to be sent to the British Museum as a curiosity, as the Bench for the honour of sitting on which right hon. Gentlemen were willing to sacrifice all other honour. For himself, as a Whig country Gentleman, he said there were things far more important than the transfer of any party from one side of the House to the other; and among those things were the honour of Parliament, political honour and consistency, and the respect which the country should entertain for its representatives. An injury had been done to the character of Parliament. That was what he imputed to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not any base personal motives, of which he knew nothing. On the contrary, such were the labours undergone by Ministers, who were also Members of that House, and so great the pecuniary sacrifices, by relinquishing profitable pro-
  646
  fessions and business, that he felt that the country was hardly aware how much was owing to those who transacted the business of the State.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I shall contribute but very slightly to what I may call the personal and almost offensive character of the greater portion of this debate; for I think I shall best consult the dignity of the Ministry itself and that of the House if I abstain from noticing many of the remarks which have been made; and certainly I should be doing wrong to my own feelings were I to attempt to retaliate. But when the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) stands up and tells us that he imputes to the great body of Gentlemen fitting on this side the House not personal but political dishonesty, and professes, as others have done, that he represents the majority of this House, I must tell him that both he and they are grossly neglecting their duty if, believing what they state, they do not take immediate steps to put an end to an exhibition which they tell us is a disgrace to the country and to the Parliament in which they sit. For such a proceeding I long. When the time shall come to vindicate my personal or political honour, I shall not be wanting, at least, in my efforts to do so. Passing to the subject more immediately under our consideration, I proceed to notice an observation which has fallen from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. He states that there was no reason for saying that the division of the other night was sudden and unexpected. Let me speak for myself. There is no question on which I have taken greater interest than that rating and the personal payment of rates should be the foundation of the Parliamentary franchise; but after the division en the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, understanding that further progress with the consideration of the Scotch Reform Bill in Committee would not be pressed that night, I left the House, and only returned—and returned by mere accident—at the last moment, before the division on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I understand that those who represented the party opposite stated to many Friends on the Ministerial side of the House that there was to be no further progress with the Scotch Reform Bill that night, and the consequence was that many Members who would otherwise have remained in

  647
  the House were absent from the division. I say this in my own vindication, because it would have been my duty to remain on this (the Treasury) Bench if I had thought that the Scotch Reform Bill would have been proceeded with. No imputation can be made against the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) on the score of not having given full Notice of his Amendment; for, as he has himself said, he gave Notice of the Motion some time ago, and it was on the Paper for the Business of that night; but, believing that the House would resume immediately after resolving into Committee, I certainly was surprised, when I came back to the House, to find that, instead of Supply being proceeded with, the Scotch Reform Bill was being considered in Committee. I have only one word to say to my hon. Friend (Mr. Percy Wyndham) who introduced the present discussion. I am very far from thinking, like the hon. and gallant Member behind me (Colonel Loyd Lindsay), that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland was unprepared; for, in fact, it was prepared, but for a totally different state of things from that which has actually occurred. In the first place, my hon. Friend does not appear to have read accurately the Reform Bill of last year; for he imagines that the Commission appointed to inquire into the question of Boundaries was a Royal Commission, whereas it was a Parliamentary Commission. Therefore, to say that Parliament might deal with the question of Boundaries as it thinks proper was not such an extravagant assertion as my hon. Friend supposes. In the next place, my hon. Friend attacked the Government for abandoning the principle of rating, although my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) had just given Notice that, so far from abandoning the principle of rating, we proposed to ask the House to re-consider its former decision. It was further stated that threats have been held out to the House by the Government as to what would follow in certain contingencies; whereas the only observations on that point were made by my hon. Friend himself, who said that we ought to have told the House what we intended to do with Parliament in case we should be unable to carry our proposal. I state this for the purpose of showing that the hon. Member has no foundation for the attack he has made upon the Government. I say again that we are prepared at any moment to meet the charges
  648
  brought forward in this desultory manner, if they are submitted to the House in such a shape that we can fairly deal with them. That is what we desire. I do not know that there is any Gentleman on this Bench who would not say that we have painful and difficult duties to discharge, or who would not acknowledge that from day to day and from hour to hour our difficulties are increasing; but at the same time we may entertain a sense of duty which prevents us from ignoring the obligations which we owe to ourselves, to our Friends, to this House, and to the country at large. For myself, I defy any Gentleman to say that we have done anything inconsistent at least with personal honour; and if any one wishes to impute to us political dishonour, the way to bring that accusation to a test is to submit a distinct Motion to this House.
  MR. OSBORNE: We are again engaged in personal discussion, and we know that nothing so delights the House as baiting a Minister. But, in my mind, this proceeding has gone a little to far; and I think that those hon. Gentlemen who talk so loudly of the honour of Parliament would best consult that honour by not indulging so much in these miserable discussions, which can lead to no practical result. I for one, have no political sympathy with the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite Benches; but to them I impute no dishonest or dishonourable motives. I have still less sympathy with the hon. Baronet and Tory country Gentleman, the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) who defends the Ministers on every possible occasion. But this I will say—that neither as a Whig country Gentleman nor as a Tory country Gentleman, but as a sort of nondescript country Gentleman—that if I thought, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock thinks, I would not be satisfied with making speeches of the kind he has made, but I would test the opinion of this House by a Vote of Want of Confidence. I say, moreover, as a Member of the Opposition who wishes to transplant the Gentlemen opposite to the more congenial atmosphere of this side of the House, that, whatever steps I might take on that point, I would not be content to come down here night after night interfering with the Public Business; but I would come forward either to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Serjeant the Member for Sligo (Mr. Serjeant Armstrong), or to anticipate that Motion,

  649
  and ask the House to declare whether, in its opinion, the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are or are not deserving of the confidence of the House. What is the position we are placing ourselves in? Night after night we move adjournments, we take every opportunity of scandalizing the Ministers, and imputing the basest motives to them; but we are positively afraid to say that we have no confidence in them. I say that I have myself no confidence in their discretion; but I do not impute these unworthy motives to them. [Mr. BOUVERIE: Neither do I.] Well, certainly, if you love them your brotherly affection is expressed in a most extraordinary I manner. All I say is, Don't love me after the same fashion. I pray the House to ' consider one thing. The representative institutions in this country are going rather to a discount. The people out of this House view our proceedings with some distrust. There is but one Parliamentary way of expressing want of confidence in a Ministry, and I say that we are bound to adopt that mode if we think the Ministry do not deserve our confidence. I am not going to give any pledge to the hon. and learned Member for Sligo (Mr. Serjeant Armstrong) as to the course which I may pursue in reference to his Motion. I certainly will not move a Vote of Want of Confidence myself; and I think that if other Members are wise they will not move it. I will tell yon why. [An Hon. MEMBER: Because they cannot carry it.] That I know nothing about; and I leave it to those older hounds who can yelp for the pack. But we all know that this Parliament is coming to a rapid end. We are all agreed that it ought to be brought to a rapid end. Let the Government push the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills. They do not lie upon a bed of roses. It cannot be agreeable to any men to hear what is said of them in this House night after night, and not be able to notice it elsewhere. I say that the sensible course for Parliament to pursue is to pass the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills in the best way we can, and to get rid of these miserable discussions and this still more miserable House. If you are not prepared to do that, then come forward with a Vote of Want of Confidence; and if that Motion is brought forward, it will be met, if not by discussion, at least it will be met in such a way as the character of the Ministry justly entitles the House to give them credit for.
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head if the Ministry if he would put upon the Paper any alterations which he might intend to make in the Scotch Reform Bill, in addition to those of which lie had given Notice? It wan absolutely necessary that hon. Members should know whether those words are to stand by themselves, or whether they were to be accompanied by any other alterations. He must, however, say one word with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He said that he was taken by surprise the other evening—that be understood it was not intended to go into Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill on that night. If that was realty the case, he must say that the Scotch Members had the greatest reason to complain. They appealed night after night to allow these Scotch and Irish Bills to go through, and they were told by the Government night after night that their only desire was to wind up the Session at the earliest period, and that the Scotch Reform Bill should stand for a day on which it should really be taken tip. On Monday night, the right hon. Gentleman placed the Boundaries Bill before the Scotch Reform Bill; and now it appeared that, after a division upon ray hon. Friend's the Member for Montrose Motion, he did not intend to go on with the Scotch Reform Bill—for what reasons and with what view lie was entirely unaware. And then, when they agreed to a Resolution respecting a matter relating to Scotland, they were suddenly thrown into a Ministerial crisis. If they were to have a Ministerial crisis on every clause of this Scotch Reform Bill, there were a good many Amendments on the Paper, they would therefore have plenty of them. They did not desire to embarrass the Government by these Amendments. They related to matters of Scotch detail. This matter about the rating was not intended to defeat the Ministers, but to apply to Scotland the principle upon which a Reform Bill could work in that country; and he did not think it reasonable that when the House came to a decision upon such a point, they were to have a Government crisis thrown in their face.
  MR. SCOURFIELDwished to explain the vote he had give the other night on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. He voted in the minority against that Motion, and if that had been nega-

  651
  tived, he should also have voted against the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), that it was rather straining the rules of the House by an Instruction to the Committee on a Scotch Bill to give power to disfranchise English boroughs. He did not think Scotland stood in need of any additional Members. Instead of ton more, he rather thought if she had ten less, considering the sagacity and organization of the Scotch Members, they would be quite able to hold their own both as against England and Ireland.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IRELAND—ARBOUR HILL GARRISON CHAPEL.—QUESTION.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that an order has been given for the discontinuance of Presbyterian Service in the Arbour Hill Garrison Chapel in Dublin, where it has been held for the last eighteen years, and for the future celebration of the same in a school-house?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, it was quite true that the order in question had been given. The Chapel had originally been consecrated as a place of worship in connection with the Church of England, and it was illegal that it should be used for worship by any other denomination. The illegality had not been noticed till a short time since, when the Archbishop of Dublin wrote a letter on the subject; and, in consequence, the order in question had been given, which, if this proceeding has caused any pain, he, for one, deeply regretted.

NAVY—THE "GLATTON" AND "HOTSPUR."—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN MACKINNONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that a vessel of only 2,700 tons, the Glutton, can be built to carry two twenty-five ton guns, with from twelve to fourteen inches of armour, to be available for the Mediterranean or wherever required, of what use would any of our four, five, or six thousand ton broadside ships be against her, with their eight and nine-inch armour, except to run away; why should the Glutton turret ship have
652
only nine, knots speed when the Hotspur ram, of less tonnage, was to have twelve knots; has Captain Coles been consulted or allowed to see the drawings of the turret ships proposed and those now building for our Colonies; and why should not the turret-ship Glutton be a ram as well as the Hotspur?
MR. CORRYsaid, in reply, that he might venture to avail himself of this opportunity to make an explanation with reference to the name of one of the vessels which, as it stood in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, was not very-creditable to the good taste of the Admiralty in naval nomenclature. They might hope that if the ship in question should ever be engaged with an enemy she would prove a "Glutton" in the metaphorical sense of the word; but, in fact, her name was not the Glutton, but the Glatton, and she was so called after a vessel which, towards the end of the last century, succeeded in beating off a French squadron by which she had been attacked mainly in consequence of the large calibre of her guns. He could not very well answer the points of the hon. and gallant Member's Question without making a speech. He would, therefore, only observe that vessels intended for defensive purposes were built on principles which were wholly inapplicable to vessels intended as sea-going ships capable of keeping at sea in all weathers. He was quite certain the Controller of the Navy would be very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member if he could show him how sea-going ships of reasonable size, and combining all the necessary qualities, could be plated with 14 inches of iron. The drawings of the proposed turret ship were in a forward state, and would be referred to Captain Cowper Coles, so far as related to the turret itself, and the arrangements in connection with it.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH AUSTRIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the new Tariff will come into operation, which, in the Commercial Treaty between this Country and Austria, was fixed to take date on the 1st January 1867; and especially, whether it will come into operation simultaneously with the new Tariff fixed in the Com-

  653
  mercial Treaty between Austria and the Zollverein—namely, on the 1st June of this year?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he regretted to state that the negotiations on this subject had not yet been brought to a final conclusion. The Government were fully alive to the importance of the subject, which continued to occupy their attention. On two occasions there had been a temporary suspension of the negotiations at the urgent request of the Austrian Government, in consideration of the many internal difficulties in which that country was involved, and also in consideration of the sincere desire which it was believed Baron Beust entertained to fulfil the intentions his Government had expressed towards this country. The new Tariff, therefore, could not come into operation upon the 1st of June; but he hoped before long to be able to give the hon. Gentleman and the House more ample and satisfactory information on the subject than lie could do at present. Under what was commonly known as the Favoured Nation Clause, England would derive the benefit of a considerable reduction of duties in the new tariff fixed in the commercial treaty between Austria and the Zollverein.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Is it a correct supposition that the Treaty between Austria and the Zollverein is fixed to come into operation on the 1st June?
  LORD STANLEY: I am not informed.

DESIGNS FOR THE COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the opinion of Her Majesty's Attorney General has been received on the legality of the award of the Judges of Designs for the Law Courts; and what is the nature of that opinion, if delivered to the Treasury?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that the opinion of the Attorney General on the legality of the award of the Judges of Designs for the new Law Courts had: been received and considered. The Government were of opinion that they might submit to the House any proposition they might think proper upon the subject, and they would consider what that proposition should be.

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is his intention to proceed with the Electric Telegraphs Bill this Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he wished to proceed with the Telegraphs Bill Ibis Session, and he felt that commercial gentlemen were extremely desirous to see that Bill passed. He also believed that the House would be glad to have the opportunity of passing it; but the only chance of being able to do so would be to have a Morning Sitting; and if the House would assent to that he would endeavour to make arrangements for the purpose.

ARMY—DEFECTIVE AMMUNITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the Brigade of Guards have very lately been obliged to abandon the usual annual rifle practice at Aldershot on account of some serious defects iii the ammunition, which it is said caused some of the rifles to burst and others to be so damaged us to be useless; and whether he will state to the House the cause of such serious defects; whether any casualties happened to the men on account of them; how many rifles were, damaged; and what steps will be taken to remedy these evils for the future?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, it was true that the usual annual rifle practice of the Brigade of Guards at Alder-shot had been interrupted in consequence of five accidents that occurred to the rifles. He believed that that practice was going to be immediately resumed; but he was not prepared to admit that the accidents were caused by any serious defects in the ammunition. One barrel burst, and the other four guns were slightly damaged. The authorities had endeavoured to trace the cause; and certainly in one case, and he believed in more, the cause was the accidental use of cartridges invented when the Snider was first adopted, but which were condemned us defective. At the same time, in one of the five capes it was proved that one of the cartridges now in use was defective, and in consequence 7,000 cartridges were sent down for immediate

  655
  trial, one in ten being opened and closely examined. From the result of the trial he was disposed to believe that the accidents must be rather classed among those casualties which from time to time would happen in the use of firearms. An inquiry was now being prosecuted with the view of ascertaining whether any improvement could be made in the general construction of the cartridge, and he could assure the House that no pains would be spared to make the cartridges supplied to the army as safe and as useful as possible. One of the men was slightly hurt, but no serious casualty occurred.

UNITED STATES IRON-CLADS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Government has been called to the reported sale of Iron-clads by the Government of the United States to South American Governments who are now in a state of war; if this be true, whether such an act is consistent with the principles of neutrality laid down by this Country and by the United States; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Papers connected with the reported sale of such vessels?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that he had received no official information respecting the alleged sale of Iron-clads by the United States' Government to the South American Governments, and therefore he was not in a position to express any opinion upon the subject.

IRELAND—BIBLE DEPOT AT QUEENSTOWN —QUESTION.
MR. LONGsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement of facts—namely, that a clergyman of the United Church of England and Ireland, the Rev. M. A. C. Collis, has been threatened with assassination by a person styling himself "a good Catholic," unless he, Dr. Collis, would undertake to close the Bible Depôt at Queenstown within four days; whether the above statement is correct; and, if so, whether the Government have deemed it their duty to take any steps to discover and to prosecute the person who subscribed the above-mentioned document?
THE EARL OF MAYO, in reply, said, the constabulary of Queenstown had reported some days ago that on the 13th of this month the Rev. Dr. Collis, of Queenstown, had received a letter of the character referred to by the hon. Member. The constabulary were using every endeavour to discover the writer of that letter, and he hoped their exertions would be successful.

THE ASSISTANT JUDGE OF SIERRA LEONE.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. Horatio Hugging, recently appointed to the office of Assistant Judge in the Colony of Sierra Leone, has ever been called to the English Bar, and whether he is the same person whose judgments while sitting as sole Judge in the Supreme Court at Sierra Leone were brought under the notice of the House last Session; And whether the Colonial Office has received a Communication from Mr. Rainy, a properly qualified advocate practising at the Bar of that Country, setting forth further facts having reference to that gentleman, and demanding an inquiry?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that the hon. Member for Dudley had four or five times placed Questions of a character similar to that which he now asked upon the Notice Paper, without coming down to the House to enable a reply to be given to them. He thought that this was scarcely the right course for any hon. Member to take. In reply to the first Question of the hon. Member he had to state that Mr. Horatio Huggins had been called to the English Bar, though the Question seemed to imply that he had not been called to that Bar, and was therefore not a fit person to fill the position to which he had been appointed. In answer to the second Question he had to state that Mr. Huggins' judgments had been noticed in that House last year, and that the allegations made against them had been proved to be unfounded; and in answer to the third Question he had to state that communications had been received from Mr. Rainy, whose statements had been inquired into and found to be inaccurate.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he wished to say that this was the first time this Question had been put upon the Paper.
MR. ADDERLEY: I said Questions with respect to West African appointments.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he had put the Question on the Paper in the exercise of the ordinary privilege of a Member of that House, and he regretted that the Under Secretary had not confined himself to answering it. He should certainly take an early opportunity of bringing the whole subject with reference to these appointments before the House.

IRELAND—THE IRISH CHURCH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, Whether, in the event of Parliament being dissolved, and an appeal made to the present Constituencies, he would in the new Parliament propose the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and the settlement of that question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am rather unfortunate in being the object during the present Session of several Questions which raise very great scruple in my mind as to how far I am conforming to the general practice and rules of the House in replying. My own opinion is that it would not be consistent with Parliamentary decorum for any Member of this House to state what course he would take hi a future Parliament, and I am absolutely precluded from so doing. I will only, therefore, say in general, by way of reply to the hon. Gentleman, that my intention is, in any situation or circumstances in which I may be placed, to adopt any and every measure of a legitimate character which may appear calculated to forward the great purpose which I have taken in hand with respect to the disestablishment of the Irish Church.

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.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short Title of Act).
  MR. DENMANsaid, he understood that the principle of the Bill as it now stood which had hitherto not been considered, would be discussed at the present stage, and he proposed therefore to state his opinions with regard to it.
  MR. DODSONreminded the hon. Member that they were not discussing the Preamble, and that he must confine his observations to the clause under consideration.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that to enable himself to discuss the whole measure he would conclude with a Motion—That the Chairman report Progress. He did not blame the Government for desiring to proceed with all reasonable expedition with this measure, which they had put forward as one of great importance, in view of an election by the new constituencies; but Members must be careful not to take any foolish or false step in the matter. The question whether the House should or should not part with its jurisdiction in these cases had not been adequately discussed, and those who were best acquainted with the proceedings of the present tribunals for the trial of Election Petitions—namely, the lawyers who practised before S hose tribunals, were unanimously of opinion that the existing system had many advantages, and was not open to any of the objections that had been raised against it. This Bill provided machinery which was not adequate to meet the difficulties of the case, and contained many provisions which he could not but regard as objectionable. He should support the clauses by which the provisions against bribery and corruption were made more stringent; but would leave the Committees as they are, so far as numbers are concerned. He would, however, appoint honorary Justices to preside over the investigation. After a General Election he would appoint coadjutors to the honorary Justices, to assist them in disposing of the increase of business that would result from it. He proposed to substitute for the proposal on that point in the Bill a provision enabling the honorary Justices and the Speaker of the House of Commons to appoint qualified barristers of a certain standing to assist them in the discharge of their duties and accordingly act as honorary Justices. They, like the honorary Justices, would be responsible for the law laid down, and the Committee, still consisting of five members, would decide all questions of fact. In a pamphlet published by Mr. Pickering, very much of what he (Mr. Denman) now proposed was embodied. Instead of a majority of Members, as at present, deciding a question, the jury should be unanimous, and the effect would be that the men engaged in the inquiry would feel a greater

  659
  sense of responsibility than they do now. There would always be uncrupulous persons in a borough who would have an interest in getting up a local inquiry after an election, and who, by procuring such an inquiry, would have it in their power to ruin any man who had been returned, however fairly. Therefore, instead of putting it in the power of any man belonging to the place to have such an inquiry, he should propose to give the tribunal power to adjourn to the place when this step seemed to be requisite. This would be a useful and constitutional power; anything further would be oppressive and injurious. He could not help thinking it would be far better that the Government should let the question alone, so far as concerned the tribunal itself, during the present Session, confining themselves to stringent and severe enactments against the offence itself. He did not say this to damp the aspirations of the Government on the path of Reform, but he did not see what éclat they could expect to gain out of the subject during the present Session. He believed the Judges were not consulted until a very few days before their opinions were announced. He submitted there was ample ground for referring the subject to a new Committee, and would suggest that, in the first instance, all clauses relating to the Committees should be postponed. In that way, they might have a chance of legislating so as to do some good service in the matter; but if they were got into the maze of questions in connection with the tribunal, it would be equivalent to throwing overboard this question altogether for the Session, and there would be no chance of making any real progress. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERconcurred in much that had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denman). The present mode of treating Election Petitions was not satisfactory; but it was not so unsatisfactory as to induce them to make a change in the existing state of things unless they could get something almost perfect, so far as Legislation could be perfect. The Bill before the Committee certainly did not answer that expectation. He objected in toto to a single Judge being the tribunal to decide questions of contested elections. It was far worse than the present system, under which they were determined by a Committee of five Members. Another objection to the appointment of these honorary Judges was that at one
  660
  time they would be overworked, and at another would hold mere sinecures. It was proposed that they should have other Judges to assist them when they were overworked; but the Judges had already said they did not wish to have anything to do with the matter. No doubt the Judges would have to discharge whatever duties Parliament might cast upon them; but it would not be desirable to compel such high functionaries to do what they did not like. It was utterly absurd to suppose that two Judges would be sufficient to decide all the Election Petitions which would arise after a General Election. They would receive £5,000 a year, and yet have nothing to do during a greater portion of the year. Their law and judicial capacity would get rusty from want of employment. It was suggested that they might sit in the Exchequer Chamber; but he believed that Court was adequate to its duties. If, however, they appointed them Judges of the Exchequer Chamber merely to fill up their time, they would be inferior in point of weight to the other Judges; and if the decision of a case turned upon their judgment, neither the profession nor the public would be satisfied. Then it was proposed to make them also members of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. That, again, was a mistake, because very few questions of Common Law came before it; and if it required strengthening, that should not be done by the addition of Common Law Judges. These objections, he thought, ought to be fatal to the Bill. A more reasonable solution of the matter would be by moving after a General Election an Address to the Crown for the appointment of Commissioners to decide these questions, care being taken that those Commissioners were properly qualified persons. Let them sit in Courts comprised of three members, and let them be adequately paid for the work they had to perform. This would be much better than the appointment of Judges who at some times would have more to do than they could possibly perform; and at other times would have nothing at all. Although the present practice was not perfect, it was not so bad as to justify a measure like this.
  MR. LAWSONobjected to the Bill oil the ground that it applied solely to England. The three parts of the United Kingdom were under the same law, and it was a bad precedent to have separate legislation in matters common to the three countries. He believed it was intended to

  661
  introduce a similar Bill for Ireland and Scotland; but as regarded Ireland he thought that the nomination by the Government of the day of two Judges in that country to try Election Petitions would not provide a tribunal satisfactory to any of the parties concerned. As long as the Bill remained in its present state he must give it his strenuous opposition.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he had strongly approved the Bill in its original shape; but the Government, in deference to the Judges, had left out their only valuable proposal, and now, bad—dreadfully bad—as was the jurisdiction of the House in reference to Election Petitions, he preferred to keep it as it was rather than to make the change now suggested. In his opinion the reasons given by the Judges for not taking upon themselves the proposed duty were insufficient; but he thought they ought not to give the Government power to select the particular Judges for that duty, but should allow them to be appointed by ballot from the whole body of the Judges. The power of oppointing Judges Privy Councillors was objectionable. About thirty years ago there was a practice of making some Judges Privy Councillors, and lie recollected that it created much jealousy among the Judges, and gave rise to the greatest possible dissatisfaction. Judges who had influence were made Privy Councillors, s while those who were honest and had no influence did not attain to that distinction. He was not prepared to vote for a Bill: taking away the jurisdiction of the House unless it was given entirely to the Judges. He also thought there should be one Bill for the entire kingdom. He believed the majority of the legal Members of the House were of opinion that additional Judges were not wanted, except for the circuits; but this Bill expressly provided that the two new Judges who were to be appointed under it should not go on circuit. As it was notorious that learned; gentlemen who knew but very little law were sometimes appointed Judges, such persons might be appointed by the Government under this Bill; and as they would not be in close communication with the other Judges, they would for get what little law they knew. He objected to giving more patronage to a feeble Government, who ought to confine themselves to passing the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills, dissolving Parliament, sending in their own resignation, and then re-
  662
  turning thanks for having enjoyed Office so long. With regard to Election Committees, when they learnt who the Chair man in any case was, they knew the result. ["No, no!"] There might be exceptions, I but that was the general rule. ["No, no!"] Her Majesty's Ministers could not carry anything without the support of the Opposition, and with such a weak Government, and in an expiring Parliament, which had been rightly condemned, he thought they ought to do nothing but what was absolutely necessary, and leave such measures as this for another Parliament to deal with.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he concurred with the hon. and learned Serjeant that the Government ought not to undertake any legislation that was not necessary; but he could not conceive any subject that more required legislation than the subject of the present Bill, and he should therefore give it his support. He certainly did not suppose any Government was capable of selecting two Judges, as the learned Serjeant insinuated, solely for the purpose of deciding Election Petitions in a manner which might be convenient. [Mr. Serjeant GASELEE: I neither said that nor insinuated it.] That was the impression produced on his mind, but he was glad he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Serjeant. He believed the present or any other Government would select the Judges whom they bonâ fide thought best qualified for the duty; neither could he concur with the hon. and learned Serjeant that the Judges had not too much to do. Sometimes they were very much overworked. Almost everyone was agreed that the jurisdiction on Election Petitions was not satisfactorily exercised by the Committees of that House. All the Amendments on the Paper pointed to that conclusion. In fact, a Committee of the House of Commons could not be a satisfactory tribunal in these cases for several reasons. First, it could not hold inquiries on the spot. Next, it could only hold them while Parliament was sitting; and a third and most important reason was that it was not so constituted as to be qualified to decide the intricate questions arising in election eases. The unanimous judgment of the Committee was that, if they parted with their jurisdiction, it should be transferred to the highest tribunal. He confessed he preferred the recommendation of the Committee that the jurisdiction should be given to the whole body of the Judges, and that,

  663
  if necessary, some additions should be made to the Bench. As the Government had not adhered to their original proposal, they had, in his opinion, suggested the best alternative. In the present plan, the highest tribunal was still retained; for it must be assumed that the two Judges selected would be rather above, and certainly not below, the average of the Bench. Such a tribunal would, in all probability, get through the work in about half the time required by a Committee of that House, while the circumstance of their conducting inquiries on the spot, would enable them to form their decision with a promptitude unknown to the tribunals upstairs. The only real objection urged against the scheme was removed by the clause which provided that the two Judges might be assisted by others when the amount of business was unusually large. Under the proposed scheme, inquiries into Election Petitions would be increased in efficiency and decreased in cost. The public, he felt sure, would repose the greatest confidence in the Judges, and, on the whole, he was of opinion that this was the best arrangement which could be adopted. He did not think that there was any necessity for including the legislation intended for Ireland and Scotland in the present Bill; but at the same time he hoped that the Law relating to Corrupt Practices in those countries would as speedily as possible be assimilated with that of England.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will remind the Committee of the position in which we stand in relation to the subject, which is confessedly one of great importance, and one which touches the privileges and the honour of this House. I am perfectly satisfied that the Committee is prepared to deal wish it in a deliberate, calm, and impartial spirit, and with an anxious desire to sustain the honour and reputation of the House, and its position in the eyes of the country. This question of the purity of elections has been for a long time under the consideration of the House; and for a very long time dissatisfaction has been expressed as to the mode in which the elections for representatives in this House are generally conducted. It needs no words of mine to point out the fact that it is becoming a prevalent opinion that the House of Commons is elected to a large extent by influences such as we are ashamed to own. And, if this opinion be not counteracted, the legitimate and constitutional influence
  664
  which this House ought to hear in the country will be materially lessened and endangered. Whilst keeping our attention, then, upon this most serious and weighty question, we ought not at the same time to proceed with undue haste or consideration in the steps we may deem it necessary to take to remedy the evils of which we all complain. Notwithstanding all the efforts we have heretofore made to put a stop to corrupt practices, we are forced to admit that we have not as yet succeeded in impressing upon the country a full and undoubted confidence in our having adopted the best and most effective measures for the purpose. This, at least, is certain—we have not as yet succeeded in putting an end to the evils. Whilst the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier) was speaking in respect to the time which those investigations would take in the hands of the Judges, I was nearly tempted at the moment to add to what the hon. Gentleman was saying, that, if you can have this satisfactory tribunal, not only would those inquiries be disposed of in a much shorter time than they would be before an Election Committee, but the effect of such a tribunal being actually established would be to stop the necessity for many of these Election Petitions. If, I say, you can got a thoroughly satisfactory tribunal, in whom the electors will have the fullest confidence that any corrupt or improper practices would be immediately brought to light, and would be followed by prompt and severe punishment, then I think you will be going a long way towards putting an end to those evils which we all want to extinguish. The hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) said that we may set aside all those provisions in regard to the mode of procedure and investigation, and content ourselves with those clauses adding penalties for bribery. Now, I contend that, if you content yourselves with merely imposing penalties for the offences, you will not touch the difficulties of the case. We do not want tremendous penalties. The effect of them might be to render conviction less easy. What we want is to get a system by which detection would be made certain. We want, in fact, to stop those corrupt practices. Her Majesty's Government, in considering the question last year, came to the conclusion that there are one or two weaknesses in our present system of inquiry which it would be desirable to

  665
  correct. One of those weaknesses was the great evil in our system of hearing petitions. We find the worst cases are constantly hushed up, and never brought into notice, because of the time wasted before the question at issue is brought to a conclusion; and that the agents on both sides agree to get rid of them by pairing off petitions on the one side with those on the other. Then, again, however pure and public-spirited the Members of the Select Committees may be, you cannot, have the same certainty as to the mode of proceeding as you would have in a Court; of Law; nor can the proceedings before them, reported with "roars of laughter'' provoked by the evidence, have the same effect in deterring as they would have if conducted on the spot and in the presence; of the guilty parties. Under these circumstances, it is most desirable to establish a system under which those inquiries will be carried on upon the spot at which the occasion for them arose—that they shall be pursued as speedily as possible, so as to arrive at the truth, and to bring home detection, and that they shall be conducted by persons who command the respect arid the confidence of the electors themselves. We felt, then, that we were not only asking the House of Commons to deal with questions, the speedy solution of which was necessary for its high character and honour, but we were also; asking the House to part with some portion of its privileges properly dear to it—that is, the privilege of determining who are or who are not rightly elected representatives in this House. We all know there I have been times in the history of this country when it was a matter of vital importance to the House of Commons to retain in its own hands the right of saying who were or who were not duly returned as its Members. Those were times in which it was worth while for the House of Commons to endure any reproaches as to the method of returning representatives to it rather than part with its privilege of declaring who had or had not been properly returned. Those times have happily gone by, and it is no longer of such vital importance to this House to retain in its own hands the decision upon such questions. The main principle as to the mode in which the representatives shall be elected has been already decided, and has passed into the Constitution of the country. No danger, therefore, now exists of the matter being again called in
  666
  question. The Government felt, however, that they had to deal with a matter of considerable delicacy in asking the House to part with this privilege. They first introduced the subject in a Bill of a tentative character—a Bill, however, that hardly rose to the level of what was required, If the House assented the Government said that they would go farther in the way of legislation. The result was the appointment of a Select Committee, who examined the subject with great deliberation and at great length last year, though they did not take any evidence. A Bill in which the principle concurred in by that Committee was embodied was subsequently presented to the House, but owing to the lateness of the Session it was found impossible to proceed with it. The Government, however, accepted the Report of that Committee as the decision of the House of Commons, and took it as a conceded point that the House was prepared to surrender this privilege, on the ground that it was to be surrendered to the Judges—the highest legal authorities of the country. Before introducing the present Bill, however, they thought it right to communicate with the Judges upon one simple point—namely, supposing the House of Commons to commit to the Judges the duties prescribed under the measure, what additional assistance would they require? The Judges, however, instead of answering this simple question, raised objections to the whole scheme and altogether declined to undertake these duties. They thus left the Government in a difficulty; and another scheme was proposed which was submitted to the House; but the House upon this intimated that it would not part with its privileges except to the highest authorities. The Government at length devised a plan which they thought would meet all the difficulties of the case, One of the difficulties raised by the Judges was this—that the work under the Bill would come upon them in such floods it would be impossible for them to execute it without interrupting the ordinary business in which they were engaged. The Government proposed that the ordinary strength of the judicial Bench should not be lessened, and that provision should be made by the appointment of special Judges for this particular purpose, whose services should also be available for work which does not usually come before the ordinary Judges—such as appeals before the Judi-

  667
  cial Committee of Privy Council. The Government submitted this proposal with a sincere desire to accomplish something that should be satisfactory. And how are we met? The hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) moves that you, Sir, shall report Progress, with, I presume, the object of having this question referred again to a Select Committee.
  MR. DENMANsaid, his objects were to obtain a general discussion upon the measure, and to have the question referred to another Select Committee.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: In regard to the reference of the Bill to another Select Committee, I will venture to say that, if such a proceeding be assented to, we cannot expect the measure to pass this year; and I think that the House cannot appoint a Committee that will carry more weight with it than did the Select Committee of last year. There is very little to be considered by a Select Committee, because this is the Bill of last year, with the exception of the point with reference to the Judges. That point we shall have sooner or later to discuss and decide in this House, and to refer it to a Select Committee would be a wasting of the precious time of this Session. If the House wishes to make real progress with the measure it will be better to withdraw the Motion and at once proceed to discuss the clauses of the Bill. The Bill can be better discussed in Committee of the Whole House than by a Select Committee. I ask the House to examine it calmly and dispassionately, and the only object the Government have in proposing the Bill is to improve the present system of dealing with Election Petitions.
  MR. MELLYthanked Her Majesty's Government most warmly for the Bill, containing clauses providing for an inquiry on the spot, which seemed to him to be the first proposition which had been made at all calculated to go to the root of the evil. Under the new state of things the kind of corruption that was likely to prevail was that of small payments to a great number of persons. A few years ago there had been an example in point; and it had taken the Committee in London no less than twenty-six days, during which they examined no fewer than 326 witnesses, before they were satisfied that there was a clear case. The cost to the prosecutor of that Petition had been no less than £11,000. Surely, therefore, as a matter of saving expense, it was
  668
  most desirable that there should be a local inquiry. Then, again, the practice of "squaring" petitions would be put an end to. That was never done on the spot. The parties who had been, as they thought, unfairly defeated, were always exceedingly unwilling to give up the contest; and when petitions were "squared," it was always after they had passed into the hands of London agents. As to the tribunal to be appointed, he should place the fullest confidence in whichever Judges the Government of the day might appoint; for he had always found the strongest political partizans, when appointed to the Bench, keenly alive to the responsibility of their position and the necessity of exercising strict impartiality in every matter which came before them for decision. He would be quite ready to trust his own case, if he were ever unfortunately in that position, even to the warmest partizans of the party to which he was opposed, when once they had assumed the Judicial ermine.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, there were two classes of the Members of that House who might be allowed to feel a natural interest in the Bill before them—those who had sat on Election Committees, and those on whom Election Committees had sat. It was his misfortune—assuredly it was not his fault—to have belonged to the latter; and as the result of his personal experience, amid all the changes and chances of this eventful Session, there was one hope to which he had been constant—namely, that they would pass this Bill, or some equivalent measure, before they were sent to their constituents. He had spoken of his personal experience. It was comparatively recent, it was somewhat costly; it was, therefore, vivid, and it was very much at the service of the Committee. He was sure it would be wrong to say of Election Committees; as at present constituted, that they were not impartial. He was confirmed in his seat by the unanimous decision of a Committee, the majority of which consisted of two Metropolitan Members and a Roman Catholic Gentleman—a tribunal not altogether favourable for one of his opinions; but their decision was unanimous. He could further say that when the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was in the Chair, the Bar was certainly not stronger than the Bench. But when he had said that he had said all. The process was dilatory, it was costly, and it was totally

  669
  devoid of all moral effect. Like many other Members of this House, he was elected on the 12th of July 1865, and it was not till May 1866 that he was declared duly qualified to sit. During all that time, he had been walking about with this drawn sword of Damocles suspended over his head; but all the same he had been taking part in the critical divisions of the time; and, if his memory did not deceive him, he had made a speech. All this, of course, was wrong, if he was not duly qualified to sit. Under this Bill they would, at least, have had a prompt decision on that point. But the existing system was not only dilatory. it was also costly. No sooner was a Petition presented than the principal witnesses on both sides became possessed with a sudden desire to go abroad. They did so at the respective cost of the petitioner and the sitting Member; while there, they developed the most unexpected and expensive tastes, to the great inconvenience of their families on their return. The next result of these proceedings was, that a seat was defended before an Election Committee, at the cost of some £500 a day; and he had six days of it. And then the process, after all, had no moral effect. The Committee were regarded by the witnesses as men of like passions with themselves; and the whole thing was treated as a joke. What he wanted was, to hear a convicted briber addressed by a Judge of the land as he would address a convicted pickpocket. But, when all this had been done, he would not have the House deceive itself—it would have done nothing until it had grappled with the evils of bribery at municipal elections. The Bill of last Session established an identity of Parliamentary and municipal franchise; and he said that while corruption was constant, annual, flagrant at the municipal elections, it was a mockery and a farce to send down Parliamentary candidates and tell them to hold pure elections. If hon. Members were in earnest in this matter, let them speak out. So far as his own borough was concerned, he had no hesitation in saying that votes at the municipal elections were now openly bought and sold for beer tickets. And then the hon. Member for Birmingham told them that the extension of the franchise was to be the remedy for corruption. He was sorry not to see the hon. Member in his place; but he must take leave to say that that remark displayed a wonderful want of acquaintance
  670
  with the real nature of things—especially of electioneering things. Whether there would or would not be bribery depended I on whether there was or was not a balance: of party which made it worth while to I contest the municipal elections. So surely as these were contested corruption would come in; find with a reduction of the franchise they would only extend the area of corruption. These were the few remarks which he had to offer to the Committee; and before he sat down he would repeat the expression of his earnest hope that they would pass this Bill; and that, when it passed, it would contain some provision against the flagrant evil of corruptions at municipal elections.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Schreiber) seemed to think that the decision of the Committee which had seated him was unsatisfactory, and would have preferred an investigation before one of the Judges.
  MR. SCHREIBER: I said the process by which it arrived at that result was unsatisfactory.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that having been Chairman of the Committee in question, it seemed to him strikingly to illustrate the danger of transferring the determination of such questions to a tribunal that would deal with them on rigid technical principles; for while the decision of the Committee in seating the hon. Gentleman was no doubt right, if the case had been tried before one of the Judges what the decision might have been it was not easy to say. As to the question of moral weight, no doubt the proceedings of Election Committees did lose their moral influence if what afterwards was stated to occur really took place. There was undoubted evidence of corrupt practices at Cheltenham, and by way of honouring the decision of the Committee the hon. Member paraded himself in the town of Cheltenham. [Mr. SCHREIBER: No, no!] He was seen there afterwards in the company of those persons whose conduct was brought under the notice of the Committee. [Mr. SCHREIBER: No. no!] At all events, it was important that such a thing should have been publicly stated in the Cheltenham newspapers, and should not have been contradicted by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, if a Member under such circumstances did not sustain the decision of the Committee it could not be expected to have much moral weight. Regarding the Bill as a measure for the suppression of

  671
  bribery, he had in vain endeavoured to discover how it could have any such effect. The only material change it made as regarded the presentation of Petitions was that the seat of a Member might be challenged, not only at any time during a Session, but at any time during the whole duration of the Parliament. He thought, however, that the Statute of Limitations on that subject was founded on important public considerations, and should not be lightly disturbed. It was absolutely essential to the independence of Members of that House that after a certain period they should be secure of their seats; but, if Parliament deemed otherwise, the change might be made without destroying the existing tribunal. There was another point to which great importance was attached, and that was the prosecution of the Petition. He confessed he could not find in the Bill one word which would have the effect of making the prosecution before a judicial tribunal more effectual then before an Election Committee. On the contrary, it would be far easier to suppress a Petition before the new tribunal. The proposal to submit the question to a Judge who should go down to the spot surrounded with all the circumstances of a Judge of Assize was the very thing to deprive him of all control over the inquiries. How could he interfere to urge on a prosecution? If the party who had presented the Petition and the party petitioned against were both agreed that the case should not be proceeded with, the Judge would be perfectly helpless in their hands. Years ago when Lord Campbell had proposed some new-fangled plan for preventing collusive suits in the Divorce Court, he (Mr. Ayrton) said that his only effectual precaution would be to empower an attorney to appear on be half of the public. That had been done with the best results; and that was the only plan that would be of any real use here; but it was a plan that did not appear in the Bill. There was no provision whatever in the Bill for anything like independent action. It was the old suit of The Petitioner v. The Sitting Member, which might be compromised at any time if the Petitioner chose. As he said the other day, so far from being a Bill to suppress, it was one to conceal or prevent the knowledge of bribery and corruption. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) said that it was to put an end to that shocking practice of pairing off
  672
  petitions; but how on earth could they prevent a man saying "You withdraw your petition, and somebody else petitioning against a Member on the other side will withdraw his;" and all the arrangements would be made in certain solicitors' offices in London. In point of fact, pairing off would be effected with greater facility under the Bill than under the present system, while it would be more difficult to detect the cases in which it was resorted to. Another misconception which the supporters of the measure laboured under was that by a local inquiry a complete exposure would be secured, because such, an exposure was now obtained by a Commission. The reason, however, why full disclosures were made before a Commission was that the seat which had been disputed was no longer in jeopardy. So long as it was uncertain which party would be victorious, everybody was anxious to conceal what had taken place; and it was only when the contest was over that it began to ooze out how it had been obtained, and then after one man had spoken others spoke also, and a sudden fear seized the guilty parties, and the moment a Commission was appointed and an assurance given that if they spoke the whole truth no penal consequences would follow, they were all as eager to disclose everything as they had been before anxious to conceal it. But the local inquiry, carried on while it was uncertain who would obtain the seat, would totally fail in eliciting the truth, and no more information could be obtained on the spot than in the Committee-rooms of the House of Commons. If the Commission sat in London, under the same circumstances, the result would be precisely the same; but if a Judge went down to try a Petition, the seat being still in jeopardy, all the party contrivances which prevented the discovery of the facts by a Select Committee would be resorted to, in order to prevent the new tribunal from eliciting the whole truth. So far, therefore, from the establishment of the proposed new tribunal putting an end to corruption, it would very likely lead to its practice with still greater impunity. Then, if they looked at it in another point of view, a very important preliminary question arose, and that was, how far a Judge would be enabled to proceed before he was stopped by his attention being called to the fact that he was transgressing some rule or Standing Order of Parliament, and thus interfering

  673
  with the privileges of the House. It would be very seldom indeed that, in such cases as were likely to come before this new tribunal, a plain and simple issue could be put before the Judge; but it must often happen that collateral questions would arise, any discussion even of; which might be a breach of privilege. No less an authority than Lord Coke had laid it down as a legal axiom that, however learned lawyers might be in the laws of Westminster Hall, they had no knowledge whatever of the laws which regulated the privileges of Parliament, and must accept: those privileges as they were prescribed. There were numerous cases in which questions as to the privileges of that House must arise incidentally, and he wished to be informed how those cases were to be dealt with. Not long ago, an Election Committee made a Report, as to the conduct of a returning officer in the case of two candidates having an equality of votes. The House thereupon passed a Resolution, as it had a perfect right to do, as to the conduct of that officer. Was the Judge to be bound by such a Resolution, and might be not say that the Common Law had been superseded by the statute, unless the clause were so accurately framed as to limit exactly the power of the Judge? More than that, he was prepared to take his stand upon the position that the decision of a single Judge, who had never been called upon to discharge the functions of a jury, and might have no knowledge of the habits of the people, was not entitled to so much authority as the opinion formed by four members of an Election Committee. Yet this Judge, who might be incompetent for the functions of a jury, was to be entrusted with the enormous power of deciding the destinies of 500 Members of this House. The House would surely never consent that questions which might affect the fate of a Government, and the destinies of the country, should be allowed to depend upon the judgment of a single Judge. The fate of the Ministry and of the nation might depend on the verdict of a single Judge, who would not have any one person near him to probe his conscience. He did not believe the House would consent to such a change, and some kind of jury must be substituted for the single Judge. But was such a jury, drawn from the body of the county, likely to decide better than a tribunal of five Members of that House, acting under the sense of responsibility?
  674
  He warned the House against substituting for the honourable decisions of one of their own Election Committees, the narrow technical mode of decision practised in Courts of Justice. The result would be that the straightforward, honourable man would often be the victim of the decision of these Courts, and that the cunning man who had the most practised election agents would escape. One of the strongest objections to this measure was that it would reduce the Judges to the position of servants and instruments of that House. They were not to perform their functions in regard to Members of that House as they did in the general administration of justice. They were to report to that House; but who was to bring the Reports under the notice of that House? Was the Speaker to do it, or was the task to be confided to the Home Secretary? His final objection was that they ought not to pass a measure dealing with the seats of the 500 English Members until they had before them the Bills which were to regulate the trial of claims to the seats of the Scotch and Irish Members. Would the representatives of either Scotland or Ireland accept such a Bill as this? The House had never been informed where the Judges were to come from who were to try these questions, or how long the trial of Petitions, after each election, would occupy them. He objected, moreover, to the general scope and character of the present Bill, as being insufficient for the objects for which it had been introduced; and he thought that if they devoted three or four nights to its discussion they would be unable at the end of that time to render it a satisfactory measure. It would be a mere waste of time to go on with the consideration of the Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwas compelled to enter his protest against the somewhat impassioned, not to say stilted, eloquence of the lion, and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, who had so vehemently objected to the House abandoning the long-cherished right of being the tribunal which had to adjudicate upon its own delinquencies. He had been impressive on the evils of a trial conducted by a Judge without a jury. Might there not, however, be something even more objectionable than this—namely, a trial conducted by a jury without a Judge. No one could say that the country felt that absolute respect for the purity and independence of Election Committees which ought

  675
  to be entertained in order to make the institution respected. He appealed to the conscience of all who had sat upon Election Committees to say if they were not conscious of the little respect with which counsel treated those before whom they were pleading, compared with the manner in which they would have approached a tribunal presided over by some bonâ fide jurist. He did not impugn the honest intentions of the members of Election Committees; but he asked, how could persons who were antecedently political partisans go to the work of discrimination with dispassionate and judicial minds? How could five promiscuous Gentlemen chosen because three of them happened to belong to one party and two of them to the other—none necessarily educated to sift evidence—proceed without misgiving to adjudicate upon some difficult case of abstruse law hanging on hazy facts dressed out for them—law and facts together—by the skilled advocacy of trained and paid advocates, when perhaps they were all of them under the torture of the consciousness that upon the decision to which they arrived the fate of a party contest and all their own material future might turn? If, then, the House meant to show that it had an election point of honour, it must at once and for ever east to the winds that vanity which made it keep in its own impotent hands the trial of these election cases. It was bound to do so at this moment, when by its own act it had been put upon its trial before the people of the realm. The hon. and learned Member had descanted on what lie represented as the narrowness of a judicial award. In reply he (Mr. Beresford Hope) would only ask what was so likely to produce judicial narrowness as ignorance or inexperience, while the habit of adjudication which was incident to a Judge's existence created that breadth of thought which legitimate self-confidence alone could engender? There was one objection to this Bill stated by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets in which he entirely agreed—that it was most undesirable to make it apply to England alone. Unfortunately, both parties in 1866 and in 1867 had followed the tradition of 1832, and brought in separate Reform Bills for England Scotland and Ireland, which were followed up by a separate treatment of the ancillary measures; but he believed it would have saved a great deal of confusion and delay if they had brought in one Reform measure applicable to the three kingdoms. He
  676
  believed that the House would last year have passed such a measure almost as easily as the Bill for England alone, which was now being re-manipulated in the hands of Scotch and Irish Members. Wishing well to the main principle of establishing a judicial extra-Parliamentary tribunal for Election Petitions, he advised the Government not to push this Bill through in its present form. The more haste, the less speed. Let the Chairman report Progress; let this Bill be withdrawn, and another be introduced at the earliest moment, and certainly during the present Session, applicable to Scotland and Ireland as well as England.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to say a single sentence with regard to the allusions that had been made first by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson); then by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton); and, lastly, by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), who had just sat down, respecting the want of uniformity in this Bill, and the alleged defect of its not applying to all the three kingdoms. Now, as far as regarded the Northern portion of the kingdom, he thought he should be able to relieve the anxiety of those Gentlemen who had taken it under their wing, by reminding them that there was a Return on the table of this House which showed that, since the passing of the Reform Act of 1832, there had been 252 Petitions presented to Parliament alleging corrupt practices, and that of these only four came from Scotland, and of the four only two were found to be substantiated. Now, he thought when a Petition had been presented on an average only once in every nine years from Scotland, it would not require any addition to the Judges in that part of the kingdom to decide or report upon them. The general opinion in Scotland was that they had too many Judges already, and there would be no difficulty whatever in sparing one of the Judges to try a petition when there was one to be heard, He had no hesitation in saying that in half-an-hour he could frame a clause—a perfectly operative one—in this Bill, which would make it as suitable for Scotland as in its present state it was to England. He had no doubt the learned Lord Advocate could frame the clause in a shorter time, and in much better terms. He said therefore that hon. Gentlemen might be relieved from their fears about Scotland, for the matter

  677
  could be managed in a few minutes. He must say he heartily concurred in the principle of having one Bill for all portions of the United Kingdom; and if they had taken the view of the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope), and had passed one Reform Bill for the whole of the United Kingdom, he thought they would have had a better Bill that would have occupied less time in discussion, and that they would have heard fewer extraordinary speeches—that they would have saved the very extraordinary speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and possibly have got all they were still looking for.
  MR. DISRAELIregretted that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Denman) should have moved that the Chairman report Progress, because he thought there was a fair chance of making progress with the Bill in Committee that night. The hon. and learned Gentleman founded his proposition on the ground that there had been no discussion on the principle of the Bill; but unless his (Mr. Disraeli's) recollection deceived him very much, that statement was not entirely correct. He recollected that the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Mitchell) opened a discussion upon the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair, and that that discussion, which was upon the principle of the Bill, was not a short one; and the House having decided after that discussion to go into Committee, he must express his disappointment at their not making any progress. At the same time it was not his inclination to attempt to check legitimate discussion in this House; but still at that late hour he saw no chance of proceeding in Committee with any advantage, and therefore he would consent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman to report Progress, so that they might proceed with the other Business of the night.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not know how to understand the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill raised a question extremely interesting to Members of this House; and, as far as he could judge, those who were considered authorities were, without reference to parties, singularly divided in opinion on the subject. Now he thought when the right hon. Gentleman appointed this Bill for the Business of the evening, he might have anticipated, from the gravity of the question of the transfer of jurisdiction
  678
  over contested elections, and the state of opinion on the subject, that it would lead to a lengthened discussion. He (Mr. Gladstone) was not at all inclined to disagree with him in principle as far as this—to entertain the transfer of jurisdiction for the sake of the great advantage of local inquiry; but there was a great difference of opinion on this point, and that transfer, in his judgment, could not be made apart from the very prevalent opinion of the House. To carry the transfer by a bare majority would not be satisfactory, because they could not then confide in the stability of the system. If the Bill was to stand over he should like to know what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman as to any further proceeding on it. The Bill contained important provisions connected with the transfer of the jurisdiction of the House, and Notices had been given by many private Members of Amendments affecting the purity of election, which it was very desirable should be discussed. Under these circumstances he was anxious to know what were the views of the Government upon the question of the transfer of the jurisdiction, and upon the Notices which had been placed upon the Paper, If the right hon. Gentleman were—as in fact he might not unreasonably be—of opinion that the obstacles under present circumstances were too great to admit of a discussion of the particular method he proposed for the transfer of the jurisdiction, he could not help thinking that it would be for the advantage of the House that that should be made known at once. But while admitting that the Government might be right in desiring to postpone the question of the transfer of jurisdiction, there were other questions affecting the satisfactory conduct of elections which that House ought to have an opportunity of discussing, and which would, he had no doubt, be dealt with calmly and impartially, and in a temper entirely free from party feeling. He should be sorry to learn that it was the intention of the Government to drop the Bill altogether.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood him. The Government were not prepared to give up the Bill, or any part of it. The provision relating to the transfer of the jurisdiction of that House, which he looked upon as the main principle of the Bill, had been discussed upon the second reading, and could have been discussed in

  679
  Committee, and if the result of their labours in Committee should not prove satisfactory, might be discussed again upon the third reading; but as far as the Government were concerned, they wanted to pass the Bill in its entirety. He had hoped that they should have got into Committee upon the Bill at an early hour, and should have passed the evening in discussing its provisions; but as it was then late, and there was an evident disposition to discuss the principle of the Bill in a desultory manner on the Motion to report Progress, and as he despaired of getting on with the Committee that night, he thought it would be better that Progress should at once be reported, and that they should proceed with the other Business. Had the House adopted the suggestion which was made on behalf of the Government, at an early hour, they would have been discussing the provisions of the Bill long ago.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that when the hon. and learned Member behind him (Mr. Denman) moved that Progress be reported, he did not do so with the object of stopping the consideration of the Bill. The discussion upon the principle; of the Bill in its previous stages had been very slight, and it was desirable that it should be more fully gone into. He was a Member of the Committee which recommended the alteration of the mode of trial, but he had for himself opposed the total abandonment by that House of all its jurisdiction on this subject. It was the duty of the Government to let the House know what were their intentions with respect to Scotland and Ireland upon this question, as it would be an absurdity to discredit the existing tribunals, as far as England was concerned, and yet leave them jurisdiction over elections in the other parts of the kingdom. The Government ought to state definitely what their intentions were respecting the present Bill, and also to lay before the House their scheme for dealing with Scotch and Irish elections.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) should bear in mind that the Bill as originally drawn up in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee was not intended to include either Scotland or Ireland in its provisions. When objections were raised on the part of the English Judges to the transfer of the jurisdiction to themselves, it was thought better that the provisions of the Bill should
  680
  only refer to England, on the understanding that when once it was decided what principle should be adopted with regard to this country it would be easy to introduce Bills founded upon a similar principle with regard to Scotland and Ireland. The Government had been rather hardly treated that evening in reference to this Bill. They had placed the Bill upon the Paper as the first Order of the Day, in the full belief that the House would go into Committee upon it at an early hour, and would make considerable progress in the discussion of its provisions. A discussion, however, for which the Government were not responsible, had been raised upon another subject, and had occupied some time, and had prevented the House going into Committee upon the Bill until a comparatively late hour; and then the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Denman) had at once moved that the Chairman report Progress, in order, as he said, in the first place, that the principle of the Bill which the Government thought the House had already agreed to, should be more fully discussed; and, secondly, that he might have an opportunity of moving that the Bill be again referred to a Select Committee. He saw but little use at the present moment in protracting the discussion.
  MR. DENMANobserved that the Bill as originally drawn was very different from the Bill as it now stood; its principle had not been discussed, and it was for the purpose of obtaining further discussion that he had made the Motion for reporting Progress. He altogether objected to the proposed tribunal. If the Government were able to render the Bill a valuable one, it would be in consequence of the valuable suggestions which had been made during the present discussion.
  MR. FAWCETTentreated the right hon. Gentleman opposite to use all the influence which the Government possessed and to persevere with this Bill. There were portions of it undoubtedly to which objection might be taken; but there were many advanced Liberals willing to assist him in getting the measure passed. He feared that the discussion of that evening would produce a singularly bad impression out-of-doors, where an opinion prevailed very extensively that the House was not in earnest in its desire to put down corruption. And when it was perceived—as it could not fail to be—that the discussion and delay had originated on the Liberal side of the House, he could not refrain

  681
  from rising and repudiating those tactics; altogether, or from declaring that there were some at least among the Members on that side who were sincere in their desire to legislate upon the subject this Session, In spite of all that had been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman), he still thought he had adopted a very unusual course. The Bill had been read a first and a second time, and upon the proposition that the Speaker do leave the Chair, there had been more than one Motion leading to prolonged discussion. And that night, when hon. Members had come down expecting to have an opportunity of discussing and improving the clauses of the Bill, they were prevented from doing so by the renewed discussion on the whole principle of the measure raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. What would the country say to-morrow, on reading the discussion, but that this was a repetition of the old game, and that the House of Commons was not sincere in its desire to put down corruption and check election expenditure? For this reason, he entreated the right hon. Gentleman to press on the Bill. ["Agreed,"] He wished they were agreed. Reform legislation could not be considered as complete till some measure of this kind was passed; and in his opinion it was not inferior in importance either to the Scotch or the Irish Reform Bill.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERrepudiated the notion that there was any desire for delay on the Liberal Benches. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire felt very naturally that this was a great constitutional question, upon which it was important not to legislate in a hurried or incomplete manner. The House ought to be very jealous of its honour; and, in parting with all control over future election inquiries, the House showed a want of regard for, and appreciation of the high character which its tribunals had always maintained. They had always been composed of, and been presided over, by the most trusted Members of the House, in whose hands the honour of the House might be safely left. Under the proposed system, the first notice which the House might receive of an election inquiry was the Report of the Judge to the Speaker that a particular Member had been unseated.
  MR. MORRISONrose to support the appeal made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) to the Govern-
  682
  ment to resist the Motion for reporting Progress.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he intended to withdraw it,
  MR. MORRISONwould still suggest to the Committee, as a point of Order, that it was most inconvenient to encourage the practice of Gentlemen making speeches upon the principle of a Bill when once they had got into Committee. Business would be proceeded with much more rapidly and satisfactorily if Gentlemen having opinions which they desired to put forward would advance them at the proper time, and if upon Motions to report Progress or other formal proposals hon. Members would confine themselves more strictly within the four corners of the Motion.
  Mr. DENMANsaid, he was much obliged to his hon. Friend for his lecture. But he must remind him that till that evening he had never had an opportunity of discussing the Bill as a whole. He was quite willing that the Motion to report Progress should be withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMANasked if it was the pleasure of the Committee that the Motion should be withdrawn.
  Many hon. Members crying "No:"
  THE CHAIRMANput the Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress."
  SIR GEORGE GREYasked what course the Government wished the Committee to adopt?
  MR. DISRAELI: I thought I had distinctly expressed the wish of the Government to make progress in Committee, if it be not already too late.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Application of Act) postponed.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (To whom and by whom Election Petitions may be presented).
  MR. BOUVERIE, who had given Notice to move to omit all the clauses from 5 to 18 inclusive—which relate to the Presentation and Service of Petitions, the Judges and the Trial of Petitions—for the purpose of inserting new clauses, proposing a different system of procedure, said, that the clauses he proposed to strike out completely ousted the jurisdiction of the House, and to that he had a decided objection. The 5th clause provided that the Petition should, in the first instance, be presented to the Court of Common Pleas, and the

  683
  House of Commons need not know that the election of one of its Members was impugned until the Judge who tried the Petition certified his determination to the Speaker that the Member was duly elected, or that the election was void, and it became necessary to issue a new Writ. He thought that was going much farther in the way of parting with the control of its own affairs than the House would like to go. The objection to the existing tribunal was, that a Committee, though honest and well meaning, was overborne by the Bar, and thus rendered incapable and inefficient. This defect, however, did not exist when the Chairman of the Committee was able and competent; but as a competent Chairman could not necessarily be procured, he proposed to remedy this—and other defects which had at the same time been objected to by the Committees—by a series of clauses. He proposed to preserve the Election Committee in the form of a jury; but, instead of the present plan, the General Committee of Elections should choose from the Election panel a Committee of five Members. This Committee was to be presided over by one of the Judges of the Superior Courts at Westminster (not being a Peer), Her Majesty being empowered to appoint three additional Judges. The trial before the Judge would be conducted in precisely the same manner as a case at Nisi Prius, the Judge deciding questions of law and the admissibility of evidence, the Committee acting as a jury finding as to the facts. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Judge was to certify to the Speaker the result of the trial; he was also to report in writing to the Speaker the opinion of the Committee as to any charges of corrupt practices at the election in question; and might further make a special Report as to any other matters which may arise in the course of the trial, which, in his judgment, ought to be submitted to the House of Commons. In that way he presumed the objection as to the inefficiency of the Committees of that House as a Court of Inquiry would be got over. In his opinion there was an insuperable objection to submitting the position and character of a Member of that House to the decision of one Judge. Judges were not angels, but were—like other men—liable to be influenced by their political feelings in political matters. A remarkable instance of this occurred in the well-known case of Mr. O'Connell, when the Judges in the House of Lords all voted
  684
  along with their political party. This was a strong proof that even the most eminent Judges were liable to be influenced in their judgment by their political feelings. But even if political feeling never biassed the judicial mind, the public might believe it did, and that feeling, however groundless, would be sufficient to rob the tribunal of all weight. If, then, they could not entrust the decision of an Election Petition to a single Judge, they must call in a jury; and their choice lay between a jury chosen in the ordinary way, and one selected from the Committee of Elections panel, and he contended that a jury selected from the House would be preferable to any other. It must be borne in mind that if the inquiry was to be made on the spot, the jury must be local, and local juries would be sure to be influenced by party motives; but if the jury were a Committee of the House it would not be subject to local influences, and in every way it would be a more trustworthy jury than any that could possibly be devised. He therefore proposed the erection of an intermediate tribunal—one which should avoid the objection of local bias, and at the same time maintain the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. It had been said that the present tribunal was fruitful of delay, and that an inquiry by a Judge on the spot would be expeditious. It was obvious, however, that this result could only be attained by the appointment of a great many Judges; and it should be remembered that, while it would be out of the question to appoint more than a very limited number of Judges, the Parliamentary tribunal was capable of comparatively unlimited multiplication, and a very little alteration in the Controverted Elections Act would enable the House to dispose of any number of Election Petitions in a very short time. As to the proposed inquiry being conducted on the spot, he was sceptical as to the advantages of that method. He had seen a good deal of contested elections, and had always found that, except in the case of a very few better informed persons, both parties were sure of winning; and that, as one party must lose, there was sure to be much disappointment, and strong accusations of bribery and corruption. Rumours to that effect flew about the place immediately after the election; but in nine-tenths of the cases all those rumours ended in smoke. If, therefore, they insisted on Petitions being presented immediately after the election, they would

  685
  have a great many abortive inquiries. He thought that the inquiry into charges of general corruption and bribery might be more advantageously conducted on the spot; but the inquiry into the merits of an Election Petition could be best inquired into by a Committee of the House, presided over by one of the Judges of the Superior Courts. He believed the scheme he proposed would not be unacceptable to the learned Judges, and on that account he submitted it to the consideration of the Committee.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he had to move an Amendment to the clause, which was the first of a series of Amendments, of which he had given Notice. The Bill, as it stood, was very incomplete; but, at the same time, he thought it, in the main, very creditable to the Government; and therefore he was glad that this Bill was not to be part of the baggage to be thrown overboard, for the purpose of lightening the ship on its last voyage. Incomplete as it was, the Bill was a bold attempt to grapple with an acknowledged political and moral evil; and the Government had not feared to ask the House to do what it greatly disliked—to make a sacrifice of its own jurisdiction. He now asked the Prime Minister to complete his own work—to help those who were trying to help him, and lend the aid of his ingenious and contriving mind, and the able legal assistance with which he was provided, to make this really an efficacious and complete measure. It was no party measure, and no party were interested in passing it, except the party of honesty. They desired to diminish the number of men in this House, who came in, not for the purpose of maintaining any political opinions whatever, but solely for the purpose, by a lavish expenditure, of acquiring the social position which attended a seat in this House, and which, perhaps, was not otherwise to be attained by them. They were not mote attached to one side than to the other, except that they were generally to be found on the gaining side. They were the political counterparts of those who were contemptuously described by Dante as "neither for God nor the enemies of Gou, but for themselves only." Unfortunately, it was not possible in this case to follow the poet's advice, "Speak not of them, but look and pass on!" The Bill proceeded on the theory that the law was to be put in motion by the defeated candidate alone. This was contrary
  686
  to the very idea of criminal law. When the law intended to confer a pardoning power on an individual, it did not grant a criminal process at all, but only an action for damages. The immediate object of the present Amendment was the following: the Bill, if passed, would repeal the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102; but Section 4 of that Act contained an important provision—namely, that where a Petition complained of general or extensive bribery, and the Committee reported that there was reasonable and probable ground for the allegations, the Committee should have power to order that the costs of the petitioners should be borne by the public. If the House was in earnest such a provision was indispensable; and he therefore intended to propose Amendments, the effect of which would be to restore it in the present Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, after the words "to serve in Parliament," to insert the words "or of general or extensive prevalence of corrupt practices in an Election."—(Mr. Mill.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Stuart Mill) that it was desirable that there should be every opportunity of inquiring into extensive corruption prevalent at elections; but he took exception to the proposed mode of effecting that object, and would suggest that it would be more convenient to raise the question by bringing up a distinct new clause. The clause then under consideration related specially to Petitions complaining of undue return of Members; and he thought it would not be well to mix that up with other questions. With regard to the particular Act to which the hon. Member had referred he would find, on inquiry, that it had hitherto been a dead letter. [Mr. BOUVERIE; There has been a case under it.] The right hon. Gentleman said there had been a case under it. If so, he was not aware of it: but, considering that corrupt practices must have prevailed very largely, that one case would only prove that practically the Act had been a dead letter. He was as anxious as the hon. Member for Westminster that corruption, in whatever form or shape, should be put down; but he thought that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member, while creating some confusion, would not carry out that intention. As to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kiltmarnock (Mr. Bouverie),

  687
  it would give legal knowledge to the present tribunals and tend to uniformity of decision; but, if it were adopted, two of the great objects to accomplish which this Bill had been brought forward would be altogether lost, for neither an immediate nor a local inquiry would be obtained. He did not think that any legislation would succeed to the extent of entirely preventing corrupt practices—for quid prosunt leges sine moribus?—but he did believe that by legislation they might very much strengthen the hands of those who wished to put down those practices. He was perfectly convinced, however, that as long as the jurisdiction remained in the House of Commons they would not be able to diminish the corruption which now existed. If the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman were accepted, all the Election Petitions would still be brought into one focus and would still get into the hands of central agents. There would still be the facility for pairing off and for all that hocus pocus that notoriously was carried on now. He was convinced that, until they localized the inquiries, they would not succeed in getting rid of those arrangements by which corrupt practices were kept in the background. So much for having the inquiries local. Why was it desirable to have them immediate? Because when there was a considerable lapse of time between the complaint and the investigation there was greater opportunity for having resort to manœuvres—for getting rid of witnesses and suchlike proceedings. Besides, when the blood of partisans on either side of a contest was still hot, they were not so likely to see reasons for giving up their enthusiasm in the cause of purity of election. While persons were smarting under a defeat they were much more likely to expose corrupt practices than when time was allowed for persuasion. Then, local inquiry would much diminish the expense of an election case. At present the witnesses on either side were brought to town and fed in the most sumptuous manner. They were also "shepherded"—he believed that was the term—to prevent them from talking to anyone with whom it was thought advisable they should hold no communication. All this was attended with enormous expense. Again, they had persons who would go into the witnesses' chair in a Committee-room and perjure themselves, knowing that there was no one there who could convict them of their falsehood; but
  688
  the same persons would hesitate to commit that crime in a Court-house where they were surrounded by persons in the neighbourhood, half-a-dozen of whom could perhaps get upon the table and contradict them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) spoke of his having been in a small minority when in the Committee he opposed the proposition for entirely removing these election cases from the jurisdiction of the House. He believed that minority had consisted of the right hon. Gentleman himself and his Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sandwich. The Committee were unanimous on having the Petitions tried by another tribunal; but the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sandwich thought that the Petitions ought to be presented to that House in the first instance. Now, if the House was not to be the tribunal to try those cases, would it be worth while to retain for it that scintilla of jurisdiction which would be retained by having the Petition presented to the House before it went to the Court of Common Pleas? If the meaning of the proposition was that the House should have the right of saying that a Petition never should be tried at all, then he could understand the proposal but that meaning was not avowed by the small minority to which he had referred. A great disadvantage arising from the plan would be that Election Petitions could not be presented and tried while the House was not sitting—a circumstance which, in many cases, would involve a delay of many months. Believing that the plan embodied in the Bill was that which would give the public the greatest amount of confidence in the decisions on Election Petitions, and that it would effectually tend to check bribery and corruption, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment now under discussion.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENobserved that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had applied himself to the clause generally. He submitted that it would be a more convenient course for the Committee to confine themselves for the present to the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Westminster.
  MR. PAULLpointed out that under the Amendment a Member against whom specific charges were brought would be obliged to defend himself against the general prevalence of corrupt practices during au election at which there might

  689
  have been, perhaps, half a dozen candidates. He ought not to be placed in a worse position than any criminal by having to defend himself against charges other than those specifically made against himself personally or his agents.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, much might be urged for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster, who was on the right track, for far more might be done by an indictment against a borough that by a contest for the seat. But at present it would be wise to adopt the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. MONKthought the Amendment was misunderstood—a Petition need not necessarily be against the return of any Member. He thought it important that the House should sanction the principle that where extensive corruption had been practised the conduct of defeated candidates should not be ignored. For instance, a candidate sent down from London to a borough where he had no chance of election, and where he spent large sums of money in corruption, ought not to be allowed to go unpunished; and if Petitions were allowed to be presented in such cases they would be a great check upon general bribery and corruption.
  MR. LOCKEobjected to the Amendment on the ground that it was unfair to make a candidate liable for general corrupt practices with which he might have had nothing to do. It was a sound principle that a man should only be liable for his own offences.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Amendment, not because it might not be expedient to have inquiries nito the general prevalence of corruption, but because the Amendment was foreign to the object of the clause, which was to provide assurance that a Member had been duly returned without corruption on his part. He hoped the hon. Member for Westminster would withdraw the clause, which he thought would rather defeat his object. It seemed to him the result would be to produce interminable inquiries.
  MR. AYRTONhoped the hon. Member for Westminster would not withdraw the Amendment. In his opinion, the Attorney General did not understand the object of the Amendment. The view of the hon. Member for Westminster was that, besides the successful candidate and the defeated one, there might be certain electors who were indignant at the corrupt practices that had been carried on in the interest of
  690
  both candidates, and that it was only right their petition for a local inquiry should be attended to. In the interest of purity of election he should support the Motion.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the point taken by the hon. Member for Westminster had not escaped the attention of the Committee; but the Committee were unanimously of opinion that it was useless to retain the method appointed by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, for inquiring into general corrupt practices at elections. Under the present law, there were Petitions in which the seat was claimed, and other Petitions alleging corrupt practices generally, but in which no claim was made for the seat. In regard to Petitions of the latter class, the Members had no interest in opposing them; and, in the opinion of the Committee, the Act just referred to had proved entirely futile. But there was, according to the present law, another mode by which the desired inquiry into general corruption was sought to be attained. If, in the course of inquiry on a Petition, the Committee is of opinion that there is a primâ facie case of general corrupt practices in a borough, the Committee reports the circumstance to the House, and upon a joint Address of the two Houses a Commission is sent to the spot to institute an inquiry. That mode of inquiry the Committee desired to retain. If the Amendment was carried, the question of general corruption would have to be investigated by a tribunal which was not the best for such a purpose. It was thought that the present tribunal for inquiring into general corrupt practices should be retained; and consequently it was provided in the present Bill that if a Judge, in the course of an inquiry respecting a claim to a seat, found that there was a primâ facie case of general corrupt practices in a borough, he might report the circumstance to the House, precisely as the Committee did now, and thereupon the Houses might present an Address praying that a Commission of Inquiry might issue. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, his remarks had reference to the clause which provided: that the Judge might, at the same time, make a special report to the Speaker as to any matter arising in the course of the trial, an account of which ought, in his judgment, to be submitted to the House of Commons.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, his object was that an inquiry into general corrupt practices should be instituted with the same promptitude and before the same tribunal as the inquiry concerning a claim to the seats. He did not mean, however, as the Solicitor General seemed to infer, that the sitting Member should be at the expense of eliciting such a general inquiry. That matter was provided for in his subsequent Amendments.
  MR. LIDDELLthought a distinction should be made between an inquiry into the right to a seat and an inquiry into general corruption, and that the cost of the general inquiry should be borne by the community.
  MR. WALPOLEhoped the hon. Member for Westminster would be induced to withdraw his Amendment, and to introduce the subject in a separate clause. It was quite as important that there should be a well-directed inquiry into general corruption as into the right to a seat; but they should take care that they did not transfer to another body any power which belonged peculiarly to that House. The legal right to the seat would be bettor determined by the Judges than by a Committee sitting upstairs; but, if they directed an inquiry into general corruption, which was to be followed by legislation, they should reserve to the House the power of instituting and directing the inquiry. If the general were mixed up with the particular proposition, they would certainly delay the termination to be arrived at.
  MR. HIBBERThoped the Government would bring in a clause to effect the object of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 219: Majority 145.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, his Amendment would raise the whole question. It was, that the words "Court of Common Pleas" be struck out, and the words "House of Commons" be inserted in the clause. This was the Amendment which he had moved in the Select Committee, and which now stood in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Mitchell), who was not present.
  MR. SCHREIBER MR. SCHREIBER moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the Amendments of which he had given Notice would in effect also raise the whole question, inasmuch as he proposed that the Election Committee, consisting of Members of the House, should be presided over by a Judge. It would be better to discuss it now.
  MR. DISEAELIsaid, the issue was clear, as the House was in Committee and understood the question, he thought they ought to proceed.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, there was this difference between his Amendment and those of his right hon. Friend (the Member for Kilmarnock). His right hon. Friend proposed to deal with the Petition after it was presented; whereas he proposed to raise the question to what tribunal the Petition should be presented. If the House should cease to be that tribunal, it would be the only legislative body in the world exercising no control over the seats of its own Members. Standing, as the House of Commons did, in the position of a self-condemned body, it ought to hand over all its rights and privileges unimpaired to that Parliament which would be elected by the enlarged constituencies. If his Motion were carried, the other Amendment would be unnecessary.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that this was the most important question of the whole Bill, and therefore they ought to have time to consider it. They had not had an opportunity yet of discussing it. He felt strongly upon the matter, and wished to have it fully discussed.
  MR. AYRTONcalled attention to the alteration in the wording of the Act it was proposed to repeal and that introduced into the Bill relative to the subject-matter of complaint to be contained in Election Petitions. He asked the Attorney General on a future occasion to give the Committee an explanation.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

  WATER SUPPLY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. OLIVE, Bill to make better provision for facilitating and regulating the supply of Pure Water in cities, towns, and districts throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CLIVE, Mr. GOLDNET, Mr. NEATE, and Mr. WYLD. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 131.]

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FUNDS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Funds provided for defraying the expenses of the Metropolitan Police, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Sir JAMES FERGUSSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 132.]

  THAMES EMBANKMENT AND METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT (LOANS) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Bill for extending the provisions of "The Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement (Loans) Act, 1864," and for amending the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works in relation to Loans under that Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 133,]

  CURRAGH OF KILDARE BILL.
  On Motion of The Earl of MAYO, Bill to make better provision for the management and use of the Curragh of Kildare, ordered to be brought in by The Earl of MAYO and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 134.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Ono o'clock.