Commons Sitting of 1 July 1869

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Dublin Freemen * [189]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) * [192]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c * [191]; Fisheries (Ireland) * [190]; Land Tax Law Amendment, &c. * [188].
First Reading—Inam Lands * [193].
Second Reading—Suburban Commons * [174].
Committee — Sunday and Ragged Schools (re-comm.) * [170]—R.P.; Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister [23], further adjourned.
Third Reading—Imprisonment for Debt * [179]; Debts of Deceased Persons * [165], and passed.
Withdrawn—Valuation of Property * [11].

ARMY—MAJOR M'GWIRE'S CAMPING SYSTEM.—QUESTION.
MR. KNIGHTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Reports have been received from the Military Authorities of the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras highly commendatory of Major M' Gwire' s camping system with field hammocks, as calculated to add greatly to the health and efficiency of troops in the field and on the line of march; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to extend the full benefits of such system to British Soldiers in India and the Colonies?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the Reports from Madras and Bombay in regard to these hammocks had been favourable, but they were not approved by the Commander-in-Chief in India, and were not recommended by the Government of India. Until they were approved in India, it was not probable they would be generally adopted.

METROPOLIS — ST. MARYLEBONE WORKHOUSE SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
MR. COGANsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it be true that five Roman Catholic children at the St. Marylebone Workhouse School at Southall have been struck off the roll as Catholics and entered as Protestants; what are the respective periods that the said children have been in the Poor Law School, giving the dates of their admission; what religious instruction has been given to them in that school, and in particular what instruction has been given to them in their own religion; and, whether the parents of the said children be living or not, and, in either case, whether they, or the nearest of kin, have been communicated with on the subject?
MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, it is not literally true that the names of five Roman Catholic children have been struck off the rolls as Roman Catholics and entered as Protestants; but it is substantially true that they have been educated

945
for the last two years in the tenets of the Church of England, although they had been entered as Roman Catholics. In April last a Roman Catholic priest was admitted to visit them, but after two visits the five children, whose ages wore about fourteen years each, objected to continue Roman Catholics, and at their own desire they were released from his instruction, fourteen years being considered the age when pauper children can decide which religion is the correct one. They have not been instructed in their own religion, for during the long time they have been in the workhouse they have only received two visits from the Roman Catholic priest, who instructed them on these two visits in the religion of their parents; but, under the circumstances described, the children have refused to be taught by the Roman Catholic priest. One or two of the children are orphans, and some of them have mothers living; but in no one case have the parents, so far as I can ascertain, or the next of kin of the orphans been communicated with. I shall make no comments on the matter, and to-morrow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) intends to draw the attention of the House to the correspondence that has taken place between the Poor Law Board and the Marylebone authorities upon the subject.

JERSEY JURATS.—QUESTION.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the matter of the Jersey Jurats, reported in "Moore's Privy Council Reports, New Series," vol. iii., p. 482, in the year 1866; and, whether the Government intend to give effect to the opinion of that Committee, that "a complete change in the constitution of the Royal Court is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the island," by introducing a measure to effect that object?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the attention of the Government had not been specially drawn to the decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but they were well aware that such a decision had been made. There never had been as yet direct legislation by Parlia-
946
ment in regard to the affairs of Jersey, the course being to apply Acts, or portions of Acts of Parliament, to that Island by Orders in Council. Constitutional authorities in that House differed on this subject; and, as this subject had not been specially brought under the notice of Government by the inhabitants or anyone else, it had not been considered by the Government with a view to legislation, nor could he hold out any prospect of legislation on the subject this Session.

ARMY—ORDNANCE SURVEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOSKYNSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When it is the intention of the Ordnance Officers to proceed with the Cadastral Survey of the Midland and Southern Counties of England on the same (6-inch) scale already adopted in Ireland and some of the Northern Counties; and, whether it is contemplated to enlarge the scale to twenty-five inches, i.e., about a square inch to the acre?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, the whole of the southern counties were likely to be completed in about ten years from this time. The northern counties had been already completed, and the midland counties would be proceeded with as soon as the southern counties were finished. It was calculated that the whole survey would be finished in about fifteen years from the present time. With respect to the scale, the present survey was being made on the 25-inch scale, and the counties were published on a 6-inch scale.

LOCAL MUSEUMS.—QUESTION.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will authorize the necessary steps being taken to effect the systematic circulation to Local Museums, Libraries, and Institutions of the United Kingdom of the superfluous and unexhibited specimens of Art, Science, and Literature now deposited in the National Museums and Galleries in the Metropolis?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government were very favourable to the object contemplated in the question of the noble Lord. Some things had been done in this di-

947
rection, especially at the South Kensington Museum, the powers of whose directory were, however, not adequate to enable them to effect everything they thought desirable. Within the past month the Treasury had received a letter from the Trustees of the National Gallery to the effect that they had made collections of drawings intended to be deposited on loan at centres remote from London. Government would consider the whole subject systematically, with the view of obtaining the utmost benefit possible for the public.

TAX ON SHEPHERDS' DOGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAMERONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under the thirty-eighth section of the Customs and Inland Revenue Duties Bill, a farmer who enters upon a new farm at Whitsunday, or who engages a shepherd at that term, would be liable in the one case for the Duty on the Dogs of his shepherds which had been paid for already by his predecessor on the 1st of January in the same year, and in the other case for the Duty upon the incoming as well as the outgoing shepherd; and whether he considers that any loss or inconvenience to the Public Service would arise if the period of exemption from Duty were extended to Dogs under twelve months of age?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said the tax on dogs was payable on the 1st of January by the hirer or employer of the shepherd at the time, and when paid it went to the benefit of the shepherd, just as if he had paid it himself. Having been paid, no further tax would be payable until the next 1st of January, and therefore a farmer entering on a new farm would not be liable to the duty on dogs paid by his predecessor, nor would a person engaged as shepherd be liable to the Revenue for the duty due by his employer. It would be very inconvenient to extend the exemption from six months to twelve, as it would lead to various evasions of the tax.

IRELAND—HOWTH HARBOUR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is possible to obtain from the accounts
  948
  of the Board of Works in Ireland a Return of the sums expended each year for the ten years ending the 1st day of January last on Howth Harbour, and for what purpose and under what authority such sums were expended; also the amount contributed from local or other sources to defray such expenditure, and by whom; together with the amount of tolls, rents, or other receipts received during the same period by the Board of Works from Howth Harbour?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that there would be no difficulty in rendering accounts of the sums expended for the past ten years on this harbour, and of the amount contributed by local and other sources.

IRELAND—SEIZURE OF FISHING SMACKS.—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he also wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Report which has appeared in the Irish Papers that the Coast Guard at Kingstown had seized five smacks having their drift nets fishing one hour before sunset is correct; and, if so, if he will be good enough to state under what section of the Fishery Acts are the Coast Guard or other authorities justified in seizing vessels under such circumstances, and what Instructions, if any, have been issued by the Board of Works as Fishery Commissioners for the guidance of the Coast Guard in such cases?
MR. AYRTONreplied, that by the Act of 5 & 6 Vict., c. 160, the officers and men of the Coast Guard were authorized to enforce the provisions of the Act for regulating the Fisheries in Ireland. The Commissioners of Fisheries undertook the task of making a small code of the Fisheries Laws for the convenience of the officers and men of the Coast Guard, of which he would be happy to present the hon. Member with a copy. The Coast Guard received information that some nets had been shot for the improper capture of herrings. A boat was directed to go to the spot, when it was found that the fisheries had been disturbed by such illegal acts; and thereupon they took the steps which they considered were authorized by the Act, and they prosecuted the offenders for the illegal fishery. The Board of Works in Ireland thought the men should be admonished, and cautioned

949
against a repetition of the offence; and to that extent only did they interfere in the matter.
MR. BLAKE: The hon. Member has not answered my Question. I asked under what Act the Officers of the Coast Guard were justified in committing the act of piracy on the high seas in seizing the five smacks?
MR. AYRTON: I am not responsible for the Coast Guard. If my hon. Friend examines the code he will see how far they were authorized in their proceedings.
MR. MATTHEWS: Under what Act of Parliament is there power to issue a code authorizing the seizure of ships on the high sea?
MR. AYRTON: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the answer that I gave. I did not say that the Commissioners had issued a code authorizing the Coast Guard to seize vessels, but a side which contained a summary of the statute law relating to the performance of the duties of the Coast Guard.
MR. PEMBERTON: I think the question remains more unanswered than before.

CATTLE DISEASE.—QUESTION.
MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council on Education, Whether out of a cargo of 93 beasts landed at Thames Haven on Saturday last 45 were stopped for foot and mouth disease, and whether any of the remainder were passed into the Metropolitan Market, they also being at the time affected by the disease?
MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that the figures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were not quite correct. From inquiries he had made he found that two vessels with cattle arrived on the day referred to. One of those vessels had on board ninety-four head of cattle, twenty-one of which were detained and slaughtered on account of their having the foot and mouth disease. The other vessel had on board 323 head of cattle, fifteen of which were detained and slaughtered for the same reason. He had no reason to suppose that the authorities had in this case departed from the usual course in dealing with cattle having these particular diseases, for the reason that there was no Act in existence as yet which would enable them to do so. A Bill was, however, before Par-
950
liament that would give further power in such cases.

DUBLIN FREEMEN BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th June],
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for appointing Commissioners to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices amongst the Freemen Electors of the City of Dublin."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he should endeavour to confine himself as far as possible to the important constitutional point involved. The course proposed was altogether unprecedented, directly opposed to the established usage and custom of Parliament. The Commission was to have powers of inquiry restricted and limited to one section of the constituency, less than one-fourth of the whole. The first step of the Commissioners' inquiry would, therefore, be impeded; it would, probably, be confined to one ward of the town, corruption to a certain extent being localized; and the result would be abortive. There was no precedent that in any respect applied to this case. There was a general Act in force regulating the issuing of Commissions, which was a matter of course in certain circumstances. The House had deliberately passed a general Act to include all cases. This was an instance of exceptional legislation; and he hoped the House would pause before putting it in the power of any Gentleman on either side to get up and on his own caprice initiate special legislation, which would revive those perplexing and irritating discussions of a party character which he had hoped were removed entirely from the floor of that House. He trusted the House would not take this retrograde step, involving them in vexatious discussions, which were calculated to diminish their influence in the country.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that if they negatived the Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Sullivan), he presumed it was intended that the Writ should be issued without any consequences following from the Report of the learned Judge. Hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Motion were hardly consistent in the course they were taking,

  951
  for when the Motion was brought before the House for a statutable Commission, under the Act of 1853, they opposed it on the ground that the inquiry was too broad; but now, when the Motion was for a narrower inquiry, they opposed it because that inquiry would be too limited. But if the Writ were allowed to go, then even the corrupt would be entitled to vote. ["No."] He could assure hon. Gentlemen that what he stated was founded upon a legal decision given in an inquiry which had been held in England. A gentleman occupying a public position, who, according to the Judge's Report, had been guilty of systematic bribery, and who had set at defiance the orders of the Court, would have his conduct ratified, and would be entitled to exercise the franchise again if the opposition to the Motion were successful. They had never hitherto received such a Report as was made by the Judge in this case, and they were obliged to create a precedent to meet it. The great recommendation of the course proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend was that it would narrow the issue and limit the punishment to the guilty. If they allowed those corrupt voters to go unpunished, it would be tantamount to saying to others—"Go, and do likewise."
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would admit that if any legislation were to follow with regard to the freemen of Dublin this was the right course to pursue. If the Bill proceeded to a second reading he would, probably, move that the powers of the Commissioners be extended to Youghal, because in that borough above £5,000 had been spent by Mr. Weguelin, which was at the rate of £40 per man for the 127 electors who had supported him, and about £18 per man for every voter in the constituency. That gentleman when he went down to Youghal could not be supposed to have any love for the place, for he stated that when asked to stand for it he did not know where Youghal was. Mr. Baron Martin, in his evidence before the Committee which was now sitting, stated that £9,000 spent at Westminster or Bradford was a most extravagant and outrageous sum, and almost enough to vitiate the election. But if £9,000 was almost too large a sum for such place; as Westminster and Bradford, with more than 18,000 electors, what was the case
  952
  with regard to Youghal, where £5,000 had been spent on a constituency considerably under 300? Although he did not intend to oppose the first reading, or even, perhaps, the second reading of this Bill, he thought it right to inform hon. Members opposite that he should, in all probability, at the proper time, move that it be an Instruction to the Committee that the operation of the Bill should be extended to Youghal.
  MR. SHERLOCKsaid, that the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh was very precise, and his Report stated that he had reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed among the freemen voters for the city and county of Dublin; and the question was whether that decision was to remain a dead letter, and whether the freemen were to be allowed to repeat those corrupt practices. He thought that the House was entitled to take action on the Report of the learned Judge. There could be no practical difficulty in limiting the inquiry to that portion of the constituency pointed out by the Report of the Judge; and, with the Report before them, the House would stultify itself if it did not endeavour to ascertain the extent of those corrupt practices, and act with respect to them when ascertained. If it appeared on inquiry that only a limited number of the freemen were guilty of corrupt practices, the remainder of the body would get the benefit of the investigation.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he had great abhorrence of corruption, and if he believed the Bill were likely to check it, he should have given the Bill his hearty support. Measures to prevent corrupt practices had never been regarded in a party light in this country, and if this Bill bore upon its face a party stamp, those who framed it, and not those who opposed it, were to blame. Several attempts had been made to disfranchise the Dublin freemen. The first attempt was made by a private Member, under the sanction of the Law Officers of the Crown, but that turned out to be illegal. The second attempt, which was made under the œgis of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), turned out to be unconstitutional, and was therefore abortive. Now, Her Majesty's Government had summoned to their aid the able Attorney General for Ireland as a forlorn hope;

  953
  but he had to complain of the construction placed by that right hon. and learned Gentleman the other night upon Mr. Justice Keogh's Report as unfair. Many hon. Members had been led away by the construction put upon that Report by the right hon. and learned Member, and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth. In certain paragraphs of that Report fifty-nine persons were mentioned specifically as having been bribed; but there was nothing in the Report to show that those were not the same individuals who had been guilty of the other corrupt practices alluded to in the other paragraphs. He had to complain most, however, of the construction which had been put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth on the paragraph which stated that about "200 persons were induced to sign agreements pledging themselves to give their gratuitous assistance to Sir Arthur Guinness during the election, but that such agreements were colourable only." If this was correct these agreements were not made to evade the statutes against bribery and treating. In the Bewdley case Mr. Justice Blackburn drew this distinction very clearly. It was the practice in that borough to employ and pay private watchers, who rendered no service in return. The learned Judge said that the practice was very objectionable, but he reported that there was no reason to believe that direct bribery prevailed. The Judge in that case drew a clear line of distinction between bribery and treating on the one hand, and "illegal payments" on the other. The penalties for the latter offence were, indeed, quite different from those which attached to bribery and treating. The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) and the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Sullivan) represented that between 280 and 290 of the freemen of Dublin were specified, although not by name, in the Report of Mr. Justice Keogh, as having been equally guilty of bribery and corruption. It was upon that statement the Bill was introduced the other night. Although this was nominally a Bill or inquiry, no doubt could exist as to the intentions of the Government with respect to the freemen of Dublin, because that intention was recorded in the measure of the right hon. Member for Morpeth, which they sanctioned. It was a Bill to disfranchise one section of the
  954
  constituency, who happened to be by four to one opposed to the policy of the Government. Describe it how they might everybody in Ireland would believe that the Bill was simply intended as a prelude to a measure to disfranchise the Protestant portion of the constituency of Dublin. But it was not for that reason he objected to this Bill; such a measure was both impolitic and inexpedient. It was to prevent the necessity for such a Bill that general laws were passed. It was now proposed to return to a vicious system of special legislation for the simple reason that their general legislation did not apply the principle of wholesale disfranchisement to particular classes. And why should it? On what principle of justice was it proposed to tar with the same brush a body of 2,700 freemen because fifty-nine of them had been guilty of corruption? Such a stop was unfair not only to the freemen but to the rest of the constituency. In the case of Bradford, Mr. Baron Martin reported that there was no reason to believe that corrupt practices prevailed, except as stated in his special Report. This was very much the same in the Dublin case, and in other respects he could not agree in the dissimilarity between the cases of Bradford and Dublin on which the Attorney General for Ireland so much insisted. If another opportunity occurred, he could bring under the notice of the House other cases resembling that of Dublin. He also eon-tended that the Bill was unnecessary. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. James) said that the eleven men named in the Report would not be disfranchised. In England the Judges had given the necessary notice to men in this condition, and if Mr. Justice Keogh had also given notice to these men of the charge against them they would be disfranchised for seven years, and therefore with regard to them the proposed inquiry would have no effect. The inquiry made by Mr. Justice Keogh was of the most searching and exhaustive character, and if Mr. Henry Forster's delinquency had not been fully brought out by him he did not see how the Commissioners were to do it; because, if he were a fugitive from justice, no Commissioners could get at him; and, if he were not, the Attorney General for Ireland might institute a prosecution against him. That was, indeed, the way in which he ought to

  955
  deal with Mr. Henry Forster's case, because there was this great advantage in Ireland, that there we had a machinery, by means of Crown prosecutors, for bringing persons to justice without partiality, delay, or expense. There were ample materials in the Report of the learned Judge which would enable the Attorney General for Ireland to find out who were the guilty parties and to bring them to justice. He objected to this Bill, because it was, in his opinion, special legislation of the worst class, against a body of men who, as a body, committed no offence, to justify a measure intended indirectly to deprive them of rights which had been secured to them under ancient Acts of Parliament, and which had been recognized in all Reform Bills.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Mr. SULLIVAN) said, in reply to the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill would abolish the Protestant portion of the constituency of Dublin, he would point out that its object was simply to abolish the corrupt portion, and it was rather strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman should suggest that the terms "corrupt portion" and "Protestant portion" were synonymous. It was said that this Bill was unconstitutional, but the House would remember that a Bill to disfranchise the freemen of Yarmouth passed both Houses of Parliament; and, therefore, if it was not unconstitutional to disfranchise those freemen without inquiry, it could scarcely be deemed unconstitutional to institute a preliminary inquiry before proceeding to disfranchise the freemen in the present case. Mr. Justice Keogh had reported that fifty-nine were bribed, thirty wanted to be bribed, and 200 were willing to make a colourable agreement in order to evade an Act of Parliament. It was asked why was not a Bill introduced to disfranchise or to institute an inquiry respecting a portion of Bradford. The two cases were entirely different. In the Bradford case there was no bribery, though a number of public-houses were open in one ward, and a good number of voters got a great deal to drink without paying for it. But if hon. Gentlemen opposite thought drinking and bribery much the same offence, why did they move the issue of the Writ in the case of Bewdley, where it was proved that corrupt treating prevailed throughout
  956
  the whole town by the opening of public-houses? The fact was that where treating only was reported no precedent for withholding the Writ could be found. In the case of Dublin, however, the corruption and bribery were not confined to one ward, but extensively prevailed among a large body of freemen who pervaded the whole constituency. The honest portion of the constituency ought only to be too glad to have the inquiry. Again, in Bradford it was the case of a single election, and not of a long series as in that of Dublin, and on all grounds he hoped the House would pass this Bill.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that whatever might be the decision of the House upon this question he hoped for the sake of the dignity of the House, it would not go forth that they had decided it upon party grounds. The Act of last Session had been proposed by those who are now in opposition, and accepted by those who are now in power, specifically in the hope, and with the view of removing once and for all the decision of questions regarding electoral questions from the reproach that belonged to a faction fight. There were several provisions of that measure about which he for one had felt at the time doubt and misgiving. But his hesitation, like that of others, had been overborne by the paramount consideration that it was worth making a great sacrifice of privilege and of prepossession, in order to obliterate from the minds of men the suspicion so long, and, he feared, so justly entertained that questions regarding seats, and regarding the constitution of constituencies, were determined by the hope of party gain or loss. They had abdicated one of the oldest and greatest of their privileges in the hope, and for the sake of securing this important result; but if, when the machinery of that Act broke down through some technical flaw, they were to fall back upon the old methods, and by a mere majority of votes decide upon denouncing the whole or a part of a particular constituency, and propose that a Commission should be issued for the purpose of justifying its disfranchisement, all the old evils would necessarily revive, and the sacrifice they had made of their privileges would have been made in vain. He was strongly of opinion, and must therefore say that he regarded this as an ill-advised proceeding. The power of the majority on that

  957
  side of the House was so great that at all events it ought to be used forbearingly. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) had supported this Bill on the ground that it was not following old precedents but creating a new one. Now this was just what he deprecated. He would ask the Attorney General for Ireland why he did not avail himself of the power he possessed as a public prosecutor, and proceed against those freemen who by their corrupt practices had rendered themselves liable to punishment. Instead of this, what had been the course adopted? A Bill had been introduced by the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) which, discarding even the semblance of inquiry, would have disfranchised the 2,700 freemen of Dublin upon the mere allegation or imputation of their being corrupt. As the son and grandson of a freeman he must be permitted to say, as of a matter concerning which he had personal knowledge, that nothing could be more gratuitously or scandalously incorrect than to say of that large and influential body of persons that they had ever done, or that they were ever capable of being betrayed into doing acts which deserved that character. The freemen of Dublin had for generations comprised the wealthiest and the worthiest individuals in the community to which they belonged. They comprised many of the clergy, of the bar, and of the medical profession, resident in the Irish metropolis; most of its merchants and bankers, and a great number of persons possessing private property. They held, no doubt, predominantly the opinions to which he and those who sat on his side of the House were opposed; but that was in his mind rather a reason why, sitting there as judges or jurors, he and his hon. Friends around him should listen with the utmost caution and even incredulity to political charges made against them. Nevertheless, the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, without trial or proof, would have swept away the whole of those 2,700 voters, and thus completely upset the equipoise of parties, which notoriously existed in the Irish capital. There was no man in the House to whose experience and judgment in a case of difficulty or doubt he would not more willingly defer than the right hon. Member for Morpeth; but he must say that in the present case, doubt or diffi-
  958
  culty he had none. He could not but regard the Bill brought in by him as unjust; and it was palpable that the Bill now before them was but a second edition, carefully revised, of the same measure, in favour of which the first was to be withdrawn. Some hon. Gentlemen had sought to rely on precedents. As far as he knew there were but four which had ever been alluded to, and none of them were really in point. At Gram-pound, in 1819, nearly the whole of an insignificantly small constituency were shown to have been bribed. The purchase was by wholesale, and its shame was so flagrant, that upon an indictment, the sitting Member was found guilty and sentenced to a fine of several thousand pounds by a court of law. Even then the House did not proceed without having before it a copy of the record, and hearing evidence at the Bar as to indiscriminate and universal corruption of the place. Grampound was a libel and a burlesque upon the representation, and therefore Parliament did well in sweeping it away. Did this furnish any example or warrant for dealing with the fifth part of a constituency numbering 13,000 voters? Sudbury was disfranchised in 1844. The whole constituency did not exceed 594; and the Commissioners reported not only many cases of proved venality, but their unanimous opinion "that systematic and extensive bribery prevailed at that election for the borough." St. Albans, with a constituency of only 483 was disfranchised under similar circumstances; the Commissioners reported that "out of a constituency of 483 there usually took bribes 308." Parliament, therefore, wisely and fitly disfranchised these places, because it was palpably impossible to reckon upon a pure election being had in either of them. That was a conclusive reason for general disfranchisement; but did anyone assert a similar reason here? His hon. Friend the Member for Galway had told the House how he had been fleeced at a Dublin election £4,500 under the plea of buying the votes of certain freemen. But that was eight and twenty years ago; and they were bound to believe that his hon. Friend did not know into how many corrupt pockets his money went, so that really his testimony on the issue before them amounted to nothing. Finally, there was the case of Yarmouth, where the freemen only and not the

  959
  householders had by a special Act of Parliament been deprived of their votes. He (Mr. Torrens) was of the Parliament of 1847, by whom that Act was passed. What were the facts. The Chairman of the Committee of five (Mr. Ker Seymour) was a man still remembered with respect and affection by many within that House. He was of the same politics as the sitting Members who were unseated on proof of a prodigal outlay of money on the purchase of votes. The Committee reported—
  "That gross, systematic, and extensive bribery prevailed at the last and at the previous election; and expressed their unanimous opinion that the freemen of the borough should be disfranchised."
  On this a Commission was issued, and very properly so. But is this a precedent? The Judge in the present case acts instead of the old Committee of five; but it is not even pretended that he has made any distinct recommendation whatever. On these grounds I must therefore differ from my right hon. and learned Friend, and vote against his Bill.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that the Act of 1868 having removed from Committees the trial of Election Petitions, they did not now seek to bring back the discussion of these cases to the floor of the House; but they had not abandoned the power of dealing with the Report of the Judge as they formerly had dealt with the Report of the Committee. That distinction should be borne in mind. This House was the ultimate resort to which the Report of the Judge must come. His hon. Friend the Member for Fins-bury (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens) asked why the Attorney General for Ireland did not prosecute the guilty, but had his hon. Friend looked at the Return presented that morning? What was the result of the prosecutions? How many convictions had been obtained? It was said this proceeding was without precedent. He said there were good grounds for the disfranchisement of St. Albans, 300 out of 450 electors having been proved guilty. But how were they so proved guilty? By a Commission; yet his hon. Friend objected to the issuing of a Commission. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) introduced his Bill, they were told there ought first to be an inquiry; and now when inquiry was proposed, they were told there were no grounds for it. The Judge had gone as
  960
  far as he could, and expressly left it to the House of Commons to deal with the cases of the freemen and the constituency affected by them. By passing the Act of last year the House desired to make the trial of Election Petitions a reality, and if, when the Judge had reported that gross and extensive corruption prevailed in a constituency, they refused to adopt the proper proceedings, the responsibility would rest with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it had been admitted on all hands that this was a piece of exceptional legislation. He thought it exceptional in every respect. He could not agree with the proposal of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), which was to brand these freemen outright. Now, another proposal was made to try them, but he (Mr. Henley) was unable to support even that proposition. The number of persons implicated in the Report of the Judge was very limited, with one exception. Even in the case where the Judge had satisfied himself of the names and numbers the evidence did not appear to bear out to the full extent what the Judge had reported. He had carefully perused the evidence to see whether it did or did not bear out the Judge's Report. One paragraph stated that eleven had been bribed in a particular house, and the learned Judge proceeded to say that twenty or thirty others had been bribed in the same place. Any person reading that might fairly infer that forty persons had been there altogether. But of three witnesses who had been examined as to what had occurred in the house two did not carry the number beyond fifteen, and one only said it was not more than thirty. The Judge certainly had put it at the outside; and when a man spoke of twenty or thirty, and eleven had been mentioned beforehand, one would be apt to believe that forty persons had been in the house. Then there was not a title of evidence to prove that the persons who asked to be bribed were not the same persons. Then came a great sweeping drag-net at the end, which included 200 in addition to the former. What was that portion of the Judge's Report founded on? It seemed that a number of persons signed declarations that they would act gratuitously, and the Judge reported that that was colourable and evasive. The evi-

  961
  deuce was that there were between 300 and 400 in that position; but the Judge took and picked out the number as exactly 385. But out of these 385 no less than seventy were stated, in the evidence, to be solicitors. The Judge spoke of that as "a most portentous birth." But was it really such a "portentous birth" that solicitors on such an occasion should act without pay? His experience of his own county was that solicitors frequently acted in that way. He had read the evidence most carefully, and the conclusion he had come to was very different from that of the Judge. An attempt was made two years ago to get rid of the Dublin freemen, and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had said that twenty-seven years ago, to his knowledge, that body was corrupt. There had, however, been one inquiry since, out of which they came with clean hands; and he was sorry that a Motion like the present should have been made, because he believed the more the evidence was sifted the less it would bear it out.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid there could be no doubt that the Bill proposed to be introduced was a purely party measure introduced at the dictation of the masters of the Government. There were some who said that the masters of the Government were the Fenians; but it might be said, with greater truth, that the masters of the Government were the priests. There was no doubt if the freemen of Dublin were disfranchised that the priests would become as supreme over the representation of that city as they were now over its corporation.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 239; Noes 136: Majority 103.
  Bill ordered, to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNET GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 189.]

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

PARLIAMENT — INSUFFICIENT ACCOMMODATION OF THE HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, it would be recollected that at an earlier period of the Session he brought before the House the present state of the accommodation of Members. He then asked the House to consent to a Resolution not in favour of any particular plan, but agreeing in substance with the Report of the Select Committee. He was not aware that he met with any opposition in the course of that discussion; but he thought it right to accede to the advice given him by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, not to press his Motion to a division. As there were a great number of new Members in the present House he did not think he was justified in asking them to come to a vote in favour of the construction of a new building until they had had experience of the accommodation provided by the present. Since then the debate on the Irish Church and other debates had strengthened his case; and, although the plans for a new building had been for a considerable time before the House, no objections had been raised to the proposal of the Committee. More recently, the Chief Commissioner of Works had circulated a plan for the re-construction of the dining room of the House. The present dining room was, in his opinion, incapable of improvement. It was a long low room, with a northern aspect, quite unsuited to its purpose. By the proposed plan, rooms were appropriated on the dining-room floor, but with a southern aspect, and available both for the Lords and Commons. This would be a great improvement, and it could be carried out without much difficulty. Before the plan of the new House could be carried out, it would be necessary that the dining room should be re-constructed; and he would suggest that during the vacation this part of Mr. Barry's plan should be carried out, and then, when the House met next year, it should determine what should be done in regard to the recommendation of the Select Committee in favour of the construction of a new House of Commons. He had brought the subject before the House in order that the Government might express their opinion and intention as to what should be done.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "before granting the sums required for the maintenance and repair of the present Houses of Parliament, this House deems it right to state its opinion that the present accommodation for Members is not sufficient,"—(Mr. Headlam,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, that, as a Member of the Select Committee, presided over with so much ability by the right, hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam), he wished to bear his testimony to the insufficiency of the accommodation provided by the present building. The right hon. Gentleman had exercised a wise discretion in not calling upon the new Members to vote for the construction of a new House until they had had some experience of the present building, and it took some time for them to realize the discomforts of the House, especially during great debates. The utter insufficiency of the offices of the House—the Vote Office, the Post Office, the Public Bill Office, the refreshment stall, and so forth, must now be known to all, and the question was only one of time. The Chief Commissioner of Works had made, he feared, a rash and injudicious promise when, in a moment of enthusiasm, he undertook to enlarge and improve the accommodation of the Ladies' Gallery. He believed he might confidentially assert that it would be impossible to do anything for them in the present building, except, perhaps, to raise their seats and take away the bars in front of their gallery. There was nothing more important than that the reporters of that House should be fully and conveniently accommodated. The late Member for Belfast (Sir Charles Lanyon) personally examined the Reporters' Gallery, the means of access to it, and the rooms behind it, and he stated that nothing could be worse than the ventilation, heat, and crowding to which those gentlemen were exposed. There existed, moreover, no means of enlarging the accommodation when additional seats in their gallery were required. He trusted that the subject of the accommodation of the House and the necessity of constructing a new House would be
  964
  seriously considered by the Government during the Recess.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped that, in reference to the proposed alteration of the dining room, the right hon. Gentleman would put himself in communication with the Chief Commissioner of Works and the authorities in the House of Lords. With regard to the larger question, as to the general accommodation for Members in that House, he trusted that it would not be considered necessary to enter upon that matter at the present time; because they had arrived at that period of the Session when it was impossible to give it adequate consideration. He believed that question must stand over till another Session. When the subject was brought forward on a former day the undertaking was that no further step would be taken upon it during the present Session. As far as the Government were concerned, they had been occupied with more urgent matters, and as respected them the question stood very much in the same state as before. He should be very grateful if the Speaker were now allowed to leave the Chair, because the Business was in a backward state, as far as the Miscellaneous Estimates were concerned.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he understood the First Minister of the Crown to agree that the plan submitted by the Chief Commissioner of Works should form the basis of communications with the other House of Parliament. He must say, however, that, unless those communications received the full sanction of the Government as a whole, he did not see that any result would be obtained by the isolated suggestions of the Chief Commissioner of Works. It was, therefore, necessary to know whether the Government gave their assent to the plan of the new dining room proposed by the Chief Commissioner?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works had not yet had occasion, to make himself officially responsible for the plan; but if, after communicating with the authorities in the House of Lords, his right hon. Friend should be prepared to act, then the act should be not the act of a Department, but of the Government.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he thought that the matter was not one to be settled by a conversation between the right hon. Gentlemen, but that it con-

  965
  cerned the whole House. The present was a most opportune moment for opening negotiations with the other House on the subject; and he trusted that next Session they would have a new dining room, and that the Session following the next would find them in a House of Commons that was not a disgrace to the nation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

FEED STUFFS AND MANURES.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose to call attention to the adulteration of feed stuffs and manures. His attention was first called to this subject by a letter he received on the 20th of March last from the Marquess of Tweeddale, the Lord Lieutenant of his county, a most eminent agriculturist, who had done more for agriculture than any other man in Scotland. That letter, referring to the greatly increased demand for artificial manures, stated that a corresponding amount of adulteration had arisen. Adulteration was carried on to a most extraordinary extent, and so artfully was it done as almost to escape notice. What he asked was not any protection that would enhance the price of agricultural produce in the market, but protection against the fraudulent practices which existed, and were daily increasing, in the manufacture of manures. Last week the Highland Society met, and the Report of the Committee stated that on no previous occasion had the number of analyses been so large, clearly proving the necessity of care in purchasing these manures. The amount of adulteration detected was small compared with what passed unchallenged. Considering it his duty to get what information he could, he had gone to the Professor of Chemistry to the Royal Agricultural Society of England, and he would state some of the results of his inquiries. Of late years one of the most important manures in this country was guano, of which there were six different descriptions. The best Peruvian sold in the Liverpool market at £13 5s., the next description was sold at £7; others fetched £6 10 s., £6 15 s., £9, and some sorts as low as £4 per ton. Formerly the best Peruvian contained 19 per cent of ammonia; but now it was thought first class at 16 per cent; more frequently
  966
  it contained only 14½ and 15 per cent. Guano was adulterated by chalk, gypsum, and, above all, by a yellow loam found on an island in the Mersey— Liverpool being the great manufactory of the adulterated article. That Mersey loam, or yellow sand, used for the purpose of adulterating guano fetched from £1 to £1 5s., and its appearance was most deceptive. He had seen what looked like a very beautiful specimen of guano, but which contained 50 per cent of this Mersey sand; and the price of the genuine article being £12 per ton, the adulterated article was sold at £8. But that was not all. There was a kind of British guano which was absolutely worthless. This was sold at £4 and £6 per ton. It was well known that good guano contained lumps of crystallized uric acid, and these were picked out and mixed with the sand in question. The farmer, seeing these, thought he had got a splendid article, bought it, and laid it on his land; but the sand was of no kind of use whatever, and the uric acid was so strong that it destroyed the vegetation within a certain distance round each lump. Then, again, the presence of ammonia being known by a strong smell, something was put into these manures in order to create this strong smell. Thus the most knowing farmers were deceived. These adulterations could not be detected by the eye— they could only be detected by analysis. Another mode of making spurious goods pass for sound was by inventing wrong names, making up a sort of compound and calling it "Swan Island guano," or some such name, taken from a place which had no existence, and the manufacturer giving out that he was the sole consignee. He came now to bones, which in their raw state were worth £5 per ton, and when crushed from £7 to £7 10 s. They were sold for £6, £7, or £8, not in their pure state, but when adulterated with 50 per cent of gypsum, worth from 14 s. to £1 2s. per ton. They were further adulterated with vegetable ivory turnings from factories at Birmingham, which were sold at £2 10 s. or £3 per ton, and the only value of which arose from their use in adulterating bones. Sulphate of ammonia was adulterated with sulphate of magnesia or Epsom salts. Nitrate of soda, worth £14 or £15 per ton, was adulterated with salt. There were many manufac-

  967
  turers who bought nitrate of soda for purposes of adulteration, and who insisted upon the full letter of their bond —that is, that the maximum of impurity in the nitrate of soda should not exceed 5 per cent. Blood manure very often contained very little blood, and nitrogenous manures were adulterated with leather, which was utterly worthless as a manure. In Scotland he might safely say that the sum expended by farmers upon artificial manures amounted to more than half their rent. He came now to feed stuffs. The main feeding stuff ordinarily advertised was linseed cake, of which there were various descriptions. The pure contained only from 5 to 6 per cent of impurity; and the best test was to dissolve 100 grains in four ounces of water, and if the cake was pure it ought to form, when dissolved, a thick jelly. He had said that Liverpool was the head-quarters of adulterated manures, but Hull was the capital of adulterated feed stuffs. Out of the forty mills in Hull only three manufactured pure linseed cake, and, taking the whole United Kingdom, there was only one in ten which turned out the cake pure. The manufacturers sold three or four different qualities, the "pure" being charged £12; the "genuine" £11 15 s.; and another description £10 10 s. Pure oilcake was a fancy article, and a co-operative agricultural society had been started to supply it. When asked for at Hull it was said it did not exist. Some of these cakes were supposed to be pure, and were branded with the letter "P" to indicate that they were so; but, as he was informed by the eminent chemist to whom he had before referred, analysis showed that it contained from 20 to 40 per cent of adulteration. The best article was, as a rule, 10 per cent worse than pure. In fact, the brand of the trader was no security for the quality of linseed as a whole. Some kinds of adulteration were comparatively harmless—that is to say, they only robbed the buyer; but other kinds did positive injury to the cattle. They often contained seeds which passed uninjured through the animals, and sprouted as weeds in the fields of the farmer. Some of the materials used were castor oil, beans, cotton seed, ground nut, cocoanut, corncockle, mustard seed, purging flax, husks of rice, and acorns. Some of the samples contained 80 per
  968
  cent of adulteration, and in certain cases such a quantity of mustard seed had been used, that the cake professing to be oilcake might have been broken up and used as mustard at table. He had seen in the laboratory of a doctor specimens of oilcake labelled as being part of cake that had killed Mr. So-and-so's cows, and he held in his hand a sample of cake that had killed the cows belonging to an hon. Member of that House. Another portion of cake he held in his hand was made of mere sweepings of various manufactures, and, although utterly worthless, was sold at the rate of £4 a ton. The system of adulterating the food of quadrupeds was carried to as great an extent as the system of adulterating the food of bipeds had been formerly, and therefore he thought that since Parliament had thought it right to legislate in the latter case, they should take some steps to interfere in the former case also. Doubtless he should be met by the caveat emptor argument—he should be told that the remedy he should look to was not legislation but an increased intelligence on the part of the farmer. He held, however, that it was the duty of the Government to protect people against fraud as well as against violence. It was impossible that the small farmer could bring the requisite chemical knowledge to bear upon the subject to protect himself from robbery of this description. The real question, in his opinion, was, whether or not the evil was sufficiently great to justify legislative interference. He did not know what views were entertained upon this point by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who he was sorry not to see in his place upon that occasion; but from a remark which the right hon. Gentleman had let fall the other night when speaking to him upon the subject, he was afraid that the farmers had not much to hope from him. The right hon. Gentleman had said to him on the occasion to which he referred—"Why do you always take up the most ridiculous questions?" He mentioned the circumstance to show that the farmers who looked up to the President of the Board of Trade as their protector—almost their guardian angel— against fraud, were not likely to obtain much satisfaction at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. The impression that prevailed among the farmers in

  969
  Scotland was, that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely ignorant upon this subject, and required enlightening upon it. The right hon. Gentleman had said the other day that, if we were to go on inspecting everything, one-half the world would be inspecting the other half; but if inspection were necessary, steps should be taken to insure the establishment of a proper system, under which it could be advantageously carried out. The principle of inspection had been acted upon with reference to chicory and other adulterations of human food, and there was no reason why the same principle should not be applied to the adulteration of the food of cattle. He felt certain that the Government ought to apply a remedy. What he would suggest was the remedy of publicity— that an analysis should be made, and that the names of fraudulent tradesmen should be published at stated periods in the London Gazette, or some other publication. Something, at all events, should be done, and he moved that, in the opinion of the House, it was desirable that the attention of the Board of Trade should be directed to this subject.
  MR. WELBYseconded the Motion, because his recent investigations into this and kindred matters had convinced him that the frauds referred to by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) were of enormous extent, and deserved the most serious consideration of the Government and Parliament; but he confessed to having serious doubts whether any special legislation on them was practicable. Of these two branches of adulteration that of feeding stuffs was probably the most important, for by it our supply of beef and mutton was directly affected. The loss caused by the use of adulterated cake had been variously estimated at from one-quarter to half of the produce—that was to say, that to feed an animal to a given stage of ripeness took from a quarter to half as long again, and, therefore, cost from a quarter to half as much again more money with the adulterated cake sold as it would do with pure. But there were two great difficulties in the way of dealing with this—one which had been clearly pointed out by the Lord Chief Baron, in 1862, in the cause which led to the formation of the Driffield Company— that the production of oilcake is not the primary object of the seed-crusher. His original trade was to
  970
  express oil, worth £30 or £40 per ton; and the cake, valuable as it was, was really only the refuse of his manufacture. He was not in any way bound, like those who sell food for man, to see that what he sells is wholesome; the purchaser must look to that; and, as it happened that the interest of the seed-crusher and the cake consumer were not altogether identical—for the purest linseed did not give the most oil—you could scarcely punish the crusher for not selling that which he did not aim or profess to produce. But whether he should not be punished for professing to sell as pure that which was not so, was another question. On that the second difficulty arose, that in the adulteration of vegetable matters chemical analysis gave little or no assistance. Professor Voelcker said it would be easy to concoct a cake, without a particle of linseed in it, which should give the same chemical results as one made of pure linseed. The consequence of all this to the farmer was most serious. The crusher had learnt that his refuse was a marketable and valuable article, and he made it an important, though subordinable branch of his trade. And how did he carry on that branch? He sheltered himself under the peculiarities of his position, and as already stated by the noble Lord, scarcely 10 per cent of the oil mills in England turned out a pure article. Many cakes contained no linseed at all; many were adulterated with poisonous materials, as castor oil beans, croton oil beans, and curcas beans. Not long ago, Professor Voelcker produced a sample of rape-cake, mixed with wild mustard, which had killed three oxen; and another composed of "the sweepings" of an oil mill and the warehouse of a general provision dealer, a very little of which in two days had killed fourteen sheep, three horses, and a pony. Special machinery had been invented for the close imitation of linseed cake; rice dust, pollard, oat dust, &c, were made into "buff-em," which had been wittily described to be to cake what "bunkum" is to speech. Other stuffs were similarly adulterated. Rico meal had been made of rice husks and chalk. Another, Dr. Voelcker had described as of no more value than a mixture of saw dust and ground flints. In 1863 Dr. Voeleker gave a lecture on this subject, which produced a good effect for a time,

  971
  but that gradually wore off, and now, owing to the demand produced by the failure of green crops last year, the adulteration was worse than ever. But the best remedy appeared to him (Mr. Welby) to be the establishment of oil mills on co-operative or limited liability principles, whose first object should be the making of pure cake, leaving the production of oil merely subsidiary. This had been done with great success at Driffield in Yorkshire. So again with manures, legislation would be difficult. It was not easy to define artificial manure, as some farmers liked it mixed with soot, gypsum, &c, and the adulteration was not easily discoverable at the time. Many a man went on wondering for a long time at the smallness of his crops from fields on which he had laid out large sums in manure; and when at last the true cause dawned upon him, the proofs of his having been cheated had vanished into the soil and the air, and he had no hope of redress. His case was a very hard one. Suppose, for instance, he bought guano, no ocular inspection, however careful, could tell whether guano was adulterated or not; but chemical analysis could. He turned to that, and the ingenuity of his persecutors converted it into a fresh instrument of torture for him. The dealers had found out that he had begun to attach belief to analysis; so they themselves sent a capital sample to be analyzed, ostentatiously published the analysis, and then adulterated the bulk which is bought on the strength of it with loam, salt, sand, &c. Or suppose he bought phosphatic manures, their value depended mainly on the percentage of soluble phosphate, or phosphoric acid in a soluble form that they contained, for in that shape they were most readily taken up by the plants. Each unit of this per cent was really worth about 3s. 6d.; so that for these manures to be worth anything like what they were sold at, they ought to contain 30 or 40 per cent of soluble phosphate. Well, what were the facts? Samples analyzed for the Kendal Farmers' Club contained, instead of 44 per cent, which they should have done at their average price of £7 14 s., less than 20 per cent. He spoke with some confidence on this point, because much attention had lately been directed to it in South Lincolnshire; and there one sample lately analyzed
  972
  contained 6 per cent of phosphates, 54 per cent of sand, and the rest water. Of eleven other samples, at an average price of £6 8s. per ton, five contained only 12 per cent, or less; one contained only 2 per cent; and was worth, therefore, about 7 s., its price being £6; and one at £6 contained no soluble phosphate at all. The fraudulent dealers' excuse for all this was—"The farmers, in their ignorance, won't give above a certain price; we must concoct an article which we can sell them at that price, or not sell at all." There was considerable force in that argument, but the joke might be carried too far. It had been so in South Lincolnshire; for there the farmers, disgusted with the result of their inquiries, had formed themselves into an association to buy their manures direct from the manufacturers, in large quantities, with a guarantee of their quality, and to analyze them. The result had been that the members had already saved a large sum, equal to the whole of their poor rate, and they were extending so widely that their next order would be for from 10,000 to 15,000 tons. This appeared to him to be the true direction in which to look for a remedy for the evil; but though he had these doubts as to the possibility of effectual legislation, if an effectual law could be devised to assist the farmers in their efforts to protect themselves, he would hail it most cordially. In Maine a law came into operation on that very day providing that every bag or barrel of manure should bear a label, giving the maker's name, his place of business, and the percentage of phosphates and ammonia that it contained. If it did not come up to the description, the dealer might be punished. Something like this might eventually be practicable. Like the noble Lord he was not sanguine enough to expect much assistance from the President of the Board of Trade, for he had plainly intimated that he thought legislation on these matters impolitic, discussion unprofitable, and agriculture so flourishing, as to stand in no need of legislative assistance. "With all due submission, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was wrong on all three points. The first two were matters of opinion, but the last was one of fact; and he would venture to say, from a somewhat long and extensive acquaintance with them, that the farmers were

  973
  by no means so prosperous as the President of the Board of Trade thought. Too many of them earned their livelihood from hand to mouth; at the best of times their margin of profit was always narrow, and the bad season last year had, in many instances, touched seriously on their capital. He would undertake to say, in their name, that they would be deeply grateful for any effort which Parliament in its wisdom might think fit to make to protect them from the rapacity of those insatiable harpies, adulteration and fraud.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the attention of the Board of Trade should be directed to the adulteration of feed stuffs and manures,"—(Lord Elcho,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he thought a great deal of what was complained of could be traced to the fact that, notwithstanding the warnings which had been put forth by the various agricultural societies, farmers were willing to accept any compound that was offered to them as a new manure by unprincipled adulterators. He thought that the farmers, to a great extent, held the remedy in their own hands. Let them refuse to purchase from any manufacturer who would not give them a guaranteed analysis. This plan had been adopted in Scotland; the farmers forming themselves into local associations, and appointing chemical inspectors, and after two years, in a district where adulteration had been carried on to an immense extent, there was not found one single article of adulterated manure. He thought the adulteration of oil cake was due, in a great measure, to the fact that farmers preferred to give a much higher price for home-made cake than for foreign cake, some of which, and that from America in particular, was far superior to what was sold as home-made cake. Formerly the millers threw their oat-husks into the rivers. The husks were afterwards bought up at a high price, and ground up and mixed with other materials. Farmers must learn to exercise more caution. Oleaginous seeds could not be distinguished by the chemist; in these cases microscopical observation was necessary. In his opinion
  974
  the farmer should be treated as other traders were, and if other traders did not ask for protection he did not see why the farmer should. He spoke boldly on this point because he belonged to the agricultural interest.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that two hon. Members who had spoken before him, while admitting the evils that existed, and also the difficulty of legislation, had admitted likewise that the true remedy was in the hands of the farmer himself. He was glad that this discussion had come on so soon after the debate on the adulteration of seeds, because it was possible that the Committee to which the Adulteration of Seeds Bill had been referred might be able to devise a remedy applicable to the present case also. But there was another Bill before the House upon a much larger question—namely, the adulteration of the food of the people, and it would be impossible to deal with so small a subject as feed stuffs and manures while the far more important question touching the food of the people was concerned was still undecided. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had said that the small farmers were unable to protect themselves, but the information he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had received pointed to an opposite conclusion. He had received a letter from a gentleman of great experience within the last few days, pointing out that in various districts of Scotland the farmers were sufficiently protected from these frauds by combining and forming associations among themselves. One instance was given of a district in which in the beginning much bad seed was sold; but the members of the association ceased to purchase from those who sold bad articles, and one by one the inferior vendors were weeded out. That would show that the farmers had the means of protecting themselves, and even of stamping adulteration out of a district. The farmers, by co-operation, having chemists attached to their associations, and by purchasing on a guaranteed analysis, had an easy method of meeting the evils complained of. Let it be known that there was an analytical association within the district, and adulteration would cease.
  MR. READsaid, the adulteration of manures and feeding stuffs was a great and crying evil, beyond the means of detection of small farmers, and therefore

  975
  it was the duty of the Government to provide a remedy. He did not fancy that the question was ripe for legislation, but he held that the whole matter of adulteration and of fraud should be inquired into, and he hoped in a short time they would have a Commission to investigate the subject. As to farmers having their protection in their own hands, so had other people, and yet the Government stepped in to protect them; for instance, persons who seat diseased meat to market were liable to fine and imprisonment, and in the city of Norwich last year a farmer who sent fifty quarters of old and dirty wheat to a mill to have it cleansed, had that wheat seized and, burnt in the public market. Their great national agricultural societies ought to help farmers by taking the risk of actions from publishing the names of fraudulent vendors of manures and feeding stuffs.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he believed that farmers would be able to obtain plenty of pure oilcake if they would pay a fair price for it.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

REGINA v. OVEREND, GURNEY, & Co.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. EYKYNsaid, he rose to call attention to the case of "Regina v. Gurney and others." In bringing this most important subject under the notice of the House, he had been actuated by a sense of public duty. The Company had been started in 1865 with a capital of £5,000,000, and in May, 1866, it had become bankrupt, with engagements amounting to £15,000,000, of which some £4,000,000 had to be met by the shareholders. The truth was that the Company ought never to have been formed at all, because from the outset it was not in a solvent state. Had the Committee of the Stock Exchange compelled the directors to make good their undertaking by which they guaranteed all outstanding liabilities, they would have been unable to do so, and the shares would never have been floated on the market. In the year 1865–6, the Stock Exchange Committee had permitted companies whose aggregate capi-
  976
  tal amounted to £34,700,000 to come before the public, the whole of which were in liquidation within the following year. Under these circumstances it was clear that the initiation of these companies ought not to be left under the sole control and supervision of the Stock Exchange. The effects upon public morality of cases of this kind were most deleterious, and they created a most unfavourable impression abroad. The matter had passed through an ordeal which rendered it imperatively necessary that all proceedings in reference to it should be conducted by the Government, and not left in the hands of private individuals. Dr. Thorn had already expended all the money he could spare in conducting this prosecution, and an application he had made to the Treasury for assistance had been rejected. The Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench had stated during the day that he must decline to hear Dr. Thorn otherwise than by counsel; and therefore, when the case came on to-morrow, unless the Government took the matter up, the prosecution must of necessity fall through. The case rested now entirely with the Lord Chief Justice, with the Government, whom he regarded as distinctly responsible for the issue, and with public opinion; and, if the prosecution were allowed to drop, it might be truly said that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. He asked what was the meaning of "Regina v. Gurney," &c, if there was to be no prosecution at the instance of the Government? In most other countries there was a public prosecutor, and Lord Brougham and other eminent legal authorities had suggested that such an officer should be appointed in this country. Doubts had been expressed as to whether the prosecutor had not been requested to withdraw from this case, but he knew the character of Dr. Thorn and of the directors of the Company too well to give credence to the insinuation for a moment. A former Government had not hesitated to direct its Law Officers to prosecute in the case of the British Bank, and he did not see where the difficulty lay in following the same course in the present case. The outlay in that prosecution might have been enormous, but the effect in commercial circles was such that it was money well laid out. The Lord Mayor had investigated this case for seven days, and had

  977
  committed the defendants for trial. A jury of merchants had confirmed this course, and if the prosecution were not consummated it would be almost a scandal upon the Government. The hon. Member was proceeding to road his Motion when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the House having agreed to the Motion that he should, leave the Chair, it was not competent for the hon. Member to conclude with his Resolution.
  MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Eykyn) that those who went into this concern hoping to make large gains, but who made instead great losses, were to come to that House and ask them to supply the funds of the country to carry on a prosecution which was the result of their own angry feeling. He spoke on this occasion as a sufferer, for, contrary to his usual habits, he took 100 shares in the Company, whereby he had sustained a loss of £4,000. He had consequently taken a great deal of pains to understand the case, and if he thought he had been defrauded, he would have been one of the first to commence such a prosecution. He had not, however, as a shareholder, done what other shareholders had attempted to do—namely, to repudiate the debts of the Company. Of one thing he was certain that if that attempt had succeeded, they would have heard nothing of this prosecution. The reason why this claim was now made was on account of the magnitude of the operation and the disappointment of those who took part in it, but he did not see why the ease on these grounds called for any exceptional legislation. He was not acquainted with the defendants except in the ordinary course of business. He had, however, trusted them in the business transactions of many years with vast amounts, and he might have been plundered to almost any extent, but he had always found their honour perfect. This had, to his mind, too much of the character of a vindictive prosecution, and was only to be explained by the injustice and cruelty incident to angry disappointment; he therefore protested against the proposal that the money for carrying it on should come out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, that he also had been no small loser by the Com-
  978
  pany, but he would neither defend them nor would he, on the other hand, assist in supplying materials for the opening speech of a prosecuting counsel on the eve of a great trial. There had been too many sensation articles in a portion of the Press in this case, but he had not expected that an opportunity of raising a sensational discussion on this question would have been made in the House of Commons. ["No!"] That was, at any rate the effect of the discussion raised that night. He had had a life-long acquaintance with the gentleman concerned, and his opinion was that the prosecutor had no claim to ask for the public money to carry on this prosecution. Dr. Thom had appealed to the shareholders for money to carry it on, and whether the money had been otherwise spent upon the case, or whether they had not responded to Dr. Thom's calls, in either event he had no claim upon the public funds. If, after the trial, it should appear that there had been a default of public justice, that would be the time to raise the grave question of the appointment of a public prosecutor.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, there was nothing which independent Members of that House disliked so much as to see a fair issue upon an important question defeated by a technical artifice. He and others who supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn) were anxious that it should be tested by a division. In order, however, to defeat that object an hon. Member on the Treasury Bench and another hon. Member connected with the Government challenged the Speaker's decision on the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), and thereby prevented the present Motion from being put. That was a remarkably clever thing, and it got rid of the issue. In order to mark his sense of this proceeding, he should, before he sat down, strain the forms of the House, as an indirect way of expressing an opinion on the issue which he was led to raise, and his opinion of the tactics resorted to by the Government. He denied that the demand for this prosecution arose from any vindictive feeling. The strongest plea for it was that justice to those who were accused demanded a fair trial. Here were men of great name—almost of historic character and of European reputation — accused

  979
  of a terrible crime. If they were guilty, let them be punished as they deserved to be; but if they were innocent, let their innocence be proved in a way that could not be disputed. Let them not leave the Court with a stigma or a blemish on their character. If the trial went on to-morrow without the interference of the Government, the acquittal of the accused could not be satisfactory. The Lord Chief Justice had decided not to hear the prosecutor except by counsel, and no counsel without previous consideration of his brief, would have the hardihood to undertake the case. He therefore repeated that an acquittal under such circumstances would not be satisfactory to the public or the accused. The Secretary of State for the Home Department said, the other day, that there was a precedent which ought not to be followed, but avoided. That was the prosecution in the case of the British Bank; but he had heard it remarked by commercial men that no expenditure had produced a more salutary result than that which occurred in that case, because it proved that the Government were ready to prosecute men, however high their position, who had committed fraud against the public. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was not an. exceptional case. From that statement he emphatically differed. In an ordinary and. simple case, where no counsel appeared for the prosecution, the Judge would look over the depositions, or hand them over to a barrister; but, from the nature of this ease, it was impossible for the Judge to take that course in the present instance. He had now redeemed the pledge he gave not to show the slightest trace of vindictive feeling against the unhappy accused, and he would say, in conclusion, that no one could exaggerate the mischief which the break-down of this trial would occasion. It was all very well to say that if the Government interfered they would have to spend £5,000 of the public money; but the public would look over the Estimates, and, finding that on some items £5,000 were comparatively wasted, would come to the conclusion that it would have been infinitely better to spend the sum in the furtherance of public justice. The course which the Government proposed to pursue would cause a public distrust in the administration of the law, because people would
  980
  say that if the sum involved was small —some £5 or £10—the accused would have been brought to justice; but when millions of money were concerned, then the accused escaped altogether from trial. He trusted that in the interests of British commerce and the national reputation the accused might be declared not guilty; but he believed that it would be regarded as a great failure of justice and a national scandal if, for want of a public prosecutor, the trial entirely fell to the ground. He moved that this House do now adjourn.
  MR. MUNDELLAseconded the Motion. He disclaimed the smallest vindictive feeling, but it was desirable in the interest of the accused, as well as of British commerce, and our national reputation that the gentlemen who were about to be put upon their trial should be declared not guilty. It would be regarded as a great miscarriage of justice, and a great national scandal, if, from the want of a public prosecutor, this trial should prove abortive.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that before going to the merits of the question, he was anxious to meet the charge made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) against the Government. The hon. Member said that the Treasury Bench, for the purpose of preventing the sense of the House being taken on this question, negatived the Motion of the noble Lord, the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho).
  MR. FAWCETTexplained that his remark applied only to a Member on the Treasury Bench and a Member of the Government in another part of the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it made no difference whether anybody cried out "No" or "Aye;" because the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire did not withdraw his Amendment, and therefore it had to be put to the House, and the House decided in favour of putting the original Question that "I now leave the Chair."'
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he fully admitted the magnitude of the issue to be tried to-morrow in its bearing on the commercial morality of the country, and the importance which the public attached to the trial; but the question they had to consider was, whether the Government should treat this case in an exceptional manner, and supply for this prosecution

  981
  funds which had been almost uniformly denied in other cases. There had been for many years but one exception to the rule that the Crown never interfered in these prosecutions. That was the case of the Royal British Bank. Since that time there had been three very remarkable cases of alleged commercial fraud without any interference on the part of the Government. In the case of the Royal British Bank the cost incurred was £20,000. That was in 1857. Was it meant to be said that since that time there had not been great commercial frauds spreading deep disaster on all sides, and causing enormous losses to both rich and poor? Were not these cases entitled, on a fair consideration of commercial morality, to the interference of the Government, as well as this case? This was not a question of millions; the Government was bound to act on some definite principle. If the House was dissatisfied with the practice of the Government, they ought long ago to have raised this question. There had been cases of gross misrepresentation, cases of fraudulent dividends, cases of the grossest breaches of honesty and commercial morality; and on no occasion, except the one referred to, had the Government contributed to the expenses of the prosecution. And even in that case, upon a consideration of the whole facts, the Secretary of State who directed the prosecution was of opinion that the course then taken should not be repeated. Certainly, when an application was made last year in a somewhat similar case, that of the Leeds Bank, his predecessor in Office refused to take part in the prosecution. This was not a time to raise the question whether there ought to be a public prosecutor. There might be great authorities—perhaps there might be a preponderance of authority—in favour of the appointment of a public prosecutor; but, although the question had been repeatedly raised, Parliament had not thought fit to legislate on the matter. Had there been a public prosecutor the course of proceeding would have been very different from that which the Government was now asked to pursue. All the materials would have been submitted to a competent officer, and thoroughly examined into; and that officer would have determined what course should be taken, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances of
  982
  the case. He was told that in Scotland, in a case somewhat similar to this, though not of the same vastness, the facts which appeared very strong against the directors had been submitted to the Lord Advocate, who determined that they were not sufficient to justify a prosecution, and no prosecution was instituted. But here the Government were called upon to intervene, without a knowledge of the facts of the case, because in a private prosecution, upon evidence taken in a few hours, the grand jury had found a true Bill against the accused. It was quite possible if the whole of the proceedings from the first had been submitted to the judgment of a practised lawyer he might have been of opinion that there was no case at all. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not giving any opinion; he entirely applauded the conduct of those Members who had spoken in this case and abstained from expressing any opinion of their own; but, when the hon. Member for Brighton asked for a contribution of £5,000 towards the expenses of this trial, it should be remembered that the Government would not have the direction of the prosecution. He was not quite clear that the course taken by the Attorney General, in the case of the Royal British Bank, of filing an information might not have been taken in this case; but no application was ever made to the Attorney General to file an information. And when Sir Richard Bethell was applied to in the Royal British Bank case he stated that it was only after the most careful and thorough examination into all the papers that he was satisfied that there was a case that would justify him in undertaking it. But it was a very different thing to be asked to intervene at an advanced stage of the proceedings, and to give the weight of the Government to this prosecution. It should also be remembered that the persons interested in the prosecution had ample means to conduct it. In that very House they had the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Fothergill), one of the largest ironmasters in the kingdom, and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple), who were shareholders; yet both had determined not to contribute towards the expenses of the prosecution. Besides, since the prosecution in the case of the Royal British Bank, an Act had passed which gave great facilities to the prose-

  983
  cutor. By the Act of 1857, incorporated with the Criminal Procedure Act of 1860, proof of these cases was rendered more easy, and the Judge had power to give costs to the prosecutor, so that he did not carry on the prosecution entirely at his own risk. Under all the circumstances of the case, the Government did not think they were specially called upon to make this ease an exception to the ordinary rule. If the House was discontented at the possible failure of justice, they should long ago have legislated so as to prevent a failure of justice. Could it be said that during the last twelve years there had not been cases of alleged fraud, which had thrown an enormous expense on the prosecutors; and why was this case, of all others, to be chosen as an exception to the general rule with regard to Government interference? Was it because it stood at five to three or four to two? Surety, they must proceed on some other rule. If blame was due anywhere it was to Parliament that it must be attributed. The mischief arising from the want of a public prosecutor had been long known; but Parliament—he did not say the present Parliament—had shrunk from, applying a remedy; and, having done so, it seemed not fair or just to fasten on the Government a censure for refusing to bring funds and the weight of their influence to bear on this particular case.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he thought that the effect of the Limited Liability Companies' Act of 1856 should be jealously watched by the Government. Widows, and persons of small means, had been induced to invest their money in such undertakings, and were thereby reduced to absolute poverty. In his own country, the accused would be prosecuted by the Attorney General for Ireland. No one asked the Government to commence a vindictive prosecution; but it was a case in which the Government should see that justice was done, and that a proper investigation took place.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he had not heard the whole of the debate, and he regretted it because he should like to have learned from the hon. Member who had opened it (Mr. Eykyn) what end he intended to serve by bringing this subject before the House. The public had not undertaken this prosecution; the Government had not undertaken it; a private individual,
  984
  injured in his own opinion — and he (Mr. Gilpin) was not prepared to say that that opinion was mistaken — took the opportunity of prosecuting those who he believed had injured him. That gentleman got the supposed offenders committed for trial, and the Government had nothing to do with that. And yet the Government were asked at this stage of a prosecution, to which they were no parties, to carry that prosecution to an end—and to what end? The hon. Gentleman, who had last spoken, appeared to urge the Government to undertake the prosecution on behalf of certain persons who had suffered by the failure of Overend, Gurney, and Co. He (Mr. Gilpin) had always advocated the appointment of a public prosecutor, but he objected to a prosecutor being appointed ex post facto for a particular case. Let it not be supposed that he was one of those who had not suffered. Members of his family had been reduced to the very verge of ruin by the failure of Overend, Gurney, & Co.; but those who had so suffered would not add a feather's weight to the humiliation and suffering which had already attended the members of that firm. He was not acquainted with all its members, but he knew the Gurneys; he called them friends in the hour of their prosperity, and he should be ashamed of himself if he hesitated to call them friends in the hour of their adversity. Within the last few days he had seen two of the persons whose conduct had been impugned, and he knew that they were desirous that the trial should proceed. He knew that they were confident that they could vindicate themselves. Well, then, let the trial be carried on by those who had conducted it hitherto. If they could not carry it on, they should not have instituted it; but he most respectfully protested against the power of the State being employed in sustaining a prosecution begun by a private person. He recollected it had been so employed on a former occasion, in which it was his opinion that, after an expenditure of £38,000, they got hold of and punished the wrong man.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENexplained that in what he had said, he guarded himself against expressing any opinion as to the guilt of those gentlemen. He should be very sorry to think they were guilty.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to add to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department any little weight his testimony could give. It never had been the practice of Government to take up a proceeding of this sort, at the stage at which it had now arrived. Whenever a prosecutor intended to call in the assistance of the Government, it was usual to do so before going before the committing magistrate. When a private prosecutor had gone on to the eleventh hour, it was too late to call on the Government to take up the case.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in the first place it should be borne in mind that there were two distinct questions raised in this discussion; one was the general question of the appointment of a public prosecutor, and the other the conduct of the Government with regard to this prosecution. As to the appointment of a public prosecutor, he had once or twice before expressed a strong opinion that such a public functionary was desirable, and he had seen no reason to change that opinion. But it must be remembered that we had no public prosecutor in this country. The Government was not a public prosecutor. The Attorney General was not. It was only in rare and exceptional cases that the Government had conducted prosecutions, and here he would observe that the application now made to the Government was entirely unprecedented. No Government had ever subsidized a prosecution. They either prosecuted or they did not, and if they did prosecute, the proceedings were conducted under the direction of the Secretary to the Treasury. For a prosecutor to go to the Government and say— "Give me so much money, but you shall have no control over the prosecution," was entirely without precedent. Then came the question whether the Government themselves ought to have under- taken the prosecution. The principles upon which the Government proceeded were these—first they had reference to the public importance of the prosecution, and secondly to the probability of a conviction. In order to enable the Crown to determine whether they would prose- cute or not it was absolutely necessary that they should have the evidence be- fore them; and, therefore, if Dr. Thom
  986
  and those who were conducting the prosecution had wished the Government to take up the case, they should have furnished the Law Officers of the Crown with all the information which they possessed respecting the case before the matter came before the Lord Mayor, or else have sent the depositions afterwards. Neither of those courses had, however, been adopted, and the result was that they were totally without information to enable them to judge whether there was a good case and whether it would be desirable for them to undertake the prosecution or not. It was impossible for the Crown to go into Court to-morrow morning, knowing nothing of the case, and say that the prosecution was now going to be conducted by the Government. Therefore, under these circumstances, however much hon. Members might regret the absence of a public prosecutor, they most feel it was impossible for the Government to have pursued any other course than the one they had adopted in the matter.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was quite aware of the importance that attached to the opinions of the hon. and learned Member behind him (Mr. Staveley Hill) and to that of the Attorney General, but it appeared to him, with all submission, that those hon. Members had overlooked the precise practical question before the House. He had not had the advantage of hearing the earlier part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but to the latter portion of that speech he had listend with great regret. This was a most important and extraordinary question, and one which touched the interest and the honour of this great country from one end of the country to the other. The failure of this great house had inflicted ruin and misery throughout the length and breadth of the land. Personally, he was not affected in any degree by the question, and therefore his opinion was free from any taint of partiality; but he was convinced that, if this prosecution were to be allowed to drop for want of funds, a deep blow would be inflicted upon the laws of this country, and great dissatisfaction would be felt by the public. If there was no precedent for the course the Government were asked to take, they might—as they had done in another case that night—make

  987
  a precedent. He hoped nothing so scandalous would occur as a failure of this prosecution from want of funds to carry it on.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, this subject was to him a peculiarly painful one, but he must express the deep regret which the directors and their friends would feel in the event of this prosecution not being proceeded with. They had been advised not to enter upon their defence before the Lord Mayor, in the belief that they would have an opportunity of setting themselves right with the public on their trial. He was intimately acquainted with the details of the defence; and, putting aside the errors of judgment which he was afraid the directors had fallen into, he could confidently assert that they were as free from all imputation of fraud as any hon. Members in that House. If the defence were to be entered into it would have an immense effect upon the public mind; and therefore he trusted in the interest of the directors, that the prosecution might go forward in order that their honesty might be triumphantly vindicated. If the prosecution were to drop through it would be by reason of the conduct of the rich shareholders, who were content to express their belief of the guilt of the directors without contributing 1d. towards the expenses of the prosecution. During the prosperity of the directors they were generally respected and beloved, and no persons had so much reason to deplore the ruin of the undertaking as the multitude of those who had participated in their bounty.
  MR. BARNETTsaid, that having heard a good deal said on both sides of the question, he had come to the conclusion that the Government had exercised a wise discretion in not undertaking the prosecution. In the case of the Western Bank of Scotland where the ruin was equally great with that resulting from the failure of Overend and Gurney, no prosecution had been undertaken by the Government. He might say he had heard during the day, from a gentleman well acquainted with the case, that the prosecution would be proceeded with.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am very glad to hear upon the high authority of the hon. Member who has just sat down —and upon questions of this kind there could be few higher—that there is great likelihood the prosecution may proceed,
  988
  notwithstanding the decision at which the Government have arrived. That statement mnst have been heard with satisfaction in all parts of the House, and not least by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton) who, in all the expressions of sympathy he used towards the members of the late firm was felt by the House to be discharging a duty in every way appropriate and graceful for him to undertake. The question is, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) says, one of very great importance, and I trust the House will even at this hour listen with patience to the considerations I am anxious to lay before it. The Government, whatever they have done, have not acted lightly or unadvisedly, or without a strong conviction. I must own, in passing, that the strong and positive assertions of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich appear to me to be a little out of place, when we consider that it is admitted on all hands that the proper time for undertaking these affairs on the part of the Government is at the earliest stage of the proceedings, which happened in the present case when the right hon. Baronet was a Member of the Government. The first difficulty I feel is the form of the Motion in which my hon. Friend invites the House to do that which it has an undoubted right to do— namely, to interfere with the discretion of the Executive Government in the discharge of its executive functions and with respect to the administration of justice. No doubt the House has a perfect right to take that proceeding if it pleases; but it is at the same time an extreme right—a right, I mean, which the House on the rarest possible occasions even dreams of exercising. And when the House finds occasion for exercising such a right, what I think is obviously according to the dictates of Parliamentary justice and of the public interest is, that the Government should have clearly before it the Motion by which it is intended or desired to override their discretion, and that they should have the power not only of representing in speech the views they may take of the Motion, but the power also of amending the Motion and proposing to the House to substitute some other issue. But this is how we stand — Notice of a Motion having been given by my hon. Friend

  989
  the Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn), which the forms of the House unhappily prevented him from moving, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) who acts with him, has substituted a Motion for the adjournment of the House, and he announced in his speech that he should consider the carrying of that Motion as equivalent to a distinct direction to the Government to institute this prosecution. I regard that as a very great aggravation of the difficulties of the case, and I am bound to say it is due not to the Government as individuals, but to the Offices they hold that they should enjoy the usual and ordinary freedom of seeking to vary the terms of Motions to which they object. As at present advised I do not very well see now it would be possible for us to waive the judgment at which we had arrived, and to take a course opposed in our opinions to the public interest and the clearest dictates of expediency. The difficulty is still further increased by other circumstances of the case. With regard to the precedent of 1857, I cannot admit its authority. It has not been followed up, and it appears to me to have been a most questionable conclusion that was then arrived at. I claim the right to review the precedent, and to ask the House to consider this very grave question upon its merits. The general rule which charges the expenditure of criminal prosecutions upon the public does not ordinarily apply to frauds, and we are therefore now called upon to make an exception. What I want to ask the House to consider is, if exceptions are to be made—apart from the question of a public prosecutor, on which at present I give no opinion— what are the grounds upon which such an exception is to be based? I must say, before proceeding, that I impute no motives to the Mover, Seconder, or supporters of the Motion before the House other than a desire to see justice done. To proceed—One of the grounds on which such an exception as the present would be claimed would be sure to be the moral enormity of the offence committed by the supposed and imputed delinquents. That certainly cannot be alleged in the present instance without an inconsistency into which I am sure the House would not wish to fall, whatever be said as to the magnitude of the ruin and the amount of the scandal. I
  990
  apprehend there can be no doubt at all —even without entering upon the more sanguine and charitable view we must all hope will ultimately be realized— there can be no doubt that cases of a far darker and far different complexion in commercial morality have been before our eyes and blazoned to the world year by year in this country without any call for interference on the part of the Government. It is not, therefore, for the vindication of public morality that you interfere, for you cannot give a more questionable place to public morality in your proceedings than by interfering with the arm of authority for the purpose of branding milder forms of offence while you leave the graver forms of guilt to pass unquestioned. A most important element in the case is the certainty of result when you call upon the public exceptionally to interfere—I mean the certainty, or the probability, of a favourable result. Even were you to establish a public prosecutor you could not call upon him to undertake everybody's case without first examining rigidly into its first inception, and inquiring whether there is a fair probability of his proving the justice of the case to the satisfaction of the Court. It is perfectly evident that nothing could more rapidly damage and destroy the authority of the Crown than its ill-advised exposure of doubtful cases to the conflict with arguments of greater authority, and the consequent failure of cases to which its dignity had been committed. The duty of a public prosecutor or Crown prosecutor clearly is to examine into all matters ab initio, and make up his mind upon it before taking a single step to commit the Government; and it becomes almost impossible that that duty can be rightly performed when once proceedings have reach a certain stage. But what is the case as it stands now? There is a Motion before us which we are told to read like a palimpsest under a recent writing. We are told under a Motion for adjournment to read a Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn), which closes by saying that the case is to be conducted by the Law Officers of the Crown—my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. That might have been all very well if done at the proper time; but at the present moment it so happens that the de-

  991
  fendants being anxious, and very naturally anxious, to secure the advocacy of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General in his capacity as a private practitioner at the bar, he has, I believe, for months past been engaged on their side in this case, and will be bound to appear for them, notwithstanding any Motion which directs that he as counsel for the Crown shall assist in conducting this prosecution. ["Hear, hear!"] What I mean is not to use any exaggeration, but to convey the exact and literal meaning of the Motion. It is not possible for the Government to depart from their judgment in obedience to a presumed and undefined opinion of the House; all they can offer is that, when that opinion is expressed, it shall be taken into their most respectful consideration. But what is now proposed is that, without any judgment as to the propriety of the prosecution, without any power of examination as to the probability of a successful issue, my hon. and learned Friends, on the part of the Crown, shall rush into the midst, and charge the State with the responsibility of all that has been done and all that remains to be done. So much with regard to the probability of a favourable result. I now come to a third ground for exceptional interference, which is one of very great plausibility. It is said that the case where interference takes place should be one in which the parties are poor, and destitute of means to vindicate their interests. But is that applicable in the present case? The fourth and great ground alleged is that the interference of the Crown is desirable because of the magnitude of the case. What does magnitude mean? It means that the scale of the transactions was enormous, for the figures were counted almost by tens of millions; and, further, it means that whilst a large portion of the suffering shareholders may be persons of small or moderate means, a large portion of them also are persons of great and almost unlimited wealth. I do not think you can name a case where there has been imputed commercial delinquency, and a body of sufferers by the delinquency, in which those sufferers were so unquestionably possessed of ample resources for the vindication of their rights. This is a consideration of the greatest importance. The hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) calls on us
  992
  to interfere on behalf of poor persons who have lost their money; but if we are to interfere on behalf of the poor, this is not a case in which we ought to interfere. There are multitudes of cases in the private walks of honourable commerce where a man is stripped, through the delinquency of others, of every farthing he possesses, and has not the means of invoking public justice. There are multitudes of other cases in which you have the principle of joint-stock liability, but the whole body of shareholders are persons of such humble means that they would not increase their strength if they were to club together those means for the purpose of vindicating their rights. But here it is an undoubted fact that there are a number of shareholders perfectly able, if they think fit, to vindicate the interests of themselves and their fellow-shareholders. They do not choose to do it; and a proposition is made that the Government should step into the places of those wealthy persons, and seek for them that redress which they are able, but not willing, to seek for themselves. I wish in the most dispassionate manner to join issue on the question of the moral result which is to be attained by our undertaking—I do not say at the present stage of the proceeding, for that is another matter—but our undertaking at all the conduct of this prosecution. My hon. Friend has a moral good in view, and wants to remove a scandal and a disgrace. It is my opinion that in all these cases of the administration of justice, the same rule ought to be adopted as in determining the punishment of crime. When we have a case of enormous guilt, we do not attempt to proportion our punishment to the guilt; what we look solely at is the effect upon the future—it is our business to deter and repress crime. Now, what would be the effect on the future prudence and self-restraint of a generation too greedy of money and too ready to adopt one of the most doubtful means of making money—that of placing their investments in concerns of which they know nothing at all, with the view of making large and easy gains, of reaping the fruits of industry without its toil—what would be the effect if you said to all the class of persons who have such views, "Despise the rules of prudence and duty, whereby patient toil and frugal habits may see the rewards

  993
  of labour growing up around them and reap the fruits they deserve; look only to the best prospectuses and try the utmost limit of speculation without caring whether you know anything about it at all; the advertisement will stand instead of funds. Great and noble names, which Englishmen are only too fond of seeing, will stand to you instead of commercial knowledge, experience and skill; and you will have this advantage over your humble and obscure competitors in the race for wealth who carry on a regular trade—that if they fail they must take the consequences, but you, if you fail, will fall with a tragic splendour; the whole nation will feel the shock, and the attention of Parliament will be roused by the magnitude of the transactions—benevolent men in the House of Commons will be excited to make Motions invoking for you the assistance of the State; and for your neglect of the rules of prudence, and your hasty and unrestrained indulgence of the pursuit of gain, you will receive the exceptional favour of the State, and the British taxpayer will be at the expense of carrying your cause to a successful conclusion?"
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was acquainted with four of the persons to be prosecuted. One of them, long a Member for King's Lynn, was one of Ms oldest friends, and, having called him his friend in prosperity, he should be ashamed not to do so now, believing in his honour. However much the directors might have been mistaken, he felt sure they never intended to commit a fraud on the public, and that the result of the trial would vindicate their character.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was not responsible for the form the Motion had taken. He should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member if it went to a division, because he wished to express his censure, not only of the present Government, but of past Governments also. He had come down to vote with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn) to which he felt impelled by a sense of duty. He must respectfully submit that the concluding remarks of the First Lord of the Treasury had very little direct bearing on the present question. The question had come round to a very small point—whether, owing to a technical rule of practice in the Queen's Bench there should be to-morrow an
  994
  absolute failure of justice? It would be very unseemly in any way to discuss the question of guilt or innocence. He most honestly inclined to believe that there was weakness rather than guilt in the directors; but, if the trial should break down in consequence of the absence of counsel, those gentlemen would have no reason to congratulate themselves on a verdict of "Not proven." He believed it was not correct to say that Government had never intervened in a prosecution started by a private individual, as they had intervened in the trial of Palmer for poisoning Cooke.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he was certainly not about to prejudge the case; but he could not allow that debate to close without expressing his opinion that the course of the debate tended to show a triumph of commercial delinquency. If it should be proved that that had been done which was currently reported, he thought they could hardly share in the indignation expressed at the poor men who had been deceived. The right hon. Gentleman said if men would desert quiet and unostentatious industry—if they would seek a higher road to wealth by indolence and avarice, we could have no pity for them. ["No! "] He should be exceedingly happy to learn that he had placed a wrong interpretation on the language of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. He certainly should have expected that the indignation expressed would have been at the guilt which might be proved, although he hoped it might not be so. The folly of the poor men who had been deceived was that they believed in the word and prospectus of those whom they considered men of honour.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, they were not there to try the directors, but to discuss whether Government ought to take up this prosecution and pay a private solicitor to carry it on. He entirely agreed with the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) that if the Government should have taken up the prosecution, they ought to have done so at the beginning. He was not prejudging the case, but, however bad the case might be, it was too late for the Government to undertake the prosecution. He must give credit to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for the remarks he had made; for it was well known so wealthy was

  995
  this concern only five years ago that few hon. Members would have declined to take shares when they stood at £12 per cent premium. Why, he himself had been ridiculed because he would have nothing to do with it. At that very time and afterwards savings' banks were failing, by which poor men lost every shilling; but who came forward to invoke a prosecution by the Government? This was a limited liability concern; but do not let them find fault with limited liability, but rather with the unlimited fools that took shares in businesses of which they knew nothing. He should not vote for the Adjournment, or for the Motion of the hon. Member for Windsor. It was no reason they should do wrong because others had neglected to do what was right. He hoped the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, as he had taken a somewhat exceptional course, perhaps the House would allow him to explain.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could only be heard if he wished to explain his grounds for desiring to withdraw his Motion.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," —(Mr. Fawcett,)—put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question put and agreed to.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee:
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

COVENTRY ELECTION.
MR. BOUVERIEmoved that the Petition of Charles Flint and others, relating to the Coventry Election Petition Inquiry, be printed with the Votes.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he thought that there was no occasion to have the Petition printed with the Votes. The Petition was printed, but there were blanks for certain names which could be filled up.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the Petition of Charles Flint and others [presented 10th June] relating to the Coventry Election Petition Inquiry, be printed with the Votes,"—(Mr. Bouverie,)
—put, and negatived.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 2) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under the Local Government Act (1858), relating to the districts of Aberystwith, Ashton under Lyne, Bath, Cleckheaton, Crompton, Newport (Monmouthshire), Reading, Southport, Stalybridge, and Weston super Mare; and for other purposes relative to the district of Gorleston and Southdown, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCH-BULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 192.]

TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &C. BILL.
On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUSESSEN, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts in Great Britain, to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts, and to make further provisions concerning Turnpike Roads, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 191.]

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Fisheries of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.]

LAND TAX LAW AMENDMENT, &c. BILL.
On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Bill to amend the Laws relating to Land Tax, and to repeal certain Duties on Offices and Pensions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. AYRTON.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 188.]
House adjourned at Two o'clock.