Commons Sitting of 28 June 1872

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the Southern Division of the West Riding of the County of York, v. Viscount Milton, Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Francis Bassett, esquire, for Bedford County.
PUBLIC BILL—Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* [171, 217].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (1869).

  QUESTION.
  MR. SALTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, inasmuch as the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, expires in the present year (unless renewed for another year by Her Majesty in Council), he proposes to introduce a Bill during the present Session to prolong the period of the operation of that measure; and, if so, whether he proposes to alter or to extend the powers granted to the Commissioners under the Act?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must refer the hon. Member to the answer he gave to a similar Question some time ago, when he said that the Government would make use of the power given to them by the Endowed Schools Act, and issue an Order in Council renewing the power for one year. It was, therefore, not the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during the present Session on the subject.

GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.

  QUESTIONS.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to a letter in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 25th instant, purporting to be addressed by the Earl of Granard, Lieutenant of the county Leitrim, to the meeting held in Dublin on the 24th of June for the purpose of protesting against the Judgment pronounced by Mr. Justice Keogh upon the Galway Election Petition, in which letter the language of that learned Judge is characterized as "scurrilous invective, and insulting accusations;" whether he considers such language towards one of Her Majesty's Judges befitting the head of the magistracy of a county; and, whether he will take any steps to ascertain the authenticity of the letter?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, before that Question is answered, as I wish to ask another, I wish to observe that the House must recollect that on Monday week I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government or the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had taken any step in vindication of the dignity of the Judicial Bench, in consequence of the

  341
  outrages that had been committed upon the person of Mr. Justice Keogh, such as the slanders referred to by the noble Lord? Now, it is a matter of very great importance that the right hon. Gentleman should answer this Question to-day, because I believe that in the course of next week Mr. Justice Keogh will be going circuit in Ireland. Mr. Justice Lawson is to accompany him, and he has been warned not to travel in the same coach with him lest he should be shot. Mr. Justice Keogh's wife has also received letters of a most scandalous description, threatening her husband. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the right hon. Gentleman should inform the House and the country what steps have been taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in his position as Lord Chancellor, and acting with the impartiality which should govern his acts, for the purpose of stigmatizing such conduct as that referred to by the noble Lord. I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman Notice that if his answer be not satisfactory I will move the adjournment of the House, with the view of having the whole subject discussed without further delay.
  Mr. CALLANrose to address the House, but
  MR. GLADSTONEat once interposed, and said: I must beg to be allowed to answer Questions as they arise, as it is impossible for me otherwise to do them justice. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) has put his Question in a tone to which I must say I am not entirely accustomed, and which I do not think consistent with the relations that ought to subsist between Members of this House. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: In what particular?] But I shall give to the right hon. Gentleman an answer which I think will be quite as much as he can reasonably expect, because, although he states this is an urgent matter, which admits of no delay, he has given me no intimation of his intention to put this Question to me. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I did so last Monday week.] Nor did he on the former day give any intimation of his intention to put the Question. What I have to say is, that every precaution which can be taken by those who are responsible for the administration of Government has been taken for the protection of Mr. Justice Keogh, and likewise everything
  342
  has been done to support the law, and to punish those who break the law, which could suggest itself to the minds of Her Majesty's Government. Beyond that, I must leave the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, with regard to the interests he has at heart, he is acting prudently in giving the details he has done on the present occasion. The duty of the Executive Government is perfectly plain. It is to do all that lies in their power for the protection of all persons, especially those holding the high office of Judge, for the vindication of the law, and for the punishment of those persons who break it. With reference to the Question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton), my attention has been called to the letter in The Freeman's Journal to which he alludes. Beyond saying that, I beg leave to decline to answer the Question which he has put, and that upon two grounds. The Lord Lieutenant of a county is an officer of State, and in my opinion any allegation against him of any offence which he may commit—if he commits an offence—is not a matter to be disposed of consistently with the respect which is due to his office in an answer to a Question. The House of Commons is disposed to give much indulgence to Ministers in making replies to Questions; but I look on the matter involved in this Question as one of such considerable gravity that I do not think it ought to be dealt with by way of reply to a Question addressed to the Government by an independent Member of this House. Besides that difficulty, I have another reason, and it is this—I do not think that the time has arrived for any declaration of opinion by Her Majesty's Government upon any of the expressions that have been used by any persons or parties in Ireland with reference to this very grave question—apart from what I have just said with regard to the vindication of the law, which is a totally different matter—the time, I say, will not have arrived either for that declaration of opinion or for the discussion of the question of the exercise of executive discretion until the whole case shall be in the possession of Parliament, by the publication of the whole or the essential portions of the evidence, and on which depends the judgment to be formed of the proceedings that had to be taken, and consequently a judgment formed

  343
  upon the language used by those persons who had commented on the case.
  SIR JOHN GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is true that a form of declaration with reference to the subscription being raised to defray the expenses of the Galway Election Inquiry was sent to the members of the police force, Dublin, or any portion of them, by the officers of the force, or the Commissioners, and that the services of some members of the force who refused to sign such declaration were "dispensed with?"
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had been informed, in answer to inquiries which he had made, that no form of declaration with reference to the subscription being raised to defray the expenses of the Galway Election Inquiry had been sent to the police force, or any portion of it, by the officers or the Commissioners of Police. What had occurred was this—On the 8th of June a letter appeared in The Freeman's Journal with the signature "One of the C Division," stating that a few members had subscribed £1 5s. 6d. towards the "Nolan Defence Fund." Thereupon it appeared that certain members of the force who felt annoyed that the police should be publicly mixed up with political matters drew up and signed the declaration referred to by the hon. Member. It was their spontaneous act, and the document was left on the desk in the Reserve Boom at the station for any man to sign it who felt so inclined.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, What steps he has taken to carry out the Order of this House, of the 13th of June, that a Copy be laid before it of the judgments pronounced by the several Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, on the Special Case laid by Mr. Justice Keogh before that Court respecting the late Galway Election, and when their judgments would be presented to the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, there was no doubt that an Order had been made by the House for the production of these judgments, and he was informed that the Order had been served in the proper quarter. There would be some delay, however, in the matter, owing to the circumstance that there was no authorized reporter of the Court of Common Pleas
  344
  in Ireland; but he was informed that the judgments would be obtained, and that they would be laid on the Table of the House with as little delay as possible.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH DEPART MENT—CLERKS AT THE GLASGOW TELEGRAPH OFFICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. SYNANasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that fifteen clerks have left the Glasgow Telegraph Office and entered the service of the Anglo-American and other Companies; and, whether or not in consequence of the low salaries under the present classification?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, eleven telegraph clerks had left the Glasgow Office in the last six months. Of these, two had taken service in the Anglo-American Telegraph Company; one had joined the Royal Engineers; and he did not know what had become of the others. It was however, to be presumed they had all left in the hope of improving their position.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. RYLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board, If it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Public Health Bill this Session, and, in that case, if it is proposed to withdraw any of the provisions contained in the Bill?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, it certainly was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill. His hon. Friend and the House were aware that he committed the Bill pro formâ last night, with the view of moving certain Amendments and omitting certain clauses. However unwillingly, he had been obliged to come to the conclusion, considering the advanced period of the Session and the pressure of Public Business, that it had become necessary, in the interest of the Bill itself, to do what was sometimes called "throwing part of the cargo overboard." He had considered what sacrifices it would be requisite to make in order to insure the passing of a measure which it would be worth the while of Parliament to pass. Last year, he might remind the House, they consolidated certain departments under the Local Government Board. Most hon. Members were aware that the Bill upon the Table might be divided

345
into three parts—the first part organizing local sanitary authorities; the second, which was the body of the Bill, giving new powers to those authorities, and imposing new duties upon them; and the third part containing a number of miscellaneous clauses, some important, some merely conferring facilities for procedure upon the local authorities. The best course to take appeared to be this—to rest satisfied for the present with the consolidation and concentration of the local authorities, and to withdraw the clauses with reference to nuisances, hospitals, rivers and other matters, thus making it a Bill for constituting the new sanitary authorities and giving them some facilities.
MR. CORRANCEasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he could name a day for bringing on the Bill?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, it was impossible at this moment to name a day until the Mines Bill had been disposed of.
COLONEL BARTTELOTasked, whether any determination had been come to as to the expenses in connection with the Bill?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked, whether, when the Mines Bill had been disposed of, precedence would be given to the Public Health Bill in preference to the Licensing Bill?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, the Government were not yet in a position to fix a day for bringing on the Bill, but would take the earliest opportunity of giving the best possible notice. On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair he would give the best explanation in his power with reference to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barttelot.)
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, said, he must ask the Prime Minister himself to inform the House whether it had been decided that the Public Health Bill should have priority over the Licensing question?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, bearing in mind the period of the Session, he would not take care that the Corrupt Practices Bill should follow the Mines Bill?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was sure the House would smypathize with the Government in the difficulties in which they stood in meeting the relative and rival expectations and demands, all of
346
them very reasonable, of various hon. Members. The desire of the Government was, as had been shown in the remarks of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld), to place before the House such a portion of the essential legislation of the Session as could be disposed of in a reasonable time, and not to let Bills accumulate on the Paper to a late period, and then be obliged to withdraw them. It was with that desire that the Government looked forward to be able to deal with the three subjects referred to in a manner and within a period that would insure the effective attention of the House, without drawing unduly on its strength and patience. He hoped that for the moment hon. Gentlemen would be satisfied with that answer, and would leave the Government to see what could be done.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS)—DEARTH OF WATER IN BERMONDSEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, What information he has obtained as to the dearth of water in a large district of London, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, supplied by one of the Metropolitan Water Companies; and what steps are being taken by the Board of Trade and by the Water Company to avert the dangers to health which would result from a continued deficiency in the water supply?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he had received that morning the Report of the Inspector of the Board of Trade on that subject. It came to this—that the complaint of a deficiency of water at Bermondsey and Rotherhithe was well founded; that for several days the deficiency was of a serious character; that the immediate cause of the deficiency was the choking up of the filtering beds by weeds; but the real cause of it was a want of a sufficient head or store of water at the Company's works; another cause which had contributed to the mischief being the defective fittings in the poorer houses of the district itself. The water company was taking the only step calculated to avert danger to the water supply in future by erecting at a large cost some important works, including a large reservoir, at Nunhead, At the present moment the

  347
  supply of the district was ample; but he was bound to add that what had occurred ought to induce the water company to carry on the necessary improvements with all possible speed, as the only means by which they could be prepared for such emergencies as had occurred the other day.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  On Lords Amendment making special provision for the death of a candidate between the nomination and the poll,
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER moved that the House agree with this Amendment, which remedied a mistake in the Bill arising from his having omitted to bring up a clause on the subject on the Report.
  First Amendment agreed to.
  Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("candidates") to ("after") in line 18, and insert—
  ("Each ballot paper shall have an official mark on the back and a number printed on the back, and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face.
  "Every voter, on application to the presiding officer, shall receive a ballot paper, and the presiding officer shall in the presence of the agents (if any) of the candidates enter on the counterfoil of the ballot paper the number of the voter on the register, and shall enter on the copy of the register with which he is supplied a cross or other mark denoting that the voter has received the ballot paper, but not showing the particular ballot paper which he has received.
  "The voter shall place a cross or other mark in the figure of a square printed opposite the name of the candidate or each candidate for whom he votes.
  "The voter having thus marked on the ballot paper the candidate or candidates for whom he votes shall fold up the ballot paper so as to show the official mark on its back, and shall exhibit to the presiding officer such mark, and then in the presence of the presiding officer put the ballot paper into the ballot box.
  "At the close of the poll the presiding officer shall in the presence of the agents of the candidates or such of them as may be present seal up the counterfoils of the ballot papers and send them by the earliest practicable post to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
  "Any ballot paper on which a cross is put opposite to the names of more candidates than the voter is entitled to vote for, and any ballot paper having anything written thereon other than the mark or marks made by the voter, shall be void, and shall not be counted"),
  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, it is now my duty to move that the House disagree from this, by far the most important Amendment which has been made in the Bill by the other House. It is the omission of the words contained in the Bill as we sent it up to the other House, describing the manner in which we thought the vote ought to be taken, and inserting other words in their place. The practical effect of the words so inserted by the other House is to replace the Ballot Bill which we sent up to them by a fresh Ballot Bill. Notwithstanding the importance of the Amendment, however, I shall detain the House as shortly as possible in giving my reasons why I think this Amendment cannot be accepted; and I shall be thus brief on two grounds—in the first place, because I think that the House does not desire that there should be more discussions than is absolutely necessary upon this question—and certainly I do not expect that hon. Members will bear an unnecessarily long statement from one who has had to trouble them so often on this Bill, although, I must say, they have listened to me with a patience for which I am most grateful; and, secondly, because in being thus brief I shall be imitating the mode in which this Bill has been treated by the Lords, seeing that their Lordships, in an hour or two one evening, passed a fresh Ballot Bill, which completely replaces the measure which occupied us 12 days in Committee this year, after its details had been thoroughly thrashed out during a discussion which lasted 20 days last year. I can only account for the brevity with which the House of Lords treated the measure, by supposing that they regarded it as a matter of detail, in which the House of Commons was more likely to be interested than they themselves were; whereas the question before us regards a matter on which we came to a decision after long discussion and many divisions. After the greatest possible deliberation we adopted the view of the matter which we believe our constituents also take on the subject. The words which have been struck out of the Bill by the House of Lords are those by which we intended to give effect to that view—namely, to secure that the vote should be secretly given, and also that nothing should be put upon the voting paper by which the vote could be identified. By the words

  349
  which, the Lords have inserted the first of these objects has been entirely frustrated, and the identification of the vote has been rendered much more easy than we desired should be the case. The substituted words carry out three or four objects. In the first place, the provision for secrecy is omitted; and, as I have already observed, that is the most important of these Amendments. There are, however, other objects carried out by these words, which, although of less vital importance to the measure, I trust the House will not lose sight of. Thus, by the Lords' Amendment, the voting paper is permitted to be delivered to the voter outside the booth. Now, that the House, after several divisions, came to the decided conviction could not be allowed, the experience of other countries, as in France and America, where such a practice is in force, showing that the greatest inconvenience arises from the voting paper being handed to the voter before he enters the booth. Then, again, the official mark is permitted by the Amendment to be affixed to the voting paper before the time of voting. The result of permitting that to be done would be to facilitate the discovery and the forging of that mark. The Amendment further permits the vote to be recorded without the official mark being recognized. The Amendment also gives a power of following the vote by means of what is called a scrutiny. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government stated yesterday that wishing, as we do, to meet the other House of Parliament as far as we can, and being very anxious that, if possible, this matter should be settled this year, we have, although with reluctance, consented to a power being given of following the vote in certain cases by means of a scrutiny; but if such a power is given it is absolutely necessary that some safeguards should be determined upon similar to those contained in the Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland a year or two ago. The scrutiny proposed by the House of Lords is without any safeguard whatever. There are three safeguards which were in the Bill of the noble Lord which we think necessary in reference to a scrutiny. In the first place, it is important that the vote shall be inviolable, except when it has been ascertained to be invalid. It is not improbable that the Lords in-
  350
  tended their Amendment to secure that object; but it does not do so to the necessary extent, and, therefore, we think it desirable to amend the provision inserted in the Bill by them. In doing so, we shall be carrying out the recommendation of the Committee which sat to consider this question three years ago, and which recommended that there should be a scrutiny under certain circumstances, but that it should be surrounded with this safeguard. Then, again, there is no safeguard in the Lords Amendment, requiring the officers and agents employed in the booth to preserve secrecy. The Bill of the noble Lord contained a provision on this point, that the officers and agents should make a declaration of secrecy, and inflicted penalties upon them in the event of their violating it. We intend to introduce Amendments in accordance with these views, and also to secure that the numbers of the votes shall not be known while the latter are being counted. I cannot imagine that there will be any objection to these safeguards on the part of either House of Parliament, as they merely secure that while, where necessary, the vote can be traced, the principle of secrecy shall not be transgressed more than is absolutely necessary. But while making this concession, we must ask the House to disagree from that part of the Lords Amendments which brings in what may be termed the optional and permissive Ballot in place of the compulsory Ballot, and which thereby, as we conceive, makes the Ballot Bill useless, or worse than useless. I am well aware that, in the course of the discussion about to take place, it may be urged that the result of the deliberation in Committee was against the principle of compulsory secrecy, because the penal clauses were struck out; but nothing could be more unreasonable than such an assumption. It is perfectly true that the Committee declined to fix any special and peculiar penalty as a punishment for the display of the voting paper; but it is also true that, after repeated divisions, the House sent up to the House of Lords a measure enacting that the voting should be secret, and containing provisions which would enable the law to be vindicated if there was any combined or serious attempt to break it. That was the extent to which the House was willing to go, and it seems to me that, in this law-abiding and law-

  351
  loving country, that was sufficient to secure that voting should be secret in future. The Lords Amendment, on the other hand, introduces provisions which would enable any voter to be bribed or bullied into voting openly, and the Bill so altered in our opinion takes away many of the advantages of open voting and gives us none of the secret voting. I presented a Petition to-day from, the Ballot Society, in which they state, what is, in fact, my own opinion, that sooner than accept the proposal of the Lords upon this point it would be better to wait for the Ballot Bill another year. I beg to move that this House disagree from this Amendment.
  Moved, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am very sorry that Her Majesty's Government have arrived at the determination just announced. I am sorry also to hear the Bill described by the right hon. Gentleman as now "useless and worse than useless," which, even assuming that the Lords Amendments will have the effect he supposes, appears to me, from his own point of view, to be an exaggerated expression. I am glad, however, to hear that Her Majesty's Government have virtually assented to the Amendment of the Lords that there shall be a scrutiny, and that there shall be some protection to the constituent body from the vice of personation. When we have before us in detail the safeguards to be suggested by Her Majesty's Government, as applicable to the exercise of that scrutiny, of course, we shall be better able to judge of their import. I confess, so far as I can follow the right hon. Gentleman, there really did appear to me to be no important difference between the proposals of the Lords and that of Her Majesty's Government, coupled, as it is to be, with so-called safeguards. I do not imagine, therefore, there will be any great difference of opinion between the two Houses upon that matter. I now proceed to the next point, which the right hon. Gentleman has described as an alteration, which has made the Bill "useless and worse than useless," and with regard to which I am astonished at the different impressions which Gentlemen in this House have received from Acts which appear to me to be
  352
  sufficiently clear. I cannot conceive how this Bill can be described, as it comes down to us with these Amendments, as "useless and worse than useless," when, so far as I can read the Bill, this is an Amendment which only extends a principle before contained in the Bill, and to which Her Majesty's Ministers had given their assent. The House is quite aware, for example, that the permissive Ballot—or optional Ballot, to use an expression which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted—was extended in the Bill, as it went down from the House of Commons, to a class of Her Majesty's subjects; and the only question is this—Is it prudent in the Lords to extend to the whole of Her Majesty's subjects the privilege which the House of Commons conferred on only a portion of those subjects? The House is perfectly aware that as the Bill left this House the class of Her Majesty's subjects which is described as the "illiterate" class might have the advantage of the optional Ballot; it is therefore necessary that if the House precipitately adopts the present most imprudent proposition of the Government, it should clearly see what is its probable operation. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the last Report of the Registrar General, they will find it stated that of every 100 men who are married in England 20 cannot sign their names. This is an important and authentic piece of official information. We may, therefore, take it for granted that the proportion of the constituency who would be described as illiterate is one in five. The Bill which we sent to the House of Lords thus proposed that one in five of the present constituency, because they cannot sign their names, shall have permission to use the optional Ballot. But, let me ask, what portion of Her Majesty's subjects is this illiterate portion? We may certainly assume that because they are illiterate, they are the humbler and the weaker portion of the constituency—the portion that we have always been told were most liable to corruption, and most exposed to intimidation. Therefore, as the Bill was sent up to the Lords we had taken security that those who were most liable to be corrupted, and who were most menaced by intimidation, should enjoy the privilege of having their votes known; so that those who wanted to corrupt them might prey upon

  353
  them, and those who wanted to intimidate them might put them in fear. But it was for the comparatively and absolutely independent that we provided that they should submit to the degradation of secret voting. I say, under these circumstances, the Lords having received from us this extraordinary Bill—namely, a Bill to establish secret voting in order that the weaker classes of society should be saved from corruption and intimidation, and which yet provides for that class that their votes shall be open—I think it is not surprising that the Lords should have thought it more prudent to make the Bill comprehensive and consistent, and to provide that the classes that are independent, that are not corruptible, and that do not fear intimidation, shall still enjoy that which Englishmen always honour—publicity in the exercise of their duties. It appears to me, therefore, under these circumstances it is not the duty of the House to agree with the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has made; but, on the contrary, that we ought to agree with this Amendment of the Lords, for I have heard no argument whatever which will meet the objections I have named. The Bill for secret voting, moreover, is an experiment which we have no evidence has been called for by the country. The House may perhaps recollect that at the close of last year I had occasion to point out to the House, by a reference to authentic documents, that less than one-fourth of the hon. Members of this House were pledged to the Ballot; and to make that proportion even I gave credit to every hon. Member in the present Parliament who had in previous Parliaments voted in favour of the Ballot; otherwise I do not believe that one-eighth of the hon. Members of this House were pledged to their constituents to support the Ballot. Hon. Members must remember, also, that in the very few places in which the Ballot was demanded the ideas associated with it were very different from those associated with this Bill. I believe at the present moment the general feeling of the country is not in favour of secret voting, and of this I am persuaded, that those who are in favour of it would rather have a permissive and optional Ballot, so that every man might at least have the choice of giving his vote pub-
  354
  licly or secretly. That is another reason why we should support the Amendment of the Lords. But in coming to a decision upon this point, let the House recollect that though my view may be erroneous, and though there may be a feeling in some portion of the constituency in favour of secret voting, of course that sentiment would prevail among the humbler and weaker classes of society, that class for which—assuming that they wish for it—secret voting is not provided by this Bill; and, therefore, I trust the House will agree with the comprehensive and consistent change made by the Lords, for I believe that the Amendments which the House of Lords have made may reconcile the country generally to the Bill. Without them I believe it would be odious to the country, and for this reason, that it is in fact a measure that has never been called for or required by the country. The fact is the Government were in difficulties in the middle of the Session, and they availed themselves of this measure in order to reorganize their party. I believe that if the Government had not been treated so scurvily by their friends—I mean the Government of the United States—if they had not got into the difficulty about the Indirect Claims, they would not have found it necessary to force through this Bill. We have, year after year, been struggling to make political life more public. Publicity is now the soul of our political life. We owe to the principle of publicity our chief blessings. We have introduced publicity into the affairs of Parliament, into the judicial Bench, into the Press. Now we are called upon to act contrary to this course which we have so long pursued. I consider myself that the House of Lords have acted with wisdom and moderation in the matter, for if a more decided policy had been adopted I am not sure that they would have erred. The proper way to view the matter seems to be this—that there is one ground upon which the House of Lords might have been recommended not to have made any alteration in the Bill. I would have left the Bill quite untouched, merely adding a clause that it should only apply in cases where corruption and intimidation on a large scale had been proved. I would have had it viewed as a penal statute. I would have kept it in reserve like the Riot Act, to be only

  355
  brought into use when the excesses of electoral society demanded it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there is one allusion in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on which I shall, advisedly, make no comment—namely, his criticism upon the question of the Washington Treaty. I refrain from it, because I am glad to take this opportunity of rendering to the right hon. Gentleman, as an opponent, my testimony to the signal prudence and forbearance with which he has conducted himself—and for the example which he has set to others—during the whole of the anxious period of the present Session since the controversy with the United States began. Having said thus much, I shall comment with some freedom upon the statement and arguments which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman. He does not altogether approve of the course taken by the House of Lords on the subject under consideration. He would have the Ballot Bill confined to cases where corruption and intimidation had been proved on a large scale—he would have it reserved to be used like the Riot Act. Now, Sir, I presume the Riot Act is used for the prevention of rioting, and so, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the Ballot Bill is the effectual and best remedy for intimidation and corruption. The right hon. Gentleman further says that so far he has had no evidence whatever of the desire of the country for the adoption of secret voting. Now, I am desirous, if I can, to afford information on this subject to the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, I am aware that the circle from which I can gather the information must of necessity be narrow; for if I were to quote the evidence of anyone sitting on this side of the House, or anyone connected with the Liberal party throughout the country, the right hon. Gentleman would take exception to that testimony. Therefore, I will look to the opposite side of the House, and I will ask, whether we cannot point out to the right hon. Gentleman some indications on the opposite side as to the true desire of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has heard—and I am now going to give his Friends an opportunity to cheer—the right hon. Gentleman has doubtless heard, during the present Session, of various Conservative triumphs at elections. He has heard of the election at Oldham, where
  356
  a Gentleman of Conservative politics was returned, but who was an advocate of the Ballot. The right hon. Gentleman has heard of an election in the Isle of Wight, where a Gentleman of Conservative politics was returned, but one who declared his approval of the Ballot. The right hon. Gentleman has heard of the election at Tamworth, where a Conservative politician was returned, but was pledged to the Ballot. Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman has heard of the crowning victory of all—that of the North-West Riding of Yorkshire, where the stump Conservative was returned, but who was in favour of the Ballot. Having quoted all these Conservative triumphs, I hope it will not be thought invidious if I refer to one case that can hardly be claimed under that head—I mean the election which, while I am now speaking, is procceeding at Aberdeen. Now, Aberdeen is a city of which we, on this side of the House, have a very high opinion; but we are not the only persons that have a high opinion of it. A most distinguished Judge in Scotland—an eminent Conservative—who had had a large practice at the Bar throughout Scotland, was asked of what portion of that country he thought the population most fully deserved the commendations bestowed upon Scotland for her intelligence and sagacity, and his answer was—"There is no doubt at all that it is in the city and county of Aberdeen; for I can assure you, as the result of long practice, that it is of no use to talk nonsense to an Aberdeen jury." Well, Aberdeen is at this moment engaged in the constitutional expression of its opinion upon the politics of the day. I will not refer to the figures I hold in my hand exhibiting the state of the poll, because I do not wish to give pain to any hon. Gentleman opposite; but the Conservative candidate for Aberdeen, whose position on the poll is not altogether flattering, has likewise, as I understand, found it an indispensable condition of his standing for that city—nay, probably, of even finding a mover and seconder—that he should declare himself to be friendly to the Ballot. Now, Sir, I hope I have done something towards meeting the demand of the right hon. Gentleman for information tending to show the desire of the public for secret voting. Well, the right hon. Gentleman has further stated that he is

  357
  surprised there should be any difficulty about the simple acceptance of a Bill which he has described in language all his own. The House of Lords, he says, have made the measure a comprehensive and consistent one. Sir, it was a masterpiece of the rhetorical art and experience of the right hon. Gentleman that while he submitted that statement to the House he kept his countenance. Sir, I will endeavour to submit to a short analysis and examination the character which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Bill. He has fallen back upon statistics, and says that the last Report of the Registrar General indicates that one-fifth of the population cannot sign their names upon marriage, and the consequence he draws is that one-fifth the voters will be unable to read and write. Sir, I think the right hon. Gentleman must have a very poor opinion of the perspicuity of mind possessed by those whom he addressed and whom he expects to convince when he tenders us statistics of that character. One-fifth of the population who marry, he says, are one-fifth of the population who vote. Sir, we deny it. Marriage extends farther downwards in the population. I apprehend that the peasants in the villages of this country are in the habit of marrying. I have heard so, and I believe it; but I have not heard that they have the habit or the capacity of voting. Even in towns, among the non-voters, you will find a much larger proportion of those who are called illiterate than among the voters; but in the counties almost the entire mass of the illiterate will be found among the non-voting population. Therefore, the one-fifth of the right hon. Gentleman is a figure, undoubtedly, but a figure in more senses than one. It is a figure of arithmetic; it is also a figure of speech; and one of the boldest figures of speech among the many for the production of which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible that he has ever indulged in. I might also point out—only I do not wish to descend to minute points—that to be able to write your name is one thing, and to be able to read the names of candidates another and an easier thing. However, let us pass from that point. Having laid, I think, some ground for objecting to the statistics of the right hon. Gentleman, I must remark that besides misapprehending the proportion of the public with whom we dealt in pass-
  358
  ing the Ballot Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has paid no attention whatever to those provisions of the Bill which affect the illiterate voters. He says that as regards them we have established optional voting—that they are one-fifth of the constituencies, and that the House of Lords has only done the same in regard to the remaining four-fifths. Now, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that in that statement he showed himself to be entirely mistaken as to the real points of the case. I will not dwell on the fact that though we acceded with great reluctance to a certain deviation from the strict objects of the Bill in favour of the illiterate voters, nothing but the hard alternative of a seeming indifference to their exercising the franchise would have induced my right hon. Friend and the Government to adopt that course; but we did not establish an optional Ballot even for the illiterate voters. We did—in deference to what appeared to be an absolute necessity—admit to the knowledge of the vote certain persons; but we required the strongest proofs that the man was really illiterate. That provision has been struck out by the Lords. We also imposed the strongest obligation of secrecy, backed by a penalty of six months' imprisonment, on those who were allowed to be taken into the confidence of the illiterate voter; but those penalties have disappeared from the Bill as it has come down to us from the House of Lords. Therefore, even if it was true that we had established an optional Ballot for a small portion of the population—not one-fifth, but more probably one-twentieth—it could not have been true that we sought to extend it; but it is, undoubtedly, inaccurate to state that we did establish optional Ballot on the fact even of that proportion. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman, in his recommendation of the consistency and comprehensiveness of the Amendments, appears to have overlooked the reasoning on which the whole proceeding was founded. According to the right hon. Gentleman, comprehensiveness and consistency mean nothing else but a rational and absolute uniformity of proceeding, quite irrespective of the circumstances to which those proceedings apply. In the case of the illiterate voter, what we did was to meet a difficulty which we did not find ourselves able to meet in any other way. What the Lords

  359
  have done is to apply, not the same provisions, but provisions infinitely more lax and totally different in character in cases where there is no necessity whatever for them. We have no wish to quarrel over this matter. The Session is well advanced, the weather has been warm, and I hope will be warm again; and I trust under those circumstances that we shall not be found wanting in that good humour with which we, on both sides of the House, desire to conduct our proceedings. Under these circumstances, having made many steps forward to meet the right hon. Gentleman and the other House of Parliament, we are ready to make a similar advance now, without the sacrifice and infringement of our higher duties—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not give us credit if we were ready to make such a sacrifice—we have endeavoured to avoid creating new differences, or widening the differences which already exist between us; but we do not use the language of exaggeration when I say that the principle of optional Ballot goes to the very root of the matter. It is true, as I have said—and as most of us have said—that practically the Ballot will be so far optional that there will be nothing to prevent any man who is so disposed from declaring to anyone he pleases the nature of the vote he has given, and that as regards a large portion of the constituency the manner of voting will be as well known after the Ballot as before; but, in order that there may be a really optional Ballot, I believe it is of absolute and inevitable necessity that within the polling-booth there should be no option at all. While the polling is going on, or in bringing the voters near to the process, anything in the nature of option would in many of our constituencies render this Bill "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare." I am using the language of simple, sober common sense, not of rhetoric or figure—though, perhaps, if I did use the language of figure it would be more acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman—when I say that if such provisions were allowed to remain in the Bill we should betray our trust to the people of England as its promoters, if we did not also disappoint some of those who had achieved Conservative triumphs by their advocacy of it. I therefore trust the House will not be indisposed to adopt the course of proceeding indicated by my
  360
  right hon. Friend. I am quite sure they will not allow themselves to be deluded either by the inaccurate statistics or the illusory figures introduced by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MONCKTONsaid, that having heard various statements made with regard to the opinion entertained by the constituencies on the question of the Ballot, he must beg to record his protest against the supposition that the feeling of the country was in favour of that measure. It was as an opponent of the Ballot that he had been elected; and he must remind the House that it was as opponents of the Ballot that the hon. Members for Plymouth, Truro, Cumberland, and East Surrey had last Session been returned. Intimidation had been referred to, but, speaking of county elections, where was it to come from? They were sometimes told, from the landlords. Well, in his own case, putting the landlords and tenants whom they might be supposed to influence out of the question, he had been returned by a majority of 700 freeholders. His constituents declared themselves against the Ballot, because, they said, if there was a compulsory secret Ballot, they would not be able to vote openly if they wished. He therefore protested against the statement that the country was in favour of the Ballot.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I am confident that the House has listened with gratification to the able speech of the hon. Member for North Nottinghamshire (Mr. Monckton). The hon. Member has shown us that there are, as yet, young Gentlemen who are neither afraid nor ashamed to vindicate in this House the opinions of the constituencies who return them. I confess that I regret the course which has been pursued by the House of Lords on this subject. The House of Lords had a great issue to meet. They had a great choice to make. They have a representative character of their own to maintain, or, as the alternative, to accept the position of being a mere dependency of the House of Commons. Now, the House of Lords although not elected, have a representative character in this respect—if any measure goes up to them from this House, as to which they doubt the opinion of the country, they have the power, they have the function, they have the duty of rejecting such a measure, and of persevering in that rejection

  361
  until the Prime Minister is compelled to apply to the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament. Thus the House of Lords have the function and the duty of forcing a direct appeal to the constituencies upon any important subject upon which they have reason to think that this House does not represent the deliberate judgment of the country. The representative character of the House of Lords rests upon their power of forcing a direct appeal to the country, and if this power be not exercised when its application is needed, the representative character of the House of Lords is lost. After what has passed in this House, I think it must be admitted, to say the very least, that it is a matter of doubt whether the country desires this secret voting. As the Representative myself of a great popular constituency, composed chiefly of freeholders, I know that they do not, and I believe that the country does not, desire secret voting. I lament that the House of Lords have been entrapped into a mistaken attempt to effect a compromise with the majority of this House upon this subject, because the opinion of the country has not been legitimately declared at a General Election; and an expression of opinion by this House ought not to be taken as conclusive by the House of Lords upon a constitutional question of the magnitude of the present, until it has been fairly submitted to the country by an appeal to the constituencies. What course, then, am I now to pursue in reference to these Amendments? Sir, I shall vote for every Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has declared to be inconsistent with the principle of secret voting—for every Amendment that is in any way directed against the principle of secret voting. I shall vote in vindication of the ancient and time-honoured, honest, open, electioneering system of this country. I shall do this in the spirit, in the temper, and on the principles of an Englishman. Look at Canada. What have the Canadians done in reference to this question? Canada lies along the United States of America, with a very extended frontier. The Canadians have watched the operation of the Ballot in the United States for many years; the new Dominion has been constantly receiving immigrants from the States, who know what are the
  362
  dangers and vices of the Ballot by personal experience. Well, the adoption of the Ballot has been repeatedly proposed to Canada, and at length, upon some curious political contingency, it was accepted in New Brunswick, where it prevailed for 15 years, but when Canada became united, the able men who were delegated to frame the new Constitution of the Dominion unanimously rejected the Ballot. I cite the experience of Canada, then, in this respect, against all that has been said on the faith of the embryo example of Australia. I am not about to enter into the merits of the question; but I have said enough to explain why I intend to vote against the principle of secrecy at every possible opportunity.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished to allude to a view of this question which had been entirely overlooked in the debate. He would call attention to the fact that the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had treated the action of the Lords as if they had sent them a new Bill, substituting optional secrecy for compulsory secrecy; but he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) ventured to assert that the Bill as it left that House was not a Bill for compulsory secrecy at all. He did not now speak of that large number of persons who were directly authorized to vote openly; he did not refer to the class of Jews, physically incapacitated or illiterate voters, although he ventured to predict that among many corrupt constituencies there would be found an extraordinary number of Jews and illiterate persons on the day of election. But he alluded to the general provisions of the measure; and it seemed to him that the House of Lords had only endeavoured to save Parliament from the folly of enacting a law which they had declined to insert penalties to enforce. Had they so soon forgotten what happened in the de-debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham)? The expression of opinion on the part of all who voted against that Amendment, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), was in favour of permissive secrecy and against compulsory secrecy. The supporters of the Amendment were equally clear in their declarations, that without its adoption there could be no compulsion, and without compulsion there could

  363
  be no secret Ballot; and the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) called upon the friends of the Ballot to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield as even more important than the second reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, moreover, urged that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) would simply legalize open voting, and that for the proper carrying out of the measure penalties were necessary. The same argument was used by the Prime Minister, who said a penalty was necessary not only for the advantage of the voter himself, but for the security of his neighbour. The Committee, however, in almost the largest House of the Session, rejected the Amendment by a majority of 28, the Prime Minister afterwards, in reply to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne), admitting that the Bill had received a grievous blow. What was this decision but a vote in favour of the optional or permissive Ballot? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) stated, both on the third reading and to-day, that a penalty was not necessary to enforce secrecy, but in the discussion on the Amendment he said this—
  "On asking the opinion of a legal gentleman he found the probability was that, inasmuch as by Section 2 a secret mode of voting was ordered, to display a vote would be an act of disobedience to that section, and according to the letter of the law an indictment for misdemeanour would lie against any person who disobeyed the law in this respect."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 1484.]
  MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that he repeated that statement on the third reading, and had alluded to it to-day.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHhad already stated that, but would ask the right hon. Gentleman to listen to what he said afterwards, which he did not repeat on the third reading, or on the present occasion. This was how he continued—
  "He was also informed, on the same authority, that although such an indictment would be possible, it would probably not, according to the common practice of the law, be successful. The general practice of the House in passing provisions of this kind was, after declaring what they wished the Queen's subjects to do, to state what was the penalty for the transgression of the law This rule ought, in his judgment, to be observed in the present case."—[Ibid. 1484–5.]
  He would appeal, too, from the right hon. Gentleman's words to his acts. He
  364
  had had a considerable share in passing measures of elementary education for England and Scotland. In both those measures there were provisions for compulsory education. But would the right hon. Gentleman have been content with enacting that a father should send his child to school, without following it up by a penalty if he failed to do so? Now, the default of a parent in that respect was a criminal act, which, in the opinion of the great majority of the community, would call for punishment; but nobody would venture to assert that to vote openly was a moral offence, for it would simply be continuing to discharge a public duty in the way hitherto required by the law. If, therefore, it was to be punished, it was far more necessary to enact a penalty for open voting than for such a moral offence as the neglect to educate a child. But as no such penalty appeared in this Bill, how would it be interpreted? Could the House suppose that the Courts, if this Bill became an Act, would inflict a penalty on a man who wilfully gave an open vote? They would refer to the discussions in this House, and they would see that the House had declined to inflict a penalty, and they would not fine or imprison a man in defiance of the opinion of Parliament, possibly in September next, because he had acted on the opinion which the Prime Minister himself held in September last. The Lords had done their best to save this House and the country from a sham. Ballot Bill—a Bill which, according to its authors, was one for compulsory secrecy, but which really did not enforce anything of the kind. If this House should disagree with the Amendment, the Lords would earn the gratitude of the country by declining to give way; for what most of the supporters of the supporters of the Ballot really desired was this—that a man afraid of voting openly might be permitted to vote secretly; but that no penalty should be imposed on a man who still wished to give an open vote. The Lords would thus accord protection to all who required it, without interfering with those who did not, and would save this House from a deceptive and inconsistent Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that having been referred to by the hon. Baronet he wished to state that he had given utterance to no such opinion as he had attri-

  365
  buted to him. The opinions he expressed last September were precisely conformable to those he had enunciated to-day.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had simply referred to the remarks reported in the public Press as having been made by the right hon. Gentleman in his Wakefield speech, which was not contradicted by him at the time.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had stated on a previous occasion that the report was not an authorized one. He much doubted whether a reporter was even present, and what occurred was rather conversation than speaking.
  MR. LEATHAM: Sir, I should have had some difficulty in replying to the hon. Baronet who has just spoken but for the circumstance that my right hon. Friend purposely introduced words into another part of the Bill, the object of which was to remove the ambiguity of which the hon. Baronet complains. These words were subsequently struck out in "another place." Now, Sir, there is sometimes this difficulty in discussing measures which come down to us after they have received the finishing touches of hereditary statesmanship—that it is almost impossible to consider them with becoming gravity. Here is a Bill which was sent up as a measure for enabling dependant voters to vote freely, because they were to vote secretly. It comes back to us a measure for compelling dependant voters to vote openly; for persons in that position will be allowed no choice. It was also a Bill for the discouragement of bribery, for the briber would never have known that he had value for his bribe. But as the Bill stands now he can secure that the bribed vote is given as openly as at present. My right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) was therefore justified when he said that the Bill had been made "worse than useless," for it retains the form without the substance of the Ballot. In fact it is Box et præterea nihil. What then is the duty of the House? Why, to put the Bill back again; and if their Amendments are insisted upon in "another place," I trust that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government will appeal to the country. I can assure him that there has been no question upon which any Government has gone to the country, within the memory of this generation, upon which that appeal has been more popular than it would be upon this. Let
  366
  me say one word with reference to the scrutiny. I am aware that many hon. Members who sit near me object to a scrutiny, on the ground that even under the closest form of Ballot, it will take years for men who have been coerced to recover the full use of their consciences. But in asking us to abandon the scrutiny, they are asking us to renounce a privilege of importance, and one which is not seldom resorted to. Shortly after the last General Election I ascertained that in 20 per cent of the cases in which the seat had been recently vacated on petition, a scrutiny, or the threat of scrutiny, determined the final return. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has been seated on three distinct occasions by scrutiny. With the important restriction to which my right hon. Friend has referred—which will prevent a wanton scrutiny and votes from being challenged in order that they may be exposed—I do not object to a scrutiny, and, in fact, provided for such a scrutiny in the Bill which I had myself the honour to introduce. I cannot sit down without thanking the Government for the firmness of their attitude with regard to these Amendments, and I believe that I am expressing the opinion of many hon. Members who cannot take part in this debate, when I say that that firmness will win for the Government the support and confidence of the country.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, that as he had been referred to by the Prime Minister as one who had been long pledged to to the Ballot, he hoped the House would allow him to explain why he was against this Bill. On the first occasion when he stood on the hustings he was asked by the people before him whether he was in favour of the Ballot or not. He told them he was ashamed of the Ballot, but that if they would assure him they could not vote as they liked because of the oppression of their masters, they ought either not to have a vote at all or to be protected by Ballot. He told them if they desired such protection he would vote for the Ballot. But the House would recollect that until this time they never had before them a Ballot Bill; that on all previous occasions when the Ballot was discussed they had before them merely abstract Resolutions, to the effect that it was desirable to take votes by Ballot. Except on one occasion,

  367
  when the division came on too early to permit him to vote, he always voted with "Ballot Berkeley" as he was called, and he was prepared to vote that there should be vote by Ballot if he found the people persisted in requiring it, and if a proper Ballot Bill were proposed. By a large part of the House the present Bill was called a sham. He should have objected to it from the very beginning, because it would do away with open nomination. He held that a candidate should stand before the constituents to hear what they had to say to him, and that they might see and hear him. He was not for getting himself proposed in a shed, where there would be police officers to guard those who came to move and second his nomination, and therefore he was against this Bill. In his address to the electors he had denounced this Bill as a bungling piece of legislation, which favoured corruption, and that he objected to it; therefore the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have pointed to him as a person in favour of this Bill. He would do all in his power to prevent its becoming law.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, as he was about to vote against his party, which he did with great regret, he felt bound to give his reasons for taking that course. During his canvass two months ago, in nearly every house which he entered he was asked—"What line are you going to take with regard to the Ballot?" and he found that the feeling was so strong on that point that he felt it his duty to pledge himself to the Ballot. Having promised to do so, he was not going to shrink from the obligation into which he had entered, nor would he shirk his responsibility by saying that the Ballot Bill which he pledged himself to support was a different Bill from the present one. The Bill known to his constituents was the one which he supported now, and it was his intention to vote with the Government.
  MR. COLMANsaid, he should support the Bill, because he preferred the prevention of corruption to its cure.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 302; Noes 234: Majority 68.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I will now, in fulfilment of the pledge of my right hon. Friend yesterday and of myself to-day, propose to insert words which
  368
  acknowledge the principle of a possible scrutiny. In the 7th line of Clause 2, after the word "candidates," I propose to insert these words—
  "Each ballot paper shall have a number printed on the back, and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face."
  I do not for a moment deny that it is with reluctance that I move this Amendment. It is a great concession made by those who are strongly in favour of the Ballot; but I think it is a concession which, rather than lose the Bill, it is wise for us to make. It is the one point on which most is to be said in favour of the Lords' Amendments. I shall not detain the House by repeating arguments which are familiar to hon. Members, but will repeat what I said last year, and it is this—that I always considered the importance of this question of a scrutiny exaggerated on both sides. The argument against a scrutiny is, that under it the way in which a voter gives his vote may be discovered, while the argument in its favour is that under it a bad vote may be traced and struck out. I believe that very few bad votes will be struck out under a scrutiny, and that a machinery can be made which will render votes with a possible scrutiny substantially secret. The suggestion of the Committee which sat to consider this subject—that there should be a scrutiny, was supported by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, whose assistance we should have been glad to have had on this question; but his approval of the plan was coupled with the condition that the vote should be inviolable until it was declared invalid. With that view I shall propose to follow this Amendment in the future clauses and in the Schedule by providing that the secrecy of the vote shall be secured as much as it can be secured, and that a scrutiny shall not be made use of merely to discover the vote; and I shall also have to propose another consequential Amendment, which I now allude to, to show both sides of the House that the Bill was scarcely considered with that attention in "another place" which we might have expected it would have received. The strongest argument in favour of a scrutiny is, that a bad vote may be traced under it and struck out, but as we in this House were unable to agree that scrutinies should be permitted, we inserted a clause to the effect that when a vote was proved to be in-

  369
  valid, a vote, but not the bad vote, should be struck out. The Lords having provided for a scrutiny, had left that clause in; so that, although they provided the machinery for identifying the bad vote, they merely required that a vote, and not the bad vote, should be struck out. I shall therefore have to move by-and-by that the clause to which I have referred be struck out.
  Amendment proposed to the words reinstated by such disagreement,
  To insert, after the word "candidates," in page 2, line 7, the words "Each ballot paper shall have a number printed on the back, and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JAMESsaid, that he was not content to allow the Amendment to pass without a challenge, and he proposed to take the sense of the House upon it. He admitted that he could have but little hope of defeating the combined forces of the Government and the Opposition, but still he felt it should be recorded on the Journals of the House that there were some here who declined to accept the Ballot accompanied by a scrutiny, and who would prefer a system of open voting to anything of the sort. He thought he should have but little difficulty in showing that a scrutiny ought not to be introduced into a Ballot Bill at all; not that he was about to detain the House with a long argument, but because those who were now about to vote for a scrutiny had over and over again argued and voted against it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were perfectly consistent in accepting a scrutiny, but he wanted to know what hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side, who had divided some 15 or 20 times against such a principle, could say in vindication of the vote which they were now about to give. It was said that that must be a matter of compromise with the other House, but he protested against that doctrine: whatever would make the Ballot a bad Bill would be infinitely worse than leaving things as they were. He hoped he should not be misunderstood in saying that he thought the House of Lords ought not to bear the full responsibility of this measure. He was not one of those who sneered at the legislation of
  370
  the other House, and he had nothing to say against the interference of the other House with any measure which that House might pass; but if ever there was a question which the House of Commons ought to decide for themselves, and which was a question arising between themselves and their constituents alone, that was one; but they were now asked to give up a vital principle in order to favour the opinions of those who, with much deference to their position, ought not to interfere at all. He wished to remind the House of the Resolution formerly passed by that House—
  "That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate …. to concern himself in the election of Members to the Commons House of Parliament."
  What amount of personal experience had Members of the House of Lords had in elections for Members of Parliament? Some of them never could have taken part in such elections, unless they had infringed the Resolutions of Parliament. A few of them did take part in the Election of 1868, and that had shown a practical necessity for the Ballot. If the House of Lords entertained the view that had been expressed against the Bill that day, they ought, in common fairness, to have rejected the measure, and to have borne the responsibility of its rejection; but instead of that, while a vast majority were opposed to it in principle, only 50 or 60 Peers had the courage to express their opinions, and the remainder of the opponents of the principles of the Bill introduced some suggestion of a scrutiny, and thus endeavoured to destroy the Bill insidiously, instead of openly rejecting it. He was not making any attacks upon the House of Lords, but he wished they had acted now with the courage which they showed of old. He wished he could say that all virtues were hereditary. There were barons of old who were bolder than barons were now, and they fought with fair weapons both in war and in council. The Commons were now in the position of endeavouring to buy the Bill by giving in their adhesion to a principle which was against the whole theory of the measure. He knew there were supporters of the Ballot, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), who did not see much evil in providing

  371
  for a scrutiny. That hon. Gentleman, in 1869, had even a scheme of his own for giving a scrutiny, by putting all the voting papers into an oven and compelling the Election Judge to bate them until an invisible number appeared on their backs. But within the last two years the hon. Gentleman had yielded, and now supported the Ballot without a scrutiny. The present Bill proposed to bring to the polling at elections the evil of privacy and the virtue of secrecy, but it was now proposed to give up the virtue and retain the evil. Opportunity after opportunity would then be offered to poor men to dispose of their votes to the best advantage, and no doubt they would embrace those opportunities even to a far greater degree than they did at present, for if the voter were led to suppose that his vote could be traced, his course of action in all probability would be to vote according to his interest, as he did now, rather than according to his conscience, which it was the object of a Ballot Bill to enable him to do. There was no necessity for a scrutiny either, for in the case of a defeated candidate who had been beaten by 20 votes, no one would know how any of the voters had polled; and if there were known to be 25 cases of personation it might be found by means of an expensive process of scrutinizing that all the personators had voted in favour of the defeated candidate. A scrutiny, therefore, was not wanted for cases of personation, because personation could be as well discovered without knowing how the voter had voted as when that knowledge was obtained. He knew that so far as the result was concerned it would be useless to divide the House on the subject; but it was not useless to enter a protest against the course which was being pursued, and with that view he should take the sense of the House upon the question.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, he would venture to say that in a large constituency 500 or 1,000 persons might be personated, for he was satisfied that the Bill would give the utmost facility for personation in our large towns. He had no doubt it would be found that all the penalties proposed would be useless to stop personation, and he said that from experience of the present system, with all the checks and safeguards which, with public voting, were adopted by candidates and their supporters. When per-
  372
  sonation was detected, moreover, there was great reluctance on the part of those who had been injured to prosecute the personator, for it was usually said that the conflict was over, that the battle had been lost and won, and that it would be but a poor exercise of power to crush the unlucky man who had been induced to personate a voter. Personation was a great and a growing evil, and it would be much increased, not diminished, by a system of Ballot which was private and secret too.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 382; Noes 137: Majority 245.
  Several other Amendments made to the words reinstated by the said disagreement.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was sorry that the Government had in a moment of weakness consented to give way so far as they had, and thought it would be convenient that the House should be informed what kind of scrutiny was proposed. The division which had just been taken affirmed that there should be a scrutiny, but it would be interesting to know by what means his right hon. Friend proposed it should be carried out, and what the securities for secrecy were in case of a scrutiny.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought he had already explained that matter to the House. The machinery for the scrutiny would be that which was contained in the Bill of his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The number of the vote was placed on the counterfoil, the same number being stamped on the voting paper. The security against the number being discovered, except in case of a scrutiny, would be this—the counterfoils would be sealed up and the voting papers also after the election was decided, and there would be no permission to look at them; the vote would be inviolable, unless there was an order from a tribunal for it to be delivered up after it was declared invalid. There would be this security—that in the next clause words would be introduced making it penal for any agent or officer, either at any polling station or at the time of counting the votes, to attempt to obtain or give information as to the numbers on the votes. He also proposed to introduce

  373
  a provision similar to what was in the Bill of his noble Friend, requiring the presiding officer, at the time of counting the votes, to keep the voting paper upwards.
  MR. HERMONsuggested that the counterfoils should be sealed up before the ballot papers were counted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, a provision to that effect would be introduced.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERproposed to disagree with the Lords' Amendment in line 22, by which the property in the ballot papers was vested in the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery instead of in the Returning Officers. He believed the effect of the Amendment had not been understood in the House of Lords, for if adopted it would introduce a principle different from that which had reference to municipal elections. He proposed to substitute instead words vesting the counterfoils as well as the ballot papers in the Returning Officer. He was informed that an action for theft would not lie against the Returning Officer, who would have to be proceeded against for misconduct. The question they had to deal with had reference to what would happen if the papers were stolen from the Returning Officer.
  In reply to Mr. WALPOLE,
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, this clause had nothing to do with the custody of the papers, but related to the person in whose name the property was to be laid for the purpose of indictment. In a Post Office indictment they laid the property in the name of the Postmaster General, although he never had the custody of the property. This was merely machinery for the convenience of criminal proceedings.
  Lords Amendments disagreed to.
  Then words inserted "as well as the property in the counterfoils."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER moved that the House disagree with the Amendments in lines 25, 26, 36, relating to the obligation of secrecy on the part of the officer, clerk, or agent as to voting at the polling stations.
  Amendments disagreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER moved in line 38, after ("voted") insert—
  374
  ("or as to the number on the back of the ballot paper given to any voter at such station. Every officer, clerk, and agent in attendance at the counting of the votes shall maintain and aid in maintaining the secrecy of the voting, and shall not attempt to ascertain at such counting the number on the back of any ballot paper, or communicate any information obtained at such counting as to the candidate for whom any vote is given in any particular ballot paper.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER moved that the House disagree to the Lords Amendment providing that there should be a polling place not more than two miles from any voter's residence. The House decided by a large majority last year in favour of four miles in preference to three, and this year they decided in favour of four miles in preference to two. He should have been anxious to adopt the Amendment could it be safely done; but the condition of the country under the new arrangements must be ascertained before such a step was taken, which would involve inconveniences in their arrangement of parishes, increased cost, and a difficulty in finding so many presiding officers.
  MR. HUNTurged that facilities for conveying voters to the poll would be less under secret than under open voting, and he believed the reluctance to vote would be much greater. The question was, whether that should be counteracted by additional facilities for polling, and by relieving the voter from the expense of riding four miles, for many would not have sufficient time or strength to walk that distance and back. The Amendment was materially qualified by the words "as far as is reasonably practicable," and by the Proviso that no polling-place should be created unless there were 400 registered electors within its radius. He hoped, therefore, the House would accept it. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) had said that four miles was neither walking nor riding; but under ordinary circumstances it would be riding, and it was desirable to fix such a distance that in most cases the electors might walk.
  MR. GOLDSMIDpointed out that the four miles would be a maximum distance, and that in most cases the voter would have a shorter distance to travel. A two-mile limit would involve many additional agents, presiding officers, and clerks, and would make county elections

  375
  so costly that few gentlemen would like to become candidates.
  MR. CORRANCE, while anxious to multiply polling-places, agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there were practical objections to a two-mile limit, the expenses of contests being materially increased.
  MR. SYNANremarked that in Ireland great inconvenience and difficulty would result from the adoption of the Amendment.
  MR. HUNTreminded the hon. Gentleman that the clause did not apply to Ireland.
  MR. DODSONreminded the House that some English counties, or parts of them, were in much the same position as Ireland. He hoped the House would adhere to its decision. He did not see how the Ballot would lessen the facilities for polling. The circumstances of counties greatly differed, and it was undesirable to fetter the discretion of the local authorities further than making four miles the maximum. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, moreover, had evinced great distrust of the discretion necessarily vested in presiding officers, whom it would be difficult in some places to obtain; and they could not desire to multiply them needlessly, for that would be attended with multipication of expenses.
  MR. HEYGATEremarked that, if the Amendment as to the use of school-rooms was disagreed to, it would be easy to multiply polling-places largely. He suggested three miles as a compromise.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENunderstood the Government proposed to accept the Amendment as to school-rooms. He thought the House had better adhere to the maximum of four miles. It would materially add to the expenses of elections, if they were to have polling-places largely multiplied.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Clause 6 (Use of public room for poll).
  Page 5, line 26, leave out from ("election") to ("any") in line 28, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that, although the Government were of opinion that these buildings might be fairly used for election purposes, they were not prepared to object to the Lords' Amendment, which seemed to commend itself
  376
  to the feelings of the other House. He therefore proposed that the Amendment be agreed to.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH, who had a Notice of Amendment on the Paper with regard to the subject, said, he hoped the House would not accept the Lords' Amendment, and that, in spite of what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, the House would support him in resisting it. The Lords had done all in their power to multiply polling-places, and then to make them as expensive as possible by refusing the use of quasi-public rooms. The schools were now used for many meetings of a public description, and it was quite proper that this additional use should be made of them. In some places the school-room would be required only once in four or five years; and in others only once in 10 or 20 years; and its occasional use for an election would be attended with very little hardship compared with the service which such a use would render to the community. He would therefore move that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment in page 5, line 26, by leaving out from "election," to "any" in line 28; and inline 28, after "room," by inserting "not being a school."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. BROWNmaintained that in many places there were no rooms available except the school-rooms.
  MR. CRAUFURDhoped the Government would not agree to the Lords' Amendment, for in Scotland they always made use of school-rooms for election purposes.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he must strenuously deny that school-rooms were public buildings; in many instances they they had been built and maintained chiefly by private munificence, and he could not admit that the Parliamentary grant gave Parliament a right to use them against the wishes of the managers. Last year it was proposed that such consent should be necessary; but the hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) proposed to make their appropriation compulsory. He wished that they could now divide on the same issue as they did last

  377
  year. He emphatically protested, in the name of liberty, against the schoolrooms being taken in opposition to the will of the managers.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he desired to record his experience that school-rooms were the best places for taking the poll. Otherwise, hustings would have to be erected in the streets—so far as the metropolis was concerned—and that would be not only disagreeable, but expensive. His remark especially applied to the borough with which he was connected—Southwark.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government had felt it to be incumbent on them to consider the apparently strong feeling of the House of Lords; but it was quite clear that the feeling of the House of Commons was equally strong. He did not think this was a matter in which the Lords could expect the Government to go against a decided expression of opinion from both sides of the House. It was quite true he first assented to the proposal to use the rooms with the consent of the managers; but upon consideration he was almost immediately convinced that this arrangement would be worse than no alteration at all. After the decided expression of opinion on both sides of the House, the Government, at all events, would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, one of the objections to the use of school-rooms in large towns was that there were frequent elections in such towns, and it was very objectionable to give the children a holiday on an election day. Besides, a school might imperil its Government grant by these compulsory holidays. If the matter were made optional instead of compulsory the difficulty might be overcome.
  SIR HERBERT CROFTsaid, that schoolmasters and the Diocesan Board of Education in his county were opposed to giving up the school-rooms. Hitherto education had been kept free from politics; but now there was a talk not only of taking the rooms compulsorily, but of compelling the schoolmasters to be deputy Returning Officers. In France a similar use had been made of schoolmasters, and see to what a condition it had been reduced.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, that by increasing the number of polling-places the expenses were increased.
  378
  The number of rich men was also increasing yearly in the House; but he was far from saying that the eloquence or intelligence of the House was increasing. He was surprised that the House of Lords, with curious perversity, had struck out of a bad Bill almost the only good provision it contained.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that one practical matter had been overlooked in the debate. They were going to take the school-room for one day, but it would be required for three or four days. The school-rooms had fittings and fixtures which would require to be taken up that the ballot-box and all the hocus-pocus of voting by Ballot, and Heaven only knew what, might be put into the school. Now, was he or anyone else to confiscate these schools for any such purpose? The practical inconveniences of this scheme were not merely sentimental—they were very real. If the Government had adopted this Amendment the House also would have adopted it, and it was only a few county Members who were in the way.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 365; Noes 86: Majority 279.
  The next Amendment disagreed to.
  Subsequent Amendments, as far as the Amendment, page 8, line 20, agreed to.
  The next Amendment in line 28, after ("room") insert ("not being a school").
  MR. J. S. HARDYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether the managers of schools would be allowed to count the days when the school-rooms would be occupied for election purposes in estimating the amount of the Government grant; and would the holiday be limited as to time?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think that the fact of the schoolrooms being used occasionally for election purposes should be a ground for reducing the amount of education given to children.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Page 8, line 20, after ("Act") insert Clause (A.)
  "At every contested election of a member or members to serve in Parliament after the passing of this Act, the poll shall continue for one day only, and shall commence at eight of the clock in the forenoon of the day appointed for that pur-

  379
  pose by the returning officer, and shall be kept open until the hour hereinafter mentioned, and no longer; that is to say,

  (a.) If the poll takes place between the last day of March and the first day of October, until seven o'clock in the afternoon, and

  (b.) If the poll takes place between the last day of September and the first day of April, until five o'clock in the afternoon,"

  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER moved that the House do agree to this Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in moving that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment, said, the House would recollect the unanimity which had prevailed on this question when the Bill was passing through Committee. He intended to divide the House upon the question, because if the hours named were adhered to an outcry would be raised against any Government that dissolved Parliament in the winter, on the ground that Liberal voters would not be able to vote at so early an hour as 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he could not understand how this Amendment had come before them. It was from the Government bench of the House of Lords that this Amendment was made; and the Prime Minister only yesterday had stated that he accepted it with great doubt and hesitation, though it was moved from the Government bench in the other House. The working men were not satisfied with it. He trusted they would not now adopt a system which would give two separate agents and have the poll open after nightfall.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not conceive why Her Majesty's Government accepted this alteration, and he would vote against it.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he hoped the House would disagree with the Amendment. It might be found desirable to state these hours of polling for the large boroughs; but it would be highly inconvenient to apply the same rule to small boroughs, where all the voters were generally polled out by 2 o'clock; for if no provision were put in this Bill to enable the poll to be closed when
  380
  every man had voted, the presiding officer and his assistants would have to sit several hours biting their thumbs.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 227: Majority 37.
  Amendments, as far as the Amendment, page 13, line 23, read a second time; several agreed to; one disagreed to.
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the further Consideration of the Lords Amendments was adjourned till this day.
  And it being now five minutes to Seven of the Clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the Clock.

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

ALBERT AND EUROPEAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the failure of the Albert and European Life Assurance Companies, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to institute a searching investigation into the causes of those failures,"
  said, that before moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice, he might, perhaps, be allowed briefly to explain the circumstances which induced him to ask hon. Members to give their attention to the subject, as well as his reason for withdrawing the Bill which passed a second reading some time ago, and substituting the Motion now before the House. When in 1868 he thought it his duty, as Vice President of the Board of Trade, in consequence of representations which had been made to him respecting the condition of certain widely-extended life assurance companies, to place upon the Notice Paper of the House a Motion for inquiring into the mode in which this important business was carried on, he was encountered by a storm of indignant protests. For these he was pre-

  381
  pared, knowing that to some companies such, an inquiry would be fatal; and that others in a very different character, to whom such investigation would be of unmixed benefit, would unite in remonstrance in consequence of the disinclination felt by the mercantile classes to have what they termed their private affairs overhauled by Government officials. He was met by the menace that if he persevered in his Motion, Amendments and riders would be moved to include banks and sundry other trading firms. It was asserted that he had picked out the class of business which least needed investigation; that while bankers and merchants had gone down by the hundred, not an assurance office had ever failed, not a policy had been, when due, unpaid. That was not wholly accurate even then; but there was a certain plausibility in the argument. It was quite true that in the case of private firms it was extremely difficult for the public to know whom they were trusting, and what amount of capital there was to meet engagements. But, although the failure of a bank caused great misery and inconvenience, yet beyond the partners or shareholders there was not usually, except in the case of fraudulent dealing with securities, the widespread ruin occasioned by the collapse of a life assurance company. In these days people seldom left large balances bearing a low rate of interest, or none at all, at their bankers; but invested their surplus money in some of the multifarious stocks and shares, more or less safe, which are always ready to absorb the savings of the country. Then, again, if a bank began to lose its reputation the remedy was simple; its customers ceased to trust it, and withdrew their money, and that could be done alike at any period, as easily at the end of many years of confidence as at the end of one year. A man of 80, who had trusted a bank all his life, could withdraw his confidence as easily as a man of 25 who opened an account last week. In cases of a more speculative character—such as Overend and Gurneys, Barned's Bank, and others—the brunt of the calamity fell upon shrewd men of busines, who had with their eyes open been tempted to disregard the maxim that large profits meant great risks; or even to accept those risks for the sake of the profits. How different was this with assurance
  382
  offices, where the heaviest losses fell upon the least adventurous and most prudent; where each year as it rolled on necessarily and enormously increased the loss, for if a dividend of 1s. in the pound only was recovered, how much greater the loss of the provident man who had been paying premiums for 30 or 40 years than his who began a year or two ago? Once in the toils there was no escape without loss; and even the dividend which might be recovered had not the power of purchasing future provision which the same sum had in former years. The hardest case of all was probably that of the man who had invested his disposable capital in a deferred annuity either for himself or others—a kind of engagement latterly entered into over and over again by the managers of the Albert and European, at a time when they must have known that there was not the remotest chance of its fulfilment, just as if a tradesman should receive orders and take payment for goods of which he had none to sell. The Vice Chancellor, in making the order for winding-up the European, mentioned a case, as occurring within his own knowlege, of the widow of a barrister, for whom her husband's friends had purchased an annuity in that office, and who was now destitute; benevolence having only momentarily tantalized her with the hope of permanent provision. Many cases of equal hardship had been brought to his own notice. Notwithstanding the reproaches heaped upon him, he should probably have persevered in his Motion in 1868, had not the time of the House been occupied with business of more general interest than a question which, to the majority of Members, appeared rather theoretical than practical, for the discussion of which there was no particular pressure. Had there been an inquiry it was hardly too much to say that millions might have been saved, and the ruin of some 50,000 families at least partially averted. That was not to be. In a less degree the same might be said of the Bill he introduced in the following year, as a private Member, when the opposition, covert and open, direct and indirect, which he encountered broke down the Bill and himself together before the end of the Session. It needed, in fact, a great calamity like the fall of the Albert, which occurred that autumn, to open people's eyes, and enable

  383
  an adequate measure to float over the obstacles of interested opposition. In 1870 he had the satisfaction of passing a Bill which was styled in a pamphlet by some one who saw, he presumed, the hope of his gains gone, "A Trap for the Unwary," for the repeal of which all policyholders were urged to petition, just as two years ago the directors of the Eurpean offered rewards for the discovery of maliciously-disposed persons who dared to suggest doubts of the perfect solvency of their office. The Act of 1870, though it might probably still be improved, was generally admitted to give the assured the means of protecting themselves against fraud to a far greater degree than they have ever had before, without unduly interfering with the legitimate freedom of action of sound and honest companies. He should be wanting in fairness did he not bear willing testimony to the invaluable assistance given him by Mr. Pattison in the preparation of the Bill, and to the careful and complete manner in which the arduous duties imposed by the Act upon the Board of Trade have been performed; and he was sure the President of that Board would allow that this success was mainly due to the zeal and industry of one of the many excellent permanent officers of that Board—Mr. Malcolm—a relative of one of the Members of that House. Meantime great disasters had occurred, under circumstances which he ventured to think removed them from the ordinary category of commercial failures, and demanded the interposition of the House to insure that which public opinion demanded, and the Judge who tried the case recommended—namely, such an inquiry as might, by the exposure of what he hoped were unparalleled malpractices, prevent their recurrence. The Albert and European, with their many associated offices, had utterly failed, and the dividend likely to be received by the policyholders was a miserable mockery. Under ordinary circumstances it was well known that the failure of an established life assurance office ought to be an impossibility. Were there, then, any extraordinary circumstances to account for these disasters? Were the tables of mortality falsified by pestilence or war? The Indian Mutiny, with its numerous victims, chiefly of the insuring class, was a severe trial to some offices, but
  384
  fatal to none. No such cause could be even alleged at this time. Like the Royal George, these offices went down in a calm sea, with a clear sky; not from outward shocks, but from internal mismanagement. Nor was it from the kind of mismanagement which dragged down so many trading firms in 1866—namely, unfortunate or speculative investments. He had heard the downfall of these offices attributed to the system of wrecking. He had yet to learn how the system of wrecking, which meant the artificial destruction of credit for the purpose of causing a run upon a bank and depreciation of shares, could be brought to bear upon an insurance office; except, indeed, by the assured conspiring to die in numbers beyond the average. The actuaries engaged in investigating the affairs of these societies made no such suggestions; on the contrary, the appalling deficiency was attributed by them to deliberate misapplication of the funds, in respect of which the managers were trustees for the assured. The banker who appropriated the securities intrusted to him by his customers was not more guilty than the managers of an assurance office who expended the reserve which was the sole security of the policyholder, in extravagant payments on account of management, negotiation, and dividends. He should have imagined that few people in these days would have favoured that system of remuneration which was formerly the ruin of so many West India properties—namely, payment in proportion to gross receipts. Such, however, was the system of the European; and, if the House allowed, he would read an extract from a letter giving a graphic description of the way that system was worked. The letter was from a barrister of high standing, the Recorder of an important city. He writes—
  "I attribute the ruin of these companies to the vicious system of remunerating the manager by a percentage upon all new policies. Hence the anxiety for amalgamations, no matter whether the offices were solvent or insolvent. As an instance within my own knowledge of the pernicious system of forcing new policies, I will mention the following:—Every year, some time in May, all the agents of the company from all parts were invited to London, and were entertained at a grand banquet, usually at the Crystal Palace. Their expenses to and from London, and whilst there, were paid by the funds of the company. Mr. Lake presided over several hundred guests. I went on one occasion, and a sumptuous affair it

  385
  was; but this was not all. After dinner, the chairman, in complimentary speeches, distributed purses of money to a number of the agents, according to their success in getting policies. These varied from £50 to much less sums. But I affirm that some thousands of pounds were distributed among the agents present in this way."
  He could imagine at the conclusion of the last of these Thyestean banquets, at which the unhappy shareholders and policyholders had been devouring their own reserve, the chairman rising like Moore's Prophet of Khorassan, lifting the glittering veil, displaying the hideous condition of the society in its true deformity, and exclaiming to the horror-stricken guests—
  "Ye would be dupes and victims, and ye are."
  Scandalous as these proceedings were, and extravagant as were the expenses thus incurred, they were dwarfed by the amounts lavished on amalgamation, with its attendant charges. Mr. Pattison said in his report—
  "Among the causes of insolvency, the most pernicious has been the transfer of the businesses of other insolvent companies, to which, notwithstanding their insolvency, the European has been induced to pay large sums by way of purchase."
  When they were told of this yoking together of the dead and the living, and of clever men of business paying more for this fatal operation than would have been sufficient for one of a beneficial character—when they heard of a suspense account of beween three and four hundred thousand pounds which, though treated as an asset for the payment of bonuses, had been almost wholly lost in carrying out repeated amalgamations—they could not wonder at the demand for such an investigation as the power of compulsion given in the Bill which he had been obliged to withdraw, could alone secure, without which, as the Report of the Commissioners on Friendly Societies showed, such an inquiry was practically of no avail. Having said that, he need hardly observe that he regarded the Motion for the substitution of a Parliamentary Committee as a hostile Motion, calculated to prevent all really useful investigation of this gross case. When he introduced the Bill of 1870 to the House he mentioned many cases of extreme hardship arising from the failure of the Albert. Did time and the patience of the House admit, he could add largely to that disastrous catalogue from a mass of letters which had reached
  386
  him in reference to the European. Here was the case of a lady who had effected a policy in the original European in 1821 for £800, and had, up to October, 1871, paid £1,185 in premiums, and had now the prospect of perhaps 8d. in the pound on that amount. The hardship was increased by the transfer of the business to another company of the same name, owing to which policyholders might be unaware of the change. Another correspondent wrote that he was obliged under his marriage settlement to insure 20 years ago, and had paid £1,840 when the crash came. Now, he was compelled by the trustees to renew his insurance, and in consequence of the difference of age had to pay £192 15 s. to insure the same amount for which he formerly paid £91 15 s. Some of the hardest cases arose, as might be expected, from the transfer of the Naval and Military to the European. He had received two letters from colonels of distinguished regiments. One says—
  "On joining my regiment in India in 1853, I insured for £2,000. I paid Indian premiums, and when we went to the Crimea, war and climate risk, when the secretary wrote that he intended amalgamation with the European, I protested, and demanded a return of my premiums. I received a reply, and not a polite one, that policyholders had no voice in the matter. It appears from the statement, that the directors knowing their insolvency, continued to accept premiums and rob the public."
  The other writes—
  "I had to pay Turkish risk, then a war risk for two years, then an extra premium for China anp Japan, and now I have little to expect. My case is one of many; but it may illustrate the loss, and the good you may do by bringing to light those disgraceful transactions, and establishing a better security for the future."
  The concluding sentence would receive the approbation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
  "It is much to be regretted that Government has not established a naval and military assurance for officers of all branches of the service. It would encourage thrift and saving, and there would not be so many sad cases of officers leaving their children without provision. A Government guarantee at the present moment would be most acceptable, when so many are suffering from the failure of the European, and know not where to turn for security."
  That was the real object of the inquiry he proposed—not the benefit of the unfortunate shareholders and policyholders of the Albert and European, as some hon. Members seemed to think the other day, and which he admitted would be a

  387
  very questionable application of public money. They were past praying for, and whatever might be the result of such an investigation would not receive a shilling more; therefore they could not be called upon to defray the cost. But the real object was to ascertain whether some better security might not be devised for assurers than even the Act of 1870 gave them. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, from his remarks the other night, seemed to think so, and, moreover, to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was not the time to argue that point; but those who favoured such a scheme as Government monopoly in life assurance might be assured that it could not be adopted without some such an inquiry. But, perhaps, it was not generally known that the European enjoyed something very like a Government guarantee—that Government sanction and patronage were liberally bestowed upon that society, of which very good use was made in advertisements, especially in India and the colonies—and he thought that alone necessitated an inquiry in a matter in which successive Governments and Parliaments had been so deeply implicated. On the 19th of April, 1859, an Act was passed authorizing the acceptance of the guarantee of the European, instead of other security, from persons in public offices and employments. The Government took better care of itself than of the public, for a reserve fund was ordered to be set aside by way of special security for Government guarantees. So far, perhaps, no great objection could be taken beyond a general objection to the monopoly. But this was not all. Power was given to the Treasury to appoint Inspectors to examine the accounts of the society—a power which they had no right to accept without effectually using it—the society being also required to deliver to the Treasury every year a list of shareholders and the balance-sheet. The society was not blind to the advantages thus obtained. At one annual meeting the shareholders were congratulated on having the advice of the Government actuary in their amalgamation with the British Nation; at another, on the offer of the Treasury "to satisfy the Court of Session in Scotland respecting the financial condition of the European Assurance Society." The effect on the public
  388
  mind was well shown in an extract from The Insurance Record of June, 1865—
  "There is one peculiar and distinguishing feature attaching to this society, which is that it is the only society authorized by special Act of Parliament to guarantee the fidelity of Government officials. Of course, Government do not grant these special privileges, without being thoroughly convinced by official investigation of the soundness of its finances, and not only so, but we believe we are correct in stating that prior to the last meeting the Government deputed some of its staff to inspect the condition of the European, and that they expressed themselves thoroughly satisfied with their investigation. Surely, then, nothing more need be said as to the status of this office."
  On the face of every prospectus appeared in large letters—"The European is the only society specially authorized by Parliament to guarantee the fidelity of Government officials." Nor was distinguished patronage withheld. At the head of the Naval and Military and East India departments appeared as Patron Her Most Gracious Majesty; as Vice Patrons, whatever that might mean, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, the Military Secretary, two successive Presidents of the Board of Trade, a noble Earl who had filled many high offices of State, and others. A late permanent Secretary to the Treasury was at one time chairman, and afterwards trustee. Five weeks before the failure a surplus of £95,000 was reported upon the accounts taken on the 31st of December, 1869, by no less an authority than the Government actuary; and that in the face of the warning of several actuaries two years before that the society was insolvent to the extent of many hundred thousand pounds. In the little volume which he held in his hand, not only were the exceptional advantages which he had enumerated set forth with due prominence, but the most affecting motives were added to win people to assurance. He saw—and what a mockery it now seemed—a quotation from Professor De Morgan, formerly consulting actuary of the Albert—
  "There is nothing in the commercial world which approaches, even remotely, the security of a well-established life office."
  Here was a picture of a man who had neglected to insure his life—
  "Imagine the situation of a man who, suffering under slow decline, feels his energies daily failing and his resources day by day decreasing. With

  389
  the prospect of speedy dissolution he knows that all who are dependent upon him—the victims of his neglect, must go forth to seek their bread amid the closed hands and stony hearts of the world."
  That pathetic description was from Why is not Life Assurance universal? by Henry Lake. He saw the name of Henry Lake as manager of the European. If he were the same person, he might witness the misery he described among many thousands who had only too closely followed his advice. Why was not life assurance universal, indeed? Why had life assurance fallen off in one year 10 per cent? And why was it still falling off, notwithstanding the increase in the population and wealth of the country? The answer might be given in two sentences—deficiency of Albert, £972,000; deficiency of European, more than £1,000,000. Her Majesty's Government had remitted the income tax on premiums with the excellent intention of encouraging provident habits. Surely, therefore, it should inquire why that intention had been so signally frustrated, and into whose pockets those untaxed premiums had found their way. In accordance with what he believed, and still believed, to be the general wish of the country, he had introduced a Bill for the appointment of a Committee, with full powers to investigate the matters to which he had alluded. The death of a near relation unhappily prevented his being in his place on the day fixed for the second reading of the Bill; and though the House was good enough to allow the second reading in his absence, yet it objected, and he could not complain of the objection, to his going into Committee without explaining the nature and objects of the Bill. The House knew the difficulty a private Member had to recover an opportunity once lost in advancing a Bill through one of its stages. That difficulty, however, might have been overcome, had it not been for the Resolution of the House, which forbade the bringing on of Opposed measures after half-past 12. The Bill for a long time was unopposed, but subsequently the Amendment to which he had alluded appeared on the Paper. The hon. Member who placed it there had good reasons, no doubt, for doing so; and, of course, he had a perfect right to do it. But he had already ex-
  390
  plained why he felt bound to regard it as a hostile Amendment, and it had, at any rate this result—that it effectually prevented the Bill coming on at the only time that there was any chance of bringing it on. Consequently, he thought it better not to let it encumber the Order Book any longer, but to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. The Government had facilities which a private Member had not, and he could not help thinking that it would be a public misfortune if this great scandal should be lightly passed over. He was, as a general rule, opposed to anything like a private inquisition; but this was surely a case wholly exceptional. It had been asked, why could not the liquidators do all this? The answer was, that the liquidators were appointed to collect and distribute the funds among the policyholders as economically as possible, whereas the proposed inquiry was wholly for public purposes. Nor could the inquiry be conducted by the Arbitrator or the Court of Chancery. He was as unwilling as anyone could be to add to the burdens of the country; but he was sure that the small sum which the investigation would cost—not more, he was informed, than from £3,000 to £4,000—would be well laid out. He thought it was the duty of the Government and Parliament to order it to be so laid out. He did not pretend to apportion the blame of these unparalleled disasters among either individuals or classes. Whether the directors and actuaries were guilty of fraud; or, of what was almost as criminal in such cases, of incapacity—whether the negotiators knew that they were conducting transactions fraught with ruin to all but themselves, or were misled by actuarial reports—how far the Government was responsible for having lent its name to a private company, without exercising adequate supervision and control—would be the duty of a Commission of Inquiry to decide. He had arrived at the conclusion of his remarks. If these were to be the last words he should ever have the honour of addressing to the House, he should think them well employed in urging the House to insist upon a solemn inquiry into these proceedings, so scandalous in themselves, so disastrous to multitudes of innocent people, and so damaging to that upon which Englishmen had been in the habit of

  391
  priding themselves—the character of their public and commercial men. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. BARNETT, in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made out a very strong case in support of the inquiry for which he asked. The tale of ruin and disaster, including many cases of hardship and privation arising therefrom which had been brought under his special cognizance, was certainly a melancholy one, but it possessed features of considerable interest. The practice of life assurance, which it was very important to encourage among people with limited incomes, and which for many years had grown up and increased throughout the country had certainly suffered a check by reason of the failure of the companies alluded to in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and that was surely a fact of melancholy interest to those who desired to encourage habits of prudence and forethought in the ranks of the people. Everyone could understand when the crash came the great dismay that fell on that class of persons who had endeavoured to provide a fund for their families, and who had believed that the Albert and European Offices were as safe as any in the country. All knew that insurance offices if well conducted must be successful. But, in regard to the offices in question, there had been some exceptional causes for their failure, and it was the duty of the Government to inquire into them, and to ascertain why so many amalgamations of an improvident nature had been allowed to take place. With regard to the European Office, the exceptional circumstance seemed to have been a reckless entry upon what were called amalgamations—a payment of exorbitant prices for businesses which produced very poor returns. It appeared from a printed document he had seen recently, that up to the year 1865 the European Office lost no less than £327,000 in carrying out 40 amalgamations, which seemed to have been conducted on a wholesale scale—for instance, it took over one office, the British National, that had already absorbed 26 offices. These facts ought to be inquired into, and he hoped the House would assent to the Motion. With regard to the Albert Office, the figures were not so astounding, but
  392
  even that office expended the large sum of £274,000 in incorporating 10 other offices with itself. On the question of liquidation being the most satisfactory mode of dealing with societies such as those absorbed into the European he would mention that one of them, known as the Waterloo Life, Education, Casualty, &c., Safety Office, with a nominal capital of £400,000, but with not quite £20,000 paid up, when it was wound up in 1862, after an existence of 12 years, with liabilities of £31,000, the costs of the liquidation were £6,036 8s. 6d. That circumstance was not much in favour of the process of liquidation. It might be said that the particular Motion before the House was unusual; but the circumstances which led to it were unusual also. The sort of patronage which the European Society received from the Government rendered it still more desirable that an inquiry should be instituted. There could be no doubt the European Office had made much capital out of its connection with the Government, whatever that connection was, for it had impressed the minds of the simpler part of the public with a belief in its superior merits with regard to security. All, however, that the Government did, he believed, was to accept the guarantee offered for persons holding official situations, having first taken care to ascertain that there was a fund to meet those particular risks. It might be urged that cases of this kind showed the desirability of Government undertaking the business of life assurance, but he for one sincerely deprecated such an idea, believing that the Government ought not to interfere with private enterprize. The right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, on introducing the Government Annuities Bill of 1864, which established the Post Office assurance system, said it would not be rational for the State to interfere with assurance business properly so called, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman still entertained that opinion. Connected with assurance there was, in fact, a certain amount of speculative business which it would be highly improper for the Government to undertake, unless they were likewise prepared to conduct breweries and other business establishments, a state of things which would never be tolerated in this country. The profits of the old companies had been made by gradual ac-

  393
  cumulations, and to this circumstance he attributed in some measure the proceedings which had led to the late disasters, as speculators, who thought they might arrive at great riches by some happy short cut, had been induced to establish offices, and to dispose of them to other persons who were in a hurry to get rich. He had heard of negotiators, secretaries, and others who had received large sums by way of compensation, whether rightly or wrongly he would not pretend to say; but, at all events, such proceedings made a great hole in the funds of the societies, and tended to induce other persons to act in a similar way. Although he seconded the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, he did not mean to say that the general system of assurance was unsafe, but only that there were some cases in which inquiry ought to be instituted.
  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 the duty of Her Majesty's Government to institute a searching investigation into the causes of the failure of the Albert and European Life Assurance Companies,"—(Mr. Stephen Cave,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Barnett) had sneeringly referred to the Waterloo Safety Insurance Company, which, notwithstanding its title, had failed; but The Insurance Directory showed that there was another "Safety" Company which had come to an untimely end, although it was supported by the names of such eminent men as Viscount Goderich, M.P., Mr. Henry Gurney, Mr. Thomas Brassey, M.P., Mr. John Williams, M.P. for Macclesfield, Mr. Richard Cobden, M.P., Mr. Joseph Locke, M.P., Mr. Charles Gooch, M.P., Mr. John Bright, M.P., and Mr. Wilson, the Chairman of the Anti-Corn Law League. If an office supported by such eminent names had failed, surely it could not be matter of surprise that another, supported by less influential gentlemen, should have been unsuccessful. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stephen Cave) would be the last person to give a false complexion to facts, if they had come under his notice; facts were available which
  394
  showed that these two companies did not fail from their own insolvency, but that they were ruined and wrecked by organized combination, but for which they would now have been paying their policies. Perhaps, it was not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman still clung to the notions which were prevalent last year as to the causes of the failure of these companies, when there were all sorts of reports as to their character and that of the persons connected with them, reports industriously circulated by those interested in the complete destruction of the companies. The right hon. Gentleman had asked for inquiry. He (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) himself never was an office-bearer in these companies; but he knew something of their transactions, and in the absence of any of the directors, and in the public interest, he wished to make a few remarks. He also desired inquiry, and would support the right hon. Gentleman in asking for it, but it should be vigorous and speedy; it should not be instituted through the slow process of a Royal Commission, but it should be undertaken by a Committee of 15 Members of that House. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the Government having sanctioned the European by accepting its security for guarantees, but the Treasury accepted all companies that would comply with their conditions, and those conditions were complied with by the British, the Birchin Lane, and a military company. There was no doubt that the European, favoured by the Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, had its fair share of business; but it had no monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman, in what he did, asked for a direct reversal of the decisions of the House on the subject of the guarantees which had been given. As he had already said, he did not object to inquiry, and hoped that inquiry would take place; but when it was proposed to institute an inquiry into a gigantic failure in the City, involving a loss compared with which the losses incurred by these two companies were comparatively insignificant—a failure in connection with which some hon. Members were mentioned by name as concerned in the issue of preference stock and shares—the Government declined to undertake it, and said that if they instituted such an investigation, there would be no end to the demands which would be made upon them in respect of land companies,

  395
  banks, and other concerns. For these reasons, the Government declined inquiry in the case of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company. The right hon. Gentleman had assumed, as an article of faith, that the proceedings of these two companies were improper in the last degree—that the conduct of the directors and officials, from the first—and particularly with reference to amalgamation, was tainted and questionable—that amalgamations were effected with companies that were rotten, or improperly constituted, or bubble companies. Those were very grave charges when brought against the character of public officers, and it should be remembered that those who were thus impugned embraced Members of both Houses of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not in support of the charges, brought forward a single fact; he had not instanced a single case of wrong-doing; but he had contented himself by assuming that the fact of failure was in itself a sufficient proof of irregularity, although commercial failure was no startling novelty; and it would be easy to make up a long list of failures involving losses far exceeding those incurred by the failure of insurance companies. Why, the right hon. Gentleman himself two years ago succeeded in passing an Act to remedy the grievances connected with insurance companies, and, having provided all the remedy he thought necessary, what consideration induced him now to demand further inquiry? Such an imputation was most unfair. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of these companies as if no explanation had been offered, and no investigation had taken place. Now, immediately after the Albert Company failed several eminent men were called in, who inquired into the matter, and made a report to the shareholders. The shareholders made an inquiry themselves. Then, a large meeting was held, and a Committee of Inquiry was appointed. That committee sat for a long time, and investigated everything connected with the amalgamations of the company. Then legal proceedings were instituted, and a bill was filed in Chancery against the directors, charging them with fraud. Under that bill the closest scrutiny took place with reference to the Albert Company. All its officers, its minutes and books were subjected to a close scrutiny
  396
  and inquiry. And what was the result? The Judge declared that there was no ground for charging the directors or officers with wrong-doing, and the bill was dismissed with costs. After that, Lord Cairns was appointed arbitrator, armed with power to inquire and punish, and he had shown no desire to shrink from the responsibility which had been cast upon him. Then, an inquiry had been made by the liquidators, and every means had been taken to ascertain if there were even any technical irregularities; but it appeared that there was no ground for any such imputation. But that was not all. The associated companies had fallen into the hands of liquidators and solicitors, who had an interest in finding out any wrong act, and all they had done tended to show that no wrong had been done. Surely, it could not be said that no inquiry or investigation had been made into the affairs of these two companies, seeing that the case of the Albert had been made the subject of seven or eight investigations since its failure, and that its affairs were still sub judice, and that the case of the European had been inquired into by several committees of investigation, and had formed the subject of several bills in Chancery, in the course of the hearing of which its affairs had been thoroughly sifted, they being also still sub judice. It was, therefore, most unfair to speak of these companies as if no inquiries had ever been made into the causes of their failure. From what had been stated the House would suppose that the directors of these companies were persons having no position or standing, who, finding themselves at the head of rich institutions, had run a mad course of commercial profligacy, with the sole object of spending the money of the unfortunate shareholders. But was such the fact? Then, with respect to the European, anyone would suppose from what had been said that the description above given would more directly apply, but the contrary was the fact. The European had amalgamated with 11 companies, which had a number of other companies associated with them. Of these 11 companies nine were amalgamated under the direction of Gentlemen some of whose names he would mention—the right hon. Milner Gibson, Mr. J. Heywood, M.P., the right hon. G. A. Hamilton, M.P., Mr. R. Swift, M.P., Mr. T. Barnes, M.P., Mr. Cheetham, M.P., Mr.

  397
  G. A. Muntz, M.P., Mr. R. Spooner, M.P., Mr. W. Wickham, M.P. Those were names well known not only in that House, but throughout the country, and they were not "dummy" men, but acting members of the European Board, men who had been Members of Governments, who occupied high positions in society, and who had invested large sums in hard cash in these undertakings. Those men were governed and controlled by Mr. Hamilton, a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in more than one Conservative Government, and Mr. Hamilton was at the head of affairs when all these amalgamations were considered and decided upon. Was it right, then, to say that such men were young men who knew nothing of what they were about, and who rushed into mad and complicated speculations, such as most men would shrink from when they contemplated them? There was not an atom of truth in any such notion. When Mr. Hamilton left the chairmanship of the company and became Permanent Secretary to the Treasury he was succeeded by Mr. William Wickham, a Member of that House, who was succeeded in turn by Sir Frederick Smith, the Conservative Member for Chatham, who was still the phantom of a chairman, doing the best he could to watch over the interests of the policyholders in the winding-up. What was the case with reference to the Albert Company? The names of the members of the Board were not so distinguished as those in the case of the European Company, but undistinguished as they were, they held £50,000 worth of shares not given to them, but paid for bonâ fide, and not only did they hold that amount, but their relations held an equal amount. Among those directors were to be found the names of Lord Claud Hamilton, M.P., Mr. J. H. Loyd, M.P., Admiral Carnegie, Lord Ranelagh, Mr. J. C. Cobbold, Mr. C. Frere, Mr. Bonamy Price, the Hon. F. Berkeley, M.P., Mr. C. Hopkinson, Sir Charles Duke, the hon. R. Bourke, the hon. F. Walpole, and others. Those were names that ought to inspire that House with confidence. Up to the year 1863 the Albert with its amalgamations had been declared sound and solvent, and in that year the great actuary, Professor De Morgan, examined its affairs, and upon his report
  398
  a bonus was declared. Subsequent to that time the Albert had only one amalgamation and that was with an office presided over by a Member of the present Government, who was anxious to amalgamate his office with the Albert, and who made all the inquiries necessary as to the responsibility, the solvency, and the soundness of the institution. That Gentleman took Professor De Morgan's valuation and opinion, and submitted them to impartial and independent actuaries, and he came to the conclusion that the Albert was sound, and that, as chairman of the other office, he might amalgamate it with the Albert. There were four companies taken over by that arrangement, for the Western, the amalgamating company, had already amalgamated with the St. George, the Metropolitan Counties, and the Manchester and London Companies. That was the last amalgamation, and whatever mischief took place must have occurred subsequently to that. He presumed the Gentleman to whom he had referred was capable of making proper inquiries, and they had a right to believe that his conclusions were correct, and properly arrived at [Cries of "Name."] Everybody knew whom he meant—there was no occasion to mention the name. But he could show the House that the ruin that fell upon the society had arisen not from its amalgamation with the Western Office, which was paying 20s. in the pound now, but from the present condition of the law of liquidation. The present condition of the law offered enormous bribes to those who could succeed in knocking down or bringing into liquidation a joint-stock company. Only the other day Mr. Denison, Q.C., stated in a Committee of that House, that since liquidation was invented, some 15 or 16 years ago, not a single company had come out of it, and he went on to speak of the cost of the liquidation of the Albert, which he put down at £30,000 a-year. In fact, a good company in liquidation was a fine property, and meant a large fortune to those who could succeed in bringing that liquidation about, and therefore bands of needy persons had organized themselves systematically in order to wreck such companies. Four years ago bank after bank fell in the most mysterious and sudden manner before the designs and arts of these wreckers, who operated by means of

  399
  forged telegrams and the sale of shares that never had any existence. The Stock Exchange, however, with the assistance of Parliament, stopped those tricks in reference to banks, or else there was reason to believe that nearly every bank in the City would have shared the same fate and then the wreckers turned their attention to the insurance companies. Agreements were drawn up and entered into by persons to arrange how the plunder was to be shared, and it was well known that such agreements were entered into with regard to the destruction of the Albert and of the European. He held in his hand the copy of an agreement for wrecking and plundering and dividing the plunder of the European, which came out in an arbitration, where the gentlemen interested had been quarrelling among themselves. The agreement stated that "it was arranged between the under-signed," that Mr.—was to make the best arrangement he could with the solicitors and liquidator whom he might select for the winding-up of the European and its subsidiary offices, and that he should divide the money obtained in the following proportions:—two-fifths to Mr. A. and his friends, one-fifth to Mr. B. and his friends, one-fifth to Mr. C. and his friends, and the remaining fifth to Mr. D. and his friends. One of the persons who signed that agreement was formerly a Member of that House, where he represented a metropolitan constituency. [Cries of "Name."] It was not necessary to mention the name, it was pretty well known; but if it was desired, he would give the particulars to the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. These were the methods by which companies were wrecked. For three years the wreckers attacked the Albert in every possible way, by issuing circulars to shareholders and agents; by putting advertisements in the papers, offering shares for sale at an enormous discount; and by holding sham meetings of policyholders; but it was only when a firm in Northumberland sent a circular to the Indian branch of the Albert that it became of the utmost importance that an investigation should take place. The Indian branch stopped, and called upon the home branch to make an inquiry into its affairs, and the home branch stopped also—not because it was unable to fulfill its engagements, or
  400
  was deficient in funds—for it had a large balance at its bankers—but because of the excessive drain brought on it by this systematic and organized attack. They appointed accountants and solicitors to examine into their affairs, and called in five of the most eminent actuaries of the day, four of whom had been presidents of the Institute of Actuaries, and these gentlemen made investigations into the then condition of the Albert. The office stopped not for liquidation, but for rearrangement and re-construction, and they found that they were not in the position in which their traducers said they were. The result of the inquiry was, that with a liability of £8,000,000 upon its policies the deficiency of the office was less than a year's interest, or £260,000; and that, after valuing at 4 per cent—while 5 per cent was readily obtained upon their Indian and 4½ per cent upon their other securities; after depreciating to their selling prices all their assets; after striking off £100,000 for loans on houses; and after striking off the goodwill. Not only that, but when the proposition for re-construction was made, the companies attached to the Albert agreed to subscribe the amount of the deficiency, so that there should be no stoppage, and they would have been willing to have found ten times the amount. Re-construction was, of course, the proper step to take, for 20 s. in the pound was better than 2s. in the pound—which was all they must expect in liquidation; but the wreckers were too many for them, and attended meetings where they assured the shareholders that liquidation in the Court of Chancery was much the best thing for them, and greatly to be preferred to re-construction. Ultimately, Lord Cairns was appointed Arbitrator, and it was hoped that the scheme of re-construction might be accomplished; a powerful committee was formed: but the difficulties were then found to be insuperable, for the business of the office had been distributed. It was well worth while to inquire who was responsible for that. He protested against the idea that the companies which amalgamated were insolvent: at that time they were in a position to pay the claims on them, and they had only failed because of the failure of the present company, in which they had merged. For four years the European had been exposed to incessant attacks.

  401
  Bills in Chancery were filed against it, and during the time that the contest lasted £200,000 of its annual business was lost for ever. Being, however, obliged to yield at last, even at that time, a New York Company would have bought the concern; but the old cause was in operation—systematic wrecking by an organized band—which resulted in the destruction of the value of the goodwill. If the Government were to purchase these insurance companies, he believed that they could pay a clear profit of £1,500,000 annually, allowing a liberal sum for the purchase; but in that, as in any other case of purchase or amalgamation, the purchase money must be allowed. It was a mistake to suppose that only young offices amalgamated; on the contrary, the Colonial amalgamated after 20 years' existence, the Victoria after 27, the Britannia and others after 28, the Promoter after 36, the Leeds and Yorkshire after 40, the Albion after 53, the Globe after 59, and the Amicable after 160. He would not further detain the House; but he had felt it necessary to show that there was no truth in the idea that the directors of these companies were mere nobodies who ought not to be trusted, or that they had amalgamated with rotten companies. He had also shown for how small an amount the Albert ultimately succumbed, and that the European fell under an organized system of attack nearly identical with that which was brought to bear upon, and which proved so fatal to the Albert. If the Government was disposed to agree to the Motion, he would propose, by way of Amendment, to add to it the following words:—
  "And to inquire particularly, and to what extent, the present Law contributed to the downfall of these Companies, and prevented their proposed re-construction."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the question the House had to decide was the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham; but, in his opinion, it was studiously vague and ambiguous. What did it mean? He presumed the right hon. Gentleman did not desire the appointment of certain official persons from different Departments of the Governments, nor did it appear from his speech that he wished the question to be referred to a Select Committee of that House. He could only, therefore, sup-
  402
  pose that the course the right hon. Gentleman probably had in view was the introduction of a Bill by the Government, for the purpose of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject connected with the failure of these companies. The House, however, should not be too ready to take a step which involved such important considerations. The question arose out of the acts of a body of persons who had grossly misconducted themselves. Had they brought themselves within the law? If so, the law of the country could be enforced against them, and those who were aggrieved could take the ordinary and constitutional course, and bring them before the tribunals of the country. If it were doubtful as to whether the power to prosecute in this case existed, the question then arose as to whether it was the duty of the Government or the House to supersede the ordinary machinery for prosecuting offences, and to appoint a special tribunal, armed with power to inquire into this matter and to search it to the bottom. He trusted the House was not prepared to take such a step. This country in the matter of judicial procedure was taken as a model for the countries of the earth; the means of inquiry into offences which we had invented and perfected was the envy and admiration of the world. Was the House prepared to throw aside all that, and to bring the whole force of the Legislature to bear against these persons in order to convict them of crime? No precedent more dangerous, none more subversive of the liberty of the subject, none more unworthy of the Legislature, could be conceived than that the House should embark upon such a career as that. If the right hon. Gentleman meditated such a step—and he hoped he had not misunderstood the intention of the right hon. Gentleman—the Government could not join with him in carrying it out. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman and those who had followed him had related facts of the most painful and most revolting nature, well worthy of consideration by that House, and which called upon it to look carefully into matters, in order to see whether any step could be taken to prevent the recurrence of the evils they disclosed. There could be no possible objection, therefore, to an inquiry into the causes of the failures. It would no doubt prove a most instructive

  403
  history if carefully traced out by a body which would speak with authority. Nor could he see any objection to the proposal that those to whom the House might entrust the task of making the investigation should suggest a remedy for the evils in question. That course would be quite consistent with the usual practice of the House of Commons; and if it did turn out that the facts dislosed were of a criminal character as regarded certain individuals, the ordinary tribunals of the country would be open to any who chose to bring them to justice. The causes of these failures were very well known, and the causes of the failure of insurance companies in general were not far to seek, although he admitted it was quite desirable that they should be probed to the bottom and put in an authoritative form before them. The causes of failure, he apprehended, were very simple, and might be stated in most general terms. The nature of insurance business was, that at first it was all receipts, and at last all payments; and mankind was so constituted that while it was all receipts they would not look forward to the time when the payments would come, and when that time did arrive it was too late for them to consider it. It was just like what happened in the land of Egypt when they had seven years of famine. Of course, in the seven years of plenty they ought to have laid up stores to have met the seven years of famine; but they, like our insurance companies, did not do so and hence the seven years of famine. That was entirely in accordance with the laws of human nature, and he believed that any Committee who entered upon the investigation of the subject, would find that lay at the bottom of the failures. Whether they could leave those companies such liberty as all engaged in commercial pursuits ought to have, and at the same time exercise such an amount of control as would prevent the recurrence of these calamities for the future, was a subject well worthy of the consideration of the Committee; and with that view, the Government would willingly consent to the appointment of a Committee on some such terms as these—"To report upon the Albert and European Insurance Companies as to the causes of their failure, and also to report upon any further measures that may be necessary." Such a Committee might
  404
  tend to prevent the recurrence of the matters which had been complained of, while it would certainly avoid—and purposely avoid—the notion that in its appointment there was any ulterior view to criminal proceedings against individuals. That would be a course which the House of Commons might reasonably take, and, he would submit, would answer all the objects sought by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. GREGORYobserved that it was, at all events, satisfactory to find that the Government recognized the necessity of inquiry, but he hoped it would be extended beyond the immediate subject of discussion; for, without agreeing with him on many points, he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), with regard to the subject of liquidation, and it was certainly a scandal upon our administration of the law that such cases as those referred to by the hon. Member should be possible. Cases were continually occurring in which persons speculated on the misfortunes of these companies, and sacrificed not only the interests of the shareholders, but of creditors and all who were in any way dependent on those companies. It was high time that a stop should be put to what was known as the system of "wrecking," and it would be a question well worthy the attention of the Committee appointed upon the subject to inquire whether some means should not be taken to limit the operation of the Limited Liability Act and the Act for the Winding up of Joint-stock Companies.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he believed that undue importance had been attached by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) to what was known as "wrecking"—a practice which he believed to be perfectly impossible in the case of these great insurance companies, unless they were grossly mismanaged. The statements made by the hon. Gentleman might, unless contradicted, create a wrong impression throughout the country. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would accept the modified Committee, as suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that he had already stated his opinion that a Parliamentary Committee would be useless. The inquiry, however, which he desired was precisely that which the

  405
  Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted to be desirable. His object was not to bring charges against individuals, but to secure the results indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. He would, there-fore, withdraw his Motion, preferring, as they could not agree upon the mode, to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY—THE SCIENTIFIC CORPS—PROMOTION IN THE ARTILLERY AND ENGINEERS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT, in rising to move for a Select Committee
  "To inquire whether the intended promotion to the rank of Regimental Major of First Captains of Artillery and Engineers, at an annual cost to this Country of over £20,000, and at a further addition to the Indian Military Expenditure not yet stated to Parliament, is justified by any commensurate advantage to the Public Service,"
  said, he believed that the intended pro-motion of first captains of Artillery and Engineers to the rank of regimental majors in the manner proposed by the Government would involve a large and impolitic expenditure, while it would cause great inconvenience to the public service, in consequence of the faulty organization by which it would inevitably be attended. The grievance that it would cause had been brought before the attention of the other House of Parliament, and the in-tended promotion of the 420 officers in the Engineers and Artillery to this rank would involve the supersession, if he might so term it, of 560 officers in the infantry and cavalry; 141 officers of 19 years' service would be superseded by 79 officers of Artillery and Engineers of shorter service, and 50 officers of 22 years' service would be superseded by 134 officers in the Artillery and Engineers who had served in the Army for a shorter period. The money recently voted by Parliament, moreover, would in a few years cease to cause a flow of promotion such as now existed, and therefore it would be unfair to forecast the future by the existing state of facts. The intended promotion had been attempted to be justified by the importance attached to field batteries of artillery; but if hon. Members would take the trouble to com-pare the numbers and distribution of the
  406
  men composing the other branches of the service, they would find that at the Present moment the Artillery had by far the largest number of field officers in Proportion. In fact, so numerous were the officers of field rank in the Artillery that it not unfrequently happened a large proportion were on permanent leave, receiving full pay, in addition to those who were absent from duty on sick leave. Thus, in the Royal Artillery there were 29 brigades with 1,525 officers, of whom 174 were field officers, and it was proposed to add other 283, making 457 in all; while in the infantry branch of the service there were 4,760 officers, of whom 423 only were field officers, so that the Artillery, as would be seen, possessed field officers in much larger proportion than the infantry arm of the service. In the course of the discussions on this subject a great deal of use had been made of certain actuarial calculations—documents upon which the Secretary of State for War generally fell back when he desired to commit some gross injustice. Those calculations were of no value whatever in reference to the present question, because they related to a time when promotion by purchase was the rule in the Army generally, what were called the Scientific Corps being alone excepted. Actuarial calculations, therefore, could only possess value when an uniform system of promotion all through the Army had been in practice sufficiently long to allow of its effect being accurately judged. If selection were good for one branch of the service, surely it was good for the other; and he was unable to imagine on what ground the right hon. Gentleman could defend the system of retaining the officers of Artillery until they were willing to take retirements, without attempting to subject them to the rule which he intended to apply rigidly to the other branches of the service. It was no small matter, moreover, that this change had been carried out by a Royal Warrant without any discussion in Parliament, for from the Estimates it was impossible to ascertain that the money had been asked for or voted, because it was not included as it ought to have been in the item for ordinary regimental daily pay, but in the Miscellaneous Vote for additional pay. He challenged any Member unconnected with the Government to say he was aware that the promotion of these 420 officers from the rank of cap-

  407
  tain to that of regimental major had ever been shown on the Estimates. It was proposed to abolish the privileges of the Guards; but the right hon. Gentleman was erecting in the Royal Artillery and Engineers a still greater close corporation, and one that would be more prejudicial to the rest of the Army. Piece-meal legislation like that for the Artillery would therefore certainly lead to applications being made for alterations in the organization of the infantry and cavalry. The instance of the Indian Army ought to have induced the right hon. Gentleman to act with extreme caution, and the warning given by Lord Sandhurst in the other House of Parliament would assuredly have made any prudent Minister pause before introducing such a change. The right hon. and gallant Member con-cluded by moving for the Select Committee of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the intended promotion to the rank of Regimental Major of First Captains of Artillery and Engineers at an annual cost to this Country of over £20,000, and at a further addition to the Indian Military Expenditure not yet stated to Parliament, is justified by any commensurate ad-vantage to the Public Service,"—(Sir Percy Herbert,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, this was a most important Motion, and it was to be regretted that it should have been brought forward at such an hour of the night, and also at so late a period of the Session. He understood, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that at the beginning of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War gave notice, that it was his intention to do that to which the right hon. and gallant Officer so much objected, and that provision was made in the Estimates for the purpose. Now, he was surprised to hear an officer of such great ability and distinction as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman treat this subject as he had done, and talk of these distinguished corps—one third of the Army—the Royal Artillery and Engineers, as "a close corporation." What
  408
  were the facts of this case which had been so carefully obfuscated at that hour of the night by the right hon. and gallant Officer? It was notorious that for years past there had been a total stagnation in the Scientific Corps. And what was that stagnation owing to, but to a want of a due flow of promotion? so that what was a private grievance among the officers of the Artillery and Engineers became almost a public danger. In 1867 the grievance rose to such a pitch that a Committee, of which Mr. Childers was the Chairman, was appointed to inquire into the subject. That Committee spoke of the "despondency" of the Force in consequence of the want of promotion, and proposed a plan of retirement so expensive that this House would not listen to it. In 1872 there was a War Office Committee, and what did it say of this "close corporation?" It spoke of the despondency of the officers of the Royal Artillery and Engineers as being injurious to their efficiency. It should be remembered that majors of Artillery existed formerly, but were abolished in 1827. And now, there being no majors, there were first and second captains. A second captain scarcely ever obtained his distinguished rank until he was 40; and as for the first captains he was afraid to say what their age might be. The right hon. and gallant Officer opposite talked of "supersession" by these officers. But what was the average of their commissions taken from the day the first commission was obtained? Promotion meant the supersession of somebody, and if these captains were promoted at once to be lieutenant-colonels they would supersede every major in the service. The real question was this—ought a field battery to have a field officer in command? Now, he deprecated all comparisons between the brother branches of the service. He thought it mischievous to talk of any set of officers "tapping at the door of the Horse Guards." He lamented that the right hon. and gallant Officer should have followed a mischievous example in "another place," because the noble Lord who set it, and who was in very high command, ought not to have cast any reflection on a most important branch of the British Army. Did not everyone know that as science advanced, the importance of Artillery became greater and greater every day.

  409
  Let hon. Gentlemen look at the responsibility of an officer in command of a battery of Artillery. He did not mean to draw any invidious distinctions—the experience which he had was derived from another branch of the service; but he could not shut his eyes to the great importance of Artillery, and he could not understand any officer of the Line being jealous because his brother officers were about to regain that lost ground which, for 40 years they had been deprived, of. A captain of the Line had two subalterns under him and 80 men. The first captain of Artillery had under him one captain, three subalterns, 195 men, and 188 horses.
  MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTremarked that a captain of the Line would in time of war have 100 men under his command.
  MR. OSBORNE: But was that equivalent to 195 men and three subalterns? In "another place" it had been attempted to be proved by Lord Sandhurst, the Commander of the Forces in Ireland—which, by-the-by, he very seldom visited—that there was a distinction between the colonel of a regiment of infantry and the captain of a field battery, because, as the noble Lord said, the latter did not select the position for his guns. But did the colonel select the position for his regiment? And yet people talked of a "close corporation."
  MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTexplained that he spoke of "the close corporation" of the Guards, and said that that expression had been applied to the Guards in times past, but now it was proposed to make a similar "close corporation" in the Artillery.
  MR. OSBORNE: How were they making a close corporation in the Artillery? Was it by giving back rights of which these men had so long been deprived? Had the right hon. and gallant Officer forgotten the conduct of the Artillery on many occasions—in Scinde, in New Zealand, and elsewhere? The fact was, they were doing a tardy justice to that great body of men, and he hoped the House would stand by them and support them in this most necessary and efficient measure of reform.
  MR. HOLMSregretted that there should have been any comparison between the different branches of the service, and advocated a system of retirement such as that which had been re-
  410
  commended by the Committee which had considered this subject, instead of the course recommended by the Government. The question that must shortly force itself upon our attention was the advisability of giving a captain of the Line the command of a much larger number of men and a greater share of responsibility. In the Prussian service a captain had the direction in time of peace of 160 men, and in time of war of 250 men. Compared with the Prussian system, the number of officers of the higher grades in our service was out of all proportion, being as 5,317 to 3,251; and it was now proposed to still further increase that proportion by the promotion of 349 additional field officers—namely, 283 as by the proposal now under discussion, and 66 in connection with the depôt centre scheme. It had been stated that we had reduced the number of our officers by 1,200, but of these 700 were subalterns, and the course thus pursued was directly opposed to that adopted in business and in other departments of Government, where the endeavor was not to make the necessary reductions in the lower grades, but to keep down the expenditure in the more responsible and more highly paid branches.
  MR. STACPOOLEsuggested that the officers who were necessarily passed over should receive brevet rank without additional pay.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that his right hon. and gallant Friend opposite had made one or two curious mistakes during the course of his speech, and he appeared to be much surprised that when the Estimates had been framed no provision was set down in them for majors of Artillery and Engineers. He would remind him, however, that when the Estimates were framed no such rank was in existence and that it had been found necessary to frame them in accordance with the Royal Warrants then in force. His right hon. and gallant Friend had taken upon himself to say that the alteration had been smuggled into the Estimates, [Major General Sir PERCY HERBERT said, he did not say so.] That was all very well, but it was the old story of "Don't duck him in the horse pond." He would remind his right hon. and gallant Friend that, so far from smuggling it into the Estimates, his explanations regarding it were very copious,

  411
  and required three pages of Hansard; and that if there had been no discussion, it was not his (Mr. Cardwell's) fault, but the fault of his right hon. and gallant Friend himself. What had his right hon. and gallant Friend done since the time when he (Mr. Cardwell) had introduced the matter? Why, nothing. Yet, neglecting to discuss the matter at the time, his right hon. and gallant Friend, after an interval of four months, came forward to ask for an inquiry. Nothing was more common than to ask for an inquiry when the matter was new and anything required examination; nothing less common than to ask for an inquiry upon a subject four months after the House had decided upon it. The fact, however, was that the subject had already been inquired into. A Committee, of which his right hon. and gallant Friend was a Member, sat upon it in 1867, and the recommendations made by that Committee involved a larger expenditure than that which his right hon. and gallant Friend now regarded as excessive. His right hon. and gallant Friend had complained in his Motion of the expense which the Government scheme would entail on the Indian Revenues; but on inquiry at the India Office, he learnt the proposal made by the Government would not involve any considerable additional expenditure. When his right hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the impolitic expenditure and faulty organization of the scheme, he evidently overlooked the fact that the expenditure was smaller than that which he had himself recommended. The truth was that it was a bare act of justice to the Artillery and Engineers that the responsible position which they held should be filled by field officers. The question of supersession he did not feel disposed to enter on at any length, since it must be evident that in an Army in which promotion ran, not in one, but in several lines, supersession must be of constant occurrence, but as his right hon. and gallant Friend had referred to particular cases of supersession, he might mention the case of a captain of the Bengal Artillery, who had 27½ years' service, who had served through the Punjaub campaign, who had received a severe gunshot wound, and who was still a captain. Supersession, he would remind his right hon. and gallant Friend, was felt quite as much
  412
  by one man as by another, and it was not the more agreeable because it had been effected by purchase or privilege, or by a combination of both. Those who served in the Engineers or Artillery had quite as good an objection to be superseded as other men, and he was prepared to defend the arrangement made by the Government on two grounds, the first and main ground being that of organization. He contended that the commands of field batteries and garrison batteries were services which ought to be in the hands of field officers; and in the second place it was, he maintained, an act of bare justice to the Artillery and Engineers to give them the promotion which they would obtain under the proposal of the Government. He did not, he might add, believe that there was any general feeling in the Army hostile to the course which the Government proposed, and it would indeed be a matter of regret if justice could not be done to two eminent branches of the military service without creating any such feeling.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY—STAFF OFFICERS.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR HARRY VERNEY, in moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice, dealing with the training of Staff officers, said, he must contend that the Army would be much improved by the officers returning to their different regiments after a special system of training while on the Staff. The plan had been adopted in the Prussian Army with signal advantage to the service.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is desirable that there should be appointed a permanent Chief of the Staff of the Army, and a Department formed for the special training of Staff Officers, to collect all information necessary for the efficient performance of Staff duties, and for certifying the competence of Officers employed on the Staff,"—(Sir Harry Verney,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CARDWELLtrusted the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion at so late an hour (20 minutes to 1 o'clock), and, with respect to a Chief of the Staff,

  413
  said that all the duties of such, an officer were at present discharged by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief.
  Amendment and Original Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—FIRE IN THE CLOCK TOWER.

  QUESTION.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in consequence of the fire which had taken place that evening in the Clock Tower, it was his intention to make any alteration in the mode of lighting, and whether he would adopt different colored lights—one red, and the other green?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was happy to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he had incurred no danger by attending in the House to discharge his duty, for the interior of the pinnacle of the tower was built entirely of iron, and there fore could not burn. In deference to the wish of hon. Members, he had been engaged in experiments to discover the best sort of light to place in the tower, and a piece of board used as a support had caught fire from the heat. The accident, however, would not interrupt the exhibition of the light. He must repeat that the only damage that had been done was the burning of a slight wooden screen, but the sparks had attracted the notice of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and the greatest excitement that had occurred was caused by the arrival of two fire engines. As the House contributed £10,000 a-year to the fire brigade, it was a matter of satisfaction that they were on the alert, and it would probably induce the House to vote that particular item in the Estimates more willingly. With regard to the suggestion as to colored lights, they knew that in Ireland the people rather delighted in colors as emblematical of party, but as the House was composed of all parties, he thought a uniform white light would suit best.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock till Monday next.