Commons Sitting of 9 February 1875

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Tipperary,v. Hon. Charles William White, Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Edward Gibson, esquire, for The College of the Holy Trinity, Dublin.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), appointed and nominated; Printing, appointed and nominated; Public Petitions, appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Tribunals of Commerce * [42]; Infanticide * [43]; Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister * [44]; Offences against the Person * [45]; Legal Practitioners * [46]; Glebe Lands, Corporate Bodies (Ireland) * [47]; Epping Forest * [52]; Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) * [48]; Parliamentary Elections (Validity of Votes) * [49]; Open Spaces Metropolis * [50]; County Boards (Ireland) *

ASH WEDNESDAY.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. DISRAELI: As I observe that there is no Business on the Paper for to-morrow, I beg to move that this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday.
  Motion agreed to.

  FIRES IN THE METROPOLIS—HYDRANTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether his attention has been directed to the danger and inconvenience resulting in the case of fire from the want of hydrants in the thoroughfares of the Metropolis?
  SIR JAMES HOGG, in reply, said, the attention of the Metropolitan Board had been directed to the question of providing hydrants for assisting in the extinction of fires in the metropolis. This matter was one which required very careful consideration, and it was now being investigated by one of the Board's Committees.

  THE NEW LAW COURTS—SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL.—QUESTION.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether a site has been provided in the buildings in course of erection for Consolidation of the Law Courts for the Supreme Court of Appeal; and, if not, whether any and what arrangement has been made for its accommodation?
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: Mr. Street's plans for the new Courts of Justice having been approved before there was any idea of making a change in the Judicature, no special apartment for the Supreme Court of Appeal has, by that name, been included in the new buildings; but, by the courtesy of the Society of Lincoln's Inn, their old dininghall has been made over to the Government. It has been suitably fitted by the Office of Works, and restored to its previous dimensions, and is now, I am informed, admirably adapted to be the First Court of Appeal.

HIGHWAYS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the statement, as reported, made by the secretary of his department, the honourable Member for South Norfolk, viz. that,—
  "As far as he was concerned, he had heard nothing whatever of the intention of the Government to bring in any Bill this year upon the question of highways, and therefore they would, he supposed, drift on in the present unsatisfactory state for a little time longer;"—
  and whether that statement accurately represents the intention of Her Majesty's Government, or whether they intend, during the present Session, to bring in any general measure of legislation to deal with the question of the future management and maintenance of roads, and especially with a view of relieving the ratepayers of various parishes?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: No one can be surprised that my hon. Friend should have taken the earliest opportunity of asking this Question. In reply to it, I fear that it will not be practicable, having regard to the pressure of existing engagements, to introduce within the present Session a comprehensive measure on the subject of highways, dealing with all the important matters which incidentally mix themselves up with it.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONgave Notice that, under these circumstances, he would take an early opportunity of bringing forward a Motion on the subject.

FOREIGN OFFICE—DEFECTIVE LIFTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the proceedings of an inquest held on the body of Charles Coxhead, whose death, on the 2nd of December, 1874, was caused by the defective arrrangements of the lift at the Foreign Office; whether any accident, though not of a fatal character, had previously occurred from the same cause; and, whether, during the two months that have elapsed since the death of Charles Coxhead, any alteration has been made in the lift or the

  161
  arrangements connected with it, in compliance with the recommendations of the coroner to prevent the recurrence of similar calamities?
  MR. BOURKE: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the melancholy accident which occurred on the 2nd of December. I am informed that an accident of a far less serious character occurred in connection with the lifts some time ago. I am not aware of any other casualty having happened. Since the death of Coxhead alterations have been made in the arrangements connected with the lifts, and the Foreign Office is still in communication with the Office of Works with a view of making those arrangements entirely secure.

  METROPOLIS—EXPLOSION IN THE REGENT'S PARK.—QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSasked the First Commissioner of Works, What steps are being taken to restore the bridge in the Regent's Park destroyed by the explosion on the Regent's Canal in October last, great public inconvenience being occasioned by the stoppage of the road into the park at that spot?
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: Owing to the uncertainty that has prevailed as to who is responsible for the cost of rebuilding the bridge, no steps have yet been taken in that direction. But, being very sensible of the great inconvenience arising to the public from the present state of matters, I will undertake personally that there shall be no further delay in the restoration of the bridge than is absolutely necessary.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)—SCHOOLMASTERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SHEILasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government proposes to introduce any measure during the present Session, with the view of improving the position of the National Schoolmasters in Ireland?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the question was still under the consideration of the Government, and that he hoped to be able to take an early opportunity of proposing some change.

  STROUD WRIT—RESOLUTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS, in rising to move—
  "That no new Writ be issued for the Election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Stroud, in the room of Henry R. Brand, esquire, whose Election has been declared void,"
  said, he should venture to ask the sanction of the House to that Resolution, in the first place upon the ground that what was now proposed to be done was only the exercise of the fitting discretion which the House undoubtedly possessed; and, in the second place, on the ground that by passing such Resolution the House would be doing a merciful act to the much-distressed borough of Stroud itself. It would be his duty to establish the first position in order to justify the interference of the House with the primâ facie constitutional right of the borough, and with that object he would direct attention to the electoral history of that borough during the last 12 months. From an electoral point of view the history of the borough of Stroud had, he ventured to say, been wholly unprecedented. It was only necessary to go back to the election antecedent to the General Election of last year, and to trace the electoral history of the place downwards, in order to find the following prominent facts:—There were four elections in the space of seven months. Every election was petitioned against upon the ground of corrupt practices. All the Petitions were tried save the one that was set aside by the sudden occurrence of the Dissolution on the 24th of January, 1874. Owing to that event, the Petition against the return made in the earlier part of that month could not lawfully be hoard. All the three elections which had occurred since the Dissolution, including the one immediately consequent upon it, had been the subject of judicial inquiry—the first on Petition against the two Members who were returned, the second on two separate Petitions against the two Members returned, and the last on a Petition against the Member elected in lieu of the one who was turned out. It must be a matter of satisfaction for the House to know that, in the result of those inquiries, however much they might have reflected on the electoral character of

  163
  the borough and its constituency, no stain rested on any one of the four Gentlemen who had been evicted from the seats to which they had been elected, and that they had been all free from any participation in the practices of which their agents and supporters had been found guilty. In the result we had this state of facts, that the election which took place in the borough in February at the General Election was wholly set aside; that the election which took place in May to fill up the vacancies caused by the eviction of the two Members who were returned at the General Election was partially set aside, one Member holding and one losing his seat; that the election in July of a Member to supply the place of the one previously unseated also resulted in that Member losing his seat. Every one of those inquiries turned on the question whether corrupt practices sufficient to invalidate the election had existed. The inquiries into the elections of February and May were not carried to their legitimate conclusion, but were stopped by the person petitioned against surrendering his seat under the strain of the evidence already adduced. It was important to recollect that circumstance as part of the strong evidence of the existence of corrupt bodies of men forming a large portion of the constituency of Stroud. It was important also to look at the nature of the Reports of the Judges on each of the three occasions in question. The election in January, 1874, was upset on the ground of corrupt practices; and Baron Bramwell in his Report stated that the inquiry was intercepted not only by the surrender of the seats, but also by the absconding of persons from the neighbourhood, whom the Judge believed to be important and necessary witnesses for the due investigation of the whole case. The same most experienced Judge—in accordance with the terms of the Act of Parliament under which a Commission of Inquiry should be sent down to the borough—said in his Report—" I further report that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the election to which the Petition relates." He would ask how came that Report of the Judge to be passed by without any action in the nature of appointing a Commission being taken? A point of law was debated whether, as the corrupt practices in question con-
  164
  sisted of treating, it was possible under the terms of the Act to have a Commission; and although some eminent lawyers in that House thought it was not, others took a different view, and he ventured to think the question was one that required consideration. Baron Bramwell, who tried the second Petition, as he did the first, in his second Report significantly referred to his former Report, and stated that he abided by it, but said he had no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the election in May. Only one of the two Members returned in May was unseated. He was unseated on the ground of bribery; and the seat was only defended for a very short time. In the concluding part of his Report the Judge said there was evidence of bribery by others, but that the respondent withdrew from his defence of the seat, and certain persons not having been called, he could not report that bribery had been proved against them. In consequence of that, no action was taken to suspend the writ, and in July last a new election was held, which was also petitioned against. Baron Pigott tried that Petition, and made a most elaborate Report, which was laid on the Table of the House, in which, in the first place, 13 persons were reported by name as bribed by five other persons, and also by some persons whose names were unknown. In addition to that, there were several cases of out-voters who said they had been canvassed by strangers, of whom the agents of the sitting Member denied all knowledge, and had received excessive fares for travelling. It was stated further that that mode of bribing out-voters was carried on by the introduction of two persons from a neighbouring west-country borough, not undistinguished in the annals of Parliamentary Election Petitions; that by a person named, who was engaged in canvassing, four voters were proved to have been bribed, the bribes varying from 2s. 6d. to £2. All knowledge of that person also was denied by the agents. The Election Judge devoted four paragraphs, at the conclusion of his Report, to a most suggestive matter—the various methods in which funds were got up for disposal in ways that would not bear inquiry. Accordingly, they had a statement as to what was called a Decoration Fund,

  165
  which was raised between February and July, to meet a claim of £1,200 for decorations at the February Election—a fund which, by a most remarkable idiosyncracy, appeared to have been raised after the election to which it applied. Baron Pigott said that that fund was stated to have boon subscribed to pay for a large number of flags and banners at the February Election, when the borough was spoken of as having "gone mad," but that it was not shown how it had been expended; that some accounts had been produced, and some receipts, but he was not able to say whether a portion of it was applied to the purposes of the July Election; but there was enough to show that it had not been altogether applied to the purposes for which it was subscribed, or expended in ways that were wholly free from suspicion. But the peculiarity of the learned Judge's Report did not end there. It appeared that in that remarkable election, the agents of the sitting Members went through the double process of importing bribers at the time of the election, and of exporting bribers at the time of the Petition. The learned Judge spoke of persons who were imported for the purpose of bribing, and of persons who were exported at the time of the Petition, in order that they might not give inconvenient evidence. The persons imported were proved to be James Yard Coles and John Bishop Daniels. Amongst other cases were those of very remarkable gentlemen. One of them rejoiced in the name of Heaven, and he (Mr. C. Lewis) supposed had been removed to Hades, to be out of the way. He, at all events, absconded early in November, just as the Petition was coming on, in order to prevent those disclosures which he might have made in his evidence. But the exportation did not end there, for it appeared according to the Report, that there was a very inconvenient witness, for whose future comfort it was thought necessary that he should change the locality of his residence. He referred to a Mr. Joseph Workman, who, it seemed, it was deemed desirable to induce to go from Birmingham to Liverpool, and thence to emigrate with his family to America, the Judge reporting that John Bishop Daniels and Joseph Daniels, who came from Taunton to do any work that there was for them, were engaged in sending
  166
  them away. The Judge, in the last paragraph of his Report, said—
  "I have no reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the election to which the Petition relates; "
  but with the greatest possible respect for the distinguished person by whom the Report was signed, he would venture to remark that if the word "no" had been left out, there would certainly have been more consistency between the preamble, the premises, and the result. Such, then, was the history of the borough of Stroud between the months of January and July, 1874, and he thought the House would admit that it was a history of corruption of every form and kind, from the lowest and most insignificant up to the worst and most flagrant; for he believed that the sitting Members at the February Election lost their seats chiefly because of some breakfast which was given by innocent Nonconformist ministers, who had asked a few of their supporters to partake of tea and toast previous to going to the poll in the morning. But the electors having been treated leniently by the Judges, grew more daring in their delinquencies. It was proved that on the occasion of the election in May, the millowners, who had for years been working their mills on the polling day, were suddenly affected with the most kindly consideration for their hands, so that they reversed the system of Pharaoh's tale of bricks without straw, and not only dismissed their men from the mill for the day of the election, but also paid their wages for the day; while in July, the amount of corrupt talent in Stroud not being found sufficient, strangers were imported, and extravagant travelling expenses paid, while inconvenient witnesses were got out of the way, no matter at what cost. Now, all that showed, in his opinion, that the borough was radically bad, as far as electoral corruption was concerned. He would now pass from that point, and endeavour to show that the House of Commons could exercise its discretion in the matter, and, if it should think proper, suspend the writ for a fresh election. He would so far modify his Resolution as to make the suspension general, without binding the House with respect to any future Session of Parliament. Dealing with the question in that light, it might be convenient to consider how matters

  167
  stood previous to the passing of the Act of 1854, enabling both Houses of Parliament to join in praying for the issue of a Commission of Inquiry in cases of electoral corruption. Previous to that time the House had claimed a general discretion to suspend a writ. In the case, for example, of the borough of Stafford there was a vacancy in May, 1835, occasioned by the acceptance by the sitting Member of the Chiltern Hundreds, and the strength of that case lay in the fact, that it was not by reason of any corruption which had been proved as having occurred in the existing, but in the previous Parliament, between 1832 and 1834, that the House in the exercise of its discretion absolutely suspended the issue of a writ from the 18th of May, 1835, to the 13th of February, 1837. But it might be said that by reason of the passing of the Act enabling the House to punish a delinquent borough by means of a Commission of Inquiry a totally new state of things had been introduced. In the case of Wakefield, however, a Commission was issued in 1859, which reported in 1860 that the corruption which prevailed was not such as justified them in advising that the borough should be disfranchised; but the House nevertheless refused to issue a new writ for two years after, and it was not, in fact, issued until February 1862; and if, as a matter of principle, the House had the power of suspending the issue of a writ for a week there was no good reason why it should not suspend it for any longer period. It was only yesterday that the House passed a Resolution, that in no case where a Member was unseated for bribery should the writ be moved for until after two days' notice, and why such a Resolution, if the House had no such discretion? The House, he might add, had constantly exercised the power to suspend the issue of a writ, even in cases in which it had no authority under an Act of Parliament to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. That being so, he ventured to say that if it lay within the discretion of the House to refuse to issue a new writ for Stroud, it would be an act of mercy to the borough itself to take that course. He had already referred to the Report which stated that in February last the borough went mad, and he was very much inclined to think that it had since had no lucid interval—at all events,
  168
  not a sufficiently long one to restore it to its pristine purity. He had a letter—he was not at liberty to mention the writer's name—but it came from a gentleman of high position in the borough of Stroud, and he described its present moral and social condition. He stated that within the last year or so it was the scene of four fiercely contested elections; that during that time four Petitions had been presented, and four Members of Parliament unseated, a sum of not less than £60,000 having been expended in connection with those proceedings. At the present moment, he went on to say, society in Stroud was divided into two parties, the Blue and the Yellow, between whom there ceased to be the usual interchange of visits, while great bitterness of feeling prevailed, and that both parties were ready again to spring at each other in the event of a writ being granted. "In this state of things," he added, "if you can compel us to take a few years' rest, you will help the community greatly." One could hardly conceive the amount of heart-burning, bitterness, moral degradation, and political corruption to which the borough had been subjected in consequence of the leniency of the House in not suspending the writ last year. He had heard it suggested somewhere—whether in the House or out of it he could not tell—that the House should now open the door to a new election in Stroud, in the hope that not only common sense should prevail among the constituency, but that a compromise might be effected whereby a certain distinguished statesman, who would be an ornament to the House and acceptable to both sides of it, might be induced to put his pure feet within the precincts of the corrupt borough, and be returned by the universal esteem of both parties. If that distinguished statesman's name was what he had heard, he could say that, so far as one party in the borough was concerned, the statement was wholly unfounded and a pure fabrication. He ventured to doubt whether any Member of the House would say that the possibility of such a compromise would be either a sufficient or laudable ground for passing over such an amount of electoral corruption as had been proved to exist in Stroud, and he thought the House would only be doing its duty if it discountenanced the suggestion that something should be done

  169
  different from what justice demanded and what precedent justified with respect to the postponement of the writ. Not only as regarded the moral and political condition of the borough, but even as regarded its social arrangements, the best thing that could be done would be to prevent the occurrence of another election. He hoped the House would acquit him of having placed the matter before it in any strained or overcharged manner. In bringing forward the Motion he had acted with entire independence, and with the simple object that the House should apply the practical remedy for corrupt practices which the case of Stroud seemed to demand. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. R. YORKEseconded the Motion. He felt that it would be necessary to say very few words after the speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. There was no doubt that the whole of the legal proceedings with regard to corrupt practices were somewhat difficult to master. When the question of the Stroud election had been before the House in last April, it was the general opinion that a Commission should issue as a matter of course, and no one appeared aware at the time until the difficulty was started, he believed on the Opposition Bench, that when treating only had prevailed a Commission could not issue as a matter of course. He remembered being one of the Select Committee on the borough of Galway in 1860, when it was reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed, and upon that occasion he waited some time, expecting that a Commission would be moved for, but no action was taken on the part of the Government, whom he had expected would move, and he asked the Chairman of the Committee if he intended to move, and he replied in the negative. He should very much prefer that a duty so important as that of moving for a Commission to inquire into the prevalence of corrupt practices at elections should always be undertaken by the Government of the day, and that it should not be thrown down, as it were, on the floor of the House to be taken up as the convenience or caprice of private Members dictated. After the time of the General Election of last year it appeared that there was not much reason for proceeding harshly against Stroud;
  170
  but he now regretted that the writ was not then suspended. A few breakfasts appeared to have been given by Dissenting ministers; but very little else appeared then to have been proved against the borough. But they had not profited by the lesson they had then received. A large sum had been spent in legal expenses, and there had been two elections and two Petitions. He thought the constituency had been somewhat harshly judged; but as a friend to Stroud, he had no doubt that at the present time the best course open to them was to suspend the writ indefinitely. He said" indefinitely," because he understood it would be impossible to limit the action of Parliament in a future Session; and, of course, it would be competent for any Member at a future time to move that the writ should be issued. The amount of demoralization which had been revealed in Stroud, and which, apparently, arose from a determination by the different parties that the borough should be disfranchised rather than that their opponents should win, was such that it was impossible to live in quietness among the constituency. Unless the House arrested this state of things, the result after one or two more elections would probably be the disfranchisement of the borough. It was because he believed Stroud to be not yet thoroughly demoralized that he came forward to ask that the House should suspend the writ. At the same time, he did not quite go to the extent of the statements made by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Lewis), and he believed that if the borough had time to reflect good sense would assert itself, and they would not have the spectacle of two more gentlemen going down there through a period of trial, excitement, and enormous expense which should result once more in a Petition.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That no new Writ be issued for the Election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Stroud, in the room of Henry E. Brand, esquire, whose Election has been declared void."—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was a fortunate thing that the House could discuss this very important question without any party predilection. Stroud had of late been so impartial in the alternation of its political views and

  171
  the distribution of its political favours, that it inspired neither sanguine hope nor gloomy despondency as to what its political opinions might be in the future. Therefore, they might calmly discuss the question of issuing the writ of election; but in so doing it must be remembered that the House was dealing with one of the highest of properties by the light of Parliamentary principle and precedent. It seemed to him that there were very grave objections to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis). The hon. and learned Member had altered his Motion twice, if not three times. First he proposed that the issuing of the writ should be suspended for the present Session, not for the purpose of taking any action, not for inquiry, not for disfranchisement, but simply as a form of temporary punishment, just as a refractory child was put for a time into a corner or a rollicking undergraduate was rusticated for a term. This might, perhaps, be a proper method of dealing with an adult constituency; but he could only say that it had not, up to the present, been the rule or the practice of Parliament. The Motion of the hon. and learned Member was, in his view, entirely irregular. It, as originally drawn, proposed to bind future Sessions, and, if passed in that form, would have left it open to any hon. Member at any future time to bring forward a Motion for the issue of the writ. As it at present stood, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member would apply only to this Session, but for that period was to be clear and definite, the writ to issue afterwards, if in the meantime Stroud had become good again, and could safely be taken out of the corner. But who was to vouch for this? Was the House to judge of Stroud by the light of anonymous letters written by gentlemen whoso names could not be given to the House? How, again, was the House in future Sessions to judge whether or no the writ should issue? The House had no judicial information on the question, and the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry had not proposed that, by moans of a Commission or otherwise, the necessary information should be obtained. Was the House to be guided by paragraphs in newspapers or this kind of street gossip which, to his surprise, the hon. and learned Member had introduced into the debate?
  172
  It was below the dignity of the House to take cognizance of paragraphs in newspapers, or to be governed by opinions contained in letters whose authors' names could not be mentioned in the House. The hon. and learned Member had asked the House to create a new precedent in Parliamentary practice. This was not a light thing; for the practice of Parliament was the law of Parliament—a law which affected the rights of the whole country, and particularly the rights of constituents. The course suggested could not be followed, therefore, except for far graver reasons than the light and shadowy ones in which the hon. and learned Member so largely dealt. A great part of the Constitution of this country depended upon precedents of this kind, and the stability of our political system rested upon the existence of fixed rules of practice in matters like the one under discussion. The House was not to be guided by a sentimental desire to perform merciful acts for the benefit of much distressed constituencies, or to consult social arrangements and family comforts such as were described by the writer of the anonymous letter which had been read. The practice of Parliament was clear in relation to the subject-matter of the Motion, and was, he ventured to say, precisely the opposite to that which the hon. and learned Member had laid down. There was one authority in this House which they all well respected, who had stated with the greatest accuracy what was the practice in the issue of writs for Parliamentary election. Sir Erskine May, in his work on the Law and Usage of Parliament, stated that—
  "When general and notorious bribery and corruption have been proved to prevail in Parliamentary boroughs, the House have frequently suspended the issue of writs, with a view to further inquiry, and the ultimate disfranchisement of the corrupt constituency, by Act of Parliament."
  He would not venture upon his own authority to attempt the difficult task of proving a negative; but he was fortified by the authority he had just quoted when he said that, with the exception of the case to which reference had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry, no writ had ever been suspended except for the purpose of some ulterior action either by the issuing of a Commission or a proposal for disfran-

  173
  chisement. The case of Stafford, to which reference had been made, so far front being an exception to the rule, was a strong exemplification of it. On the 6th of August, 1833, Sir Thomas Free-mantle, as Chairman of the Committee which inquired into the circumstances attending the Stafford election, reported the resolution of the Committee, which was in effect that the evidence established such a case of general and systematic bribery and corruption as rendered it expedient that the borough should cease to return Members to Parliament. Thereupon a Bill for disfranchisement was introduced.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, the suspension he referred to in the case of Stafford occurred not in 1833, but in 1835.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had before him all the records relating to Stafford, and they went on to the Session of 1836, when the disfranchising Bill was introduced. It was not necessary to detain the House with precedents when the rule was clear; but he might mention that from the year 1775—as described by Rowe on Elections—down to the present time the recorded and continuous precedents were all in support of his view, that the issuing of writs had only been suspended pending subsequent and decisive proceedings. This view had been from time to time enunciated and maintained by no less eminent authorities than Mr. Goulburn, the late Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Williams Wynn. The last-named gentleman, referring to the exceptional ease already alluded to, said "the precedent was one not to be followed, but to be studiously avoided"—[3 Hansard, lxi. 608]—and the eminent authorities who took part in the debate were agreed that the suspension of the issue of writs could only be justified by an intention to proceed further in the direction of inquiry or disfranchisement. In the same debate Sir Robert Peel said—
  "He really thought that if Gentlemen were permitted to take their own views, in cases of this kind, "without knowing about the constituency in question, it was impossible to say what might be the result."
  The right hon. Gentleman also said—
  "That the House ought to be careful how it interfered with the rights of the constituencies to have Representatives in that House…that it would be a dangerous precedent for the House
  174
  to interfere with the rights of the constituencies, and that, if they once began to exercise that power, there was no assignable limit to the abuse of it."—[3 Hansard, lxiii. 869.]
  The hon. and learned Member for Londonderry said the issue of a writ might be suspended for a week or a month by a Resolution of the House. If that was so, then the House by a Resolution might suspend the issue of a writ for ever, and thus disfranchise a place. The power of suspending the issuing of a writ ought not to be exercised except for grave considerations, and after full reflection as to the consequences of the precedent that might be established. The electoral history of Ipswich was far worse than the electoral history of Stroud, and yet Sir Robert Peel said he would not oppose the issue of a writ for Ipswich. In the former case, there was the Report of a Committee that extensive electoral corruption had taken place in the borough. A writ was issued, and another election took place; and then a second Petition occurred. On the 1st of August it was reported that corruption had extensively prevailed, and on the 8th of August a writ was issued for the second time that year. And a great Parliamentary authority, Mr. Charles Buller, with reference to the case of Ipswich, said—
  "It was sought to disfranchise a whole constituency, because of the faults of a few—a proceeding to which he was adverse, because he thought that the vengeance of Parliament ought rather to be directed towards those who gave bribes than towards those who took them, He objected also on the ground that it was unfair to punish all for the faults of a few. It appeared that since the Reform Bill, Ipswich had more frequently than almost any other place had its representatives unseated for bribery; but it also appeared that in no instance had it been shown that any large portion of the constituency were bribed. The largest number of persons accused of bribery at Ipswich appeared to have been about 70 "—he (Sir William Harcourt) believed about six times as many as had been accused at Stroud—" and of these not more than 30, as far as he could judge from those best acquainted with the place, had been proved to be guilty."—[3 Hansard, lxv. 1173.]
  He would put this consideration to the House: There was a broad distinction between setting aside a particular return and suspending or annihilating the electoral rights of a constituency. A return might be set aside upon proof of bribery; but when they came to the other question—that of annihilating or suspending the electoral rights of a constituency—

  175
  they came to a question which he must he permitted with great respect to state was not within the competence of one House of Parliament to entertain. They could not disfranchise a borough without a Commission of Inquiry, with a view to disfranchisement, and without the assent of the whole Legislature—of the Commons, the Lords, and the Crown. What was the House now asked to do? It was asked to do something a great deal more than merely to issue a Commission. A Commission of Inquiry was not issued except in cases where the Judge had reported that there had been extensive bribery at an election. The hon. and learned Member for Londonderry asked the House to disfranchise, at least temporarily, a whole borough on account of the reputed offences of a few electors. Now, that seemed to him to be a strange proposition to come from the Conservative benches. It was a proposition to give the go-by to the House of Lords and to the Crown. The hon. and learned Member for Londonderry said his object was to punish this borough; but it was not in the competence of the House of Commons to punish a borough, except with the co-operation of the House of Lords and of the Crown. He (Sir William Harcourt) would ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to consider what would be the consequences of assuming such a power as the hon. and learned Member asked them to assume, and which had never hitherto boon assumed. On previous occasions when the House of Commons suspended a writ it had been merely as a step to further proceedings; but that was not the case here. The hon. and learned Member had not pretended that this Motion was made as part of a proceeding for inquiry, or part of a proceeding for a Bill to be submitted to both Houses of the Legislature. He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped that Liberal Members would not maintain the doctrine that a constituency might be deprived of its electoral rights simply by a Resolution of the House of Commons, and he should be extremely surprised to find such a doctrine maintained by occupants of the Ministerial Bench. If the House of Commons once allowed itself to determine questions of this kind according to its impression, what would be the result? What use would be made of a precedent of that description in violent times?
  176
  He would illustrate it by a very celebrated case, the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes from the House of Commons. Suppose that some Member had come forward and said—"The last election for Middle-sex was a very turbulent affair; in all probability Mr. Wilkes will be returned again for Middlesex, therefore let us suspend the writ for Middlesex." He (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to say the House would not have done so un-constitutional a thing. Take another case, that of the Clare election, when party spirit ran so high on the question of Catholic Emancipation. Suppose that, on the question of issuing a new writ for Clare, a Member had objected to the issue of a writ on the ground that a Roman Catholic Member would be again returned who, by the Constitution of this country, could not take the oath or a seat, and had therefore proposed, like the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry, as a merciful arrangement, that the writ should be suspended. There might be violent times when the two sides of the House were racing for a vote, and then they would form very different opinions as to what would be merciful for particular boroughs, according to the view they took of what would be the result of a particular election. Take the case of Baron Rothschild when he was returned, in the first instance, for the City of London. Suppose that the issue of a writ for the City of London had boon suspended on the ground that the City would again return a Jew. If hon. Gentlemen thought there never would be times again when a violent party spirit would have an effect on matters of this kind, he had a very different opinion from them. He had no wish to disparage or lessen the privileges of the House, but it had never yet claimed such a power as that now asked for—a power to disfranchise for an in-definite period a particular borough by its sole vote. They certainly had power to make new precedents and to change the Constitution of the country; but in this case the Judge under the law which they had made had reported under three distinct heads—namely, on the conduct of the candidates, on the conduct of the voters, and on the conduct of the constituency. The Judge had three times reported against the candidates and against the voters; but with reference to the constituency the Judge once no-

  177
  minally reported against it, but the House held that was not a valid Report, and on the last two elections the Judge had reported in favour of the constituency. The Judge had, therefore, twice acquitted the constituency of corruption, and yet the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry asked the House to act as if the Judge had found the constituency "Guilty." The hon. and learned Member said—" Although under the statute you cannot inquire, yet you may suspend." To him (Sir William Harcourt) this appeared a most extraordinary argument, whether it be regarded from the point of view of common law or of constitutional law. The object of the Election Petitions Act was precisely to prevent such discussions as the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry had raised to-night. It was intended to prevent that which was necessary when the decisions of Committees were unsatisfactory—namely, that matters upon which opinions differed very much should be discussed on the floor of the House. The Act was intended to give the House a verdict against the constituency of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" on which it might act; and the express intention of the legislation was that the House of Commons should not be constituted into a jury to revise the decision of the Judge. There-fore, by carrying the present Motion the House would practically repeal the Election Petitions Act. If the House, ignoring the judicial decision, were to go into a discussion as to the facts of the case, he saw nothing before them but endless disputes. If hon. Members were to attempt to regulate the social arrangements of particular boroughs they would be undertaking a duty which they were little fitted to fulfil. What he could say on the subject would carry little weight; but before the discussion was brought to a close the House would doubtless hear the advice of the Prime Minister, which advice would greatly influence the decision of the House from the right hon. Gentleman's long Parliamentary experience as well as from the high office he filled. For his own part, he deprecated this dangerous innovation in Parliamentary practice—an innovation which shook the foundations upon which rested the rights of the constituencies. He hoped the House would not consent to the Motion; and, indeed, he trusted that, upon
  178
  further consideration, the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry would not press it to a division.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that he could quite have understood the object of the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis) if he had moved for the suspension of the writ with a view to some ulterior proceeding; but the hon. and learned Gentleman distinctly and clearly stated that he did not move for the suspension of the writ with a view to any ulterior proceeding at all, but only for the purpose of inflicting some punishment—which he assumed had been deserved—on the constituency of Stroud. It appeared to him that the suspension of the writ for such a purpose as that would be contrary, not only to Parliamentary precedent, but also to the law, and certainly to policy. Why should the constituency of the borough of Stroud be punished for an offence of which they had not been found guilty? and why should they be punished when there was to be no investigation set on foot to discover whether they were guilty of an offence or not? As far as he could make out, the law of the matter was very clear and simple. Prior to the Act of 1854—under which a Commission might issue upon the application of both Houses of Parliament—no doubt writs were very frequently suspended; but a reference to the authorities on the subject showed that the writs were suspended in order that an investigation might be instituted for the purpose of ascertaining whether corrupt practices extensively prevailed, and with a view to the ultimate disfranchisement of the offending constituencies. Under the Act of Parliament in question, both Houses might petition Her Majesty to issue a Commission upon the Report of a Committee appointed to try an Election Petition that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, or upon the Report of a Committee appointed to inquire whether corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in any particular place. But unless there was such a Report a Commission could not issue. By a subsequent Act the Election Judge was substituted for the Committee to try the Election Petition, and as the law now stood, a Commission could not issue unless there was a Report from the Election Judge that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. No doubt, if

  179
  there were such a Report, or if there had been a Committee appointed to inquire whether corrupt practices prevailed, and such Committee had made a Report to that effect, a Commission could issue under the Act of Parliament; otherwise, it could not. Now, the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry wished the writ for Stroud to be suspended, although the Election Judge, instead of reporting that corrupt practices extensively prevailed, had reported distinctly to the contrary. The hon. and learned Member would have the House to ignore the finding of the learned Judge—that was, of the tribunal properly constituted and authorized to investigate the matter. In the teeth of that finding, which exculpated really and truly the constituents of Stroud, and was to the effect that they had not offended, the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry would have the House suspend the issuing of the writ for the purpose of punishing the constituents of Stroud for not having offended. He (the Solicitor General) objected to the Motion.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he thought the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was based on two fallacious principles. He was not going to enter into a controversy of precedents, although he thought the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis) had carried off the victory, and had shown that the weight of precedents was on his side. The first of the false principles on which the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford rested was that the franchise was a property and not a trust; and the second principle he laid down was distrust of the House of Commons. The first of these principles was a most dangerous one, for if it were sound a voter would be justified in selling his vote to the highest bidder. This point was thoroughly discussed at the time of the passage of the Reform Bill. It was on the same ground that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of punishment, saying that Stroud should be put in a corner like a naughty child, or rusticated like an undergraduate. He contended, however, that the House had a right to see that the trust of the franchise was properly fulfilled; and that, if it were abused, the House had a right to put the naughty child in a corner. In other words, disfranchisement was a proper
  180
  punishment for a borough. The hon. and learned Gentleman's next argument was that a borough might be disfranchised, but not by the House of Commons. It must, according to him, be disfranchised by Act of Parliament. Now, what was the difference between a vote of the House of Commons and an Act of Parliament? The effect was two-fold. In the first place, an Act of Parliament involved the consent of the three Estates of the Realm, and not of the House of Commons alone; and for that reason it was the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed distrust of the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman said—"Remember the great abuses that may come in if you trust the House of Commons alone, without the Queen and the House of Lords to keep it in check." In fact, he spoke of the House of Commons as if it were the National Assembly or the Constituent Assembly of France in 1791. Then the hon. and learned Member cited a precedent which went strongly against him, for he alluded in a passing manner, as though he was afraid of it, to the Jewish Disabilities. That controversy was raging at the time he first entered the House. A Bill was brought in year after year, and it failed to be carried owing to the votes, not only of Members on that side of the House, but to the votes of many of the extreme Party on the other side, who voted against the measure on the ground that the House of Lords and the Crown had no right to meddle with the qualifications for seats in the House of Commons. They argued that the question whether Jews should sit in the Lower House was one for the boroughs and communes of England to decide, and that the House of Commons alone had a right to settle the matter. Consequently Lord Russell dealt with it by a separate Resolution, which was passed in the House of Commons. The other difference between an Act of Parliament and a Resolution of the House of Commons was, that one was more permanent than the other. If the Motion were passed, next Session the House might, in one evening, vote that the franchise should be given to Stroud; but an Act of Parliament would, in the shape of a Bill, occupy a Session, and have to run the gauntlet of both Houses. But that was the very objection his hon. and learned Friend the Member for

  181
  Londonderry made. The fact that the franchise might be given back by a vote of the House was an argument in favour of the Motion. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman said the Judge had reported in favour of the constituency, and that the House should act upon the Judge's opinion, who, having reported on case after case of bribery said, in a lenient mood, that the constituency were not guilty of bribery. Well, if the candidates were not guilty, and if the constituency were not—good Heavens! who were guilty of bribery? The Judge had given sentence, and on that sentence, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, the House were bound to act. If that were so, why did he not bring in a Bill to extend the Bill of the year before last? The hon. and learned Gentleman would practically leave the whole matter in the hands of the Judge; but the House of Commons had already declined to delegate such power to any Judge. The House retained that power in its own hands, and the hon. and learned Gentleman only showed a little more of his distrust in the House of Commons in the course he had that evening pursued. The Judge was still a Judge merely, and not a jury. The House of Commons was in such a case as the present both Judge and jury, and it was because he had no distrust in that House that he supported the Motion.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he had risen some time since to support the Motion, but at the same time his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ox-ford (Sir William Harcourt) happened to catch the Speaker's eye. He was very glad he had the benefit of his hon. and learned Friend's speech before he made his own; because, although he felt inclined half-an-hour ago to vote for the Motion, he was perfectly convinced he should do so, having heard the speech of his hon. and learned Friend. That speech was nothing, from beginning to end, than precedent, precedent, precedent. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said—" Away with musty precedents." What did the House of Commons exist for but to make precedents? and he hoped they would make a new precedent that night. Talk about the Motion being unconstitutional, and beyond the powers of the House of Commons! It was nothing of the kind. If there were anything irregular or wrong in it, the Speaker would
  182
  not have allowed it to appear on the Order Book that day. Let them take a broader view of the question than was usually taken by Gentlemen of the long robe. What was the object in moving for the issue of the writ? There could be only two objects in view—to remove a grievance which was felt in Stroud by the electors of that wonderful borough, or to remove a public grievance which was felt by the House of Commons and the country. He had no doubt that inconvenience and discontent were felt by a certain section of the Stroud constituency. They were very fond of elections there, and the persons who delighted in them, and made most profit by them, had had four elections in seven months, which he thought was quite enough, and ought to satisfy anyone. But there might be other reasons why this writ was moved. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford talked about street gossip, which alluded to certain arrangements which had been made with regard to the election at Stroud. Now, he would give his hon. and learned Friend, not street gossip, but two or three lines which appeared that morning in the leading journal. That at all events was not street gossip. He read The Times, and very able and well-informed people wrote for The Times. Here was the statement—
  "We have much pleasure in stating that arrangements are in progress, by which it is hoped that the Right Hon. E. P. Bouverie may he returned without a contest for the seat vacated at Stroud by the last decision of the Election Petition Judge. Liberals and Conservatives alike will rejoice to have Mr. Bouverie once more in the House of Commons."
  They all had a great regard for his right hon. Friend, who had been removed from the House of Commons for about 12 months; but he must say he never heard anything so bad of him as that he was to be supported by both Conservatives and Liberals. But if that were the case, what was the grievance at Stroud? If they really meant to bring in his right hon. Friend—["No, no!"]—well, he thought it very probable. They had one Member now, a very good allowance as times go, for a town of 38,000 people such as they were. If they now returned a Member who would vote Liberal and Conservative, what would they gain in voting power? They had, therefore, no real grievance; but perhaps they were to regard the

  183
  question as involving some grievance to the public. For his part, he was inclined to think the House was large enough, and that they could do perfectly well without an additional Member, especially at a time when there was so little to do for any one of them. He would put the question impartially to both sides, and first he would say a word to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last year they were told by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt)—a consistent, straightforward, able supporter of the Ministerial party—that that party were a party of silence and consideration. Now, he asked them, if Mr. Bouverie were in the House, could they be silent or considerate? Again, let them look at the Liberal side of the House. They were certainly in a better position than they were in a short time ago, having been last Wednesday consolidated in the Smoking Room of the Reform Club. And, as he understood from the Leaders of the party, their duty at the present moment was to do nothing but sit and watch hon. Gentlemen opposite. But if they got Mr. Bouverie into the House, he would so disturb them that they could not possibly perform that duty. Whatever they did, let them not get a clover man into the House. If Mr. Bouverie got in he would have something to say upon every subject, and the Party which had just been consolidated would fall to pieces like a pack of cards. Let them wait until there was some great question before the country, when Mr. Bouverie might come in, not, perhaps, supported by both parties, but by one party—he should not like to say which. Let them not, for Mr. Bouverie's sake, if it were so—still less for the sake of keeping up old musty precedents, in which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford delighted—throw the whole town of Stroud into turmoil and confusion, for no good purpose that he could see. Let them wait, at all events. Lot Mr. Bouverie wait, and come in at some other time, not at this moment, to disturb the holy calm and profound peace that at present pervaded every section and fraction of a section of the House of Commons.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that having been connected with the general Committee on Elections, and having cordially supported the measure brought in by
  184
  the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), which handed over Election Petitions to the Judges, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on this question. In his opinion, the position of those who had opposed this Motion was, so far as precedent and principle was concerned, entirely unassailable. They were told that this writ ought not to issue because political excitement ran high at Stroud. They were now asked to make a new crime and a new offence. They were told the borough of Stroud had got into such a state of political excitement, that it was not likely to exercise the franchise properly, and the House was accordingly asked to take a most dangerous step in creating a new precedent on the subject. He appealed to the Prime Minister who brought in this Act to support the authority of the Judges. The law provided for the appointment of a Commission in cases only in which corrupt practices were reported to have extensively prevailed. It seemed to him that they would be taking a new course in refusing upon their own responsibility to issue a writ; and if they once adopted that principle, there was no limit beyond which they might not carry it. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would have them disregard precedents; but for himself, after many years' experience in the House, he could hardly remember a case where a precedent had been disregarded of which they did not soon have occasion to repent. He sincerely hoped that the House would not accept the advice given to it, and begin an era of new precedents. Whatever the vote might be, he entered his protest against any such course being adopted.
  MR. GREGORYcontended that the fact that the House was the authority to issue a writ was a presumption that it possessed jurisdiction in a case of this kind, and they were called upon to exorcise a kind of judicial function in issuing such writ. It was true that the Judge exonerated the borough of Stroud from a general charge of corruption; but his words were very guarded, being that there was no reason to think that general corruption had prevailed "in the present election." Knowing what the House did of the previous elections for the borough, it could appreciate such a finding on this occasion. The true issue now raised was that there had

  185
  been four elections, every one of which had been more or less tainted by corruption. Yet the House was now called upon to exonerate the borough from all criminality, and to issue the writ as if the borough was one of the purest in England. He could not consent to take such a course, and he would, therefore, support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis).
  MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend who has just addressed us stated that he would try to put the question before the House in its true light. I will endeavour also to put the question before the House in its true light, and the light in which I view it is, that if this Motion is carried, it amounts to an abrogation of the Election Petitions Act of 1868. In that Act there were certain powers given to the Judges which the House of Commons waived, after ample discussion, after great thought, and with a due sense of the sacrifices they were making. If we were now to announce that because the decision of a Judge, acting under such authority, does not please us, we are to come to a decision contrary to that which according to the provisions of the law has been made public by him, I can only look upon it that if this Motion were carried, the authority of that Act would be entirely superseded. I am not prepared, however, in any way to supersede or abrogate that Act. I believe that it has worked well for the country and for the House of Commons. It is possible that in some of its details it may be improved—and that is a point on which it is unnecessary to enlarge—but the general spirit of that Act is good, and it will be well for the House of Commons always to support it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) who always addresses us in a spirit of gay wisdom, laughs at experience and denounces precedents. Well, precendents are often attacked and abused, and the hon. Baronet to-night has been profuse in his denunciations of them. But precedents generally—and I will say Parliamentary precedents always—embalm principles; and I am convinced that if we remove far from the line which our Parliamentary precedents indicate to us for our guidance and the conduct of our business, we shall soon repent our rash-
  186
  ness. The noble Lord the Member for the county of Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) sent me a pamphlet the other day, which I have read with much interest—as I read everything that comes from his animated pen. It was a vindication of Infallibility. In what quarter that infallibility is exercised it is unnecessary for me to touch upon, but to night my noble Friend is the champion of the infallibility of the House of Commons. That is a principle which, to my mind, is certainly not orthodox, neither is it always safe. I have sat in this House as long, probably, as most men now in it, and I am deeply interested in its honour and reputation; but I have ever opposed any proposal that this House should assert to itself an authority independent of the other branches of the Legislature, and estates of the realm. The proposal before us, however, essentially aims at such a consequence. My hon. Friend who made this Motion would do well, I think, if he were to consider what course he will adopt if he succeeds. If he carries it, he cannot terminate his connection with the borough of Stroud. He will by the success of his Motion appoint himself the guardian of the honour and interests of the borough. He must be perpetually bringing the subject before the House, and it will be for him, when he has made due inquiry, to tell us when he thinks that the borough of Stroud has returned to that order of mind at which we may entrust to it the noblest franchise of Englishmen. He must keep us au courant with a series of bulletins about the state of the borough of Stroud, because he has no ulterior plan. The proposition itself is one which, if it succeeds to-night, holds out to the House no promise or prospect of any future arrangement; and there-fore I think my hon. Friend will find great difficulty in the course which he has adopted. He cannot, if he wishes really to punish the electors of Stroud; he cannot, if he succeeds in his Motion to-night, call upon the other authorities of the Legislature to combine with him and bind the House of Commons to carry any measure on the subject. He cuts himself off from any constitutional course becoming the occasion by the line he is pursuing to-night. My hon. Friend will do well then to consider these difficulties before he calls upon the House to come to a vote upon this question.

  187
  The times may come when the spirit of the House of Commons may be very different from what it is at present. I can remember myself some periods since I have been a Member of this House, when the existence of the Government depended upon a single vote—when the country was inflamed on subjects which were peculiarly adapted to excite the passions of a free people, and when things were proposed which those who had any connection with them may look back upon with regret. What saved the House of Commons at that time? What saved it from a course which might produce Parliamentary anarchy and inflict great injury on the country generally? Why, it was respect for the musty precedents which the hon. Baronet holds up to humorous scorn to-night that guided them. There were then great men in Parliament on both sides of the House. There were lawyers—although he sneers at gentlemen of the long robe—who were never equalled probably at any period of our Parliamentary history for their learning and independence, and experienced statesmen on both sides, who agreed that they would adhere to precedents and be guided by the experience of their predecessors. I trust the House, then, will not allow itself to deviate into a path so dangerous and so difficult as the one that has been indicated, and which we have been recommended to pursue to-night. I am sure if we do, we shall open up a scene of confusion which will not easily end, and no question of a Parliamentary contest will ever come before the House without some proposition being made so unconstitutional in its character that the result must be the degradation of the authority of Parliament, and the reduction of our powers of being useful to the country.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he was compelled to say a few words on account of the way in which the Motion had been met by the two front benches. He understood the proposition which was now laid down to be that, under no circumstances had that House the power to suspend the issue of a writ for any constituency when there was a vacancy, unless there was a case for a Commission upon the Election Report of a Judge, and that the House could take no other step for the punishment of a borough found guilty of great, though not of ex-
  188
  tensive, bribery. If so, what was the moaning of the form of asking the House, aye or no, whether it would consent to the issue of a writ? What was the meaning of that indignation which came from the front benches on the other side when, in the case of Wakefield last year, it was found that the writ had been moved for the same night? The other side of the House expressed its indignation at being taken by surprise. How could it be taken by surprise if, in the absence of a case for a Commission by reason of the form of the Judge's Report, the issue of a writ was a matter of right, and not a matter of discretion? What was the meaning of the formality the House was asked to go through yesterday by the Secretary to the Treasury, in passing a Resolution, that in any case where a vacancy had been occasioned by a Report imputing bribery, no writ should be issued, except after two days' notice on the Votes? That must have been proposed under a fallacious assumption if, as was now stated on the highest authority, the House had no discretion, unless there was a case for a Commission. It was he who was asking the House to follow its own precedents. The appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) to the precedent of Stafford failed for its purpose and strengthened his own case. It was not for bribery committed at an election during the existing Parliament, but for bribery committed during an antecedent Parliament, not followed by disfranchisement, that the House interposed for two years to prevent an election; and it was not even a by election, but a vacancy occasioned by a resignation. Neither front bench had attempted to meet that precedent, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman did refer to it, he found he was dealing with what was said in 1833, when the Report of the Committee had just been presented, and had given the go by to the accumulated force of the subsequent facts and the suspension of the writ by another Parliament from 1835 to 1837. Neither the hon. and learned Gentleman, nor the Solicitor General, nor the Prime Minister said anything about Wakefield. In that case, when the Commission had spent its force, when it was functus officio, when no hon. Member of the House ventured to say there was a case to justify disfranchisement, when there was

  189
  no proposition to deal with the borough in any other form, the House refused for two whole years after the Report of the Commission was laid on the Table to issue a writ for the election of a Member. He was held up as an intruder upon ancient precedents; but, as he had said, he asked the House to follow its own precedents, not to fly in the face of them and tear them up—he left it to the two front benches to do that, remembering that, when they agreed, they were generally in the wrong. He asked the independent Members to maintain the forms, customs, and precedents of Parliament for the purpose of putting down corruption, and not to allow themselves to be led away by the suggestions which had been made. This case would be a dividing line in the history of Parliament if, by the junction of the two sides above the Gang way, the Motion was defeated, and the inference would be deduced that unless the case of corruption was so bad as to come within the purview of a Commission, no amount of subsidiary or detailed corruption would be sufficient to render it liable to a day's punishment. Under those circumstances, he must persist in dividing the House.
  MR. CHILDERSwas unwilling to intrude on the House after the reply of the hon. Member; but, as he had again referred to the precedent of Stafford, he wished to say that at the election of 1833 it was notorious that there was great corruption, and, as the ordinary forms of inquiry would not reach the case, an Act was passed for a special Committee. The corruption was proved, and in the following Session a Bill was introduced to disfranchise Stafford; but the Bill failed to reach the House of Lords in time to be passed. In 1835 it was again introduced and carried by an enormous majority in the Commons, but it again failed to pass the Lords. In 1836 it was introduced for the third time and carried by the consent of almost the whole House, but it was rejected by the Lords; and when it had been rejected, a writ was moved for, so that the precedent, instead of supporting the hon. and learned Member, told the other way.
  Question put.
  The House divided;—Ayes 44; Noes 225: Majority 181,

  LIGHTING, PAVING-, AND CLEANSING (METROPOLIS).—RESOLUTION.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASER, in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the condition of the Metropolis as regards Lighting, Paving, and Cleansing, calls for legislation,"
  said, that the question was whether the Metropolis should continue in its present condition of sordid anarchy with respect to those important matters. The last time he called attention to the subject, some years ago, he moved the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate and report upon the condition of London, but Sir George Grey, then Secretary of State, declined to accede to the Motion, on the ground that the facts were already well known, and there would be no advantage in issuing a Royal Commission on the subject. In the autumn of the same year Sir George Grey wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, calling attention to the debate and asking their opinion upon it. The question was fully discussed by the Metropolitan Board, and the conclusion to which they came, as might have been anticipated, expressed their high approval of the state of London, and the opinion that no reform was necessary. A Select Committee was subsequently moved for by the late Mr. Charles Buxton, which was consented to, and presided over by a right hon. Gentleman of great ability (Mr. Ayrton), then Member for the Tower Hamlets, a Member of the late Government, the result of which was to add two bulky and interesting volumes to the literature which already existed on the subject. There was a long Report with the Minutes of Evidence, but nothing came of it until last autumn, when a deputation waited on the Home Secretary. He (Sir William Fraser) was requested to take part in it, but he declined to do so, promising, however, to give his best attention to the Bill which was then foreshadowed. The facts of the case could hardly be disputed. The vestries of London, under whom we lived, and by whom we were ruled, had numerous advocates in the House, and if he was thought a foeman worthy of their steel, there would be an ample opportunity for defence. It was well known that they were most inefficient in their management of the local

  191
  affairs of the metropolis; that they were a numerous and divided body, incapable of doing anything effectively; and it was to remedy the present state of things and to bring public opinion to bear upon the question that he brought forward his Motion. First of all, could anyone say that the paving of London was in a satisfactory condition? Taking on the one hand an aristocratic thoroughfare, and on the other, one inhabited by the humblest classes, he would submit to the House whether they indicated a state of things that ought to exist. He would not go as far as Bermondsey; but, taking Piccadilly, which had been paved in the most various ways; he did not know whether there had been asphalte, but there had been wood, granite, macadam; could it be said that its paving was such as it ought to be, or that it was managed so as to render walking as convenient and practicable as possible? At that very moment the inhabitants of Piccadilly, including a Royal Prince, were indebted to the charity of a private individual, who was permitted at a large expense to himself to assist in putting down a wooden pavement. Had there been an uniform system of administration uniformity of pavement would have been brought about. In Oxford Street and other great thoroughfares there was great variety, and in the smaller thoroughfares the variety was, if possible, still greater. How was the work carried out? When an accident occurred on a railway, men were set to work morning, noon, and night, to clear the line. But what happened in London when the pavement was being replaced? Men went to work, left off to go to dinner, and when dusk came not a man was to be found doing anything, though the traffic in London was a hundred times greater than on the most frequented railway. There was scarcely a day passed that they might not read in the newspapers accounts of accidents occurring in the streets, resulting in broken or dislocated limbs; and as for the roads in what were called "the outskirts," you might travel into any part of the Kingdom without finding worse. As an instance, the Queen's Road, near the Chelsea Suspension Bridge might be taken, and it would be found that it was periodically full of mud, slush, or dust, varied occasionally by masses of flint, which were thrown in the roadway and left there
  192
  unrolled. Then the street gas was very bad, so he was informed; and when he visited any other town he found it to be better. They paid the best price, and yet they got an indifferent article; and if they complained about it the companies, who possessed great capital, would turn round and say—"Do your worst." In fact, they laughed at the remonstrances of the vestries; while as to the lamp-posts, many of them appeared to form part of an old stock accumulated in the reign of one of the Georges, which was now being gradually used up. Thirdly, with regard to cleansing, could anything be worse? In the summer there was constant dust, in the winter mud and slush, followed by granite, flints, and every sort of ingredients. And not only that, but we were told that a great many of the worst disorders, those called entozoic, were caused by decayed particles of matter carried about. As for the question of snow, which at times was wont to agitate the newspapers, we know that vast masses of it were allowed to accumulate, as some thought, quite unnecessarily. It might be very difficult to remove quickly a heavy fall, but there were other means of getting rid of snow, which surely might be tried; for instance, it might possibly be melted by heated rollers. One great difficulty in dealing with London was its vast extent; but, besides, it was completely different from every other city. One of the most interesting discoveries of the present generation was the unearthing of the vast sites of ancient cities, such as Babylon and Nineveh, situated on what was once, and might again become, the great highway of the world. Those cities were built with far more regard to sanitary conditions than London. For instance, instead of being wedged together as with us, every house had its garden, and he need not dwell on the salubrious effect of such an arrangement. The vestries were very much blamed for the state of things of which he complained: no doubt the main point was that these bodies were far too weak. It was easy to bring accusations of venality, and to say that no persons went to a vestry except for corrupt purposes. He did not share that opinion. These men might do their best; but their best was not at all good. In the last century, a philosopher who cared, perhaps, more for point and

  193
  antithesis than truth, speaking of different kinds of Government said—
  "Whate'er is best administer'd is best."
  He would not say that, but he would say that "whate'er is worst administered is worst; "there could be nothing worse than the administration of London. Nor were the different Acts of Parliament governing these bodies by any means strong enough. Many of the clauses of Sir Benjamin Hall's Act began with the word "may." "The vestry may do this or that; "the word" shall" ought to have been substituted. Several different schemes for the government of London had been suggested, to all of which, of course, objections might be urged. One was that London should be formed into a vast corporation with the City for a centre; but it was probable that the City, being very rich, would not care to amalgamate itself with another corporation, which was not only very poor, but was burdened with a heavy and increasing debt. Another scheme was to form each of the Parliamentary boroughs into a corporation; but he feared if that were done, the men who served in those corporations would not be much more enlightened than the present vestrymen. He believed there was a considerable jealousy of London, and a desire in many quarters that it should continue weak, and broken up into opposing bodies that it might not become a rival to Parliament. It had occurred to him, therefore, that it might be brought more directly under the control of that House if a Minister were appointed for London, aided by an elected Board, which should have the necessary taxing powers in regard to the three great essentials he had named. Were that done, he felt sure that there would be one great sigh of relief from all the ratepayers of London. He did not ask for immediate legislation, but he hoped that something would be done soon. It was necessary to bring public opinion to bear on the matter, and it was in the hope of doing something towards that end, and towards arousing a feeling on the subject, that he had brought forward the Motion. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the condition of the Metropolis as regards Lighting,
  194
  Paving, and Cleansing, calls for legislation."—(Sir William Fraser.)
  SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, that though the Metropolitan Board, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, had nothing to do with paving or lighting, yet he felt it his duty to make a few remarks on those subjects. In doing so, he would at once say, he could take little exception to the manner in which the Motion had been brought forward. He did not intend, on this occasion, to enter into a detailed defence of the government of London, because that was not the question involved in the Motion, and it would probably come before the House at some future time. In his opinion, after having given considerable attention to the paving, cleansing, and lighting of the metropolis, he thought that, on the whole, though there might be some cause of complaint, these things were fairly done, considering that there were 1,200 miles of streets to attend to, and an area of 120 square miles. Speaking, not, like his hon. Friend, as a gentleman of leisure, rather fond of criticism, but as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, and also as having previously served on local vestries and district boards, he could assure the House that a vast amount of care and attention was given to the work, and he thought that, speaking generally, the governing bodies deserved praise rather than the reverse. Considering, too, that his hon. Friend had had since August last to prepare his indictment against the vestries and district boards, he thought the case just presented to the House was rather a meagre one. His hon. Friend mentioned the paving of Piccadilly; but had he ever considered that the gradients of Piccadilly were not the same throughout the whole length, and that it was impossible to put asphalte on a Bill, or horses would tumble down? Then his hon. Friend said, that if London were under a single government, there would be one uniform paving. Now, he did hope the day would never arrive when there would be one uniform system throughout the whole metropolis. Where there was a vast amount of traffic, pitching was absolutely necessary; while in other places, gravel would suffice. He was glad to see that wood pavement was being laid down in various places. It had formerly

  195
  been tried and failed, but he hoped it would prove successful now. Local boards, however, would be blamed if they spent a great deal of money upon experimental pavements, though they were quite ready to adopt them on a larger scale if they proved successful. As to lighting, he should not say much. It would be his duty by and by to introduce Bills, asking the House to assist him in purchasing or regulating the gas undertakings of the metropolis, and he should expect the cordial support of his hon. Friend in that endeavour. Meanwhile, if the gas companies put bad gas into the public lamps, his hon. Friend must not blame the vestries. In justice to the companies whose gas had to be tested by the Metropolitan Board, he was bound to say that the gas was generally found to be up to the mark when thus tested; but, in any case, the vestries and district boards were not responsible if the gas were not of the best character. The cost of lighting in one or two parishes would show how considerable this item of local expenditure was, and that the vestries had not fallen short of their duty in that respect. In St. Pancras, the lighting cost £15,428; in St. George's, Hanover Square, £11,498; and in St. Marylebone, £17,368; while the paving in Marylebone cost £17,399; in St. George's, Hanover Square, £20,281; and in St. Pancras, £38,947. The vestries were, therefore, alive to their duties, and felt that they were bound to spend large sums of money in this way. Surely, however, there must be some limit to this expenditure. Vestries could not go on increasing the rates indefinitely. The rates even now ranged from 3s. 6d. up to 6s. or 7s. in some eases; and he had often had to vote with a sad heart, when appeals were made by poor people, ill able to bear the rates. It was the duty of the persons who controlled these funds, to use them in the most economical manner. As regarded cleansing, he agreed that it was of importance, in the interests of public health, to do as much as possible in removing the summer dust and the winter mud; but in a changeable climate like ours, sometimes even the best intentions must be baffled by the state of the weather. One or two facts respecting the expenditure for cleansing the streets would, perhaps, astonish the House. In
  196
  1874, this item amounted in Marylebone to £12,262, and 129 men were employed daily. In St. George's, Hanover Square, it cost £9,242, with 80 or 90 men employed; and in Westminster, it cost £7,600. The vestry which had the charge of Regent Street, employed gangs of men, who began their work at 4 o'clock, both in summer and winter, and in other parts of London, the men began work at 5 o'clock, so that the larger thoroughfares might be cleansed at a proper time without impeding the traffic. The snow was always a matter of complaint, but it was impossible to gather up at once a large mass of snow. During the last fall of snow, 600 men were employed in the parish of St. George's Hanover Square, at a cost of £400; and general instructions were given to the surveyor that whenever a fall of snow occurred, he had carte blanche to do what was necessary. According to an estimate which had been prepared by the surveyor of St. George's Vestry, it would take the same amount of labour of men and horses to clear the streets from six inches of snow, as would suffice to cleanse them for a whole twelvemonth. The same might be said for both Marylebone and St. Pancras. That estimate would show the House what enormous difficulty was occasioned by a deep fall of snow in the metropolis. One of the chief difficulties in connection with the subject was to find a shoot for the snow. Carts, and men to put the snow into them, might be hired, but what was to be done with the snow when it was in the carts? and that was a difficulty that increased year by year, the carts having to go further and further to find a shoot. The cost of watering the roads, again, was probably, on the average, £90 per mile. The hon. Baronet had charged the vestries and district boards with having been wanting in their duty; but he begged to lay the following figures before the House, compiled from a return from most of the vestries and district boards, showing what had been done in these respects during the last 19 years in which the Metropolitan Board had been in existence. The parish of St. Mary, Islington, had laid down 541,363 square yards of paving, at a cost of £105,278, and had put up 1,246 lamps. The parish of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, had laid down

  197
  501,645 square yards of paving, at a cost of £119,094, and had put up 70 lamps. The parish of Bethnal Green had laid down 364,629 square yards of paving, at a cost of £104,300. The parish of Kensington had laid down 149,000 yards of paving, at a cost of £113,963, and had added 2,275 lamps. All the districts had not sent in returns, but the returns that had been furnished showed that in parts of the metropolis, 4,871,501 square yards of paving had been laid down, at a cost of £2,079,880, and that 14,440 lamps had been put up during the period to which he had referred. Under these circumstances, he thought that the much-abused vestries and district boards of the metropolis were entitled to some little credit, at all events, for what they had done in this direction. He should state, in conclusion, that the Metropolitan Board had no control over this matter, and could only notify deficiencies to the vestries and district boards, with a view to their correction.
  MR. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, he wished to bear his testimony to the deplorable state in which many of the thoroughfares of the metropolis were allowed to remain on Sundays. To whatever cause it was due, they were left wholly uncleansed and unwatered, so that London, on a Sunday, when there was a high wind prevailing, was simply insufferable. No doubt a great many of the vestries were entitled to commendation for the way in which they looked after the interests of their parishes; but there were others of which the same thing could not be said, and a discussion like the present would be very useful in arousing them to a sense of their duties. At the same time, he felt that it was scarcely right, seeing how high the parochial rates were, to ask the vestries to increase the burdens of the ratepayers.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that no man was better entitled to speak upon the subject than the hon. Baronet who had introduced it to the notice of the House, he having called attention to it years ago, when Sir George Grey, who was then Home Secretary, promised to take the matter into the consideration of the Government; and he had much ground for complaint when, after the lapse of so many years, he found that the streets of the metropolis were in the
  198
  same state as when he first drew attention to the subject. The hon. Baronet had placed the matter very ably before the House; but he had made one rather important omission in his speech, and that was to show how the evil he pointed out was to be cured. He trusted that the hon. Baronet would go a step further, and would embody his views in the shape of a practical Bill, when his proposals might be more easily discussed. He had also listened with much attention to what had fallen from the hon. Member who had spoken in defence of the vestries. He was not about to enter on the present occasion into the question of how far the vestries had carried out what was entrusted to them, or how far they had failed to do so; for, judging from what had been stated that night, he would have ample opportunities at another period of the Session of going further into this matter. But his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board had said a great deal about cost and very little about science. Now, he (Mr. Cross) could not help thinking that by the application of scientific knowledge, much greater results than any that had yet been attained might have been effected at a much less cost in lighting, cleansing, and paving. What was wanted was some mode of applying scientific knowledge, and any private Member who brought forward a proposal of this kind, which would affect the whole of the metropolis, should be very careful that his plan should provide for the greatest convenience to the public at the least possible cost, and this could only be secured by applying scientific knowledge to the subject. A good deal had been said about the clearing away of the snow after a heavy snow-storm, and he had received numbers of letters complaining of him for not taking steps to secure its removal, and also for not seeing that the crossings were swept and the pavements prevented from becoming greasy; but he wished to take that opportunity of replying to those persons en masse, and to remind them that it was the duty of every householder in London to see that the pavement in front of his premises was swept and cleaned. He knew that this was enforced during the prevalence of snow, but it was not strictly enforced at other times. He trusted that, after the discussion which had been evoked, the hon. Baronet

  199
  would not deem it necessary to go to a division on his Resolution, but would withdraw it.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he was willing to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. He must still however maintain that men who were entrusted, as vestrymen were, with the disposal of vast sums of money ought to be the very best men that could be got. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that he (Sir William Fraser) ought to bring in a Bill. He had purposely avoided that course, for it could not be expected that a non-official Member would be able to carry a comprehensive measure on such a subject. He had confined himself to making a suggestion, which he still thought was not an unsound one, namely, that there should be a Board consisting of a limited number of persons, and presided over by a Minister of high rank. In a letter which appeared last autumn in The Times, Lord Grey suggested that a Committee of the Privy Council should be appointed to consider this question. But, surely there was a Committee of the Privy Council sitting en permanence, and receiving high, though not too high, emoluments, by whom the matter might very properly be considered. He hoped the present debate would be the means of attracting general attention to the subject, and that he would live long enough to see London very different from what it now was in the respects to which he had referred.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—OPPOSED BUSINESS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HEYGATE, in rising to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called,"
  said, it was identical, in every respect, with one which obtained the sanction of the House in the Sessions of 1872 and 1873, and which received its form principally at the hands of the late Prime
  200
  Minister. Last year he (Mr. Heygate) proposed its re-adoption, and it was carried, but with an addition suggested by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who, it appeared, was going to bring forward a similar Amendment on the present occasion. That addition, in his (Mr. Heygate's) opinion, interfered very seriously with the salutary operation of the Resolution, and he trusted the hon. Member would be induced to alter his determination. It was not necessary to repeat the history of the circumstances which led the House to adopt in 1872, the Rule which he now again proposed. He would only remark that, previous to 1871, the uncertainty experienced, especially towards the end of the summer, as to what business might or might not occupy the attention of the House at a late hour, and the unseemly contention which sometimes resulted from the attempts made by hon. Members to force forward at an advanced period of the night, Bills of an important character, which encountered serious opposition, had pressed themselves more and more upon the attention of statesmen, and had, in fact, rendered it necessary that something should be done to remedy the evil and remove the scandal. Night after night hon. Members had to tramp incessantly through the Lobby, on divisions alternately for an adjournment of the House and for an adjournment of the debate, with the object of putting off Motions, the discussion of which could not properly be commenced at a very late hour. This state of things led to the appointment of a Committee, which sat in 1871, and considered the question very carefully. That Committee, which was composed of men of all parties, and included the Members who were admittedly best acquainted with the Business of the House, came to a conclusion which went a great deal further than the Resolution now submitted. By 15 votes against 4, it recommended that no fresh Opposed Business should be proceeded with after half-past 12 o'clock. The four dissentients differed from the other Members in so far only that they desired to make the hour 1, instead of half-past 12. At the instance of the late Prime Minister, the Resolution proposed by the Committee was modified, when it came to be discussed in the House of Commons, to the extent of exempting from

  201
  its operation all Money Bills, and of restricting its application to cases where Notice of opposition had been given in the Notice Paper. In that form, the Resolution was, in 1872, unanimously carried, and it worked exceedingly well. The following Session it was again adopted, this time not unanimously, but by 191 votes against 37. Last Session, on its being submitted for the third time, the hon. Member for Swansea, as he had before observed, succeeded in engrafting upon it an Amendment, exempting from its operation all Bills which had passed through Committee. Perhaps many hon. Members were hardly aware of the effect of that alteration. Whereas the Resolution in its former form put a stop to the commencement of discussion of opposed Bills after half-past 12 o'clock at four stages—namely, Second Reading, going into Committee, Third Reading, and Report—it now had that effect at two stages only. He was quite unable to understand on what principle the alteration was based. If there was any reason whatever for preventing fresh Opposed Business from being entered into after half-past 12, it was applicable as much at any one of the stages to which he had referred as at the others. No one could say that the Third Reading and the Report were unimportant stages. He would not detain the House further in proposing a Resolution which he had every reason to hope would be assented to. The practice of going on with new opposed legislation after half-past 12 at night was inconsistent with common sense, with the health of Members, and with the dignity of their proceedings. Practically, nothing that was said in the House after that hour was reported. It was no fault of the gentlemen who so well did their work in the gallery above that it was so, for it was well known that the newspapers had to be printed at an early hour of the morning, in order that they might be circulated all over the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he felt much pleasure in cordially seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend opposite, as he did last year. In the last Parliament they had seen what confusion prevailed when 40 or 50 Orders stood on the Business Paper, and hon. Members did not
  202
  know which of them would be proceeded with. The difficulty was felt to be so great that the House was compelled to adopt the Resolution which his hon. Friend had moved that night. The relief thus given enabled hon. Members not only to obtain a moderate amount of sleep, but spared them the necessity of having to take part in those unsatisfactory and even unseemly proceedings which many of them remembered to have occurred night after night. He was sure that the divisions which had been taken at the small hours of the morning, not in twos or threes, but in eights or tens, or more, did not conduce to the respect due to their deliberations, while the legislation passed by hon. and weary Members after half-past 12 could hardly be well-considered, or be likely to prove beneficial to the country. It would, therefore, contribute to the order as well as to the usefulness of their proceedings if they adopted a rule which had been found necessary and which had worked well. The form in which his hon. Friend had proposed the Resolution was the best one for the House to adopt, for the simple reason that they all knew many blots in a Bill often had to be corrected after it came out of Committee and when it was being considered on the Report. He believed that these words, which fell from the late Speaker, were well deserving of the attention of the House—namely—"It is better that there should be free discussion on all the subjects brought before this House than that there should be rapid legislation;" and he was satisfied that free discussion, fairly reported by the Press, would produce better results for the country than any amount of sleepy legislation after half-past 12 o'clock. He felt sure that if Members of the present Parliament could have seen what took place in the last Parliament they would cordially adopt the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called."—(Mr. Heggate.)
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, his hon. Friend said the only effect of the rule as to the Business of the House which he had moved would be to stop, if the House thought proper, the taking up of any new Business after half-past 12 o'clock. It would, he (Mr. Dillwyn) believed, do more than that; it would give to any hon. Member who was opposed to a Bill the power to prevent its further progress by simply giving Notice of a Motion against it upon the Paper. In one point he agreed with the Resolution—he did not think that new Business should be taken after half-past 12 o'clock; but when a Bill had made a certain amount of progress, and when the House had endorsed its principle, it might to a certain extent be considered the property of the House, and he did not think that any hon. Member should have the power to stop its further progress, as the Motion would do. If they adopted such a rule, they would have to sit later in the year. He now proposed to add to the Resolution the rider adopted last year—" Provided that this rule shall not apply to any Bill which has passed through Committee of the House," and his wish in making such a proposition was to get the whole of the business of the country done in a satisfactory manner; while, on the other hand, if the Resolution were passed in the form proposed the Business would, he thought, be carried out in a far from satisfactory manner. He last year, with the concurrence, and he might almost say the suggestion of the Prime Minister, had succeeded in carrying that rider, and it had, he believed, worked highly satisfactory, and therefore he trusted it would still remain on the Orders of the House. With that object in view, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. If some such restrictions were not adopted this year, the result, he was afraid, would be that the House would be compelled to sit until September instead of adjourning in August, as he for one desired to do.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he seconded the Amendment, as being necessary to give private Members a fair chance of proceeding with measures which they had introduced into the House. He disclaimed having any personal interest in the matter, because not having had the honour of a seat in the House until after the age of 50, he had from the first determined not to embark
  204
  in so arduous an enterprise as that of bringing forward any Bill. But although he did not belong to the class he could see their hardships, and he wished to ask in what position would the proposal of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) place those Members without the addition suggested by his hon. Friend? Even when the Bills of such Members had struggled against long odds through all the previous stages and passed through Committee, it would be in the power of any hon. Member to prevent the passing of the Bill by simply placing a Notice of opposition on the Paper. The whole of the previous labour and consideration might in that way at the close of the Session be thrown away. He hoped the addition would be agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end of the Question, the words "Provided that this rule shall not apply to any Bill which has passed through Committee of the House."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had appealed to the House as if the proposal of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) was an innovation. The fact was that the proposition of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was the innovation, considering that the original proposition had been carried by both sides of the House, and acted upon for several Sessions. He believed that if the hon. and learned Baronet had had as much Parliamentary experience as himself he would have taken a different view of the means at the disposal of private Members to push their Bills. The question, which was debated on the supposed rights and wrongs of private Members, was really whether or not the whole comfort, decency, and dignity of Parliamentary legislation should be sacrificed to the possibility of a step or two more being taken with measures which everybody knew had no chance of becoming law. At present that useful institution, the Wednesday, gave every private Member the most ample opportunity, without let or hindrance, of preaching his sermon and expounding his scheme. Some of these measures, by a process of "natural selection,"

  205
  commended themselves to ton. Members generally, and when that was the case they were either directly or indirectly taken up by the Government, and little difficulty was found in passing them, particularly now, when the barriers of partizanship were so broken down, and when measures intended to benefit the people were sure to meet with a favourable reception on both sides of the House. A measure of that kind would be passed, if not in one Session, at any rate in the succeeding one. Then there were Bills which might be classified as the idiosyncracies of single Members of the House, or of small cliques. The individuals or bodies who had charge of such measures were among the greatest tyrants known to the House, for by persistently pushing their Bills forward at any and all hours they might possibly commit the House to some absurd or extravagant proposition. They knew their Bills could not become law, but, in defiance of common sense, they persisted in their courses, and because one man or a few men were obstinate, some 50 or 100 others had to remain in the House until late or rather early hours in order to prevent useless and, perhaps, hurtful measures slipping through. That was a state of things which would not be tolerated in any country other than England. It certainly would not in Prance, where in the crisis of a revolution the National Assembly could go on meeting at 2 o'clock in order to catch the 5 o'clock dinner train from Versailles to Paris. He did not recommend that as an example, but, in the face of the fact that many hon. Members were engaged in Committees from noon until the sitting of the House, he thought common sense ought to convince reasonable men that from noon till 4, and from 4 till half-past 12 was a sufficiently long sederunt, or, at any rate, was a period at which the House could claim to have reached an hour when the class of Business to be proceeded with during the rest of the night should be regulated. It must be remembered that it did not stop current questions, and that money Bills, the large category of Bills in Committee, and all as yet unopposed Business were excepted from the proposal before the House, which in fact only suggested that a selection should be made at half-past 12 out of the various classes of measures still to be considered. The proposal now made was adopted on the re-
  206
  commendation of one of the strongest Committees ever appointed in that House, and was approved by the late Lord Ossington—who was for some time Speaker of the House, and whose memory hon. Members all so deeply respected; it had been shaped as now proposed by the late Prime Minister—a man who never spared himself or any-one else when it was a question of work; and it had had the effect of lifting the House out of the barbarism of four or five Sessions ago into a state of comparative civilization. No one who had taken part in the persistent divisions, sometimes lasting on into the daylight of the summer mornings, in order to defeat useless and harmful measures, could help feeling something of shame for the part he took, but under the weak and defective system then in existence no other course was open. He hoped the House, therefore, would give a further trial to the new system which had worked well up to the present time.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that when the report of that debate was read, the public would feel some surprise that no explanation was given of why it was that the House adopted a method of doing business which was totally with-out precedent. He therefore hoped some Member of the Government would explain the reasons which existed, if there were any, for transacting Parliamentary business during hours which were not adopted in the Legislative Assemblies of other countries, and which were altogether different from those devoted to other businesses in this country. The effect of the present system was disadvantageous to independent Members, but convenient for the Government, and that he supposed was the reason why the system had grown up and been perpetuated.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSthought people out-of-doors did not care much at what hours business was transacted, provided it was transacted. He should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea, that he might also vote against the original Motion. He should do so on the ground that the obvious result of passing either of them would be to prevent unofficial Members from carrying measures in that House. The hon. Member for Swansea himself acknowledged that his Motion was an invasion of the rights of private Members; and if it were to be adopted it

  207
  should be in the shape of a Standing Order, and not by a mere Resolution of the House proposed by an individual Member. The most important business transacted by the House for many years had been transacted after half-past 12. The greatest speeches had been delivered after half-past 12, and as an ordinary rule the House was fuller at half-past 12 than at any other time, except, per-haps, when an interesting question was brought on at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. He would suggest, as a means of saving time, that the number of speakers be divided by three, and that their speeches be similarly reduced. If the Motion were carried without the Amendment, it would be impossible for an unofficial Member to carry a measure through its final stage, although the House might have approved it on the second reading, and have thoroughly discussed its clauses in Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was of opinion that there might be some advantage in the observance of uniformity and consistency in the proceedings. He, therefore, thought the proposed Amendment would effect a very reasonable compromise between the views held by different Members upon the subject. No doubt, the opinion of an overwhelming majority of the House was that opposed measures should not be taken after half-past 12. That he quite admitted; but the new rule had been diverted from its original object, and in the hands of some hon. Members had been the means of successfully opposing Bills which otherwise would not have met with any serious opposition. It was quite obvious that although a Member might not have much to say against a measure, he might very effectually oppose it simply by putting on the Paper a Notice of his opposition to it. When a Bill had passed the important stages of Second Reading and Committee, he thought the rule suggested by the hon. Member for Swansea should be acted upon. It was somewhat unreasonable that one solitary Member should stop a Bill on its final stage, simply by giving notice of opposition, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea, and stand by the rule of which he had himself approved last Session, and which had been adopted by a large majority of the House.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that if he stood by the rule he had always advocated he would not be in favour of the Amendment. He was a Member of the Committee on Public Business to which allusion had been made, and supported the principle that no new Business should be brought on after half-past 12—indeed, he was not quite sure that he did not originate the Motion himself. He thought the principle was a sound one, though in practice it might have been abused. He was not aware that it had been abused; but the same objection applied to any other arrangement that might be made in an Assembly like the present. The principle had been acknowledged to be sound by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and it was the general feeling of the House that it was right. In all matters of this kind he (Mr. Disraeli) would consult the feelings of the House. There were no political or moral principles involved in the arrangement, and, therefore, on a question as to the management of their business, he thought the Government, as far as they could, ought to adopt the opinion of the majority of the House. Last year the Notice of Motion was brought forward by the hon. Member for Leicestershire under novel circumstances. A change of Government had taken place, and the conduct of Public Business involved different feelings on the part of hon. Members on the Treasury Bench to those which they had in Opposition. He was then of opinion that it would be better to modify the Motion, and that a trial ought to be given to the modification proposed by the hon. Member for Swansea. He could not say that he was satisfied with the working of the modified principle, for, in point of fact, it had never come into practice. Beyond that, he had become acquainted with the existence of a considerable amount of dissatisfaction among hon. Members who wished for a recurrence to the old rule, and he thought the modification of the rule would be rather an advantage to the Government, and was influenced by that consideration in agreeing to it. It did not signify much, he thought, whether the Motion was carried with or without the addendum. He did not think it would affect the length of the Session 48 hours. He had, however, come to the conclusion that the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicestershire was most in accordance

  209
  with the wishes of Members, and therefore he should support it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 91: Majority 42.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion he taken after half-past twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called.

OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS) BILL,

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WHALLEYmoved for leave to bring in a Bill—
  "for affording facilities for vesting in the Metropolitan Board of Works, open spaces, gardens, and squares within the Metropolitan District for the exercise and recreation of the public; and to empower owners or joint owners or a majority thereof, to enter into arrangements with the Metropolitan Board of Works in relation thereto."
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked for some explanation as to the object of the Bill. He believed it was similar to a measure which was introduced by the hon. Member during the last hours of the last Session. Judging from the title, it appeared to be one of the most comprehensive measures ever brought before Parliament; and he for one objected to such great powers being placed in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. If, instead of vesting the open spaces in the Metropolitan Board of Works, they were vested in the Government, as having control of the police, much better order would be maintained. St. James's Park, for instance, was infested with the refuse of the Metropolis, so many filthy people lying about in all directions, that it had been called a dirty caricature of a battle-field.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that since last Session, when his Bill was printed, he had consulted those who might be supposed to be primarily interested in the matter, the owners of property around the open spaces, and he had every reason to believe that the Bill would be likely to operate most beneficially. The object of the Bill was simply to give a certain majority, say two-thirds of the owners or joint owners of property adjacent to the squares and open spaces, an oppor-
  210
  tunity of having these places, not perhaps like Leicester Square, placed on particular days, or on certain hours at the service of the inhabitants. Many of the squares of London, which were almost a scandal and an eyesore, would become, if given up to the people, sources of enjoyment and recreation, and much moral good would consequently be effected. The experiment had been tried at the Temple Gardens, and with the most remarkable success. When people visited these breathing-places, they kept themselves and their children clean, having to mix with a better class of society, and the moral benefit resulting to poor persons was incalculable.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHALLEY and Sir GEORGE BOWYER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.—[Bill 50.]

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Standing Committee appointed, "to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House:"—Mr. ADAM, Mr. DICK, Mr. DYKE, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. GOLDNEY, Captain HAYTER, Lord KENSINGTON, Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. STACPOOLE, and Sir HENRY WOLFF:—Three to be the quorum.
  PRINTING.
  Select Committee appointed, "to assist Mr. Speaker in all matters which relate to the Printing executed by Order of this House, and for the purpose of selecting and arranging for Printing, Returns and Papers presented in pursuance of Motions made by Members of this House: "—Mr. SPENCER WALPOLE, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, The 'CONOR DON, Mr. HUNT, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. DODSON, Mr. MASSEY, Mr. WHITBREAD, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH:—Three to be the quorum.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that such Reports do in all eases sot forth the number of Signatures to each Petition:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House:—Sir

  211
  CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, The O'DONOGHUE, Mr. O'CONOR, Mr. M'LAGAN, Earl DE GREY, Mr. KINNAIRD, Lord ARTHUR RUSSELL, Mr. WILLIAM ORMSBY GORE, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Mr. REGINALD YORKE, Sir CHARLES RUSSELL, Mr. SANDFORD, Mr. SIMONDS, and Viscount CRICHTON:—That Three be the quorum.

  TRIBUNALS OF COMMERCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WHITWELL, Bill for the establishment of Tribunals of Commerce, ordered to he brought in by Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, and Mr. RIPLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

  INFANTICIDE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHARLEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to Infanticide, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHARLEY and Mr. WHITWELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  On Motion of Sir THOMAS CHAMPERS, Bill to legalize Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, ordered to be brought in by Sir THOMAS CHAMPERS, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. BURT, and Mr. MACDONALD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 44.]

  OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHARLEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to Offences against the Person, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHARLEY and Mr. WHITWELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 45.]

  LEGAL PRACTITIONERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHARLEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to Legal Practitioners, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHARLEY and Mr. WILLIAM GORDON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 46.]

  GLEBE LANDS, CORPORATE BODIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MULHOLLAND, Bill to enable certain corporate bodies to hold lands for Glebes in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. BRUEN, and Viscount CRICHTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 47.]

  EPPING FOREST BILL.
  On Motion of Lord HENRY LENNOX, Bill to extend the time for the Epping Forest Commissioners to make their final Report, ordered to be brought in by Lord HENRY LENNOX and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 52.]

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir COLMAN'LOGHLEN, Bill to provide that in cases of a poll at an election for Poor Law Guardians in Ireland the votes
  212
  shall be taken by Ballot, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, The O'CONOR DON, and Mr. CALLAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 48.]

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (VALIDITY OF VOTES) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to remove doubts as to the Validity of Votes given at a Parliamentary Election to a candidate alleged to have been guilty of corrupt practices, and thereby disqualified from sitting in Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Lord FRANCIS CONYNG-HAM, and Captain NOLAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 49.]

  COUNTY BOARDS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Captain NOLAN, Bill to establish Elective County Boards in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Captain NOLAN, Mr. FAY, and Mr. O'CLERY.
  Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 51.]
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock till Thursday.