Lords Sitting of 27 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Militia Pay; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment; Drafts on Bankers Law Amendment; Militia (Service Abroad) Act Continuance; Militia Act Continuance (No. 2); Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance; Civil Bills, & c., (Ireland) Act Amendment; Judgments (Ireland) Act Amendment; New Writs.
3a Local Government; Joint Stock Banking Companies; County Property Conveyance; Legitimacy Declaration; Chelsea Bridge Act Amendment; Returns to Secretary of State; Detached Parts of Counties; Lunatics (Scotland) Act Amendment; Herring Fisheries (Scotland); Copyhold Acts Amendment.

INDIA.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH,referring to the Correspondence which had been presented to the other House of Parliament, moved that there should be laid before their Lordships copies of a letter addressed by himself, as President of the Board of Control, to the Court of Directors, on the 28th of April last, and of a memorandum, written by Sir G. Clerk, Secretary of the India Board, on the subject referred to in that letter.
Ordered.

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AT MANCHESTER.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYpresented two petitions, one from the Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, and
2152
the other from the Law Association of Manchester, complaining of the conduct of William Thomas Jemmett, Esq., a Commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy in Manchester, in contracting debts which he is not able to pay; and praying for the adoption of measures for the purpose of removing the said Thomas William Jemmett from the said office.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwas obliged to his noble Friend for having informed him of his intention to present these petitions and communicated to him their contents. It was with the greatest pain he had read the statements contained in them, more especially as the gentleman to whom they referred was one with whom he had been on terms of intimacy. As Lord Chancellor, however, he had no power to interfere in the matter, for although the appointment of Commissioners of Bankrupts rested with him, he could not remove them for misconduct.

VOTE OF THANKS TO GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA, &c.

  SIR JAMES OUTRAM AND MR. HALLIDAY.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that he had received a letter from the Viscount Canning, Governor General of the British Possessions in the East Indies, inclosing letters from Major General Sir James Outram, G.C.B., and the Hon. Frederick James Halliday, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, in return to the Thanks of this House and to the Resolutions of the 8th of February and 16th of March last, communicated to him in obedience to Orders of this House of the said 8th of February and 16th of March.
  The said letters being read, were ordered to lie on the table, and to be entered on the Journals.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  Amendments made.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONto add at the end of Clause 44—
  "In any District where the provisions of the said Act for the Prevention of Smoke are not now in force in which the Local Board shall resolve that any one or more of such processes should be exempted from penalties for not consuming all Smoke for any time specified in such Resolution, not exceeding ten years, which may be annually renewed for a similar or any shorter period, if the Board shall think fit; and any Justice or Justices before whom any person shall be summoned may remit the Penalty in any Case within such District

  2153
  in which he or they shall be of opinion that such person has adopted the best known means for preventing any nuisance from smoke, and has carefully attended to the same, so as to consume as far as possible the smoke arising from any process so exempted during such time as any such resolution shall extend to, unless an order shall be issued by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State directing that such exemption shall no longer be continued in such district to such processes or any of them after a time specified in such order."
  LORD REDESDALEopposed the Amendment, and drew attention to the provisions of the clause incorporated in the Bill the clauses of the Towns Improvement Act (1847) with respect to the prevention of smoke, subject to the qualification that they should not extend to any of the following processes—namely, the coking of coal, the calcining of ironstone or limestone, the making or burning of bricks, earthenware, quarries, tiles, or pipes, the raising of any mines or minerals, the smelting of iron ores, the refining, puddling, shingling, and rolling of iron or other metals, or to the melting and casting of iron into castings, or to the manufacture of glass. The noble Lord said that the effect of this qualification would be practically to repeal those beneficial clauses in the Towns Improvement Act which compelled a great variety of noxious trades to consume their own smoke. Because the great manufacturers who were engaged in these trades choose to say that they could not consume their smoke, they were to be exempted under this Bill without any sufficient cause being shown, and the result would be to thing the smoke nuisance into many places where it had not existed before. He remembered, when they first attempted to legislate upon this subject, that the potteries on the south side of the river declared that they would not be able to carry on their business if they were compelled to construct smoke-consuming furnaces; but experience had proved that there was really no practical ground for these exemptions. He moved that the whole of the qualification should be omitted from the clause.
  THE EARL OF DERBYdefended the clause, on the ground that if it were altered as proposed it would lead to a great interference with private rights.
  LORD REDESDALEpressed his objection, and urged at all events that earthen-ware works should be excluded from the exemption.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONrefused to alter the clause.
  LORD REDESDALE: Then I warn your Lordships that this Bill is a mistake, and that it will throw the greatest obstacle in the way of the consumption of smoke that can well be devised. After the passing of this Bill we shall rapidly fall into every one of the old nuisances with regard to smoke from which, after many years of struggling, we have at length succeeded in emancipating ourselves.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsuggested that it would be prudent not to pass the Bill at present. It was all very well to say that private interests were concerned. No doubt they were; but they were concerned in bringing back a most objectionable nuisance. He reminded their Lordships that when they began to legislate upon this subject every trade without exception declared that it would be impossible to conduct its business if it were compelled to consume its own smoke. Step by step, however, trade after trade had been drawn within the meshes of the law, until at last all had found that they were able to do what the law required. He earnestly entreated the House not to take any retrograde step in this matter, and not to exempt any trade which was at present within the law for the prevention of smoke. If they did they would have all their work to do over again, and it might be years before they could pass an effectual Smoke Prevention Act. The difficulty in which they now found themselves involved afforded another illustration of the inconvenience of deferring important measures of this nature to so late a period of the Session.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHalso expressed a hope that some Amendment would be made in this Bill to compel manufactories in large towns to consume their own smoke.
  After some further conversation,
  THE EARL OF DERBYsuggested that the passing of the Bill should be postponed until to-morrow, in order that an Amendment might be agreed on which would carry out the object desired.
  Further Debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the Bill to which I now invite your Lordships

  2155
  to give a second reading is one of considerable importance, and, as those must admit who have recently experienced the state of the river, of great urgency. Fortunately, the manner in which it has been sent up by the other House does not involve the necessity on our part of entering into a discussion of all the various schemes which have been proposed for remedying that which is an undoubted nuisance. The first question to be considered in dealing with this great subject was, at whose expense the necessary works for the purification of the Thames and the better drainage of the metropolis ought to be carried on. It was contended, on the one hand, that it was merely a local work, affecting the metropolis alone, as similar works affected other great towns; while, on the other hand, it was argued that the metropolis stood in a position quite apart from all other towns—that it was the seat of the Legislature, of the courts of law, and of the various public offices, and that, consequently, there was a fair claim on the part of the metropolis that some portion of the expense should be borne by the general public. It was thought, and justly thought, by the House of Commons, however, that, although it is quite true that the metropolis is an object of general interest, yet that, inasmuch as the presence of all the great public Departments brings a great concourse of persons to the metropolis, and adds materially to its wealth, there is no ground for not applying to the metropolis the same principle in this respect which is applied to all other towns. I cannot but express my opinion that the importance of the step now to be taken can hardly be overrated, because it is an experiment upon a gigantic scale which certainly will serve either for an example or a warning to all the other great towns of the country. Not the Thames only, but all the other rivers in this country have become polluted to a degree which renders it absolutely necessary that some steps should be taken for their purification. On a small scale I believe that successful operations have been conducted with this view at Leicester, and that the inhabitants of Glasgow—much to their credit—are endeavouring to carry out important works of the same kind. If the metropolis, therefore, were to receive a certain portion of assistance from the public funds, I can hardly conceive on what grounds applications for similar assistance from Edinbugh, Dublin, and what I may term the "provincial metropolises" generally, could
  2156
  be refused. I confess that my own opinion is, that this is a work which should be performed by the metropolis for the benefit of the metropolis, and, considering the immense wealth of the immense population among whom the expense is to be divided, it does not seem to me to be beyond what might fairly be expected from the inhabitants of a great city like this. If, then, the principle be adopted that the inhabitants of the metropolis should pay for carrying into effect this great work, it seems to follow as a necessary consequence that the persons to whom its execution should be intrusted should be those who possess the confidence of the metropolis itself; and as there exists a Board elected by the ratepayers of the different districts only two or three years ago for carrying out great works of local improvement, it seemed to the House of Commons that that Board—so constituted and maintained by the payment of rates—should be the body to carry out the intentions of Parliament with regard to the purification of the river. That Board since its original establishment has certainly not been very effective or very operative; but it must be remembered that it never either had any absolute discretion as to the carrying out of works, or any funds for the execution of them. It is, therefore, not very surprising that the Board failed to accomplish any work of importance; for its powers were so limited as to be absolutely and entirely worthless. The House of Commons then determined that if you are to have a Board of that kind, it was necessary that you should intrust it with sufficient funds to execute the purposes which it had to perform, and that the responsibility which it owed to the ratepayers in the disposition of their funds should be interfered with as little as possible by extraneous authority. The House, therefore, resolved to delegate the absolute and entire trust of executing this great work to the Metropolitan Board, which has been elected by the ratepayers of London, out of whose funds the expenses are to be provided. It has been thought wise not to encumber the provisions of this Bill by precise limitations with regard to any particular scheme, to the exact point where the outfall is to take place, or to any precise regulations to be carried into effect; but to leave the utmost possible latitude to the Metropolitan Board of Works for abating, on their own responsibility, out of the funds of their constituents, that which has become an intoler-

  2157
  able nuisance. There can be very little doubt that that nuisance has been very materially aggravated by the sanitary regulations of the last few years, by which we have purified the houses and the sewers of London, but have poured the whole collective filth into the river, and have thereby produced an amount of pollution which is now perfectly intolerable. The Board of Works, as I have already intimated, are by this Bill constituted the sole authority for executing the works which may be necessary for the purification of the river. It is generally understood—although there is no express provision in the Bill to that effect—that the modus operandi is to be by intercepting sewers whereby the sewage of the metropolis not be allowed to be poured into the river until it shall have undergone at such place or places as may be determined on the process of deodorization. No doubt it would be a great object—and I think it is one to which science ought to be immediately and urgently directed—to ascertain whether it would be possible to reconcile the two great ends of deodorizing the sewage of great towns and of obtaining from it at the same time the valuable product of manure. I believe that all the experiments which have been hitherto tried have unfortunately failed to reconcile those two objects; for in proportion as you deodorize you deprive the sewage of those fertilizing qualities which it possesses, and thereby diminish the value of the manure. It certainly does seem to be an incredible fact that we should be paying enormous sums of money for the importation of manure from foreign countries at the same time that we are pouring into the river, to corrupt and pollute the stream, an immense amount of manure, the value of which can hardly be calculated or exaggerated. It is to be hoped that hereafter science will arrive at the means of reconciling these two objects. If it do we shall derive a vast pecuniary advantage coupled with the greatest possible benefit to the health and comfort of the metropolis. The provision by which the Board are to be enabled to undertake and carry out these works is that they shall be entitled to levy by rate upon the various districts of the metropolis a suns of £3,000,000, the interest upon which together with a sinking fund, it is proposed to raise by means of a rate of 3d. in the pound fur forty years. Though the Government do not intend to grant any
  2158
  money from the Consolidated Fund in aid of this undertaking, yet considering the magnitude of the works, they have interposed to a certain extent the credit of the Government to enable the Board to borrow money at a more advantageous rate than would otherwise be in their power; and there is also a provision in the Bill enabling the Exchequer Loan Commissioners to lend money to the Board on the security of the rates. The provisions of the Bill, as I have described them, are such that it would be scarcely possible for your Lordships to make any material alteration in them; for the whole Bill, as it stands, is of a pecuniary character, making pecuniary arrangements for carrying these great works to completion. At the same time I do not anticipate that your Lordships will be disposed to interfere for We purpose of throwing any obstacle in the way of endeavouring to remedy a state of things which has grown to be unbearable. It must be admitted that this, to a certain extent, is an experiment; but the Board of Works have now had three or four years to consider the question, and they have had the advice and assistance of most experienced engineers. They have expressed their satisfaction with the powers which we are about to confer on them, and they are of opinion that they will now be able to restore the river to some portion at least of the purity which it formerly possessed, but which it has lust by the effects of our recent legislation.
  Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that he did nut think it at all likely that any opposition would be offered by their Lordships to the passing of the Bill. The noble Earl had told them that the Government had abstained from proposing any particular scheme; but he should remind the noble Earl, that although the Bill did not ay down any particular scheme of drainage, yet as it imposed the duty of carrying out the undertaking on a body which was pledged to one scheme, and therefore it did practically ask the assent of Parliament to that particular scheme. He had no intention of entering into any discussion as to the merits of the respective schemes proposed by the Board and by the Government referees. He had no doubt that they both had their defects as well as their merits. But he felt convinced that it was better to proceed at once with the matter, even at the risk of making a false step, than to continue in the precut state of

  2159
  complete inaction; for the time was now come when something or other must be done to remedy the present state of things. He concurred with the noble Earl as to the wisdom of abstaining from giving assistance from the Consoldated Fund, for he had always been of opinion that the under taking was one the cost of which ought to be borne by the metropolitan ratepayers; but when the noble Earl prided himself upon adopting the popular principle in this case he (the Duke of Newcastle) should observe that that principle was embodied in the constitution of the Metropolitan Board to the smallest possible extent? What was that Board? It was not a body, like the corporations of our great towns, elected by the ratepayers. It went through all manner of processes in order to divest itself of the principle of direct representation. The first process in its formation was an election not by the ratepayers, but by the vestries, which were not themselves, in all cases, chosen by the ratepayers, and which were formed not for municipal but parochial purposes. But the men elected by the vestries had to make another election for the purpose of filtering, and, as it were, deodorizing themselves from the taint of popular representation; the object of that second election being to obtain a body of forty-three gentlemen who formed the Board. He had thought it proper to state those plain facts with respect to the constitution of that body; but, at the same time, he was not prepared to complain of the proposal that to them, in the absence of any more popular body, should be committed the superintendence of that undertaking. He believed that one result of entrusting to the Board so great a work would be to revive the question of the propriety of creating one municipal body for the whole of the metropolis; and, for his part, he felt convinced that such a step must before long be taken. One of the great evils of the present Board was its numbers. It appeared to him that those forty-three gentlemen would form too large an executive body; and he feared that when they came to consider the details of that undertaking, discussions must arise among them which would justify the nick-name they had already received of "the Board of Words," instead of the "Board of Works." He understood that it had at first been proposed that those gentlemen should be enabled to form from among their own number a subcommittee of six, which should preside over
  2160
  the execution of those works; and he regretted to perceive that that provision had been removed from the Bill. Indeed, he should himself have preferred that the executive body in that ease consisted not of six, but of three members. He was glad, however, to find that the clause giving the Government a power of inspection and control in the execution of the works had been struck out, for the less intrusive interference there was on the part of the Government with the Board the more likelihood there would be of some practical result being arrived at. He was also sorry to perceive that the present conservators of the river, of whom the Lord Mayor was at the head, were to have a power of controlling the action of the Board; but he could not feel much surprised at the introduction of clauses for effecting that object, after he had read in the newspapers the ominous announcement that the Conservators, with a party of their friends and supporters, the City Remembrancer, and all the paraphernalia of office, had paid a visit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The natural result of that visit was the introduction of provisions into the Bill which would throw in the way of the Board impediments which it was, in his opinion, most desirable should not exist. Those provisions would give considerable control in that matter to the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of London. He remembered that the present Lord Mayor was reported to have said, not long since, that he had long and devoutly prayed that he should, in the capacity of chief magistrate of the City of London, have the honour of receiving at his feet the noble Earl opposite as the head of Her Majesty's Government. That prayer had been granted, and he did not grudge the Lord Mayor the great gratification to which its fulfilment must have given rise but he believed that even in the utmost paroxyism of his piety the Lord Mayor could never have contemplated the passing of a measure which would give the body of which he was the head the power of controlling an outlay of £3,000,000 and thwarting the execution of a great public work. He should say that he looked at the introduction of those clauses with great distrust and anxiety, and that he could see no reason for a special reservation of the rights of the Conservators of the Thames more than those of any other body upon such a subject as that which their Lordships were then considering. But, under all the

  2161
  circumstances of the case, he was glad that the present measure had been introduced, for he was convinced that unless some course of action was immediately adopted, we should run the risk of being exposed in some less salubrious season than the present to some frightful public calamity.
  LORD CRANWORTHwas glad that it was wholly left to the Board to find out the proper points at which the sewage should fall into the Thames, and that the words were omitted which indicated the place "not higher on the north side than Barking Creek, and not lower on the south side than Erith." He was the last to complain of relieving the metropolis from what was likely to be an increasing nuisance, but they ought not to discharge the whole of the sewage just opposite Erith, or any other village on the borders of the Thames, which suffered enough from the effects of the London sewage already. He was, therefore, glad also to see, that the Bill would enact that the Board should not do anything to create a nuisance. It was some sort of security, although he believed medical men were of opinion that deodorization would not remove the injurious and insalubrious effects of the sewage.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

DRAFTS ON BANKERS LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said the necessity for it had arisen from defects in preceding legislation. To prevent dishonest persons making an improper use of cheques it was the practice to cross them with a banker's name, which was supposed to give the security that a cheque so crossed would only be paid through a banker. The matter, however, having been brought before the courts of law, it was decided that the crossing did not amount to a direction to the banker only to pay through another banker, but merely to excite his vigilance. Under those circumstances, what was supposed to be a security turned out to be no security whatever, and in 1856 an Act was passed which enacted that where any draft or cheque on a banker had an addition of the words "and Company," either
  2162
  in full or abbreviated, it should be considered as a direction to the banker only to pay through a banker. The Act was brought to the test at the latter end of last year. A person sent a crossed cheque through the post. The cheque was abstracted from the letter. The words crossed were obliterated; it was presented to the bankers having all the appearance of an uncrossed cheque, and the money was paid. An action was brought by the customer against the bankers, and the Court of Common Pleas first and the Court of Exchequer Chamber afterwards decided that the words of the Act of 1856, that the crossing should be a direction to the banker only to pay through a banker, were applicable not to the time of drawing, but to the time of presentment, and that the crossing was no material part of the cheque. Again, what was supposed to be a complete protection to the customer was found to be no security, and the intentions of the Legislature were frustrated. It therefore became necessary to introduce this measure, by which it was proposed to enact that the crossing of the cheque should be a material and essential part of the cheque, that it should amount to a direction, not from the time of presentment, but from the time of crossing, to pay through a banker, and that an erasure of the crossing should amount to a forgery. He believed there was no doubt as to the propriety of the measure, except as to the fourth clause, which provided that bankers paying a cheque which did not plainly appear to be crossed, or to have been obliterated, should not incur any liability. He understood there was some objection to giving bankers that protection. He had considered the point, and he could not help thinking that the clause was a very reasonable and a very proper one. It should always be borne in mind that a cheque which got into dishonest hands, got there through the negligence or fault of the person who drew it. It was either lost through negligence, or intrusted to a person unworthy of confidence, or stolen. In the great majority of cases the banker could not protect himself, but the customer could, and therefore it would be a most unfair thing if, when giving protection to crossed cheques, they withdrew the protection which bankers now possessed, in the event of a crossed cheque being presented to all appearance an uncrossed cheque, and in such a state as would defy any amount of vigilance to detect the fraud.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD OVERSTONEwas understood to express his approval of the Bill. He earnestly hoped that the Government would not yield to the representations that had been made to them against the protection which was given to bankers by the fourth clause of the Bill. The clause had been inserted with the consent of all the most eminent men engaged in banking, trade, and commerce, and was concurred in by the law officers of the Crown.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House Tomorrow.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE,in moving the second reading of this Bill said, its object was to give to those who had the franchise the power of enjoying it. Any one who had witnessed the contested elections in English counties since the Act was passed with reference to corrupt practices must have seen that if the old Acts of Parliament were religiously obeyed the poor voter could not enjoy his right. There was furthermore the temptation at every contested election to endeavour, either on the one side or the other, to convey surreptitiously the voter to the poll, and to charge the cost among the other expenses of the election. It therefore became a question what was to be done? Were they to deprive the electors, under the circumstances of the case, of the means of enjoying the elective franchise, by not providing them with the means of going to the poll, or would they enact some mode by which the candidate might, without committing any improper act, give them the opportunity of recording their votes? The Bill before the House effected that, and enabled the candidate to convey the voter to the poll. There were means also provided in the Bill for registering the votes, and for providing for the expense incurred. The Bill appeared to him to remedy a great difficulty that had heretofore occurred, and he thought that if it was adhered to by one party and the other no corruption or bribery could occur.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a
  EARL GRANVILLEthought, that the noble Earl had not succeeded in giving
  2164
  their Lordships any very clear explanation of this measure. He wished to make an earnest appeal to the noble Earl at the head of the Government to reduce this to a mere continuance Bill. It was now a continuance Bill, but with one or two Amendments, and one Amendment was very important, its object being to enact that that which had been considered bribery for many years should no longer be such. Of course the matter would affect both sides equally, and therefore it ought to be treated without any party feeling at all. He well recollected that when a very similar clause was strenuously endeavoured to be introduced into a measure four or five years ago it was rejected on the Motion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) by an overwhelming majority, and he thought it would not be wise in the absence of the two noble and learned Lords—Lords Brougham and Campbell—who took a prominent part in the discussion—and of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord St. Leopards, who entirely concurred in their views—to settle a question which the House then refused to decide. This matter had been very much canvassed in the House of Commons, and it now came before their Lordships on the last day when it was possible that by the Standing Orders it could be read a second time, so as to be passed this Session. He did not wish to go much into the matter of the Amendment, but he would say that there was no doubt some advantages in conveying voters to the poll, especially in some constituencies, though there were, on the other hand, great disadvantages. He knew that there was a provision in the Bill intended to obviate some of the inconvenience by providing that the voter might be offered the means of conveyance, but not the money to pay for it. It was perfectly certain that under this Bill the expenses of elections would be enormously increased, if every voter thought that lie had a legal right to be conveyed to the poll. Feeling that this was a subject which should be referred to a Select Committee, and as a Bill was to be introduced by the Government to deal with the whole question next Session, he trusted that the noble Earl would consent to make this a mere continuance Bill.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he could not accede to the suggestion of the noble Earl on the subject of this Bill, which had for a considerable time engaged the attention of the House of Commons, and where

  2165
  a Bill of a much more extensive character than the present had been originally introduced and very much discussed. It was true that it was the intention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, early next Session, to bring in a still more extensive measure; but it was absolutely necessary that a Bill should pass in the present Session, because the existing Act, being only a temporary measure, expired next month. But there were certain provisions introduced on which there were great differences of opinion, but which were ultimately decided by a majority; and amongst them the provision alluded to, which, although it might be said to introduce a new law, in point of fact it hardly went so far, because it was a point on which for a long time there had been very great doubt, and on which Election Committees had come to conflicting determinations and contradictory reports; and he believed that in the case of Slade, in the case of the Cambridge election, the decision had been reversed by one of the superior Courts. He considered that the settlement of the question in one way or another was a matter of considerable importance, and this Bill proceeded to settle it in the most equitable manner possible; and, although in certain cases the expense might be considerably increased, he did not think the payment of the travelling expenses of a voter was a point of such comparative importance as the enormous injustice of practical disfranchisement, which the present system inflicted on a large portion of the electoral population. The noble Earl had said that the Bill would virtually give the voter a legal claim to be conveyed to the poll; but that was not so, as there was no obligation on the part of the candidate to incur the expense, and his not doing so did not render him punishable. The measure did not involve the question of bribery, but provided that no money should pass into the hands of the voter; and although the candidate might provide the means of carriage for voters, he had to give a return of the expenditure to the auditors. He thought this was a question which it was most desirable to have settled, and that the House of Commons had settled it by their vote in a manner consistent with justice and sound policy; that being the case, he was un- willing to consent to abandon the clause sanctioned by the Commons.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEobserved, that the noble Earl was incorrect in speak-
  2166
  ing of this as a settled question; for if he understood the matter rightly, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having charge of this Bill in the Commons, had expressly stated that he considered it was no settlement of the question, and so little did he so consider it, that he intended next Session to introduce another Bill on the subject for the express purpose of referring the matter to a Committee of the Commons for a settlement of the question. He thought that at this period of the Session they could not do better than simply pass the Bill as a continuance Bill without any Amendments. It was said the Bill did not involve any question of bribery; but the fact was that a candidate with plenty of money would be able to take possession of all the carriages for conveyance at once, and thereby virtually commit an ac 10 f bribery, and destroy all his antagonists' facilities for bringing his voters to the poll. This Bill could not be a satisfactory adjustment of this question. It might, indeed, answer well enough as regarded those voters who lived in the immediate neighbourhood of the election, and who therefore did not really require to be carried at all. But in the case of the outlying voters, properly so called, the provision could not possibly work. How was the Middlesex voter living in Yorkshire to come up to the poll from so great a distance if he was not to be repaid the expense of his railway ticket. But the principle of legalizing travelling expenses in any shape was highly questionable. They might pass what laws against bribery they pleased, but they would never fully accomplish their object until they subjected the elector to those moral influences which would convince him that he was exercising a solemn trust, and that it was his duty to put himself to the trifling inconvenience of going to vote for the person whom he thought fittest to represent him. Under all the circumstances, it was most undesirable to pass at that period of the Session a measure on a subject which the Government proposed to submit early next year to a Select Committee, who would probably upset all that they were now doing. Under this Bill they were likely to see every voter in a borough insisting on being taken to the poll in a chaise-and-four; and thus they would have revived all the worst extravagances which marked elections in former days. He trusted, therefore, that the Bill would be passed as a mere continuance Bill.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETobserved that it was the opinion of the Commons that it was undesirable to pay the conveyance expenses of the voter, and that before they settled the law either one way or the other, an inquiry should be instituted. It would be a great misfortune if they were to sanction a reversal of the course adopted for many yeary past in curtailing election expenses. They had done away with a great many expenses connected with elections, and pretexts for bribery such as colours and ribbons; but he thought that this system of conveying electors to the poll opened the door to greater bribery than any other. Suppose the case of a voter for an election at Plymouth desirous of being brought from York, and of taking the opportunity of seeing his friends, the candidate had no choice but to send for him and for all other out-voters similarly situated, and that would be the working of the measure. The voters would claim a legal right to be brought, and that was objectionable.
  LORD EBURYearnestly joined in the appeal which had been addressed to Her Majesty's Government to make this a mere continuance Bill. The clause relating to travelling expenses was not originally proposed by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the measure into the other House, but emanated from a private Member of Parliament. He had himself, when in the other House, used his best exertions to persuade that assembly to put down treating at elections, by disallowing refreshment to voters at the charge of the candidates. And though the gloomiest predictions had been uttered as to the result of such a step, he had succeeded in inducing the other House to adopt it. He had never been able to understand why a candidate should be saddled with the personal expenses of the voter, and, although he had asked the question repeatedly, he had never obtained a satisfactory answer to it. He reminded their Lordships that the clause with regard to travelling expenses had been rejected by that House four years ago, when it had been sent up by a much larger majority than that which had sanctioned it in the House of Commons upon the present occasion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Four o'clock.