Sitting of 28 March 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Election Recognizances; Administration of Oaths (Court of Chancery).
Reported—Property Tax; Stamp Duties Assimilation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. F. Mackenzie, from Cheltenham, respecting Election Recognizances.—By Mr. Sullivan, from Kilkenny, for a Repeal of the Union with Ireland—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from Tavistock, and by Captain Vyse, from Paulerspury (Northampton), against, and by Sir J. Hanmer, from Holywell (Flintshire), and Mr. Aglionby, from Cockermouth, in favour of, the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. Wakley, from the Ratepayers of Clerkenwell, for Alteration of the Law respecting Parish Vestries.—By Sir J. Hanmer, from Northop, in the County of Flint, complaining of the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland).—By Sir De Lacy Evans, from Westminster, for Inquiry respecting the Rajah of Sattara.—By Sir W. Codrington, from Cheltenham, and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, for a Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Sir Joshua Walmsley, from the Mayor and Aldermen of Leicester, against Exemption of Small Tenements from Rating Bill.—By Mr. T. Baring, from Great Yarmouth, and by several Hon. Members, from various Places, for Exemption of Charitable Bequests from Legacy Duties.—By Colonel Kemys Tynte, from Bridgewater, and its Neighbourhood, for Alteration of the Law respecting Malt.—By Mr. Halsey, from Hemel Hempstead (Hertford), against Increase or Continuance of the Property Tax,—By Sir T. Birch, from the Guardians of the West Derby Union, in the County of Lancaster, for Rating Owners instead of Occupiers of Tenements.—From the Board of Guardians of the Tipperary Union, for Inquiry respecting Absenteeism (Ireland).—By Mr. Divett, from Exeter, for Alteration of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency.—By several Hon. Members, from a Number of Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Capt. Jones, from Londonderry, respecting instalments for the Destitute Poor (Ireland) Acts.—By Mr. O. Duncombe, from Whitby and its Vicinity, and by several other Hon. Members, from various Places, against the Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome Bill.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from the Totness Board of Education, for Alteration of the Law of Education,—By Mr. G. Hamilton, from Garvahy, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from Wexford, for Alteration of the Law

1055
of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland),—By Mr. R. Palmer, from Plymouth, against a Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Mr. Wakley, from the Carnarvon Union, for Alteration of the Poor Law.—By Lord Courtenay, from the Guardians of the Kingsbridge Union, for Exemption of Workhouses from Poor Law Rating.—From the Grand Jury of the County of Roscommon, for Inquiry into the Poor Law (Ireland).

ABOLITION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
MR. WAKLEYbegged the attention of the House to a petition from John Beale, of No. 4, Grosvenor Cottages, North-end, Eaton-square, London. The petition set forth that he considered the country as being in a most critical state, and that what has been going forward in countries elsewhere was likely to rouse the masses of this into action to seek for what they considered likely to be beneficial to them; that poverty and wretchedness almost indescribable existed amongst the people; that one of the causes of discontent was the defective character of the representation of the people in the House of Commons; that another was the fact, that whether in the Church, the Army, the Navy, the courts of justice, the colonies, or any place of emolument at home or abroad, they saw them all reserved for and filled by the scions of wealthy families. The petitioner therefore prayed for the establishment of universal suffrage, and of secret voting in the election of representatives of the people. He prayed that the Church property should be applied to the reduction of the national debt, and the produce of the Crown lands to the same purpose; that all sinecures, gratuities, and pensions should be abolished, except for meritorious services; he prayed for the reduction of the Army to the same footing as that on which it stood at the close of the last war—for the reduction and arrangement of taxation on a new scale—for the abolition of the laws of entail and primogeniture—for the separation of Church and State—for a reformed system of currency—and for the abolition of the House of Lords. The petition stated that one representative assembly was sufficient for all national purposes, and he prayed that his very reasonable requests might be taken into the consideration of the House.
SIR R. H. INGLISopposed the bringing up of the petition.
MR. HUMEbelieved that no hon. Member could object to a petition being brought up. He might object to its reception.
MR. SPEAKERread the Order of the House, which referred to petitions which might contain something contrary to the
1056
rules of the House. He supposed the hon. Member for the University of Oxford opposed the bringing up of the petition on some such grounds.
SIR R. H. INGLISpresumed the House had no right to receive such a petition; and he contended that a petition could no more be presented to that House containing a prayer for the abolition of the House of Lords than if it contained a prayer for the abolition of the Monarchy.
SIR J. GRAHAMthought that his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had, without intending it, placed the Speaker in a somewhat invidious position. The question was really one for the House and not the Speaker to decide; and in order that they might be enabled to come to a decision fairly, it would be necessary that the hon. Member for Finsbury should state the precise nature and force of the petition. It would be then for the House to determine what course should be pursued.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, he would read the passages to which the hon. Baronet objected. They were—
"The abolition of the House of Lords, your petitioner considering one assembly of representatives duly elected sufficient for national purposes."
The final prayer was—
"Your petitioner extremely desires to see all these measures passed, believing the condition of the country to be such, that unless they are adopted, a convulsion must ensue which will bury in one common ruin all establishments which are now the envy of foreigners, but a continued source of evil to this nation."
SIR R. H. INGLISonly wished to have the passage of the petition to which he objected read at the table, and he should then move that the petition be rejected.
MR. HUMEthought that the whole petition should be read at the table. That was the rule of the House.
SIR G. GREYthought it would be enough to have the objectionable passage read at the table, as the House might be better employed than in listening to a long petition read at the table. It was customary for hon. Members to receive all petitions intrusted to them for presentation; but it was not understood that by presenting a petition, any hon. Member was bound by the sentiments contained in it. He hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with his Motion, as it would in his view be attaching too much importance to the petition.
The Clerk at the table having read the passages,
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that if an analogous petition were presented to the House of Lords for the abolition of the House of Commons, that body would not receive it, neither would either House receive a petition praying for the abolition of the Monarchy; and he could not see, therefore, why the House of Commons should receive a petition like the present, advocating opinions which were opposed to the almost unanimous feelings of the House. The hon. Member for Finsbury had, by his tone and manner, and his running commentaries, seemed to invite the attention of the House to the matters contained in the petition, and thus seemed to identify himself with it. He invited the House to pronounce a decision on the question whether it was conducive to the interests of the country that this species of petitions should be allowed to circulate?
MR. HUMEsaid, that in his opinion a more absurd reason could not be given for the rejection of the petition than that urged by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford—that the petition could not be received on the ground that it was opposed to the general opinion of the House. Why, this was the very kind of petitions which were required, and which the House ought to throw its doors wide open to receive. Petitions which agreed with the House were not petitions that were required. It was the duty of the House to receive every petition that was sent to it. If once the House were to be gin to refuse petitions, whore could they draw the line of distinction? The House was perhaps not aware that the petition was signed, not by some ignorant Chartist, but by a gentleman who had gone through the University, and was now a clergyman of the Church of England. He thought that it was the duty of the House to receive petitions from all portions of the people, whatever might be the sentiments which they expressed.
SIR J. GRAHAMwas extremely sorry to be compelled, by the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, to pronounce an opinion on a matter of such extreme importance. He felt as anxious as any hon. Member in that House to offer no obstruction to the presentation of petitions; and he was rejoiced that the House had allowed the petition to be read, because without hearing it he did not think that they could deliberately pro-
1058
nounce an opinion whether they could sanction it to the extent of allowing it to lie on the table. He agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be inconsistent with their loyalty to the Sovereign, and with the institutions of the country, to receive a petition seeking for the abolition of the kingly Government, and the substitution of a republic. The form of government established in this country was a Government by King, Lords, and Commons, and he thought that a line should be drawn, and that no petition should be allowed to lie on their table that dealt with the fundamental principles of the Government. He had not had time to weigh the matter with the care which it required, but he felt that the Government of this country was no less a kingly Government than it was one formed by two Houses of Parliament also; and if a petition for the abolition of the former could not be received, neither, he thought, could they receive a petition for the abolition of one of the Houses of the Legislature.
MR. BRIGHTwished to know whether it had not been the custom of the House to allow petitions to be received for the ejection of Bishops from the House of Lords. He thought, that if such petitions were allowed to be received by the House, there could be no reason to believe that the House was unable to receive petitions praying for the total abolition of the House of Peers. He did not express any sympathy, and probably no hon. Member in the House would express sympathy with the whole of the contents of the petition. He was sure that, with regard to this particular petition, the only effect of this discussion would be to raise the petitioner in his own estimation, and turn the public attention to the discussion of questions which the House did not wish to have discussed. If the House determined not to receive the petition, he was sure that it would only lead to the presentation of other similar objectionable petitions. He would express no opinion whatever upon this petition; that was a matter of minor importance, but he considered it of enormous importance that the House should not take a false step on the present occasion.
MR. MORGAN J. O'CONNELLdid not think that the right hon. Baronet had put the case fairly. Any person in that House or out of it might express an opinion—which he thought would be a foolish one—that the House of Lords ought to be abolished, without committing an offence

1059
against the law; whereas no person could legally express an opinion in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy. He thought, therefore, that it was no argument to say that a petition not containing an illegal prayer should be rejected, because a petition for another object highly treasonable, and for which a person would become liable to severe punishment, should also be refused.
DR. BOWRINGthought that the question of the Monarchy had been introduced into the debate most unnecessarily. It was an entirely different question from the consideration whether one legislative body or two were more suited to the wants and interests of the country. As the question had been opened, he trusted that the petition would not be rejected.
MR. NEWDEGATEconcurred in the views of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham). He thought the petition ought to be rejected.
MR. WAKLEYhad reason to complain of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford for having referred to him as approving of all that the petition contained. He utterly denied that Members of that House were supposed to concur in all the petitions that were presented by them. Now, as these were times when persons ought to speak plainly, he would not hesitate to say that he agreed in a great measure with the prayer of the petition; but he did not agree in that part of it which related to the abolition of the House of Lords, because he sincerely believed that under the form of government which they had in this country more liberty might be enjoyed by the people than under any other. He believed that under the existing form of government the greatest extent of human liberty might be enjoyed by the British people. But was it to be supposed that the people were to reflect on what views would be agreeable to the House before they ventured to send a petition to it? For his own part, he should be delighted if he never received another petition for presentation, and if his constituents would select some other hon. Member to send their petitions to, because he thought that there was not the slightest good in sending petitions to that House when they met with no attention whatever.
MR. AGLIONBYprotested against the doctrine that there was no use in sending petitions to that House. For his own part, whenever he had an opportunity of addressing his constituents, he invariably
1060
held out to them the wholesome doctrine of mating their sentiments known to the House of Commons; and he believed that in doing so he acted more to his own credit, and more to the satisfaction of the House and the public, than the hon. Member for Finsbury. He had held a seat in the House for many years, and he could most positively deny that the petitions of the people were treated with disrespect. True, it sometimes happened that one description of petitions met with more favour than others; but the people were aware of this, and they felt that it was utterly impossible that all petitions could be treated alike. With regard to the particular question before the House, he thought there could not be a shadow of a doubt that all petitions of the people that were respectfully worded ought to be received; and he hoped, in giving his vote upon this occasion, it would not be understood that he was expressing any opinion upon the views the petition contained. If the Motion of the hon. Baronet was acceded to, it would interfere with the right enjoyed by the people of petitioning that House on all subjects affecting their welfare. It would, he thought, have been much better if, instead of the public attention having been called to the subject, it had been passed over.
MR. LABOUCHEREshould exceedingly regret if the House were obliged to divide on this question, lest their vote should be misunderstood, because he felt satisfied that those who should think fit to vote in favour of the petition would not differ from the remainder of the House in the determination to uphold the constitution of Queen, Lords, and Commons. He believed that the immense majority of that House entertained on this question the same opinion with the immense majority of the people of this realm, who, however desirous they might be to see improvements introduced, were determined to uphold that great constitution under which they enjoyed more of security, and of liberty, and of happiness, than had been ever imparted by Providence to any other portion of the human race. But that was not the question before the House, and if forced to divide, he should certainly note with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department in favour of the petition being received. If a petition contained improper and scurrilous language against another branch of the Legislature, he thought that the House would be bound to feel as jeal-

1061
ous of the honour of the other House as they should of their own; but in the present case the petitioner merely expressed an opinion, from which he totally differed; but he could not on that account feel justified in refusing to receive the petition, when he found that it was respectfully worded. No one would object to the House receiving a petition for the abolition of the Established Church, or for the expulsion of the Bishops from the House of Lords; and he thought it was dangerous for them to attempt drawing a line of distinction as to where they were to stop.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERhoped his hon. Friend (Sir R. H. Inglis) would not divide the House. He understood that the House had received petitions on several occasions for a repeal of the Union between England and Ireland, which he would venture to say was a subject less within the powers of the House to entertain than even the matter before them. Though no man was more attached to the House of Lords than he was, still he should feel himself obliged to vote on this occasion against the Motion of the hon. Baronet.
SIR R. H. INGLIS, in explanation, said it was with no common pleasure he had heard from all sides of the House a repudiation of the doctrines contained in the petition. Under these circumstances the object he had in view, though not technically gained, had been substantially obtained, and therefore he would not divide the House.
Petition ordered to lie upon the table.

FORCIBLE EJECTMENTS—UNION OF GALWAY.
SIR G. GREYdesired to make a short statement with regard to the forcible ejectments and the destruction of houses in the union of Galway, which had been several times before the House. He had promised the hon. Member who had introduced the case (Mr. P. Scrope), that he would put the House in possession of the information he received from his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which he hoped would be more satisfactory than that which he (Sir G. Grey) at that time possessed. He immediately wrote to his noble Friend; and this morning he received a private letter from his noble Friend, written in consequence of the notice taken of the case in that House. In this letter his noble Friend expressed surprise, in which he (Sir G. Grey) participated, that, owing to
1062
circumstances arising from an accident which was to him inexplicable, his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) should have no knowledge of the measures taken by the Government, because it was the Lord Lieutenant's impression that information of the proceedings taken by the Government had been addressed to him some time ago. That letter must have been accidentally lost. It had certainly never reached him (Sir G. Grey); and his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) said that until last night he had never received an answer to his letter, although Mr. Redington was under the impression that one had been sent. He (Sir G. Grey), after the reproaches which had been cast upon the Irish Government in consequence of this case, felt it due to his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant to state the steps he had taken in consequence of it; after which he was sure the House would acquit him of any neglect of, or indifference to, the outrage alleged to have been committed. The Earl of Clarendon said, that the moment he heard of the case, which was before the statement was made in the Galway Mercury, because it had been brought under the notice of the Government by the report of the assistant poor-law commissioner, he took measures for a thorough investigation of the facts, and, if they were substantiated, to punish the parties guilty of the cruelty alleged to have been committed. Some delay, however, unavoidably occurred, much to his regret, owing to Captain Hellard being, just at that period, seized with typhus fever, which terminated in his death. Major M'Kie, who was appointed to succeed Captain Hellard, made the inquiry, the result of which was before the House. Directly the report of that inquiry was brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant, he submitted the whole case to the law officers of the Crown, who gave it as their opinion that Government could not legally undertake a criminal prosecution. Lord Clarendon's next step was to intimate to the Lord Chancellor that Mr. Blake's name should be removed from the commission of the peace. The Lord Chancellor did not immediately act upon that suggestion; but he transmitted a statement of the case to Mr. Blake, and, according to the practice, afforded him an opportunity of making what explanation he chose. He regretted to state that for a length of time no explanation was received from Mr. Blake; and when at last it did arrive, it was considered

1063
so unsatisfactory, that his name was struck off the list of magistrates. Mr. St. George, a Member of that House, had also been called upon for an explanation, but no answer had yet been received from him.

RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
MR. BANKES, in moving—
"That in the opinion of this House the powers, rights, and authority, now vested by the Act 9th and 10th Victoria, c. 105, in the Commisioners of Railways, may be so regulated as to secure their efficient execution at a greatly diminished rate of charge to the public,"—
observed, that a Commission of such an extent and charge as that which now existed had never been contemplated. It had caused much surprise to those who had never heard of such a project, to find that all of a sudden a Board had sprung into existence consisting of no less than three Commissioners at high salaries, with a large staff of subordinate clerks, messengers, and other contingents, the expense of which, in the estimate for last year, amounted to no less than 17,000 l. Another circumstance that had excited much surprise was, that the Act (9th and 10th of Victoria, cap. 105) for the establishment of these Commissioners, containing a great many clauses, and investing these Commissioners with much patronage, had, while it provided for the salaries of the Commissioners and for the payment of the subordinates, made no provision for the duties to be performed by these persons, those duties being to be made the subject of a future Act of Parliament. Such a Bill had, indeed, been brought in by the Gentleman who had been appointed Head Commissioner, but had excited much surprise and apprehension, not only among shareholders in existing railways, but also in the minds of landowners and other proprietors whose property was likely to be affected by the projects of new railway companies. Powers of a most formidable and arbitrary kind were to have been given to the Board of Commissioners, to be by them delegated to their subordinate officers—such as entitling them to go in upon and mark the land in spite of any opposition, and to turn furrows of a certain number of inches from one end of a property to another. Such provisions as these rendered the Bill so objectionable that it fell to the ground under the opposition of railway promoters and landed proprietors, and was at last withdrawn by the propounder of the scheme, the Railway Commissioner himself.
1064
From that time to the present no further scheme had been produced, and from that time to the present the Gentleman in question had remained without duties of any sort of importance, for the Act which had constituted him a Commissioner, prescribed none. In point of fact, the Board of Commissioners, with all their contingents of clerks and messengers, had nothing at all to do. The whole experiment had been tried on an unreasonably large scale, and the demand upon the public for expenditure was very great. There was a Chief Commissioner at 2,000 l. a year, and two others at 1,500 l. a year, with many paid subordinates, who were to have been charged with duties of so responsible a nature, that he was rejoiced they had never been intrusted to persons in an inferior capacity. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Strutt) would have endeavoured to select approved agents for those duties; but persons were not always fortunate in their choice, and it so happened that parties who had been employed by this very Gentleman as agents in another capacity had been so far from acting in conformity with his orders, that he had lost his seat in that House through their intervention. The right hon. Gentleman had given orders that nothing approaching to illegality should be resorted to by his agents; and yet he had been unseated for bribery by those agents, who had acted so entirely contrary to his instructions. But with respect to the question of the Railway Commission, he thought there was no difficulty now in dealing with an experiment that had been tried upwards of a year and a half, and which he (Mr. Bankes) was prepared to allege was a signal failure. It had happened only within a few weeks that two Railway Bills, which had come before the House with the recommendation of the Railway Board, had been negatived by large majorities. Was not such a board, then, an injury rather than a benefit, in so far as it increased the expenses of a Railway Bill by an investigation which, when performed, appeared to carry no warrant of authority in that House? Such a fact proved that the value of the experiment did not correspond with the amount of expense which it entailed. At a time, therefore, when every possible reduction was called for that could be made without injury to the public service, he was enabled to point out this Board as a source from which a saving not

1065
altogether inconsiderable might be made. But a reduction of expense was not the only benefit that would ensue, for a board constituted like this answered no beneficial purpose. The functions formerly administered by the Board of Trade might not have been altogether satisfactory; yet, with the additional experience now available, he thought it would be found that administration would be at least as advantageous as by the Railway Commissioners, and with a great saving of expense. When railway matters were first referred to the Board of Trade, the annual expense was 1,972 l. That expense was afterwards increased to 3,302 l, in consequence of certain new arrangements, by which heavier duties devolved upon the Board of Trade; but under the new arrangement the charge in the first year was 17,000 l. It was true that the charge stood in the present estimates at only 12,000 l.; but that sum by no means covered the whole amount of charge arising out of the Government control of railways; for, as one of the Member of the Committee which had been appointed to investigate the expenditure of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, he had been surprised to find items in the Navy Estimates relating also to railways. He found that a board had been established for railway duties in connexion with the Admiralty, consisting of three members at 800 l. a year, and a chief clerk at 220 l. a year; two other clerks, one at 90 l. and the other at 70 l., making 160 l. a year; and a draughtsman at 130 l. Then, this board being separate from the Admiralty, house-rent and taxes were charged, and they amounted to 265 l.; the other items being, messengers 155 l., and travelling expenses 300 l.; making a total of this charge appearing in the Navy Estimates of 3,630 l., which was to be added to the 12,000 l. avowedly for the Railway Board, and which appeared in the Miscellaneous Estimates. Nor, as he believed, was this all; for he had been given to understand that when they came to the Ordnance Estimates something of the same kind would be found there also. He had been told that there had been a considerable increase of pay to some of the Ordnance officers, in consequence of services they had performed in connexion with railways. With the particulars he was not yet acquainted; but he believed it would be found that the whole expenditure by the Government on account of railway services would greatly exceed the sum of 17,000 l.
1066
Under these circumstances, he thought it was necessary to call the attention of the House at once to this as a branch of expense which might be declared surplusage. At the same time, he avowed he was as unwilling as any one to cripple the hands of Government in a branch of the public service at a time of difficulty. The Motion would be allowed to be opportune, inasmuch as they had now a vacancy at this Board, the Chief Commissioner having ceased to hold a seat in the House; and, as one of the principal advantages promised to them was to consist in the head of the department being a Member of the House of Commons, this was the fitting period to consider whether it was not advisable to reinvest the Board of Trade with all its former powers in relation to railway matters, and so do away with the necessity for the new Commission. It might be quite true that, originally, on the first pressure of a novel species of business, the Board of Trade had not proved itself quite competent to deal satisfactorily with the various railway interests which came under its investigation; but perfect facility of working could not have been expected at once; and there was now no reason to suppose that the duties at present discharged by the Railway Board of Trade could not with perfect efficiency, and without injury to the public service, be merged into the functions of the Board of Trade. The President and the Vice-President of that department were already in the House. They were Gentlemen thoroughly competent to the superintendence of all railway subjects; and it was quite plain, that, just now, they had very little to do. It was not easy to say whether or not this evident absence of occupation resulted from the operation of free-trade legislation; but it was quite certain that the Board of Trade was losing much of that prominence and importance which it formerly possessed; and he was therefore justified in assuming that it was not altogether out of the question for that department to undertake again the supervision and control of the various matters connected with railway companies. It was his intention, if this resolution were agreed to, to give notice of a Bill to repeal the 9th and 10th of Victoria, cap. 105; and this was all that it would be necessary to do in order to effect the object which he had in view. The question, it appeared to him, was especially one of economy, and it was for the House to consider if an oppor-

1067
tunity was not now offered to them of effecting a judicious reduction in one portion of the expenditure. He wished it to be understood that he did full justice to the character of Mr. Strutt: a more honourable man, or one hotter qualified for the post to which he was appointed, could not have been chosen; but his qualification for the office had been derived solely from experience of Railway Bills in the House, and the merits which distinguished him in this respect were also possessed by the Gentleman presiding at the Board of Trade, in whose judgment and decisions every confidence would be placed both by the railway world and by the public. He believed that the Government were rather "shaky" on this point, and ready enough to give way; and, if they saw no objection to the spirit of his Motion, he would gladly approve of any arrangement based upon that which they might think proper to make.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that the hon. Member was mistaken as to the existence of any department of the Ordnance connected with the Railway Board. With regard to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that some persons under the Admiralty were paid for services rendered only in respect of railways, he would remind him that this was an arrangement which had been carried out in express obedience to the wishes of the House. The House had required, in many cases of Railway Bills, that preliminary reports should be made by the Admiralty, as to the effect of bridges and other works on navigable rivers throughout the country; and, of course, if these reports were deemed indispensable to Committees called upon to grant particular powers to railway companies, it was useless to complain that expense was in consequence incurred. With respect, however, to the observations which had been made upon the Railway Board itself, he would, in the first place, express his decided concurrence in the views of the hon. Gentleman as to the expediency of the utmost possible economy at this moment in every department of the public service. Her Majesty's Government were well disposed to effect every practicable reduction, and they would therefore give due weight to that portion of the argument of the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman said, that he had not been made fully acquainted, in the first instance, with the project for the constitution of the Railway Board. The subject had assuredly been
1068
fully discussed before any decisive steps were taken. There were no less than three distinct reports from Committees of the House of Lords and of that House recommending the formation of such a Commission for the especial purpose of superintending railway matters; and that recommendation was enforced upon the Government from many quarters. The proposition to that effect was made to the House at the close of the Session of 1846; and though Mr. Bickham Escott called for a division against the measure, he could obtain no support whatever: not a single Member went into the lobby against the Bill; and it might therefore be said to have received the unanimous approval of the Legislature. These being the circumstances under which the Board was constituted, he could not see on what ground the hon. Member could complain of not having been informed of the intentions of the Government, and of the extent to which they contemplated going with the newly-created department. The hon. Member was greatly mistaken in supposing that the expenses of the Board amounted to so much as 17,000 l. per annum. [Mr. BANKES: 17,000 l the first year; 12,000 l. this year.] The larger sum was for nearly eighteen months in the first instance; but the expense stood on the estimates as 12,000 l. a year. He was exceedingly sorry that this Motion should have come on at a period when his right hon. Friend (Mr. Strutt) had ceased to be a Member of the House. His right hon. Friend had naturally been conversant with the business of the Board, and would have been able to give a much more satisfactory account of its operations than it was in his power to furnish to the House. He would not go into any of the details as to the actual functions of the Commission; but the hon. Member would probably recollect, that in the course of last Session very important additional duties were imposed upon it, and that the reports which it was then determined it should supply upon the proceedings, and particularly upon the financial proceedings of railway companies, had since proved to be of most essential service to the Committees. The business transacted by the Railway Board last year had been exactly twice the amount of the business transacted by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade in 1845; and this year, up to this time, the business done by the Railway Board was about one-third of the en-

1069

tire business brought before it in the whole twelve months of 1847. This statement would at once show to the House that the duties of the Commission were considerably on the increase; and this being the case it would hardly appear possible to reduce very considerably the establishment at present maintained for railway purposes. He was sure that the House would join with him in the expression of sincere regret at the circumstances which had led to the removal from Parliament of Mr. Strutt. His right hon. Friend had been appointed to the presidency of the Board, mainly in consequence of his great experience in Private Bills, which now engaged so large a portion of the time of the House; and his absence could not but be found a loss by all parties. When the report of the Derby Election Committee was made known to him, his right hon. Friend at once sent in his resignation to his noble Friend at the head of the Government, stating, while tendering it, that the object of having a Parliamentary representative of the Board having now been defeated so far as he was concerned, he considered that he ought not to continue to hold the situation. This argument was deemed conclusive: and his noble Friend, however, sorry we were to lose Mr. Strutt's services, immediately accepted his resignation, and decided, moreover, on not at present filling up the vacancy. The Government proposed to appoint some Member of the Board of Trade, as an unpaid Commissioner, to take part in the proceedings of the Railway Board; and they would then, after trying this experiment, be put in a position to judge whether or not it was advisable to name any successor to Mr. Strutt in the same capacity. This subject, the House was aware, would come under the consideration of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Miscellaneous Expenditure. This Committee would investigate the expenses of the different departments; and, if it should recommend a reduction in the establishment of this particular department, there would be no indisposition on the part of the Government to see that due economy was observed. It would be far better for the House to wait until the report of the Committee was before them before taking such a stop as that suggested by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire; and he could assure them the Government would be quite ready to acquiesce in any recommendation which
1070
might be made by the Committee after full investigation of the subject. He hoped that his hon. Friend would be satisfied with this assurance, and would withdraw his Motion.
MR. HUDSONcongratulated the House upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He had no wish whatever to deprive the Government of the supervision over railway matters which they at present exercised; all he desired was in supporting this Motion that that supervision should be more economically administered. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the heavy duties which the Railway Commission was called upon to discharge. He (Mr. Hudson) would give the House an instance of the activity of this Board. The other day an accident happened to a train in which he was travelling; the wheel of one of the carriages broke, and there was, of course, great alarm. Some gentleman who was in the train wrote an anonymous letter to the Times, describing the occurrence, and stating that the accident was attributable to Mr. Hudson having detained the train at Derby. The fact was, that they had had to change the engine at Derby, and that he had nothing to do with the delay; but what was the consequence? The Board cut the letter out of the Times, sent it down to the secretary of the company, and begged to ask if the directors had any explanation to give? Of course, no explanation was given; the letter was anonymous; the statement, as might be supposed, was utterly untrue; and if it was the custom of the Commission to take notice of such letters as these, it was not surprising that their business should be greatly on the increase. It was his opinion that if the duties of the office were not exceeded, one man of common sense could do all the work, and give more satisfaction, too, than at present resulted from the labours of the distinguished Gentlemen who received 12,000 l. a year. He was prepared to say that when the superintendence was exercised by the Board of Trade, it was better done and more efficiently exercised; and he could assign a very good reason. The Railway Commissioners had not sufficient employment for their time; and he had found, when in business, that when there was little to do things were neglected, and when there was plenty of employment everything went right. He was satisfied that a very large saving might be made by the abolition of

1071
the Railway Board; the railway superintendence ought not to cost more than 3,000 l. a year. He did not blame the Government for the Act establishing the Railway Board; it was experimental, and Parliament was at that time in an excited state, and determined to manage every person's business, and railways amongst the rest. Why not send the business to the Board of Trade at once? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the experiment had been tried and found useless; that the Government and Parliament had done wrong? He thought it most unwise to refer this matter to a Committee. It was not that railway men found fault with the Board; they did not think it injurious to them as railway people; but, looking at the organisation of the Board, he was sure the hon. Member for Montrose must see that the superintendence could be managed at considerably less expense, and he did not see why the Board should be continued for one hour longer.
MR. V. SMITHwas of opinion, that under the Act there was no efficient control over railway companies, whereas the object of the Act was to supply a greater and more efficient control over those bodies. He hoped that, although the Act of last Session had not, as the hon. Member stated, given the necessary powers. Parliament would be disposed to give greater power to the public over railway companies. The hon. Member for Sunderland considered that no control was requisite; but the powers which were given by the Act might be more beneficially exercised. In the part of the country he lived in the communication from west to east was completely useless, because of the disagreement or misunderstanding between two companies, which caused a stoppage between two termini. [Mr. HUDSON: There is no misunderstanding.] Then there is a very bad understanding. He was content with what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he hoped Parliament would not lose sight of the subject, of establishing a more efficient control over railway companies, for the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland had laid sufficient ground for requiring a better control.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the question was not whether there should be a cessation of control over railway companies, or whether there should be from time to time an extension of that control, nor had it anything to do with the amount of duties
1072
to be performed, but it related to the organ or instrument by which those duties were to be performed. After having heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he fully agreed contained an announcement, as far as it went, satisfactory to the House, and the spirit of which was intended to be conciliatory, he scarcely wished for the withdrawal of his Motion. As to the origin of this Commission, the House was not about to censure anybody; their object was to make the best arrangements. The Act for the establishment of the Railway Commission, although it passed at the end of the Session, and when few Members were present, yet passed with the almost universal concurrence of Parliament; and if there had been a very full attendance the Act would have been passed either unanimously or by an overwhelming majority. It appeared to him that a great error was then committed. An Act was passed which the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said proceeded on the supposition you were to alter the existing system as to railways, and to take into the hands of Government a larger amount of control than it had before thought fit to assume. Parliament created a great error in creating a body to exercise that control before it determined what the control was to be; and the consequence had been a state of things which was unsatisfactory. Even if it were admitted that Parliament did wisely, and that Government acted wisely, still the day was now come when the axe must be laid to the root of this Commission, because the Bill for creating the Commission proceeded upon the supposition that new powers were to be created. Had the new powers been created? Efforts were made last year by the Gentleman who was placed at the head of the Railway Commission—and this House had few more honourable or intelligent men—and therefore it was not in the Gentleman who had charge of the department that he should seek for the cause of the failure; but still the House declined to give those powers. Two Bills were introduced in 1847, and the powers were not given. We had now come to 1848. Parliament met in November. The Session had lasted for four months. Had those powers been given yet? Had they been asked for? Had there been an indication on the part of the Government of an intention to ask for those new powers? No Bill was before the House; no necessity had been felt

1073
by the public out of doors. On the whole, it was found that the system worked well. The control of Government over railways might admit of being extended in this particular, or contracted in that but on the whole it was a sound and safe system. Parliament since 1847 had changed its mind as to the powers to be exercised over railway companies; it was then disposed to ask for a great deal; it was perfectly plain that it was now disposed to retain the present system; and if Government was to ask for large additional powers, Parliament was not prepared to give them. Then the whole basis on which the House had erected the Commission failed. He did not hesitate to say that it appeared to him that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a bad plan. He admitted that it was an improvement as far as expense was concerned; but he did not understand why the President or the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who were responsible officers, holding a recognised position in the Government, should not assume the duty of carrying on the Commission as he believed they would carry it on. Was the Commission in itself the most convenient organ for the transaction of executive business of this kind? He thought, on the contrary, you had business much better done in proportion as you could connect it with individual responsibility. Divided responsibility, in cases of this kind, was a great disadvantage to an office; and unless it could be shown that the President and Vice-President of the Board of Trade were overcharged with official or Parliamentary duties, you might constrain them to some exercise of their functions. Were they overcharged with Parliamentary business? The President of the Board of Trade had been usefully and actively occupied during the present Session of Parliament in carrying several Bills of importance through the House; but not one of the Bills had to do with his department. He was locum tenens of the Colonial Department, and in a most satisfactory manner had discharged his duties; and the Under Secretary of State must feel great obligations towards him; but these acts seemed to show that the railway business might be discharged by him and by his right hon. Friend the Vice-President. In 1846, duties were discharged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, which up to last week were discharged in the House of Commons, not with an in-
1074
crease, but rather with a diminution in each branch, by no less than four right hon. Gentlemen. There was the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President, the right hon. Gentleman the Master of the Mint, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of the Railway Commission; and all these four right hon. Gentlemen had been sedulously and laboriously employed up to last week in executing the duties which were executed, without any complaint of inefficiency that he had ever heard of, by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dover in 1846. The House had been giving votes, under the dictates of political necessity, for large and heavy establishments; but he must say, that the obligations of economy, even if they were not very stringently interpreted, and even if we were in ordinary times, would require some change in the state of facts, and that it was necessary to inquire whether four right hen. Gentlemen—nay, he wont further, and said that it was necessary to inquire even whether three right hon. Gentlemen were absolutely necessary, in order to discharge the duties which were discharged by the hon. Member for Dover in 1846, and which had been discharged for many years before that by a single individual in the House? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the business passing through the Railway Department was about double the business of the Board of Trade in 1845. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not question the literal accuracy of that statement; but the right hon. Gentleman applied to a most fallacious criterion, namely, the number-of papers. Until you come to know the importance of the papers, and the affairs with which they were connected, if you took the number of papers as the criterion, you would fall into most deplorable error. We must expect the number of papers to go on with the increase of railways, and you would require, from time to time, an increasing number of clerks and subordinate officers; but it was not to do the duties of clerks and subordinate officers that the House appointed the Railway Commission; it was because they contemplated the creation of now, arduous, and responsible functions. You had now, as a matter of fact, looking at the question in a practical point of view, given up all idea of creating these new, arduous, and responsible functions. Therefore, he said that the state of these duties fell back to what it was under the

1075
Board of Trade. There was every prospect that for the next three years it would be easier than it had been for the last ten years; but unless you could show that the Railway Commission was the most convenient organ for transacting business, you could not continue its exercise. In two or three rooms of the Board of Trade, this business would be transacted with satisfaction to the public. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would transact it as efficiently as it could be done by any other hands; he thought he would transact it more efficiently if he did it as President of the Board of Trade, than if he did it with a number of unpaid clerks, as head of the Commission.
MR. HUMEsaid, that it was quite refreshing to hear such advocacy of economy from such parties; he hoped that a new era had taken place, and that it would have many repetitions. With reference to the question before the House, viz., the establishment of the Board, he, as Member of the Committee recommending it, was as much to blame as any man in the House; but he must say that he agreed to it under the statement made of the necessity of certain powers of control and coercion; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was upon the same Committee, agreed to it under a strong impression that greater powers were requisite, and that if the Board was appointed they would be given. He agreed that those powers had not been given, and he ventured last Session to ask a right hon. Gentleman, now no longer in the House, whether the department was worth continuing? He had now come to the conclusion that the department might merge altogether into the Board of Trade; and he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that individual responsibility would secure a better performance of the duties. The Commission had been appointed with an intention to perform certain duties; they had not done it, and the question was, whether they might not come back to the department of the Board of Trade. He believed that there was sufficient leisure in the department of the President or Vice-President of the Board of Trade to do all that was requisite. He took it for granted that the Commission was broken up; the principal issue, therefore, was amalgamation with the Board of Trade. As to another department which had been spoken of by the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion, viz., the new board
1076
called the Railway and Harbour Board, which it was said had incurred an expense of 3,000 l., he could state that, so far from that board having been constituted at that expense, it had not cost more than 350 1. Her Majesty had appointed a Commission to inquire into the state of the tidal harbours. It was proved to that Commission that many of the harbours had been injured by bridges crossing them, and greatly impeded in their usefulness, and the Commission recommended certain alterations. What were those alterations? The Admiralty, by an Act of Charles II., and the prerogative of the Crown, ought to have exercised a power over the erection of all buildings within the flow of high water. That had been neglected, and it was recommended that the Admiralty should resume their superintendence. What had been done? There was an important department called the Hydrographers' Department. The House had put on the Admiralty the right of inquiring and taking care that no bridges should be built across navigable waters or harbours; they had pressed it upon them in 1845, 1846, and 1847; and the Admiralty threw it on the hydrographers, who were Captain Bethune and Major Beche. The effect of throwing the business of the department on them was, that Admiral Beaufort declared that three-fourths of the time which ought to have been devoted to his own department had been taken up in superintending Bills connected with rivers and harbours. He (Mr. Hume) considered the change which had now taken place a most important one. It was called the Railroad and Harbour Board, because railroads had crossed harbours and impeded the navigation. And what was the enormous expense? 800 l. was the whole amount of this extraordinary expenditure. There was no department so likely to be productive of benefit as the Committee of these throe Gentlemen: every means to prevent encroachment would be used; and he did not believe that any department which could be appointed was likely to do so much good.
MR. F. T. BARINGsaid, that most undoubtedly it was intended that greater control should be given to the Board over railways than Parliament had; and if it was the intention of Parliament that no further powers over railways should be given, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Board was an instrument too large and too expensive; but, on

1077
the other hand, the House would see that, under the cover of this Motion, they were coming to a resolution that they never would grant further powers. ["No, no!"] Did not the right hon. Gentleman state that he took it for granted that Parliament had abandoned that course, and therefore that they considered such a Railway Board unnecessary? Ho, for one, did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. His impression was, that the House would by and by give further powers to some Member of the Government; but admitting, for the sake of argument, that the right hon. Gentleman was correct, he did not agree with him as to the mode in which he proposed to administer the powers which now remained. He had always thought that it was a mistake to combine the Railway Department with the Board of Trade. His impression was, that the combination of the Railway Department with the Board of Trade was making two bad offices. The duties of the Board of Trade were different; and it was infinitely better to create a department under which you might place all business of a similar character, such as the business of the Board of Works, and Woods and Forests. There was no great civil department looking over public works. This was a great subject of inquiry; and he hoped that House would wait till the Committees had reported whether better arrangement might not be made. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Earl Dalhousie had broken down his health in performing the duties. He should be glad to hear the opinion of the right hon. Member for Dover, and should like to have heard Earl Dalhousie's opinion. Although he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that a saving might be made in the arrangement, yet he would rather prefer waiting until the Committee had reported, to see whether a better arrangement could not be made than by handing over the matter to the Board of Trade. It was worthy the attention of the Committee, to whom the estimates were referred, whether it was not better to combine the business with the Woods and Forests, than to throw it on the Board of Trade.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, he agreed with those who thought that the true question before the House was not that which had been raised by the right hon. Member for Northampton, namely, whether the extensive powers of supervision, as regarded railways, exercised by the Commissioners, should continue to be vested in their hands,
1078
or be transferred to those of other parties. He also did not think that the present was the exact opportunity for considering whether a new Minister of Public Works should be appointed. In his opinion there was much to be said in favour of such a course. At present there were four officers whose duty it was to exercise a supervision in the matter of railways, and one of those officers was to have a seat in Parliament. Till within a very few years the labours gone through by these Gentlemen were directly performed by one Member of that House. He could not avoid observing that the hon. Member for Montrose took the trouble to inform the House that a new era of economy had arisen. Now, he would venture to affirm that it was nothing but the revival of an old era. At the present moment every one concurred in thinking there was the utmost need that the public expenditure should be restrained by a firm hand on the part of Parliament. What was the state of the present case? Parliament created officers two years ago without any duties being assigned to them, and two attempts had subsequently been made to find them business. No duty whatever had boon assigned by Parliament to officers created by Parliament in the year 1846. The Bill creating this Board was necessarily passed about the end of the month of August. At what period of the year it might not have been passed formed another question; but this every one who heard him remembered, that it was passed late in the Session, and at a time when very few Members were present; still he would not say but that it might have passed even though there had been a full attendance of Members. The time, however, had arrived when they were all sensible that they had committed an error—they now discovered that they had sinned on both sides; that the time of repentance was common to both; and that from making reparation some important advantages might be expected to accrue, though not exactly of the kind anticipated by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, who could never be too highly commended for the manner in which at all times he enforced sound principles of economy. During his long public career he had never either directly or indirectly sought patronage for himself he would fain believe that the services of his hon. Friend to this country would not be forgotten; and doubtless their value would be more felt, and would be more highly appreciated, when they should have lost him, than while he continued

1079
amongst them. But then his hon. Friend had a hobby, and that hobby was tidal harbours. He put upon his hobby three riders, at an expense to the country of 800 l. each, with an establishment of 3,000 l. a year. It happened that this hobby had the very vice complained of in the case of the Commissioners of Railways. The Admiralty sat under the same roof with those gentlemen, who constituted a Board of Railways and a Harbour Board, though all the duties which they discharged might he performed under the direction of the Board of Admiralty, just as the duties of the present Railway Commission might be performed at the Board of Trade, though in separate rooms. Those who recollected the manner in which Lord Dalhousie and his right hon. Friend near him, the Member for the University of Oxford, both as President and Vice-President of the Board of Trade, transacted an almost overwhelming amount of railway business quite separate from the ordinary business of the Board of Trade, could not for a moment doubt the practicability of the President and Vice-President still continuing to transact the business of the railways in immediate connexion with the Board of Trade. The noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman to whom he had referred transacted that business during the time that it was most weighty and important. They performed the duty most efficiently, and in a manner highly creditable to themselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth did not seem to be quite satisfied with the mode in which the business was likely to be transacted if left in the hands of the President and Vice-President of the Board of Trade. But, from the long experience which he had of the talents and great industry of the right hon. Member for Taunton, he could not doubt that that right hon. Gentleman, aided by the diligence and ability of the right hon. Member for Manchester, would find no difficulty in transacting the business of the railways with the assistance only of a certain number of additional clerks. But the most efficient and, in the end, the most economical way would be, to pay engineer officers occasionally employed handsomely and liberally, but not to make any addition to the existing establishment. It was the tendency to add to the permanent establishments which, in the course of the last fifteen or twenty years had added so enormously to the public expenditure; and this was the first opportunity which had arisen in this new Parliament for the
1080
House of Commons to attempt the introduction of a principle of a saving in this respect. If he could understand, as the hon. Member for Montrose seemed to understand, that it was the intention of the Government to put an end to this Railway Board, and within a short time to come forward with a system connecting the existing control of railways, such as it was, with the Board of Trade; and adding, subject to the will of Parliament, further powers of supervision over railways, then he should say that the present Motion was superfluous. But unless that assurance was distinctly given to the House; and if it was intended to adhere to that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had opened, and to keep up the present Railway Board, merely placing the nominal superintendence or headship of it in the President of the Board of Trade; then he thought the resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire would be a salutary resolution, as it would express the opinion of the House of Commons that another course must be adopted without delay; and, under such circumstances, he should feel it his duty to vote in favour of the Motion.
MR. LABOUCHEREfelt strongly the great disadvantage the House laboured under in discussing the present question in the absence of Mr. Strutt, who lately filled the office of President of the Railway Commission, and who, as that office had been held by no other person, was the only individual capable of giving the House a satisfactory account of the duties imposed on the Commission. He freely admitted to the right hon. Member for Oxford University, that when the present Railway Commission was constituted, it certainly was in contemplation that the duties to be devolved on it should be very considerably extended; but experience had convinced him that it was very difficult to please that House on the subject of railway legislation. He had always found a disposition to exist to quarrel with that which existed; to demand a change; and then immediately to quarrel with the alteration. Under these circumstances, he did not know that the opinion expressed by hon. Gentlemen in the course of the present debate could be taken as the final decision of the House. It had been said that the duties of the Railway Commission could not be expected to increase. It might be imprudent in the House to come to such an opinion; but if such were the opinion of the House, they might decide that a separate Commission

1081
for railway affairs was unnecessary and inexpedient. Consequently, his chief objection to the present Motion was; that it prejudged the question, which the House in a short interval of time would be better able to consider and decide upon. It was intended, as he had been informed by Mr. Strutt, to lay on the table of the House, immediately before or after Easter, a full and detailed report, giving an account of what the duties of the Railway Commission had been, which he (Mr. Labouchere) thought would be found more arduous and considerable than had been described, and also what was suggested as the future course of legislation with respect to the management of railways. The House would also, at a future period, be in possession of the report of the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates; and this information, taken together, would enable the House to consider the whole subject with greater advantage than at present. If the Government had announced any intention of taking a course which might hamper the free action of the House, he could then understand the eagerness of hon. Members to intervene in this matter; but the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was of a different character. His right hon. Friend had admitted that enough of doubt existed on the subject to render it improper to fill up the vacancy now existing at the Railway Board; and he knew that it was the intention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to insert in the new Commission to be issued, the name either of himself (Mr. Labouchere) or of his right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade-consequently, the business of the Railway Department would be carried on in conjunction with the Board of Trade. At a future period, he repeated, the House would have better materials for judging on the question; and in the meantime he expressed a doubt, not biassed, he hoped, by what he knew to be the painful and invidious nature of the duties connected with railway affairs, whether they were satisfactorily providing for the performance of those duties, or improving the Board of Trade, by altogether merging in it the Railway Department. Something had been said about the Board of Trade not having had onerous duties to perform, and that it might easily undertake this additional business. He hoped he had exhibited no disposition to shrink from any labour that might be cast upon him; and if, on experience, it
1082
should be found that the Board of Trade could satisfactorily transact the business referred to, no one would more cheerfully acknowledge the circumstance than himself. However, if it should be the pleasure of the House to unite these duties with the Board of Trade, he thought he should be deceiving the House if he held out much prospect of considerable economy from such an arrangement. His experience did not induce him to conclude that this business could be satisfactorily discharged by any head of department, whether a President of the Railway Commission, or the President of the Board of Trade, unless he had the assistance of men not only holding the highest professional, but the highest personal character, and occupying a considerable station in life. It was not business that could be satisfactorily discharged in reference to the public by any persons not being men of known character and reputation. He need not mere particularly allude to circumstances that rendered this necessary. If the only persons to whom the Board could have access for professional advice on these matters, were not known to the public, then, whatever might be their integrity, suspicion would be cast upon them, and the public business could not be satisfactorily performed. He had had the assistance at the Board of Trade of some individuals exceedingly competent to advise on these subjects; but the ample remuneration which those gentlemen obtained was not sufficient to keep them at the Board of Trade, for they were lured away by still higher salaries offered by railway companies. Without casting the least blame on these gentlemen, he thought that that was not a seemly thing to occur; and therefore he conceived it would be much better and cheaper to the public to retain the services of such well-known men as Sir E. Ryan, Captain Harness, and the hon. Gentleman lately at the head of the Railway Department, whose characters were above all suspicion. With respect to the Motion before the House, he thought it would he better not to express any opinion on the present occasion; as the postponement of the consideration of the question would enable the House to come to a decision on it in a more satisfactory manner. He would not meet the Motion by a direct negative, but should propose the previous question.
The House divided on the question, that the question be put. The numbers were:—Ayes 56; Noes 75: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Adair, H. E.

Hood, Sir A.

Adderley, C. B.

Hume, J.

Arkwright, G.

Ingestre, Visct.

Baldock, E. H.

Kershaw, J.

Bennet, P.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Meagher, T.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Mahon, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Napier, J.

Bremridge, R.

Newdegate, C. N.

Bruce, C. L. C.

O'Connor, F.

Clay, J.

Packe, C. W.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Pilkington, J.

Clive, H. B.

Pugh, D.

Cobbold, J. C.

Renton, J. C.

Currie, H.

Rufford, F.

Davies, D. A. S.

Spooner, R.

Disraeli, B.

Stuart, J.

Duncan, Visct.

Sullivan, M.

Floyer, J.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Forbes, W.

Thompson, Col.

Fuller, A. E.

Thompson, Ald.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Gwyn, H.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Heald, J.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Henley, J. W.

Henry, A.

TELLERS.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Bankes, G.

Hildyard, R. C.

Hudson, G.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Langston, J. H.

Anson, Visct.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Macnamara, Maj.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

M'Cullagh, W. T.

M'Gregor, J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Barnard, E. G.

Morpeth, Visct.

Bellew, R. M.

Morison, Gen.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Nugent, Sir P.

Brockman, E. D.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Butler, C.

Parker, J.

Busfeild, W.

Pigott, F.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Power, N.

Clifford, H. M.

Price, Sir R.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Raphael, A.

Craig, W. G.

Ricardo, O.

Dundas, Adm.

Rice, E. R.

Dundas, Sir D.

Sadleir, J.

Dunne, F. P.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Ebrington, Visct.

Shelburne, Earl of

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Slaney, R. A.

Fitz Patrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Foley, J. H. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fordyce, A. D.

Tancred, H. W.

Forster, M.

Tenison, E. K.

Fox, R. M.

Tennent, R. J.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Grace, O. D. J.

Thornely, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Guest, Sir J.

Verney, Sir H.

Hawes, B.

Ward, H. G.

Hayter, W. G.

Watkins, Col.

Heathcote, J.

Wilson, M.

Heywood, J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Hedges, T. L.

TELLERS.

Jervis, Sir J.

Tufnell, H.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Hill, Lord M.

ELECTION RECOGNISANCES BILL.
The Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill having been read,
MR. S. WORTLEYsaid, that as far as any decisions of that House had gone, they had been in favour of some legislative interference on this subject, and he wished the House not to dismiss it from their minds till they should have come to a deliberate decision. He was anxious that they should do justice to parties who might think themselves exposed to injustice. It was advisable to interfere, and thus avoid all difficulties with courts of law. The authority of Parliament was in favour of interference by a majority; and the Committee on the subject was unanimously in favour of some interference. The Committee, in their report, stated that one suggestion was, that the petitioners against the sitting Member should he allowed to go on, and if the recognisances were incomplete or deficient, that then the parties should be allowed to appeal to the House for redress. The objection to this course was the postponement of the difficulty in the first place, and in the second place that it left the sitting Member in uncertainty as to the recovery of his coats. These alone were strong reasons why the matter should not be left as it was. But upon a former occasion—(he apprehended he was correct when he stated it)—the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Attorney General, and other hon. Members on that side of the House, on the first discussion on the second reading of the Bill in that House, came to the conclusion that some interference was necessary; but the fact was, that no deliberate decision had been come to on the former occasion. It was admitted on all hands, that there was a necessity for legislation; and he did not deny that, take what course they would, the matter was encompassed by great difficulty; but he conceived that the worst course of all which could possibly be taken would be to leave the matter as it was. The Act 7 and 8 Victoria was that which formed the ground upon which legislation proceeded in regard to these election petitions. In one matter respecting that Act—namely, the deficiency of the recognisances, they had no adequate remedy afforded them. A case might go to trial without any security to the parties as to the validity of the recognisances, and hence the costs would not be awarded. Formerly the House might have given relief; but since the Grenville Act had passed and

1085
ended, and the Acts 7 and 8 Victoria had passed, and since those Acts were established, the House had parted with its control over these cases. The evil now existing, therefore, was only to be remedied by further legislation. Now, these recognisances were given and required in order to prevent frivolous petitions. There was a time when it was open to any party to petition against the return of a Member; but afterwards it was provided that no person but an elector or a candidate should be allowed to petition. By the Act 28 Geo. III., it was provided that no petition should be proceeded with unless the recognisances were tendered in a particular form, and the same was the case by the Act of Geo. IV. Then came the Act 7 and 8 Victoria, in which more binding provisions were made; and one clause enacted that, before any petition was presented, the recognisances in a particular form should be presented. And in a subsequent clause it was provided, that no petition should be presented unless the recognisances should be certified by the examiner. Now, unless that was meant to be mere verbiage, it was quite clear that the intention of the Act of Parliament and the Legislature was, that no petition should be entertained, or made the means to deprive a Member of his scat, unless it was accompanied with a security for costs and other contingencies provided for by the Act of Parliament. He thought it would be bettor for the House to legislate for the present Session, and to leave it to the Government to deal with the subject afterwards. There was a precedent for the course which he recommended, in the year 1835, in the case of the Leicester petition. Now, suppose by accident the examiner should certify that a recognisance had been entered into, when in fact there was nothing but a blank piece of paper, would hon. Members go the length of saying that the petition ought to be proceeded with? He apprehended, very few hon. Members would agree with that view of the case. Besides, the courts of law were bound to look at the recognisances; and if the House was desirous of maintaining its privileges, it ought to expose them to the public gaze as seldom as possible, and take the utmost precaution against coming into collision with the courts of law. He would now state the nature of the measure which he wished the House to adopt. One of the objections to the Bill of the hon. Member for Midhurst was the danger of committing the privileges of the House in any degree to the other
1086
House of Parliament. His (Mr. Wortley's) proposition to avoid that difficulty was to omit the schedule altogether, and make the present a temporary measure, providing a temporary tribunal for all petitions which might be presented during the present Session. The remainder of the scheme was simply this, that instead of in all cases sending the party before the examiner to enter into fresh recognisances, power should be given to the Committee to do that which in the Wigan case they refused to do, because they conceived they had not the power—namely, to entertain the preliminary objection to the form of the recognisance, and give a remedy to the parties. If the Committee should think the recognisance wholly invalid, the invalidity being in any degree attributable to the laches of the petitioners, then they would report accordingly, and no further proceedings would be taken; but if the invalidity should be traced solely to the officer of the House, then the parties ought to have liberty to amend the recognisances. If the recognisances should turn out to be merely informal, then the parties ought to be allowed to amend them on the spot; but if the petitioners should not consent, then the petition would not be proceeded with. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
MR. BERNALthought, that whoever undertook to introduce legislation upon this subject, ought to provide for future cases as well as for those which had occurred. There was wanted, in fact, some Act to define, and perhaps extend, the powers of the examiner. But the principal objection to this Bill was, that it would give Committees the power to decide questions of great legal difficulty; it was a pity that they had to do this now incidentally, and the House ought not to increase the instances.
VISCOUNT MAHONsaid, that if the Bill, when it came out of Committee, should be presented to the House in its present shape, he would vote against the third reading; but if it were altered in the manner proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Buteshire, it should receive his support. It was impossible to deny that the irregular proceedings in the examiner's office—be the fault whose it might—had been the cause of involving the House in very serious difficulty. Had there been no such irregular proceedings, there would have been no difficulty at all. The recognisances in each petition would

1087
have been either clearly good or clearly bad: in the former case the petition would have gone before the Committee; in the latter case the petition would have been arrested at its outset. But now the difficulty was this—that in some of the cases alleged, the recognisances were bad in themselves; but others were bad only by the laches of the examiner. The House was bound in fairness to protect the petitioners from the laches of its own officer; but it was not bound to protect them against their own ignorance or carelessness. This was the objection which he (Viscount Mahon) felt against the Bill as introduced by his learned Friend the Member for Midhurst—that it confounded the two classes of cases—that it gave the power of amending the recognisances not only to those parties who had suffered by the fault of the officer of the House, but also to those parties who had only their own ignorance, or carelessness, or possibly fraudulent intentions, to blame. To this latter part, he (Viscount Mahon) never could consent. But the Bill, as amended by the right hon. Member for Buteshire, separated the two classes of cases: it enabled each Committee to decide as to the validity of each original recognisance, but only allowed the power of amending it and substituting a right form for a wrong, whenever the error lay not with the parties themselves but with the officer of the House. To this extent even an ex post facto law was justifiable. Beyond this it was an act of partiality to the petitioners at the expense of the sitting Members. He (Viscount Mahon) was most anxious to avoid the chance of which the right hon. Member for Bute had spoken—the chance of any collision with the courts of law. Let the House remember how much popular resentment they had incurred, and how little of real power or real dignity they had gained, by their former collisions with such authorities. Even the smallest risk of such collision should now be carefully guarded against. It was said by the hon. Member for Rochester that the Election Committees were unfit tribunals to decide the points. He quite concurred in that opinion, and indeed had once been the person to propose that the House of Commons should wholly part with its jurisdiction in the trial of controverted elections. But still as long as the House thought proper to retain the jurisdiction, it was desirable that the tribunal to which the questions were submitted should be made as perfect as possible, and be armed with all requisite
1088
powers. The difficulty with which the House now had to contend was a temporary one, and might be met by a temporary remedy—a general or permanent Act could be passed hereafter.
SIR G. GREYfelt very indifferent as to the decision which the House might come to upon this occasion. At the same time, he could not avoid declaring his opinion that the right hon. and learned Member for Bute had taken a most unprecedented course. Here was a Bill abandoned by its promoter, which the right hon. Gentleman seized upon as a sort of waif or estray, and invited the House to read a second time in order that he might have an opportunity of striking out every clause it contained. Why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman move for leave to bring in a new Bill, in which he might embody his views? Under the extraordinary circumstances in which the House was placed with respect to this Bill, he would oppose its second reading.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that a few nights ago the House was placed in an unprecedented position by having the word "that" left as the only question upon which they could come to a decision; and if the right hon. and learned Member for Buteshire were allowed to have his way, the House ran the risk of being put into a somewhat analogous dilemma. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took ap a Bill which had been abandoned by its promoter, and how did he propose to deal with it? He would exhibit the Bill bodily, as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make it; for he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had pasted paper over the parts which it was intended to strike out. All that the right hon. and learned Member intended to leave of the Bill was the clause which graciously permitted the House to repeal the Bill, if it should think proper to do so, in the course of the present Session. Should the right hon. and learned Gentleman succeed in doing what he proposed, the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst would be somewhat astonished on seeing his Bill in its new shape—
"Miraturque novas frondes, et non sua poma,"
SIR F. THESIGERobserved, that, under the peculiar circumstances in which the House stood with regard to this subject, there appeared to him to be only three courses for them to adopt: either to do nothing; or to leave all questions respecting elections open for the determination of the House; or, thirdly, to legislate

1089
upon the subject. If they adopted the first, then the Select Committees would proceed with undefined powers to adjudicate on election petitions, and every question connected with them. To what would this expose those tribunals? They were statutable courts; and if they should at any time exceed their jurisdiction, he was decidedly of opinion the courts of law would have the power to issue a writ of prohibition against them. This would bring the House into collision with these courts. Would they, then, adopt the next course, and leave the question to be decided by the House itself? It had already been determined that the House was a very inconvenient and unfit tribunal before which to bring questions of the nature under consideration. What, then, remained? Why, that there should be some legislation upon the subject. He confessed he was disposed to pursue that alternative, and adhere to the Bill which had been introduced by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst.
MR. HAYTERhad listened to the hon. and learned Member for Bute (Mr. S. Wortley) in the hope of hearing some argument to alter the opinions he held on this question; but, disappointed in that hope, he begged to call the attention of the House to the position in which they were placed by the proposition which had been made to them. The Bill of the hon. and learned Member proceeded on the supposition that the House had a right to inquire into the validity of election recognisances; but he maintained that they had no such right except in one case only. It did not thence follow that if the examiner certified a blank sheet of paper as a proper recognisance, the House could not inquire into it, for then a fraud would be committed, for which a remedy existed, as against the parties guilty of it; but he could not understand on what principle the House took on itself the character of a court of appeal from the decisions of the examiner, nor could he discover any trace of such an authority being vested in them by the Act of Parliament. The appointment of the Committee was not an adjudication on the question at issue: the reference made to them by the House was, that "they should inquire into the allegations of the petitioners" in certain cases; and from the terms of that reference they derived no authority to inquire into any matter whatever, except such allegations, and had no right even to make suggestions to the
1090
House. He would go further, and say, that the General Committee of Elections had not performed their bounden duty, inasmuch as they had not appointed a Select Committee to try the validity of the recognisances. Looking to the whole of the Act on the subject, he maintained its object had been to place the House beyond the necessity of interfering with matters which did not redound to their credit or honour; and in this point of view the present Bill was most unsatisfactory. They had the authority of the right hon. Baronet, Sir R. Peel, who was the author of the Act, for affirming that the Legislature in passing it intended to make the decision of the examiner of recognisances final and conclusive; and he hoped the House would not adopt the course of adopting, in para matinâ, one decision one day, and of rejecting it the next. They had already determined, in at least one case, that the examiner's report should be final; and it would not be very becoming if they were now to come to a contrary conclusion.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERconcurred so far with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hayter), that he thought the Act set certain machinery in Motion, and prescribed certain things to be done, without giving to Parliament any power of stopping the one, or of interfering with the other. Once the examiner gave his decision, the House had no power to do anything but to follow a series of proceedings recited in the Act; but he certainly was not prepared to think the hands of the House should be tied altogether, and that they should not be able to correct error wherever it existed. The principle on which it was proposed to interfere was that of legislative equity; and it was not to be endured that the House should interfere to correct every flaw in favour of the sitting Members, and then to allow the latter to avail themselves of every technical objection against the petitioners. The noble Lord (Viscount Mahon) stated, that all the annoyance which had occurred arose out of the mistakes and errors in the office of examiner of recognisances; and it had been suggested in another place that fraud had occurred in the recognisances; but he could not see anything to warrant the latter assertion. The House should interfere, because by doing so they would put all the parties into the position they had originally occupied; and if the recognisances were in the form prescribed by the Act, while the sitting Members would have

1091
nothing to complain of, the petitioners would have all they wanted. The Court of Chancery would interfere in this matter if it were a private transaction. The Walsall case should, he thought, he made the subject of a special enactment, in which liberty should be given to amend the recognisances. He had felt deep pain at the remarks made at different periods of the discussion in reference to his friend the examiner. Whatever inadvertence there might have been on the part of that gentleman, the reasons stated by him for the course which he had pursued had produced a great effect on his mind; and he thought they exculpated the examiner from the charge of gross negligence which some had appeared disposed to bring against him.
MR. SHEILreminded his hon. Friend the Judge Advocate, who had assumed the certificate of the examiner to be conclusive, that on the 7th of February, when the Attorney General was discharged from attendance on the Committee, the names of the Solicitor General, Mr. Stuart Wortley, and Mr. Hayter, were added to it; so that his hon. Friend, being a Member of the Committee himself, had it in his power to press on them those considerations which he had now urged with more ingenuity than soundness. Yet there was not a word in the report as to the certificate being final; there was no dissent on the part of his hon. Friend. The Committee set forth the opinion of Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Austen, and Mr. Peacock, which was that the judgment of the examiner of recognisances was not final. Why did the Committee not think it final? Because the finality of the certificate would destroy the Committee—the Committee could not have been appointed if the certificate had been final. The Committee was appointed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Midhurst, supported by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and composed chiefly of lawyers. Perhaps they had not got the usual stimulus—the quiddam honorarium. His hon. Friend said the case was involved in a haze. How were they to clear away that haze? Legislation was indispensable. The Committee had not decided the question, neither had the House of Commons. They were not called on to pass an ex post facto law—a law with respect to transactions which had previously taken place. But this was a case where a tribunal must be established to decide on a question of law which had previously arisen. If there
1092
had been solid substantial error, let the party who had committed the error suffer. He conceived that legislation was indispensable.
MR. NAPIERthought a short declaratory Act ought to be passed, stating that doubts existed whether the certificate of the examiner was final, and declaring that it should be so. Such an Act would apply both to the present and to future cases.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas satisfied from what had occurred in the debate, that he was right when he contended that it was unnecessary to have any Bill at all in the matter. He now found that there were four courses under consideration. It was impossible to overcome the argument of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who had urged that it was quite informal and unparliamentary to read a Bill a second time merely for the purpose of rejecting all its clauses. But the Bill before the House would do nothing. It suggested a conflict between that House and the courts of law. He doubted the possibility of such a conflict. The Bill of his right hon. Friend would do literally nothing towards providing a remedy for the difficulties in which the House was involved. There were two classes of recognisances to which objections were made—the one, such as Cheltenham, in which there was high legal authority for saying the recognisances were not bad; and the other, such as Leicester and Walsall, where it had been suggested the fault lay with the examiner, who had not adopted the forms of the House; and in neither of those classes of cases would the Bill of his right hon. Friend be operative. Its only effect would be to create a great deal of delay, and to impose upon the petitioners the expense of keeping up their witnesses, and the annoyance of having their cases undisposed of while the inquiry was pending. He regretted that there had been any canvassing on either side in this which was a purely judicial matter. It had been intended that these questions should be withdrawn from the consideration of the House; and he thought they would be acting in fatal opposition to this principle if they did not at once reject this Bill.
MR. BANKEShad voted against the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, because he thought in insufficient for the purpose which it was intended to serve; but he would support the proposition of the right hon. and learned Member for Bute, because, though not free

1093
from difficulty, it appeared to him the best that had yet been submitted to the House.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, he had not been in the House when the Committee was appointed from which the Bill had emanated, which had originally been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, but which his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute now sought to mutilate with a view to changing its provisions. He must say that he was not conscious of any canvassing with reference to this Bill; that he was not aware of any party bearing that it had; and that he considered it entirely a judicial question. He thought the expression of the Judge Advocate was a very happy one, that much mist surrounded this subject. It had been with much doubt and hesitation that he, as an unlearned Member, approached the question; and, placing as he did much reliance on the judgment of the Gentlemen of the long robe, he had hoped to derive important information from them during the discussion. He thought he had heard the opinions of seven eminent lawyers on the present occasion. On the preliminary point as to whether any legislation on the subject was necessary, the Gentlemen of the learned profession were nearly equally divided. A majority, he believed, were in favour of legislation. But, assuming that legislation was necessary, there was great difference of opinion as to the mode of legislation that should be adopted. First of all, there was the Bill as it had emanated from the Committee, resting upon the high authority of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst. From the plan thus recommended, with the concurrence of the Committee, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute entirely dissented; and he introduced them to forego the opinion of the Committee—to forego the plan introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, and to substitute in its place a plan which had been deliberately considered by the Committee, and as deliberately rejected. Then came the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger), who, in discussing the subject, and in dealing incidentally with the question as to whether legislation was necessary or not, had held out a sort of threat, which he (Sir J. Graham) confessed, even amidst the mist which surrounded the case, did not terrify him, that if they proceeded without legislation, some injunction, mandamus, or prohibition, might come down
1094
on them from the courts of law. He certainly was not anxious to come into collision with the courts of law; but he thought the House should judge for itself on such a question without any fear of such prohibitions; and if any inferior court presumed so to interfere, the House would know well how to deal with any such violation of its privileges. They next had the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), a speech remarkable for its clearness and ability; and that hon. and learned Gentleman did not approve either of the original proposition sanctioned by the Committee, or altogether of the measure now before the House, and thought there should be special legislation for the case of Walsall. Then came the Attorney General and the Judge Advocate, who gave reasons which the idleness of his (Sir J. Graham's) growing age predisposed him to favour, and which he was inclined to adopt. They proposed to deal with the matter brevi manu, and recommended that the House should do nothing at all. He could not make out exactly what was the proposition of the Master of the Mint (Mr. Shell), but he seemed to start a new proposition somewhat different from any suggestion previously laid before the House. And, last of all, there was the Cursitor Baron (Mr. Bankes), who was ready to vote for another Committee, though he admitted the question was not free from difficulty. Now, really, if they meant to do anything at all in this matter, by all means let them try a Committee, and let that Committee be composed of the learned Gentlemen to whom he had just referred. There was the Cursitor Baron in his chair, the Attorney General, the Judge Advocate, the Master of the Mint, the Member for Bute, the Member for Abingdon, and the Member for the University of Dublin. If such a Committee was appointed, he would certainly, as a matter of curiosity, seeing strangers would not be excluded, avail himself of his privilege of being present at the discussion; but, whether present or absent, he should wait with intense anxiety for the report of that Committee. He adhered to the view that, having already done so much on this question, they should now permit it to remain as it was. He thought the passage which had been read from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, who originated the Act of Parliament, was quite conclusive as to what was the intention of the author of the mea-

1095
sure; and he still thought that the words of the Act fulfilled all the purposes intended by its promoters. He was for staying where they were, by no means daunted with he threat of the interference of the courts of law in this matter; and he should therefore support the proposal of the Secretary of State, and vote against the Bill.
House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 80: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T.

Hervey, Lord A.

Adderley, C. B.

Hildyard, R. C.

Alexander, N.

Hudson, G.

Anstey, T. C.

Ingestre, Visct.

Bagge, W.

Jackson, W.

Bagot, hon. W.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Bailey, J. jun.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bankes, G.

Kershaw, J.

Barkly, H.

Knox, Col.

Barrington, Visct.

Law, hon. C. E.

Bennet, P.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Beresford, W.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Mahon, Visct.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Meux, Sir H.

Blake, M. J.

Neeld, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Bolling, W.

Newport, Visct.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Newry & Morne, Visct.

Bremridge, R.

Nugent, Sir P.

Bright, J.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Brisco, M.

O'Connor, F.

Brockman, E. D.

Packe, C. W.

Burroughes, H. N.

Palmer, R.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Peto, S. M.

Christy, S.

Pigott, F.

Clay, J.

Pilkington, J.

Cobbold, J. C.

Power, N.

Cocks, T. S.

Raphael, A.

Codrington, Sir W. Bl

Renton, J. C.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Sadleir, J.

Colvile, C. R.

Scholefield, W.

Cripps, W.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Davies, D. A. S.

Sibthorp, Col.

Devereux, J. T.

Simeon, J.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Smith, J. B.

Duncuft, J.

Smyth, J. G.

Edwards, H.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Fagan, W.

Spooner, R.

Farrer, J.

Stafford, A.

Fellowes, E.

Stephenson, R.

Floyer, J.

Stuart, H.

Foley, J. H. H.

Sullivan, M.

Forbes, W.

Turner, G. J.

Fortescue, C.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Fox, R. M.

Verner, Sir W.

Fuller, A. E.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Gardner, R.

Waddington, H. S.

Gaskell, J. M.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Westhead, J. P.

Gooch, E. S.

Williams, J.

Greene, J.

Williams, T. P.

Grey, R. W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Grogan, E.

Wilson, M.

Gwyn, H.

Wyld, J.

Halsey, T. P.

Hamilton, Lord C.

TELLERS.

Heathcoat, J.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Henry, A.

Thesiger, Sir F.

1096

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Jervis, Sir J.

Arkwright, G.

Langston, J. H.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Lewis, G. C.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Magan, W. H.

Bellew, R. M.

Marshall, W.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Martin, C. W.

Bowring, Dr.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bramston, T. W.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

Mure, Col.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Napier, J.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Norreys, Lord

Cardwell, E.

O'Connell, M. J.

Carter, J. B.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Palmer, R.

Clive, H. B.

Parker, J.

Cowper, hon. W. P.

Patten, J. W.

Craig, W. G.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Price, Sir R.

Duff, G. S.

Ricardo, O.

Duncan, G.

Rice, E. R.

Dundas, Sir D.

Rich, H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Seymour, Lord

Evans, W.

Shelburne, Earl of

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Smith, J. A.

Fordyce, A. D.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Forster, M.

Strickland, Sir G.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Greene, T.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Grenfell, C. W.

Tancred, H. W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Haggitt, F. R.

Thompson, Col.

Hall, Sir B.

Thornely, T.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Townley, R. G.

Hastie, A.

Watkins, Col.

Hastie, A.

Wawn, J. T.

Hayter, W. G.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Wood, W. P.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Yorke, H. G. R.

Hey wood, J.

Hill, Lord M.

TELLERS.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bernal, R.

Hood, Sir A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bill read a second time.
House adjourned at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.] Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Borough Police, Superannuation Fund.
Royal Assent.—Passengers; Queen's Prison.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Members of several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for the Extension of the Provisions of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.—From Glossop, for the Abolition of Toll Bars, altogether, and for Fixing a Small Rate upon Property for Maintaining the Roads.—From the Clergy of Leighlin, against the Rate of Assessment on Rent Charges.