Sitting of 26 May 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Qualification and Regis-

1419
tration of Electors (Ireland); Elections and Polling Places (Ireland); Tobago, Relief and Immigration into British Guiana and Trinidad.
3° and passed; Collectors of Cess (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Cockburn, from Southampton, for an Extension of the Elective Franchise.—By Captain Pechell, from Brighton, for Repeal of the Ratepaying Clauses in the Reform of Parliament Act.—By Mr. Cobden, from Members of the Baptist Congregation, Manfield, for Discouragement of Idolatry (India).—By Lord Harry Vane, from Members of the Congregation of Independents of the Town of Hartlepool (Durham), and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Viscount Castlereagh, from Members of the Presbyterian Congregation of Anahill (Downshire), and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, in favour of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By British Electors and Non-Electors, for Revision of Taxation.—By Mr. Ewart, from Journey-men Bakers of Dumfries, and its Neighbourhood, for Shortening their Hours of Labour.—By Colonel Mure, from the Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew, for Alteration of the Banking Law.—By Mr. Romily, from Merchants and Others, of the Borough of Devonport, for Alteration of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law.—By Mr. Cobden, from William North, of 25, Camp Road, Leeds, respecting Depredations committed by Killing Cattle, Sheep, &c.—By Sir John Hope, from the Commissioners of Supply of Edinburgh, in Favour of the Law of Entail (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Duncan, from the Committee of Management of the Parish of Dundee, against, and by Captain Fordyce, from the President and Managers of the Infirmary of Aberdeen, for, Alteration of the Lunatic Asylums (Scotland) Bill.—By Viscount Bernard, from the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, respecting the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Loch, from the Royal Burgh of Kirkwall, for Ameliorating the Condition of the Parochial Schools (Scotland).—By Mr. Henley, from Burford, Oxfordshire, for an Alteration of the Poor Law.—By Sir H. Smyth, from Colchester, for Alteration of the Law as regards Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Mr. George Thompson, from the Parish of St. Luke's, Middlesex, for Alteration of the public Health Bill.—By Sir Thomas Birch, from Liverpool, for a Repeal of the Duties on Horses and Carriages used for Funeral Purposes.—By Mr. A. E. Lockhart, from the Commissioners of Supply of the County of Selkirk, for Completion of the Survey of Scotland.

SEIZURE OF PIKES, &c. IN IRELAND.
CAPTAIN HARRIS rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to avail themselves of the large military force now in Ireland, and by introducing a measure for the search and seizure of pikes, to provide for the security of that part of the United Kingdom. He wished to know, now that the resources of civil law and moral power were failing the Government, whether they were prepared, by taking the pikes out of the hands of mischievous rebels, to prevent the shedding of blood in civil warfare, and to give confidence to the loyal portion of the population, thus restoring tranquillity to society, and vigour and energy to trade.
SIR G. GREY must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that in the early part of the Session an Act was passed for the prevention of crime and outrage in Ire-
1420
land, and that the Lord Lieutenant may, by the proclamation of any district, place it under the provisions of that Act—provisions which include the power of seizing arms. That Act being now law, it was not in the contemplation of Government to adopt any additional measure upon the subject.

PUBLIC RETRENCHMENT.
MR. HUME was anxious, before going into Committee of Supply, and voting more money, to ask the Government whether they could state to the House how they intended to make up the deficiency in last year's revenue—a deficiency of no less than three millions. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but if they had to supply that deficiency they would laugh on the wrong side of their mouths. He rose, however, to offer to the Government a suggestion, and that was, that they should, without delay—seeing the state in which the income and expenditure of the country was — themselves undertake the reduction of that portion of the outlay which it was known could be dispensed with—at any rate, this House ought not to vote money unless Government were to tell them how they meant to provide the means. Hon. Gentlemen would see by a Bill this morning put into their hands, that the sum of 60,000 l., to be paid by a railway company, was to be expended upon certain alterations and improvements in the vicinity of Windsor—upon bridges to be built—upon old roads to be stopped up, and new roads formed on the royal property there—alterations which would, he believed, cost 100,000 l., instead of 60,000 l., before they were completed. Now, considering the present state of the public finances, he did submit to the House that it was rather forgetting their duty thus to set the candle burning at both ends at once. Buckingham Palace had cost 850,000 l.; and on Windsor Castle, in his own time, 1,500,000 l. had been laid out. The Woods and Forests ought not to forget, that although they had the management of the Crown revenues, these funds no more belonged to the Crown than they did to him. They were public property, just as much as the public property raised by taxes. He did not, therefore, see why Bills should be introduced as was that in question. They were going quite wild in allowing expenses to accumulate in this manner. With respect to this last measure, he intended to move for a report to

1421
be laid on the table specifying the exact nature of the works to he performed, and their estimated expense. Setting that subject aside, however, he had an objection to vote a single shilling until they had had the reports of the Committees appointed to investigate into our several branches of expenditure. They must not let matters go on so—they must look to pounds, shillings, and pence. It was absolutely necessary to stave off a national bankruptcy.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that his hon. Friend had expended a great deal of virtuous indignation against a Bill not before the House, and which was not intended to entail upon the country the expenditure of a single shilling of public money. The fact was, that a certain portion of Crown property had been given up to a railroad company in consideration of the payment of a sum of 60,000 l., which was to be laid out in the improvement of other property belonging to the Crown. All that he proposed to do in Committee, of Supply to-night was, to take certain votes absolutely necessary for carrying on the public service. What reductions could be made in the amount now expended, might, when they had the reports of the various Committees before them, be fairly discussed; but at present he only asked for such votes on account as were absolutely necessary for the carrying on of the public service.
MR. BRIGHT was of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made himself perfectly understood in his reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the sum of money proposed to be expended at Windsor did not involve the expenditure of any public money; but it appeared the 60,000 l. in question was to be contributed by certain railway companies as compensation for passing over some Crown lands which in reality belonged to the public. If these lands were public property, the money paid for leave to pass over them must belong to the public. If not, he did not see why this Bill was necessary. Whatever money was expended, should be expended after proper consideration, and on proper estimates. There was a feeling abroad that the House encouraged a spirit of increasing extravagance, not only in this, but in every Government, to which they were desirous to see some check.
VISCOUNT MORPETH explained that
1422
the money was given by these railways for certain concessions, which otherwise the Crown could not be called upon to give. The Crown was about to throw open grounds which were under its exclusive control, and which could no more be thrown open without its consent than the hon. Member's garden. For that consent the railway companies proposed to advance certain sums, which, under the provisions of the Windsor Improvement Bill, would be laid out in a manner to conduce to the comfort of the Queen, and to the convenience and accommodation of the inhabitants of Windsor.

DIRECT TAXATION.
On the Motion that the House should go into Committee of Supply,
MR. EWART rose to move—
"That the present system of disproportionate indirect taxation is injurious to the commerce and manufactures and unjust to the working classes of this country. That the establishment of a more direct system of taxation on realised property would relieve trade and manufactures, and be eventually beneficial to all classes of the
community."
He felt deep disappointment that, during the course of last year, Her Majesty's Government had not thought proper to consider the question, which claimed their full consideration, as much as any that could be brought before them. The example of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), who had made such useful and extensive alteration, should stimulate them to follow it up; but he regretted to say they had not done so, while it was evident the public were fully alive to the importance of the subject. In Manchester and Liverpool societies were organised for the express purpose of reforming the present system of taxation; and the Committees of the House, who had considered the question, had reported in favour of direct taxation, more particularly those which had been appointed to inquire into the tobacco and tea trade, and that which reported on our relations with China last year. The general feeling of the country was against the excise duties; and the people thought the time must soon come when the oppressive effects they exercised on the manufactures of the country should be fully and fairly considered. Many of those duties had been abolished; and he trusted to hear from Her Majesty's Government that they were about to take off the shoulders of the people such a strong cause of discontent as those which yet remained. It was

1423
from a deep conviction that the Government would bring in no measure to benefit the people, so much as that which would prove a practical reform of a practical grievance, that he had placed this Motion on the Votes of the House, and thus called the attention of the Government to this most important subject.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER must do the hon. Member the justice to say, that he had been uniformly the advocate of his present opinions; for himself, he agreed with the hon. Member in thinking it highly desirable to obtain a practical result from any measure which might be introduced, rather than an empty discussion; hut the hon. Gentleman would remember that during the last two years very large reductions in indirect taxation had been effected, and that the measures which had since been passed on this subject had been in the shape of direct taxation. It was hardly necessary to say the measures of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had relieved this country from many kinds of indirect taxation; but he could not say that the plan of direct taxation he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had proposed had been so fortunate as to secure the approbation of the House, nor had he, on that occasion, such a prospect of success as could induce him to bring in any large measure of a similar character. He preferred the reduction of duties to their total abolition; but, in answer to the Motion of the hon. Member, he could only say it was not in his power to hold out any expectation of a reduction in the amount of direct or of indirect taxation. He was not prepared to make a retrograde step, for he did not approve of it, but at the same time, he could not go forward.
Question not put.

EXPULSION OF THE BRITISH MINISTER FROM MADRID.
MR. HERRIES said that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adverted to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire; relative to the strange occurrences in Spain, which had excited so much attention, he would take the opportunity of asking the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, or any Member of the Government, whether the papers which would be presented to-day would be in the hands of Members to-morrow; and, further, whether it was intended that those papers should convey to the House all the explanation and information which the Go-
1424
vernment thought it necessary to give respecting those most extraordinary occurrences; or whether they intended to furnish the House, upon some early occasion, with further explanations of the conduct of the Government, or of the British Minister at the Court of Spain? He should imaging that Ministers must themselves be burning with anxiety for an occasion to relieve themselves from the suspicion, at least, which attached to them on account of these extraordinary transactions. All that was known at present was, that a British Minister representing the interests of his country at the Court of Madrid, had been, if not ignominiously, at least unceremoniously ejected from Spain. He believed he might confidently state that such a thing never before occurred in the history of the diplomacy of this country. Never before, except with reference to immediate war, had a British Minister received a peremptory notice to quit the capital of a friendly State. Such an extraordinary event threw upon the Government the onus of explanation, and it was most desirable that they should lose no time in making their explanation to Parliament. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire was most anxious to bring the question under the consideration of the House; and every Member of the Government ought to be equally anxious to explain to Parliament the whole course which the Government had taken with reference to this unfortunate transaction.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, it was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the opportunity of asking his questions when his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary was in his place, which he had not left more than ten minutes, because the right hon. Gentleman would then have obtained a more satisfactory answer than he could give him. He understood that his noble Friend purposed laying on the table of the House those papers which he thought it necessary to produce, with a view to enable the House to form an opinion upon what had taken place. The Motion of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had not been postponed at the request of the Government; they were perfectly ready to meet it. All he wished to say was, that the Government did not shrink from explanation.
MR. DISRAELI was rather surprised at what had fallen from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Originally the hon. Member for Dorsetshire gave no-

1425
tice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the documents connected with this subject which had been laid upon the table by Ministers; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have entirely forgotten that, subsequently to the presentation of those documents, it appeared from publications in the Spanish newspapers that a most important document had been omitted from those laid before the English Parliament. What could be more natural on the part of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire than to decline to bring forward the question when the documents relative to it were incomplete, and when, too, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department announced, on the same evening, his intention of producing other papers which could not be in the hands of Members until the morning after the intended discussion would have taken place? Under all the circumstances of the case, it was rather surprising that Ministers should now say that they were ready to meet the question, and that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire shrunk from the combat. Ministers, then, upon their own showing, were ready to meet the question, knowing all the time that the House was not in possession of the documents upon which the decision of the question must depend.
MR. HERRIES said, that he would gladly have put his question when the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs was present, but other business then occupied the attention of the House, and before it was concluded Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had disappeared. It was not his (Mr. Herries's) fault that he did not propose the question to the noble Lord himself.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
MR. WARD intended to propose a vote on account, under three different heads, without taking the whole estimate for any one of them. The first vote he had to ask for was a sum of 300,000 l., on account of wages, &c., of seamen for the year ending 31st of March, 1849.
CAPTAIN HARRIS said, in reference to the fitting out of line-of-battle ships as flagships on foreign stations, that he had observed that the Admiralty had sent out to the West Indies and East Indies as flagships two line-of-battle ships. They had given to the West Indies the Wellesley, a ship he knew well enough, having himself
1426
once belonged to her. She was one of the worst ships and one of the dullest sailers in the service. He would just suggest to the Lords of the Admiralty the probability that in the event of a war, that ship, if left on the West India station, would find itself in the same predicament as was the flag-ship in which he (Captain Harris) served in the West India Islands. In 1840 he served on board the Winchester, a heavy frigate, stationed as a flag-ship in the West Indies. It was during the administration of M. Thiers, and at a time when there was a great apprehension of a breach between France and this country. The French collected, from different ports in the world, no less than five heavy double-banked frigates, and sent them to Martinique. Now, supposing such a case to occur again, this country would have the old Wellesley in the same situation as the Winchester, and she would be a match for little more than one of those frigates; whereas, a ship like the Vanguard, in the hands of an able seaman like Lord Dundonald, and well manned, would, both in sailing and working, be a match for three of those heavy frigates. It appeared to him that for the sake of a little economy, perhaps to the amount of some 3,000 l. or 4,000 l., they were putting the country to the risk of sustaining a very severe loss, if not disgrace, by sending out ships which in the event of the breaking out of a war might be called upon to cope with a very disproportioned force. He observed also that the Hastings, a ship of the same class, had been sent to the East Indies with the flag of Sir Francis Collier, while the Americans had sent out to the same station several line-of-battle ships, all heavy ships, some of them 90 gun ships, and some carrying 100 guns on the two decks. The Hastings, it must be obvious, could not by any means be a match for ships of that kind. He would urge on the Admiralty the consideration whether it would not be prudent and advisable to send out to those stations some heavy line-of-battle ships more commensurate with the services which they might be called upon to perform.
ADMIRAL DUNDAS said, the great object of the Board of Admiralty was to wear out the old ships. The two flag-ships had been sent out to relieve the two frigates that were stationed as flag-ships in the West and East Indies. He must say that the two ships so sent out were remarkably good ones; and he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that if the Government

1427
should happen to hear of any squadron being about to be fitted out by any other nation, this country would be perfectly prepared to meet it.
MR HUME said, there was one class of persons connected with the Navy whose case he was anxious to call attention to; he meant the class of assistant surgeons. It might not, perhaps, be generally known that those persons were required to possess far higher qualifications than was necessary for those who derived their powers to practise from the College of Surgeons. It was necessary that they should attain an efficiency in three or four branches of knowledge beyond what was required by the colleges in Edinburgh and in London; and yet these assistant surgeons when put on board ship were compelled to associate with mere boys; they were placed among young midshipmen, and were in no respect treated as gentlemen of acquirements ought to be. The House would be surprised when he told them of the fact that a week ago there was not a single assistant surgeon a candidate for the Navy—not one. If Sir W. Burnet, a man whose whole life had been devoted to impart the highest qualifications to the profession—if he had been asked to provide an assistant surgeon for any ship, he would have been compelled to admit that there was no candidate for the appointment. Such was the reluctance, nay, the aversion of professional men to enter the naval service in the capacity of assistant surgeons. This arose entirely from the neglect shown by the Admiralty to the application made on the part of the assistant surgeons five years ago. Since that application was made, the Admiralty had put an assistant engineer in the same position as the lieutenants, the very situation in which they said they had no accommodation for a medical man. There was no other branch of the service, above the rank of a private, in which there were not candidates innumerable for vacant situations; and he submitted this subject was worthy of being taken into consideration by the Admiralty.
CAPTAIN BERKELEY said, that the Board of Admiralty were willing to do everything they possibly could to provide good surgical assistance for the Navy; and this was the first time he had ever heard of there being any difficulty in getting assistant surgeons. With regard to what the hon. Member for Montrose had stated about accommodation having been provided for an assistant engineer, the hon.
1428
Member should bear in mind that an assistant engineer was not wanted in a sailing ship, and that if he had a cabin in a steamer, it did not interfere with the gunroom arrangements. But it would be totally impossible, if an assistant surgeon were obliged to go into a small brig, to provide him with a cabin; and the consequence of yielding to the suggestion made by the hon. Member would be to make these young men shirk an unpleasant duty, as well as require more pay. if they went into the ward-room. He must say for himself, and for those with whom he now acted, that be thought it would be of the greatest possible injury to the service, if the Admiralty were to put these young men over the heads of the mates, who were in all respects their superior officers.
MR. COBDEN: I am anxious to take this opportunity, the first which has been afforded me, of recurring to a subject which was discussed on a former occasion, but to which, though in some degree personal to myself, I should not have adverted, if it did not also relate to the efficiency of the public service. It may be remembered by some hon. Gentlemen, that, on a former occasion, a reference was made to a statement which I uttered in Manchester on the subject of the time during which line-of-battle ships lie in harbour at Malta. I was speaking at Manchester in the midst of a number of personal friends, and I told them that I had gone from Malta to Egypt and back again, and found the same ship lying in the harbour of Malta which was there when I set out. In saying so, I referred to a period dating several years back; and that statement of mine was laid hold of, as if I had said that such was the custom of line-of-battle ships now; but those to whom I spoke were well aware that I was in Egypt ten or eleven years ago. No one would attribute to me so much folly as to make a public statement of what I knew to be false, and which was sure to be contradicted. In consequence of the quarter-deck sort of contradiction—though given with all good humour—which I received from the gallant Admiral (Admiral Dundas), with reference to the ships lying in the harbour at Malta, a stranger gave me certain dates, and advised me to move for returns from the log-books kept at the Admiralty. I moved for and obtained those returns, and now I have the authority of the Admiralty for the facts I am going to give. I alluded at Manchester to the year 1837, as the pe-

1429
riod when I was at Malta. I find by the return that the Princess Charlotte, a line-of-battle ship of 104 guns, lay in the harbour of Valetta from the 8th of November, 1838, till the 20th of May, 1839, a period of six months. Then, again, the Queen, of 110 guns, was lying at Malta from the 7th of October, 1842, till the 15th of September, 1843, without ever raising her anchor—a period of eleven months and eight days; and I am assured by my friend that the expense and demoralisation incurred were ruinous, and that when that ship went out of harbour, several of the crew were so sea-sick that they could not perform the ship's duty. When the statement which I made at Manchester was referred to in the House by the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Greenwich, he read a letter from the Admiral on the station, Sir W. Parker, in winch he expressed his astonishment at the statement which I had made, and left no doubt an impression on the minds of Members of the House that nothing of the kind had occurred under his command. But I find that the Hibernia, of 104 guns, Admiral Parker's own flag-ship, lay in the harbour of Malta, from the 26th of August, 1845, till the 28th of March, 1846, a period of seven months and two days, without ever raising her anchor; a much stronger case than any I ever referred to. I mention these facts upon public grounds. It requires no nautical skill to be able to see that if a ship of the line, with 800 or 900 men on board, is lying in harbour, there must be great idleness and demoralisation going on. I have heard it estimated that a first-rate line-of-battle ship costs 200 l. to 300 l. a day. I hear an hon. Gentleman below me say that the expense would be greater if she were at sea; but we pay these ships because we want them to be useful. If they are to lie in harbour, we may as well have them lying in ordinary at Portsmouth. Besides, there cannot be found a more demoralising place than Malta. We hear it stated that the midshipmen are men of family, noblemen's sons, and others, and there would probably be thirty or forty of these on board one of these ships at the same time. Could anything be more demoralising? I think it would be satisfactory to the House if the hon. and gallant Admiral would state whether he thinks it consistent with the interests of the naval service that line-of-battle ships should lie so long in harbour?
ADMIRAL DUNDAS: I am quite ready
1430
to say, that since we have been in office, ships have not stayed so long in harbour as they used to do, and that I think their remaining too long in harbour is contrary to the interests of the service. But the statement of the hon. Member which I contradicted was of a different kind. His statement was, that while he was at Malta he saw a ship arrive with 1,000 men on board, and that she lay there in the harbour while he went to Egypt and back again. I said, that he never saw a ship arrive at Malta, with 1,000 men on board. The hon. Member told this story to his constituents, supposing that what he said would never go forth to the world; but it did, and the Admiral on the station received a letter from the American Consul, which he enclosed to me, declaring that he never did give that information to the hon. Member which the hon. Member stated that he did give him. Since I have been in office I have always urged it upon my Colleagues—and I have succeeded in my object—that ships should not lie so long in harbour; but, if you do send ships to sea, you must expect that they will cost six times as much as in harbour. Ships are exercised in harbour as well as at sea, and they are always ready to put to sea, and to do their duty when required. The Princess Charlotte, for instance, lay in harbour during the winter, but what had occurred the next summer? The bombardment of Acre took place, and she did her duty there. She has since been to Portugal and round Sicily; and I believe she has never been one month in Malta since we have been in office. I do not recall one word of what I said before. I received the letter of the American Consul and read it to the House; and, if I had known that this subject would have been again discussed, I would have brought it with me, and read it again.
MR. COBDEN: It is very possible that my informant at Malta might have misled me as to the number of the men I saw there, and therefore that I did not see any ship with 1,000 men. One of these ships, however, the Queen, is stated in the official return from which I have just quoted to have had 1,119 persons on board. But that is not the question. The question is, whether the broad facts I have alleged are not deserving of the attention of the House and the Admiralty? I say it with all good humour; but the hon. and gallant Admiral meets my statement in a way which an independent Member of this House has a right to complain of. He

1431
gave an official contradiction, which carried with it all the weight with which such statements are usually regarded; and but for an accident I should not have known how to set myself right with the House. So, again, when I said some time ago that we had no ship of war in the harbour of Canton when the Canton massacre took place, the hon. and gallant Admiral got up and contradicted me. I subsequently received a letter from a merchant there, stating that we had no ship of war in the harbour of Canton at the time; and when I showed this letter to the hon. and gallant Admiral his reply was, "Then I can only say, that one ought to have been there." I submit, that, however this might do on the quarter-deck, it is not exactly the mode of doing business on the floor of this House; and I hope that when he contradicts me again, he will take care that the information on which he proceeds is correct.
CAPTAIN BERKELEY explained that the Admiral in the Mediterranean held, so to speak, a diplomatic situation, and that Malta was the point at which he could receive the quickest information. The hon. Member's return was extremely fallacious, for had he moved for a return of the whole log, he would have seen that the Princess Charlotte was not one day in harbour during the whole of the preceding twelve months. It was a well-known fact that Sir W. Parker had hardly enough ships at his disposal to meet the demands upon him for protection for the merchant service. In one case the moral effect of a vessel of 18 guns in a port— [Mr. BRIGHT: Oh, oh!] Yes, he repeated it, the moral effect was sufficient to put an end to the civil strife; both parties being willing to be bound by the dictum of the captain of a small cruiser, and the horrors of civil war were thus averted. In another case a captain risked himself and his boat's crew by getting in with his pocket handkerchief displayed, at the moment the belligerents were about to come into collision; and neither dared fire a shot after his communication with them. Within the last twelve months transactions of that kind had repeatedly occurred; and even in these times there was great confidence created by the presence of a British ship in many parts of the Mediterranean. With these facts before his eyes, he could not for a moment entertain the idea of the hon. Member that our men-of-war were a useless expense.
MR. B. COCHRANE had read the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member
1432
for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and he must say that it did impugn the character and the usefulness, not only of the British Navy, but of both services. The hon. Member was not satisfied with saying merely that the vessels had lain long in the harbour of Malta, but he said they were "skulking" there. He did not think the hon. Member at all justified in the use of such an insulting expression, or in calling, as be had done, the greatest man of the age—a man in whose achievements and fame the nation justly gloried—a "drivelling old man." He complained of such language being used by the hon. Member, and would tell him that a general feeling of indignation was excited throughout the country at his having dared to apply such language to the English Navy and to England's greatest hero. The hon. Member seemed to glory in it; but it was disgraceful to a Member of that House to have applied such language to the Duke of Wellington. Last year he was at Athens, and there were there six first-class French vessels — a ship of the line, two large steamers, and three armed brigs—while England had not a single man-of-war. Indeed, it was the general complaint that the English force was insufficient even to perform the private service. He could not remain silent when he heard the hon. Member palliate that speech, on the ground of his being an independent Member; and he, with the same independence, would tell the hon. Member that he did, in that speech, make use of language wholly unbecoming a Member of that House or an Englishman.
CAPTAIN HARRIS said, the hon. Member had made use of expressions derogatory to the service, and had wound up those expressions by others still more derogatory to the greatest man of the age. The hon. Member felt that he had fallen somewhat from his celebrity, and, in addressing his constituents immediately after his rambles in other countries, forgot how true the hearts of Englishmen beat towards their country. The hon. Member, however, instead of apologising, now sought to set himself right on a question of fact. The indignation with which that speech was regarded a week after its delivery was too universal to have been raised by a mere question of the months ships lay in harbour. But the hon. Member was not so free from censure on that point as he wished it to appear, for he spoke of being in Malta in the winter; that was to ordinary

1433
apprehension last winter, and not a winter ten years before. And that construction was the more inevitable, for in the same breath he had been alluding to the squadron lying at Lisbon in a manner which left no doubt of the time being recent.
Mr. BROWN thought that, in judging of the remarks of the hon. Member for the West Riding with regard to the Navy, the nature and character of the audience to whom they were addressed should be considered. He was speaking to an audience in Manchester, all of whom knew well that he had not been at Malta or Egypt for a period of ten years.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
On 7,000 l. being proposed towards the prison for juvenile offenders at Parkhurst.
SIR J. GRAHAM had not had an opportunity during the last year or two of inspecting Parkhurst, nor did he know the arrangements made by his successors as to the destination of the boys confined in the prison. When he had the honour to succeed the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) at the Home Office, the institution was at that time new to him; but he was bound to say, that amid all the services of the noble Lord to the public, there was not any more meritorious or useful than those which distinguished the noble Lord's exertions at Parkhurst. An experience of five years at the Home Office had led him to the conviction that the institution was most beneficial in its operation. At the time he (Sir J. Graham) was at the Home Office, he had directed a number of boys to be sent to the colonies after the period of their imprisonment had expired; and he was happy to find that his experience was still borne out by the accounts from the Australian colonies, showing that those boys, taken from the very refuse of society here, were sent out so much improved in character and conduct as to be well suited for service in the colonial establishments of the country, and enabled to earn an honest livelihood for themselves. If such a system was for the advantage of these youths, it was at the same time for the interest of the colonies well understood. Though not at all prejudiced in favour of the plan introduced with respect to the prisoners at Parkhurst when he first went to the Home Office, his own experience had convinced him of its value.
LORD J. RUSSELL was glad the right hon. Gentleman was able to speak in such
1434
terms of his experience. From all he had seen and heard, what was supposed to be the reformation of old offenders was not a thing much to be depended upon. The conduct of a man subjected to discipline often turned out a studied system of hypocrisy; and sometimes those convicts who were best behaved in prison, turned out the worst on being liberated. But with respect to boys of ten or twelve years old, whose parents sent them out to steal what they could, there was good reason to hope that, if brought up under proper discipline, good dispositions might be developed, the seeds of vice might be eradicated, and they might be converted into good members of society. Such was the principle on which this prison was established; and, from the considerations which had been stated, he thought it appeared that the institution was one which the public ought to encourage.
MR. HENRY observed, that of the whole expense, amounting to 13,000 l., no less than 5,000 l. was expended on the staff of the establishment. The Governor received 500 l., the clergyman, 250 l., and an assistant clergyman, 200 l. It seemed as if the institution existed as much for the purpose of giving salaries to officers as for the purpose of reforming offenders.
SIR J. GRAHAM thought the hon. Member was speaking from imperfect information. Under all the circumstances, the arrangements were economical. Every male child under fourteen or fifteen convicted as a felon throughout Great Britain was sent to Parkhurst. Instead of being sent to county gaols, where they might be imperfectly cared for, they were sent to one prison, maintained at the common expense, where they would be subjected to a more perfect discipline. If the principle were sound, no institution could effect the object in view at so small a cost as the establishment at Parkhurst.
LORD J. RUSSELL had understood the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Henry) to say that this institution had been formed from the love of patronage. Being very anxious to promote the reformation of these young offenders, he had framed the institution with that view. When he framed it, he inquired in various quarters for persons who were fitted to conduct such an establishment. He received a great many testimonials, which he carefully examined; and the person whom he thought most fit for the head of the establishment was Captain Woolcombe, a most

1435
meritorious officer of artillery, who had, with unwearied zeal, laboured to promote the reformation of offenders. Application was made to the Inspectors of Prisons with respect to the appointment of a chaplain. They obtained a great many recommendations in favour of different persons, but came to the conclusion that a gentleman named England, whom he had never heard of before, was best fitted for the office. He appointed Mr. England. That gentleman had given very great satisfaction; he (Lord J. Russell) having, since entering on his present office, had occasion to appoint to a living of no great value in Devonshire, had offered it to Mr. England, who was no acquaintance of his, and whom he had never seen except when he had occasion to visit Parkhurst on duty. He hoped, then, the hon. Member would not throw out the imputation that this institution presented an instance in which offices had been formed for the purpose of creating patronage.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.

BOROUGH ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL.
On the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee on the Borough Elections (No. 2) Bill,
COLONEL SIBTHORP regretted that there was not a fuller attendance of hon. Gentlemen who had declared their opposition to this Bill. He objected to the Bill; but, although the hon. Baronet had thought proper to introduce Lincoln among the nine boroughs that were to undergo investigation, if the hon. Baronet would go down there, he would take him in his own carriage; and he would tell the hon. Baronet that he did not fear any inquiry as far as regarded himself, and was sure that the more the hon. Baronet inquired,
the more would the borough be gratified as well as himself. He must say, that a more tyrannical, inquisitorial, or unjust Bill than this never had emanated from any hon. Member. It was, in fact, almost a burglarious Bill. Why should they not extend their inquiries to other boroughs besides those against which the Bill was directed? Why not extend it to Hull, where he was sure there was more money spent than had been spent in Lincoln since the time his great-uncle represented that city a century ago? They had heard a great deal about the elections for London—they had heard who had bought and who had sold; why, then,
1436
should they not inquire into the merits or demerits of that election? He objected to the Bill both in principle and in detail, and should feel it his duty to oppose it at every stage. The hon. and gallant Colonel concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill on that day six months.
MR. C. PEARSON regretted that he could not with propriety move at present the instructions to the Committee of which he had given notice. He would, however, take the liberty of briefly sketching out his views respecting the Bill, in order that the House might have an opportunity of considering them before the report was brought up. In his judgment the Bill, though in the right direction, would not be efficient for the purpose for which it was designed. It possessed those defects which marred all other legislative enactments for the same purpose. There was no crime in the criminal code where the penalties were so numerous, various, and stringent, as that of bribery at elections; neither was there any offence within the range of the criminal law of England, where the number of offences detected bore so small a proportion to the number actually committed. It was also predicable of bribery at elections, that there was no crime where the number of offences proved and punished bore so small a proportion to the number of offences discovered. Although it was universally admitted that bribery at elections was an offence of great gravity, whether considered in reference to its social, moral, or political hearings on society; yet still it was increasing, and would continue to increase, until some mode of legislating in reference to it, different from any that had taken place, was adopted. Various laws had from time to time been enacted to prevent and punish bribery, but they had all proved ineffectual. Since the passing of the Reform Bill, bribery, instead of having diminished, had, in many instances, increased. In proof of this he might refer to the reports of several Committees of Inquiry. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in referring to this subject said—

"I speak it with shame and sorrow; but I verily believe that the extent to which bribery was carried at the last election (1837) has exceeded anything that has ever been stated within these walls."
And then the noble Lord gave an explanation, if not an apology for this fact:—
"I do not wonder at it. Two great political

1437
parties were contending for a great prize, and that prize was no less than the government of a great empire. That prize has been won by the party opposite. I will not take upon me to say, whether those corrupt practices were more resorted to by those who attacked or those who defended their position."
The evil was then admitted, and the remedy proposed by the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown was the disfranchisement of such boroughs as did not exercise the franchise honestly. He did not think that an adequate remedy. He should give the Bill before the House his support; but he thought it should have embodied in it some such provisions as he had sketched out in the notice which he had given. What he proposed was, that in the schedule to the Act be contained all the towns in the country containing above 10,000 inhabitants. There were sixty-two such towns; and he proposed that when any town was accused of bribery and corruption, the town geographically nearest to it should have a vested interest in the prosecution of the inquiry, and also that those who had an interest in obtaining the franchise possessed by the accused borough, should appoint the parties who were to conduct the inquiry. This plan, he thought, would supply an adequate motive for bringing bribery and corruption to light, and the guilty parties to punishment. This Bill would confer a great boon upon the honest part of the community, while at the same time it would deprive dishonest parties of the power of usurping unjust privileges, to the great detriment of the kingdom at large. That he might illustrate his meaning more particularly, he would take the case of the borough of Horsham, not far from which was the town of Croydon, with 16,000 inhabitants, but with no elective franchise. He would enable Croydon to take part in the election of Horsham, and also entirely to deprive it of the franchise (which should be transferred to Croydon) upon its being distinctly proved to Parliament that Horsham had been guilty of bribery and corruption. To any one who might be disposed to raise the objection that there would be a great difficulty in uniting the franchise of Horsham and Croydon, he would say, "Look to Scotland." They had in that country seventy towns, of which five or six were required to make up a district to be represented by a Member of Parliament. No practical difficulty was found to exist in Scotland; and why should there be any as regarded Horsham and Croydon? Then
1438
he would take the case of Derby, which, or a portion of which, had been proved to be guilty of bribery. Some 400 electors of Derby had committed a fault; but was it right that 37,000 individuals should suffer for their misdeeds? Near Derby there was the town of Belper, which he proposed should have a similar interest with regard to the election of Derby as he proposed to give to Croydon with reference to Horsham. It might be said by some, "Oh, but you will be creating a perpetual ill-feeling between the towns which you intend to link together in Parliamentary matters." Supposing that were true, he would ask what the political evil would be? Suppose that Croydon cast a wistful eye upon Horsham, or Horsham suspiciously upon Croydon, which was thirty miles apart; what could be the evil of such a state of things, even if it should exist? It would be so diluted that the practical evil would vanish. But what did they find the practical evil now was, whilst it was centered in some town where there were two parties perpetually contending with each other? Although we had a septennial election, there was scarcely time for the angry feeling to die away before the embers were rekindled, and set father against son, brother against brother, and relation against relation. He would appeal to any man who had read the evidence of Mr. Parkes, in reference to Warwick, whether that was not the fact? Mr. Parkes told them that up to the last election or two all were united and happy; but that such an animosity had been engendered by the late Parliamentary proceedings, that since they had taken place, people who used to sit at the same table would not speak to each other except in language that was most disgraceful and lamentable. That state of things was attributable to the fact of two contending parties being obliged to live together in the same town. Any one acquainted with Parliamentary matters, as he had been, knew very well that the result of an election was like tying a dead carcase to a live body, or compelling the triumphant and victorious to associate with those in whose breasts there rankled feelings of political animosity Which years would not be able to extinguish. But if the course that he was recommending were pursued, he insisted upon it that bribery would cease. At present he would not frighten the House by producing blue books to show what Parliamentary agents had said upon this matter.

1439
Those agents stated in evidence that it was usual in many towns for rival parties, prior to the election, to agree with each other that there should be no petition against bribery presented by either of them for corrupt practices carried on by them during the election. They said, too, "We'll have no petition for treating." And they spent thousands upon thousands on both sides, and there was a distinct understanding that "all should be fair at the election." Mr. Parkes stated in evidence that such an agreement was looked upon as an honourable treaty, and that it would be a breach of faith for either party to present a petition against the other. They never could put down bribery, therefore, unless they introduced a new element into the question—some new body that should have a vested interest in the matter. Notwithstanding any compact of the contending parties resident in the borough, if they knew that there was a third party whom they could not trust, "taking notes" of their proceedings, and who would surely "print them," they would feel that their bribery and corruption must soon be punished by him. Bribery and corruption must thus come to an end. That House could not put down bribery without introducing into the Bill some self-acting machinery, winch would put itself in motion without the aid of a common informer, who was odious in the estimation of every person; and unless the House did that, bribery would still continue rife and unextinguishable. No paltry penalty of 500 l. was adequate to meet the gross delinquency of corruption in Parliamentary proceedings. He ventured to say, that, if he were to divide the House upon his recommendation, he should look to three sections for support. He should look to the Ministerial side of the House for support, because his suggestion did not wage war against the honourable principle that they contended for. They said that when they brought in the Reform Bill, it would be a final measure, and therefore "finality" was the standard under which they fought and won, and they would not budge from that principle. He should ask for their support on this ground, that the honourable principle of "finality" did not prevent or discourage them from supporting this view of the case; because the principle of his recommendation was sanctioned by them in the case of Grantham at the passing of the Reform Bill. He would ask them, then,
1440
for their votes, upon the distinct principle that this was a measure in conformity with the principle of the Reform Bill. He would ask the hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, with whom he was accidentally placed in contact, for their support; and he would do so upon this ground, that, although he knew that they always stood consistently to their principles; and although he knew that the mantle of those great men that he had referred to had fallen upon them, and was worthily worn by them; and although they did not like Reform Bills in any shape or form, any more than Pitt or Canning; yet, in conformity with the principles which they avowed upon the passing of the Reform Bill, he asked them to grant this little bit-by-bit reform instalment, instead of damming up the public feeling, which was now clamouring for reform in some shape or other. And with regard to the remaining section (the Radical portion), he could promise them that he was prepared to go even further than their leader, the hon. Member for Montrose, had avowed his intention to proceed. The hon. Gentleman concluded by stating, that when this measure reached Committee, he would again press the plan of which he had now given a sketch.
MR. BANKES said, this was universally admitted to be a Bill of very great importance. The hon. Member who had just sat down had said that the only chance of meeting this general cry of bribery was by adopting something that was new. It was perhaps on that principle that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hanmer) had introduced this measure. He (Mr. Bankes) did not say that it was absolutely new, but there was novelty in the extent to which it was proposed to carry it; and for that reason he thought it was essentially necessary that in this stage they should consider the real bearing and extent of the proposition. The hon. Member for Lambeth, who had just sat down, had said that this Bill was to carry into effect bills of indictment which had been found against particular boroughs by Committees which had sat in judgment, as Election Committees, upon them. He (Mr. Bankes) had been called upon to speak to this part of the question, for one of the places named in the first schedule of this Bill was a place for which he sat on Committee; and he denied that he found any bill of indictment against that borough. He denied the truth of the assertion that the finding of the Committee had estab-

1441
lished that it was disgraced by corrupt practices; there was, therefore, a falsehood in the preamble of this Bill. He was not prepared to vote for a Bill into the preamble of which they introduced a false allegation. No proof had been given to establish the charge of corrupt practices at Horsham. The decision to which the Committee came was founded upon evidence of a very slight character. The facts were simply these: That the Member who proposed to stand for Horsham went down to that place some weeks before the writ was issued. A festivity was held in honour of his appearance. There was a sort of banquet, one of no extraordinary expense, as the Committee had been led to believe. There was some brandy and water, and he believed some smoking, for which a party paid who admitted himself to be an agent. Undoubtedly, by the law, as it stood, that amounted to a charge of treating, although it took place so long before the writ was issued, and the seat was legally vacated. But he denied that evidence of this nature established any charge of corrupt practices against that borough. He could not be supposed to speak thus of Horsham because of any political preference; for as far as his Parliamentary experience extended, Horsham had always returned a Whig; and if corrupt practices had prevailed there, it had always been because that borough was under the dominion of the Whig party. But he founded no charge of corruption upon that presumption. No evidence could be more slight than that which was laid before the Committee; yet, notwithstanding the report of the Committee was such as he had described it, the Prime Minister opposed the moving of a writ with regard to this borough. He called upon the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to explain why he took upon himself to urge the House to suspend that writ—why he undertook to introduce a special measure with reference to this borough—and why, having done so, he abandoned that Bill in order to subject this constituency to a new species of jurisdiction? The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hanmer) had no right to introduce the name of Horsham in the schedule of this Bill. Why should not that borough, if inquiry were requisite, why should it not be dealt with as other boroughs had been dealt with, by a Committee sitting within the walls of this House; and let that Committee conduct its investigations in the most scrutinising manner? The noble Lord was now
1442
supporting a measure which must unquestionably be attended with unjust and harassing restriction of the franchise. He would now make an observation which might expose him to censure, but which could not be traced, so far as himself or the constituency he represented were concerned, to any selfish motives, for no slur had been cast upon the electors of Dorsetshire. His observation was to this effect, that the House was going too far, much too far, in its legislation against what was termed "treating." It was pushing those ideal principles of purity to an extreme; its virtue was outrageous and absurd, and, if carried much further, would only serve to expose those principles to ridicule and contempt. This House, in order to show its love of purity and its detestation of "treating," went so far as even to forbid the reasonable exercise of the fine old English virtue of hospitality. A gentleman used formerly to meet his friends and supporters with impunity before the election at a public dinner. It was considered no crime to entertain them with something better than mere frothy speeches; but now, forsooth, a morsel of food or a glass of liquor will occasion a Member to lose his seat, and cause the disfranchisement of a whole constituency. He must say that Members had during the present Session, in consequence of the prevalence or affectation of this "holy horror" of treating, been deprived of their seats upon very light grounds; and it was distinctly laid down that no Member was to treat a voter and supporter even in the same manner as a witness summoned upon a trial might lawfully be entertained. But there was a still greater evil. Not only was the Member punished for this exhibition of kind and generous feeling, but the innocent members of a constituency who had violated no law—those even who sat quietly at their own firesides, and never participated in any of this treating—they, too, were to be punished for crimes which they never committed, and suffer for benefits they had never received; and were to be deprived of that privilege which an Englishman most valued, merely because a few of their fellow-townsmen had partaken of some refreshment at the expense of a candidate. He thought the advocates of this Bill and of this system were bringing about a state of things full of peril and danger—destroying the distinction which ought to prevail between acts prohibited merely on

1443
the ground of convenience, and offences of grave and serious character, which required punishment in vindication of national purity. Such a distinction did exist, and ought ever to exist, between the offence of treating and that of bribery. He objected to the machinery of this Bill; and with respect to the Commissioners, by whomsoever appointed, he saw no reasonable ground for hope that their investigations would be attended with useful or satisfactory results. For these reasons he should give his decided opposition to the Bill.
MR. NEWDEGATE said, that he concurred in the observations of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that no case had been made out against the borough of Horsham. The House had just appointed commissioners to inquire into the state of the cesspools, and they now proposed appointing commissioners to inquire into the state of the constituency. It would appear, in fact, that everything was to be done by commissioners. These new commissioners were to have power to act as they pleased, and he saw no means by which the parties interested were to rebut the evidence to be brought before the House against them.
MR. HOBHOUSE said, that it was not his intention to address the House at any length on this occasion. He objected to the Bill as being partial and capricious. In the first place, it was a question of pure chance what were the boroughs that were to be selected for the proposed inquiries. It depended in a great measure on the popularity or unpopularity of the Member, on the strength of his purse, or on the spite or ill feeling of any one individual. He was convinced that it was the conscientious opinion of every Member in that House, that the charges urged against these particular boroughs were of far more general extent, and that it was unfair to make allegations against individual boroughs which were shared by every constituency in the kingdom. When he found that some boroughs were brought forward prominently in this Bill, while others quite as bad were excepted, he felt justified in giving it every opposition in his power. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Pearson) had indulged in some unfounded charges against the city of Lincoln. He fully concurred in what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the influence which his hon. and gallant Colleague (Colonel Sibthorp) possessed among one portion of the constituency of that city, and the absence of corruption or
1444
bribery on his part; but when the hon. Member undertook to say that the other party in Lincoln were less pure, and that they were corrupt, he (Mr. Hobhouse) repelled the charge with indignation. The constituency of Lincoln were as pure as, if not purer, than the constituency of Lambeth; and he was sure that his hon. and gallant Colleague would bear him out when he said that the last election for Lincoln had been contested fairly and honestly on both sides. The hon. Baronet was, no doubt, actuated by pure motives in introducing this Bill; but he (Mr. Hobhouse) should object to his going into any ex post facto legislation, more especially as it was notorious that the abuses for which these particular boroughs were punished, existed in every constituency in the kingdom. ["No, no!"] He would repeat, that it was notorious that the same abuses existed elsewhere; and under such circumstances, was it consistent with justice that some boroughs should be selected to bear all the punishment? He objected, also, that the hon. Baronet had not told them what remedy it was that he intended to propose, in case of any of these boroughs being found guilty of the charges of corruption brought against them. The hon. Member for Lambeth had, however, supplied that defect. The hon. Gentleman was, it appeared, for having one monotonous constituency throughout the kingdom; he was for making the whole country a sort of continuous Lambeth. He (Mr. Hobhouse) thought that one great merit of the English constitution was, that by means of constituencies of various sizes and qualities, it enabled Gentlemen to sit in that House able to take a part in every variety of legislation that could come before them. But he asked the hon. Baronet to look to what had taken place under a system of universal suffrage and vote by ballot in France. Had he not heard of elections by violence, and of large bodies of men entering by force into the National Assembly? He was, therefore, not prepared to say that the remedy which the hon. Baronet proposed, might not produce greater evils than those which he deprecated. So far as he remembered, in other instances of disfranchisement, constituencies had not been aggregated into one mass, varying in degree, formation, numbers, and in all shades of criminality. In this respect, he conceived the general interests of the electoral body were injuriously affected by the measure. But under any circumstances, it was

1445
unjust and inexpedient to single out certain constituencies for reproach and obloquy, whilst others, equally guilty, altogether escaped condemnation. For these reasons, he should give his decided opposition to the Bill.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, the only question before the House was whether or not they were sincere in their endeavours to repress bribery and corruption? If they were, then he asked them what other course would they adopt to repress bribery than was pointed out by the present Bill? What did this Bill propose to do? It proposed to inquire into those cases where a Committee of the House, by sworn Members, reported that bribery had been practised, and ought to be inquired into. But the Bill did not stop there. It proposed also to inquire into every similar case that might occur in future, so that the Bill was really of the general and comprehensive nature that the hon. Member wished for. Then it was said that this Bill was a specimen of ex post facto legislation. He denied it. Every case that it proposed to inquire into had been decided in the course of the present Session; and though some of these places had been allowed to have new writs issued, yet that had happened inadvertently, the attention of the House not having been called to them. That, for instance, was the case with regard to Lincoln, which had been so strenuously defended to-night. Of course, after, the report of the Committee, the election that followed it was sure to be pure, otherwise the electors would have subjected themselves to a more severe punishment. But what had the Committee reported of the previous election? That the sitting Member had been, by his agents, guilty of bribery—that he had directly and indirectly provided drink and entertainment, with the view corruptly to influence the electors. That was personal to the late Member; but the Committee further reported that it appeared to them that a system of treating had long prevailed in Lincoln, and that all candidates, including the hon. and gallant Member opposite—[Colonel SIBTHORP: I deny it]—were in the habit of opening public-houses, and providing drink and entertainment, with a view corruptly to influence the electors. Now, he said that was a case for inquiry; and if it had been brought under the attention of the House at the time, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hobhouse) would not have had the opportunity he had so ably availed himself
1446
of, of defending his constituents. Then, was it fair to cite the example of France as a parallel? No one could deplore the excesses in France more than he did; but, because acts of violence were wrong, did it follow that acts of bribery were right? He believed, that if this measure were enacted, it would have a most beneficial result in the tacit and silent repression of bribery; and he therefore earnestly hoped that the House would go into Committee and pass the measure in such a manner as would be effectual for the repression of the offence.
MR. JOHN STUART said, that the question before the House was, whether they would punish bribery, and whether bribery had been committed in the cases to which the present measure more particularly referred? He was quite ready to admit that bribery ought to be punished; but that which he objected to was the punishment of bribery in an unconstitutional, tyrannical, and oppressive manner. Upon the subject of this Bill they had heard several speeches, but until the speech of the Solicitor General they had not heard one word of argument in support of the Bill. The measure was inquisitorial, for the Bill was a preliminary to inflicting pains and penalties on the poorer class of voters. The question was, if bribery were committed, was it the right way of proceeding to institute an inquiry by means of Commissioners to be appointed under the present Bill? The true way to punish bribery on principles of justice was to hear both sides; but under the present Bill there was no opportunity afforded to the poor man to defend himself. The Bill was as absurd as it was unjust; and it was most absurd where it professed to act upon judicial principles. He could not help observing, that the only precedent cited by the hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill was that of Sudbury; but let it be remembered that in the case of Sudbury the Commission was not issued until the question had been fairly argued, and the evidence fully gone into. The Bill respecting Sudbury had been allowed to pass the Commons, had gone up to the House of Lords, and had there been judicially inquired into. Now, he wished to put this question—did they propose to disfranchise any one of the nine boroughs named in the Bill? To him it appeared that no case had been made out against any one of those boroughs except that of Great Yarmouth; and therefore he did say

1447
that the Bill now before them would be an ex post facto law. From what fell from the noble Lord opposite, it might be inferred that he meant to imply that "treating" was a fit ground for disfranchisement. He observed that at that statement of his opinion the noble Lord shook his head; then it was not the ground upon which it was proposed that the Bill should rest; but, if not, on what ground was the measure founded? The preamble was not proved; and he must say that, in a case like that, they had a right to expect that the preamble should be proved. Perhaps the hon. Member for Montrose, whose name was on this Bill, would tell the House what was really meant. Was it intended to disfranchise the freemen of Great Yarmouth or not? The object of the Bill, as originally introduced, was to be purity of election; but now it seemed from the Solicitor General that it was not the object of the Bill to inflict penalties upon all who were guilty of bribery. The hon. Member for Montrose had said that he supported the Bill, because he did not expect to get that larger measure of reform of which he had given notice; but if he meant to punish bribery by this Bill, he would signally fail.
MR. HUME said: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Stuart) called this an ex post facto proceeding; why, what was every trial but an ex post facto proceeding? A number of Committees of that House had reported that certain practices contrary to law had existed at different elections; and what was the great crime about to be committed? To inquire; to ascertain the extent of the corrupt practices; and it would then be for the House to decide whether it was fit that they should be punished. The hon. and learned Member talked of the House being about to punish without trial; why, would he punish the Yarmouth freemen without inquiry? [Mr. J. STUART: They have been convicted after a fair trial before the constitutional tribunal, namely, by the Committee.] All these boroughs had been reported upon.
MR. HENLEY was surprised that the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), instead of answering the question whether he meant by this Bill to disfranchise the freemen of Yarmouth, had endeavoured to mystify the House with an extraordinary notion about ex post facto legislation. He seemed to have no conception of the difference between trying a man by a law previously in existence, and making a law on purpose
1448
to try him. The Bill was objectionable because it mixed together a number of boroughs whose cases all differed. It was objectionable, because it used the word "corrupt," without any interpretation or definition. The Bill was so framed that every case which ought to be decided judicially must be brought into the arena of the House, subjecting matters to party feeling; and what two men would agree as to what was "corrupt?" Some great purist might say that it was "corrupt" if a man had a glass of beer; others, if a Member of the Government went down to canvass a dockyard borough; the knowledge of a candidate's having a great many good things to give away might be thought by some to be "corruption." There really might be danger, when parties were nicely balanced, in this Star Chamber inquisition, with the public purse at the back of it; people would know that if they could get up a pretty good case, they would be well paid, and there would be no after proceeding. Surely the best course was, to inquire separately and in a proper way into each instance, where a Committee reported that further proceedings ought to be taken. As for this Bill, it would get into another place, and just have the effect of hanging up inquiry where it ought to be prosecuted, though it might not be convenient to some parties to have it take place.
MR. COCKBURN would give his cordial support to this Bill. Without going the length of those who said that all the borough constituencies of England were tainted with bribery and corruption, he would not deny that the result of some experience had led him to the conclusion that a very large proportion indeed of them were tainted; and it was the bounden duty of the House not to flinch from inquiry, where it saw grounds for instituting it. He apprehended that as these cases had been brought before the House on reports from their own Committees, they were bound to give implicit credence to them. The House already had the power in its own hands, which it could, if it pleased, exercise. The Legislature could interpose and institute an inquiry; the existing laws being stringent enough if the House only had the courage to apply them, and that without the necessity of passing any general measure. They were told that the Bill was inquisitorial, and that the parties whom it was sought to affect and punish would have no means of making their cases heard before the Commissioners of

1449
Inquiry. As to that he apprehended that no Commissioners would dream of reporting against any electors without previously giving them the most ample opportunity of detailing their case, and urging arguments before them. If there existed any doubt on that point, it admitted of being most easily remedied, for it would only be necessary to introduce a clause into the Bill which should make that course compulsory upon the Commissioners, but which he believed they would at once adopt, as the only proper line of their duty, even as the Bill now stood. He apprehended that although the Committees which were making these special reports had not called upon the House to institute any special inquiry into the various cases, still they had directed the attention of the House to the circumstances of each borough, not for the purpose of allowing their reports to remain a dead letter, but in order to submit to the consideration of the House whether they ought not to institute a further investigation into each particular case. He considered that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, who had spoken against the Bill, had most strangely misconceived its real character. He had treated the Bill as a measure for disfranchising these boroughs. It had no such object. The object of the Bill was simply to send Commissioners to examine witnesses on oath, and to make their reports for the consideration of the House. It would then be for the House to deal with each case as in their wisdom they should deem fit. There was nothing, therefore, in the Bill of an inquisitorial or ex post facto nature. He trusted the House would not be satisfied with making a mere vague and empty declaration of a wish to put down bribery and corruption; but that they would apply a corrective of the severest description to those most heinous offences, and show that they were determined to put them down by all means in their power.
Mr. AGLIONBY said, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had asked two questions: first, he asked what was corruption; whether it was corruption for any person to give a voter a glass of beer to induce him to vote in a certain way; or for a Government officer to promise a voter an appointment to induce him to give his vote a certain way? Now he would answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that these were both most infamous acts of corruption, and ought to be put down by the Legislature.
The House divided on the question that
1450
the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 166; Noes 78: Majority 88.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Grey, R. W.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Guest, Sir J.

Adair, R. A. S.

Hall, Sir B.

Adderley, C. B.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hastie, A.

Alcock, T.

Hawes, B.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Hayter, W. G.

Armstrong, R. B

Heald, J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Heneage, G. H. W.

Earl of

Heneage, E.

Bagshaw, J.

Heywood, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Hill, Lord M.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Hindley, C.

Bernal, R.

Hodges, T. T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Blakemore, R.

Howard, Sir R.

Bouveric, hon. E. P.

Hume, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Humphery, Ald.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Jackson, W.

Brand, T.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Bright, J.

Kershaw, J.

Brockman, E. D.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Brotherton, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Brown, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Bunbury, E. H.

Lewis, G. C.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Locke, J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Lushington, C.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Macnamara, Maj.

Childers, J. W.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Clay, J.

Maitland, T.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Mangles, R. D.

Cobden, R.

Marshall, J. G.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Marshall, W.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Matheson, Col.

Corbally, M. E.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Courtenay, Lord

Melgund, Visct.

Craig, W. G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Crawford, W. S.

Monsell, W.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Morris, D.

Denison, W. J.

Mostyn, bon, E. M. L.

Devereux, J. T.

Mowatt, F.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Duff, G. S.

Norreys, Lord

Duncan, G.

Nugent, Sir P.

Duncuft, J.

O'Brien, T.

Dundas, Adm.

O'Connell, M.

Ebrington, Visct.

Paget, Lord C.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Paget, Lord G.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Palmer, R.

Evans, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Ewart, W.

Parker, J.

Fagan, W.

Pearson, C.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Perfect, R.

Fordyce, A. D.

Peto, S. M.

Fox, R. M.

Pigott, F.

Fox, W. J.

Pilkington, J.

Freestun, Col.

Power, Dr.

Glyn, G. C.

Price, Sir R.

Grace, O. D. J.

Pugh, D.

Greenall, G.

Raphael, A.

Greene, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Greene, T.

Reynolds, J.

Grenfell, C. P.

Ricardo, O.

Grenfell, C. W.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Romilly, Sir J.

Townshend, Capt.

Russell, Lord J.

Trelawny, J. S.

Rutherford, A.

Tufnell, H.

Salwey, Col.

Turner, E.

Sandars, G.

Tynte, Col.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Villiers, hon. C.

Smith, J. B.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Ward, H. G.

Spearman, H. J.

Wawn, J. T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Williams, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Williamson, Sir H.

Stuart, Lord D.

Wilson, J.

Sullivan, M.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Wyld, J.

Talfourd, Serj.

Wyvill, M.

Tenison, E. K.

Thicknesse, R. A.

TELLERS.

Thompson, Col.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Baines, M. T.

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Hildyard, R. C.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Baldock, E. H.

Hill, Lord E.

Bankes, G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Baring, T.

Hodgson, W. N.

Barrington, Visct.

Hood, Sir A.

Bateson, T.

Hope, Sir J.

Benbow, J.

Hornby, J.

Bennet, P.

Ingestre, Visct.

Beresford, W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blackall, S. W.

Keogh, W.

Bourke, R. S.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Bowles, Adm.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bremridge, R.

Magan, W. H.

Brisco, M.

Meux, Sir H.

Bunbury, W. M.

Napier, J.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Newdegate, C. N.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Christy, S.

Reid, Col.

Clive, H. B.

Repton, G. W. J.

Cobbold, J. C.

Rushout, Capt.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Seaham, Visct.

Coles, H. B.

Smyth, Sir H.

Compton, H. C.

Smyth, J. G.

Cubitt, W.

Spooner, R.

Dick, Q.

Stanley, E.

Dod, J. W.

Stuart, H.

Dundas, G.

Stuart, J.

Du Pre, C. G.

Sturt, H. G.

East, Sir J. B.

Thompson, Ald.

Edwards, H.

Trollope, Sir J.

Farrer, J.

Turner, G. J.

Forbes, W.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Fuller, A. E.

Verner, Sir W.

Galway, Visct.

Williams, T. P.

Godson, R.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Grogan, E.

Gwyn, H.

TELLERS.

Halsey, T. P.

Sibthorp, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Arkwright, G.

Main question again put.
MR. BANKES stated, that as a member of the Horsham Election Committee, he had been a party to the report which that Committee had made to that House, but he denied that that report had found the borough guilty of corruption, though the Committee found that treating had prevailed at the election. He
1452
wished to know whether the hon. Member for the Flint boroughs considered treating as corruption? He had asked him that question before, but had not received an answer to it.
SIR J. HANMER hoped the hon. Gentleman would not attribute to any want of courtesy his not having answered that question. He must say, however, that he was a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman had occasion to put it, because he had stated several times what was the nature of the Bill, and why the boroughs named in the schedule were included in it. He found the borough of Horsham among those places which, upon the report of a Select Committee, were stated to have made a void election on account of corrupt practices. [Cries of "No!"] He begged pardon of hon. Members opposite; but why was it that the writ for Horsham was now suspended? Surely it could not lie in the mouth of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, of all men in the world, to say that corrupt practices did not prevail at Horsham, when he was member of the Committee which reported that corrupt treating had taken place, and declared that the sitting Member's election was void. If treating was corrupt, the Gentleman elected lost his seat; but if, in the opinion of the Committee, the treating was not corrupt, he retained it. He had answered the question put by the hon. Member, and he could not avoid expressing his astonishment that it should have been asked.
VISCOUNT COURTENAY, having been Chairman of the Horsham Election Committee, begged to say that that Committee did not enter into an inquiry as to general corruption, because the Committee did not think it was within their province to do so. The Committee did enter into an inquiry with the view of ascertaining whether the withdrawal of the charges was the result of any corrupt compromise; and the Committee was of opinion that there were circumstances connected with that proceeding which justified it in making a special report. Though the Committee expressed no opinion on the general question of bribery, there were, undoubtedly, grave circumstances connected with the case, for the Committee obtained evidence of corrupt treating, and the sitting Member was unseated on that ground.
House in Committee, and resumed.
Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at a quarter to One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Joint Stock Companies; Protection of Females.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for the Extension of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.—By the Bishop of Oxford, from Colchester, Braintree, and Bunbury, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.—By Lord Portman, from Ax-bridge Union, for an Alteration of the Law respecting the granting of Relief to Casual Poor.—From Marden, against granting any further Concessions to Roman Catholics, and for the Imposition of the Severest Penalties on all those Roman Catholic Priests who shall Denounce Persons from the Altar.—From Hallkirk, for Facilitating the Attainment of Sites for Churches.—From the Presbytery of Brechin, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill, and Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.— By Lord Kinnaird, from the Managers and Subscribers of several Charitable Institutions, to be Relieved from the Payment of Legacy Duty on Bequests made to them.

PROTECTION OF FEMALES BILL.
The BISHOP of OXFORD laid upon the table of the House a Bill for the better prevention of the seduction of women. According to the law as it now stood, if persons conspired for purposes of seduction they were subject to certain penalties. He proposed by the Bill which he held in his hand to extend those penalties to any individual who, for hire or reward, assisted in the crime of seduction. He had no idea that morality could be much promoted by the introduction of any Bill into Parliament, but he thought it was the duty of the Legislature to throw its protecting influence around all who stood in need of it. He hoped their Lordships would now read the Bill a first time; on the second reading he should state more particularly, and more in detail, the grounds on which he intended to recommend the measure to their Lordships' favourable consideration.
Bill read 1a.
House adjourned.