Sitting of 30 April 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Petty Sessions (Ireland); Enfranchisement of Copyholds (No. 2); Collection of Fines, &c. (Ireland).
2a Lodging Houses; Farm Buildings.

THE GREAT EXHIBITION—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL LORD JOHN RUSSELL moved, in accordance with notice, that the House, at its rising, adjourn till Six o'clock on Thursday. He believed that that would be a much more convenient course than meeting at the usual hour, owing to the opening of the Great Exhibition; and he did not conceive that there could he any practical objection to that proposal.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House Will at the rising of the House this day adjourn till Six of the clock To-morrow."
SIR R. H. INGLISthought that any argument which would apply to the adjournment of the House until Six o'clock on Thursday would apply equally to an adjournment for a longer period. He understood the proposal to be made in order to enable the noble Lord, and the other Lords of Her Majesty's Most Hon. Privy Council, and all the great Lords of State, and all who had tickets of admission, to attend a very interesting ceremonial; but, if that were a good reason for postponing the business of the House for two hours, he saw no reason why it should not extend to a whole holiday. He begged to move, as an Amendment, that the House, at its rising, adjourn to Friday.
Amendment proposed to leave Out the word "Six of the clock to-morrow," in order to add the words "Friday next," instead thereof.
MR. O'CONNORseconded the Amendment.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, the General Committee on Elections had named Thursday for swearing in the Members on the Harwich election. They might be sworn in between Six and Seven o'clock, in en-tire conformity with the Act of Parliament; but if the House did not meet, he was afraid the Election Committee would lapse altogether. ["No, no!"] At all events, penalties would fall upon the Members.
MR. BANKESthought the next meeting of the House would satisfy the provisions of the Act for the swearing in of the Committee. Although the Ministers of the Crown might have free ingress and

343
egress to the Great Exhibition, other persons might not have equal facilities, and therefore he thought that it would be better that the House should have a whole holiday on Thursday.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he himself could very well attend at Four or Five o'clock, or at any time which the House met, but it was rather for the convenience of other Members of the House, who might not be able to leave the Exhibition so soon, that he had proposed that the House should meet two hours later than usual. There could be no reason, that he was aware of, for the House not meeting at all on Thursday, because he believed the Exhibition would not remain open after Seven o'clock, and therefore Members would really not be able to be there at the hour at which the House would assemble. His objection, however, to not sitting to-morrow was that it was one of the days which the House had agreed should become an "Order" day, and it would be taking away one of the Order days which the House had assigned for the business of the Session. If the business of the Session were delayed to that amount, it might be necessary for him to ask later in the Session for another Order day instead of the one taken away. It might be that the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) objected to some of the Orders that stood for that day, but that could not be a reason with him (Lord John Russell) for consenting to the adjournment over Thursday.
MR. TRELAWNYhoped to propose the names of the Church Rate Committee on Thursday, and should vote against the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 12: Majority 40.
Main Question put and agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Six of the clock To-morrow.

ST. ALBANS ELECTION.
Order for Committee read.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL LORD JOHN RUSSELL moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased immediately to issue Her Royal Proclamation, with such Reward as Her Majesty shall think proper for discovering, apprehending, and detaining of George Sealey Waggett, John Hayward, James Skegg, and Thomas Burchmore."
MR. BANKESsaid, that he was extremely desirous that the House should
344
maintain that jurisdiction which belonged to it of trying the validity of the return of Members to Parliament, and he trusted the Chairman, or some Member of the Committee would favour the House with some observations on this peculiar case, because it appeared singular to him that the Committee had not availed themselves of the power of an Act of Parliament, which had been introduced by the noble Lord at the head of the Treasury himself, entitled "An Act for the better Discovery and Prevention of Bribery and Treating at the Elections of Members of Parliament" (5th and 6th Victoria, c. 102). That Act, as far as he was informed, had never yet been put in force; but it appeared to him that it would have been precisely applicable to the case before them. The second section of that Act provided, that if any Committee nominated to try an election petition should recommend that further inquiry and investigation should be made regarding bribery at such election, in that case Mr. Speaker should nominate an agent to prosecute the investigation into the matter of the said bribery; and the said Committee should, within fourteen days from the time of their having made their report on the election petition, reassemble, and should inquire in and ascertain whether bribery was or was not practised at the said election, and to what extent, and should specially report to the House all such matters relating to the said bribery, and the parties implicated or concerned therein, as to the said Committee should seem expedient. Now, in the present case the Committee had made a report very nearly in terms complying with that section, but they had neither stated that the case was one in which that Act should be put in force, nor had they directed the attention of the House to its provisions in any way; and, the adjournment of the House occurring on the very day on which that Report was made, there had been no opportunity for any other hon. Member to make an observation upon the subject within the fourteen days limited by the Act of Parliament. The Committee, after sitting ten days, had reported a variety of matters—among others, their belief that gross corruption had prevailed at the last and at previous elections for the borough of St. Albans, and their opinion that further inquiries by means of a commission under legislative authority should be made into the alleged corrupt practices. He did not presume to impugn the course

345
followed by that Committee, being aware that they were placed in considerable difficulty by the absence of witnesses; but he could not but regret that, instead of recommending further inquiry by means of a Commission, they had not followed the provisions of the noble Lord's Act, by which further inquiry might now have been made by the same Committee. He should, therefore, upon the proposal for the appointment of a Commission, feel it his duty to call the attention of the House more particularly to the circumstances of this case, and he would move that, instead of such a Commission as was proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Edward Ellice), a Commission composed of Members of that House should be appointed to investigate without delay the whole proceedings. If the issue of a Royal Proclamation, offering a reward for the apprehension of the missing witnesses, was not more effectual than the measures which had already been taken by the Committee and that House, it would be obvious that their tribunals were a mere mockery of justice, and that they did not possess those powers for enforcing the attendance of witnesses which were possessed by the superior courts of law. He was afraid the legal period had expired for resorting, in this case, to the wholesome provisions of the noble Lord's Act for checking bribery and corruption. But what was the use of placing law after law on the Statute-book if they were not meant to be enforced?
MR. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, he thought the greater part of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Bankes') speech inapplicable to the Motion now before the House. Having given notice, as chairman of the Committee, that he should, on Tuesday next, state the grounds of the recommendation made by the Committee, and ask the House to adopt it; he should, therefore, consult the convenience of the House, and defer the remarks he had to make for the present. He would only say that the Committee had fully considered the provisions of the Act cited by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bankes), and yet their decision to recommend the appointment of a Commission was arrived at unanimously. Of the Motion at present before the House, it was not for him, as chairman of the Committee, to speak. He left it entirely to the House to deal with it as it thought fit.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he wished to make a few remarks, after the observations that had fallen from the hon.
346
Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes). It was clear that the St. Albans Election Committee had been defeated in their inquiry by the difficulty of finding these witnesses, on whose evidence much was expected by the petitioner to turn. If that difficulty had arisen from the misconduct of the sitting Member—if there had been even a suggestion or an allegation to that effect—there might have been some reason for giving the petitioner more time for establishing his case; but there was no evidence with that tendency, or any suggestion even that the witnesses had been kept back by the sitting Member, or of any connexion between him and the agents guilty of the bribery. The Committee, therefore, could not have made any more adjournments than they already had made; and, indeed, there was no application on the part of the counsel for the petitioner that they should do so. It was, therefore, too much to say, that a Committee was an ineffectual tribunal for ascertaining the purity of election, which had taken the only course open to them, and having heard that the counsel for the petitioner could not proceed any farther with the case. With regard to the propriety of a special report in this case, under the noble Lord's (Lord John Russell's) Act, there were two modes of dealing with boroughs where general bribery was alleged to have taken place. Where they found a particular class of voters guilty of habitually receiving bribes, it was very desirable that the Committee should report the whole matter, and that the House should take steps with those voters, as in the Yarmouth ease. But when there was an allegation of general bribery, as in this case, leading only to one conclusion, if proved, namely, to the disfranchisement of the whole borough, then he apprehended the Committee was wise in considering, and the House also would be wise in considering, whether the appointment of a Commission would not be more effectual than a further inquiry before a Committee. They all knew the course taken in the Sudbury case, where Commissioners were appointed to examine on the spot, and they arrived at a conclusion, upon clear and conclusive proof, to which no objection could be or was raised; and both Houses of Parliament consented to a measure for the disfranchisement of that borough. If the course of a further inquiry before the Committee had been taken, when they came to propose so serious a step as the disfranchise-

347
ment of a whole borough, they would not be so likely to obtain the consent of both Houses of Parliament as they would if a Commission had been appointed to take evidence under the previous sanction of the Legislature. It must not be forgotten that a doubt existed as to the position in which the St. Albans Committee had been placed with reference to their adjournments. He thought, then, if there were two courses open to that Committee, the one perfectly free from doubt, and the other one which might render it necessary to prove that the Committee was an existing Committee at the time its Report was made, it would have been very unwise on the part of the Committee if they had taken the more doubtful course instead of that about which no doubt existed. He thought the House was in no way lowered in reference to its capacity for entering upon this inquiry because it adopted the course which was the most ready, the most effective, and which was already proved to be the most valuable course, namely, by way of a Commission, instead of further investigation before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) had referred to the difference between the Courts of Law and the tribunal of that House in enforcing the attendance of witnesses; but he forgot that the privilege of adjourning for the purpose of securing the attendance of witnesses, as exercised by the Committee of that House, could not be exercised by the Courts of Law; and therefore the difference between the two tribunals was in favour of that House. The hon. Gentleman said the Committee had been defeated in their inquiry, and that, if the reward proposed to be offered failed, the House would be set at nought. Suppose a Court of Law had endeavoured to obtain evidence, and the witnesses had been kept out of the way, what means would the Court have had of enforcing their attendance? The House had at all times the power of insisting on the attendance of parties, and their punishment for contempt. The only difference between the House and the Court of Law was, that the Court of Law would be baffled immediately in their attempt, whereas the powers of the House extended not only through that Session, but through the next; and, indeed, to whatever period the House itself might think fit.
MR. JOHN STUARTthought the hon. and learned Solicitor General had not been very successful in defending the proceed-
348
ings of the Committee from the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes); on the contrary, he had excited in his (Mr. Stuart's) mind, some doubt whether there were not much; graver charges to be made against the course of their proceedings than had yet engaged the attention of the House. Anything more calculated to reduce to actual farce an inquiry as to the validity of an election charged to have been accompanied with acts of bribery than the proceedings of this Committee, could hardly be imagined. It seemed to him that the question before them was not as to the best mode of inquiring into cases of contested election, but to consider the situation of the House with respect to the Report of the Committee on this question of the abduction of witnesses. It appeared that the counsel for the petitioner stated that he was prepared to prove that the agent of the sitting Member was the individual concerned in the removal of those witnesses. [Mr. EDWARD ELLICE dissented.] He saw the hon. Chairman of the Committee shake his head; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman of what was on record in the printed Minutes of evidence. He found it stated that—
"Mr. Sergeant Wrangham applied to the Committee for an adjournment, on the ground that certain persons who were material and necessary witnesses for establishing the case of the petitioner, had, cither after being served with the Speaker's warrant, or, in order to avoid such service, disappeared from the borough of St. Albans, and that with respect to two of the witnesses, he was prepared to show that they had been carried off by certain agents of the sitting Member."
The question was, whether an agent of the sitting Member had been accessory to procuring the removal of the witnesses. Did the Committee proceed to inquire as to the agency of Edwards, and if they did not, why did they not? They evaded the question of agency, and resolved—
"That, it having been proved to the satisfaction of the Committee, that certain witnesses, whose evidence was stated by the counsel for the petitioner as material in proof of their case, either have been withdrawn or have absented themselves for the purpose of evading the service of the Speaker's warrant, and that in at least one instance a witness upon whom the Speaker's warrant had been served, had been convoyed away by a number of persons, one of which persons has been identified as an active promoter of the election of the sitting Member."
Now, was the question of the agency of that active promoter adverted to? If this individual was an agent of the sitting

349
Member, what important considerations would not that lead to, with respect to the situation of the sitting Member f Having failed to ascertain the identity of this active man, who had removed the witnesses, and baffled the inquiry, which for the purposes of justice ought to have been prosecuted to a satisfactory result, he asked whether the House could be satisfied that the proceedings of the Committee, in regard to the abduction of those witnesses, were conducted in such a way, or had produced such a report, as to evince that they were entitled to the slightest weight, either with respect to issuing a Commission, passing a new Bill, or adopting any other course? There could be no question that the Proclamation should be issued; but he could not help feeling that this was likely to be as great a farce as anything in the proceedings of the Committee. As it was, the prosecution of the inquiry referred to the Committee had been baffled; and, instead of justice being done, the Government was left in possession of the vote of a sitting Member under circumstances in which no man should be allowed to retain his seat, unless a satisfactory explanation of them could be given.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEwas exceedingly unwilling to trouble the House on this subject to-day, because he believed the whole discussion must be gone over again on a future occasion; but, after the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. John Stuart), he must say that it was undoubtedly proved before the Committee that Mr. Blagg, the avowed agent of the sitting Member, was a party to the removal of certain witnesses. Mr. Blagg was put into the witness-box by Serjeant Kinglake, counsel for the sitting Member, to explain the share he himself had in the abduction of the witnesses; and his account was, that he had taken them away out of the hands of persons who had been employed by the petitioners to keep them in a quasi custody. Mr. Blagg said, "I had a perfect right to take these parties away from the influence of persons employed by the petitioners." Upon the next meeting of the Committee the two witnesses to whom Mr. Blagg referred were produced and examined. They were accused of having been bribed, and upon the question being put to them whether they were bribed or not, they swore positively that they were not. It was quite true that the question of Edwards' agency was not mooted by the Committee. He (Mr. Ellice)
350
took it for granted that the Committee sat as judges, but that it was no part of their duty to take up points that might serve either the petitioner or the sitting Member. It was not for the chairman or members of the Committee to ask or advise any party as the course to be pursued.
MR. JOHN STUART, in explanation, begged to say that he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that the Committee sat as judges, but in this case they had not judged at all, It was part of the duty of judges sitting to investigate the truth of facts, to see that all proper means were resorted to, and all due facilities given to litigants before them to have witnesses produced, so that the truth might be fairly brought out.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, that it had been stated, as a serious objection to the proceedings of the Committee being adjourned at all, that in a court of justice, if witnesses were not forthcoming, the jury would be instructed to come to a verdict; and it was in the face of those remonstrances that they had adjourned.
MR. HUMEdid not think they had now to try the conduct of the Committee. It appeared to him that the whole of this discussion was altogether beside the question, which was, whether Her Majesty's proclamation Should be issued with the view of arresting certain individuals who had evaded the summons of the House. This questioning and challenging of the conduct of the Committee would tend to weaken very much the power and influence of the House. If the House was to be of any use, they must carry on their proceedings regularly, and its own Members ought not to be parties to condemning and invalidating its proceedings. He feared that the time of the House would be occupied almost indefinitely with such cases as those of St. Albans and Aylesbury, unless the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who he hoped, would before long introduce a measure of Parliamentary reform, would provide for such an increase of the small constituencies as would raise them to at least 1,000 electors, in order to put an end to the system of bribery at present existing in them.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLthought the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bankes) would have done better to reserve his remarks on this subject until his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Election Committee (Mr. Edward Ellice) should move for leave to bring in a Bill to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. It was

351
undoubtedly a very fair subject of inquiry in itself, why the Committee did not make use of the powers granted to them by the Act to which the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) alluded, which he (Lord John Russell) had the honour to introduce into Parliament, and why they preferred recommending to the House that a Commission should be issued. He thought that, generally speaking, a Commission was the better course of the two; and he had in a subsequent year introduced a Bill which passed through that House, providing for the appointment of a Commission in many other cases besides those in which that power at present existed. That Bill was lost in the other House of Parliament, owing to the lateness of the Session; but he should say that, when the period arrived at which Parliament was near its expiration, there must be some general power given by law for having a Commission more frequently in such cases. He quite agreed with his lion, and learned Friend the Solicitor General that a Commission inquiring on oath on the spot, and being considered impartial in the case, had more weight with Parliament generally than a Committee, which was composed of Members of one House only. With respect to this particular case, however, he thought it was quite a sufficient reason for the course taken by the Committee, that very great doubt had been thrown on the regularity of their proceedings by their frequent adjournments. If, upon the Report being presented, objections had been made to their competence as a Committee, and if, when they sat again, witnesses had declined being sworn, denying the competence of the Committee and the regularity of its proceedings, it would have raised a question exceedingly embarrassing, and which, according to all he had heard of the opinions of lawyers, would have led to very considerable doubt whether the Committee, after their frequent adjournments, would be empowered to make this further inquiry, in conformity with law. He did not think it was an answer to that to say that they had made a Report. His hon. Friend (Mr. Edward Ellice) said, they had made a Report, and thereby shown that they considered themselves a Committee. No doubt they did consider themselves a Committee, and as the counsel for neither party disputed their competence, they were justified in making a Report; but if either side had disputed their competence, then would have arisen the question as to whether they were
352
a regular Committee empowered to carry on such an inquiry. That was the only reason why he thought the Committee were justified in preferring to proceed by Commission; but he considered it of very great importance that the power of general inquiry should be retained, because they might find the other House of Pasliament unwilling to agree with them in certain eases to appoint a Commission for the purpose of inquiry. With respect to the question raised by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who, after complaining that this discussion had gone beyond the narrow limits of the question which the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Bernal) had in his hands, proceeded to raise the general subject of Reform of Parliament, he had only one observation to make. His hon. Friend said, the whole of the complaints of bribery arose from places like Aylesbury and St. Albans, with a diminutive number of electors, and that they could not possibly occur if the number of electors amounted to 2,000, or even 1,000, because such a number of electors would be a complete guarantee against anything like bribery. He confessed his (Lord John Russell's) experience hardly warranted him in coming to that conclusion. He had hoard much of the existence of bribery in two very considerable towns of this kingdom—Norwich and Nottingham, and also in other towns where the number of the constituency was not only more than 1,000, but considerably more than 2,000. He could not concur with his hon. Friend that the mere increase of the numbers of the electors would be a safeguard against bribery and corruption. He could mention examples of purity in very small boroughs, where he believed there had been no complaint of the existence of bribery.
MR. HUMEwould be glad if the noble Lord would mention such cases. What he wished to say was, that the larger the constituency the less chance was there of bribery. Let him have the ballot, and then he would guarantee them against it.
MR. WILLIAM WILLIAMSthought the noble Lord unfortunate in referring to Nottingham and Norwich. Norwich, he believed, was purchased in 1837, but had never had a purchaser since; it was said that one side expended 21,000 l and the other 35,000 l. The noble Lord must be very little acquainted with the condition of the small boroughs if he did not know that, with scarcely any exception, they were bought and sold as commonly as

353
sheep. Most of them were just as corrupt as Appleby, Old Sarum, or Gatton in the days of the unreformed Parliament.
MR. BANKESsaid, he had thought it expedient to raise the question as to the proceedings of the St. Albans Committee now, though the Motion of the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Edward Ellice) was fixed for Tuesday next, because he believed there was not the slightest chance of its coming on upon that day, unless the hon. Member could bring it on as a question of privilege, which he was afraid it was not competent for him to do. If not, the hon. Member would probably find no occasion for a month to come, unless the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consent to give him one of the Order days of the Government; and such was the importance of the question, that he hoped the noble Lord would do so. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated dissent.] The noble Lord, he was sorry to find, objected to that suggestion. Now, that symptom justified him (Mr. Bankes) in the course he had that day pursued. He would tell hon. Members that if they did not themselves canvass the faults of their Committees, those faults would be very carefully canvassed out of doors. He believed that the tribunal they had appointed for the trial of these cases did not work well, and that it was their duty to amend it.
Address agreed to; Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
House resumed.

THE GREAT EXHIBITION—ADMISSION OF EXHIBITORS.
MR. HUMErose to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, whether, by the rule established by the Royal Commissioners for the Great Exhibition, all British and Foreign Exhibitors were to be admitted at the opening free of charge; or, if not, what line had been drawn amongst the exhibitors? He knew that the House had interfered but very little in this important exhibition; but it was extremely desirable to know that the Commissioners had acted with perfect fairness in all their arrangements, consistently with overcoming the difficulties they had had to encounter. He had been requested by a deputation, last night, to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give such a satisfactory answer as would remove the jealousies of all parties, and
354
place the matter on its proper footing. A petition on this subject was forwarded Representation to Her Majesty, and doubts had arisen whether it had been submitted to Her Majesty; but he understood that it had reached Her Majesty, and had gone to the Commissioners, who were the proper parties. He wished to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining how the arrangements had been made, and of satisfying the House that every attention had been paid to furthering the great objects of this Exhibition.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, the petition to Her Majesty to which the hon. Member has alluded was presented to Her Majesty by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, and was, by command of Her Majesty, referred to the Commissioners charged with the conduct of this Exhibition. The question to which my hon. Friend has adverted relates to the gratuitous admission, without any limitation, of all the exhibitors, at all times, to the Exhibition. That question was considered most maturely by the Royal Commissioners; and, with every desire on the part of the Commissioners to deal in the most liberal manner with those who have contributed, by the exhibition of their goods, to the splendour and success of this Exhibition, the Commissioners came to the unanimous opinion that it was impossible, consistently with the objects of the Exhibition, to allow that gratuitous admission. When I state to the House that the number of exhibitors amounts to no less than 15,000, I think the House will perceive that it was quite impossible, consistently with the great objects of the Exhibition, to give those exhibitors admission at all times to the Exhibition. I believe that 600 or 700 of their number have taken season tickets, and these will, of course, with the rest of the public, be admitted at all times to the Exhibition. Arrangements have also been made in reference to all those whose contributions amount to anything considerable, in point of value or extent, to enable them to be present in the Exhibition, for the purpose of attending to their own goods. Beyond this it was impossible to go. I believe there have been about 20,000 tickets sold, and it is obviously impossible to admit an indefinite number of persons, for, capacious as the building is, it would be impossible to admit so large an additional number. I must also recall to the recollection of the House that, though we are eminently in-

355
debted to the exhibitors themselves for their exertions for the success of this Exhibition, yet there have been many other parties throughout the country who, by giving liberal pecuniary contributions, by acting upon local committees, have given their time and money to ensure the success of the Exhibition, and it was felt that the only way was to lay down a rule that no person should be admitmitted who did not pay. The Commissioners had applied that rule to themselves, and laid down a rule that no Commissioner should be admitted unless he purchased a ticket like other parties; and I think it must be felt that they could not have acted in any other way. Perhaps, however, I may take this opportunity of stating that it is the intention of Her Majesty to visit the Exhibition on one of those Saturday mornings on which the general public will be necessarily excluded in consequence of the arrangements of the Exhibition—it is Her Majesty's intention to visit it for the purpose of inspecting the articles exhibited more fully than She would be enabled to do on the occasion of a State visit. The exhibitors of those articles will naturally be desirous of being present on that occasion. They will accordingly be admitted, and will have the gratification of showing to Her Majesty the articles which she would wish to inspect particularly. I trust that this will be satisfactory to them, and also that the House and the public generally will feel that the Royal Commissioners have acted throughout the whole of this matter with the view of doing justice to all parties, by promoting the success of the Exhibition.

HIGHWAYS (SOUTH WALES) BILL.
Order for Committee, read.
DR. NICHOLLobjected to the measure, as one of partial legislation for South Wales, brought in without the slightest necessity shown for it. If the Bill was really good for South Wales, he thought it would be good for England, and therefore he should move that it be an instruction to the Committee to include England in the Bill. If that was lost, he would vote against the second reading; and if the second reading was carried, he would move that the county of Glamorgan be exempted from the operation of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it he an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to England generally."
MR. WILLIAM WILLIAMSthought that there was no more necessity for a Bill of this kind applying to South Wales, than to any other part of the United Kingdom. It would create a costly machinery, which was quite unnecessary.
MR. RICE TREVORsaid, the Bill only made it obligatory on South Wales to do that which every parish in England might now do if it thought fit—that was, to establish paid surveyors of highways. It was hoped that the effect would be to diminish rather than to increase expense.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he felt it his duty to move, that the Bill be committed that day six months. The measure was considered particularly objectionable in the county he had the honour to represent, where it had been condemned by a full meeting of magistrates. He had many objections to the measure; but, above all, he objected to South Wales being made a corpus vile for experimental legislation. The Bill provided for the appointment of surveyors of highways; but he considered that such a provision was wholly unnecessary. He believed that this Bill would increase the cost of maintaining the highways, and he thought that it was inexpedient to increase the burdens of the tenant-farmers at the present time.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House will upon this day six months resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, that he did not desire to make South Wales an exception to the rest of England and Wales. He introduced this Bill last year, when the Government brought in their Bill for the management of highways in England, in order that the system in both these portions of the United Kingdom might be the same; and although the Government Bill had not been proceeded with, he felt justified in reintroducing this Bill in the present Session, believing that it met the approval of the inhabitants of South Wales, and expecting that the Government would have again brought forward a Bill for the management of the highways similar to that of last Session. There was no novelty introduced into the Bill, the clauses of

357
which were taken from the General Highway Act. He believed that the people of South Wales were not opposed to this Bill, and that it would effect a desirable improvement in our highway legislation; but at the same time, he did not wish to press it against the opinions of the representatives for South Wales. He should leave himself in the hands of the House.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that he was in favour of the principle of the Bill, which was, that districts should be formed by a union of parishes under one board, who should appoint a paid surveyor to manage the highways of the district. There was a power to form such unions under the General Highway Act, but it had been availed of in very few instances; although where such unions had been formed, the highways had been better managed, and at a less cost, than under the previous separate parochial management. He could not see why, if the people of South Wales wished the management of their highways to be subject to a particular Act, that that House, by passing such an Act, should be said to make them a corpus vile for experiments. It was for the inhabitants of those counties and their representatives in Parliament to consider how far they wished the principle of the Bill to be applied to that part of the country; and as he thought that this question would be best considered in Committee, he should support the committal of the Bill.
MR. RICHARDSsaid, that some legislation was absolutely necessary on this subject, for the roads in South Wales were now very badly managed; the expenditure was not under any regular control, and the surveyors were men of no great experience. He thought that the Bill was favourably regarded by the inhabitants of those counties. The only objection was founded on the apprehension of increased expense; but he was satisfied that the improved management of the roads would amply compensate for any expense entailed by the measure before the House.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put and agreed to: Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
DR. NICHOLL DR. NICHOLL moved that the words "each county in South Wales" should be omitted, and that the names of the counties, Carmarthen, Pembroke, and Cardi-
358
gan, should be inserted. The Members for these counties were favourable to the Bill, and if their inhabitants wished to have it he would not deprive them of it; but, on the other hand, do not permit the House to force the measure upon the other counties of South Wales which did not desire it. The magistrates of the county of Glamorgan had at quarter-sessions expressed their disapproval of this Bill, and he hoped that the House would at any rate exempt that county from its operation. There was nothing to connect Glamorgan more with South Wales than with England; in fact, it was English in its habits, in its general progress, and in the increase of its population, which was going on more rapidly than in any other county in England and Wales; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would not force upon that county a Bill to which it offered the strongest opposition. He had no wish to exclude Radnor and Brecknock from the Bill, if they wished for it; and if any hon. Member moved that they should be included he should have no objection to it.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'each County in South Wales,' in order to insert the words, the Counties of Pembroke, Carmarthen, and Cardigan,' instead thereof."
MR. WATKINS, as one of the representatives of the county of Brecknock, wished that county to be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, that a Bill of this nature should have been brought forward by the Government. He was opposed to special legislation for a small portion of the country.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLbelieved that the Bill would confer great benefit upon South Wales, and he, therefore, hoped that the noble Lord (Viscount Emlyn) would not consent to the Amendment. In whatever other respects Glamorgan might be like an English county, there was no resemblance in the state of its roads, for there was not a district in the United Kingdom which had worse roads. He believed that that Bill would lead to an improvement in the state of the roads; and he thought that the magistrates and Members for South Wales were quite able to undertake the introduction of a measure of that kind without requiring the intervention of Government. A great deal of the evils which subsisted in the management of the Welsh roads had been put an end to by

359
the legislation which followed the Rebecca riots; and he believed that this measure would prevent a great deal of the discontent which still subsisted on account of the disgraceful state of the roads, which were entrusted to overseers and surveyors who were perfectly incompetent to their management.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Amendment, if carried, would be fatal to the Bill; for although South Wales had been recognised by the Legislature as a separate district for exclusive legislation, a measure, the operation of which was confined to three counties only, would not be a public but a private Bill, and must therefore be introduced and carried forward according to the standing orders applying to such Bills.
SIR FRANKLAND LEWISsaid, that the administration of the highway rates now levied was marked by much ignorance, partiality, and unfair pressure upon individuals; and he was confident that a measure of this kind would be extremely beneficial to the counties to which it referred. Some such measure as this must, in fact, be applied to the whole kingdom.
VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, that he quite agreed with the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department that this Amendment would be fatal to the Bill; at all events he should so regard it, for if the Amendment were carried he should withdraw the Bill.
MR. HUMEsaid, that no good could arise from going into Committee upon the Bill, seeing that no two Members for South Wales agreed in opinion with respect to it, and he therefore advised the noble Lord to withdraw it, in order that a complete and general measure might be brought in by the Government.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 8: Majority 51.
House resumed; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Wednesday next.

FARM BUILDINGS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE moved the Second Reading of the Farm Buildings Bill, which he considered was based upon the Irish Drainage Act of 1849, and the object of it was to enable the owners of land to raise money to be charged on the land for the erection and improvement of farm
360
buildings. It had been objected to the measure that there could not be sufficient security given for the money advanced by private companies; but the parties should look to that matter themselves. The Bill would be of the greatest importance to Scotland, where more effectual means of erecting farm buildings was greatly called for. He had received a very large number of letters with reference to the measure, and there was not in any of them an objection to the principle of the Bill. He begged in particular to call the attention of the House to one of those letters which he had received from a gentleman who was factor over thirty estates in Scotland. With respect to the details of the measure, some objections had been made. An objection had been made by the right hon. the Lord Advocate of Scotland, about the priority of the charge: that was a very important feature, and all he could say was that if the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill, he would consent to an alteration being made in the Committee. He should also be prepared in Committee to insert a clause to prevent parties borrowing money under the Act from availing themselves at the same time of the recent Entail Act.
MR. TRELAWNYopposed the Bill. It was said that a similar measure had been passed for Ireland, but it did not follow that because a Bill was good for Ireland, it would be also good for England.
MR. MULLINGSthought the measure was one that might cause very serious consequences. He did not object to the principle of the Bill; but hon. Gentlemen should consider that this was a Bill not only to enable parties to erect but to repair the existing buildings. He asked the hon. Gentleman to make some provision, if he could, to guard against the evil consequences that must ensue in all cases where tenants for life and other parties, having a limited interest, neglected to do anything until an advanced period. Suppose a tenant for life for thirty years, having received all the rents and profits, allowed the buildings to go into perfect ruin, and then borrowed a large sum of money which would be charged against the reversioner, what would be the consequence? He did not think that was a provision which should receive the sanction of the House.
MR. HUMEthought this measure would be the means of giving to landed proprietors the power of borrowing money without the

361
usual charges. It appeared to him that it would be an encouragement to persons to allow the buildings on their estates to become dilapidated, and to saddle at a late period of their lives the charge for their repair on their successors.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 25: Majority 41.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday next.

SUNDAY TRADING PREVENTION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. WILLIAM WILLIAMShaving presented petitions in favour of the measure, moved that the House should go into Committee on the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. WAKLEYpresented a petition from hairdressers of the metropolis, complaining that a clause formerly contained in the Bill, which gave them the same protection as other traders, had been struck out, and praying that, as they were as much entitled to protection as any other parties, the clause might be restored.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYopposed the Motion for going into Committee. He and some other hon. Members, who were opposed to the Bill, had assented to the second reading on the understanding, not only that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, but that the Committee should have power to send for persons, papers, and records. The Bill went before the Select Committee, and on the very first day the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Baring Wall) proposed to send for witnesses. He read for the Committee a list of the trades, and persons representing trades, whom it was desirable to examine, with a view to elicit, by their testimony, such facts as would enable them to judge of the operations of the Bill. But the preamble having been postponed, a formal objection was raised from the Chair that it was not proper at that stage to send for witnesses. Under those circumstances, the Committee proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, which was opposed by, among others, the members of the hair-dressing profession. There was not an absolute majority in the Committee in favour of all the clauses. Those who were in favour of one clause, were opposed to others; and certain Amendments were
362
proposed, some by the promoters of the Bill, and some by its opponents. He believed the Bill came out of the Select Committee much more absurd in character than when it went before that body. The Committee appeared to think that the more inconsistent the Bill was made with itself, and with its avowed purpose, the better, for in that case it was the more likely to obtain acceptance in that House and some other places. It was well known to those who were familiar with the secret history of this absurd and hypocritical legislation, that the clause of "exceptions" was what might be styled the consideration clause of the old Bill. There was a rabid cry out of doors in favour of more Sabbatical legislation. There were also those who, without sharing in that mania, and having a keen eye to their own interests, were anxious to extinguish the troublesome competition of the poor artisan or tradesman in their own crafts. Both those classes, however, united in the attempt to promote this Bill, and the Bills which were its predecessors, and both those classes happened to comprehend the whole of the middle classes having votes. The classes against whom this legislation was directed were not so largely endowed with the electoral franchise, and therefore did not participate quite so much in the sympathy of the promoters of this Bill in that and the other House of Parliament. The main object of the Bill was to gratify those persons as much as possible by extinguishing the trading of the poor, and at the same time to ensure the success of the measure, by taking care to accompany it with such limitations and exceptions as should make it as little troublesome as possible to those who legislated and to those whose interests the legislation was intended to promote. Thus the people who lived from hand to mouth were to be put down, but a line was to be drawn which should separate the small mechanics or tradesmen from those a little above them, who might find it a little inconvenient to be curtailed of their own amusements, or, what was more to the purpose, of their right to compel the unwilling labour of those whom they employed. That was the problem which the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. William Williams) had to solve. If the Bill was intelligible, this was the effect of it; the small tradesmen, whose competition it was desirable to extinguish, would be placed absolutely at the mercy of policemen acting under parochial orders, and engaged in the

363
attempt to carry out what was supposed to be the prohibitory part of the Bill, whilst the wealthier tradesman, the man who could afford to employ others, was not touched at all. At present this Bill was confined to the prohibition of the sale or delivery of certain things on the Sunday, with the exception of certain commodities belonging to those classes whom, for reasons not apparent on the face of the Bill, it had been deemed proper to exempt from its operation. By the first clause it was made unlawful during the whole Sunday to sell, vend, or cry, or expose for sale, anything whatsoever; and it was further enacted that no dealer of certain descriptions of food should, after nine in the morning, deliver any of his commodities at the residence of any persons who had purchased the same, under a penalty of 20 s. Now, the prohibition as to selling was absolute, and extended over the whole of London, and the prohibition as to delivering was limited by the words "after nine o'clock in the morning." The House would see that distinction was taken for the benefit of the richer, or rather of the easier classes. The general prohibition to sell was limited by the second clause. First of all, no medicine, drug, or article for medicinal purposes, if sold by a medical man or a chemist, was to be understood as within the general prohibition. So necessity, charity, sickness, and sudden emergencies were to constitute exceptions; so milk and cream, if sold before ten and after one, were not prohibited, but fish was. Now he (Mr. Anstey) should like to know why the soul of a milkman or a milkmaid was not of as much account in the eyes of the hon. Member for Lambeth as that of a fishmonger? He wanted to know, in other words, why that exception was made in favour of milk and cream, and why those articles were not put on the same level as other articles of food more likely to be in request among the lower classes? The provisions of the Act did not apply to the sale of fruit, pastry, cooked or prepared victuals, or any beverage, not being wine, spirits, beer, or other fermented or distilled liquors, or any newspaper or other periodical papers stamped with the proper newspaper stamp, before the hour of ten in the morning, and after one in the afternoon. Tobacco might also be sold after one in the afternoon. Then clubhouses would be excepted under the clause which exempted from the provisions of the Bill any person selling or
364
vending in his dwelling house, to any lodger, any ready-dressed provisions, liquors, or refreshments. Again, publicans were excepted by the third clause—why, he did not know. That was one of the inconsistencies which the hon. Member for Lambeth would have to unravel. Then servants who claimed to be employed by others were not to be touched by any clause of the Act. The object in all that was to discriminate between the poorer and the wealthier classes, in favour of the latter. He now came to the most tyrannical, and therefore the most objectionable, clause in the whole Bill, he meant the seventh, by which judicial power was given to policemen to decide, on their own discretion, that there had been an offence against the provisions of this Bill, and to seize the entire property, the whole capital (for it amounted to that) of the miserable vendor of the most perishable materials, who happened to be found in the highways or elsewhere, it mattered not, within the city of London or its liberties, engaged in his or her calling; and then, by way of adding insult to injury, a promise was given to the wretched individual that his goods would be restored to him on application to a justice of the peace, on such terms as to such justice should seem meet; thus making such individual a possible, but under the circumstances a most improbable, litigant. It was not intended that the magistrates should sit on Sundays to adjudicate on such cases; and the property so taken and detained might be of such a nature as to perish in the interval, before application was made for its restoration. That clause, notwithstanding its character, although it was the most severe, odious, and oppressive, appeared to have received more support in the Committee than any other, for it was passed without a division. The evidence of Mr. Commissioner Mayne on the subject of that clause was most important. A similar provision was contained in some local Acts in force within the metropolis; but Mr. Commissioner Mayne, acting on a discretion which he supposed resided with him, refused to allow the policemen under his orders to act under such a clause, he being convinced that if policemen were allowed to seize goods or chattels exposed for sale, whether on Sunday or any other day of the week, the bystanders would interfere, and a riot would ensue. Mr. Commissioner Mayne also gave it as his conviction, that if an attempt was

365
made, by compulsion especially, to secure the observance of Sunday, the evil of Sunday trading was likely to be much aggravated. He (Mr. Anstey) considered that by the testimony of Mr. Commissioner Mayne, given before the Lords' Committee, an unanswerable case was made out against the present Bill. But it did not rest there; for the returns laid before the Select Committee from the various metropolitan police divisions, showed in most of those divisions a very considerable decrease of Sunday trading of late years. In some of those divisions there was a considerable amount of trading on Sundays among the Jews, who had a sabbath and holidays of their own to observe, and who had petitioned that House against the present Bill. The Jews already had sixty-six days in the year in which they carried on no trading, and that without any Act of Parliament to stimulate their devotions; but, notwithstanding that, it was proposed by the present Bill to prohibit them from trading on fifty-two other days in the year. There was also a class of Protestant Dissenters called Sabbatarians, who held the doctrines and observed the discipline of the Church of England in all respects except the day which they kept as their Sabbath. On that class also the Bill would impose fifty-two days' abstinence from labour and trade over and above the abstinence which they imposed on themselves on their own Sabbaths. Had the hon. and learned Master of the Rolls been in his place, he might have been able to throw some light upon that point, for one of the most valuable officers in the Rolls house was of that persuasion. Mr. Commissioner Mayne attributed much of the decrease in Sunday trading in the metropolis to an improvement in the views and feelings of the lower classes, and that gentleman was of opinion that the existing law for preventing trading on Sundays should be repealed or not enforced. Under all those circumstances, he (Mr. Anstey) should like to know on what grounds the hon. Member for Lambeth rested his case. For himself, he (Mr. Anstey) should oppose this Bill in all its stages. He should feel it his duty to persevere, whilst the Bill was in Committee, in endeavouring to introduce amendments, either disclosing and unmasking its real character, or else amendments which would have the effect of making the Bill consistent with itself, by rendering it thoroughly, truly, and honestly Levitical. He should conclude by moving, that the House go
366
into Committee on the Bill that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. BARING WALL, in seconding the Amendment, did not desire to protract the debate, if it were not intended to go into Committee that evening. He wished only to state what had occurred in the Select Committee on the Bill. He had wished that evidence should be adduced; but the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill had rested his case on the evidence before the Lords' Committee, and he (Mr. Baring Wall) had not been allowed an opportunity of bringing forward evidence. Otherwise he should have brought some medical witnesses, and he would have asked them whether they would assume the responsibility of recommending such a measure during the cholera visitation. He knew that the chemists' shops were allowed to be open, but the best remedies for the poor were, after all, to be found in the butchers' and bakers' shops; and he knew that small butchers, &c, often, during the hours of divine service, had persons sending for small quantities of meat, and other articles of diet, which often prevented the sick from sinking in exhaustion. He considered this was a bastard Bill, and that if its principle were good, it should be applied not only to the metropolis but to the whole country. If the Bill were passed, it could not be enforced. There was honour and truth among the lower orders—the purchaser would not pay for the articles on the Sunday, but return on the Monday for the purpose, and so the Act would easily be evaded. He should propose that confectioners and pastrycooks be excepted from the Bill (as well as apothecaries), along with tea-dealers and tobacconists. The fifth clause, which involved the principle of cumulative penalties, he deemed the most mischievous in the Bill. There were other respects in which he intended to propose amendments of the Bill. He hoped that, as the Bill could not go into Committee that evening (it was then about half-past five), another day would be fixed for its due consideration. The subject was one of great difficulty, and could only

367
be dealt with by repealing the old Act of Charles II., and then perhaps a Bill in the nature of compromise could be agreed to. The question involved, however, both religious and social elements, and he doubted if it ever could be adjusted.
MR. LENNARDsaid, that at that hour—seeing that no reasons had yet been adduced in favour of the Bill—and thinking it necessary to have some explanation of the extraordinary course taken by the Select Committee in declining to adduce evidence in support of the Bill—a Bill which was characterised by so unkind and unchristian a spirit towards the working classes—thinking it better, for these reasons, that a better opportunity should be given for discussing the subject, he should move that the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned till Wednesday, 14th May.
The House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.