Sitting of 15 March 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Aggravated Assaults.
3° Consolidated Fund.

ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he should move that the Bill be read a Second Time that day six months. It was wholly promoted by strangers, being unsupported by any save a very inconsiderable minority of the inhabitants of the island, and was opposed by the landowners through whose property it passed.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
MR. LAINGsaid, that the allegations made to induce the House to reject the Bill were of such a nature that their truth could be ascertained much better in a Select Committee than in the House. The Bill was supported by several pe-
198
titions from the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight; public meetings in Cowes, Newport, and other places, had expressed a decided opinion in its favour. He thought nothing had been stated to induce the House to depart in this instance from its usual course with respect to private Bills.
COLONEL HARCOURTsaid, that a considerable number of the inhabitants of the island certainly desired a railway, but, on the other hand, a large portion of the proprietors of land in the island, and especially those whose property would be most affected, were strongly opposed to this Bill, which also failed to obtain the concurrence of a large number of the respectable tradesmen in the four towns it was intended to benefit.
MR. COMPTONsaid, that all the landed proprietors in the island were opposed to this railway, for which there was not the slightest necessity, as there was water carriage to all the towns which it proposed to benefit.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that a glance at the map was sufficient to justify the opposition to a proposition for carrying a railway through the Isle of Wight. When they heard that the majority of the inhabitants of the island and of the landowners were hostile to it, he thought they should not put its opponents to the expense of a contest before a Select Committee—a contest which would be carried on at the cost of private persons on the one hand, and of a great public company on the other.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 133: Majority 41.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Second Reading put off for six months.

LONDON AND MID-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISexpressed his hope that this railway would be introduced into the City of Oxford in such a manner as not to endanger the accuracy of the observations taken in the Observatory there, by causing a perturbation of the soil. Many years ago the House decided that a proposed railway should not be allowed to come within three-quarters of a mile of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich; but by this Bill it was proposed

199
to bring the railway within a quarter of a mile of the Oxford University; a distance over which, whatever might be the nature of the intervening soil, a considerable perturbation must be communicated.
MR. OLIVEIRAsaid, he could assure the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, that he and the promoters of the Bill would consult the interest of the University of Oxford in every respect. He stated that the University authorities, as well as the municipal authorities, were favourable to the Bill; and, as a lover of science, he would be the last person to interfere in any way with so useful and valuable an institution as the Observatory.
Bill read 2°, and committed, and referred to the Committee of Selection.

LONDON (WATFORD) SPRING WATER COMPANY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that he had on the previous day presented a petition in its favour from a very large number of the inhabitants of the metropolis, who were convinced that they could not have a good supply of water unless there was competition amongst the water companies. This Bill was read a second time last Session by a majority of 196 to 65, but it was not reported upon by the Select Committee to which it was referred, solely because their inquiries were interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament. The inhabitants of the metropolis, whose feelings, wishes, and interests he must ask the House to consider, were in favour of this Bill, which was opposed only by those interested in the existing water companies, who at present enjoyed a monopoly of the supply. The promoters of this Bill stood in this disadvantageous position—that there were from fifty to sixty Members of that House concerned in those companies; and he knew that an hon. Member who was the chairman of one of them had actually been canvassing Members to come down to the House and vote against this Bill. Under the present system competition was impossible, for clauses in the Acts of the Grand Junction and West Middlesex Companies actually prevented either of them from going out of the districts allotted to them. In districts where there was no competition, the Grand Junction Water Company, for instance, of which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets
200
(Sir W. Clay) was the chairman, charged 8d. per 1,000 gallons; and the West Middlesex Company, of which another hon. Member was also chairman, charged ls. ¾d. per 1,000 gallons. In districts, however, where competition was admitted, instead of 8d. per 1,000 gallons, the charge was 4¾d., and in other districts, instead of the inhabitants paying ls. ¾d. per 1,000 gallons, they had only to pay 3d. and two-thirds of a penny. The water supplied by the Grand Junction Company was worse and more full of animalculæ than even the Thames water. All sorts of hideous monsters, great and small, were supplied to the inhabitants of London to eat and drink. There were male scorpions, and female scorpions, and little scorpions — and a host of other loathsome animals. The Grand Junction Company supplied the district in which he lived (Mayfair), but no one ever thought of drinking the water. Indeed, so bad was it, that the inhabitants were indebted to Lord Chesterfield for a supply of pure spring water. He hoped the House would now permit the Bill to be read a second time, and refer it to a Committee, before whom it could be fully and fairly discussed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. HALSEYsaid, he thought that the interest of the district from which the water was to be taken should be considered, as well as those of the metropolis to which it was to be given. The Bill proposed to take away water, the loss of which would be severely felt in Hertfordshire, without giving the slightest compensation. All the millowners and landowners affected by this Bill were opposed to it; and he hoped that the House would protect them from the expense of going before a Select Committee, by agreeing to the Motion which he would make, that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he hoped the House would not, by rejecting the Bill, pronounce, in regard to that important necessary of life, water, against the principle of unrestricted competition. The existing water companies had obtained by the Bill of last year much more favourable conditions than they had any

201
right to expect; and it was most unreasonable, that because they were compelled to go a little higher up the Thames for their supply, that they should desire to prevent the inhabitants of the metropolis from obtaining water from a yet purer source at a more reasonable rate, in order that they themselves might continue to enjoy their monopoly and continue to poison our stomachs.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he intended to vote on this Bill according to the answer he had given to an hon. Friend of his the other day. It appeared to him that Parliament, by the Act of last Session, had imposed on the present water companies obligations for the supply of the metropolis, which would be necessarily attended with considerable expense, and which were to be carried into effect by works that would require a certain lapse of time for their completion. It would not, therefore, be in accordance with the fair understanding of that Act, that the House should, before the expiration of the time within which those works were to be completed—and until they had seen whether by means of those operations a sufficient supply of water could be provided—it would not be fair either to the parties concerned, or the existing water companies, to sanction a Bill of this nature. He should also say, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), that whatever objections there might be to the quality of the water now supplied, that which this company proposed to furnish was not free from objections in that respect; and as it was proposed to draw it from the chalk formation, it would be necessary to alter its quality by means of processes which, for so large a quantity as was required for the supply of this metropolis, it would be difficult to carry into effect. Besides this there were good grounds for believing that the operations of this company would deprive some important public works of the supply of water necessary for carrying them on.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 253: Majority 180.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Second Reading put off for six months.

HUDDERSFIELD ELECTION.
MR. WALPOLEappeared at the bar, and brought up the Report of the Huddersfield Election Committee, which he read as follows:—
That the Committee had determined—
"That William Rookes Crompton Stansfield, esquire, is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Huddersfield.
"That the last Election for the said Borough of Huddersfield is a void Election."
That the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
"That the said William Rookes Crompton Stansfield was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last Election for the said Borough.
"That treating throughout the said Borough during the last Election was general, systematic, and extravagant in its character:—That between sixty and seventy public-houses at the least were opened by the agents of the sitting Member:— That refreshments were provided apparently without limit, and paid for without inquiry:—That the expenses incurred on that account alone amounted to upwards of 1,000 l.:—That, as far as these cases were separately examined into, it appeared that the only persons who were furnished with orders to provide such refreshments were, with one exception, registered Electors.
"That it was not proved to the Committee that either the bribery or treating above adverted to were committed with the knowledge and consent of the said William Rookes Compton Stansfield.
"That the Committee think it right to submit to the consideration of the House, that a system of treating like that which appears to have prevailed for some time in the Borough of Huddersfield must have the effect of exercising an influence over the minds of voters as corrupting and debasing as direct bribery."
Report to lie on the table.

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.
SIR DE LACY EVANS: Sir, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is his intention to proceed with the Bill which was prepared by the late Government for the reconstruction of 'Westminster Bridge; and, if not, what is intended to be done in respect to the ruinous and dangerous state of the present structure?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH: Sir, in reply to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I must admit with him that Westminster Bridge is in a very ruinous and almost dangerous state. The late Government came to the determination to pull down Westminster Bridge, and reconstruct another bridge on the site; and I have come to the conclusion that the decision of the late Government in that respect was a wise one. Considering the com-

203
merce of this great metropolis, it may be necessary at a future time to have two bridges across the river—one in the vicinity of Charing Cross, and the other in the vicinity of Lambeth, at the present site. We, therefore, intend to proceed with the Bill of the late Government, and I am preparing plans for that purpose. The bridge at Westminster should be one worthy of its position; it should be wide and low, and at right angles with the Houses of Parliament.

THE AUSTRALIAN ROYAL MAIL STEAM COMPANY'S VESSELS.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to the circumstances under which the Australian steam packet has returned to Plymouth; but as my question will not be confined to the case of the Australian steam packet, and as this subject immediately concerns the interest and safety of the public, I hope I may be allowed to offer a few words in explanation with regard to what the scope of my question will be. The right hon. Baronet will recollect that within the last few months three steam packets belonging to the Australian Royal Mail Steam Company sailed from this country—the Melbourne, in October, the Adelaide, in December, and lately the Australian. The Melbourne was dismasted and driven into Lisbon, and the passengers were compelled to return at a great loss. The Adelaide having put to sea, was disabled within a few hours; her rudder would not work, and she was driven back to Plymouth under circumstances that detained her for nearly a month. The other day the Australian the third vessel in succession of the same company, left England, but came back under circumstances which made it providential that the ship was not lost, with all hands on board. I wish therefore to ask the right hon. Baronet what degree of control or authority the Government have over the Australian Steam Packet Company by virtue of their contract to convey the Australian mails, and whether it is the intention of the Government to take any step in consequence of the extraordinary circumstances that have occurred?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: I am not at all surprised, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman should have drawn the attention of the Government and the House to the circumstances he has just mentioned; and I
204
am sorry to say that the service performed under the Australian Steam Packet Company's contract is most unsatisfactory. The Government have power, under the contract, to exact a penalty for its nonperformance, and both the present and late Board of Admiralty have not hesitated, where the equity of the case justified the exaction, to do so. The present Board of Admiralty have communicated with the Australian Steam Packet Company, in reference to the non-performance of the contract, and the contract itself has been submitted to a Committee of the Government, over which the Postmaster General presides, and we are waiting for their Report to consider what further steps shall be taken. As soon as that Report is made, I will state to the right hon. Baronet and the House what is the course the Government will take.

CANTERBURY ELECTION.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he would now beg to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, for an Address to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the state of the borough of Canterbury. He did not think that it would be necessary for him in so doing to detain the House at any great length. He was not going to propose to the House, as he did in the case of Great Yarmouth, to disfranchise any portion of the electors of the city of Canterbury, but he was going to request the House to coincide in the opinion which was entertained by every Member that tried the Canterbury Election Petition—that further inquiry was necessary. He thought his course was very much cleared by the consideration that there existed a general desire on the part of that House to put an end to bribery and corruption. [An Hon. MEMBER: It's all humbug.] An hon. Gentleman said it was all humbug. At all events, the Election Committees that were appointed by that House had hitherto done their duty. In those societies which he had heard the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) describe as clubs and coteries, people certainly spoke lightly with reference to bribery and corruption at elections; but he (Mr. K. Seymer) believed that no hon. Member would stand up in his place and assert that electoral corruption was not a monstrous and, he must add, a growing evil. Whatever they might think, the great body of the

205
middle classes of this country, who stood aloof from these corrupt proceedings, who were neither in a position to take nor to offer bribes, viewed the whole system with increasing disgust. If it were always advisable that the House of Commons should take the lead rather than lag behind public opinion, he could conceive no question on which it would be more dangerous for them to be behind with reference to public opinion than this question of electoral corruption. It might be very convenient for those gentlemen who were retained to manage electioneering affairs by the two great political parties, to have in their pockets a list of the boroughs for which Gentlemen, by the judicious expenditure of money, might expect to have a fair chance of being returned; but he trusted that the great body of that House would have no sympathy with the convenience of these gentlemen. Whether or not we had improved upon what were called the good old times, this at least was certain that we had made one step in advance as far as the moral sense of the country was concerned. That moral sense had undoubtedly been quickened on certain subjects. Certain scandals which, if they had occurred long ago, would have created but little sensation, would not now be tolerated by the moral sense of the country. And this they must admit, that every sore place in our social system, like the late proceedings at Canterbury, was brought into such notoriety by the publicity given to it by the press, that it was quite impossible that the claim for amelioration and amendment, if possible, could be resisted. He trusted that on the present occasion he should receive the support of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. Those hon. Gentlemen had their own views with reference to bribery and corruption; but still he thought they would admit that as Parliament had, in the late Session, passed a measure for the prevention or punishment of bribery and corruption, that measure ought to have a fair trial. He was aware that many of those hon. Gentlemen would say that the measure was imperfect, and that it was not improved by the process which it underwent in another place. Perhaps, he was disposed in some measure to agree with them; but the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) accepted the measure as a step in the right direction, and he (Mr. K. Seymer) trusted the noble Lord and his Friends would
206
take advantage of, that the first opportunity offered to them, of putting that Act into operation. And with regard to the hon. Gentleman sitting on his own (the Opposition side) of the House, he thought that they were especially bound to support the proposition he now brought forward. Hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side of the House had no great faith in the propositions made by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side with reference to putting an end to corruption. They had no great faith in the ballot. They doubted very much whether the lowering of the franchise would improve matters at all. That doubt was not at all diminished by the recent investigations. But holding, as they did, these opinions, he thought that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were especially bound to take care that such powers as they had, and which had been so recently conceded to them, should, on every fitting occasion, be put in force. He thought they were bound to recollect that there were thousands of persons in this country who at the present moment were not admitted to the elective franchise, every one of whom was justly and proudly conscious that if he were admitted to the franchise, he would not abuse it as it had been abused by a portion of the electors of Canterbury. And whether it might be advisable or not to disturb the existing arrangements in order to admit such persons to the franchise, he thought the House would admit that they should show no tenderness to those possessing the franchise, who systematically abused it. That abuse, if not checked, would continue until such a storm of indignation would arise as might sweep away the whole of the present system, and, perhaps, injure permanently some of the institutions of the country. Having made those preliminary observations, he would proceed to state shortly what took place at the Canterbury election. He would not trouble the House by reading extracts from the evidence, he would simply make some reference to certain pages of the Report, in order to enable hon. Members to verify his statement. There were, then, in the city of Canterbury, two parties, as was the case in almost all boroughs, designated the "Blues" and "Reds." He should call them by those names on the present occasion; hut he begged to remind the House that in doing so, he wished to avoid all party discussion;

207
and he must say that he believed he would be paying too great a compliment to a considerable portion of the electors of Canterbury to suppose that they had any particular political opinions. They were neither Whig nor Tory, Liberal nor Conservative, Protectionists nor Freetraders. He believed that even the cry of the big loaf, necessarily popular as that cry was, would have very little effect upon a certain class of the electors of Canterbury, unless you tendered them "a colourman's ticket." On the last occasion, the "Blue" party had abstained from those illegal practices on which the Committee had reported, and consequently they were, he would not say ignominiously defeated, because, of course, defeat by such means as were employed against them was no discredit to them—but they were most decidedly defeated. It appeared that the head-quarters of the "Red" party were at the offices of a Mr. Ward; and the course usually pursued by them was this—an elector went to the Committee sitting at Mr. Ward's, and, on promising to vote for the candidates of the "Red" party, he asked to have his name put down as a messenger. It seemed that the legal authorities who managed these matters at Canterbury considered that it was no objection to an elector to have his name put down as a messenger. Provided the employment was bonâ fide, and the pay not extravagant, it might probably, by most people, not be considered to be bribery; though, on a scrutiny, the vote of such an elector would most probably be struck off. The elector thus promising to give his vote had not only a right to put down the name of any one he chose as a messenger, but he was entitled to ask for two colourmen's tickets for any parties he pleased. Colourmen's tickets were formerly given to the electors, but in the course of time that was found to be a dangerous practice, and to be clearly illegal, because the employment of colourmen was found to be but a colourable and not a bonâ fide employment. Therefore, for some years past, the electors who had promised their votes ask for colourmen's tickets—that was to say, each of those electors asked to be allowed to recommend two persons, each of whom received, at some period after the election, 10 s. If the elector voted for one party, he got one colourman's ticket, if he voted for two, he got two. It had
208
been proved that persons who had promised their votes to the "Blue" party found that there were not any colourmen's tickets to be given at the last election. One man who was examined before the Committee said he never felt more insulted in his life than when the chairman of the Committee of the "Blue" party told him that he should not have a colourman's ticket. He said, "I never was so treated in all my life; he turned his back upon me, and said he would not give me a colourman's ticket." Smarting under that indignation, he went to the "Red" Committee, who gave him a colourman's ticket. Voters having received information to go to Mr. Smith's, those persons who had been so recommended received colourmen's tickets. Those tickets were looked upon as valuable securities; they were in circulation in the borough of Canterbury at the time of the election, and they were regularly discounted in the market. They were sold for 8s. a piece. One man said he could have bought dozens of them in the market at Canterbury. That would be found in the evidence of James Wilson, page 37. The holders of those tickets, on the day of nomination, went to Mr. Smith, who punched the tickets, and gave them back to the holders. When so punched, on being presented, the holder was furnished with a shilling's worth of refreshment. The same process was repeated on the day of polling. He mentioned that to show how complete the system was. Several of these tickets, marked by a railway punching machine, were produced to the Committee. If those refreshment tickets had been given to electors who had been proved to have lived at some distance from Canterbury, he should not have thought very much of the matter; and he would repeat what he had said on a previous occasion, that he thought that, in counties, and boroughs much resembling counties, the giving of some moderate refreshment to distant electors going to poll was not objectionable—provided always that it were so managed as not to become a source of corruption to publicans. He very much feared that in this case of the city of Canterbury these refreshment tickets, small as they were in amount, did afford means of corruption to publicans. He believed that it went further, for they had evidence that in one case, at all events, groceries were furnished on the presentation of one of the tickets.

209
That was a point which he trusted the Commissioners, if they went down, would carefully investigate. These colourmen's tickets were punched each time they were taken to Mr. Smith. After a certain period each holder was paid 10 s., on the pretence of having been a colourman. But the employment was entirely colourable, for it was proved that a boy named Albert, six years old, received one of these tickets. They were saleable at a very small discount during the election. Nobody could pretend to say that the employment was bonâ fide. Perhaps some hon. Members would ask, what benefit did the elector receive from all this? Well, in the first place, he had the privilege of recommending two men to the "colourable employment" referred to. That might not be a case of illegal corruption; but they would find that in some shape or other the elector received an actual benefit, and in some cases in a very remarkable manner. It was proved before the Committee that the ticket was made use of for recovering small debts. A man to whom money was owing procured a recommendation for a colourman's ticket, and he accepted the ticket from his debtor as a payment of 10 s. In the same way a man who himself owed small sums of money, not being able to pay his creditor, told him he would get his name put down as a colourman, and thus have the means of discharging his debt to the extent of 10 s. There were others who put down fictitious names, and presented themselves and received the money. It might be said that these sums were trifling, and why should the House think much of such trifles? But in reply he would say that they were the very condition on which these voters voted. They were the inducements to them to forfeit their promises. They were the inducements to vote in a manner contrary to their political principles, if they had any political principles, but he did not believe that they had any. Those small sums were inducements to vote or to abstain from voting; and, so far from thinking that their insignificance was favourable to the voter, he thought, on the contrary, that the acceptance of a small sum was more damaging to him than if it were a large one. The smallness of the bribe showed the light estimation in which these persons held the elective franchise. If a poor voter were tempted by a wealthy candidate, or by his agent, with a sum which to that poor voter might seem almost fabulous; and if he yielded to the
210
temptation, we should have some sympathy with the voter, and our indignation would be directed chiefly against the tempter. But in this matter the reverse was the case. The electors held so cheaply that franchise with which they were entrusted by the Constitution, that they were willing to barter it for less than a few shillings. That state of things appeared to him to be intolerable. It was quite necessary that electors who valued so lightly the elective franchise, should no longer be allowed to disgrace this country. A witness of the name of Allen Englemen (whose evidence would be found at page 52) was called before the Committee. He gave a history of all the elections that had taken place at Canterbury for many years past. That witness abstained from taking part in the last election. He stated that there had been a system of bribery, by means of these small sums, carried on at all the elections for many years past. You would always, in these corrupt boroughs, find expressions escaping from the voters which conveyed a stronger impression to the Committee as to the extent of corruption carried on there, than perhaps the witnesses intended. Such expressions as these were to be heard, "Oh! I expected to be treated as all the other voters." "Why, what did you expect?" might be asked of them; to which they replied, "Oh! I thought I should have a freeman's rights." Such expressions were made by the witnesses as showed the necessity of further inquiry. That was the case with regard to all the election petitions which he had inquired into. Such expressions were used as showed that a great deal remained behind which required further investigation. There were other cases of a different nature proved before the Canterbury Election Committee. It was proved that one elector went into a public-house, where he found 4l. lying for the vote which he had given. In fact, he made no secret of the matter. He said that he asked for the 4l. as the price of his vote. There were two other voters, of the name of White, who, after the election, went into an unoccupied bed-room, where one found 5l., and the other 3l., lying for his vote. At first these gentlemen said that they did not know what those two sums were there for; but, however, on being a little pressed, they said they supposed they were the price of their votes. The agency in those cases could not be proved, owing to the absence of a

211
very important witness. That witness had received the Speaker's summons, and notice of the time at which the Committee sat, but he could nowhere be found. The Committee would probably have thought it their duty to make a special Report on that subject; but they thought that that and the other branch of the Legislature would agree that the whole proceedings at the late election for Canterbury should be thoroughly investigated. He thought he had stated enough to show what was the system of bribery carried on at the late Canterbury election. Indeed, the number of these colourmen's tickets, that is, the number of persons bribed, were stated to amount at least to 350. The Committee, of course, did not go into all the cases in this long list, but from all that passed before them they had come to the conclusion that the number of persons bribed was very great. He would now refer to the proceedings which must be adopted in this case. The House was aware that the Act required that no further proceedings should be taken without the concurrence of the other branch of the Legislature. He certainly thought that the delay which was occasioned by the necessity of both Houses agreeing in an Address to the Crown was not desirable. He thought it a pity that such a provision was made, because he feared it might lead to delay. They should not unnecessarily delay for one day the issue of writs to those boroughs in which malpractices had taken place. They should proceed as quickly as possible to judgment—to inquire what punishment should be inflicted on the corrupt voters, and permit the honest electors the free exercise of their constitutional rights. He had not thought it his business to inquire into the character of the former elections for Canterbury, but he understood that the last election was uncontested. If that were the case, the proceedings of this case would very soon cone to an end, for the Commissioners would only be enabled to inquire into the proceedings of the last election. If he understood aright the Act of Parliament which was passed last Session upon this subject, whenever the Commissioners found a pure election they were bound to stop there; and it was not very likely that bribery would take place at an uncontested election. The Act should have extended to the last pure contested election, and not the last pure election; but they must take the law as they found it. He, therefore,
212
apprehended that the investigation of the Commissioners would be confined to the last election. There was only one other point to which he would refer. He was told that they had no locus standi, because the Committee had omitted in their Report to use the word "extensive." He should really be extremely sorry if, through any inadvertency of his (which he could only attribute to his ignorance as a layman, unskilled in legal technicalities), the electors of Canterbury should escape that investigation which he thought was their due. But he could hardly think that that objection could be seriously taken. Of course it depended upon whether the word "extensive" must actually occur in the Report of the Committee. The Committee reported that a system of bribery had prevailed at the last and at the previous elections for the city of Canterbury. Those words appeared to him to include the word "extensive;" but that was a question which he would leave to the decision of gentlemen learned in the law. He had discharged his duty in bringing the matter before the House, and he would now leave it to the decision of hon. Members.
MR. EWARTseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed.
MR. MALINSsaid, it appeared to him that the justice of the case would not be met if the inquiry were to be limited to the proceedings at the last election. The Committee had evidence to show that during the last fifty years the coloured ticket system was adopted equally by both parties at those elections; and although the candidate on the blue side at the last election appeared to have abstained from taking part in this system, he was inclined to think that, generally speaking, the red party was not more guilty than the blue party. It was perfectly clear to the Committee that the practice of using the coloured tickets had prevailed only amongst the lower classes; for not a single 10 l. householder was proved to have so offended. The practice was limited to freemen of the lowest class, and a more miserable class than they were it was impossible to conceive. He thought that the House would come to the conclusion that the best possible remedy against such practices was to prevent for the future the franchise being continued or extended to those humble classes whose poverty exposed them to those temptations.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, it was far from his mind to oppose the Motion of the

213
hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Seymer), or to express any decided opinion as to whether or not the House was really anxious to put down bribery and corruption. He confessed that he was not competent to form any opinion upon that point. He would, no doubt, be able to form an opinion on it if he could see a good Reform Bill on the table of the House. Until he saw that, and witnessed the manner in which that House would deal with it, he would not express any opinion as to whether they were really anxious to put down corruption. He thought that a good new Reform Bill would tend to clear up all those difficulties of which they so much complained. He wanted to see how hon. Gentlemen opposite would deal with a Bill which would greatly extend the franchise, and which would provide that no constituency should be under 20,000 electors. He was quite satisfied that such a measure as that would effectually put down bribery and corruption; for it would then be a hopeless task to resort to such practices. He could not at all concur in the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Mains), when he recommended the withdrawal of the franchise from the lower classes. He (Mr. Duncombe) denied that the franchise should be confined to the wealthy. He also denied that the poor were more corrupt than the higher classes, who simply required a larger bribe on those occasions. There were similar Reports made at the commencement of the former Parliament, and he was afraid that the disclosures at the recent general elections would end in the same way unless they exerted themselves to induce the present Government to introduce a sound and efficient new Reform Bill. At the commencement of the late Parliament there were thirty-three petitions tried —some of them involving objections to want of qualification in the Members returned, others complaining of the polls being closed before the proper time; but there were twenty of them which resulted in the unseating of Members for bribery and corruption. Out of those there were ten upon which special Reports were made. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Seymer) said the Election Committees bad nobly done their duty—he supposed the hon. Member meant, in unseating Members and making special Reports. He was afraid, notwithstanding, that all this virtuous indignation was too good to last.
214
In Great Yarmouth the Members were unseated, and the Committee reported the existence, during the election, of systematic bribery and treating, and recommended the disfranchisement of the freemen. In Lynn Regis there was a special Report against a Mr. Atwood. In Carlisle there was a Report of extensive bribery and treating, under the guise of what was called travelling expenses. In Bewdley there was treating and corruption reported; all the beer-shops in the town were kept open at all hours during the election, and drink given away to a large extent. As regarded the borough of Harwich there were three petitions. Three times were the Members unseated, once for bribery and corruption. It seemed that that was so old and so incorrigible a sinner that the House at last gave up dealing with it. In Lincoln, treating and bribery were charged. There was Derby, too; that place had come again before them in the present Parliament. Why was not the case of Derby taken up by the last Parliament? It was reported upon by the Committee as having been guilty of the same practices at the last election as had been proved against it at the prior election, and, as it was stated, with the full knowledge of its then representatives. He (Mr. Duncombe) supposed that that part of the Report referred to the Right Hon. Edward Strutt and his former Colleague. In Leicester the Members were unseated for bribery and corruption. At Aylesbury the Report charged the borough with an extensive system of treating. And at St. Albans, which was the last election reported on, the offences perpetrated were so notorious that it was unnecessary for him to remind the House of their nature or character, further than that the borough was disfranchised. Well, the other day the House passed a Resolution that no writ should issue where the Members were unseated, without seven days notice. It appeared that one of the Members returned at the prior election for St. Albans was declared to be duly elected, although the borough itself was disfranchised for its notorious corruption; so that, in fact, they had sitting in that House during the late Parliament an hon. Member without a constituency. Now he thought they knew quite enough about Canterbury without a Commission. His (Mr. Duncombe's) only hope for a cure of those evils was in a good Reform Bill, which the noble Lord the

215
Member for London had promised to bring in. The noble Lord must, however, be aware that the Bill of the last year would not do now. He confessed he had great confidence in that Bill to be introduced by the noble Lord, in consequence of the speeches made recently by some of the leading Members of the Government to their respective constituencies. One of those speeches to which he would refer, was that made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham). Ever since the Reform Bill had passed, he (Mr. Duncombe) had made more Motions on the subject of the insufficiency of the Reform Bill, than, he believed, any other Member of that House. One of his fiercest antagonists on those occasions was the right hon. Baronet. But it appeared, by the recent speech, that the right hon. Gentleman had drawn his sword in favour of reform, and had thrown away the scabbard. The right hon. Baronet told his constituents that he was neither a Russell man nor a Derby man—that he would not be responsible for the Bill introduced by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell)—that it was most objectionable in many of its provisions—that such a Bill only added littleness to littleness, corruption to corruption. "No, my friends," said the right hon. Baronet, "we will begin de novo where we left off." Well, then, where did they leave off? At Schedule A he would say; well, then, let the Government begin at that, and let the country have new schedules from A downwards. Let them shorten the duration of Parliaments, and give the protection of the ballot to the voters. They wanted none of those Commissions of Inquiry for Canterbury or other places.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Seymer), but to render what he conceived an act of justice. He understood his hon. Friend to say that a large number of the electors had from time to time availed themselves of colourmen's tickets at the elections for Canterbury. He (Mr. Deedes) ventured to say there was a great number of highly respectable men in that city, who would rejoice as much as any hon. Member in that House to see the representation there purged from the iniquities which they so much lamented, and who readily would assist in attaining that most desirable object.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was not aware,
216
until he read the particular Motion of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that it was necessary to insert in it the names of the Commissioners proposed to conduct this inquiry. He observed that Mr. Frederick William Slade was the first Commissioner named. Now, he (Mr. Bouverie) had the honour of being acquainted with this gentleman, and had gone on the same circuit with him. Mr. Slade was the chief Commissioner in the St. Albans Election inquiry, which he conducted with great fairness and ability. He was also a lawyer of very great reputation. Nevertheless, he (Mr. Bouverie) objected to that gentleman being a Commissioner in the present case, because a most respectable inhabitant of Salisbury, for which place Mr. Slade was a candidate in the same interest as hon. Gentlemen opposite at the last general election, had seen a letter written by Mr. Slade to his clerk desiring him to go down to St. Albans to procure the services of some prizefighters for the Salisbury election. Now, if the present inquiry was to be judicial and a proper one, the Commissioners ought to be gentlemen not liable to such imputations. He, therefore, should propose to substitute the name of John William Alexander, Q.C., a gentleman of the same line of politics, for that of Mr. Slade.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the Act of Parliament placed them in an awkward position, in requiring that House to agree to the appointment of certain gentlemen as Commissioners. He thought it would be advisable to give notice of the names the hon. Members meant to propose, in order to afford the House an opportunity of considering them.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Seymer) had done him the honour of applying to him, as Attorney General, to give him three names of gentlemen whom he thought duly qualified to serve as Commissioners in this inquiry; for the Address emanating from the House of Commons, rendered it necessary to have those names inserted, He (the Attorney General) accordingly gave him the names of such men as he approved of. He took that of Mr. Slade in the first place, because he knew him to be a man of the highest and most unimpeachable honour, although he was politically opposed to him. He (the Attorney General) knew well that in the whole round of the legal profession he

217
could not select a man who would discharge whatever duties were entrusted to him with more honour or ability. In the next place, he was induced to name Mr. Slade as First Commissioner, because he had been at the head of the St. Albans Election Inquiry Commission, where he discharged his duty most faithfully and efficiently. As to the story brought forward by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), he (the Attorney General) now for the first time had heard of it. He knew nothing whatever about it; and he must say that when they knew that a man had discharged his duties—similar to those which he would have to discharge in the proposed inquiry—faithfully and efficiently, he did not think that any idle gossip should induce the House to interfere with his nomination. He felt the warmest affection for this gentleman; he was acquainted with him for a period of twenty years, and he never knew anything of him that was not to his honour and credit.
MR. PHINNsaid, he also had served with Mr. Slade on the St. Albans Election Commission, and he could bear his humble testimony to the extreme zeal, ability, and impartiality with which he discharged his duties. He felt that he would not be doing either Mr. Slade or himself justice if he did not say so much. With regard to the story in connexion with the Salisbury election, he could state that, during the election, Mr. Slade's rooms were visited, in his absence, by his opponents, and, as there was some suspicion that his private papers were overhauled, the letter was written, and put as a ruse in the way of the intruders; but the whole affair rose, he believed, out of a joke. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock should have made the statement, without giving Mr. Slade an opportunity of explaining the whole facts of the case.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: It has occurred, Sir, to me, that if we agree to this Address we shall address Her Majesty in terms which are not consistent with the facts of the case. The Address states to Her Majesty that the said Committee have reported that bribery extensively prevailed at the last election for Canterbury—the fact being that the Committee have not reported to that effect. I quite admit that the words of the Report may amount to "extensive bribery;" but the actual strict fact is, that the Committee have not in so many words reported that they found that bribery of that nature prevailed at
218
the last election. I should therefore wish to have the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London on this subject—whether he thinks it right that we should address Her Majesty in terms which we are not justified in using?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the point to which the noble Lord alludes struck me some days ago, and I endeavoured to obtain the best opinions that I could with regard to the course which the House should pursue. I was informed that though the words in the Report of the Committee were not "extensive bribery," as the Act requires; yet, as the words "system of general bribery and corruption" were in the Report, they would be quite sufficient to authorise an Address stating that bribery had extensively prevailed. And therefore the proper course for the House of Commons to pursue, world be to make the statement which is contained in the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. That being the case, I certainly can have no difficulty in supporting the Address to Her Majesty. At the same time, it would be desirable if, in future cases, the Committee who wish to put the Act in force would use the very same words as are contained in the Act of Parliament. Having said thus much, Sir, in answer to the noble Lord, I wish to say that I agree very much with some of the observations which the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion made upon this case. I agree with him that it is to be regretted that under this Act, if they should find that the previous election was not a pure election, they cannot go back to any previous election which may have been as corrupt, or more corrupt, than that into which they have been appointed to inquire. I believe that this House decided that the Commissioners should have power to go back to past elections. The alteration was made in the other House of Parliament. There was another alteration made with respect to allegations as to treating. The hon. Gentleman opposite has shown that it is a matter of regret that treating cannot be made a subject of Motion in this House, and that Commissioners cannot be appointed to inquire into charges of regular and systematic treating. In the Report brought up this evening by the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) we find that treating has prevailed as an extensive system of bribery. I thought last year that it was far better to agree to the

219
amendments made by the Lords than to allow the Bill to be endangered by this House insisting on throwing aside those amendments. But it is a matter, I think, for the consideration of the House, whether they may not still propose to amend that Act by introducing a Bill containing those two provisions, which, as I have stated, were unfortunately altered in the other House. I do not wish to enter into any of the questions which have been started; but I shall be ready to vote for the Address as it now stands; and I really hope that this Act, though it cannot be applied to other cases, may be found sufficient in many cases, and may tend to purify our representation.
MR. REPTONsaid, he would willingly bear testimony to the ability and impartiality with which Mr. Slade conducted the inquiry into the St. Albans election.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that he did not mean to say anything affecting the character of Mr. Slade. He merely thought it right to state that which he considered was an objection to his appointment in the present case.
MR. HUMEsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) would throw no obstacle in the way of the Motion; at the same time, he must say he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) that these proceedings were nothing better than a mere waste of time; for there was not a man in that House who was not now as much convinced of the rottenness of the system as he would be after an inquiry had been made. Conscientiously he could declare that ever since he had been in Parliament he had never seen an honest intention manifested on the part of that House to put an end to bribery at elections. So far from that, the application of the very means which would have proved effective for that purpose, had been always prevented by it in some way or other. The only useful aspect in which he regarded these inquiries was, that they tended to expose the system which now prevailed. They had lately witnessed the entire destruction of the elective franchise in a neighbouring country; and let that House take care that they did not destroy it in this country by permitting the longer continuance of the corrupt system to which he alluded. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had often expressed his anxiety to propose a remedy. One was within his reach, and it rested with the noble Lord to adopt it. Un-
220
doubtedly something ought to be tried, so that the elective system in this country might cease to be a scandal in the eyes of the civilised world.
MR. STRUTTsaid he wished to correct a mis-statement made by the hon. Member for Finsbury (he was sure un-intentionally) with respect to the Derby election, in the last Parliament. The hon. Member mentioned him (Mr. Strutt) by name, and had said that the Committee had reported to the House that the acts of bribery and treating proved to have taken place at that election had been committed with his knowledge. He would read to the House the Resolution actually come to by the Committee:—
"That it was not proved to the Committee that the said acts of bribery and treating were committed with the knowledge or consent of the right hon. Edward Strutt, or of the said hon. Leveson Gower."
Perhaps the House would pardon him, under the present circumstances, if he stated the course he took upon that Report being made to the House. He immediately published an address, stating explicitly and unequivocally that those acts had been done not only without his knowledge, but contrary to his expressed wishes and intentions; and the House would readily believe, when he told them that the whole of his share of the expenses of that election, notwithstanding the largeness of the constituency, and the hotness of the contest, was but 450 l., that he was not led by that expenditure to have the least idea of anything wrong having been going on.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEbegged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for having made this mistake; but what he stated to the House he had read in a small book in which all the decisions of the last Parliament upon Election Petitions were collected together, and where he read that bribery was proved against the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleague, with their consent or knowledge. It was a misprint no doubt, but he had certainly read it. He confessed that he had not looked into the official documents upon the subject.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, they were now about to put into execution a new Act of Parliament, which was passed into a law only last year, and in taking the first step to put it into execution he thought it behoved the Hones to be careful how they acted in the matter. The Report which had been made to the House by the Committee was, that a system of

221
corruption by means of coloured tickets prevailed at the last election in behalf of the sitting Members, and also at previous elections, for the City of Canterbury generally. Now the word "generally," in that Resolution, seemed to point to a system which came within the terms of the Act of Parliament, and amounted to the same thing as if the word "extensive" had been used; but he submitted to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that it would be better to recite in the Address the exact words of the Resolution the Committee came to. Another point to which he desired to draw the attention of the House was, that since this was the first time an application was made of the new Act, and though no substantial objection appeared to be taken to the names of the Commissioners who were to be appointed in this instance, he certainly thought that when notice of such a Motion was given in future, accompanying that notice there should be the names of the Commissioners proposed to be appointed; for it was only right that the House should have the opportunity of considering the propriety of nominating the persons selected to conduct the inquiry.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought that in the Address to the Crown the House ought to follow the terms of the Act of Parliament, and to see whether the Committee had substantially reported the facts in the manner required by Parliament. But if the House was satisfied that the Committee reported that extensive and corrupt practices existed at the last election for Canterbury, surely they were fully justified, in mere form, in inserting the words in the Address. If, however, those words were not inserted, was the House prepared to say that objections might not be taken of a legal character to the inquiry upon the ground that the Address to the Crown did not state the precise fact which was required by the Act of Parliament. In order to preclude the possibility of objection to the legal power and authority of the Commission, the Address ought to be a literal copy of the words of the Act of Parliament. But at the same time it was very desirable that Committees hereafter, when they made Reports upon which Addresses for Commissions were to follow, should follow the exact terms of the Act, in order to prevent doubt. He also thought that the names of the Commissioners ought to be included in the notice of Motion. In con-
222
clusion he must add that he was not satisfied that it was right to treat so lightly such charges as that made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) against one of the proposed Commissioners. It would certainly, in making another selection, be well to avoid gentlemen who had themselves recently passed through the ordeal of a contested election, and might not themselves be quite free from imputation.
MR. HEADLAMwould suggest that the Address should contain the finding of the Committee—namely, that a system of corruption had prevailed, and that it amounted, in the opinion of the House, to corrupt practices.
Resolved—That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
We Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the
Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, That a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to try a Petition, complaining of an undue Election and Return for the City of Canterbury, have reported to the House, that Corrupt Practices have extensively prevailed at the last Election, and at previous Elections for the City of Canterbury.
"We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause Inquiry to be made, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Parliament, passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, 'An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,' by the appointment of Frederick William Slade, Thomas Chisholm Anstey, and William Burcham, esquires, as Commissioners, for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices."
Resolved—That the said Address be communicated to The Lords, at a Conference, and their concurrence desired thereto.
Ordered—That a Conference be desired with the Lords on the subject matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty under the provisions of the Act of the 15th and 16th of Her present Majesty, cap. 57.
Ordered—That Mr. Ker Seymer do go to the Lords, and desire the said Conference.

BLACKBURN ELECTION.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he had to present a petition signed by the Mayor of Blackburn, and he believed by every magistrate on the bench there, comprising men of all parties, and among them a magistrate who was a party to the petition that unseated the late Members, praying that a new writ might be issued without delay. Having taken all the precautions that were necessary in accordance with the decision of that House on a recent occasion with regard to the issuing of a new writ, it had been his intention to move for the issuing of a new writ for the borough of Blackburn without any comment; but it had come to his knowledge almost immediately previous to his making that Motion, that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) to oppose it: he therefore should be obliged to accompany his Motion with a few observations. The House would recollect that, ten days ago, when this subject was discussed, several propositions were made as to the manner in which the issuing of a writ should be dealt with when a Committee had unseated a Member, or had made a Report stating that bribery had taken place at any particular borough. The hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) took part in that debate, and proposed that in every case in which a Member was unseated for bribery, an inquiry should take place whether that bribery was conducted upon an extensive system, or was confined merely to the instances brought before the Committee. The House discussed the point, and decided that, when a Member was unseated for bribery and corruption, any Member moving for the issuing of a new writ, should give seven days' notice of his intention to do so. Having waited a proper time, he had acceded to a request made to him, as he supposed, because Blackburn was in that part of the county of Lancaster which he represented, by gentlemen of both parties connected with Blackburn, and had put on the paper a notice that that evening he should move for a new writ for that borough. If in the seven days that had elapsed since he gave that notice, any case had been made out that a system of bribery had existed at the late election, he would not have persisted in his Motion, but would have assisted in the investigation of such a case. After ho had given his notice, he was informed by the clerk at the table that no
224
Member of the House had moved that the evidence taken before the Committee should be printed, so little interest was felt about it. Now, if his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster intended to oppose the Motion, it was not sufficient for him, as he (Mr. Patten) understood he intended to do, that he should oppose it, only on the ground that the evidence was not printed, but he ought to make out some case against the borough. The House would deal with the matter as they thought proper. If, however, it were opposed simply on the ground he had stated, the borough would have cause to complain, for it was the duty of his hon. Friend not to have left him to have taken the course he had taken, but to have moved that the evidence should be printed. He had made inquiry whether there was any wish existing in Blackburn on the part of any persons that the writ should not issue, and he had not got one answer to that effect. On the contrary, he was informed that great excitement existed there, and that it was unanimously desired that that excitement should be put an end to by the issuing of the writ.
MR. WILSON PATTENthen moved the issuing of the new writ.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Blackburn, in the room of William Eccles, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped the House would believe him when he said he rose with great diffidence. Nothing but a strong sense of duty, not only to that House but to the constituencies generally, and a determination to do his duty, however disagreeable it might be, would have induced him to rise on this occasion. He felt himself, too, in an extra difficulty, as he had to apologise to the House for an oversight on his own part. The House would recollect that at the time of the former discussion on this subject, there was some little confusion; and it was his impression that when he moved that the evidence on the Bridgenorth Election should be printed, he had moved for that of Blackburn also. On receiving that of Bridgenorth that morning, without that of Blackburn, he had made inquiry, and found the Motion was not made. The ground he took with regard to the general subject before the House was, that in every case

225
where a Committee had reported that the sitting Member had been guilty of bribery, there should be an inquiry. It was the next thing to a farce, if the writ were immediately issued without inquiry. Would anybody get up and say that if this writ were issued for Blackburn, and A, B, or C, were elected in place of Mr. Eccles, the same proceedings would not all have to be gone over again? He did not wish to impugn the decisions of these Committees; he could, on the contrary, bear testimony to their fairness. They had seen the Committee for Hull, with a Chairman from that side of the House, unseat Members who also sat on that side of the House. They had seen the Committee for Chatham, with a Chairman from the other side of the House, unseat a Member who sat on the other side of the House. And so with regard to Blackburn, it had returned a Liberal to Parliament before, and, from what he heard, was likely to do so again, and therefore, he hoped to escape any imputations of being actuated by party motives. It was true that in the Report not many cases of bribery were shown; but although they might be trifling, that was no reason why there should not be further inquiry. In those cases the voters were, in the opinion of the Committee, induced to vote in a particular way by corrupt considerations. If a place were not perfectly pure, it was impure, and then there ought to be inquiry. A Select Committee only adjudicated upon the cases before it. The petitioners had an object in view in putting those cases before the Committee, and they went no further than was necessary to unseat the sitting Member. The Committee had no power to go further unless indeed it were so bad that its full extent could not be concealed; but, as a rule, the petitioners only let as much ooze out as was sufficient to unseat the Member. He thought the House should follow up the first inquiry. He did not wish to interfere with the decision of the Election Committees; but the House was bound to follow up their decisions beyond what those Committees had the power of doing. Never since the passing of the Reform Bill was there such gross corruption as at the last elections. Corruption on all sides. More than one hundred petitions had been presented to that House on the ground of bribery. It was the duty of the House, therefore, to show to the country that they were determined to hunt out bribery, and to put it down wherever it
226
existed. But when he looked at the circumstances under which the last election took place, he could not much wonder that such an amount of bribery had prevailed. Lord Derby was then at the head of Government, and he avowed himself a Protectionist, though he said he would bow to the opinion of the country, as expressed by the electors. It was, therefore, the especial object of the late Government to secure a large number of representatives in their support. He believed that Free-traders had, in many instances, been induced to do evil that good might come from it; but he did not think there was a pin's worth of difference between both. Neither the Carlton Club nor the Reform Club could throw stones at one another. He trusted the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would use his utmost influence to put down those practices, and that if he saw there was no other effectual mode of securing the independence of the voter, that he would adopt the ballot and suppress those Eat-an-swill boroughs—those nests of corruption. It was the especial duty of the noble Lord to make an attempt to purify the constituencies.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the bribery that took place at the last Election for the borough of Blackburn,' (Sir John Shelley), —instead thereof."
MR. W. WILLIAMSseconded the Amendment.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. DEEDESsaid, that if he were at a loss for an argument wherewith to oppose the Amendment, he was furnished with it in the declaration of the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Shelley), that his object was to go beyond the Committees of this House. Now hon. Members must not lose sight of the fact, that going beyond the Committees of this House in the manner alluded to by the hon. Member, was nothing more nor less than to put in juxtaposition and contrast evidence which was taken upon oath, and evidence which was not taken upon oath. The House must not lose sight of that fact, for it was a most important one. If it were the general opinion that Committees of the House of Commons could not conduct inquiries of this kind in a manner that was satisfactory to the country at large, let the law be

227
altered, and in every instance let inquiries be instituted by other means. The hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) said that if the writ for Blackburn were issued to-morrow, they would witness the same occurrences as took place at the last election for that borough. Now the only way of testing the accuracy of that statement was to look into the evidence which was given on the late inquiry, and by which it would be seen that there was no proof whatever of practices of a corrupt nature having been resorted to at previous elections. The hon. Member was not justified in saying, therefore, that because there were corrupt practices on the last occasion, they must necessarily take place again; and unless he was able to show from the evidence that there was reason to believe that there would be a recurrence of such practices, he (Mr. Deedes) saw no reason why delay should take place in the issue of the writ. The hon. Member had not stated distinctly that he would follow up the matter with a proposal for a Commission of Inquiry. All he could gather from his speech was, that he wished to delay the issue of the writ; but he (Mr. Deedes) wanted to know upon what grounds? [Sir J. SHELLEY: For the purpose of inquiry.] The hon. Gentleman had not pointed out a system of inquiry; and all his Amendment would effect was to delay the issue of the writ, and increase the excitement which, they were informed, already prevailed at Blackburn.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he hoped the House would carefully consider the course it was about to take: and more especially he hoped they would do so after the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Deedes). If he understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he proposed to reverse altogether the course of proceeding which the House had now taken for a very long time. The hon. Gentleman asserted that when a Select Committee had sat upon one of these cases, that that was at once a conclusion; and that the decision of the Committee having been made as to whether a Member was duly returned or not, there was to be an end to all further inquiry; and that, although the borough might be universally corrupt, and nearly every person in it in the habit of receiving bribes, the House was precluded from any further inquiry. Now, he (Lord John Russell) submitted that such a course would be entirely new
228
and without precedent. The Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the return. It might incidentally appear in the course of the inquiry that corruption was extended or not extended, or that it was confined to only a few persons; or it might happen that these facts might not appear at all, but that the evidence might simply refer to three or four persons only charged with bribery. But he submitted it would be a change in their proceedings if they were to say that the Report, besides deciding the point submitted to them, decided every other point, and prevented the House from going into further inquiry. With regard to inquiry that might be instituted without any Report of a Select Committee, he remembered that the first case in the discussion of which he took a part in that House, was the case of the borough of Grampound. There, nearly the whole of the people were bribed. With very few exceptions, nearly all were bribed. But although the Committee made no report of that bribery, the House thought proper to institute inquiry into the state of the borough. Lord Castlereagh, as the organ of the Government in that House, not only gave his assent to the inquiry, but assisted it; and afterwards Lord Liverpool proposed that the borough should be disfranchised. But they did not in that case proceed upon a Report from a Select Committee under the Election Act, nor was a Select Committee appointed. The question now was, what course did the House mean to take in these cases now under consideration. He was most anxious that, if possible, the House should take a consistent course with respect to them, and not have to judge as to the weight of the particular evidence in each particular case. He did not at all regret that the evidence in the Blackburn case was not before the House, because no doubt the Committee had decided properly, and he did not want to confound with that evidence his vote on this occasion. There were certain Reports with regard to elections in certain boroughs; and he supposed the House would not be far from the truth in supposing that in several of the cases in which the seats were voided by bribery, that bribery was only proved in a few cases—that it was the exception, not affecting generally the character of the election. In several other cases the House could not very well refuse to believe that, although only a few persons were reported to the

229
House as guilty of bribery, the bribery was very extensive and very general. Suppose the House appointed a Select Committee in every one of these cases, the Committee would probably find, with regard to several of the boroughs, that there were no reasons why the writ should not immediately issue. They would find in other cases that bribery and corruption were very extensive; and on their reporting so to the House, the Act of last Session would come into operation, because the Act was not confined to those cases which were reported by Select Committees appointed to try election petitions, but extended also to cases in which Select Committees were appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices. There fore that Act contemplated that there should be Select Committees in certain cases without the power of taking evidence on oath, to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Deedes) objected. But the Act took no such objection; it admitted of inquiry by a Committee; and if the Committee reported that a primâ facie case of general bribery and corruption had been made out, on an Address to the Crown, a Commission was appointed. If the Act so contemplated, he could not conclude that in the face of their own Act, and in spite of that Act, Select Committees should never be appointed to inquire into bribery at all. He had mentioned that the first course was in all these cases to appoint Select Committees, and then there would be no party division on the subject; because the rule would be laid down that immediately an election was declared void by bribery, a Select Committee of inquiry into that bribery should be appointed. Another course was to appoint Committees on petitions from electors, to inquire into corrupt practices, and in no other cases. The third course was not to appoint such a Committee in any case, and to carry the investigation no further than by the inquiries made by Select Committees on election petitions. The last course, he must say, was very objectionable, as it was a course which would screen a great deal of bribery. It was for the House very much to decide for itself. He did not wish to make any Motion on the subject. His preference certainly was for taking the first course. Still if the House should think fit to take the second course, he should submit to the decission of the House; but he confessed, if the House
230
were asked to come to a decision, he should give his vote on the division in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Westminster.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he wished to explain that he never intended to say that under no circumstances should a Select Committee be appointed. He certainly said the other night that he thought, where the Committee did not make special application or a special Report, the House ought to be satisfied with the Report of the Election Committee. He never intended to say, or to have it inferred, that the House should be precluded from carrying matters further if they thought fit.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley) called on them to vote for two things—firstly, that there should be an inquiry; and, secondly, that the writ should not be issued. Unless the House was prepared to affirm both these propositions, they could not support the Amendment. With deference to the great experience and exertions of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) on this subject, he thought it would be a most dangerous course to appoint a Select Committee in every case where a Member was unseated for bribery, and no special Report was made. The reference in the Act of last year to a Committee appointed to try whether corrupt practices existed in a borough, he interpreted as referring to a Committee under the Act of 1842. Four cases were provided for by the Act of last year to meet the instances of petitions being presented and withdrawn or compromised; also where no election petition had been presented, but a petition for inquiry emanated from the borough. The Act provided for all that was necessary; and to extend it to other cases would be dangerous. Take the case of one Member being unseated for bribery, as at Derby, and another Member seated in his place; would it be said that the writ should be suspended in such a case, or that the seat should continue vacant? In the case of Bridgenorth, the subsequent petition from the inhabitants alleged no new cases from bribery; consequently, if a Committee were appointed in that case, they could do nothing more than review the proceedings of the Election Committee. This was a fair specimen of the difficulties in which they might be involved by carrying this principle too far. It was well known that the most corrupt places would not petition for inquiry; there-

231
fore all the House could do was to touch the fringe of the case, as it were. He saw no logical connexion between the proposed supplemental inquiry, and the suspension of the writ. The boroughs could demand the issue of the writ as a matter of right. Supposing the result of the inquiry to prove that no corruption had existed, what an injustice was done the borough by depriving it of its representation for perhaps a twelvemonth. For these reasons he should vote for the Motion.
MR. BARROWsaid, he had not much acquaintance with the constituencies which were represented to be so corrupt, but he believed that a very large majority of them were not corrupt. If the House gave any credit to the Committees which had sat during the present Session, they were bound to conclude that those constituencies against whom no special Report was made were incorrupt; and it would be a gross and extravagant injustice to deprive the honest portion of those electors of a fair share in the representation because a few exceptional cases of bribery had been proved. He was much struck with a remark a few evenings ago by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), that if they brought under consideration of a Select Committee every Report upon election petitions, they would be going back to the time before the Grenville Act, when the dominant party in that House determined what Members should sit in that House. He would go further and say if the doctrine of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was carried out, the dominant party might also determine what boroughs should be represented in that House; and, with all respect to the House, be believed that was a power they had no right to arrogate to themselves alone.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he hoped the House would not be led away too hastily to a division by the course which had been pursued by the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley). They really ought to proceed with far more deliberation in this matter, for great embarrassment necessarily resulted from the step he had taken of mixing up the issuing of the writ for Blackburn with an inquiry into the general question of bribery at elections. He thought it a most dangerous course to suspend writs, because, if the time should come when parties were narrowly divided, and a few votes might turn the policy of the country, it would be in the power of the majority to use the
232
precedents for that purpose. Inquiry into bribery was totally distinct from that question. They had no right to deprive electors of the right of sending Members to that House except on the strongest grounds. On the other hand, strong measures were necessary to repress corruption, and that necessity was universally acknowledged. He agreed with the noble Lord that it would be disastrous if in no instance they were to inquire into allegations of general bribery; but they might go thus far, not to inquire further unless the Election Committee recommended it, or unless there were some special grounds laid before the House. In this instance the hon. Member (Sir J. Shelley) had made no statement, and had developed no facts to lead the House to suppose there had been any general corruption in the borough of Blackburn. It would be for the House to consider whether they would lay down any general rule. His present impression was, that they must institute some tribunal, either by Committee or Commission, which should deal with all cases where there was any ground to suppose a general system of bribery had prevailed. His reason for thinking so was, that it was manifestly the interest of parties petitioning against an election return to obtain the seat at the smallest expense, and conceal the extent of the bribery which had been practised. He thought a tribunal for the purpose of investigating general bribery might well be established; but that must be done by a fresh Act of Parliament, in order to render its proceedings efficient by giving the power to take evidence on oath. He hoped, however, that the House would not lightly refuse a writ, and thus deprive a constituency of the constitutional right to send Members to Parliament.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, there was no petition from Blackburn alleging general bribery, and from communications he had received he had every reason to believe that the next election would be conducted on the strictest principles of honoured purity.
MR. BASSsaid, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) was very tender in this instance of the rights of the electors, and keenly alive to the injustice of depriving them for a long period of the franchise; but when the writ for Derby was moved for in 1848, three weeks after the two Members had been unseated for bribery, the hon. Member opposed the Motion, and so did also the hon. Member

233
for East Kent (Mr. Deedes). Five different times the writ was moved, and five different times it was refused, and on every one of those occasions the late lamented Sir Robert Peel voted against the issue of the writ. It was said there were no circumstances in this case of Blackburn to justify the withholding of the writ. Had not they heard that the Member paid 2,500 l. into the hands of a Committee, and made no inquiries how that sum was expended, though not a shilling was returned to him? He was in a condition to prove that, in the three instances in which Members for Derby had been unseated for bribery, they did not spend half that sum. He was persuaded that, seeing, as the country did see, that every borough in the kingdom was more or less corrupt, those which had contests and those which had none—for he was in a condition to prove that in boroughs where there were no contests, large sums were paid for the seats— if they withdrew from prosecuting inquiries when bribery was proved, the country would have no respect for that House, or any confidence in the sincerity of their desire to check corrupt practices.
MR. WILSON PATTEN,in reply, said, he had listened to the discussion with the greatest attention, and had not heard any good reason assigned why the writ should not issue. He had put the House in possession of all the facts of the case—he had waited far longer than the customary period before making the Motion, and he was still more than ever of opinion that the withholding of the writ could not be justified upon any consideration of justice or of policy. He put it, therefore, to the good sense and good feeling of the hon. Member for Westminster not to press his Amendment to a division.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he was willing to adopt whatever course might appear most acceptable to the House. After the remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), and taking into consideration the general tone and tenor of the debate, he would consent to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

BRIDGENORTH ELECTION.
COLONEL FORSTERsaid, he would now beg to move that a new writ be issued for the borough of Bridgenorth. The discussion which had just taken place on the
234
subject of the Blackburn petition had exhausted so many of the topics which similar questions were likely to originate, that he did not feel it incumbent on him to trespass at any length on the attention of the House. He would simply content himself with reading the Report of the Committee, which was to the following effect:—
"We find that Henry Whitmore, esquire, was duly elected to serve as a burgess at the last election for the borough of Bridgenorth. We find that Sir Robert Pigot was not duly elected as a burgess at the last election for the borough of Bridgenorth. We find that the last election for the borough of Bridgenorth was a void election so far as regards Sir Robert Pigot. We find that the said Sir Robert Pigot was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the said Election. We find that one Joseph Mason was bribed at the said election by a bribe of 10 l., but that he was not so bribed with the knowledge of the said Sir Robert Pigot."
The petition against one of the candidates was pronounced frivolous and vexatious, and not more than one case of alleged bribery had been proved, although many had been investigated. He hoped that the House would perceive the propriety of acceding to the Motion which he now made for the issue of the writ.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bridgenorth, in the room of Sir Robert Pigot, baronet, whose Election has been determined to be void."
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it appeared to him this case stood in a very different position to that of Blackburn. The electors, by petition, alleged that gross bribery and intimidation were carried on at the last and at previous elections for Bridgenorth, and that the public-houses were generally open at the last election, and "treating" was going on in every direction. He thought it would be of very little use giving time, if, when a petition was sent up to that House, they did not appoint a Committee to inquire into its allegations. The evidence in the Bridgenorth case was now before them. He had taken some pains to read it through. He did not know whether, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, it was a strong case or not; but it seemed, to borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Dorchester, that certain little frailties were exposed; and while at Cambridge the talismanic words were "all right," at Bridge-north "let me see you again" was pretty generally understood to imply a 10 l. note. He thought that there was here a case

235
made out for inquiry. The hon. Member for the borough (Mr. Whitmore) had told them on one occasion that Bridgenorth was perfectly pure and immaculate. Now, that might be the case so far as he was concerned; for all the witnesses agreed that such was the influence of his property that bribery on his part was altogether unnecessary. But Sir Robert Pigot was not in possession of the same influence. He was put to greater difficulty in obtaining a seat, and he had to resort to unfair means. It seemed, indeed, that at Bridgenorth there was a regular system of bribery, treating, and intimidation. As the House had given the borough an opportunity of petitioning, and as that opportunity had been taken by a portion of the inhabitants, he maintained that it was their duty to appoint a Committee to inquire into the allegations of that petition. He believed that the result would be found to be that Bridge-north was one of those little boroughs where one seat was always secured to a neighbouring proprietor, where the other was open to a contest, and where there was a party who, for the good of the people in general, and of the publicans in particular, always took care to bring forward a third man. He would, therefore, move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider the allegations contained in the Petition from certain Electors at Bridgenorth [presented 10th March], complaining of corrupt practices at the last and former Elections at Bridgenorth,' instead thereof."
SIR BENJAMIN HALLseconded the Amendment.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the discussion in the case of Blackburn had very much cleared the way for the consideration of the present case. It had been admitted on all hands, in the course of the previous discussion, that it ought to be laid down as a general rule that where a Member was unseated without a special Report from the Committee a new writ should necessarily be issued without further inquiry, unless some special circumstances were adduced to justify delay. The question, then, which the House had now to consider was, whether there were any special circumstances in the present case to justify them in making an exception to the general rule. He begged to
236
say, as the Chairman of the Bridgenorth Committee, that in his opinion there was nothing whatever to justify them in making an exception to the general rule in the present case. Most certainly there was nothing in the evidence which had been laid before the Committee which would justify them in adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley). He might mention that the Committee were so anxious to extract the truth in this matter, that they brought forward a witness who had not been called by either of the parties in the case—he alluded to Mr. Charlton Whitmore, the brother of the sitting Member, and who represented the borough for twenty years. Mr. Whitmore was asked—
"In the course of your knowledge of the borough, are you aware whether there was any headmoney given to the freemen?"
He replied—
"I think not. I never heard of such a thing. As far as I know the borough, I may be allowed to say that, unless this eating and driking is to be considered in the light of bribery, I never heard of any cases of bribery in Bridgenorth, nor of any payments of money being demanded or made; and, during the twenty years I represented Bridgenorth, I was never, directly or indirectly, asked for money, except on one occasion."
This testimony was substantiated, as far as it could be, by the other evidence which was brought before the Committee. Before resolving to appoint another Select Committee, as proposed by the hon. Member for Westminster, it would be well for the House to consider who was to prosecute the inquiry? where were the funds to be procured for its prosecution? who was to appear in opposition to it? who was to examine, and who to cross-examine the witnesses? for it ought to be remembered that a strong primâ facie case was not unfrequently knocked to pieces by a clever cross-examination by the counsel on the other side. So far as he could see, no party would be sufficiently interested in appearing before the Committee and taking up the case of the borough, and defending its rights. As far as regarded the allegation of bribery, it would be quite useless to appoint a Committee. No evidence whatever of the existence of treating had been laid before the Committee. It was quite true that, owing to a technical objection, the Committee was in the first instance precluded from investigating the charge of treating; but, though an opportunity was afterwards afforded to counsel of doing so, they did not avail themselves

237
of it. And here, perhaps, he might take the liberty of suggesting that it was very desirable the Committee should have power to go into the question of treating independent of the question of agency. But the fact was, as he had said, that no evidence of treating was attempted to be submitted to the Committee, and he did not believe that any extensive treating had prevailed in the borough. And Mr. Charlton Whitmore, in his evidence, stated the reason why. With reference to the election of 1847 he was asked—
"Are you aware whether there was any treating or any open houses at that election?"
He said—
"I was then in a position to act upon my own responsibility, and I determined to stop the thing entirely—to brave the consequences; and, in order that there should be no mistake about it, I served those notices which you have heard of."
Mr. Whitmore, it appeared, had issued notices that he would pay no public-house bills. He added—
"Bills were presented to me after the election, which I refused to pay, and they have never been paid to this hour."
He was afterwards asked—
"Did that continue to a late period?"
He replied—
"It was curtailed at every election. I endeavoured to persuade those who had the power of stopping it to do so, and it was diminished election after election; and, when I had the power of acting solely on my own responsibility, I determined to brave the consequences and stop the thing altogether; and I succeeded. I am only speaking of myself, of course."
He (Mr. Bouverie) believed that this was substantially the case. He believed that guzzling did exist in former times, but that since the passing of the Reform Bill, the practice had been gradually waning, and that now it had, if not altogether, at least very nearly, expired. So much for the fact. But there was a more material objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Westminster, and it was this, that supposing a Committee was appointed, and a Report actually presented to the effect that there had been a general system of treating in the borough, the House could proceed no further. They could not found a Motion upon it for an Address to the Crown to issue a Commission of Inquiry, inasmuch as treating was entirely excluded from the operation of the Bill of last Session. On these grounds he should support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Wenlock for the issuing of the writ.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, the hon. Member for Westminster had, in the former discussion, used one unfortunate expression, when he talked of going beyond the powers of the Committee. On the present occasion he had used an expression still more unfortunate, when he said he wished the House to go beyond its own powers. He had no objection to this petition being referred to a Committee, but he could not sanction the suspension of the constitutional rights of the borough. He had gone over the evidence as attentively as he could, considering the short time it had been in his possession, and he had satisfied himself that there was no ground for the suspension of the writ. He had no hesitation in saying that, in his view of the case, the Committee ought to have found that the petition against the return of Sir Robert Pigot was frivolous and vexatious; and that, inasmuch as their decision was the reverse of this, it was not a correct decision.
MR. COBDENsaid, he wished to know whether there was a dozen of Members in the House really ignorant of the true state of the borough which was then under discussion? He held in his hand a little book with which they were all familiar, and which gave an account of the various boroughs in the kingdom, and under the head of "Bridgenorth" he found a description of that borough among the rest. He referred, of course, to Dod's Parliamentary Companion, which was an authoritative book among them. After stating that the borough returned two Members, and that there were 717 registered electors, Mr. Dod added, "in some degree under the influence of the Whitmore family." Now, that was the mild way in which Dod made up his genteel little volume. Should he (Mr. Cobden) remind the House of what was said of the borough before the Committee? He was astonished that his hon. Friend (Sir J. Shelley) had not quoted the passage he was going to read, for he observed he had marked it broadly enough. Mr. Cadogan, the unsuccessful candidate at the last election, having been sworn and examined, gave the following description of the borough:—
"I certainly shall not stand again, unless they assent to a Liberal being there. The Whitmore interest may get any one into the seat they please. They might return their own footman, if they liked."
This was the description that had been given of the borough by an hon. Gentle-

239
man who had canvassed it, but which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie), who presided over the Committee, had apparently forgotten. Now, he (Mr. Cobden) wanted to know whether the House considered our representative system a reality or not; whether they thought the people who lived at Bridgenorth had a right to send to that House anybody they pleased, or whether they were bound to send only those whom "the Whitmore interest" pleased—if it should even be "their own footman?" [Cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"] That was the question before the House, and they would not divide until they had discussed it. His hon. Friend who had presided over the Committee (Mr. Bouverie) seemed to be under great apprehension that, even if a Committee were appointed, no evidence would be obtained. Why, how was evidence obtained by every Committee? The House was, of course, put to the expense of procuring witnesses; the Committee, consisting of Gentlemen of all shades of opinion, examined and cross-examined them, and although a little clumsily, perhaps, he believed that a Select Committee was on the whole a very good ordeal for bringing out the whole truth. He held in his hand a letter from Bridgenorth, in which a hope was held out that ample evidence would be forthcoming if the House would only furnish the opportunity. The letter was written by a respectable person. [Cries of "Name!"] No, it was not necessary to give the name. He (Mr. Cobden) would give the statement on his own authority as a Member of that House. He says—
"Many reasons may be given why more names were not attached to the petition. In the first place, the time was short; in the second, the Whitmore tenantry were afraid to sign; third, the publicans are a numerous body in Bridgenorth, and few of them would sign for purity; and, fourth, we have many among us who hesitate to do anything that would expose the borough to disgrace. Then, depend upon it, there are many implicated who do not want to expose themselves. Can we expect the signatures of persons who in any way profit by the way in which elections have been conducted here? Surely the signatures of eighty electors, coupled with the fact that one of our Members has been ousted for bribery, ought to have great weight with the House. A man, a stranger to the town, was employed by us during the excitement of the canvass of the last election to ascertain if it was true that a certain number of the electors were open to bribes. This man had the names of the persons known to have been formerly bribed furnished to him, and, I believe, waited on them all; and, I believe, kept a book of the results of his interviews, with the ascertained price of each man ready to sell himself
240
again to any buyer. You may depend upon it that plenty of evidence will be given to prove the need of a change for the better. We have one man, a native of the town also, who can tell a long tale of the bribery which has existed for a long, long time; and instances of intimidation will not be few—persons turned out of shops and houses because they would not give both votes to their landlord."
Now, he thought his hon. Friend would see that there would not be the difficulty of obtaining evidence which he seemed to apprehend. He (Mr. Cobden) would pledge himself that evidence should be forthcoming if the Committee were appointed. With respect to the character of the petition, the letter which he had just quoted informed him that, besides other respectable persons, it was signed by the only two manufacturing capitalists of Bridgenorth, and that these two paid 150 l. in weekly wages to their workpeople; so that it would be seen that the petition had not emanated from what was called "the rabble" of the town. He begged to remind the House, too, that the allegations in the petition referred not to one form of impure influence alone, as was usual in such cases, but to all the three known forms of it—namely, bribery, intimidation, and treating. They did not want to have Members in that House who were returned by Mr. Whitmore, and not by the constituency; and he considered that in this case they might, without the slightest risk of doing any harm to the constituency, suspend the issuing of a writ while they could inquire into the subject. He hoped, therefore, when the eyes of the country were so intently fixed upon them, and when the character of Bridgenorth was so notorious through the land, that a majority of that House would not uphold a system of corruption which, he thought, struck at the very foundation of the representative system.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) that the eyes of the public were fixed upon the mode in which that House might proceed with reference to questions of bribery; and if the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had not withdrawn his Amendment on the last Motion, he certainly should have felt it his duty to vote for that Amendment, and he believed his noble Friend the Member for the City of London would have done the same. He (Sir J. Graham) had not thought it necessary to trouble the House with the reasons which would have induced him to give that vote, because when the

241
matter was first mooted he stated his impressions to the House, and he was prepared to have voted for a Resolution providing that in all cases where, upon the decision of Election Committees, Members of the present Parliament were unseated for bribery, a further inquiry should be instituted with reference to the conduct of the constituencies. To have given effect to that impression, he would certainly have voted with the hon. Member for Westminster in favour of the appointment of a Committee in the case of Blackburn, had not the hon. Baronet, agreeably to what appeared to be the opinion of the House, withdrawn his Motion. Inasmuch, however, as he thought it was of the last importance that they should act with the strictest impartiality and justice in these matters, and that, as the House had not withheld the writ in the case of Blackburn, it would be quite unjust to come to an opposite decision in the case of Bridgenorth. If the Amendment now before the House should be pressed to a division, he would vote against it and for the issue of the writ for Bridgenorth. Was there anything special in the case of Bridgenorth which removed it from the principle adopted by the House in the case of Blackburn? He admitted that in the case of Blackburn no petition had been sent from the borough pressing for inquiry. There was, therefore, some speciality in the case of Bridgenorth, because a petition numerously signed and praying for inquiry, had been presented from that place; but that petition—as had been distinctly stated by the Chairman of the Committee—contained no allegations which were not raised before that Committee. Those allegations, as he (Sir J. Graham) understood, were thoroughly investigated by the Committee, and time had been afforded to lay the evidence taken on the table of the House. In this respect there was a difference between the cases of Blackburn and Bridgenorth—namely, that in the case of Bridgenorth the evidence was in the hands of Members, who had had time to consider it. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had stated that a witness most competent to establish any corrupt practices, if they had existed in Bridgenorth, had been summoned before the Committee; that he gave evidence founded on a knowledge of the borough for twenty years in the most candid and explicit manner; he stated that the practice of treating had greatly diminished of late years, and was now all but stopped.
242
Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he (Sir J. Graham) did not think, the eyes of the country being fixed upon them, that they would act with justice if, after consenting to issue the writ in the case of Blackburn, they should refuse to issue a writ in the case of Bridgenorth.
MR. HUMEsaid, he fully concurred in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet who had last spoken, that in every case where a Member was unseated for bribery, a further inquiry should take place. He regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster had withdrawn his former Amendment, and believed he had done so on the understanding that it was contrary to the wishes of the Government. In this case of Bridgenorth, one of the witnesses stated that such influence existed as gave complete power to one family; and he (Mr. Hume) would like an inquiry to be made to show the real extent of that influence, because it would be one of the strongest arguments in favour of the ballot and of protection to the voter. It appeared to him that this was one of those cases into which the House ought to institute an inquiry, and he would therefore support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had stated that he based the whole of his argument upon one fact—the fact that the Whitmore family possessed not only a considerable, but a predominant, influence in the borough of Bridgenorth, and that Mr. Whitmore, whom the hon. Baronet had described as the patron of the borough, could return both Members —nay, more than that, that he could return, if he liked, his own butler. [An Hon. MEMBER: No, his own footman.] Well, whether his butler or his footman did not matter, for either result would show that that considerable influence existed to which the hon. Baronet had alluded, and the existence of which had been promptly confirmed by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose with that facility and frankness which always distinguished him, even upon subjects with which he might not be very well acquainted. Now, he (Mr. Disraeli) would refer to an authority which was open tó every one—to one of the public journals of the highest character, where he had happened to read a few days ago an account of the adventures of a candidate for the honour of representing the borough

243
of Bridgenorth. The gentleman in question was one who, from his social position, his long experience in that House, of which he was once a most respected Member, and the eminent official station he had held, was entitled, primâ facie, to the confidence of any constituency. That gentleman, however, did not trust to his birth, his experience, his social position, or even the reflective lustre of past official station. He went to Bridgenorth as the friend of the gentleman who was described to exercise such an irresistible influence in that place. The candidate to whom he referred was Mr. Goorge Hope, formerly a much respected Member of that House, who not only went to Bridgenorth, but to Apley Park, as was stated in the newspaper, as the guest of Mr. Whitmore. Mr. Hope had the singular advantage, which even Mr. Cadogan did not enjoy, of being introduced to the people of Bridgenorth at a public meeting by Mr. Whitmore—Mr. Whitmore, the patron of the borough, according to the description of the hon. Member for the West Riding, whose statement was so freely endorsed by the hon. Member for Montrose. After having canvassed the town, however, Mr. Hope frankly confessed that he could make no way whatever, notwithstanding his being the guest of Mr. Whitmore, since the opinions he professed—opinions, as he (Mr. Disraeli) believed, very favourable to the present Government—were not at all those sanctioned by the electors of Bridgenorth. Now, he (Mr. Disraeli) really thought that, in the face of circumstances so authentic as these, to the accuracy of which he believed ninny Gentlemen in that House could bear testimony, it was rather too much that the hon. Member for the West Riding should get up in this authoritative manner to endeavour to make the people of this country believe that Bridgenorth was, in fact, the rotten borough of a family, and that the free exercise of the suffrage could not there take place. The hon. Gentleman had not the slightest authority for assertions which the statement to which he (Mr. Disraeli) had referred, and which had been published within a few days, proved to be so utterly void of foundation. What was the hon. Gentleman's authority? A book which stated that the Whitmore family exercised some influence in this borough, as unquestionably they did, and as probably they deserved to do; but, because
244
they exercised some influence, the hon. Member for the West Riding said this family could return their footman to Parliament. What was the other authority to which the hon. Gentleman referred? The evidence of a disappointed candidate—a gentleman who, like all disappointed candidates, wished to account easily for a result which was not, of course, very pleasing to himself. This was the only appearance of evidence which had been adduced for the unqualified statement of the hon. Member for the West Riding—a statement which the hon. Member for Montrose, not pretending to have any further information, had assumed that no one could contradict, although the asserted patron and master of this borough had within a very short period in vain recommended to the suffrages of the constituency a gentleman who had every claim to represent that constituency, except that they did not agree with him in his political opinions.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that as he had been a Member of the Bridgenorth Election Committee, he was anxious to confirm the statement which had been made by the Chairman of that Committee, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). The real speciality of this case was, that a petition had been presented to the House stating that gross and systematic bribery and treating had been established before the Committee to have taken place at the last election for Bridgenorth. Any one who had read the evidence given before the Committee would be aware that this statement was destitute of all foundation. Twenty-five cases of bribery were alleged by the petitioners. This number was reduced to nine when they came into the Committee. Only one case was established against Sir Robert Pigot; and, with regard to that, the Committee was divided in opinion. He (Sir H. Willoughby) moved a Resolution, stating that the payment in that case was for the settlement of an old Bill, incurred by a previous candidate in 1847, when Sir Robert Pigot had no intention of being a candidate. He (Sir H. Willoughby) must say that, in his judgment, Sir Robert Pigot was, upon that case, unjustly unseated. He believed that any one who read the evidence carefully must come to the conclusion that the petition was planned long before the election. With regard to the allegation of treating, the evidence went to prove that there

245
never had been such a dry election. Indeed, he believed it was an undoubted fact that treating had not existed at the last two elections for the borough.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he thought that when the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) produced a book, which he called a book of authority, stating the paramount influence possessed by the Whitmore family in the borough of Bridgenorth, the hon. Gentleman would have done no more than an act of common honesty if he had stated that it appeared, from the evidence, that one reason of the influence of the present Member for Bridgenorth (Mr. Whitmore) was his extreme kindness to the inhabitants of the borough and the people in the neighbourhood. The hon. Member for the West Riding had laid much stress upon an anonymous communication. [Mr. HUME: Not anonymous.] Yes, it was to all intents and purposes an anonymous communication, if it was read by anybody who was afraid or ashamed to give the name of the writer. He (Mr. Herbert) could hardly imagine that he was speaking in an assembly composed of English gentlemen, when he found it necessary for a Member of that House to protest against the reception of a document the writer of which was ashamed that his name should be known. The bon. Member for the West Riding had stated that the public eye was upon them; and he (Mr. Herbert) thought the hon. Gentleman must have some ulterior object in making his statement on this subject. It had been said the age of chivalry had passed; but, however that might be, he believed there was still so much of the good old English spirit of fair play left, that a man who sought to gain an object would not influence the public opinion of England by means of anonymous communications.
MR. E. BALLsaid, that having heard the evidence he was of opinion that it was fitting there should be an inquiry by a Committee, not so much into the matter of the Bridgenorth election, but that the Committee should specially inquire whether Sir Robert Pigot ought not to have another Committee to inquire into the matter of his election. He had heard that twenty-five charges were brought against Sir Robert Pigot, which were reduced to nine before the Committee. Eight of them were swept away by the Committee. and only one was considered
246
by them, and that Sir Robert Pigot knew nothing of. Great injustice had been done Sir Robert Pigot by turning him out of his seat. He could not understand the reasoning of the hon. Member for the West Riding when he said that there must be another inquiry with regard to Bridgenorth, and yet he said that the Election Committees were the best means for ascertaining and sifting facts relating to elections. If that were the case, what was the use of appointing another Committee now?
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 50: Majority 134.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEES.
MR. EWARTsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire whether the constitution of the Select Committees of that House might not be improved by diminishing the number of Members composing such Committees. At present Select Committees of that House were unfortunately constituted; because, in the first place, it often happened that there were conflicting Committees sitting at the same time, and Members of one of those bodies might be at the same time Members of another Select Committee, which rendered it impossible for them to give due attention to both. There were also Committees on Private Bills, which were an important part of the legislation of that House, and which frequently prevented a Member from giving his attention to a Select Committee; and the same hon. Gentleman might also be appointed on an Election Committee. There was another evil in the present system, and that was, that the House was in the habit of appointing certain Members upon almost every Committee; and it was impossible for them to subdivide themselves, as it were, so as to properly transact all the duties which thus devolved upon them. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), for instance, was supposed to possess powers of infinite divisibility; and the same thing might be said of many of the Ministers and of the leading Members of the Opposition whose names adorned the lists of Select Committees of that House. It was impossible for all these hon. Gentlemen to do their duty; and their appointment excluded many most valuable Mem-

247
bers who might with great benefit to the public give their attention to the various subjects of inquiry. It was the duty of the House to give to its younger Members an opportunity of mingling with those of more experience; but the present system shut out this class of Gentlemen, as well as others, of whose services the public were deprived. Again, he thought these Committees might beneficially be diminished in number. They had been reduced from a much larger number, namely, thirty-six to fifteen; and he believed that even a smaller number than this would be advantageous, and that the Committee, except in cases of particular importance, might consist of nine, with a quorum of five—a change which would bring about greater unity of action, and that greater degree of responsibility which always attended diminished numbers. The present mode of nominating these Committees appeared to him also objectionable, and he would suggest that they should be nominated by the Committee of Selection. He should be very sorry to impose additional duty on the present Committee of Selection, but he thought there ought to be something like a central body, who would know what portion of the House was still disposable, and how Members were occupied, whether on Election Committees, or Select Committees, or Committees on Private Bills. Altogether he considered it very desirable that inquiry should be made, and he, hoped, therefore, the House would agree to the proposition he begged to submit.
MR. DUNCANseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the constitution and action of the Select Committees of this House might not be improved by generally diminishing the number of Members composing such Committees, and by making provision for their giving more undivided attention to subjects submitted to their consideration than they are able to do under the present system."
MR. SOTHERONsaid, he concurred in most of the observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart). Every Member who had taken a part in conducting the business of that House, must be aware of the evils of which the hon. Member had complained. But it was more easy to point out an evil than to suggest a remedy. The office which he had the honour to hold of Chairman of the Committee of Selection made him fully sensible of the difficulty by which
248
the question was surrounded. He had sometimes moved for a Select Committee himself, and had never been able to get the exact men whom he wanted, and whom he knew to be best acquainted with the proposed subject of inquiry. Whenever the matter was one of party, the difficulty was, of course, much aggravated. He believed something might be done to remove it by lessening the number of Members appointed on a Select Committee; and it would be a good plan if the hon. Member would get a Resolution from the House that a Select Committee should not consist of more than seven or nine Members. Above all things, he hoped the House would never consent to repeat the very mischievous experiment which had been tried in the present year, by appointing two Select Committees, one consisting of thirty and the other of thirty-one Members. The number of Members in the House was not too large for the business which it had to transact. Owing to exemptions claimed upon various grounds, there were not more than 400 Members, at the outside, who were available for service on Committees. The pressure from private business was greater this Session than had ever been known in the House before; at least in his (Mr. Sotheron's) time. At the beginning of the Session there were eighty-five election petitions, of which forty had been disposed of, and Committees would have to be appointed in thirty or forty cases. Taking the lowest of these numbers at five Members to a Committee, there would be 150 Members required for Election Committees alone. Then came the Private Bills, of which there were 345 at the commencement of the Session, and 200 or thereabouts still remained to be passed. A Resolution had been come to in the other House of Parliament, that no Private Bill should be read a first time after the 5th day of July. The House, therefore, ought to be in a condition after the holidays to appoint Committees to deal with this large number of Private Bills. He had now shown that at this moment there was an amount of labour to be performed which required extra exertion on the part of the House. In conclusion, he would take the liberty of asking his hon. Friend who had called the attention of the House to the matter before them, whether it might not equally answer his purpose if he consented to withdraw the Motion for the present, in order to see what arrangements were in contem-

249
plation, and then to take the whole subject at once.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was perfectly ready to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, as to its being advisable that the Motion should not be pressed at that moment. He thought it would be better to make the Motion at a future time, and in more general terms; so that the Committee which should be appointed might not be confined exclusively to the suggestions contained in the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), but might be enabled to offer other suggestions which would tend to facilitate the progress of business in that House. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it was highly desirable, now that there were so many subjects for the consideration of Committees, that the number of Members usually appointed to sit upon those Committees should be as small as possible. He hoped, at all events, that whenever his hon. Friend obtained the appointment of the Committee he was now asking for, he would set an example of the advantages of a small number, and that he would not propose a large number to consider the subject which he had brought under their notice that evening. It was highly desirable, also, that Members should be constant in their attendance with respect to the subjects which they might be appointed to consider. It often happened that Members were absent, without whose opinion and authority the Report of the Committee would not be looked upon as of as great value as it otherwise would be. That was a question, however, with which it was extremely difficult to deal effectually, and one which required much deliberation. Very often the day of the appointment of the Committee was early in the Session, and Members usually attended in very full numbers to hear all the evidence; and then about the middle of July, it being proposed by the Chairman to come to a Resolution upon the subject of investigation, out of the fifteen or sixteen Members who had been originally appointed, not more than seven or eight generally appeared. Four or five, therefore, formed a majority, and it was upon the opinion of those four or five Members that the House was obliged to frame its decision. He repeated, however, that the object which his hon. Friend had in view was somewhat difficult of attainment, and he hoped he would not press his Motion at the present time.
MR. RICHsaid, he thought the suggestions of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) deserved the serious consideration of the House; he (Mr. Rich) felt assured that there was hardly a Member of that House who had not observed how very hastily Committees were usually nominated. Almost all that the House saw of it was, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayter) went round the House on one side, the whipper-in on the other side did the same, and the result was that the younger Members, who perhaps wished to serve on Committees, were passed over, and became disgusted with the business of the House. The object of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayter), he feared, was not to select the best men to serve upon Committees, but the Members most disposed to carry out his views. If a Committee of Selection, however, were appointed, its Members would be responsible to that House for the proper discharge of their duties, and those Gentlemen would be chosen who were best fitted to perform the office of Members of a Committee, and to transact the business which it was necessary to have despatched. What had been the working of former Committees of that House? Why, blue books had become almost a mockery in consequence of the great superfluity of matter which they contained. This circumstance was to be attributed to the constitution of the Committees, which did not enforce the regular attendance of Members, and which thus rendered the same evidence liable to be repeated over and over again in answer to the questions of those Members who were absent when similar interrogatories had been put on a previous occasion. He did not wish his hon. Friend should press the Motion, however, at that moment, though he sincerely hoped that he might ultimately succeed in the object which he had in view.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he thought the House was much indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. Ewart), not only for the Motion itself which he had brought forward, but also for eliciting the discussion that had just taken place on it. He agreed with him that the subject called for the very serious consideration of the House, and he agreed with him that it was desirable, and there seemed to be a concurrence of opinion in the House, that the number of Members called to serve upon those Committees should be lessened. With regard to the immediate measure before the House, he would suggest to his hon.

251
Friend to postpone moving for the Committee till after he had placed himself in communication with the Committee of Selection and those Members of the Government under whose consideration the matter then was.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he was not quite sure whether the present mode of appointing Select Committees was looked upon as altogether objectionable or not. It might be very convenient that the number of Members upon those Committees should be diminished; but, at the same time, a large proportion of young Members should not be appointed to act upon them in all cases. Let them take, for instance, the affairs of India. Was it advisable, he would ask, that the Committee sitting to inquire into that important subject, being reduced to a comparatively small number, a considerable proportion of that reduced number should consist of young Members? Could a Committee so constituted have the same weight with that House as a Committee constituted in the usual manner? While it was proposed to confer advantages upon the one hand, evils, he feared, were likely to ensue upon the other. As a Member of the Committee of Selection, he wished to point out the difference that existed between public questions and private business. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rich) would have the Committee of Selection run over the House to ask Members if they would like to serve, as he had described was the mode at present; but, if so, not many Gentlemen would like to serve upon the Committee of Selection. At present hon. Members were invited to let the Committee of Selection know at what period of the Session it would be convenient to them to act upon Election Committees and on Private Bills. The Committee of Selection might think certain Gentlemen more competent than others to serve upon certain public Committees; but they could not be compelled to give their services without a different management. He should tell his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) that he, for one, could not enter into an inquiry upon the subject with any very sanguine hope of a material improvement being effected in the present system.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he wished that the inquiry should be extended not only to the Members who might constitute the Committee, but also to the subjects which should be brought under their notice.
MR. EWARTsaid, if the hon. Member for Mahon (Mr. E. Denison) had been present when he (Mr. Ewart) had introduced the question, he would have been aware that he excepted very important Committees, such as those sitting upon the affairs of India, from the same regulations as those which he proposed for the appointment of those of minor consideration. In bringing forward his Motion his only desire had been to improve, as far as possible, the interior organisation of that House. He would at once yield to the suggestions made by the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) as to the propriety of not pressing it prematurely upon the attention of the House, and would, therefore, postpone it until some more favourable opportunity of introducing it should present itself.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to move for a Select Committee to examine the proceedings in regard to Private Bills. He contended that the Private Bills promoted by the Commissioners were utterly fruitless for the purposes for which they were intended.
MR. GEACHseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the Returns made to this House by the Inclosure Commissioners, and the Commissioners of the Board of Health, and to inquire into the operation of the Tidal Harbour Commission, and to report whether any inconvenience or any benefit has resulted from the mode of proceeding in regard to Private Bills adopted by those Commissioners respectively, and whether the same can with advantage be extended to other classes of Private Business."
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, the same objection applied to this Motion which had been taken to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) namely, that at this moment, on account of the pressure of business before the House, it was very difficult to obtain Committees. He believed the object of the hon. Member was to abrogate the present system of conducting the private business, and to establish a new one. He (Mr. Patten) believed that a considerable alteration in the mode of conducting the private business of the House was necessary, but he did not think it could be conducted on the same system as formerly—namely, by preliminary inquiries, for that system had been found most expensive, and had not

253
worked efficiently. He thought there existed a strong objection to the system on which the Board of Health was carried on, but it was quite unnecessary to appoint a Committee to inquire into that subject, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Works was prepared to bring forward a measure on the expiration of the Act. The Inclosure Act had worked so satisfactorily that no inquiry was necessary on that subject. The great object of the House ought to be to make private legislation as cheap and simple as possible. He would suggest to the hon. Member the propriety of withdrawing the Motion, inasmuch as most of the subjects which it comprised would be considered before the end of the Session.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
COLONEL MUREsaid, he would now propose to appoint the Members of the Select Committee on the National Gallery.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the names, with two or three exceptions, had been taken from one side of the House. He admitted that the hon. Gentlemen selected were quite fit for the task imposed upon them, and he did not take any exception to the names; but he wished to observe that it was the general practice that on all subjects of importance the Committee should be selected in fair proportions from both sides of the House.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he would suggest the addition of one hon. Member who had taken a great interest in matters of this description, and whose services would he found most valuable—he meant the hon. Member for South Cheshire (Sir P. Egerton).
COLONEL MUREsaid, his object had been to select those Gentlemen who had taken a great interest in the subject, and whose minds had been occupied with various subjects relating to the National Gallery. One or two Gentlemen on the other side of the House, to whom proposals were made, declined being named; and as they did not suggest the selection of any other Gentleman, he did not consider it necessary to take any peculiar measure to obtain that equal balancing of sides which had been alluded to in a Committee of this nature. If there was no objection to increasing the number of the Committee, he should be glad to add the names of two or three Gentlemen on the other side of the House.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the proceedings
254
of the Committee might possibly lay the foundation for a very large expenditure, and therefore he thought the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) entitled to considerable weight.
COLONEL MUREsaid, that was a collateral event.
MR. SOTHERONhoped the hon. Gentleman would take notice of the suggestion relative to the hon. Member for South Cheshire.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he would suggest the postponement of the Motion until to-morrow, before which time it was possible some further arrangement might be made.
COLONEL MUREsaid, he had no objection to adopt that suggestion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Duke of Wellington, after the Death of his Father.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Mont Eagle.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Consolidated Fund; Metropolitan Improvements (Repayment out of the Consolidated Fund); Land Improvement (Ireland); Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Scotland).
2a Slave Trade (Sohar in Arabia); Slave Trade (New Granada); Indemnity.
Reported.—Grand Jury Cess (Ireland).
3a Inland Revenue Office; Commons Inclosure (No. 2).

OFFICE OF EXAMINER (COURT OF CHANCERY) BILL.
LORD BROUGHAM presented a petition from Attorneys and Solicitors practising in the Superior Courts of Law and Equity, praying for an alteration of this Bill, so as to declare Solicitors eligible for the appointment of Chancery Examiner. The Petitioners complained of the qualification clause of this Bill, which for the first time incapacitated attorneys or solicitors from holding the office of Examiner in Chancery. The Petitioners did not, of course, pretend that they had any right of appointment to the office, but complained of being incapacitated from holding it, which appeared to attach a kind of slur to the members of their branch of the profession.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there could not really be any reflection upon attorneys in the enactment in question, because it was not as though they had been qualified for the office under former Acts, and now were incapacitated; but, until now, there had been no qualification at all required.
LORD ST. LEONARDSremarked, that the duties of the office were now very different from what they had been; and he did not take it that any sort of slur was cast on the profession of attorneys by the qualification now proposed. If there were, he should be the last person in the world to assent to it.
Afterwards, an Amendment to said Bill reported (according to order); a further Amendment made; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

MR. OWEN'S PLANS.
LORD BROUGHAM,in presenting a Petition of Robert Owen for measures for making known his alleged discovery of the
176
means of preventing and mitigating the evils suffered by all classes in all countries, said, the Petition was from a gentleman whose great respectability and worth in his private capacity, and whose long exertions in the cause of human improvement, according to his own long-cherished opinions and conscientious convictions, were well known to their Lordships. Upon some subjects, including those of very high importance, their Lordships might widely differ from him; but upon his services in the great cause of education there could be but one feeling, that of general gratitude to the author of infant schools. His Petition set forth, as had other Petitions of his, formerly presented by him (Lord Brougham), the importance of the doctrines which he maintained, the discovery which Mr. Owen considered he had made of the true remedy for the evils that afflict society, and the prevention of which he deemed easy by his methods, when the cure of them would be hopeless. He repeated his desire to explain these principles either before a Committee of their Lordships, or in any other formal and regular manner; and he urged that a late illustrious Member of their Lordships' House, His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, had entered fully into the investigation of his methods and doctrines, had become entirely convinced of their soundness, and had been resolved to support them with his whole power and influence. It had sometimes been affirmed that Mr. Owen was a mere speculatist or theorist. Now, it was but fair to him and to his system to state, that whatever might be said of his opinions, and how much soever we might dissent from them, to the charge of being a mere visionary and impracticable speculator he was not at all exposed. He had passed his long life in active exertions, and these had been both made upon a large scale, at a great cost of money as well as toil, and with extraordinary success. From the early age of twenty he had been actively engaged in business, and had always connected with his professional pursuits the great work of improving the habits, the character, and the condition of the body of the people, the labouring classes. He began at Manchester as early as 1790, and there, employed as clerk or superintendent of a considerable establishment, he had effected a most happy change in the habits and the condition of the working people in the establishment, but so

177
little to the detriment of the proprietors of the works, that they raised his salary to three, four, and five hundred pounds; and they desired him to name his own terms, if he would continue to superintend their workpeople, whose health, education and comforts he had improved, while he had diminished the length of their day's work. But he removed to Scotland, and in 1799 began that establishment at Lanark, which was known to many of their Lordships, and which he had himself visited more than once—the first time in company with his friend, Lord Denman, and from whence he had, with others of their Lordships, transplanted to this city the infant school system. At Lanark, Mr. Owen had to work on a smaller extent of population than at Manchester, but of a description in no way better when he began his labours. He had to work on a large body of persons belonging to the establishment. Instead of 500 or 600, it consisted of between 2,000 and 3,000. That the greatest success attended the methods employed for training these persons, was known to all who had visited Lanark. That much expense of labour and money was bestowed on this great and good work, no one doubted; but that the expenditure was prudently undertaken, the figures proved. About 1,200 l. was the cost of the training. The concern, during more than a quarter of a century, flourished equally as a commercial enterprise and a philanthropic experiment. From 1799 to 1827, after paying the interest upon the capital embarked, at the rate of 5 per cent, there was divided the sum of 335,000 l., or 12,000 l. a year of clear profit, over and above the yearly interest, at 5 per cent on capital. He (Lord Brougham) conceived that he had said enough to show how groundless the notion was of Mr. Owen having all his life been a mere theorist, and unacquainted with the practical affairs of society. He moved that the Petition do lie on the table.
Petition to lie on the table.

ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS.
The EARL of MALMESBURYrose, according to notice, "to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a Correspondence which has taken place between Mr. Spence and the Board of Trade on the subject of a Bridge on the North Shields Railway." The noble Earl said it was just a fortnight since he had directed their Lordships' attention to the dangerous system of mismanagement of railways
178
in this country, and expressed the belief he entertained, in common with great numbers of his countrymen, that some arrangement should be made, over which the Government should preside, and which might at least tend to diminish, if not altogether to prevent, the lamentable loss of life and limb which had occurred, and to the continual recurrence of which he had then declared that he looked forward with apprehension. Although in his own mind persuaded that he was not at all exaggerating the danger which existed, and that his expectations were not erroneous, nor his belief that the danger might be averted by proper and prudent intervention, he did not expect that his opinions should so speedily and so fatally be confirmed in every respect as they had been during the short interval which had elapsed since he had last addressed their Lordships on the subject. It was on that day fortnight he had asked the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley) for returns of the number of accidents on railways which had occurred during the year 1852, and in that fortnight not less than five accidents of a most serious nature had taken place, occasioning considerable loss of life and injury to the passengers. One had taken place on the South Eastern, another on the York and Newcastle line, another on a branch of that line, and the most recent on the Bristol and Birmingham line. And when he mentioned that within the past fortnight, in consequence of these accidents, not less than eleven persons had been suddenly and at once destroyed, and forty persons seriously, many of them irremediably, injured, he did not think that he should be considered importunate in again presenting himself to their Lordships, for the purpose of calling their attention to the subject— especially as he believed he could now give further proofs that many of these accidents had arisen, not from mere casualty and bad fortune on the part of the companies, but actually from mismanagement and the want of care; and that they were attributable ultimately to the want of some presiding system which should keep in order the directors of these companies, or the management of these different railways. He trusted that if their Lordships were satisfied he was right in his deductions from the facts he brought forward, the Government—seeing that this was no political or party question—nor one on which they need have any difficulty in

179
moving—would give their attention to the subject, with a view of providing, if possible, a remedy for what was now a crying evil throughout the country. He did not want to agitate the feelings of timid persons; nor, on the other hand, ought he to be deterred from bringing this subject forward by the confidence of the bold. There were persons manifesting both extremes of feeling on such matters as involved physical danger; he had known some persons who dreaded to mount a pony, and others who would follow the hounds in front of a railway train. It was not either for the timid or the daring that he desired to interfere. The mass of his countrymen could not be accused of being weak-nerved; but at the same time a certain prudence attached to the English character, and he believed that the class of persons generally alarmed at these railway accidents had been so with just reason. What he wished to know was, why a board of management or a central power of executive control should not exist with regard to railways as existed already in other branches of our locomotive system. He was persuaded that, if this were established, many of these accidents would be spared. He had received a letter from Mr. Spence, a gentleman who had been in communication with the Board of Trade, and whose letter to the Board he desired to have produced. The letter he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had received from this gentleman was not long, and as it bore very strongly on his argument, he would read a few passages from it. Writing from North Shields, the gentleman says—
"I have occasion in the course of my business to travel upon the North Shields branch of the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway daily. It is a line of about eight miles in length, in a densely populated district, and the passenger traffic upon it is very great. About the middle of the line there is a wooden bridge, called the Willington Bridge, and for some time past it has been very commonly reported that the bridge in question was in a very unsafe state. On Saturday, the 19th of February, two luggage carriages in a luggage train got off the line, broke through a slight wooden railing, and were precipitated to the ground, a distance of fifty or seventy feet. I had myself passed over this bridge in a heavily-laden passenger train half an hour before; and had this accident happened to my train, not a passenger could have escaped destruction, in case the carriages had been thrown over. I am not acquainted with engineering matters, but I could see quite enough to convince me that some powerful body should interfere with the railway company for the protection of travellers, and I at once wrote to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, stating the facts as I have detailed them to your Lordship,
180
and concluding as follows:—'I observe that the bridge in question is now in course of repair, and I consider that it is necessary, for the safety of the public, that the Railway Department of the Board of Trade should appoint some competent person to examine into the state of the bridge, and, if it should in any respect be found needful, they should order the railway company to make such repairs or alterations as would place the safety of the numerous travellers by this line beyond question."
The reply was as follows:—
"I have been directed by the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st inst., and to inform you that my Lords are in communication with the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Company on the subject of your complaint. I have also to inform you that my Lords have no power to order the railway company to make repairs or alterations in their works."
This was the important part of the communication from the Board of Trade. The correspondence did not go beyond that. The Board had no power to do anything; although satisfied that the bridge was unsafe, they had no power, it appeared, to compel the railway company to place the bridge or railway in such a state as should secure the safety of the public. The letter of Mr. Spence proceeded to say—
"On Wednesday, the 2nd of March, eleven days after the accident, and nine days after the date of my letter, a fatal accident happened to a passenger-train at this very bridge. In consequence of the disgraceful and dangerous state of the line, an engine, tender, and guard's van were thrown down an embankment on the approach to the bridge, and the engine-driver was killed on the spot. The stoker and guard were also seriously injured, and many of the passengers suffered from severe contusions. Fortunately the coupling-chains between the guard's van and the passenger carriages were broken, otherwise the loss of life would have been much greater, for the train was going at such a speed that the carriages ran without the engine about 200 or 300 yards. Now, I can say with some degree of certainty, that if any Government officer had seen the state of this line, and the bridge in particular, at any time during the last few weeks, and if such officer had had the power to compel the railway company to put their line into good working order, this lamentable accident might have been avoided."
But there was still stronger and more recent evidence as to the necessity for some authority to compel the companies to put the lines in due order, when found to be dangerous for the public safety. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) alluded to the evidence given by Captain Wynne, the Government Inspector of Railways, who was last Saturday examined on the inquest held upon the bodies of the persons killed by the accident on the Man-

181
chester and Bolton line, when five persons were killed, and twelve mutilated or severely injured. Why did the accident happen? Comparing the evidence of one witness with another, it would appear that the train must have been going at the rate of forty or fifty miles an hour, and that was as much as could be collected from the witnesses; but he wished to call attention to the evidence of Captain Wynne:—
"I attend here at the request of the Board of Trade. I have gone over the line from about a mile east of the Clifton Junction (Agecroft Hall), and walked to Bolton, closely examining the line throughout. On this length of line there are several descriptions of permanent way laid. With the exception of one, they are all of modern construction, and quite suitable to the traffic. It will, therefore, be necessary for me only to describe one description of permanent way I think exceptionable. I find this part is laid on longitudinal sleepers. The timber has been down 14 or 15 years. The rails they carry are the second set of rails, which have been down, I find, about six years. They are of old pattern, but of adequate strength, and 701b. to the yard. The great object to be attained in a line of this description is, that the sleeper shall have a solid bed. The construction of this part is such that that object is not attained, or only partially so. The timbers rest upon cross-sleepers, every nine feet apart, which are dovetailed into the bottom of the longitudinal timbers. When this line was originally laid down it was never contemplated that the traffic would be so great, or locomotives be so heavy. In consequence of this being the second line of rails the timbers carry, in taking off one and putting down another set of rails the timber has been so wounded and shaken, added to the long time it has been exposed to the atmosphere, that I have no doubt its bearing strength is impaired fully one-half. Therefore, although it has to carry a greater traffic and greater weight, its strength is greatly impaired. The jury will understand that, with a long piece of timber, a heavy train will bend them between the points of support unless the ballast was well beaten up under them, which was not the case here. In consequence of the nature of the road, it is one very difficult to maintain properly. On the upper surface of the rail I find that the rail has buried itself in the sleeper to the depth of the flange. The rail is secured to the sleepers at the joints by a chair, fastened down by bolts screwed into the timber, and intermediate between those points the rail is fastened down by spikes. From the weakness of the timbers there is great working in the joints, and the chairs have buried themselves very much and eaten a way into the timber. I found the rails work very much in the chairs, and the chairs work very much on the timbers. I would observe that the timbers present a more unsound appearance than they really have. I tried in several of the worst-looking places, by placing a pinch-bar under the rails, if I could lever it up and start the spikes, but I found that their hold was firm. The point to which I attach the greater security is the chair; for you perceive the compound motion of
182
the timber bending and the chair rocking, produced a very compound or complicated and uneasy motion to a passing train. It would give considerable motion to a train. I found the keys required very generally renewing; the worms were worn off the screws which secured the chairs to the sleepers, and in other instances the nut into which the screw should work at the bottom of the sleepers would not hold. Underneath the chair required repacking with other pieces of timber, to give it a firm bed. I should say 75 per cent of chairs were deficient of strength, either from bad screws, keys, or nuts; and several parts of the line where I found the timbers with a good deal of motion, I had the line, or the ballast opened, beaten up underneath the sleeper, the chair screwed down, and, where the nut was deficient, replaced with another, a fresh key put in, and I found this caused a great amelioration of the evil, but not an entire improvement. I found the ballast throughout the line good and abundant. There was, therefore, no excuse from the state of the weather, in allowing the line to become so deteriorated. In some lines, where the ballast is bad, or consists of mud, to open it in bad weather would not improve the line, or it might make matters worse; but such was not the case here. I would conclude by saying, the line is quite inadequate, and not of sufficient strength for the traffic; dangerous for trains at high speed, or for trains at 30 miles per hour."
Captain Wynne proceeded to make statements which would not reassure the public:—
"I think the part of the line I was describing is unfit for twenty-five miles an hour. I think twenty miles an hour might be safe. I should like to make one observation—I do not think this is an extremely bad line, as an exceptional case."
Captain Wynne added—
"I regret to say that there are a great number of lines in the kingdom, where very high speeds are maintained, of which this line is only a type."
Then came the servants of the company, one of whom said—
"I have asked Hughes and Garnett for materials, and have been threatened to be discharged. Those threats were, if I applied for bolts, keys, and chair-packings."
The very things which Captain Wynne thought were wanted:—
"I certainly consider the rails required those things. The foundation is clay in many places, and very bad, having very little ballast under the sleepers. I never mentioned this to Mr. Izzard, always wishing to wrap things up and make the best of them. I attended on the previous day of the inquest."
The witness concluded by saying that he should probably get discharged for saying what he had. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) could have gone much further, but

183
would not trespass on their Lordships' time, except as regarded this case; but he thought he had shown on the best possible evidence—that of the company's servants and the Government Inspector— that one, at least, of those accidents was to be attributed to the state of the road, the state of the road being such as not to admit the rate of speed at which the train was travelling. If their Lordships agreed with him (the Earl of Malmesbury) in thinking that it was necessary that there should be some superintending power to look over the state of the railways, and secure a due regard for the public safety, there was nothing in the proposition—that there should be some superintending power to overlook the state of the roads, and make the public secure of having them kept in an efficient state for travelling on—at all unreasonable, or partaking of the character of undue interference. Ho was asking for nothing but that which all English subjects were already liable to in cases analogous. In demanding that railways should be visited and reported upon by Government officers, and that if the lines were found unsafe, the companies should be compelled to repair them, he was only demanding what now was the law in respect to all common public highways. Every county or liberty was bound to repair its roads; and if a road were in an unsafe state, the county or liberty could be compelled to repair it by an order of magistrates, upon the report of the surveyor of highways. It was impossible, therefore, to maintain that in his proposition he in the least infringed upon the proper freedom of the railway companies, which he admitted they ought to exercise so far as was consistent with the safety and security of the public. In addition to the appointment of some central authority and some inspecting power, he should also suggest that the maximum rate of speed which was consistent with safety should be ascertained, and that beyond that maximum of speed the trains should not be allowed to run; and, thirdly, he should recommend that a minimum time should be declared within which interval no trains should be allowed to start. Instances had arisen last year of trains (especially "excursion trains") running within five minutes of each other, to which cause several accidents could be ascribed. He conceived it was the duty of the Government to consider whether, upon these points, they
184
ought not to seek to give themselves greater power than they now possessed. Indeed they now appeared to possess really none at all useful to the public; and he was certain that they would be supported by public opinion in demanding such power as would enable them, upon proper investigation, to compel the companies to do what was proper with a view to a just regard for the public safety. When he had referred to the subject on a former occasion, he was sorry to say that he saw no prospect of the Government moving in the matter. He had been told of a Committee of the House of Commons, to which the subject of railways had been referred. Now he had a great respect for the House of Commons and its Committees, and for the persons who were delegated by that House to sit on their Committees; but he knew from experience that subjects were given to Committees for investigation, which subjects had frequently never emerged again; indeed, he knew no surer way of shelving a subject than referring it to a Select Committee of either House of Parliament. He should himself prefer a Commission from the Crown to examine persons unconnected with railway companies— persons of scientific attainments and practical experience—from whose evidence it could be ascertained what was the maximum rate of speed and the minimum for the interval of starting different trains, and how far Government officers, following out the analogy of common roads and bridges, might interfere to compel railway companies to have their roads and rolling stock in proper condition. That commission might receive suggestions and also communications relating to new inventions for the improvement of carriages and the mechanical part of railway work. Of those, nine out of ten, or ninety-nine out of one hundred, might be worthless; but if a commission were appointed to do what no commission had ever yet done, to examine those inventions, they would select from them, or discover among them, some good ones, which would tend to increase the safety of travelling, and which might afterwards be recommended to the railway companies for adoption. He could see no objection to the inspection he now suggested, because there already existed inspection in regard to seamen, emigration, and the like. It would appear, indeed, as if an exception were to be made in the case of railways. He did not want an exception made in

185
that case. He did not advocate the complaints of timid persons; but he thought that on the three points to which he had referred it would be for the public advantage if the Government would interfere, and, without waiting for any reports from the House of Commons, would appoint a commission with the fullest power to see what could be done in the matter.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYagreed that nothing could be more painful than the occurrence of those accidents to which the noble Earl had referred. There was no subject which had more engaged the attention of the Government, in the department with which he was connected, than the important question of security in railway travelling. It must be obvious that, if only from the most selfish motives, every one must desire to secure safety in railway travelling: for the prince as well as the peasant, for the peer as well as the commoner, for the subject, and for the Sovereign, the question was the same; and it must be not less the desire of those who were in the public service to do all in their power to attain the object in which so many had an interest. Seeing that they all desired to obtain increased security in railway travelling, the question was, what was the best mode of obtaining that security? Because, if there were too much interference on the part of the Government, it might defeat the object they had in view, and the very danger they were struggling to avoid might be aggravated. The suggestion of the noble Earl was, that the Government should appoint a Commission; but the noble Earl might be reminded that the difficulties which attended the question were not new, that they had manifested themselves under different Governments, and that the Government with which the noble Earl had been connected, having had a whole year to consider what were the best means which could be devised for protecting the public from such dangers as he had described, did not propose to appoint a Commission, did not bring forward measures to give the security which was sought; but thought the best course was to propose the appointment of a Committee in the House of Commons, which should make inquiry into the subject, and consider the best means of securing the public against the dangers and disasters to which they were exposed. On that Committee, he should further remind the noble Earl, who had expressed distrust of the House of
186
Commons' Committees, and had suggested what were the views by which he thought persons placed on that Committee might be actuated, that there was not one person a Member of that Committee who was directly or indirectly connected with railways. That Committee would have the best opportunity of obtaining information of a scientific nature from persons who were interested in railways, as well as from others—information which might enable them to offer suggestions as to what were the best measures that could be devised to meet the necessity of the case. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) was not prepared to say whether it might be desirable or not to give the Government greater powers in regard to railways; but whatever powers might be given to the Government, it must be remembered that the greatar part of the safety of working lines of railway must depend upon the observance of the regulations that were established, whether those regulations were established by the railway companies, or, as the noble Earl seemed to suggest, regulations recommended and declared by the Government themselves. In either case, it must be obvious to every one that security in railway communication must depend on the servants and officers of the railway companies who had to carry such regulations into effect. He should not, at the present moment, say whether it would be proper to ask additional powers for the Government, enabling it to frame regulations or approve of regulations framed by the different railway companies; for their Lordships would, he thought, agree with him that it was not the time for the Government to express an opinion when the whole subject was and would be most attentively and anxiously considered by a Committee of the House of Commons, composed, he would undertake to say, of as good and useful a body of men to inquire into such a subject as any that could be appointed on any Commission such as the noble Earl had suggested. He therefore begged the noble Earl would excuse him from expressing an opinion on the subject. But at the same time he could assure the noble Earl that the Government were giving their attention most anxiously to the subject, and would not hesitate to ask for additional powers from Parliament, if, on full investigation, and after examination of the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons, it should be deemed necessary or advantageous for the

187
public service that such powers should be given. With respect to the remarks with which the noble Earl had prefaced his observations, he should merely state that, on an intimation being received with respect to the condition of the line in question, no time was lost in sending a Government Inspector to make immediate inquiry. The first information received by the Board of Trade was with respect to the dangerous state of the road, and an accident to a luggage train. On receiving this information the Board of Trade communicated with the company, and the very same day Captain Wynne was despatched to the place. Upon the very same day, however, an accident occurred on the Bolton Railway, and Captain Wynne was obliged to go down to ascertain the cause of that accident before he had time to complete his report on the first one; but as soon as he returned he would make his report, and it would be laid upon the table. As to the numerous accidents that had recently occurred, he (Lord Stanley) was very far from finding fault with the noble Lord for taking notice of them and calling attention to the desirableness of some measures being adopted to prevent them in future; and he would only caution their Lordships that the exercise of a too direct and too immediate control by the Government might not effect the object they had all in view, but might even increase the evils which they sought to remedy.
LORD BEAUMONTthought the state of railway management was approaching such a crisis that the interference of the Legislature would become a matter of absolute necessity. But at the same time he must, with deference to the noble Lords who had spoken, be permitted to state that he had not heard from the noble Earl who introduced the subject, much less from the noble Lord who followed, any suggestion which tended to hold out the hope that one would travel with greater safety for the future. The subject, it must be acknowledged, was one of great difficulty. The difficulty lay in ascertaining the point where they could with safety draw the line between the independence of the companies and the interference of the Government; because, whenever the independence of a company ceased, there ceased with it, in a certain degree, the responsibility. And nothing could be more dangerous for the public than to lessen the responsibility of the companies. The difficulty on
188
the other side was this, that if the interference of Government were admitted to any extent, the Government, having taken on itself that amount of responsibility, would be obliged to employ so large a body of men that the employment of so large a staff might suggest of itself a reason or motive for not adopting that plan. Notwithstanding these difficulties, he believed it was possible that the Legislature might do something to advance the object in view. He anticipted little good from a Commission; he anticipated still less good from the Committee of the other House now sitting; but he believed that, with the knowledge the Legislature possessed on the subject, a Bill might be framed and introduced into Parliament making it imperative on Railway Companies to adopt certain plans which had over and over again been suggested as a means of preventing, or at least of diminishing accidents. Many plans for this purpose were in operation on foreign railways—precautions neglected in this country. A Bill which exposed to penalties and to punishment a railway company which should neglect so to construct their carriages and so to manage the putting together of their trains as to avoid, as far as possible, any violent concussions, might be introduced with advantage in this country, as he believed such a measure had been adopted in some parts of Germany. It appeared from the examination that took place after accidents, that many railway carriages were imperfectly constructed—that was to say, were so constructed for the sake of economy, that that amount of strength was wanting which ought to be required and was necessary to break the concussion if a train came into collision violently at that point with another. Again, in regard to signals, crossings, the numher of guards, breaks, and carriages, general laws might be enacted which would enable the public to enforce attention to their safety and comfort, or to punish any neglect on these essential points. In the same way with respect to the hours of starting or arriving, some regulations were necessary—he did not say with respect to the rate of rapidity, for the difficulty of dealing with that was obvious; but with respect to those minor subjects there might be a Bill which would inflict a penalty, to deter the parties from the amount of negligence so often shown, and to give some promise of security. At any rate, whatever might be the plan suggested, nothing could be worse than the

189
present. The Government Inspector invariably arrived after the event; it seemed, that in no case precaution was taken before the accident happened, and the Government Inspector merely reported to his Department what might often be much better learnt from the public sources of intelligence. What he wanted was a security that negligence would be punished, whether the negligence was followed by an accident or not. He was not sorry to hear the subject discussed; and he hoped that some suggestion might emanate from some quarter, though he did not expect that quarter would be the Committee of the other House of Parliament to prevent, if possible—at all events to mitigate—accidents such as those which had recently occurred, and against which there at present appeared to be no efficient means of providing.
The EARL of GLENGALLsaid, the public were obliged to his noble Friend for having brought this subject forward. It could not be said that his noble Friend had excited unnecessary alarm in the public mind by introducing this subject, because the very first thing the traveller saw when he went to a railway station, was the danger signal hoisted in the shape of the Railway Insurance Company's placard. Having paid a great deal of attention to railway management, and having waded through the melancholy accounts of the accidents which had recently occurred, be had arrived at the conclusion that, although some of those accidents had arisen from causes which were beyond human control, yet many of them might have been avoided, or at least mitigated in their severity, if those means which were within the reach of the management of railways had been adopted. The accidents which had arisen from fractures in the iron work, scarcely fell within the responsibility of the railway authorities, for the best manufacturer of iron could not prevent the fracture of parts of the machinery; but those accidents which were the result of overweighting the engines were clearly assignable to want of caution and foresight. In the first place, a heavy train worked by one engine rarely arrived at its proper time. Accidents often arose from that circumstance. Now, the very obvious mode of preventing such accidents was to employ two engines instead of one. Again, it was a very difficult thing for an engine that was overweighted to back into the siding; and it frequently occurred that the train was so long that
190
the siding was not capable of taking the whole of the carriages, so that a portion of them were left outside the siding, to the manifest danger of any other train that might approach the station. It was clear an evil of that description could easily be obviated, simply by not suffering the trains to be so long, or else by lengthening the sidings to admit of the trains being shunted. A plan had occurred to his mind by which he believed much of the injury resulting from railway accidents might be avoided, and the number of killed and wounded considerably diminished. His suggestion was, that the seats in the railway carriages should be placed longitudinally. He believed that the greater portion of the evil resulting from the accidents arose from the fact of persons sitting opposite each other. When persons were sitting vis-à-vis, the moment an accident occurred to the train their heads were knocked together; but, if the seats were in a longitudinal position, they would sustain no injury at all. The only result would be, that the people would be thrown shoulder to shoulder; and there would not be any danger of broken legs; for it was the sharp edge of the opposite seat which caused so many broken legs; but if persons were thrown sideways, they would not be thrown against any seats. An article had appeared in a leading journal in which the writer sneered at his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury), on the supposition that his noble Friend had suggested that the passengers should be slung in the carriages as if in hammocks, like as horses were slung in their boxes. Even supposing his noble Friend had made that suggestion, he would not have been so very far wrong. They never heard of accidents occurring to horses; and why? Because there were no other horses sitting opposite to them. He was quite satisfied that if it were determined to try the change, he (the Earl of Glengall) had suggested with respect to the position of the seats in the carriages, the railway companies would readily afford an opportunity of testing the comparative advantages of the plan.
The EARL of HARROWBYwas of opinion that the greater number of railway accidents arose from two causes chiefly— namely, excessive economy on the part of the company, and excessive speed. And whence these two causes? Most unquestionably they sprung from the mistaken policy of competition which the Legislature had introduced in regard to railways. One great cause of accident was the use of

191
engines of a degree of weight which the rails were not calculated to bear. This resulted in some degree from the competition between the two descriptions of gauge —the broad and the narrow gauge. The broad gauge boasted of its great speed, and the narrow gauge competed with the broad gauge, and in doing so employed engines of a greater weight than the rails would bear. The effect was, to unsettle the rails and produce considerable insecurity. Competition also led the trunk lines to construct lines that were really profitless, and this induced a system of economy not consistent with safety. If the railway companies were each in the possession of a certain defined district of country, as was the case with foreign railways, then Parliament could insist upon a certain system of management being adopted; but when each company was seeking to outbid the rest in the formation of branch lines running into each other's district, and, as it were, compelled to struggle for a bare existence upon the principle of trade, it was inevitable that the companies should confine their expenditure in other respects as closely as possible, and thus run the risk of accidents accruing. He was quite certain that if Parliament wished to obtain security, it must, in the first place, diminish the speed of the trains, and that could only be done by getting rid of the spirit of competition; and, in order to put an end to competition, they must assign certain districts of the country to certain railway companies. Until that principle should be adopted, it would be impossible to give security in railway travelling to the public. Railway companies were now driven to buy up competing lines which were of no value, and even to construct railways of no value, thus subjecting themselves to very heavy burdens; and in order to struggle against these unprofitable outlays, they were obliged to resort to a system of excessive speed and of an injudicious economy. He would repeat that until the principle of foreign railways was in some degree adopted, and the railways had secured to them a certain district of country, it was impossible for Parliament to exercise any efficient control over them. Government must either take upon themselves the whole responsibility of the management of railways, or they must leave it in the hands of the companies. No fine could produce any possible effect. Why, every accident that occurred was in itself a very heavy fine upon the company on whose lines the accident happened. The
192
actual destruction of property caused them a great loss; and if, in addition to this, there was the loss of life or of limb, then the damages that were awarded became a still heavier fine. Those damages were of no slight amount, when they considered the principle laid down by the Judges by which the juries were to assess them—namely, in proportion to the wealth and station in life of the party killed or injured. If, for instance, a man worth 15,000 l. a year were killed by a railway accident, his widow would have her loss estimated in reference to that amount of income. It was a fact that on one occasion, at least, an accident on a railway cost the company as much as 30,000 l. In conclusion, he must say that he anticipated no good from transferring the management of railways from the companies to the Government. It would be only shifting the responsibility from the shoulders of those who could carry out a good system of management—namely, the companies—to those of the Government, who could not.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, their Lordships ought to bear in mind, when speaking of the great number of railway accidents that had recently occurred, that the weather had been worse for several months past than was ever previously known in this country. Was it not to be expected, that under such circumstances, excessive injury would be done to the railroads, in like manner as they knew had been done to other descriptions of roads? That might in some degree account for the accidents which had recently occurred. It struck him, also, that another cause, of a more serious nature, might be assigned, which he was afraid no interference of the Board of Trade could prevent—he meant the deterioration which, from use, the railways themselves had undergone. The wear and tear of those roads was immense, and the companies had not funds enough to put them into that state of repair which they required. No doubt the principle of competition, which was so universally acted upon, compelled the companies to reduce their fares to the lowest possible amount, and deprived them of the funds necessary to carry those repairs into effect. With regard to the question more immediately under their Lordships' notice, he confessed he could not see his way clearly through the difficulty. The safety of the public was, of course, the first consideration of Parliament; but it did seem to be almost impossible to devise any mode for curing the evils

193
which were admitted to exist. He trusted that something might emanate from the Committee of the other House that might induce Parliament to legislate efficiently upon the subject.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the question was whether an admitted grievance should be allowed to continue year after year, because they were incapable of devising a system which should be liable to no objections? If he were called upon to say whether he would have the responsibility of railway companies or the responsibility of the Government under an Act of the Legislature, of the two he certainly should prefer the responsibility of the railway companies. But that was not the question. His noble Friend did not propose to free the railway companies from all responsibility. On the contrary, what he sought was something like cumulating the responsibility which the railway companies already bore. But he (Lord Monteagle) rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the number of accidents attributable to the utter neglect of punctuality on the part of the companies. Even in starting from the metropolis, where there was less excuse for it, how often did we go to a station at the hour appointed and find the train not started for half an hour or three-quarters after its time. There was nothing to be done in the way of remedy for this unless there happened to be an accident. An intelligent man, who had turned his attention to the subject as a matter of science, had stated that, as a general system, there was no reason why railway movements should not be regulated with as much accuracy as the movements of a clock. If a time-table were returnable to a Government department, and you were enabled to check any departure from punctuality, you would do more to prevent accidents than by more operose and ingenious systems recommended by some.
The EARL of MALMESBURYwas glad that the Government meant to turn their attention to the subject, which he had felt it right to bring before the House. He did not undervalue the difficulty of an interference with regard to the state of the road; but it was proved that accidents had occurred from the state of the road, and from going over it too fast in its imperfect condition. As for the plea of a bad winter, in regard to those cases to which it would apply, it was obvious that if the roads suffered, and were in a bad condition, the speed ought for a while to be dimin-
194
ished, and the time-table altered. He wished to ask whether the Committee looked upon it as one of its duties to receive and examine inventions and mechanical proposals which might be presented for their inspection by persons so inclined? He thought that of great importance.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYapprehended that it was within the province of the Committee to receive any suggestions of improvement, and he had no doubt they would do so. Captain Simmons, of the Board of Trade, was about to be examined, and make such suggestions as he had to make.
The EARL of MALMESBURYwas not sure whether the noble Lord's answer applied to inventions such as improved breaks, &c. for affording greater security against accidents.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought it would be quite competent to the Committee to receive such evidence.
LORD BROUGHAMhoped the Committee would not finish its labours without making diligent inquiry into the proceedings that had taken place in the criminal courts in Scotland in connexion with this subject. He had reason to believe that the course there taken—in his opinion with most strict regard to the law, and most wholesome attention to the prevention of these dreadful accidents—had been attended already with the happiest results. He would rather decline going into particulars, because it was unadvisable to enter into comments upon the conduct of the learned Judges, even for the purpose of lauding it.

COUNTY COURTS—EXPLANATION.— BANKRUPTCY LAW (SCOTLAND).
LORD MONTEAGLEhaving postponed his notice of presenting a petition from the diocese of Sydney, and observed that by so doing he should enable a noble and learned Lord to bring on another subject,
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he hoped the House would not take alarm as if he was about to detain it at any length, but there were some papers to be moved for, which he should not have an opportunity of moving for unless he did it now—the same returns with respect to the Superior Courts which had been already furnished with respect to the County Courts; and he wished to take the opportunity of setting right a mistake with regard to these courts. A fews nights ago he contrasted the amount of the sums recovered by the County Courts

195
in a year—600,000 l. and odd—with the enormous amount of the taxes upon the proceedings in those courts levied in the shape of fees—no less than 272,000.; but it had been most properly suggested to him by some of the learned Judges of those courts, that the 600,000 l.—and the real sum was 800,000 l., the return being faulty in that respect—was by no means the whole amount recovered. There was, perhaps, 100,000 l. paid into court; and the amount paid by parties settling before the proceedings went into court was probably 300,000 l. more, making 1,200,000 l. —the result of this most beneficial system of local judicature. It was with that amount, and not 600,000 l., that we must compare this large sum extorted from the suitor in law taxes. It was in amount between one-fourth and one-fifth of the whole money recovered; but even if we take the whole money sued for—1,600,000 l., it was 17 per cent of that sum. This was an evil which we had the means of remedying, and ought to redress without delay; and, seeing that even with this the advantage to the suitors and the community was prodigious from this admirable system of local judicature, he could not help hoping, that while it would be improved in England, it would be extended to Scotland. He knew that the existing system could not be suddenly altered—could not even gradually be entirely changed, and that there were difficulties in that direction almost insuperable; but he would fain hope that as much as possible might be done, extending to Scotland, without the complete alteration of the Sheriff Courts—without a sweeping and radical alteration, the real substantial benefits of the English institution—a local judicature to the amount of 50 l., parol and not written proceedings, and no appeal from the local resident Judge to the non-resident Judge—though he might nominally be local, be called local, which he was not —but an appeal confined, as in England, to error in law, and made to the Supreme Court. If that were given to Scotland, and reserving the power of afterwards dealing more or less extensively with whatever other defects might be in the system, a most prodigious advantage would be gained, and the existing agitation against the whole system as at present established would be put an end to in the most satisfactory manner. It was with great satisfaction that he had heard that the Government had resolved to issue a Commission to inquire into the whole of that great subject
196
—the assimilation of the mercantile law in the different parts of the United Kingdom, including the assimilation of the procedure, and, among other branches, the most important of the whole—the assimilation, to a certain degree at least, and in some manner, of the law of bankruptcy and insolvency; he would not say, by applying the English system entirely to Scotland, or by substituting the Scotch system for the English, but in all probability by coming to some third system better than either, compounded of the best parts of both. He had no doubt the inquiries about to be instituted would result in substantially effecting that purpose. The great mercantile body in the provinces, both of England and Scotland, and especially in the great City of London itself, felt deeply anxious upon this subject; and he was about to present to the House a Bill which he considered as going in the right direction. If the English system was to be applied to Scotland—that of administering bankruptcy in a court and by Judges, that of giving the inestimable blessing of official assignees, that of giving the equally solid advantage in a moral, legal, and commercial point of view, of three classes of certificates—if, upon inquiry, it should be found fit that that system be extended, and the difficulties in the way of extending it should be found capable of being got over, in whole or in part, so that substantially (though not wholly) the benefits of it might be extended, the Bill he was about to lay upon the table would be found to work out those principles, and to go no further. He would not go into the details of it, nor would he pledge himself that upon inquiry it might not be found that a lesser change would be more advisable; because in applying our new bankrupt law to Scotland, we should be doing a very different thing from that which we did when we established it here, where we had a system something of the same kind to work upon and improve upon, and the difficulties in the way of the introduction of our present system into Scotland might very possibly, upon inquiry, be considered insuperable. He was bound to state this great difference between the two cases. When he brought forward in 1831 the new bankruptcy measure, he knew that he had a system of judicature already established, which only required to be improved. Bankruptcy was admitted by the Commissioners, that is, by a court: this court was new modelled, and the most

197
important addition was made of official assignees. In 1849 the almost equally valuable improvement of class certificates was added. But we had in Scotland no such system established to remodel, or on which to graft these improvements. Therefore it was that he spoke with diffidence upon the question, whether or not the result of the inquiry about to be instituted would lead to such an alteration. But if it should be considered that it would be beneficial and safe to apply the principles of the English system well worked out, then that great mecantile body whom he might humbly venture to say upon this occasion he represented, would have rendered great service by the steps which they had taken for urging upon our attention the details as well as the principles of measures which might have the effect they desired. He had now to present a Bill to improve the Administration of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Scotland.
Bill read la.
Returns mentioned by the noble and learned Lord ordered.
House adjourned to Thursday next.