Sitting of 14 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Indian Appointments, &c.
2° Metropolitan Sewers; Returning Offices; Russian Government Securities.
Reported—Poor Law Commission Continuance (Ireland); Royal Military Asylum; Benefices Augmentation; Joint Stock Banks (Scotland); Criminal Justice.
3° Highway Rates; Savings Banks; Heritable Securities (Scotland); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; General Board of Health; Registration of Births, &c. (Scotland); Friendly Societies (No. 2).

BRIBEBY, &c., BILL.
Order for Committee read, House in Committee.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he begged to move to leave out certain words in the clause relative to the appointment of election officers; namely, that, in case the candidates or their agents not being able to agree upon a person to act as election officer, the returning officer should before the nomination appoint such election officer himself. He considered that if this provision remained part of the Bill, there was nothing whatever to interfere with the power of the returning officer to appoint any one he pleased. By the 19th section of the Bill, all claims were to be sent in to the candidate or his agent, and by the subsequent clause the candidate was to make a declaration to the election officer of the correctness of the claims, and that he had paid no expenses except advertising and personal expenses. The candidate must not pay a single farthing beyond those expenses which were legalised by the Bill, except through the election officer; he was to send in all bills and charges to the election officer within a month, or be liable to a penalty of 50 1., and 20 l. for every week of his default. The result of this enactment would be, that the candidate would have to go through all the accounts sent in to him, and if he made any mistake or paid what were considered not legal expenses under the Act, he would be liable to a heavy pe-

269
nalty. In point of fact, all the expenses of the election would have to go through the hands of an irresponsible and, perhaps, partisan election officer without security at all, who would be enabled to put a veto on any particular expense, and expose the candidate to actions at law, which, by the subsequent clauses of the Act, were not allowed to be settled without the consent of the election officer, and if decided by the Court, a copy of the judgment was to be sent to him. Considering, therefore, that such election officer might be a partisan, it showed considerable want of care in the preparation of the Bill to invest him with such powers over the candidate. He (Mr. V. Scully) objected also to the payment by each candidate of a fee of 10 l. to the election officer. How were they to define the word "candidate?" It very often happened that half-a-dozen gentlemen came forward at an election when not more than two or three went to the poll; yet by this Bill every one who addressed the voters might be termed a candidate and made to pay the fee. He thought if an election officer were appointed at all, he ought to be invested with something of a
judicial character, and certainly not appointed in the way proposed. He therefore wished to omit that portion of the clause which enabled the returning officer, be he partisan or be he not, to nominate the election officer, be he competent or not competent, partisan or otherwise. He was willing that there should be a judicial officer appointed to discharge the duties of election officer, and after the omission of the words which he desired to exclude, he was prepared to move the insertion of words which would constitute the election officers on what he considered to be a proper and sound basis.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he also had an Amendment to move in the same clause, which, as it came before that of the hon. Member who had just sat down, was entitled to be taken first. He considered it extremely desirable, when they were making provisions which would so stringently affect candidates, that the word "candidate" should be properly defined. Was a candidate a man who had been regularly proposed and seconded on the hustings, or one who had merely addressed the electors through the medium of a newspaper? He should move to substitute the word "after" for the words "previous to" the nomination, in the 4th line of the clause.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that the strict legal meaning of the word "candidate" applied, no doubt, to a person who had been duly proposed and seconded; but popularly, it embraced the wider sense of any person who presented himself to a constituency for election; and it was in this latter sense that the clause was to be understood. Its effect was, that, whenever an election was approaching, the candidates might meet together and agree upon the individual to he appointed as election officer some time even before the actual election.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought that after the nomination the gentlemen who intended to go on as candidates bonâ fide could arrange how they were to carry on the business of the election.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he attached great importance to the part of the Bill in question for which the House was indebted to the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly). If that part of the Bill which related to the appointment of an election officer was carried out in an efficient manner, it would be an important step taken to putting an end to bribery, by rendering it impossible hereafter to bribe. The more this was the feeling of the House, the more he was convinced of the importance of appointing a person of the kind, and the more important it seemed to him how that officer should be appointed. The plan recommended by the Select Committee, however, appeared to him to be open to some serious objections. In the first place, knowing the heat and warmth of a contested election, and how every man was open to suspicion of undue bias, it seemed to him highly improbable that all the candidates should concur in the nomination of one individual; it was, on the contrary, far more likely that they would fall out on the subject. The nomination would then devolve upon the returning officer. He (Sir J. Pakington) had asked an hon. Friend, a Member of that House, who had been a Member of the Committee, what were his views as to the person to be appointed, and he had answered that he thought the man to be appointed should be an impartial, clever, gentlemanlike attorney. It had been his fortune to know, in his time, a great many clever, and a great many gentlemanlike attorneys; but an impartial attorney, more especially in election matters, he considered a man not so easy to be found. He could not help thinking, therefore, that if the plan turned upon

271
the appointment of this officer, it would be extremely difficult to work. He objected, therefore, to the plan in that respect. The officer in question should be, in his opinion, appointed upon some intelligible principle, and his duties strictly defined, otherwise there would be as much variety in their views and in their practice as there were returning officers for the whole kingdom. He could not, for his own part, see why election officers should not be appointed in the same way as revising barristers—a plan which had been in operation for twenty-three years, without the slightest imputation of partiality against those appointed. He felt much disposed to offer an Amendment to bring that suggestion to the test; but if the Committee was not disposed to adopt it, why not appoint an officer to name to all these appointments? That would give something like uniformity, and certainly it would be far preferable to the plan proposed in the Bill. He (Sir J. Pakington) should, however, prefer the appointments to be in the hands of the Judges, or some person of high station, duly qualified, as were at present those of the revising barristers. He thought it was important to have an officer whose position should be above supicion.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the Select Committee to which the Bills of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) and of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) had been referred, and of which he (Mr. Walpole) was chairman, had come, after much deliberation, to the conclusion that it was not advisable to appoint from sixty to eighty barristers, with judicial powers to determine the various delicate questions that would be litigated before them in the several boroughs and counties where elections took place. They thought that the adoption of such a plan would, in the first place, lead to great expense; and that, in the second place, it would not be satisfactory that the decision of a single barrister should be taken as conclusive upon the various questions that Would be brought before him. At the same time the Committee did think it right that all bills should be paid through a public officer, by which means an easy method of detecting corrupt practices would be provided. He did not think it probable that the plan embodied in the present clause would produce partisan appointments; or that in consequence of it the chances of either party at an election were likely to be affected by any party feelings on the
272
part of the election officer. For the Committee must remember that if the candidates did not themselves appoint him, he could not be named by the returning officer until the night before the nomination, since it could not be ascertained until then who were the candidates. It was a mistake to suppose that the election officer could be or could act as a partisan. His duties were chiefly of a ministerial character, to receive money and to pay the accounts. The clause, when read carefully, would not be found so objectionable as asserted. He could not help expressing an opinion that the clause was well drawn, but, if any better person than the returning officer could be suggested, he should have no objection to the alteration.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentlemam opposite that the hon. Members who had opposed this clause had entirely mistaken the object with which this officer was to be appointed. The Select Committee had unanimously determined that it was not desirable to have a judicial officer, but simply a ministerial one—a trustworthy person to secure due publicity in the payment of the accounts. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) still seemed to cling to the idea of appointing barristers as election officers. But he would ask the Committee whether they were prepared to let loose 400 barristers upon the constituencies of the country at every election? Who was to appoint them? The right hon. Baronet said the Judges were to undertake that duty; but he felt sure that if 400 barristers were to be appointed, they would not have the duty so well discharged as if the officers were appointed by the candidates, as the Bill proposed. It was said that the candidates were not likely to agree with respect to the appointment of such an officer; but he really thought this improbability was very much exaggerated, and both parties would very frequently concur in some respectable person in whom both had confidence. But even if they did not, he did not see any objection to intrusting the returning officers with these appointments. The election officer was not likely to display partiality, for his duties were strictly limited to the reception of bills designated for payment by the candidates, and to the publication of an abstract of the election accounts of both parties in the newspapers. They would not have half so many opportunities of displaying partisanship as were possessed by the returning

273
officers; and yet we very seldom beard any complaints of partiality against them. He could not see that legal knowledge would be at all requisite on the part of these election officers. In fact, their duties would be better performed by a banker's clerk with a good knowledge of accounts, than by most lawyers, who seldom combined a good knowledge of arithmetic with their other qualifications.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, without reference to the party who should appoint the election officer, he would only ask the attention of the Committee in respect to the time of the appointment of this election officer. It was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that the officer should only be appointed on the day of nomination, but in county elections it was necessary to canvass the electors, and to incur considerable expenses by agents weeks before the election took place. Now, any payment, even for a postchaise, would be an illegal payment. It would thus be seen the great inconvenience of not having an election officer appointed from the period when expenses commenced. If not appointed till the nomination day there must be a series of running accounts, which would create confusion when they came to be presented for settlement. If it was decided that the election officer was to be appointed on the day of nomination, that would be found an insuperable difficulty. It was essential that the election officers should be appointed in time sufficient to meet expenses as they arose.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the candidate was allowed to pay personal expenses, which in the interpretation clause were defined to mean—
"the reasonable expenses of such candidate in travelling to and from the place at which such election shall take place, and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere during the time of his residence at or near such place for the purpose of, and in relation to, such election."
He knew the hon. Gentleman would reply that this said nothing of agents' expenses, and he agreed that the excepted items of expenditure ought to be made more extensive than they were. The 32nd clause, however, provided that the current expenses of the election might be paid by the agent of the candidate under the authority of the election officer.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, there were two questions at the present time
274
before the Committee—when was the election officer to be appointed, and by whom? Now, with respect to the first point, he thought that, so far as the objections of the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. Denison) referred to the personal expenses of the candidate, that difficulty might easily be met by extending the wording of the interpretation clause, which permitted such personal expenses as those described to be paid without reference to the officer. Still, it was impossible not to see that there were many expenses necessarily incurred in the conduct of an election contest which it was absolutely necessary to pay forthwith, and for which credit could not be obtained; and he therefore thought it was desirable that the election officer should be appointed at a considerably earlier period than the day of nomination, in order that his authority for the payment of such expenses might be obtained. He thought it was desirable that his appointment should be vested in some one free from local influence, for he put entirely out of the question the idea that it could be made by the various candidates. If you gave the power of electing such officers to the sheriff, or to the returning officer, then parties incurring expenses would be able at once to apply to the proper quarter as to payment. With reference to these parties to be appointed, seeing that for twenty-three years the revising barristers had done their duty without reference to party feeling, and with satisfaction to the public, he thought to this class of gentlemen the appointments might with advantage be confined. But as this appeared to be distasteful to the Committee, he would not press the matter on their consideration. His opinion was, that there should always be some public officer, and that public officer be required to appoint election officers. He certainly thought it would be better to select some other officer less open to the charge of partisanship than returning officers for the duty of appointing election officers. However, if some hon. Gentleman would raise that question the Committee would no doubt determine it at once, and thus the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. Denison) would be entirely obviated.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he thought the person having the appointment should have no local bias. If they adopted the clause, he did not think that in the majority of instances the candidates would agree as to the person to be appoint-

275
ed. He thought as other hon. Members had that a respectable banker's clerk would be a very proper person. He entreated the Committee to have no person having a local bias; and he thought the appointment might properly be in the last revising barrister, or the last Judge of assize.
MR. HENLEYsaid, they were told that if the candidates concurred, they might appoint the election officer. But had any one looked at the definition of a "candidate" in the interpretation clause? The words of the clause were dangerously wide—"all persons who have been, or are about to be, nominated or proposed." The next question was as to the time when this officer should be appointed. His hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) had demonstrated that not only must this election officer be appointed before the election, but that he must be always in existence. His right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Walpole) maintained that it was of no consequence who the election officer was to be, that he had nothing but ministerial duties, which any banker's clerk could discharge. [Mr. WALPOLE: I said, chiefly ministerial.] Nevertheless some of those duties were amongst the most difficult which could devolve upon any man. You could not compound an action for election expenses, or suffer judgment to go by default, without the consent of this election officer. Then, see how the provision would work in promoting corruption. What more easy mode of corruption would there be than for a man to say, "I will pay nothing, bring your action?" It would be a good deal more profitable for an attorney to have the defence of 100 actions than to have a sum of 100 l. given to him. Yet the party must rely on the discretion of the returning officer in order to make these transactions safe.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that every Member of that House was aware of the wonderful acumen which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) always brought to bear upon the clauses of a Bill, and he had now exercised it con amore in pulling the present clause to pieces. There could be no doubt that the object of the Bill was a most laudable one, and that every one should do his best to overcome the difficulties that presented themselves. The mode of proceeding laid down in this Bill would, he believed, be more advantageous in stopping direct bribery than all the penal laws they could enact—the fact that payments could only be made through
276
a responsible officer, and were immediately afterwards to be proclaimed to the world, was the most effectual check that could be placed upon bribery. He had felt the difficulty that existed as to the appointment of that officer. His own view, however, was, that the appointment ought to be made independent of the candidates. Three parties had been named who might appoint him—the revising barristers, the Judges, or the sheriff of the county. With respect to the revising barristers and Judges, the great objection to them was, that they really had no local knowledge, so as to make the best selection; they were not always on the spot. and could not know the circumstances sufficiently. It seemed to him that they were driven to make a choice between the sheriff of the county and the returning officer; but the sheriff could not have the same amount of local knowledge as the returning officer. It was said that the returning officer might be a partisan, but the same objection might be made to the sheriff. There might be individual cases in which they forgot their duty to the community, but, on the whole, it was his opinion that they discharged their functions exceedingly well. He would prefer that the proposed officer should be styled election auditor, as that would be a more appropriate designation. The only case in which there would be a departure from simple ministerial action was, where the candidate was not disposed to pay the amount demanded of him. The cases would be exceedingly few where the intervention of the officer would be called for, and then all he would have to do would be of a very simple nature and requiring no amount of legal knowledge. They would do wisely and well to leave the appointment of this election officer to the returning officer, and there could be no room for doubt that the appointment should be made as soon as any expenses were incurred, which would be as soon as the proceedings of the election commenced.
MR. MASSEYsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in some of his observations, but he doubted whether bribery could be prevented by penal enactments. He was convinced that if there was one man willing to give a bribe and another ready to take it, no legislative contrivance of a penal nature would prevent them from coming together. He thought the solemn and unequivocal declaration proposed to be made by Members at the table, that they had not been guilty,

277
directly or indirectly, of any undue practices to procure their return, would be the only effective provision against corruption that could be devised; and if he received any encouragement from the Committee, he would move the omission of the clause.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was inclined to regard the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General as an improvement on his own. He thought that having the public officer, who should have all the election expenses brought under his view, and should be afterwards bound to declare them, would be a check on bribery greater than having an agent of the candidates. The objections made had been chiefly to the time of the appointment, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had exhausted his ingenuity in pointing out the difficulties that would be created by the wording of the clause; but he thought that, taking the view of his hon, and learned Friend the Attorney General, there would be no difficulties in the course proposed. It appeared to him that the returning officer, if it were decided that the nomination be vested in him, should make the appointment as soon as possible after being appointed himself.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he did not see the necessity of the returning officer making the appointment immediately after being appointed himself. He would propose, in substitution of the words in the clause, other words to the following effect—
"That once in every year, in the month of August, the returning officer of every place returning a Member or Members to serve in Parliament should appoint an election officer, to be called 'Auditor of Election Expenses,' to act at every election during the year."
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, that there was no security required in the case of this officer. It might be expedient to provide some security to protect the candidates who had paid the money.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that the attention of the Committee had already been called to that difficulty, and various proposals had been made to meet the case, none of which had been adopted except one, which would be found in Clause 21, which indirectly, but yet with certainty, protected the candidate, as it enabled him to pay to a banker of his own choice all the money with which the election officer had to deal, and through that banker alone the charges were to be paid by the election
278
officer with cheques, countersigned by the candidate.
MR. GROGANsaid, he doubted whether there was any necessity for this officer at all. In small boroughs the legitimate expenses of the officer who was expected to do such wonderful duties would be so exceedingly trifling, that if a candidate wished to get in by bribery his simplest method would be to bribe the officer himself, Again, in a large borough the percentage allowed to the officer would amount to a large sum, and the arrangement would then not be characterised by that economy which it was one of the declared objects of the Bill to enforce. He thought that the best security against bribery would be the oath which every Member would be required to take at the table of the House by the 33rd clause. He should vote for the rejection of the present clause if any Motion to that effect were made.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he thought that the election officer, instead of being, as suggested, nominated in August, should be appointed at the period when the returning officer was appointed, otherwise a returning officer might have serving under him for a portion of the year an officer for whose appointment he was not responsible.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, that they ought to take care in considering this clause, for it provided that any payment made by the Member, otherwise than through the election officer, would be illegal. That might lead to the candidate being petitioned against, on the ground of some informality in the appointment of the officer. He must say that he never read in his life a Bill in which such especial pains had been taken to lay so many traps for the candidate; and, in his opinion, they should be extremely cautious in exercising their ingenuity in such a manner as to devise means by which the elections of Members returned to sit in that House might be rendered void.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he believed that there was no necessity whatever for the appointment of the officer in question, and that they might easily have recourse to some more simple plan for the purpose of effecting the object which they professed to have in view. He saw no objection, for instance, to the introduction of a provision into the Bill, declaring that when any man became a candidate at an election he should nominate an agent, due notice of that nomination being given to the public

279
that all payments should pass through the hands of that agent, and that within one fortnight after the election had taken place both the agent and the candidate should be bound to furnish an account of all payments made by them in connection with the election; should verify that statement, and in case any payment should be concealed by them then that the election should be declared void, or some other penalty inflicted. In his opinion, a provision of that nature would secure the attainment of the object which they had in view more efficaciously than the cumbrous machinery necessarily connected with the appointment of an election officer. He should not vote against the clause, though he did not think it would be of any benefit, for it was his intention to vote in favour of every Bill proposed to prevent bribery, and when all those measures were found to be fruitless the House would come round to the conviction that there was only one way to check bribery and corruption, and that was by the ballot.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he very much doubted whether this or any other clause that could be framed on the subject would be effectual in attaining the desired object, and whether it would not tend to complicate rather than remove the difficulty connected with this subject. It must be patent to every Gentleman in that House that election expenses were very complicated matters, and that there was a great deal of trickery and fraud incident to them, to prevent which required the closest examination and the greatest care. He contended that there were few men in any county or borough competent to enter minutely into the very complicated question of election expenses; and he thought the best course would be to appoint a permanent officer, who would be thoroughly conversant with the subject, and against whose ability, at least, no possible objection could be raised. He would also suggest that, instead of remunerating such an officer by a commission of 2l. per cent upon the amount of the election expenses, and thus holding out a direct premium to increase the expenses, he should be paid in the inverse ratio, or just as he diminished, and not as he increased, the expenses of the election.
MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, he objected to the clause as it now stood, for he thought that if an election officer were appointed at all, he should not be appointed annually, but, as the candidature continued
280
for the whole of the election, there was no reason why the person through whom the expenses would pass should not be appointed for the same period. The 21st clause stated that any payments made in connection with an election by the authority of a candidate, except through the election officer, should be an illegal payment, and, upon proof thereof, the election of such candidate should be void. Many Members were called upon to contribute towards registration expenses. and he wished to know whether, such payments being certainly in connection with the election, they were to pass through the hands of the election officer? He thought the extraordinary machinery of this part of the Bill was likely to lead to a great deal of mischief, and that it would place power in the hands of those to whom it ought not to be given. His own impression was, that that and many other clauses of the Bill deserved far more consideration than they were likely to receive in Committee, if their legislation was really to have the effect of maintaining purity at elections of Members to that House.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must maintain that the provisions of the Bill with respect to what might and what might not be considered legal expenses were so vague, and laid so many pitfalls for the candidate, that Members would, under their operation, be constantly liable to have their honour assailed, and would be exposed to the risk of a prosecution, because it might be demonstrated that they had defrayed some expenses whose payment was not sanctioned by the Act. All the registration expenses, for instance, were expenses connected with the election; and, in fact, every shilling which a candidate or his agent might spend from the commencement to the close of the election might be classed under that denomination. It was, therefore, perfectly manifest that the candidate could never be certain as to whether, in making certain payments, he was or was not acting in violation of the law—a state of things which all must admit it was by no means desirable should exist. He must also add that he felt disposed to regard with the greatest suspicion the appointment of an election officer, inasmuch as he saw no reason why the returning officer should not be able to perform all the duties for whose discharge it was proposed that a new officer should be appointed, and also inasmuch as the responsibility, which ought, if possible,

281
to be confined to one, would thus be shared by two individuals. To the entire of the latter provisions of the Bill, in short, he was altogether opposed.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the discussion had established the propriety of the returning officer appointing the election officer, and he was, therefore, not disposed to press any further the view which he had stated when the question was first introduced. He confessed, however, that he was not satisfied of the wisdom of refusing to introduce a barrister of experience into the matter. He concurred in the remarks which had been made that this was the appointment of a very important officer, in whose hands the character of the candidate would be, to a great extent, placed, and that there was no security proposed for his responsibility. The scheme of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) gave a better security; for it proposed to give judicial power to revising barristers, and to enable them to tax the bills sent in. If that had been agreed to, there would have been an officer responsible to public opinion, in whom they would have had a guarantee that no improper expenses would be allowed. By the present Bill, however, there was no security for the responsibility of the parties to be appointed, and no security for the expenses to be incurred.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to add his voice to the almost unanimity of dissatisfaction with which the clause had been received. There was so much force in the remarks which had been made in the course of discussion, and especially by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Bonham-Carter), that he confessed he thought the adoption of the clause would add to the numerous difficulties which had already been experienced in knowing how to interpret the law as applied to election proceedings. If the Bill were to be incumbered with these clauses, he was afraid there was no hope of its becoming the law of the land this year, and he therefore hoped his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) would consent to the withdrawal of these clauses, and that the House would then endeavour to frame such a Bill as would attain the objects they had in view.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he had strong objections to the introduction of this clause into the Bill. An hon. Member returned to Parliament frequently had bills laid before him which he
282
refused to pay as illegal, but he was now given to understand that unless he paid them he would never be returned again, and would inflict ruin upon the cause. Hon. Members were, therefore, obliged either to pay the bills laid before them or to lose all chance of representing the place again. He thought the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk was far more beneficial in its objects than the Bill now before the Committee. If a gentleman, on becoming a candidate for any borough or county, were required to state to the returning officer who his election agent really was, and if a declaration were required to be made on oath by each Member when he took his seat, all that was required would be attained. If these clauses were agreed to, however, every candidate standing for a borough or county would be open to prosecution and snares of every description; and, unless something in the way of protection were afforded, it would be impossible to induce hon. Gentlemen to risk a contest.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he feared there would be some difficulty in passing the clause from the opinions that had been expressed. All parties were agreed on two points, that they ought to get rid of the scandals at elections, and that the subject was a very difficult one. He thought, however, that all those Members who had voted against the ballot were particularly bound to agree to conditions of the most stringent character for the purpose of lessening the evil. The noble Lord the Member for London and the other Members of the Committee had made every exertion to render the Bill as perfect as possible. The appointment of a public officer was taken from the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly); but as his character was changed, he (Mr. Bright) did not think it necessary to have a legal person. The Bill, so far from opening new pitfalls for the candidate, would place him in a much better position. He thought it advisable that the candidate should be disconnected from all pecuniary transactions both before and after the election. The officer to be appointed was not to decide on the propriety of any particular payment, but to pay all charges and expenses that the candidate admitted were sanctioned by him. This was a better mode of establishing the precise amount then expended, than to leave it to the declaration of the agents. He knew if that were done, the result would

283
be that a candidate would look for an agent who was not troublesomely scrupulous. It was no objection to say that the officer might be a political partisan; the returning officer might now be so. In the borough of Rochester the returning officer since the Reform Bill was a decided Tory, yet the Liberal Members for the borough bore their testimony to his impartiality and fairness. If the question came to a division, he would support the clause as it stood. If the clause was withdrawn, the whole force of the Bill was gone; it became a mere consolidation of the bribery law, with a clause on the subject of undue influence. If the clause was rejected, he did not see any use in going on with the Bill. He was anxious to render the Bill as efficacious as possible, although he thought the ballot would be the only sure means of putting a stop to bribery. The passing the Bill would not prevent the annual discussion. They should endeavour to make both candidates and electors feel that the law regarded bribery as a disgraceful and infamous offence, and that it would not receive the same indulgence as before. The clause was an attempt to apply a new remedy. Some elections were now at hand, and they would have an opportunity of testing it. If the Bill passed, he was sure the noble Lord the President of the Council would not object to issue the suspended writs; if the plan failed, they would next Session be able to discuss the subject to more advantage. He was not very sanguine as to the successful operation of the Bill, but he would support it in every way.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the more the clause was discussed the greater was the difficulty that presented itself in reference to it and the more unintelligible it became. The hon. Member who last spoke said be understood the clause, but it was clear that all the Members of the Committee were not agreed upon its precise effect and bearing. They had had no consideration of who this officer was to be, or what were to be his qualifications when the election began, and the liability of the candidate was to commence—that liability which might disqualify him altogether. It might be well to have the election accounts published, but the difficulty was how that was to be done, and how were they to ensure that they would be published accurately. One hon. Friend of his behind him had suggested that it would be easy for a candidate who wished to evade the law to bribe the election officer, and that
284
probably would be the best way—at all events they by no means appeared to be agreed upon any one point in reference to this clause, and he would suggest, therefore, that the better course would be to defer it for the present Session. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had hinted that those who opposed the ballot should support this clause, but that the ballot would be the most satisfactory remedy. He differed from the hon. Member. He believed that with the ballot there would be more bribery than now, and he did not see, that, as an opponent of the ballot, he was bound to vote for this clause. The hon. Gentleman had further said that they would probably have the opportunity of judging of the effect of this proposal in the elections for the boroughs, which by the suspension of the writs were now unrepresented; but he (Mr. Henley) did not attach much value to that experience. He believed, with the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor) that the effect of the clause would be to surround the candidate with traps and pitfalls, and he hoped, therefore, it would not be persisted in.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid he would remind those hon. Gentlemen who considered that the effect of this clause would be to surround the candidates with traps and pitfalls, that there were traps and pitfalls existing as the law now stood. Last year they had more than a usual number of charges of bribery at the previous general election, and more than the usual number of Members were unseated on that ground, many of whom he would venture to say had not the least intention when they became candidates of securing their seats by corrupt means. But the position of things was such under the existing system, that a candidate honestly desiring to confine himself to the strict legal expenses, might find, six months after his election, that, unknown to him, large sums of money had been expended on his behalf in bribery, and might lose his seat in consequence. This was no unusual occurrence, and he thought it would be a great security, therefore, if, by any plan like that provided in these clauses, they could be sure that all the legal expenses incurred at the election should be published, and that the person who expended the money should know that, if the published amount were exceeded, he would not be entitled to recover it from the candidate. A gentleman concerned in an election not long ago complained to him of the bribery committed by the opposite party, but admitted that he had spent

285
6,000 l. or 7,000 l. in maintaining the purity of election. The worthy man said it was difficult to account for the spending of so much money on such an object. He could not but think that the end to be obtained by this clause was important; namely, that the expenses of elections, which they knew to be now enormous, should be limited to the strict legal charge; and he believed that if candidates and those who were concerned in elections were to agree to place the accounts of each election in the hands of an officer appointed for the purpose, and that those accounts should be published, and open to the inspection of every elector, a very considerable check would be placed upon corrupt practices. Whether they called such officer an election officer or an auditor of election expenses mattered not; the proposal was the same. But by means of that person publicity should be given of all the election accounts, and he could not but consider that the effect of such publicity would be that the expenses of elections would be greatly diminished in amount, and rendered much less objectionable and corrupt than they now too frequently were. But it had been urged that under this clause many questions of great difficulty would arise, and that, for instance, it would be very difficult to say where an election began, or where the candidate's responsibility commenced. No doubt there were questions of this kind that might require much debate, and if they were called upon to settle every one of them in the present Bill, he admitted they would not be likely now in the month of July, or even if they were at the beginning of the month of February, to pass the Bill in the present Session. Practical men would be able, he apprehended, to solve those questions tolerably well when they came before them; and if it were contended before an Election Committee that a gentleman, because he might have exhibited great hospitality and great liberality in the borough or county five or six years before, bad done so as a candidate, and with a view to influence the electors, he thought the Committee would very soon dispose of such an allegation. He hoped, for the reasons he had stated that his right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Committee, would not be a party to the withdrawal of the clause.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that as his objection to the clause was with reference to the appointment of the election officer by the candidate, and as he understood the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was
286
about to move a proviso to prevent that, the difficulty he had felt in the matter was removed. He believed the ballot was the only effectual remedy for bribery at elections, but be felt bound to unite with those who thought differently when they proposed a measure which they considered would cure the evil.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he would propose that the election officer should be appointed, not by the returning officer, but by the revising barrister in England and the assistant barrister in Ireland.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONhoped the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would persevere in their view, and that the original suggestion of the noble Lord would be adopted in allowing the returning officer to appoint his own officer.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, it was a mere question whether it would be better that the appointment of the officer should be made a fixed and permanent one, or whether the appointment should be from year to year. He considered the clause, as it stood, would effect the object they all seemed to have in view. It would be very desirable that the election officer should be a fit and proper person, but it would be difficult to define the qualifications of this officer more minutely, and it would be undesirable to introduce prohibitions into the Bill. It would be better hereafter to introduce a clause imposing upon the election officer the necessity of making a declaration that he would well and truly perform his duty, and imposing penalties for any wilful breach of duty.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he thought the returning officer ought to be made responsible for the acts of the election agent.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, it would be impossible to make the returning officer responsible for the conduct of the gentleman whom he might appoint. They might take all the securities they pleased from the officer appointed.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would move that the further consideration of this clause be postponed.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member could not make this Motion at present.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would then move that the clause be negatived. It was indispensable, before they proceeded to the appointment of an officer of this descrip-

287
tion, that two precautions should be taken —one, that the appointment should be placed in such hands, that a fit and proper person should be selected; and secondly, that the Bill should state what were and what were not legitimate election expenses. Until this was done, it would be dangerous to appoint such an officer.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he thought it desirable that the clause should be negatived unless some understanding was given that it would be brought forward in a different form. If the election officer was to have any control over the expenses of elections, care should be taken to place the appointment in the hands of some person independent of the candidates. As the clause stood, the election officer had no discretion over the expenses which were to pass through his hands. What, then, was he appointed for? It might be said that the object was to secure publicity to all expenses at elections, which was, no doubt, a good object. But at present candidates appointed their own agents, and if you could obtain that publicity by some such plan as that proposed by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) in his first Bill, it would be desirable. That plan was, that each candidate should pay to his agent the sums required for his expenses, which should all pass through the agent's hands, and the agent was bound to make a return of the expenses, and he and the candidate were to be compelled to declare on oath that these were all the expenses incurred. If some such plan were adopted, you would have gained all the objects required by the clause, and there would be no questions about appointment or fitness, or any of, those points which had been now discussed.
MR. HEYWORTsaid, he should support the clause. He should wish to see those expenses which properly belonged to the community, such as polling-booths, paid by the public.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid that, as a Member of the Select Committee, he could state that the Members were unanimously of opinion that some such election officer as the one proposed in this clause should be appointed, and that this clause was regarded by them as the keystone of the Bill. The question was started and thoroughly canvassed, whether they should give the power to these officers of declaring what were legitimate election expenses, but it was abandoned as impracticable. They, therefore, relied upon the
288
force of the publicity to be given to these accounts, and they thought that that of itself would go far to shame the constituency out of bribery. He would only add that, if the Committee should not agree to this clause, he should think it would hardly be worth the while of the Government to go on with the Bill.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he wished to say a few words before the Committee proceeded to a division. This clause contemplated the appointment of an election officer, to whom, and through whom, and whom alone, the whole of the election expenses should be paid. When the evil to be remedied was considered, he thought the Committee would approve of the clause. The evil was grievous and enormous in this country; and, notwithstanding legislative and other remedies, bribery had of late increased until it assumed a magnitude discreditable in the highest degree both to the Constitution and people of this country. how was it now proposed to remedy the evil? At present a gentleman, after being elected, might take a stringent oath that, to his knowledge, or with his sanction, no money had been spent in bribing voters at the election. Yet the bribery might have been practised to a great extent without his knowledge. The custom was for the candidate to pay large sums of money to his agent, with directions that they should not be misapplied, and that only legitimate expenses should be paid; and yet, when the election was over, it turned out that bribery to the amount of thousands of pounds had been carried on, and Members were unseated by the acts of those over whom they bad no control. In his opinion, the only way to overcome the evil was this—to appoint one individual into whose hands the whole of the expenses of the election should be given. They were told that the system was a complicated one; now he considered that it was simple in the extreme. The whole of the candidates were to pay all the possible expenses of the election into one man's band, and he did not see how it was possible that any bribery could take place, unless that officer should himself consent to it. All the candidates had to do was, to take care not to pay one shilling of money for any matter connected with the election, except what he paid into the hands of this election officer, and he would be perfectly safe. If the law they now sought to carry into effect had been in existence for the last twenty-fire years, the

289
thousands and tens of thousands of pounds which had been paid by the candidates, much of which doubtless was expended in bribery, would not have been expended at all. The system proposed would give the only protection that could be afforded to the candidate himself, and that was a point well worthy of the consideration of the Committee. No man, however pure his motives and his conduct might be, could deem himself safe, as he might, although duly elected, be unseated by the acts of others, with which he had nothing whatever to do. He knew of no more effectual protection to the candidate than his being enabled to make a declaration of all the money he had paid, and the dates and objects of such payments, and he did not know how it was possible, under these circumstances, that any bribery could be committed. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would approve of the clause, which put the matter in the easiest and simplest form under the control of a public officer. One of the objections to the clause was, that it was full of snares and pitfalls. He utterly denied it, and he did not think that bribery could be put down in a more simple and effectual manner.
MR. MALINSsaid, he felt considerable hesitation in opposing the clause, but having listened to the long discussion that had taken place, he must say that he felt now, as throughout, insuperable objections to it. He could assure hon. Members that he was not actuated by any desire to perpetuate the existing unfortunate state of things, or to countenance the bribery which so extensively, and he regretted to say so generally, prevailed. He was desirous that every effort should be made to adopt practical means of repressing it, but he did not want to fetter the candidate with undue restrictions, or place him in a position of difficulty and danger, to which no man ought to be exposed. He contended, however, that the candidate got no protection whatever—there was merely to be a publication of the account of the expenses attending the election. There were certain expenses connected with elections which were inevitable; and let them legislate as they would they could not put a stop to them. Hon. Members not having any local connection with a borough were applied to for subscriptions to races, to public balls, to blanket clubs, and coal clubs. It was well known that these subscriptions were paid to strengthen the influence of the candidate in the borough.
290
Was the election officer to be called upon to pay these subscriptions? Again, the candidate was liable to be sued for any election expenses incurred, notwithstanding the appointment of this public officer. He could not settle this demand, nor could he, by payment of a small sum, get rid of the cost and vexation of the action without consulting the public officer. Be believed there was not a gentleman behind him who was not prepared to vote against this clause, and there were many hon. Gentlemen on the other side who were also opposed to it. Although all were desirous of preventing bribery at elections, he hoped they would not give their assent to any such a clause.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he considered the clause as the very essence of the Bill, and, if the Committee rejected it, it would he plain to the country no desire existed to put an end to the system of bribery and corruption which had become a scandal and a disgrace to it. He believed the whole objection to the clause was the publicity it would occasion; its intention was simply to enforce the payment of election expenses and enable the public to know what they were.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, the inference was, that the opponents of the clause were in favour of maintaining and perpetuating bribery at elections; but if the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member would frame a clause, no matter how stringent, that would secure publicity to all the payments made by candidates it would have his support; this clause he maintained would not do so.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 74: Majority 59.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 20 (Every Candidate shall, within two months after the declaration of the Election, or within one month after any Bill has been sent in by the legal representative of any deceased creditor, send all such bills and claims to the election officer for payment).
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he wished to move that the respective periods should be "three months" and "two months."
MR. BENTINCKsupported the Amendment. If an agent died, or was guilty of misconduct, it would be rather hard to call upon the candidate to send in his bills within one month.
MR. HENLEYsaid, there could be no doubt that the accounts should get into the hands of the election officer as soon as possible, even for the sake of the candidate himself; but at the same time they should give the candidate proper time to examine the bills and satisfy himself that they were correct.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he thought that before proceeding further they should settle the question whether refreshment tickets were to be legal or not.
WR. WALPOLEsaid, he should be prepared to discuss that question fully upon a subsequent clause.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he must complain of the numerous penalties contained in the clause, and he would propose that they should be struck out.
MR. PIGOTTsaid, he thought the penalty of 50 l. very severe, because the candidate would be liable to it if by some mistake he omitted to send in one particular bill. There was also to be a cumulative penalty of 20 l. for every week of default during which the bills and claims continued not to be sent in to the election officer after the time specified for doing so.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, he also considered the penalties very heavy, as the bills and statement of charges might not be sent in merely from accident or excusable oversight. He, therefore, thought notice should be given to the candidate that the time for sending in the claims had expired, and allowing him an extension of the period for doing so—say a week longer.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought, as the object of the penalties was merely to secure the sending in of the bills and claims, that the continuing penalty need not he retained.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that if the continuing penalty were omitted from the clause, the candidate might pay the first penalty, and then afterwards defy the law with impunity.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would not object to the cumulative penalty being reduced from 20 l. to 10 l.
SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he hoped he might be allowed to point out the necessity of clearly defining every term employed by the Bill. Thus, for instance, it would be well to know whether travelling expenses and refreshment tickets would come under the same heading. In the case of the Southampton Election Committee it had been decided that travelling expenses were
292
lawful, and by that means the seat of the Attorney General was saved, though numerous contradictory decisions were on record.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he could not express his opinion too strongly on the point to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted. There was an absolute duty imposed upon Parliament, finally, and he hoped satisfactorily, to settle the question of travelling expenses. It would be better to have the Bill rejected than that it should be passed leaving any part of that question unsettled.
MR. MASSEYsaid, he wished to know whether any of the penalties under the Bill were recoverable before the county courts?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the Select Committee had drawn this distinction—that all penalties for bribery and treating should be recovered in the county courts; while all offences involving the consequences of disfranchisement or disqualification were made recoverable only in the superior courts of law.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to know whether it would be lawful for a person to pay a bill after a month had passed by. No doubt many cases would occur by which, from some mischance or other, candidates would be debarred from paying legitimate expenses during the period marked out by the Act. Now, there could be no doubt that, to sensitive and honourable minds, it would be a severe affliction to feel that they had incurred obligations which could not be discharged. For if their seats in Parliament were jeopardised by their defraying those charges, it might end in their remaining due altogether.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that if a tradesman from inadvertence had omitted sending in his bill within the month, although under the Act it would be unlawful to pay it, yet, if it were a fair and reasonable bill, there would be no objection whatever to the candidate paying it.
In answer to Mr. EVELYN DENISON,
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that if a bill were paid except through the election officer, it would be illegal, and in consequence the election of the sitting Member might be declared void, but it would be only so declared by a Committee of the House; the question could not be at all brought before the county court.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 (No payments to be made except through election officer, and except personal and advertising expenses).
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to know to what period before the election this prohibition referred? Did it extend to the payment of expenses incurred in the registration of voters?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that registration expenses formed totally distinct payments, and had nothing whatever to do with the election. The Committee were now coming to the clause enacting that no payments were to be made except through the election officer, so that any breach of this provision might make the election void. The payments which would form exceptions to this rule would of course be contained in other clauses of the Bill. That would give rise to questions as to what you were to include under the head of personal expenses, and what you were to allow the agents to pay as current expenses. He wished, however, now to say that he was willing to admit on both of those points—both as regarded current and personal expenses—that a larger interpretation ought to be put upon them than was put in the Bill. He was willing to allow that these exceptions should cover every legitimate expenditure which was likely to be incurred prior to the election. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the words, "having any connection with the election," as the retention of those words would extend too widely the operation of the clause.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that the Bill altogether surrounded candidates at elections with a perfect network of penalties, which there would be the greatest possible difficulty in avoiding. In this clause, however, they arrived at the culminating point. If after the election it turned out that a money payment, unauthorised by the election officer, had been made by the candidate or by the authority of the candidate, this fact, if proved before a Committee of the House, would make the election void. Now, was there any necessity for such a provision? The payment might be to the amount of but 5s.; it might be a perfectly honest one, free from any imputation, and a just and legal payment; and yet, because not made through the appointed officer, the election was to be void. He could not sanction a provision of this sort, and should therefore move that these words "upon proof thereof the election of such candidate shall be void "be omitted, and that these words be inserted instead, "and upon proof thereof such candidate shall be subject to a penalty
294
of 10 l., to be recovered by any person who shall sue for the same."
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he thought that it would be advisable to insert words into the clause, stating before what tribunal it was necessary that proof of illegal pay, went should be brought.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that as the loss of a seat was involved, proof must necessarily be brought before an Election Committee.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he doubted if an Election Committoe would have jurisdiction if words were not introduced, more clearly defining the tribunal before which the proof was to be taken. It seemed to him that it would be necessary to exclude registration expenses under this Bill, because agents might be bribed indirectly in that way. He believed that a great number of election petitions would be presented under the hope of hitting the Member through the operation of this clause. He hoped, however, that the Committee would consent to the Amendment.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhad no objection to strike out the words which involved the loss of a seat, but he considered that 10 l. was too severe a penalty for an accidental payment.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Lord.
MR. COBDENsaid, that by Clause 33 the Member was required to make a declaration on taking his seat to the following effect—
"I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely declare, without any equivocation or mental reservation, that I have not knowingly made, authorised, or sanctioned, and that I will not knowingly make, authorise, or sanction any payment on account of my election, other than is allowed by law under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1854."
Now, if the Member who had taken his seat after that declaration, and who had violated the law, was subjected to a penalty of only 10 l., it might appear that they were dealing in a different spirit towards the Member and towards the electors, whom by previous clauses they struck off the lists. In assenting to the Amendment they should take care that they were not acting inconsistently and more leniently towards themselves than towards the electors.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, the hon. Member for the West Riding did not appear to understand clearly the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis's

295
Amendment. The object of the was Amendment was not to avert any consequences of having made a corrupt payment "knowingly." It was to avoid the extreme penalty in cases of accidental payment that the Amendment was proposed.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the question was this—was it intended to assign a time for payments at election time within which the provision was only to operate?
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that the Committee, before imposing penalties, ought to define legal and illegal expenses. There were many expenses which, though not necessary, were sanctioned by custom, and were not corrupt. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) to prepare a schedule of expenses which were to be permitted to be paid. Unless this were done the candidates would be at the mercy of the election officer.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that no one except the hon. Baronet would think it necessary that the Committee should define whether every expense was legal or illegal before legislating upon this subject. The payments declared to, be illegal were not so in themselves, but only if they were made in a particular manner. All corrupt payments had been defined, but others remained exactly as they were.
MR. HENLEYsaid. he thought the question of the bon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had not been clearly answered. As payments were made illegal on account of the time and manner in which they were made, it became of the first consequence to define the time. He hoped that those Gentlemen who had charge of the Bill would throw out something to guide the Committee, in order to arrive at a sound opinion.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he thought that it would be as well, in order to avoid all illegality, to require that all expenses should be paid through the election officer. It was evident that before the election began, it was necessary to incur various expenses. When a person proposed to stand as a candidate, he (Sir F. Kelly) did not see any reason why he should not be required at once to announce his determination, and to pay whatever expenses were necessary through the election officer. When they came to consider the exceptions, he presumed that those who had charge of the Bill would listen with atten-
296
tion to every suggestion offered in respect to the description of payments which might be fairly made before the election.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he viewed the clause with great apprehension. He considered that, as the clause was framed, an innocent person might be compelled to suffer by the act of a guilty individual. As to the publicity of the accounts, he could not understand how the accounts would be made more public by this clause than they would be if it were not passed.
MR. COBDENsaid, that it had been stated that they were under this clause legislating as to a particular mode of payment, and not for a corrupt payment, but he begged to remind the Committee that they might be dealing with both under one head. This clause had been carefully considered, and he should be sorry to see a relaxation of the stringent provisions of the Bill made only in favour of the candidate. Were they to agree to the proposed alteration, they would destroy the moral effect of the law and render themselves liable to the imputation of not being in earnest with the subject.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that the relaxation which he proposed referred not to payments that were in themselves illegal, but solely to payments illegal in respect to the hand by which they were made. His object was simply to protect a Member from losing his seat because the payment was made by an illegal hand.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he concurred with the hon. and learned Member as far as this—that he thought they should not declare the election void because a payment was illegally made. He thought, however, they had better not fix any penalty then, but limit the present clause to a declaration that any payment not made through the election officer should be deemed an illegal payment.
MR. STUART WORTLEYhoped that the clause would be postponed, inasmuch as he did not think that the Committee were aware of what its effect would be. By this clause any trifling payment, such as even 5s. to the postboy for driving the candidate in respect to the election, would be sufficient to forfeit his seat.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he must remind the Committee that personal expenses included travelling expenses. The question as to what were to be considered personal expenses was, however, a subject for dis-

297
cussion when they came to another portion of the Bill.
MR. PIGOTTsaid, he also thought there was a difficulty in deciding what were election payments. For instance, candidates were often called upon to contribute towards the repair of a church or to a race fund, and he wanted to know if those subscriptions were to be taken as payment incident to the election.
MR. WALPOLEhad no hesitation in saying decidedly not.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he must still contend that all this legislation was useless, because bribery would be carried on under the guise of the subscriptions which the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Pigott) had suggested. Suppose a coal fund were established in a borough, and one candidate subscribed 1,000 l. to it, while the other declined to contribute anything to it, could the Committee have any doubt in deciding which canditate would be returned?
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 67: Majority 81.
House resumed; Committee report progress.

POOR LAW COMMISSION CONTINUANCE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would not object to the Bill proceeding, if the Government would consent to retain the Commission for two instead of five years. If not, he should oppose Mr. Speaker's leaving the Chair.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he knew the object of the hon. and gallant Member to be to have an inquiry into this Commission. As far as the Commission was concerned, however, he thought it might be as well continued for five as for two years, and the hon. and gallant Member should recollect that the salaries of the Commissioners were subject to the annual Vote of Parliament.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he should support the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne). Without a full inquiry he could not consent to the renewal of the Commission for five years.
Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 45: Majority 37.
House in Committee.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he should move that the Chairman should report progress.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would suggest that the hon. and gallant Colonel should then proceed with any statement with reference to the Bill which he desired to make.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that if he were to do that, the majority at present in the House would carry the Bill in its present form, as it had carried many other measures injurious to his (Colonel Dunne's) country. He believed the Poor Law had inflicted more injury on Ireland than almost any other, except one or two. He did not object to a Poor Law, but he objected to the great and unnecessary expense of the present system, and to other parts of that system which were unjust, and he wished for a thorough inquiry. He thought it not unreasonable to ask that the Bill should be limited to two years, within which time the inquiry he was anxious for might take place. He regretted there were not more Irish Members present, and inasmuch as it was too late to discuss the matter now, he must persist in his Motion to report progress.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he also protested against proceeding with the consideration of the Bill at that late hour (a quarter past one o'clock).
LORD NAASshould support his hon. and gallant Friend in his Motion if any question in connection with the Bill before them should arise which required discussion. At the same time, he must observe that he was in favour of continuing the powers of the present Poor Law Commission for five years, as proposed by the Bill.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 28: Noes 90: Majority 62.
The Bill then passed through Committee.
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLs.—1a Merchant Shipping Acts Repeal; Drainage of Lands; Youthful Offenders; Parochial Schoolmasters (Scotland).
2a Commons Inclosure (No. 2).
3a Bleaching, &c. Works.

THE GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that in moving for Returns relating to the Board of Health, he would take the opportunity of replying to certain attacks recently made on the conduct of that Board. It would be irregular on his part to refer more particularly to these attacks; but, for the purpose of making his defence, he must assume that charges had been made against the Board somewhere—no matter where—and by a certain eminent statesman whom he needed not to name. The nature of those charges he thought sufficiently showed that the party who made them must be extremely ignorant or extremely malignant; but when a public board was charged, however undeservedly, with a complete perversion of its duties and functions, he thought it was desirable that it should be defended; more especially when it was a Board of such importance, and engaged in such matters, that no one could deny, if it were well administered, that it must be of the most

235
essential service to the material and physical—and, he might almost add, the moral—well-being of the people. In the speech to which he was referring, there was a distinct assertion that the Board of Health had, by its misconduct, completely checked the progress of sanitary measures in this country, and that it had, by its despotic and overbearing behaviour, disgusted the whole country, and had thus been the cause of the non-progress of those great and beneficial measures so largely required by the physical condition of our people. The first statement was this—"Sanitary measures were introduced, not from the free will of the towns, but forced on them by the despotic interference of the Board of Health." Now, to that statement he gave the very flattest possible contradiction, and he would show by facts how entirely unfounded it was. The Act had been applied in 182 places; in 168 of these it was applied upon petition from the ratepayers, according to law; in fourteen it was applied after representations from town councils or vestries, based on the excess of mortality, and, though the Act gave the Board power to proceed by virtue of its own authority in towns where the mortality exceeded twenty-three in 1,000, yet in no one instance had that been done, except upon the representation of the town council, or of the public assembled together. Therefore, in no single case had the Act been applied, except upon the desire of the governing body, or of the inhabitants of the place itself, assembled together in some form of public meeting. Since, however, these attacks had appeared, the Board had received many letters, expressive of strong condemnation of them and of the readiness of the writers to refute them from their own experience. For instance, a letter had been received from Lancaster, from which the following was an extract—
"I have been amused with the rabid attack made upon the Board of Health by Lord Seymour and Sir B. Hall. There is a great prejudice, arising, as it does, from ignorance; but sanitary improvement is too important, and the Board of Health have done too much to promote it, to be put down by such wholesale accusations. Speaking for Lancaster, I know we have much reason to be grateful for the ready advice and assistance we have always received from the Board on all occasions."
He might also quote similar accounts from York, Rugby, Tottenham, and many other places. A letter had been received from the engineer of the local board of health at Preston, where public works were being
236
carried on to a great extent, from which the following was an extract—
"So far as this local board is concerned, I am prepared to give the strongest contradiction to such outcry. The whole of the business of this board with the general Board has, until lately, been carried on by me, and I can fairly state that in all our transactions with them there has not been any attempt at unnecessary interference. The general Board have acted in a fair spirit towards me, and have cordially co-operated in all matters having the sanitary improvement of the borough for its object. I am also glad to say that in the great scheme of sewerage which I had the honour of preparing for this borough, not one single objection has been taken to it by the general Board. On the contrary, it has had their ready assent, and I am progressing with the works in the most satisfactory manner."
So much for that statement, but next came one rather more important, because it involved a serious charge against the Board, as being determined to thwart the views of the President of the Board, and, in fact, to act in defiance of the Government. But to that statement, also, he gave as flat a contradiction as he had given to the other, and in like manner he would show that it was totally unfounded. These were the words of the charge, and here he must premise that it was made by one who had once held the office of Chief Commissioner of the Board of Works—
"When he was himself at the Board of Works, and after communicating with the other Members of the Government, he bad made a communication to the Board of Health as to the course he thought they should adopt; he was told that his proposition was not seconded, that the members of the Board knew nothing of what the Government might wish; they only knew that the proposal was not seconded. Was that the way in which public business was to be conducted?"
Certainly not, he answered; it never was so conducted. He most distinctly and most emphatically denied on his word of honour, that the term "second" or "seconder," had ever been used on that day or in that discussion, or, indeed, at any one time to his belief, whenever that noble Lord (Lord Seymour) was present. In this he could be borne out by his colleagues, and by the secretary of the Board, who was present. It did so happen, however, that upon the minutes in which the events of that day were recorded, the word "second" did appear, but they were drawn up by the secretary, who had assured him that he had made use of the term, because he was giving a description of what had occurred, but that it had never been made use of in the discussion, either in form or substance. He firmly believed that the

237
thought never occurred to the noble Lord until he had read that word in the recorded minutes. The noble Lord had, in fact, revived a charge which he had made once before against the Board, that it was quite impossible for him to continue to attend at the Board because he was invariably thwarted and opposed by the other members of it. The noble Lord had assumed the other night, that his reason for not attending the meetings of the Board was, that he was perpetually thwarted there and could not carry his own views into effect; but he could assert most solemnly that, when he waited on the noble Lord, immediately on his assuming office, the noble Lord told him that he should never be able to attend to the meetings of the Board, because he should have so very much to do in his own office, and the noble Lord was also good enough to add a compliment, to the effect that he had no fear of anything going wrong, having sufficient confidence in his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's) discretion. Shortly after that, too, the noble Lord told him, that his rule of business was never to do anything that he was not absolutely compelled to do. Now, when the noble Lord had thus forewarned him of his intention not to attend the Board, it certainly was not unnaturally a great surprise to him to learn, that the noble Lord had said that he had stayed away, because of the opposition which he anticipated; but, on the first day that the noble Lord attended the Board, on the sixth day after he took office, no opposition was offered to him, for he merely took his seat; but, to show how completely he carried his predetermination of non-attendance into effect, between his first appearance and his second, he allowed sixty-eight boards to elapse; and after his second appearance, he allowed five boards to elapse before he attended again, and then his stay was very short. Between his third and fourth appearance there were ten boards; but between his fourth and his fifth appearance he allowed no less than ninety-four boards to elapse, making, in 183 boards, five attendances. On this fifth attendance the noble Lord certainly did make a proposition, to which he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) ventured humbly to take exception, because the proposal was utterly impracticable, and even hazardous. He told the noble Lord so, and the matter was discussed, and it fell to the ground, simply because it was impracticable, and of that the best proof was, that afterwards, when the whole ques-
238
tion was referred to the Treasury, they decided against it, and confirmed the reasons on which it had been opposed. He begged their Lordships would note the fact, that he had opposed the noble Lord's proposition, because, throughout all the famous speech to which he was referring, it was represented that his two colleagues, Dr. Southwood Smith and Mr. Chadwick, were the only parties present and the only parties who raised any opposition; but he believed the only opposition that ever was raised was on this day, the noble Lord's fifth attendance, and then the objection was raised by him (the Earl of Shaftesbury). At no one time, he believed, either before or after, was there any objection raised, either by him, or by either of his two colleagues. After his fifth attendance, on which this event took place, there was another interval, he believed, of ninety-seven boards, before the noble Lord attended again, and then forty-three more before he attended again for the seventh and last time. After that, before the noble Lord retired from office there were 118 boards which he never attended. And yet the noble Lord now stated that his reason for absenting himself from the Board was the opposition he met with, after he had previously stated to him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) and to others besides, whom he could produce in testimony, that he did not intend to be present because he was so occupied with the business of his own office, and even after he had used language to the same effect in a letter to him in January, 1851, in which he said—
"As it is not in my power to attend the meetings of the Board of Health without the neglect of my duties here, I have to request that you will furnish me with copies of all minutes," &c.
There was another charge also brought forward by the noble Lord, in which he insinuated that there had been tampering with the Board of Health; that there was an understanding existing between the Board of Health and the local boards, and that the inspector first of all brought in the Board, and then the Board brought in the inspector. To this charge he could give the most positive and emphatic contradiction, and at the same time he felt bound to say that, if the noble Lord really believed it was true, the subject ought to have been inquired into long since, and the charge ought to be brought forward now by those who had the means of preferring a public accusation. It was, in fact,

239
nothing less than a charge of corruption against the Board of Health, and the noble Lord was bound by every obligation of honour, and as a gentleman, to substantiate it if he could. After having made these charges, the noble Lord concluded by saying—and it should be remembered that the noble Lord was speaking of his former colleagues—that the only way to bring the members of the Board of Health to reason was to stop their salary. He would ask their Lordships, or any body of gentlemen, whether this was becoming language to publicly make use of in reference to the conduct of persons who were absent, and who, therefore, could not defend themselves or answer the charges that were brought against them in the same public way that they were made? The noble Lord had, no doubt, to the advantage of the country, himself received a salary; but would he not have deeply resented the imputation, if any one had said of him that salary was his sole object, and the threatened removal of it the only way by which he could be urged to perform the duties that were imposed upon him? He felt bound to say, in reference to the two gentlemen who were the subject of attack, and with whom he had had the pleasure to act for four years, and to participate in all their measures, that he had never met with more diligent, zealous, and efficient men of business, and men who were more anxious to effect all the good they were able to do. He did know what the feelings of the noble Lord might be on the subject, but this he did know—that if his two friends, Mr. Chadwick and Dr. Smith, had said so dirty a thing against the noble Lord or any one else, they would, in their sober moments, most deeply have regretted having done so. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
"That there be laid before this House, Return of the Number and Description of Petitions from Local Boards of Health against the Continuance of the General Board of Health: And also, Return of the Number and Description of Petitions for the Application of the Public Health Act, and also of any Petitions or Memorials or other Forms of Applications for the Extension of the Jurisdiction of the General Board, or for the Exercise of increased Powers for the Protection of the Public Health."
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the noble Earl who had just spoken bad very properly observed that the question at issue was the conduct of the Board of Health; and therefore, to a certain extent, the charges which had been made must
240
materially affect the character of those who appointed the gentlemen who constituted that Board. He considered, however, that if the Board of Health had not succeeded in carrying into effect the great sanitary reforms which were anticipated by the public, their not having done so was no fault of the Board of Health, but of the Government, who had neglected to assist them in the way that ought to have been done. If the Board of Health had not been thwarted by the Government, or rather by those officers of the Government whose duty it was to watch over the Board of Health, and, if necessary, to control, but more generally to encourage their proceedings, the public would by this time have had good water, and that at a price so trivial as scarcely to be worth consideration. He was perfectly persuaded, also, that if the proposals of the Board of Health had not been opposed by those in power, the burial question would by this time have been settled, with infinite advantage to the population of the metropolis, and without injustice to the interests of individuals: but, no—the Board of Health were here impeded more than even on the former question, and a combination of the shareholders in different cemetary companies had sufficient influence with those in authority to prevent the Board of Health effecting the improvements which they contemplated and desired. As to the members who composed the Board of Health—Lord Shaftesbury, Mr. Edwin Chadwick, and Dr. Southwood Smith, and who had been personally attacked—their names had been connected with every project for the improvement of the condition of the poorer classes of this country. It was, of course, unnecessary to say one word in favour of the noble Earl, whose many acts of charity for the physical and moral improvement of the labouring classes were so well known; but, on the other two gentlemen, perhaps he might be allowed to make a few remarks. Mr. Chadwick he had known for thirty years, and he could say that a more efficient, active, diligent, and honest servant of the public never existed. This was sufficiently proved by his conduct as secretary to the Poor Law Commission. It was to his knowledge and exertions, and to those of Mr. Nichols, that we were mainly indebted for the amendment of the Poor Law. After faithfully discharging his duties as secretary to the Commission, Mr. Chadwick turned his attention to sanitary matters, on which he had display-

241
ed an extraordinary amount of knowledge. It was his (the Bishop of London's) opinion, that if the suggestions of Mr. Chadwick and Dr. Southwood Smith had been carried out, we should not now have had to dread, at least to the same extent, the return of the cholera. At the root of Mr. Chadwick's knowledge there was an amount of benevolent interest for the poor, which would prevent his sanctioning any measure which would inflict hardship on the poorest of his fellow-creatures. Dr. Southwood Smith had for many years been known to him (the Bishop of London) as a very benevolent man. Dr. Southwood Smith had laboured very much in the metropolis in visiting the sick poor, and had had extensive opportunities of becoming acquainted with the subject while physician to the Fever Hospital. He had applied the knowledge which he had thus acquired to sanitary improvements, and if there was one man more qualified than another to be a member of the Board of Health, it was Dr. Southwood Smith. No man was more fully actuated by the principles of true benevolence, or more likely to apply his knowledge to the carrying out of the great purposes for which the Board of health was constituted. That Board had been placed in a position of the greatest difficulty from the want of proper encouragement on the part of those whose duty it was to render it every assistance. He was happy from his personal knowledge to be able, and he felt it his duty to rise and to bear testimony to the merits of both Mr. Chadwick and Dr. Southwood Smith; and he trusted the Government would uphold those gentlemen in the difficult position which they occupied, and that they would long continue to be, as they had hitherto been, worthy colleagues of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CARLISLEsaid, that neither in generosity nor justice to the gentlemen whose names had been brought under the notice of their Lordships could he allow the discussion to close in total silence on his part. He had had the honour of being associated with his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and with Mr. Chadwick and Dr. Southwood Smith, in the first organised attempt to improve the public health of the country, and he could bear testimony to the difficulties which beset them in the prosecution of their arduous labours. Against his noble Friend no imputation whatever could be made—the estimate which the public
242
had formed of his character and services ought to have shielded him from the attacks to which he had been subjected. In respect of Mr. Chadwick and Dr. Southwood Smith, the case was not so fortunate, inasmuch as those gentlemen had not the same opportunity as his noble Friend of making their defence as public as the attack. After what had passed he felt bound to say thus much, that he quite agreed with the right rev. Prelate in the opinion which he had expressed respecting the two measures of our time which seemed to him beyond any others to have affected the internal condition of the great body of the people—the amendment of the Poor Law and sanitary reform; and he sincerely believed that the most efficient agent in originating and in producing those two great fundamental measures, and in clearing away a host of obstacles which beset their early birth, was Mr. Chadwick; and to one or other of these measures he had ever since devoted his time, his health, and his strength. It might undoubtedly be true—to say nothing of the multiform actual hostilities which every large measure of amendment was sure to stir up and exasperate—it might be true that, on taking up any great question or idea with enthusiasm, a certain portion of positiveness and precipitation might be mixed up with it more than was desirable; but he trusted that our contemporaries would not refuse to those who had established great principles and introduced large measures, some portion of that gratitude and honour which were certain to be awarded to them by an intelligent posterity. In respect to Dr. Southwood Smith, he owned he felt still greater difficulty to account for the attack referred to; for that gentleman had always seemed to him to combine with very meritorious services the most unobtrusive and inoffensive spirit with which he had ever come in contact, and which alone ought to have disarmed all angry censure. His professional experience, which he had acquired during a practice of more than twenty years in the wards of the London Fever Hospital—acquired too at the risk of his own life, for he had been attacked by fever no less than three times—the experience which he had thus acquired had been brought to the aid of the public at large, to protect them from those dangers which had been proved to be as extensive as they were direful. His knowledge had been most valuable in the drawing up the Quarantine Reports, and during the preva-

243
lence of cholera he directed his attention peculiarly to premonitory symptoms and house-to-house visitation. These were some of the benefits which Dr. Southwood Smith had conferred on the public at large; and he would express a hope with regard to both his distinguished friends, that to whatever obloquy they might find themselves for a moment exposed, the consciousness of the good they had done, of the evil they had prevented, of the lives which, under God, they had been privileged to save, would be to them a sufficient consolation.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that his noble Friends who had already spoken had only done an act of strict justice in bearing their testimony to the merits of the individuals whom they had so ably defended. He well remembered the services—the invaluable services—of Mr. Edwin Chadwick, both with regard to the Poor Law Commission and the inquiry into the state of the poor and the Poor Law; and he could most distinctly state that to Mr. Nicholl and Mr. Chadwick were mainly due the success both of the inquiry and of the great measure which grew out of it. How far the country had benefited by their labours, he need only remind their Lordships by stating the simple fact of the difference in the poor law expenditure at the present time as compared with the year 1813 and the year 1834, when the Bill passed. When compared with the year 1813, regard being had to the relative population of the country at the two periods—the expenditure during the last year would, at the rate of 1813, have been 11,746,000 l., whereas it actually fell short of 5,000,000 l., being 4,939,000 l.. But that result of the change, easy for the purpose of comparison, was the least important, compared with the benefits which had been conferred on the poor, whose condition had been so greatly improved, and was likely to continue to improve.
On Question, agreed to.

NEW ZEALAND.
LORD LYTTELT ONthen rose to move for "certain papers relating to New Zealand;" and to call the attention of the House to the proceedings of the Governor of New Zealand in giving effect to the Act for granting a representative constitution to that Colony. The subject had already been discussed in the other House of Parliament, and as he considered the defence of the conduct of the Governor quite unsatisfactory, he felt bound, in deference to
244
the wishes of many of the colonists, to bring the matter under the notice of their Lordships. He admitted that in many respects Sir George Grey had shown himself not only an able but a good and successful Governor. He had been so financially beyond all question. He had maintained peace, discipline, and order—and although there had been some exaggeration in this respect on the part of his admirers, he was willing to admit that he had dealt successfully with the native population. But he had shown himself unfitted for the introduction of a constitutional system for the English people, and it was much to be regretted that the inauguration of that system had been intrusted to his hands. The noble Duke was aware that there were many complaints against the Governor of New Zealand; but on the present occasion he proposed to confine his remarks to the proceedings of Sir George Grey under the Constitution Act of New Zealand, chiefly as to his mode of dealing with the waste lands of the Colony, and his delay in summoning the General Assembly. It had been said that it was not likely Sir George Grey could have mismanaged affairs under the Act, when ho himself had framed and suggested it. That statement was inaccurate; but even if accurate it would not be relevant. It was not correct to say that the measure suggested by Sir George Grey was substantially in all respects the same as the Act which passed. Sir George Grey proposed that the Legislative Councils should be formed on the old model, and that one-third should be nominated by the Crown. He did not propose to give the colonists the control over their own land—he did not propose to give the colonists the power to vary their own constitution, nor to vary the sums paid under the civil list. He (Lord Lyttelton), however, did not dwell upon this, because, in any case, it would only show, assuming that mismanagement could be proved, inconsistency between the professions and the acts of the Governor. Now he had always felt that the late Government, whatever their other merits and demerits, was entitled to lasting gratitude from all persons interested in colonial affairs, for the Constitutional Act of New Zealand. Well, "corruptio optimi pessima;" and the more welcome and the more suitable was that great gift to the colonists, the worse was the case that it should have been marred and embittered in the giving. He said "welcome and

245
suitable," and he dwelt more on the latter than the former; for the question was, not what the colonists wished for, but what duties they ought to be required to perform. He did not doubt that the acts of Sir George Grey were acceptable to many persons in the Colony. They were acceptable not only to all the land sharks and speculators in the community, but to those who entertained a strong opinion as to the necessity of a reduction in the price of land, and who, provided they could obtain what they required, cared very little about the means employed for that purpose. The question for the consideration of their Lordships was, what were the intentions of Parliament on the subjects to which he was now directing their attention? He would first take the price of land. The distinguishing feature of the constitution of New Zealand was that Parliament conceded to the colonists the control over their waste lands; and considering the circumstances of the case, he admitted that to have been a wise and a just concession. The concession was made to the colonists themselves, in their own constitutional assembly. The complaint against Sir George Grey was, that upon that great concession being notified in the Colony, he took upon himself to exercise that great authority, given not to him, but to the colonists; that he issued, almost immediately, a proclamation on his own authority, making the most sweeping changes in the whole system of the price of waste land, lowering the price one-half in some cases, and three-fourths in other cases. He did not wish to dwell further on the detail, but to direct the attention of their Lordships to the principle. No doubt Sir George Grey might have done worse, for ho might in strict law have followed the example of his predecessor, and brought down the price of land to a penny per acre. Now, what was the justification offered for Sir George Grey? There were two clauses in the Constitution Act of New Zealand bearing on this point. One of them gave power to the General Assembly to make laws for regulating the sale and disposal of waste lands, providing that, until the Assembly should otherwise enact, it should be lawful for Her Majesty to regulate such sale by instructions issued under the royal sign manual. The justification of the Governor was founded on a subsequent clause, which provided that it should be lawful for Her Majesty, by letters patent or signified through one of the principal Secretaries
246
of State, to delegate to the Governor any of the powers reserved to Her Majesty respecting the regulation and sale of waste lands; and the case of the Governor, founded on the clause, was contained in the preamble of his proclamation, stating that such power had been "delegated to the Governor by instructions received from Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Colonies." Now, the question was whether these words were literally correct or not. So far as we were informed they were not even literally correct, for no such instructions were to be found. Certainly he was almost compelled to believe that such instructions had been issued, because he had been told so by the highest authority, and therefore he had moved for them; but he was bound to say that he suspected there was some confusion of memory on the subject, and that what was really referred to was a document which did appear, and which did not by any means bear out the conclusions founded upon it. Two despatches were written by Sir J. Pakington shortly after the passing of the Act, the first of them dated the 16th July, the second dated the 21st July, 1852. The latter despatch informed the Governor that he had the power to deal with the price of these lands, but stated that it was by virtue of the despatch of the 16th of July. Now, that despatch contained no such power. He found, too, from a statement in a colonial newspaper, that the civil secretary at Wellington stated that no such instructions had been received since 1850; and he presumed that no one would argue that either a general transmission of an Act providing for the conveyance of such a power, or an erroneous reference in a subsequent despatch, as if such a power had been given, would be enough for the purpose. Nevertheless, he would assume that such instructions had been given; but he denied that they could go beyond the powers of the Act itself, and he contended that it did not give the Governor the power of dealing with the price of waste lands. The first clause of the Act conferred an unreserved power on the Assembly to make laws for regulating the sale of waste lands, but the power which it conferred on the Crown was to regulate them by instructions under the royal sign manual, that is, according to the existing law; and the reduction of price was in direct contravention of the Act of 1851. It was not a simple delegation of power, but the powers were to be delegated or issued under the

247
Royal sign manual. The instructions which he wished to see were the instructions so issued. There was a strong presumption that the powers were not so conferred, because in the papers on the table it would be found that Sir John Pakington did delegate the power of dealing with the land in Canterbury without any instructions under the sign manual. Next, if it was allowed that the Governor had an unlimited discretion to deal with the price of land, he contended that what he did was a gross abuse of that discretion. He could conceive the possibility of cases in which it might have been expedient to give the Governor an unlimited discretion in dealing with waste land. There might be cases of individual hardship and peculiar dealings with the natives which might make the use of such an authority desirable; but any such power ought to be exercised with the greatest jealousy and care, and only in exceptional cases, instead of universally. There were also grave faults of detail in the proclamation, such faults as that of throwing open, contrary to established rule, great masses of land without any survey, of placing an uniform price on land in settlements of most various circumstances—the necessary instability of an arrangement which must needs soon come to be reviewed and perhaps reversed by the Assembly, and the absence of any proper provision for priority of choice in the selection of land. He would now pass to another point, and state a fact which would startle those persons who took an interest in the subject. The view which he had taken was taken also in the Colony, and was submitted as a strict point of law to the Supreme Court. That Court twice over, after deliberate argument, decided that the proclamation was illegal, and a solemn injunction was issued by the Court declaring that illegality, and restraining all parties from acting on the proclamation; but the Governor took no more notice of that injunction than if it had been mere waste paper, and the Supreme Court an entire nullity. What would have been the course followed by the Court of Queen's Bench in this country under its present or still more its late head, if its injunction had been dealt with in such a manner? The persons disobeying it would have been committed. Assuredly there was no danger of any such proceeding being taken in New Zealand. From the system that had been pursued in our Colonies, they
248
were in many of these respects some one hundred years behind this country. It was just 100 years since, in this country, the Crown had been put on that great reform in our constitutional system, the judicial independence of our tribunals. Such was not the case in any colony, and a judge was there liable to be suspended and his salary stopped by the executive authority. The answers which had been given to the charge were so strange as to be almost unintelligible. Some persons had even questioned the issuing of such an injunction; he could only say that the fact was quite notorious. It had also been said that the Governor was not aware of the existence of such an injunction. Such an excuse could in no case be admitted, for the Governor was bound to know of the proceedings of his own Supreme Court. But besides this, in the blue book it would be seen that the Governor himself sent home copies of letters, distinctly informing him that the injunction had been issued. Another defence set up was, that Chief Justice Martin had reviewed and reversed the decision; but that was both untrue and impossible, for he had no such power of reviewal nor reversal. Then, again, it was said that the Governor received information that the injunction was not to be prosecuted by its promoters; but that was a bitter mockery, for if so it was because the Court was too weak to act upon its authority. But it was beside the question, for the fact that the opinion of the Court had been pronounced was alone material. Assuming, next, that the Governor had acted perfectly right, that he felt it his duty to take into his own hands the power which was given as a permanent authority to the colonists, could there be a stronger argument for his calling into existence, at as early a period as possible, the General Assembly, on whom the power of dealing with land had been conferred? The Act arrived in the Colony on the 22nd of December, 1852. The Governor, who was intrusted with the power of carrying it into operation, left the Colony about the 6th of January, 1854, and the General Assembly met, or was to meet, on May 24th last. This delay was enormous and excessive, and could not possibly be justified. In answer to that charge, it was said that the Governor had used all possible expedition, and that it was not possible to call the Assembly together earlier. He did not desire to impute wilful misrepresentation to any one, but as to this alleged

249
fact of a physical impossibility, he must say, credat Judæus. Such an excuse never could have been made in the Colony; neither the Governor nor any of his officials ever hinted at any such difficulty or impossibility; nor had any friend or opponent conjectured it. Addresses from the councils of Wellington and Nelson—one of them, at least, drawn in a spirit friendly to the Governor—said they could not conceive any reason for the delay. He had recently seen a colonist, just arrived from New Zealand, who told him such a plea was never set up in the Colony, and if it had it would utterly have been scouted; and lastly, he had the evidence of the Governor himself. He himself said, in December, 1852, and again in February, 1853, that the Assembly could meet on the 30th of September, 1853; but he made it impossible by his own acts. He took nearly the full time before he proclaimed the Act—he took the full time to the last minute before he caused the writs to be issued for the return of the Members to the Legislative Assembly—and he did not name any time at which the writs were to be returned. In his own former ordinance he had specified sixty days for the northern province, ninety days for the southern, as the utmost time needed for the return of the writs. The returning officers were his own servants, and he should have required the returns by a certain day. It was then said, that the Governor was unable to convene the General Assembly until the writs had been returned. But there was no such proviso in the Act. And the same ships that brought back the writs might have brought the Members also; so that the Assembly might have met as soon as the writs had been returned. It was said, further, that he could not issue the writs until he knew who the electors were to be. But why was it necessary that the electors should be known before the writs were issued, and their return in due course called for? It was said, also, that the Governor had so much to do under the Act that it was impossible for him to proceed with greater despatch than he had done. With respect to this, he must say that he did not think the friends of Sir G. Grey acted very wisely in calling attention to his proceedings under the ordinance for the establishment of provincial councils; for, although it was quite true that in some important respects the two Acts were very different, in many minor points they were precisely the same; and provisions had been made with respect to
250
electoral districts, to the qualifications of electors, to polling places, and to other matters of detail, a year or two before the Governor was called upon to put this Act into operation. He had, therefore, nothing to do but to reprint what was ready to his hand. There were one or two consequences of this delay to which he would call the attention of the House. It had caused an entirely illegal appropriation during several months of the revenue of New Zealand. The Governor had said before that he saw no difficulty whatever in the General Assembly being called together by the 30th of September; and, accordingly, under the provisions of the old constitution, he had caused an appropriation ordinance to be passed, which expired upon that day. After that time, from the 30th of September until May, there was no legal authority in the Colony for the appropriation of the public money. It was said that that was an unfortunate dilemma—that it was the fault of the Act of Parliament, which only enabled the General Assembly to deal with the revenue raised by itself. But it was not the habit of the Parliament of England to leave important matters of that kind to the chances of an unfortunate dilemma, and if there was a difficulty in convening the General Assembly at the time which had been named for its meeting, there was at all events a power of calling the old council together, to which the power in such a case was distinctly continued in the Act. It was said that he acted in the spirit of the Act; but there was no difficulty in acting both in its spirit and its letter. The Governor appropriated two-thirds of the revenue to the provincial councils and one-third to general purposes; but that was according to his sole judgment, whereas it was a matter reserved for the General Assembly. The Act provided that the General Assembly should take whatever portion of the revenue it required, and should give the surplus to the provincial councils. By such proceedings as these the proceedings of Parliament had been set at nought. But let their Lordships observe the effect on the provincial councils. It had almost compelled them—at all events had strongly tempted them—to become participators in this illegal appropriation of the revenue of the Colony. Some of them had yielded to the temptation, while others, refusing to receive what the Governor had given, had been obliged to raise a revenue themselves within their own limits, contrary, no doubt, to the ge-

251
neral intention of the Act of Parliament, but in the exercise of their general legislative powers, and in an inevitable choice of difficulties. It was a cruel addition to their ordinary duties to impose upon them a responsibility of this kind. But another effect of the delay was obviously to cripple these provincial assemblies in dealing with their own resources. Their Lordships were aware that in this Act, as in all similar Acts, several important matters were reserved to the General Assembly, and the provincial councils were forbidden to deal with them. Still, although they were forbidden to deal with them, they were matters of great importance as affecting the interests of the provinces, who naturally looked to the General Assembly to know to what extent they were to have power to deal with those subjects, or what the General Assembly would do for them. He need only enumerate some of the questions to which he was referring. They included, among other things, the regulation of the post office, the law of bankruptcy, the regulation of marriages, and, above all, the dealing with waste lands. Now, how could the provincial councils properly discharge the important functions which devolved upon them until they knew whether or how far they were to have power over their own resources—over the waste lands within their own limits? Yet the provincial councils had not known—and for aught he knew they did not know to this day—whether they were to have this power or no. So much for the Governor's proceedings with respect to the representative part of the General Assembly; but, besides that, he was called upon by Sir John Pakington to proceed without delay to the selection of the no-mince part of that Assembly; and instead of obeying those instructions, he had not
selected them at all. He believed the only answer upon this point was, that he had waited to see what Members would be elected; but this was no answer, for the proper course for the Governor to have pursued would have been to have at once selected those whom he thought most fitting to be nominated; and if they had subsequently been elected also, they must have done what was always done in the case of a double election in England, and have made their own choice as to the character in which they would serve. He had moved for a paper upon another subject, which was not of so great importance, but which still he was anxious to see. It concerned the leave of absence given to the Governor;
252
for he (Lord Lyttelton) would not believe, until he saw it, that it was ever intended he should leave the Colony, until the General Assembly had been called together, and he had seen the constitution in operation. In spite of all this, Sir George Grey had been rewarded and promoted; but, notwithstanding his reward and promotion, he could hardly think the noble Duke would defend him with respect to the conduct to which he had referred. It was a right principle to uphold and defend as far as possible the colonial Governors, but there were things which were more important still—the rights and interests of the colonists, obedience to Parliament, and respect for the law. He well knew the immeasurable insignificance in which such subjects appeared at home, and if these matters of which he had been speaking were matters which should properly he left to the colonists themselves, he should be very glad if the people of this country cared even less for them than they did. But when political franchises were given, as in the case of New Zealand, some time after a Colony bad been established, they must needs be given definitely and exactly through the supreme executive authority in the Colony, acting in behalf of the Crown; and the matter was one which ought, above all others, to be carefully watched at home. He knew how hopeless it was that this should be the case now; but he thought it might be a satisfaction to the colonists of New Zealand that one voice at least in that place—and that voice one to which from circumstances they had perhaps some reason to look—should be raised against proceedings he really believed as arbitrary and indefensible as had ever been brought under the notice of Parliament. The noble Lord concluded by moving—.
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for Copies of any Instructions not already laid before Parliament from the Secretary of State to the Governor of New Zealand, with reference to the Regulation of the Price of Waste Lands during the Time previous to the first Meeting of the General Assembly of the Colony: And also, a Copy of the Letter from the Secretary of State to the Governor of New Zealand giving him leave of absence."
THE DUKE or NEWCASTLE: My Lords, I most sincerely deplore the present state of this House; for I cannot but feel that not only is it difficult in addressing a House, with such an attendance as the present, to enter at that length into the answer to my noble Friend which I feel is due to the gentleman who has been at.

253
tacked; but I regret it, also, because I do think that when the character of an eminent man, and one who has rendered great public service, is attacked, it would be desirable for his sake, and for the sake of the public, that a greater number of your Lordships should be present, and should hear both the attack and the defence. My Lords, my noble Friend began his statement by saying that he had many causes of complaint against Sir George Grey, but that he would confine himself to only two or three. Now, though undoubtedly it may seem inconsistent with what I have just said as to the state of the House, nevertheless, I cannot help deploring that my noble Friend did not mention in detail the whole of the causes of complaint which he feels to exist against the late Governor of New Zealand, because undoubtedly it is not altogether fair—I am sure my noble Friend did not intend to act unfairly—but it is not quite fair that, in attacking the character of a public servant, he should begin that attack by stating that there are many causes of complaint, and yet only enumerate a few of them;—for the public, being left in the dark as to what those other causes of complaint are, may be led to believe that they are of a very important and serious character; whereas I am myself inclined to think that my noble Friend has not brought them forward to-night because he has himself, by subsequent events, become convinced of the exceedingly trivial and insignificant character of those complaints, and feels that they are not worthy to be laid before your Lordships' House. I can only say I have attended carefully to those other causes of complaint as I have heard them, or as they have been laid before the other House of Parliament, and I came down here this evening fully prepared to meet every one of them if my noble Friend had brought them forward: at the same time, it would undoubtedly be unbecoming in me to enter upon any answer to attacks which have not been made here, and which, therefore, I am not called upon and should not be justified in entering on. But my noble Friend proceeded to concentrate his attack principally under two heads, branching collaterally into one or two matters of detail, to which I will call the attention of your Lordships by and by. These were—the conduct of the Governor in reducing the price of the waste lands, and the delay in bringing the constitution into operation. Now, my Lords, my noble Friend said that this great boon
254
of a constitution to New Zealand had been impaired and embittered by the way in which it had been given by Sir George Grey. These are undoubtedly strong words, and I think they require more startling facts, even if these facts could be substantiated, than my noble Friend brought forward to justify them. But I hope I shall be able to show your Lordships that those statements of my noble Friend cannot be substantiated, and I will take, first, the price of the waste lands, as that was the first in order in my noble Friend's speech.
My noble Friend says that this reduction of the price of land by the Governor was at variance with his duty and with all sound principle, and that he thought he might just as well have reduced the price of land to one penny an acre, as was done by the gentleman whom he succeeded in the Government—[Lord LYTTELTON: I said as regarded the strict legality of the act.] My noble Friend says now as regards the strict legality of the act. I shall come to that question presently; but I certainly misunderstood him; for I thought he was referring to the policy as well as to the legality of the transaction. However, I will first take the legality of this proceeding; and I must remind my noble Friend, when he throws this great doubt on the legality of the conduct of the Governor, that he was one with a great number of other gentlemen who did me the honour of waiting upon me at the Colonial Office some time ago to remonstrate against this and other acts of Sir George Grey. At that time the despatches had not been received from New Zealand, and, therefore, I was not in possession of that full information on this subject which I possess now. My noble Friend stated npon that occasion, that the deputation which came with him to make that remonstrance had differed most widely upon all other subjects up to that moment—[Lord LYTTELTON: That shows how bad the case was.] My noble Friend says now, that shows how bad the case was, but I am not by any means sure of that. It is capable of two different constructions. It may mean that gentlemen who have been thwarted by the Governor, combining together to attack him, have agreed to sink their differences for the time for the purpose of promoting their own views, and of thwarting his. But my noble Friend said that this proceeding of the Governor in reference to the waste lands was an illegal act, both as contrary to the Constitutional Act, and as

255
not being justified by the instructions which were given to the Governor by the Secretary of State. I at that time expressed extreme astonishment at this statement; but it was followed by another still more astonishing—that the deputation came with the authority of Sir John Pakington, who had been Secretary of State at the time when these proceedings had taken place, and who informed them that it had never been intended that any such act should be done by the Governor, and that no such instructions had been issued. I expressed astonishment at these statements, because there was an express clause in the Constitutional Act empowering the Secretary of State to give certain instructions to the Governor, and because I had seen, in my own office, a despatch from Sir John Pakington, giving to Sir George Grey the instructions which the Constitutional Act enabled him to give, for the purpose of carrying out this very power in reference to waste lands. My noble Friend says that at that time he made a mistake. Well, then, if my noble Friend made a mistake then, how is it that he comes down now, and, after admitting that it was a mistake, assures your Lordships that the Governor had no such powers granted him, and that he acted illegally? If he made a mistake then in telling me that no such powers had been granted, why does he repeat that statement now? [Lord LYTTELTON made an observation which was inaudible.] He stated then, that no such instructions had been given; he now states that there was no power given by the Act to issue them. My noble Friend may be a very good lawyer—but a lawyer drew this Bill; he was instructed so to draw it as to give such powers; he believed that he had given them; others, who have examined the Bill since, believe that it gives those powers; and with all respect for the opinion of my noble Friend, I am entitled to attach greater weight to the opinion of the lawyer who drew and of those lawyers who have since examined it, when they say that those powers are contained in it. This, at all events, I can positively say—that it was intended by the Government to give those powers, and that instructions, in accordance with those powers, were issued by Sir John Pakington. Well, so far as regards the legality of this transaction. Of course there remains another consideration. If it was legal, was it politic or wise? My noble Friend proceeded to say that even if
256
the legality of the conduct of Sir George Grey could be substantiated, he considered this one of the grossest abuses of discretion which any Governor had ever exercised. Now, I must say, from what has passed this evening, and from what I have heard elsewhere, that I believe my noble Friend was entirely ignorant of the circumstances under which this power was exercised. At the time when the instructions reached the Colony there was an uniform price of 1l. per acre upon all lands. And Sir George Grey had to consider what would be the effect of leaving the price of waste lands to be dealt with by the General Assembly. The whole power over waste lands having been conferred upon the General Assembly by the Constitutional Act when they met, he had to consider what it might be necessary for him to do in order to guard against the inconveniences which might possibly arise out of the exercise of that power. If this had been a case in which the Governor had proceeded to act in reference to these lands before the General Assembly met, for the purpose of depriving that Assembly of the power and privilege of dealing with them, I should have thought—and I so stated to my noble Friend when he called upon me—that there had been an improper exercise of discretion. But such was not the case. How, then, did the matter really stand? With respect to land then in possession of the Crown, with which the Assembly would have had the right to deal, it was of a very limited character indeed. The powers of the Assembly, therefore, with respect to waste lands, would have been of a most minute description. But there was another class of lands, over which the natives held rights, pertaining to them, not as individuals, but as tribes, which would have been a fertile source of discord between the English colonists and the natives. The natives had always, heretofore, refused to part with those privileges and rights except to a very limited extent, for various reasons, which I shall come to by and by. But I wish, first of all, to point out the position of the English colonists, and the state of opinion among them. There had been two parties among the colonists, holding, upon the land question, very different views. There was one party who held the opinion—which I must say appeared to me most just—that we had only a right to such lands as we could obtain from the natives by purchase. There was another party which maintained

257
that the Crown had a right, by virtue of its prerogative, to all lands to which no counter right could be substantiated by the natives. Your Lordships will see that such a proposition involved very dangerous questions, supposing it came to be disputed in the General Assembly; and it was under such circumstance that Sir George Grey, who had acquired an influence and a power over the natives which no English Governor had ever before possessed, employed that influence successfully in inducing them to do what I am confident, and I defy my noble Friend to dispute it, no other Governor could have persuaded them to do—he induced the natives having rights over a vast tract of land to abandon those rights which they had exercised, to turn over the whole for a very insignificant sum, and to expend the money which they so received in the purchase of so much of the land as they desired for their individual purposes. Thus by this means a most important part of the colony of New Zealand—the middle island—was almost entirely cleared of the rights of the tribes, and except those small portions which were purchased by the natives as individuals, the whole of the middle island became vested in the Crown—and it devolved on the General Assembly to deal with it. So far, therefore, from depriving the General Assembly of any rights or privileges which they would have possessed over the waste lands of the Colony under the powers of the Constitutional Act, he has not only handed over to that body the small district which then belonged to the Crown, but he has handed over with it the whole of the middle island, cleared of those rights and privileges which had been previously exercised by the tribes. The benefit, therefore, is far greater than it would have been if Sir George Grey had failed to act as he had done. But then, my noble Friend asks, why was it necessary, in order to carry out this arrangement, that he should lower the price of land? My answer is, that if my noble Friend had watched these matters more narrowly, he would have known that one reason why the natives had so obstinately persisted in refusing to dispose of their land at all, was the high price at which it was retailed to the colonists, and the immense advantages which were supposed to accrue to those who purchased it and then resold it to others. I dare say my noble Friend will say that the advantages at 10 s. per acre were so enormous that 1l. per
258
acre, although double, will not affect the question. That may be so to our judgment, but we cannot deal with the native intellect or with native prejudices as we would do with Europeans; and in transactions with native tribes, whatever their whims and fancies, we must humour them to a certain extent—we must deal with them as we find them. There is no doubt they had refused to sell the lands up to that time, and there is no doubt that they did sell them at the time to which I have referred; and coupling these facts together, with another to which I have before alluded—that no other man than Sir George Grey could have accomplished this object—I say that, instead of blame, he deserves the thanks of the colonists. But my noble Friend said—and it did astonish me very much—that he could not conceive how the Governor could deal, upon one uniform plan, with all waste lands of the colony, considering the very different circumstances in which the settlements are placed. He did not deal with them upon one uniform plan. He did not reduce the price where he had reason to believe, from what had passed before, that such a proceeding might be detrimental to the interests of the settlement; and in that particular part of the Colony in which my noble Friend is more particularly interested—the settlement of Canterbury—he never attempted to introduce it in any way whatever; on the contrary, the proclamation which was issued expressly exempted Canterbury from its operation. Why, then, does my noble Friend say that Sir George Grey attempted to introduce a uniform system in the Colony when the proclamation shows he did nothing of the kind? But even if he had, he would only have been substituting a uniform price of 10 s. per acre for what was before a uniform price of 20 s. Well, now, my noble Friend proceeded to lay a very grave charge against Sir George Grey, for he stated that his conduct was so strongly disapproved that an injunction was obtained from the Supreme Court to prevent his carrying his intentions into effect. In the first place, I do not admit the fact that any great discontent prevailed with respect to the conduct of the Governor. I am aware that two gentlemen with whom I had been long on terms of intimacy, and for whom I feel the greatest possible respect, having just arrived from England, and knowing very little of the Colony but what they had

259
heard in England, did apply for an injunction to the Supreme Court against the Governor. But my noble Friend, I have no doubt unintentionally, and without weighing very well the force of the terms which he employed, stated that that injunction was issued against Sir George Grey. Now, my Lords, I deny that. The injunction never was issued. It was undoubtedly applied for, and was granted, but it never was issued. I am speaking in the presence of a noble and learned Friend who can set me right if I am wrong, but I think my noble and learned Friend will bear me out when I say that there is the greatest possible difference between the one and the other. My noble Friend says the injunction was treated as waste paper by the Governor. If it had been issued, that statement might have been justified; but I have said that issued it was not. Why, then, was not the Supreme Court moved to further action in the matter? My noble Friend—speaking not quite so broadly as some other people have done, but still with sufficient significance—says that the Court would not have dared to do so. Now, I must say that on such facts as are before us, on such evidence as my noble Friend possesses, it is a little too bad to imply—for it is an implication—such a charge against the late Governor of New Zealand. I do not know whether from the words of my noble Friend I should have understood its meaning, if this charge had not been made more specifically by others. What is it? Clearly that the Court did not dare to issue the injunction, although it was applied for and granted, because, under the rules affecting the Colony, the Governor had the power of superseding the Judges—a power granted whether rightly or wrongly we are not here to discuss—but granted, undoubtedly, to meet great cases of exigency and great cases of delinquency on the part of those Judges, and not for the purpose of vindicating any supposed privileges of the Governor. It is, therefore, to be supposed that no further action was taken—these gentlemen did not call on this Court to issue the injunction—out of consideration for the Judges, because they were under the impression that the Judges would be superseded by the Governor if they took that course, which they were bound to take, supposing their judgment to have been correct. My Lords, I say that to put forward such a subterfuge on the part of those gentlemen
260
who applied for the injunction, is unworthy of them. At the risk of all hazards to the Judges—if they really believed Sir George Grey would be so forgetful of his duty as to attempt anything so monstrous—I say without question, that these gentlemen, if they thought that this proceeding of the Governor ought to be prevented, were bound to have proceeded. Having applied for and obtained the injunction, they ought to have gone on to issue it, and then the legality of the matter might have been tried. My Lords, they did no such thing; the matter was permitted there to stand; and I say that Sir George Grey was not only justified under all the circumstances of the case, in proceeding as he did, but he had no other course to take.
But, my Lords, my noble Friend then proceeded to the other part of his case, to the delay on the part of the Governor, and the difficulties he threw in the way of the meeting of the General Assembly. Now, my Lords, to what does this charge amount? Does it mean that the Governor evaded the Act of Parliament? No, but that he literally fulfilled it. Does my noble Friend, or do those who have followed up this attack on Sir George Grey, intend to say that in any one instance the Governor exceeded the time within which each separate act was to be performed? No, they do not; but they say that he waited until the last day authorised by the Act of Parliament. Now, my Lords, supposing this to be true, which I am bound to say it is not, a more frivolous charge against a public man was never made. What was the meaning of Parliament giving this discretion, but that the Governor might be able to choose, within the prescribed limit, what might be, in his judgment, the best possible time for taking the necessary steps? You may say he judged rightly or wrongly; but to make it a matter of grave accusation, does indeed surprise me, and I think it will surprise your Lordships and all who look at the facts. I doubt whether, in any other instance, in bringing a constitution into operation, the latest day allowed by Parliament has not been uniformly taken, and I believe that in the case of the Cape of Good Hope—although I have not looked back to see—every single step in the proceedings was taken on the last day. But my noble Friend is wrong as to the fact; for the most important step towards setting the machinery in motion—the procla-

261
mation of the new constitution—was issued in three weeks after it reached the Colony, whereas the Act of Parliament allowed six weeks. Sir George Grey, therefore, on the very first opportunity that was afforded him, showed that his animus was not delay. Is it unfair to suppose that in the other cases there were good reasons for choosing the last instead of an earlier day? I have gone through all the various steps connected with this matter, and I must say that the twelve months for the whole transaction, from the beginning to the end, originally given by the Act, was a short time; but within that time everything was done. But the powers given to the Governor by the Act were in fact to frame a constitution; and to him were left all those matters of detail which in other cases have been carried out by the Secretary of State at home, or by some legislative authority in the Colony. He had to define the provinces, to define the electoral districts, to decide of how many Members the Legislative Councils should consist—of how many the General Assembly; to determine how many of these should be elected, and how many should be nominees; to decide who the nominee Members should be, and, in short, he would not say frame a Reform Bill, but to work out a vast number of preliminary details before the constitution could be brought into operation, requiring a great deal of local information, and necessarily occupying time. And when, in addition to these circumstances, you come to consider the great distance of these settlements from one another, and that the only means of communication is by water, and that, too, at uncertain times, I must say I see no reason for charging Sir George Grey with delay in bringing the constitution into operation, even if the Act of Parliament did not sufficiently shelter him from any accusation of that sort. So far from setting at nought the provisions of the Act of Parliament, I think I have shown that he has executed them at every step. My noble Friend said that it was intended by the Act that the six Legislative Councils of the provinces and the General Assembly should be brought into operation together. I do not know what clause in the Act he can quote to substantiate that statement. I can only say I know of no such provision; and having attended to the passing of the Bill through this House, I never heard anything in the course of its pro-
262
gress which indicated such an intention on the part of the framers of it. And of this I am certain, there were good reasons why such an attempt should not be made—why the Legislative Councils of the six provinces ought to meet before the meeting of the General Assembly. In the first place, it was desirable that each of the Legislative Councils of the provinces should have the opportunity of considering their local interests, and passing many laws of considerable importance, before the meeting of the General Assembly; and they availed themselves of that opportunity. But must it not be palpable to your Lordships, and to every one who considers the subject, that in a colony of small population like New Zealand, where you have to find persons to represent each province in the Legislative Council, and moreover to find competent parties for representatives in the General Assembly, that, as regards the composition of the General Assembly, if it is to be formed of the best materials, it must include many individuals who are also Members of the Legislative Councils of the provinces? And so, undoubtedly, is the fact. One of two results must have followed their meeting at the same time. Either the Legislative Councils could not have been brought into work in consequence of the absence of so many at the meeting of the General Assembly, or the General Assembly would be deprived of the advantage of such Members as belonged to the Legislative Councils. The whole machinery, therefore, in the first year would be brought to a dead lock, instead of into harmonious operation, by the fact of the Legislative Councils not having met in sufficient time before the meeting of the General Assembly. My noble Friend says that the defence made on the part of the Governor, that the writs were not returned for calling the General Assembly, is invalid because there is no provision in the Act which requires it. I must take the liberty of saying, that I think if he refers to the 44th clause of the Act, he will find it was required that these writs should be returned before the General Assembly is called together. But I say the Governor was justified in studiously watching every possible requirement to see that he kept within the letter of the law, because, on the part of many who are now complaining of the delay in bringing the constitution into operation, there was an indication of an intention to render the whole constitution null and void if the Governor failed in

263
acting legally in every step which he took.
My noble Friend then branched off into another topic—what he called the illegal appropriation of the revenues which stood over from the collections under the old system, to the Legislative Councils. Again I must dispute the illegality of this transaction. It has been held by lawyers, to whom the question has been referred, that the transaction was legal, and I believe there is nothing in the accusation of my noble Friend beyond the question, whether it was politic or right he should do so. I admit there is considerable perplexity in that part of the Constitution Act in which the Governor is called on to apply these revenues, and certainly it is no fault of the Governor that it was not made clear; for precisely the same provision was found in the old constitution, which the House will remember was suspended for four or five years, and at that time the Governor called the attention of the Secretary of State to the position in which he was placed by the perplexity attaching to that part of the Act; notwithstanding which remarks, precisely the same clause was introduced into the Act which passed two years ago, and, therefore, the Governor is not responsible for any consequent difficulty. As regards the appropriation being illegal, that can easily be tested. But I believe on the whole the Governor acted not only legally, but rightly, in the difficulty in which he was placed. The balance of the revenue, after meeting the charges specially cast upon it, had to be appropriated in some way. He felt that, with the old legislative body extinct, and the new one coming into operation (the Legislative Councils being assembled, and the General Assembly not yet called together), it was more in accordance with instructions on a former occasion—though there were no instructions which would quite meet this case—to band over the balance, divided equally, to the Legislative Councils, as it would place them in funds at a moment when it was impossible they could have any other funds at their disposal, and when it would, of course, cause considerable embarrassment if they were obliged to proceed either by borrowing money or without any money at all.
My noble Friend says that he considers that Sir George Grey's conduct in coming away at the time he did is most reprehensible, and he should be glad to see the terms in which my leave of absence was
264
couched. I say at once, Sir George Grey did not act at variance with the permission given by me in that despatch. When Sir George Grey applied for leave of absence, which I received within a fortnight of my appointment, I wrote, in reply, giving him leave of absence, but upon two conditions, that he should wait until the whole of the arrangements were made for bringing the Constitution Act into operation, and that he should be assured the state of the native population was sound, and that there was no apprehension of insurrectionary proceedings, as on a former occasion, in consequence of these free institutions being given to the Colony. Sir George Grey attended literally to these instructions. He waited until the last stage in bringing the Constitution Act into operation was reached, and he left the Colony in a state of profound peace and contentment, receiving addresses expressing regret at his departure, not only from the inhabitants who had proceeded from this country to colonise it, but from the natives; and those addresses, which I have seen, were of the most affectionate and interesting description. It is somewhat hard to charge Sir George Grey with culpability in leaving the Colony at the time he did. What were the circumstances under which he asked for leave of absence? Seventeen years of colonial services he could show, out of which he had been in England three months only—thirteen years and a half of continual service, during which he had never revisited this country. At the time he was serving in South Australia, and the colony of New Zealand was in the greatest possible difficulty and danger, he was earnestly requested by the then Secretary for the Colonies, the present Lord Derby, to proceed from South Australia to New Zealand as a means of saving that latter colony. Lord Derby pressed it on him as a matter of duty, and I must beg to read only a small portion of that despatch intimating the opinion the noble Earl then entertained of the services of Sir George Grey. Lord Stanley writes—
"After the repeated testimonials I have borne to the value of your public services in administering the government of South Australia, it would be very gratifying to me to prove my esteem of your public spirit and great ability, by proposing to you other offices of greater rank and superior emoluments; still I trust it will be a most welcome proof of the confidence Her Majesty reposes in you by inviting you to undertake duties more arduous and responsible, though recommended by hardly any other consideration. The necessity of a vigorous head in the government of

265
New Zealand is the single apology. To a man of your character, it will be ample apology for calling on you without previous notice, at some sacrifice and inconvenience, to proceed immediately to relieve Captain Fitzroy from that office."
In a subsequent portion of the despatches the noble Earl shows what were his anticipations of Sir George Grey, from what be had accomplished. "I know," he says, "he will meet difficulties with a firm disregard of any responsibility in which evident duty may involve him." I say Sir George Grey has justified the favourable expectations on the part of Lord Derby; and now he is accused of coining home too soon. He has fulfilled the duties which devolved on him, and he has stayed at great inconvenience to himself. It may not be delicate to allude to the domestic concerns of any man, but when a public servant is attacked I feel I am justified in referring to them. What were the circumstances which induced Sir George Grey to apply for leave of absence at all? I knew them not at the time, but I have learnt them since Sir George Grey arrived in this country, and the circumstances are these:—Sir George Grey had left in England one relation, and, so far as I know, one only, whom he was most anxious to see again before death should preclude that possibility. He had left a mother in England, and he was desirous of coming home to see her, and for that purpose, and that alone, he applied for leave of absence. Sir George Grey knew she was in an infirm state of health, and that every month was precious. He nevertheless fulfilled the duties I had imposed on him. He remained twelve months to carry out the constitution in a manner which I confidently anticipate will be most advantageous. He remained to his own bitter cost. If he had come away earlier, he would have attained his object. Sir George Grey arrived in England to hear, before he landed, that that mother whom he had come 16,000 miles to see lay on her deathbed, and before he reached her residence she had departed this life; and is it not cruel that he should be accused of coming home at an inopportune moment, when he remained and fulfilled all the duties imposed on him, knowing he was running the risk of the sad event which occurred? What was the first act of Sir George Grey? Having attended to those melancholy duties, he came up to town. He had left the Colony in profound peace.
266
He found the mother country involved in a fearful and perhaps protracted war. He thought, under the circumstances, it was the duty of every man to be at his post, and on his first visit to the Colonial Office he told the permanent secretary, if it was thought desirable for the public interests, he was ready to return to New Zealand without a day's delay. That is the characteristic of the man, and of the public spirit which attaches to him. I do deprecate attacks on a man of that description, unless they can be borne out thoroughly by the facts. I have no doubt the noble Lord believes what he has been told, but I am confident further inquiry in the Colony will show there has been the greatest possible misrepresentation, and I say it is cruel that a man under such circumstances should have his hopes and his prospects blighted. I hope I am not departing from proper delicacy in divulging a private communication, but I must add to this that Sir George Grey has said to me, alluding to one of my last acts as Colonial Secretary—the appointment of him as Governor of the Cape of Good Hope—
"I feel the disadvantage under which a Governor must go to a new colony whose conduct has been brought in an adverse way before both Houses of Parliament. I know that imputations attach, or are likely to attach, even if they can be disproved, which in many instances they cannot without subsequent events. All I can say is, you have proved your good opinion of me by asking me to do further service to the country. I am gratified with that proof of approbation on the part of a public servant of the Crown, my superior in office, who has had the opportunity of judging of my conduct; but if, in consequence of these attacks, my means of usefulness are diminished, I hope you will press on your successor to reverse the proposal made to me, and to cancel it."
This is the man whose part I have taken, and for doing which I have incurred the censure of my noble Friend. I will not defer to my noble Friend, or to any other man, in friendliness to free institutions; but at the risk of being considered as having departed from principles which I hold dear, I will not be a party to sacrificing an able public servant, who, I believe, has acted with proper discretion, and with a due sense of the responsibility attaching to him, and I rejoice that the last act of mine at the Colonial Office was to reward and promote such a man. My noble Friend says he can hardly believe that I will defend the conduct of Sir George Grey. I have defended it in all the points

267
which my noble Friend has attacked, and, as I have said before, I am ready to discuss every other accusation which may be brought against him. I have spoken specifically of Sir George Grey; but on behalf of the service generally I must say I cannot believe those are really the best friends of colonial government who bring accusations and charges against those who have performed the arduous duties of a Governor, without the clearest and most distinct proofs that everything they advance can be substantiated. Does my noble Friend really believe that it is for the advantage of the public service to bring public accusations against an able, disinterested, and honourable man like Sir George Grey? Our witty neighbours have taunted us with occasionally shooting an admiral pour encourager les autres. My noble Friend selects a Governor to attack, and he chooses, not one of inferior character, but one in high station, who is carrying out a plan which will be of great advantage to this country. That is the principal reason that I promoted Sir George Grey to be the Governor of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. It was because I had watched events in that Colony, I knew we had been involved in wars of long duration, and that on each separate occasion the main cause of those wars had been the ill-treatment of the native population—a spirit of encroachment on them which they would not endure—a want of dealing with the natives in an equitable and satisfactory manner. To save one or two millions more being spent in another Kafir or Zulu war was my paramount duty, and instead of selecting a man possessed only of great capacity to deal with constitutional government, it was my duty to find one possessing these requisites, and, moreover, possessing the power of dealing with native tribes and treating them with kindness. I confidently look forward to the career of Sir George Grey to justify my selection. I feel confident he will deal with the natives of the Cape of Good Hope as he has dealt with the natives of New Zealand; and if the result be as I anticipate, though I receive blame now, I shall be amply rewarded by the satisfaction of seeing the success of that man whom I have chosen in his conduct of Governor, and I feel certain my noble Friend on some future occasion will be the first to come forward with manliness and candour to express his regret that he should ever
268
have said one word to derogate from the high character of Sir George Grey.
After a few words from Lord LYTTELTON in reply,
On Question, agreed to.
House adjourned to Monday next.