Sitting of 2 March 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Inland Revenue and Customs Departments, nominated; Navy (Promotion and Retirement), nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading—Admiralty Court (Ireland) [Bill 45]; Assurances Registration (Ireland) [Bill 46].
Committees —Union Relief Aid Act (1862) Continuance [Bill 17]; Corrupt Practices at Elections [Bill 8]; Post Office Sayings Banks [Bill 22].
Report— Union Relief Aid Act (1862) Continuance [Bill 44].
Considered as amended — Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) [Bill 9].

PRIZE MONEY (CHINA).

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Prize Money is coming to the Troops engaged in the China Expedition of I860, from the Sale of Guns, &c., captured from the Enemy; and, if so, whether it is likely soon to be distributed?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS, in reply, said, that the commander-in-chief on the spot had determined the question practically by collecting the booty, selling it by auction, and dividing the proceeds among the troops. That course was not strictly in accordance with the regulations, but it was subsequently sanctioned and approved by the Secretary of State. There were some guns that were not included in the sale, and which still remained, but it was not intended to make any fresh distribution of prize money.

STATE OF OUDE.—QUESTION.
MR. TORRENSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, What steps he proposes to adopt for the adjustment of the claims of the several parties on the late state of Oude?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply, that, in pursuance of a promise made by

967
the noble Lord who preceded him in his office, an inquiry was ordered to take place in India. Some of the parties objected that they had received no notice of the inquiry, and he had therefore directed the Government of India to issue another Commission, giving notice to the parties so as to enable them to represent their case before the Commission.

VAGRANCY IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, If it is his intention to introduce a measure on the subject of Vagrancy in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, said, the difficulty of dealing with the subject had been found to be so great that he had relinquished all intention to introduce any measure for the present.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in order to enable the Magistrates about to assemble in Quarter Sessions, and others interested in the management of Prisons, to consider the provisions of the Prison Ministers Bill, he will postpone the second reading till after Easter?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, he had had no representation made to him by English Magistrates who were in the habit of attending Quarter Sessions, and therefore he was unwilling to accede to the request. He would, however, postpone the Bill until next Thursday fortnight.

THE SEWAGE COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Leitrim, On what day he intends to call the attention of the House to the Reports of the Sewage Commission?
MR. BRADYsaid, he would take the earliest opportunity in his power of bringing this important question before the House, and he hoped that in the end it would be taken up by the Government.

EQUIPMENT OF VESSELS FOR THE CONFEDERATE STATES. — QUESTION.
MR. CAIRDsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has been laid
968
before the Government regarding the preparation in this Country of any ships intended, like the Alabama, for the service of the Confederate States; and, if so, what course they intend to adopt in regard to such ships?
MR. LAYARD: Sir, the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to more than one vessel which was supposed to be fitting out for the service of the Confederate States, as the Alabama was fitted out; but up to this moment no evidence has been furnished which would enable Her Majesty's Government to act according to law. I can assure my hon. Friend that strict orders have been given that any vessels suspected of being fitted out in that manner are to be closely watched.

EXTRADITION ORDINANCE IN MALTA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When the Papers regarding the Extradition Ordinance, which has lately been enacted, or which has passed Council in Malta, will be laid upon the table?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in answer, said, that the Extradition Ordinance which had just passed the Council in Malta, had now reached this country. The Papers would be immediately laid on the table.

CONVICT PRISONS REPORT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Report on Convict Prisons, which has been privately distributed among a few Members, has not been given to every Member of the House?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that he was not aware that the Report had been given to any one. He would, however, make inquiry on the subject.

UNION RELIEF AID ACT (1862) CONTI NUANCE BILL— [BILL 17.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Extension of Powers of Union Relief Aid Act of 1862).
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he wished to move the insertion of words to limit the duration of the Bill to Midsummer day next.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Limit of time for issuing Orders).
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSproposed, to leave out from "day of" to the end of the clause, and to insert "September next."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Construction of the Act) agreed to.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he would then move to insert the following clause after Clause 1:—
  (Repayment of Sums borrowed.)
  "Any sum borrowed under the authority of this Act may be repaid by equal annual instalments, not exceeding fourteen."
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he had then to move the insertion of the following clause: —
  (Interpretation.)
  "The word 'expenditure' in section Five of the said Act shall be construed to include the amount paid under any order of contribution issued by the Poor Law Board, pursuant to the said Act or this Act."
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to suggest whether his right hon. Friend would not authorize Boards of Guardians to borrow from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners; and if he would, whether it would not be desirable to provide for that power in the present clause. He had a natural reluctance that the county of Lancaster should be the first to ask for such a power, but, on looking back, he found very memorable instances in which power to borrow from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had been allowed under precisely similar circumstances. In the Report of a Committee which sat in 1810, there was a reference to a power of borrowing from those commissioners in 1793, when certain London merchants in distressed circumstances were thus assisted. A similar case occurred in 1825, and, he believed, also in 1847, to relieve distress in London and other parts of the country. He would therefore suggest that the guardians of Lancashire should be authorized to raise money from the Commissioners. Banks in Manchester had been applied to, but they stated that it was not in their line of business to lend money on
  970
  the terms proposed, and private persons were equally reluctant to lend money to be paid in annual instalments. The consequence was, that the guardians were obliged to pay a much larger rate per cent than they would have to do under other circumstances, whereas they might get money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners at 3½ per cent.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, his hon. Friend had pursued an unusual course, and was raising a very important question. The clause which had been moved had no reference to borrowing from the State or the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. It referred to the Act which he was seeking to continue, and in which it was provided that the guardians might borrow money on the security of the rates-—which was altogether a transaction of their own—and that they should have fourteen years for repayment instead of seven, as at first intended. He would ask his hon. Friend to wait until the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), who had given notice of a similar proposition, should bring it forward.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he had been under the impression that the hon. Member for Oldham had withdrawn his proposal.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. E. C. EGERTONmoved the insertion of a clause providing for the Apportionment of contribution for Unions in two or more counties according to the annual rateable value of so much of the Union as shall be situate within such counties respectively.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he wished to move the insertion of a clause empowering the overseers of townships where the expenditure for the relief of the poor should have exceeded the rate of 3s. in the pound to borrow money from time to time, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, as they shall think necessary to meet such excess.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), which stood next on the paper, to insert a clause—"Power to Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance Money to Unions"—could not be brought forward without the consent of

  971
  the Crown, inasmuch as it referred to the appropriation of public money.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that the clause of which he had given notice, empowering the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance money to unions, was one which would, in his opinion, be productive of considerable advantage without inflicting a loss upon any parties. That clause was as follows:—
  "The Public Works Loan Commissioners, as defined by the Act of the 19th year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 17, may, out of the Funds for the time being at their disposal, advance to any Union such sum or sums of money as such Union may from time to time be empowered to borrow under the authority of this Act, subject to the following regulations:—1. No Union shall borrow any money from the said Commissioners under this Act until the order of the Poor Law Board has been issued for the purpose. 2. The interest payable in respect thereof shall be at the rate of £3 5s, per annum on each hundred pounds. 3. The period for repayment of any sum shall not exceed fourteen years."
  It was not an entirely new principle that the Government should lend money for the relief of the peer, as by the Act of 1817, when the Public Loan Commissioners were first appointed, they were empowered to advance money, not only for drainage, piers, harbours, and other public works, but also for the employment of the poor in parishes of Great Britain. Though it might be true to a certain extent that the Boards up to the present time had experienced little or no difficulty in procuring money under the Act of last Session, it should be recollected that they had required less money during the last year than they would need in the next twelvemonths, in consequence of the largo subscriptions collected to relieve the distress in Lancashire. If the voluntary subscriptions ceased, and the entire relief of the distress were thrown on the unions, it would be with the greatest difficulty that they could tide over the crisis. The pressure in some of the unions had already been very severe, for he found that in the Union of Glossop the cost of the relief during the first week of February was at the rate of 9s. 3d. in the pound from the union, and 14 s. 8d. from the relief committee, equal to a total annual charge of £1 3s. 11 d. in the pound upon the rateable value; in Ashton the charge was at the rate of 6s. from the union, and 16 s. 4d. from the relief committee, equal to a total of £1 2s. 4d.; and in Preston it was at the rate of 5s. 5d. from the union and 6s. 3d. from the relief committee, equal to a total
  972
  of 11 s. 8d. It also appeared that there were at present 470,000 persons in the receipt of relief, at a weekly cost of £39,000; and those figures showed that the greatest difficulty must henceforth exist in meeting the emergency. He believed, that if the Government did not give the slight relief he now asked for, the unions would be obliged to come to Parliament before the end of the Session and demand a national grant. He therefore trusted that the President of the Poor Law Board would take into favourable consideration the present proposition.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had to remind the hon. Member, that as the clause could not be put, there was no question before the Committee. It proposed to give powers to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to appropriate public money in a manner not authorized by the existing law. If that were done, it must be done by an Act of Parliament introduced with the consent of the Crown.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he would move that the Chairman report progress, in order that he might have an opportunity of expressing his approval of the proposal contained in the clause. He believed that such a course would afford a very proper mode of employing the public money, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the guardian of the public purse, would introduce a Bill for the purpose of giving the Commissioners the proposed power. Money had been advanced by the Government to promote agricultural improvements, railways, and other things, and he thought that a loan might legitimately be made to the unions. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Villiers') concession of power to extend the loan over fourteen years made matters worse instead of better for the unions, because they would have to pay interest for a longer period. He moved that the Chairman report progress.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not regular to move that progress be reported merely for the purpose of raising a discussion on a matter with which it was not competent for the Committee to deal.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he only wished to state, that if the subject could have been properly discussed, he would have proposed that the powers of the Commissioners should be similar to those which they exercised in the case of advances for the improvement of lands, making the

  973
  principal and interest of the loans repayable at 6½ per cent, for a period of twenty-two years. The object he had had in view was to afford Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of more fully considering the matter before the Committee. He had been informed that great difficulty was experienced in the manufacturing districts in raising money for the relief of the poor, and he had no doubt that that difficulty would every day increase. The matter therefore required the serious consideration of the House itself. Why should not the Government assist the manufacturing districts in the present emergency by enabling them to borrow the money which might be considered requisite on the lowest possible terms? He hoped the matter would be reconsidered by the Government, especially as it could be done without incurring any loss.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he did not desire to prolong a discussion which had been pronounced irregular, but, at the same time, he was unwilling that the Committee should suppose that this matter had been overlooked by the Government. The effect of the Amendment he had introduced was to render the prolongation of the period of any loan optional, and not compulsory. The hon. Member for Oldham appeared to think that the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had command of an unlimited sum to be applied to any object for which a grant might be made; but that was not the case. It would be seen by the Act of Geo. IV., the powers of which had been from time to time renewed, that a specific sum was voted to the Commissioners for a specific purpose. No power was given to the Commissioners to advance money for the purpose for which it was desired by the hon. Member. If hon. Members referred to the Act, they would find that the particular works to which money was to be devoted were specified as works of utility, and it was to be granted according to the amount which might be in hand. And even with respect to advances made in connection with the poor, the nature of the work required to be done by the poor was always distinctly defined. The proposal of the hon. Member for Oldham was, that there should be a grant for the maintenance of the poor or for defraying the current expenditure for their relief. Now, a grant for such a purpose had never been made, and before such a. principle were sanc-
  974
  tioned, he thought it ought to receive the serious consideration of the House. If any grant were to be made, the unions requiring it must state a definite sum; but no specific sum had been mentioned. He was not going into the question whether or not it was sound policy for the State to make advances in order to assist the manufacturing districts. He did not deny that a time might come when advances would be necessary, but no precedent existed, and up to the present moment the Government had seen no reason to justify the step suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham. They had not heard that the guardians were unable to obtain money, that it was impossible to collect the rates, or that the funds which had been provided had been exhausted. There was evidence, indeed, of an opposite character; but, at the same time, whenever any hon. Member should think it his duty to ask for a Vote in aid of the distressed districts, the whole matter would be deliberately considered by the Government.
  MR. BAINESsaid, it seemed to him that it would be altogether unwarrantable for the Committee at that time to make any grant of public money for the relief of the distress in the cotton manufacturing districts, and he believed that the Members for Lancashire and Cheshire did not wish for a grant of that nature. All the Members for those counties with whom he had conversed repudiated the idea. What they wanted was, not a Vote of money, but such facilities as Government could afford through agencies of which it had the command, to enable them to obtain sums which they would borrow upon their own security, which they would repay to the last farthing, but which it was most important they should procure on the lowest possible terms. The country was bound to meet the distressed districts half-way, to show that it respected in the highest degree the manner in which they had conducted themselves, and that it felt for the heavy and unprecedented calamity to which they were subjected. He thought the Government might easily do that which the hon. Member for Oldham had asked them to do. The case was one of peculiar and extreme distress, affecting the largest branch of our manufacturing industry, and involving a most important part of the community. One-fourth of the entire population of the afflicted unions was in the receipt of relief, either from the

  975
  parochial rates or from the relief committees. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) stated lately that the loss was from £11,000,000 to £12,000,000 annually, but he (Mr. Baines) believed that the loss of wages alone was £9,000,000 a year; and if they added to that the loss of all profits on the part of the millowners, and the loss of rents on property, the loss would amount to nearly £20,000,000 a year. There was every probability that the distress would exist for some time longer, but he firmly believed that prosperity would eventually be restored to that manufacture. Cotton could be grown in a great portion of the world, extending over 60 degrees of latitude; and though some time was required to cultivate a sufficient quantity, he believed that the required quantity would be produced, and that again the machinery of Lancashire and Cheshire would be set going. Inasmuch, then, as the distress was peculiar and extreme, as it would exist but for a limited period, and as there was a certainty that there would be the ability to repay the amount borrowed, it seemed to him that the Government were called upon to do everything they could to provide facilities for obtaining the desired loans.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board should have read him a lecture upon the impropriety of introducing the subject of a loan before the hon. Member for Oldham had brought forward his clause. The right hon. Gentleman must have done so with a full knowledge of the fact that the clause in question could not be discussed at all.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was not aware that the clause could not be considered until the circumstance was pointed out by the Chairman.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he should however maintain that the observations he had made were strictly in order, inasmuch as he merely suggested to the Government to consider whether they could not give further facilities to the manufacturing districts by enabling the Exchequer Loan Commissioners to lend them money. He had in his pocket the latest report of Mr. Farnall, from which it appeared that in Lancashire at that moment, out of a population of 1,900,000 souls, there were 23 per cent receiving
  976
  relief of one kind or another. In the town of Preston there were 33 per cent in the same condition. Under such circumstances the representatives of the distressed districts were justified in taking every opportunity to impress upon the Government the necessity of providing against any increase in the existing enormous amount of distress. The right hon. President of the Poor Law Board was wrong in stating that there was no precedent for the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham. He had already cited more than one instance in which advances were made to the merchants of London. Another reason why the distressed unions should be allowed to borrow money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners was, that the granting of such a power would remove many objections which were entertained to the Bill as it stood. Great dissatisfaction existed in the manufacturing districts with the principle on which the rate in aid was carried out, and which he believed was not, as had been stated by the President of the Poor Law Board, in accordance with the statute of Elizabeth. That statute said that when one union could not support its own poor, it should go upon the adjoining union; but in the present case the President of the Poor Law Board had defined the inability of any union to support its poor to be a rate of 3s. in the pound. The expenditure of such a rate enabled it to go on another union, and then the inability of the union was defined by a rate of 5s. in the pound, which extended the liability to the county. This was an entirely different law altogether from that of Elizabeth; and tenants complained that they should be obliged to contribute under circumstances which they could not contemplate so as to enter into arrangements with their landlords. He would suggest that the distressed unions should have the power of borrowing money at a less percentage, and repayable over a greater number of years; and then, if his right hon. Friend would consent to it, he would recommend that the limit at which the distressed unions should come upon the neighbouring unions should be raised from 5s. to 6s. But he would impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expediency of giving greater facilities to the unions for borrowing money, so as to relieve other unions as far as possible from the burden of a rate in aid, which they believed to be thoroughly unjust.
  MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, he should

  977
  maintain that there was no new principle in making advances for the support of the poor. The 43 Elizabeth authorized the levying of rates, not only for the relief of the poor, but for setting them to work. Nothing could be more irksome than the compulsory idleness to which thousands were now consigned in the manufacturing districts; and it would be a most legitimate course for the House to authorize the Government to grant loans to Boards of Guardians, who had ample security to offer, with a view to check this evil. There was a strong objection to the application of the rate-in-aid principle, the money obtained by which was found to be too easily obtained, and might be recklessly squandered. Although, indeed, there was no reluctance to grant a rate in aid when all other means had failed, yet it was felt that it ought to be kept as a last resource. If the Government would give the unions sufficient power and facilities for borrowing, many of them would be able to support and set to work their own poor, without calling for rates in aid from other places. The gross annual rateable value of the property in the Union of Ashton-under-Lyne exceeded £300,000, and surely the guardians of that union might raise at least £100,000 if necessary by loan. Up to the 31st of January last, no less a sum than £70,000 had been voluntarily advanced from different funds to the Union of Ashton-under-Lyne. Surely, then, a union having had that assistance, and possessing such large means of its own at command, ought to be called upon to exercise its power of borrowing money to such an extent as the Poor Law Board might deem just, before it could claim the benefit of a rate in aid.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, he would add his voice to that of other Gentlemen who had urged the Government to take into their serious consideration the propriety of granting money through the Loan Commissioners, as being the fairest mode of meeting the present great emergency. By the time the Bill expired he was sure it would be found impossible to re-enact the rate in aid, so extremely unjust was it in its operation.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the difference between the statute of Elizabeth and the measure under consideration, was, that the statute of Elizabeth left it to the discretion of the local justices to say when a parish should be aided by its neighbours, while the Bill fixed the limits, and in his opinion
  978
  fixed the limit at a low point for wealthy Lancashire. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was sanguine that prosperity would shortly be restored to the cotton districts—that the weavers would return to their looms, and that everything would return to its former state. Well, he only hoped that that might be so, but it was certainly no argument for doing what had been proposed by hon. Members. He might remark, too, that the precedents quoted for granting loans of the public money for this purpose were all drawn from the evil times, before the passing of the new Poor Law, and he thought the House ought to hesitate before it followed them on this occasion. If, as stated by the hon. Member for Leeds, the distress was to be merely transitory, there seemed to be less reason for calling on the Public Exchequer. The difficulty was not so much the largeness of the demand made for the support of the poor, as the suddenness with which the rates had increased. There was a manufacturing town in Leicestershire where the rates had for many years been 5s. in the pound, and where they were now 8s.; but the Bill did not apply to that county. If it could maintain its own poor, there was no reason why the manufacturing parishes of Lancashire, when things had settled down, should not likewise be able to do the same. If, however, rates were to be permanently increased in Lancashire, there must be a proportionate alteration in the amount of rent received by the landlords; and any increase of the facilities for borrowing would be merely a staving-off of this inevitable arrangement. As the House would have another opportunity of considering the question before the end of the Session, the Government, he thought, were not called on to commit themselves at that time to the principle of loans of public monies.
  MR. BAINES: I did not say that the distress would be of brief continuance; on the contrary, I said that it would have a considerable continuance, but that ultimately a return to prosperity was certain.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that before the Government asked the Committee to come to any decision, they ought to put before it in a plain and definite shape how much the counties in question had actually raised. Up to that time no such information had been given. The expenditure for a week, or for a given number of weeks, had been multiplied to

  979
  show what the yearly amount would be at a similar rate; but what the Committee wanted was an accurate statement showing how much had been actually raised within the year, and then it could be seen what ground there was for making such an unusual application. The hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) thought it very odd that people should dislike a rate in aid. Most persons objected to pay money, and Lancashire had shown herself quite as sensitive on that point as any other part of the country with which he was acquainted. It was very fortunate, he thought, that a limit had been fixed, and that it had not been necessary to determine by an appeal to the Courts what constituted inability to pay. He did not say whether in fixing that limit the proper amount had been adopted; but he remembered that when the debate took place the Members for Lancashire were by no means anxious to have the limit fixed too high. The hon. Member for Leeds had said that it was only a case of persons asking for facilities to borrow money upon property affording ample security. That did not correctly represent the facts. The unions wanted to borrow upon Government security at a less rate of interest than they could obtain it themselves in the open market. Well, the question was whether they could make such a case as would justify the Government in giving their security, and the basis of such a case was the amount already raised stated in figures, and not mere estimates in conjecture. The information for which he had asked was therefore indispensable. A 1s. rate in Lancashire would produce about £350,000, while at that time it was quite impossible to give an opinion how many shillings in the pound had been raised. The proposition was one of an unusual, and, if not maturely considered, possibly of a dangerous character, for nothing gave greater encouragement to lavish expenditure than a facility of borrowing at low rates. No one could prophesy how long the present state of things would last. It was important, therefore, to ascertain whether it was intended, whatever the duration of the crisis, to keep these people in idleness. A great temptation was held out to those who might want to employ these people again—he did not say they would yield to that temptation; but the Committee ought to bear in mind that to keep the working classes idle for a lengthened period was to incur great risk of demoralization, and
  980
  that, once demoralized, the bad effects did not pass away in a single generation.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

TOBACCO DUTIES BILL— [BILL 21.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [23d February], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of altering the Laws for raising a Revenue on Tobacco,"—(Mr. Ayrton),
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought it only respectful to the House, that having moved the adjournment, he should state in a few words why he took part in the proceedings. He should only refer to that part of the question which concerned his own country. He received daily remonstrances against the course which the Government were taking in this Bill. His constituents were in no way affected, but the subject created great interest in Ireland, and it was the duty of every Irish Member to press on the Government an inquiry into the allegations made by the tobacco manufacturers. The question had not, as had been asserted, any reference whatever to free trade; the prohibition of the culture of the tobacco plant in Ireland was decisive upon that point. There was not merely a differential duty on the cultivation of this plant, but an absolute prohibition to the Irishman, as indeed in this country. An hon. Gentleman, who seemed better acquainted with the statistics of the antipodes than of Ireland, had asserted that Ireland could not grow tobacco. If so, the prohibition was useless; but the reverse was the fact, for several years since it had been grown so successfully that the Government passed an Act to prohibit its growth and to purchase; the crop at a sum of £300,000. It was absurd, therefore, to talk of free trade when

  981
  actual prohibition was given to protect the foreigners against the home growers. He believed, from the statements which had been made to him, that the Bill would seriously affect the trade of Ireland. Irish snuff was made from the stalks of tobacco. The manufacturer had to pay for these stalks 1s. per pound; and as it required a pound and a half of them to make one pound of snuff, the cost to the manufacturer was 1s. 6d Add to that 2d., the cost of the manufacture, and 3s. 2d for duty, and the cost was 4s. 10 d. Now, in foreign countries the stalks were of no value whatever, and therefore there was a difference of the value of the stalks to the English manufacturer in favour of the foreigner. The consequence was, that the measure, instead of being a measure of free trade, was a measure of protection to the foreign manufacturer against the Irish. The consumer would not be benefited, for the foreign manufacturer would raise the price, and they would find that their home trade would be transferred to the foreigner, as they had found in many other cases. And so with regard to roll tobacco, which was the sort principally smoked in Ireland. In Ireland they prepared this rolled tobacco, as well as a manufactured tobacco, made up with molasses, rum, and other materials, requiring some manipulation; while in England they smoked a tobacco called bird's-eye, with others which, unless adulterated, required no further manufacture than the cutting of the leaf. The proposal to admit cavendish on the terms of the Bill would drive our article out of the trade in Ireland, and transfer the trade to the foreigner, without any corresponding advantage to the consumer, for the price would be raised as the result of the monopoly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of giving the home manufacturer a boon by providing that he might manufacture cavendish tobacco in bond; but the many arrangements made for fiscal purposes prevented the Irish tradesman from manufacturing in bond at all. Besides, many of the Irish manufacturers were in the interior of the country. There was one inland one which paid duty, it was said, to the amount of £150,000. There was one which also paid a considerable duty, and employed many persons; and the proprietor had assured him, that if the Bill passed in its present form, he would be obliged to relinquish the manufacture; and there were many others similarly placed
  982
  far from the Custom-house establishments, which were generally in the larger cities and at the ports. Now, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to deal with these manufacturers, situated as he had described? Were they all to be destroyed for the sake of the theoretical advantages which the hon. Gentleman styled free competition, or was he about to form Customs establishments in every small town where there there was a tobacco manufactory? These establishments must cause expense, and he saw no provision for them in the Bill. He wished to add, that he made these statements on that serious subject, not upon his own authority, but on that of the Irish manufacturers themselves.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he could not help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been rather unfortunate, if not ill-advised, in the course which he had pursued in regard to the Bill. While the right hon. Gentleman had brought it, or rather the Resolutions upon which it was founded, before the House at a period so very early in the Session that it had created some surprise at his dealing at that time with a matter of some importance to the financial statement, yet certainly the course he had taken did give ample time for fully considering the matter. At the same time, he had brought forward a measure the importance of which appeared to have been somewhat exaggerated. Upon the principle of the Bill he believed the majority of the House were agreed; but, unfortunately, the discussion had been brought on at such inconvenient hours that two discussions had been provoked and two adjournments had taken place upon a very simple question. That he thought was to he regretted. The debate, however, had thus been spread over three nights, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets having made his speech upon one occasion and the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon another; and now the discussion was renewed in the presence of many Members who had heard neither of those speeches. However, as the matter now stood, they had only to consider in what manner they should deal with the Amendment. He had not the advantage of having heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last, but from the published reports he believed that his objections to the Motion of the hon. Member were two.—

  983
  First, that the course proposed was unprecedented; and, secondly, that it would only have the effect of wasting the time of the House, and of putting off the discussion upon the Bill. With regard to the course being unprecedented, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not know whether there was any exact precedent for it; but the House ought to bear in mind that they were about to deal with a most important and at the same time peculiar branch of the revenue, realizing between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 annually, or one-fourth of the total Customs revenue of the country, and that the tax in fact amounted to a duty of 1,200 per cent upon the article upon which it was imposed. In order to secure those duties being raised, it was necessary to subject the manufacturers of the article to a number of complicated Excise restrictions. In consequence, there were many delicate questions raised, all of which ought to be considered before deciding to touch the tobacco duties. There was no saying to what consequences it might lead if they proceeded hastily and inconsiderately to deal with one portion of the subject. In 1840 an alteration was made in the mode of securing the tobacco duties and in less than three years it was found necessary to retrace that step, showing how careful the House should be in dealing with these duties. Therefore, he did not consider the fact of there being no exact precedent decisive against the proposal of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. The next question was, whether that proposal, if agreed to, would only lead to waste of time, and the virtual defeat of the measure. If that were its object, he certainly was not prepared to support it, as he was of opinion the measure was good in principle. But, although it was a step in the right direction, great caution was required in taking it, and he thought they would rather be losing time by recklessly discussing the measure in a Committee of the Whole House, without any authentic information to guide them. It was not true that a whole Session need be lost if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee. A case in point occurred in the previous year, when the sugar duties were referred to a Select Committee; and he apprehended that the questions which were raised in reference to the sugar duties were at least as great in importance and in complication as those raised by the Bill before them, but that Committee upon the sugar
  984
  duties occupied very little more than two months, and then they presented a very good Report. Now, if they were to send this Bill to a Committee for discussion, and the Committee were animated by a like spirit to that which animated the Committee upon the sugar duties, they would get through their work in very good time. The Session had only just begun, and the Bill need not be lost if sent to a Select Committee. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: That is not the Motion.] His right hon. Friend reminded him that that was not the Motion, and he entirely agreed with him; but he was about to add, when he was interrupted, that he thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was not the one best adapted to meet the circumstances of the case. He himself would very much prefer to see the Bill read a second time, and that then the Chancellor of the Exchequer should agree to refer it to a Select Committee in order that they might affirm the principle of the Bill and afterwards discuss its details. He quite felt with the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) that they would be utterly at sea if they were to discuss the question in a Committee of the Whole House, in which most of the Members must necessarily know nothing of the details. He himself had had communications with several persons engaged in the tobacco business, but he did not know whether to take their statements as correct or not. He had had no opportunity of sifting them, and he did not know that he could do so in a Committee of the Whole House. The same would no doubt be the case with other hon. Members. Again, if they discussed the matter in a Committee of the Whole House, many hon. Members would come in on a division and vote with the Government or with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, without having heard the discussion. It was quite impossible that they could satisfactorily dispose of a complicated matter of this kind in such a way as that. As he had said, his wish was that the Government should consent to send the Bill to a Select Committee; and if he received an assurance that they would pursue that course, he would vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets; but if he failed to obtain such an assurance, he should feel obliged to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member, because he thought it impossible to go properly into the question without

  985
  that minute and perfect information which could only be got through the medium of a Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House that he wished them to examine the matter for themselves; and when they said that they wished to examine it by means of a Committee, he said, "I do not wish that, and you must examine it in my way." That was not quite fair. It was like a conjuror who asks you to examine his cards but will not let you take them into your own hands for the purpose. Unless the House were allowed to inquire by means of a Select Committee, the invitation to them to examine into the subject was a mockery. He differed to some extent from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who seemed to be taking a line not quite in accordance with the received opinions of the majority of the House. He (Sir S. Northcote) was quite prepared to admit that in principle the measure was good and a step in the right direction. The details, however, had not been discussed. As matters stood, manufactured tobacco was practically excluded by a duty of a prohibitory character, and it would be for the interest of the consumer and of the revenue that that duty should be reduced so as to allow of foreign cigars entering into competition with English; but if the reduction went too far, they might be injuring the English manufacturer without benefiting, but rather injuring, the revenue. There were two evils to be guarded against—smuggling and adulteration. A reduction of duty might diminish smuggling; but if foreign cigars were allowed to be imported at too low a duty, a temptation would be offered to the English manufacturer to have recourse to adulteration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that it was necessary to make a distinction between the manufactured and the unmanufactured article in order to place the British producers on a fair footing with foreigners; but the question whether the protection given was adequate could not be discussed properly in a Committee of the Whole House without further inquiry. There was also to be considered the question whether the arrangements proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for manufacturing cavendish tobacco in bond were satisfactory. They were told by the manufacturers that they were not satisfactory, and he wanted to know how that was, and to hear the statements of the manufacturers on one side and those of
  986
  the Custom-house officers upon the other. Then came the question whether they ought to give the cigar makers power to manufacture in bond? That was one of the questions upon which he should like to hear the opinions of the manufacturers and of the Custom-house officers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on being asked the question, answered that he would take the matter into consideration; but afterwards he said, without giving any reasons, that he thought that it would not do. The House surely ought to know what his reasons were, and how far they would bear examination; and he must himself confess that the only reason which he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer give was not a satisfactory one. He said that he could not allow the manufacture in bond because such permission would only be applicable to large manufacturers; in other words, that it would give the larger manufacturers an advantage which they ought not to have over the small ones; but as the effect of giving the privilege of manufacturing in bond was simply to place those who availed themselves of it on a level with the foreigner, the question would arise, did not the right hon. Gentleman, in refusing this privilege, propose to put the large manufacturers upon the same footing of disadvantage with regard to the foreigner that he had refused to put the small manufacturers upon in reference to the large manufacturers? That seemed to lead to the conclusion that the privileges given to the foreigner were too great. Another point was as to the question of the drawback. The Treasury and the Customs had fallen into an error respecting the drawback, and had fixed it at so low a point, that exportation was impossible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now promised a better one; but when a mistake in the calculations of the departments on one point was thus admitted, he thought that the conclusions of the Treasury and of the Customs authorities might be fairly challenged on other points. The House was told that the right hon. Gentleman only wished to give fair play to the home manufacturers; but with every wish to do that, he might have made some mistake in the figures, as had been done in the instance he had just mentioned. For these reasons he thought it desirable that the question should be considered in a Select Committee, where it might be disposed of in a comparatively short time; and such a course, indeed,

  987
  would probably be attended with a saving of time, because nothing was worse than to press legislation upon matters of such serious importance, and then afterwards have to undo it. If, therefore, it was not understood that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee after being read a second time, he should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, it appeared to him that the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets seriously invaded those principles of free trade upon which the commercial legislation of this country had been for some time past founded. When he heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, he was in some doubt as to the vote he ought to give; but having given to the right hon. Gentleman's statement his full consideration, and having carefully weighed the representations made to him by his constituents upon the subject, he had arrived at the conclusion that there was nothing in the particular article of tobacco that should exempt it from the principles to which he had referred. The correct principle was that every consumer should have the commodity he required free from increase of cost by reason of Custom-house duties of any kind except those which were necessary for purposes of revenue. The proposition of the Government rested upon three points. They said that the alterations they proposed would be for the advantage of the revenue, that they would prevent smuggling, and would be for the benefit of the consumer; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also stated negatively that the measure would not in the long run affect injuriously the manufacturer. Upon all these points his hon. Friend was at variance with the Government, but he (Mr. Crawford) was inclined to think that the views expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were the correct ones. With regard to the revenue, they were not in a position to express any opinion as to what the extent of the advantage might be. But the question was intimately connected with the question of smuggling. It had been stated the other night in the House that smuggling was not now carried on to the extent that was supposed. But if that were not the case, how was it they had not seen an increase in the consumption of tobacco with the increased population, as they had in the case of every other article of consumption. Their own senses told them
  988
  that tobacco was used as largely by every class of the community as it ever had been; and, consequently, if there had not been the increase of consumption that there had been with regard to other articles some other cause must have been in operation to prevent it. For his own part, having examined the evidence taken before the Committee of 1844, and having seen to what an extent smuggling was carried on, and the ingenious methods by which tobacco was surreptitiously introduced, he had arrived at the conclusion that smuggling was still practised to a considerable extent, and that it behoved that House, therefore, to sanction the proposition of the Government, if it would have no other effect than to remove that evil. With regard to the interest of the consumer, he held, as he had before remarked, that the consumer of tobacco had a right to have access to the tobacco which he used without the cost being increased to him by any Custom-house or other exaction than that which the revenue required, and that if they protected the home manufacturer of tobacco against the foreign manufacturer, they were introducing again that system of protection against which that House had so often declared its opinion. The Committee to which he had already referred had, he thought, disposed of all the great principles which were involved in the present discussion; and considering the numerous opportunities which a Committee of the Whole House afforded for the consideration of the details of the measure, he saw no reason for resorting to the tedious process of sending the subject before a Select Committee. Reference had been made to the Committee of 1830 upon the growth of tobacco; and if hon. Members would refer to the Report of that Committee, they would find ample evidence with regard to the growth and manufacture of tobacco in Ireland. The permission to grow tobacco in Ireland for home consumption was not availed of in that country from 1799 to 1824; and though during the succeeding five years 500 acres were brought under tobacco cultivation, the evidence before the Committee showed, that owing to the inferiority of quality, a duty of 1s. 8d. as against 3s. on foreign tobacco would not be a compensating protection. Another thing which struck him in the course of the discussion was, that three prominent Members of the House, the hon. Members for the Tower Hamlets

  989
  Southwark, and Sheffield, particularly, were all of them abandoning the great principles of free trade in the interests of a particular manufacture. Speaking for himself, he should not feel disposed to throw over the interests of ninety-nine out of every hundred of his constituents for the sake of the one who might be engaged in this manufacture. From the Report of the Committee which sat on the growth of tobacco in Ireland, in 1830, it appeared that Irish tobacco was in a great degree inferior to that grown in America. He would therefore ask whether it would be possible to expect that in Ireland or elsewhere tobacco could be grown profitably unless its cultivation were supported by a protective duty, and whether any man would now get up and affirm that any article of domestic consumption ought to be protected by a duty? He was prepared to assent to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he was anxious to have the question as to the rates of duty decided by a Committee, who had fully considered it, and heard all the evidence that it might be thought necessary to adduce on the subject, That could only be done by a Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was at present unable to state distinctly the rates of duty which ought to be laid down; and if that question were left to a Committee of the Whole House, they would have it decided by hon. Members many of whom would know nothing about the details, but would rush in to vote after the Question was put. They all knew that Ireland was suffering from a want of labour, and the tobacco manufacture was one of its most important industries, as hon. Gentlemen well knew that Ireland was remarkable for its excellent snuff. But there were other considerations. He had always understood that objects of luxury were, as compared with those of prime necessity, fit subjects for taxation, and tobacco was certainly a luxury compared with many other taxed articles. Moreover, the revenue from the tobacco duties was increasing. In 1860 it was £5,600,000; in 1862, £5,714,000 —showing that the trade was growing. The Army and Navy Estimates were before them, and there was a reduction of £2,000,000, and they heard that the revenue was in a very flourishing state: if they adopted the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and endangered a portion of the revenue de-
  990
  rived from tobacco, they might prevent a reduction in articles of prime necessity, such as sugar and tea, and the income tax. For these reasons he thought it desirable that they should hear the financial statement, and consider whether there were not other duties which might be diminished with advantage before giving up perhaps £2,000,000 of the tobacco revenue.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the real question at issue between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) was not whether the duty should be 5s.2d. or 5s. 6d. It was this:—The hon. Member asserted, that whereas under the law which had been in existence for many years a valuable manufacture had been raised, in which it was decided by the Committee which sat in 1844 that no alterations could be made with advantage, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the other hand, said that the state of trade was not satisfactory, and that smuggled cigars were very largely imported. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets denied that any change was required—
  MR. AYRTONexplained, that what he said was, that if one change were introduced, a great many would be necessary,
  MR. CHILDERS: But still he insisted that unless the duty on unmanufactured tobacco were reduced, no change could be made in the higher rates. For his part, he agreed with the hon. Member for Stamford that it was not the case of a reduction of duty with a view to recuperation afterwards; it was simply whether that difference of duty between manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco, which was fixed at a time when questions of political economy were not so fairly raised as they were now, was a fair difference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion was that the present state of the tobacco question, quite irrespective of the inquiry whether the duty on manufactured tobacco should be greatly reduced, was eminently unsatisfactory. He would test the question by a simple canon. Whenever a trade and the fiscal laws affecting it are in a satisfactory condition, either the article would be manufactured better abroad; and, if so, the import would steadily increase; or if this country were able to carry on its manufacture skilfully, there would be a steady increase from year to year in the export. If that was a proper axiom to be laid down in all instances, it was easily applicable to the case of tobacco. The import trade

  991
  in cigars had not increased, except to a very small extent. On the other hand, there was no increase in the export trade from this country; and nothing could be more miserably bad than the home trade in manufactured cigars. If that were so, the House was clearly justified in passing the second reading of a Bill which would bring about a change. The consumption of cigars in this country, as compared with other tobacco, was probably much less than in any foreign country at the present time, or in any British colony, where the law stood in a better position than it did here. The consumption of cigars in England, though it was somewhat difficult to ascertain the facts accurately since the abolition of the old Excise survey, was between 2 and 2½per cent of the whole consumption. In foreign countries the amount of consumption was also somewhat difficult to get at, but in no foreign country probably was it less than 5 or 6 per cent. When they came to the colonies, where the habits of the people were in a great degree similar to those of England in other respects, the consumption of cigars amounted to 10, 12, and 14 per cent of the entire consumption. Therefore the law was favourable neither to the revenue nor to the wishes of the people, and should be put upon another footing. There was another question, of less importance, connected with this. In the consumption of snuff there was a great falling off at the present time. In no respect had national manners changed more completely in the last hundred years than with regard to the relative use of snuff and tobacco. In order to illustrate the utter impossibility of some event taking place the Poet Gay had written—
  "Sooner shall Britain's youth from snuff be freed,
  And fops' apartments smoke with India's weed."
  However, he would leave the snuff question in other hands. But as to cigars, he thought that the evidence before the Committee of 1844 disclosed the facts without further inquiry. It was true that the witnesses who were manufacturers were anxious to retain protection. But almost all admitted that it was too high, and they justified it by arguments derived from the comparative rates of wages in England and abroad, of no value to free traders. Several admitted that a difference of 50 per cent was ample, and this was more than covered by 5s. as against 3s. 2d There was no system of statistics in this country to show the loss in the original
  992
  weight incurred in changing tobacco into cigars, but in France, for example, where statistics were kept, it appeared that the loss was only eight per cent; that is to say, there was a loss of about 1,500,000 kilogrammes on 17,500,000 kilogrammes of leaf. Such being the facts, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put forward good grounds for giving a second reading to the Bill, and in Committee the exact amount of duty could afterwards be fixed. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not be induced to take a course which would be inconsistent with the principle of free trade. The question before them was a consumers' question, and as he was opposed to every attempt at bolstering up a manufacture to the injury of the revenue and the consumer, he should cordially support the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he rose to protest against the view taken by the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) that the matter before the House was a question between protection and free trade. The question before the House was simply this, whether they should proceed at once to legislate, or wait till the whole subject had been fully considered by a Committee. He had voted for the adjournment of the debate on the first night, not from any opposition to the Bill, but because he thought there was a want of information, and they ought to have some time to receive communications from their constituents. When he saw the notice on the subject which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put upon the paper, he could not help asking why it was ncessary to bring in a Bill before the financial statement was made. They were told there were precedents for doing so, but there might be bad precedents as well as good ones. When a Motion was made last year to pledge the House to a reduction of the duty on fire insurances, he opposed the Motion, not that he did not think that the duty ought to be reduced, but, because it would be unjust to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to demand the remission of a duty which, upon making his financial statement, he might not be in a position to concede. He had received many communications upon the subject of the Bill, several of them approving its principle, but saying that great injustice had been done to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by those who drew the Bill, because it would be found inoperative. All the com-

  993
  munications which he had received, however, concurred in begging him to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for further inquiry. He trusted, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would render a division unnecessary, by consenting to take the second reading on the understanding that the Bill should afterwards be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) began his speech by complaining that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not anticipated the discussion upon the principle of the Bill; and in the very next sentence he stated that he supposed upon the principle of the Bill they were all unanimous. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets as inopportune, and regretted, that unless he got a certain assurance, he should be compelled to support it. But what, then, became of the complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they were all agreed upon the principle of the Bill? His hon. Friend appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint a Committee on the Tobacco Duties at a further stage of the measure; but the question then before the House was this, whether the Bill should be read a second time or not. The hon. Member for Stamford did not appear to stand well to his guns. Would the hon. Gentleman look to the terms of the Amendment, which were "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of altering the laws for raising a revenue on tobacco"? Would the House let it go forth that it was a question in doubt whether it was expedient to alter those laws or not? The hon. Member for Stamford did not doubt the expediency of altering those laws, and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets himself said he did not doubt, but he only wanted to promote more changes. Now, Her Majesty's Government stood upon the principle of the Bill, and that was the reason why they asked the House to assent to the second reading. Their object was to apply the same wholesome principle to tobacco which had been applied to almost every other article. His right hon. Friend had brought in the Bill to accomplish three purposes—First, to increase the revenue; secondly, to benefit the consumer by cheapening the article; and, thirdly, to deprive the smuggler of part of the unlawful profits of his business.
  994
  Was it necessary to argue the question at length after the speeches of the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and after the admissions of the hon. Member for Stamford? Was it necessary to argue, when a single fact contained the germ of the whole question—when there was raised upon that article nearly £5,600,000? [Mr. AYRTON: Not from manufactured tobacco.] That only made the case all the stronger. If £5,600,000 was raised from unmanufactured tobacco and less than £200,000 from the manufactured article, what was the necessary inference? Was it not that, so far as our Customs regulations were concerned, there was a complete monopoly somewhere as against the consumer in the production of that tobacco? It was the destruction of that monopoly which was demanded. If it were a monopoly in the hands of the home manufacturer, it was a wrong against the consumer, who had a right to free trade in that as in other articles. But a worse monopoly was that given by the effect of the existing legislation to the foreign manufacturers, through the intervention of the smuggler. He understood that with regard to cavendish tobacco, the foreign manufacturers obtained a monopoly in the markets of this country through the intervention of the smuggler, and it was to destroy that monopoly that the passing of the present Bill was required. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets asked the House to do in respect of tobacco what had never been proposed in respect of any other articles— namely, to interpose by a dilatory inquiry as to the expediency of making the reduction at all. His hon. Friend said that tobacco was a peculiar article of manufacture; but the same observation had been made with respect to every single article on which reductions had been proposed in former times. The sugar duties, said the hon. Member for Stamford, constituted a more complicated case, and were well dealt with by a Select Committee in the last Session; and the hon. Member thought that that might form a precedent for a similar course of proceeding with regard to the tobacco duties. Now, it ought to be borne in mind that the duties on refined sugar had been from time to time considered in that House, and settled without being referred to a Select Committee, in consequence of the adoption of a Motion like that before them on the second reading of the Bill; and the Chancellor of the

  995
  Exchequer only asked the House of Commons to deal with the tobacco duties in the mode in which the sugar duties had heretofore been dealt with. It was said that the measure was favourable to the rich and not to the poor; but the reduction on Havannah and Manilla cigars was the repeal of a direct impost, whereas on the great mass of manufactured tobacco the repeal was from a prohibitory duty—from a duty which did not go to the Treasury, whilst it added to the price of the article consumed by the great mass of the people. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) said they ought to begin by taking the duty off the raw material. That was a plausible argument. But he contended that the first thing to be done was to remove the protective duty, and then, when they saw what the increase of revenue was, the House would be in a better condition to determine what they would do with regard to the raw material. He therefore confidently appealed to the House not now to adopt an evasive Resolution, but to pursue with respect to tobacco the course heretofore pursued with respect to all the great articles of consumption, and to affirm the principle of the measure by passing the second reading.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he trusted that the House might be allowed to discuss the small question which arose on that occasion without any appeal to the large and general principles of free trade. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had told them that every article which had been legislated upon in the way of reduction of duty for the last thirty years had been regarded as a peculiar one. But there was one peculiarity in regard to tobacco which did not attach to any other—namely, that all the manufacturers of tobacco, as far as he could ascertain, would not object to Excise regulations being imposed upon them, if they were only allowed to choose their material and their mode of manufacture, with a drawback on exportation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that a difference must be made in the amount of duty to be paid by the person who had manufactured tobacco in bond, and by the foreigner who paid at the Custom House. The question was how the amount of that difference was to be obtained, and how the evidence was to be taken which could satisfy them that the proper amount of difference was arrived at. He therefore thought that some investigation was necessary, either before the Bill
  996
  was read a second time, or, as he should prefer, after it was read a second time. Take, for instance, the article snuff, one of the principal forms of tobacco manufacture in Ireland. The manufacturers stated that for every pound of snuff made a pound and a half of tobacco was consumed. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Not tobacco, but stalks.] They said tobacco. The Chancellor of the Exchequer originally framed his Resolutions and his Bill entirely overlooking that fact, and fixing such a rate of duty as would have placed the Irish manufacturers at a great disadvantage. Since then he had proposed to amend his figures by a difference of some 5d. per pound. The manufacturers said that that sum was not sufficient; the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was. It was impossible that a Committee of the Whole House could decide where the truth lay; and this was therefore pre-eminently one of those subjects into which a Select Committee, before which the interested parties could appear and be heard, might advantageously inquire. Again, the Bill provided for the manufacture in bond in this country of cavendish and negro-head, the object being to enable the manufacturer to do what bad hitherto been prohibited, to mix with the tobacco sugar or saccharine matter. The Irish manufacturers said that cavendish or negro-head was not made in Ireland, and was not required there; but there was a sort of tobacco which was made there, roll tobacco, and they asked why that also should not be made in bond. With regard to cigars, too, although that was a manufacture which did not so nearly concern Ireland, hon. Members had asked why they also should not be allowed to be made with an admixture of saccharine matter, in which form the foreigner could import them. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, he cannot.] He saw in this Bill no clause which prescribed the form in which cigars should be imported, so as to prevent the foreigner from bringing in those which contained saccharine matter. Under these circumstances was it anything short of mockery to say that the home manufacturers were about to enter into a free competition with foreigners? It seemed to him to be a proposal to engage the home manufacturer to compete with the foreigner with his hands tied behind his back. There might be good reasons why it was impossible to allow roll tobacco and cigars to be manufactured in bond in the same way as ca-

  997
  vendish and negro-head; but that was a matter for inquiry, and one which neither the House nor a Committee of the Whole House could decide merely by the assertions of Members on one side and on the other. But the reasons for inquiry did not stop there. The Bill professed, as the great foundation for the admission of foreign manufactured tobacco, to permit the manufacture of tobacco in bond; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not explained how he meant to carry out that part of the scheme. With regard to that part of the question, there were two different classes of towns to be considered, seaports and inland towns. In seaports he supposed that it was intended that the manufacture should take place in the Custom House or in bonded stores equivalent thereto. Was not the House to receive any information as to the existing accommodation for such manufacture? In Belfast there were twenty or thirty very extensive tobacco manufacturers, and it was impossible that they could be supplied with accommodation for their manufacture within the Custom House. Were they, then, to be called upon to provide, in addition to their existing manufactories, others in which, under a separate surveillance and with a separate staff of workmen, they should carry on the manufacture? And how were the inland towns to be dealt with? In Cavan £150,000 was paid annually in tobacco duties; in Lurgan one manufacturer paid £20,000 a year, and in Tullamore another manufacturer paid upwards of £70,000 a year. All these enormous sums were now paid at the nearest seaport without a shilling of expense to the Government, there being no collectors at the towns mentioned. Were the Government prepared to send a staff of officers to superintend bonded warehouses in these towns? If they were, ought not the House to be informed what additional expense would be caused by that arrangement; and if they were not, what would become of these manufacturers? Those were matters as to which either the Government ought to give some information, or there ought to be an inquiry before a Select Committee of that House. The manufacturers only desired that they should be left at liberty to manufacture tobacco without bonded warehouses, but subject to any proper control in the shape of Excise regulations. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would concede that, he would relieve the measure from a great deal of the
  998
  odium which attached to it. The Bill did not provide for such a system of manufacture, but no one with whom he had conversed upon the subject was able to see why it should not be carried out. With reference to the exportation of tobacco, the House had only a few minutes before had presented to it a most excellent argument in favour of inquiry. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) said, that he had been looking at the statistical Returns of the Board of Trade, and he found that there was hardly any tobacco exported from this country. Did not he know that, according to the present law, and by reason of the arrangements regarding drawback, the exportation of tobacco was almost an impassibility? And was there one word in the Bill with regard to exportation? The hon. Gentleman was under the delusion that by voting for the second reading of the Bill he was going to promote the exportation of tobacco, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House that he had either in his mind or on paper some provisions which would facilitate that exportation. But surely the trade ought to see those provisions before the second reading of a Bill which had this for its foundation, that while on the one hand the manufacturers of this country were to be exposed to the competition of foreigners, on the other they were to be enabled to compete with those foreigners in the matter of exportation. That was a matter which might also be very properly inquired into by a Select Committee; and while it appeared to him that the present high rate of duty on foreign manufactured tobacco was extremely inconsistent with the whole progress of our legislation, he at the same time must say, that the question assumed an entirely different aspect when it was admitted that the home manufacturer could not be placed on the same footing with the foreigner, and when the point for decision came to be what should be the measure of the difference in the case of the two. The question at issue was not, in short, one of free trade, and for the reasons which he had adduced he trusted the House would see the expediency of adopting the course which he had indicated.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he should support the second reading of the Bill. As far as he could judge it was agreed on all hands— even by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) — that the existing prohibitory duty should no longer be maintained, and yet the expediency of altering

  999
  the law being thus admitted, the Resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman was one for a Select Committee to inquire whether, in fact, it was expedient to alter the law at all. The House was asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to affirm a principle which had not been denied by any hon. Member. The details of the measure could, and no doubt would, be fully discussed in Committee of the Whole House. He (Mr. Butt) was not altogether content with the rate of duty proposed; and he believed, if the right hon. Gentleman was found not to give to the home manufacturers the full contervailing duty to which they were entitled, he would fail to carry his proposition. It did not, however, require the cumbrous machinery of a Select Committee to determine what amount of duty was payable on the tobacco that entered into the manufacture of a pound of snuff. Such a Committee could result in nothing further than the production of a ponderous blue-book containing information by no means so definite and so easily accessible as that which might, by a system of examination and cross-examination, be elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he felt bound to support the proposal of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who asked that the case of his constituents, in as far as they would be affected by the Bill, should be made the subject of a special inquiry. Let the House consider the position in which they stood. The whole of that £6,000,000 of revenue were based on a prohibition—a prohibition to grow tobacco in this country; and yet while they maintained that prohibition, they went on talking about protection or the abolition of protection. He believed that the prohibition was necessary for the purposes of the revenue; but it was still a prohibition, and any question of protection that could arise in the consideration of the Bill was comparatively a matter of utter insignificance. He did not like prohibition. Commercially and economically it was as absurd as unrestricted competition. He had risen, however, mainly for the purpose of protesting against the perpetual reiteration of the praises of a system of free imports which were thrust on the House in season and out of season. That was a mere waste of the time of the House. It only reminded him of the crowd which shouted, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." The question was, whether
  1000
  the House would consent to alter the tobacco duties without further information than that which they then possessed. They had high commercial authorities deprecating that course, and stating that the interests of certain manufacturers were involved in the matter; and under these circumstances he should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I will not say anything of a controversial nature, but there are three points on which I desire to make an explanation. First, the principle on which this Bill is founded is, that in the shape of duty there should be, as against foreign manufactured tobacco, such a rate of charge as will fairly compensate both the direct impost paid by the British manufacturer on the raw material, and the indirect impost, as far as it can be fairly and liberally estimated, which a heavy duty of this sort is likely to entail in the form of trade regulations. Second, any restrictions as to the use of ingredients applied to the manufacture of tobacco at home shall be rigidly enforced in regard to the importation of corresponding descriptions of tobacco from abroad. Provisions for that purpose are in part to be found in the Bill, but there are other provisions to the same effect in the existing law which will remain untouched. Third, I do not admit that the question whether we can or cannot contrive a good system of export ought to govern our decision as to repealing the prohibitory duty. I have all along recognised the obligation and expressed the desire to examine with the utmost care every measure that may be proposed for the purpose of opening new channels of trade to the British manufacturer. I hope to be able, on the whole, to comply with the suggestion which has been made, that after the duty has been paid on tobacco when it enters the country the manufacturers shall be permitted to proceed with the manipulation of it without let or hindrance, and shall then on exporting it receive full compensation for the duty they paid in the first instance. I hope I may assume that the House will read the Bill a second time. In that event I shall fix the Committee for Thursday, in order to introduce into the Bill certain additional provisions. The measure will then be reprinted, and I shall allow an interval of a week or ten days for its consideration by Members.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that after that statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would wait to see the Bill in its altered form, and would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL 8.]—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. LYGONsaid, there were certain clauses in the Bill which involved principles of great importance, and he therefore trusted it would receive a very full and searching examination. In the first place, he objected to the manner in which the Bill proposed to deal with the right of agents to vote. The Act of 1854 had justly done away with the disqualification upon agents being allowed to vote, and he did not see how those who were anxious for the extension of the franchise, and maintained that every person had a right to vote, could insist upon the exclusion of any one class of the community. The experience of the last few years showed that no harm had been done by doing away with the restriction. He also believed that a good deal of confusion existed in the minds of people on the subject of bribery, and that they had not sufficiently distinguished between the commission of bribery as an offence against the law cognizable by the ordinary tribunals, and bribery as it affected the possession of seats in that House, to deal with which belonged exclusively to the House. He believed that the bribery laws would never be in a satisfactory state until the proof of bribery in the ordinary courts was made precedent to the institution of proceedings in that House. It was said that bribery was a serious offence and ought to be severely punished; but experience had proved that it was a mistake to impose on an offence a punishment disproportionate to its magnitude. He believed the best way to deal with the subject was to define clearly in what the offence consisted, to refer it to the ordinary tribunals, and to attach to it a punishment proportionate to the sense of its seriousness which was entertained by the coun-
1002
try at large. It also appeared to him that the eighth clause was a departure from the wise, just and merciful principle of law, that no one should be compelled to criminate himself. By that clause the witness before a Committee or a Commission was bound to answer every question, and it was left to the discretion of the Committee or Commission to give a certificate of indemnity. If witnesses were to be compelled to answer questions which might tend to criminate themselves, there ought to be no option, and the certificate ought to be given as a matter of course. With regard to the form of the certificate, he would suggest that it ought not to be that the witness had made a true disclosure of all things upon which he had been examined; because it was impossible for any tribunal to pronounce that certain answers were true, but that the witness had answered fully the questions which had been put to him. He trusted that either the Bill would be very much amended in Committee, or that on a future occasion the whole subject would undergo full revision.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the points which the hon. Member had adverted to would be very proper points for the consideration of the House in Committee.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Disqualification of Agents).
MR. COLLINSsaid, he should move the substitution of the word "such" for "other" before the word "capacity." His object was to prevent the disqualification from voting of persons employed incidentally in an election—as, for instance, the publisher of a newspaper in which the advertisements of the candidate appeared.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. PULLERsaid, the object of the clause was to disqualify persons who were employed as agents, canvassers, pollclerks, and messengers. Such disqualification was by no means unnecessary, as he knew cases in which there were about 150 committee-rooms engaged by the candidates with no other view than that of using them as means of influencing electors to vote for them. He proposed to add to the list persons of whom committee-rooms were hired, and also persons who were paid for furnishing meat, drink, or entertainment on the order of any candi-

1003
date, or any agent of any candidate, for the purpose of influencing any person to vote for such candidate. He would, therefore, propose in line six, after the word "void," to insert—
"And if any voter shall at any time before, during, or after any election, agree for or accept any payment for or in respect of the hire of any room used as a committee-room or otherwise for promoting the election of any candidate, or for or in respect of any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision furnished by him to any person on the order of any candidate, or any agent of any candidate, for the purpose of influencing any person to vote for such candidate, or to abstain from voting at such election, or on account of any person having voted or promised to vote for such candidate, or refrained or promised to refrain from voting at such election, he shall be incapable of voting for such candidate at such election, and his vote, if given for such candidate, shall be void."
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, the Bill was fast becoming a. Bill for the wholesale disfranchisement of electors. The existing law made it an offence to furnish meat, drink, and entertainment for the purpose of influencing any person to vote for a particular candidate. The latter part of the Amendment was therefore unnecessary, He was at a loss to understand why a man was to be disqualified for letting a committee-room to a candidate for a small consideration.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that the Amendment would compel candidates to embark in a sea of uncertainty from which no one could extricate himself. It might, perhaps, be possible to obtain a legal definition of a "committee-room," but what was to be said of a room used as a committee-room, "or otherwise for promoting the election of any candidate"? There was no end of the ways in which a room might be used for promoting the election of a candidate. A letter might be written, an address might be drawn up, a speech might be composed in a room, and each of those acts might be said to be an act for promoting the election of a candidate; but was the owner to be deprived of his vote for allowing his room to be so used? He came to the next part of the Amendment, which was perfectly bewildering. It provided that if A gave drink to B, in order to induce C to vote for D, then A was to be disfranchised. Why was A to be disfranchised for a process which ended such a long way off? He thought that such a complicated machinery could not be made to work, and that under the shelter of such provisions a great deal of real
1004
bribery and corruption might be practised with impunity.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was afraid that it would be impossible to give effect to such minute regulations as those proposed by this Amendment. Its words would seem to apply to the keeper of the hotel where any candidate might be staying, and where he might see his friends or talk over the arrangements of the election. The result would probably be, that the candidate would go to an hotel kept by a warm partisan of his opponent and thereby cause him to be disqualified. The other part of the Amendment, relating to treating, would be hardly more practicable.
MR. LYGONsaid, as he read the Amendment, butchers, bakers, and everybody who furnished anything on the order of a candidate or his agent, would be disfranchised.
MR. PULLERsaid, he did not contend that in all cases contemplated by the Amendment the publican necessarily did anything corrupt, but that, on the whole, to preserve the purity of elections, it was essential to watch jealously all pecuniary arrangements between candidates and voters. When a candidate went to canvass a publican, in nine cases out of ten the publican said, "I have not made up my mind; I don't think I shall make it up till the last day." They all knew pretty well that this meant, that if the candidate would open his house, he would vote for him; or if he would not open it, he would vote for the man who would. Nobody had suggested any better remedy for this than by making it not the interest of the candidate to employ his money in that manner.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, the unfortunate borough which he represented (Harwich), having no supply of water, had, in consequence, an unusual number of publicans; and if that proposal were agreed to, a very great number of his constituents would be disfranchised. If voters were to be prevented from acting as poll-clerks, messengers, and the like, they would get their friends and relatives employment in these capacities, so that the object of the Amendment would be frustrated.
Amendment negatived.
MR. PAGETsaid, he would propose the insertion of words making it a misdemeanour for a person who had been hired by a candidate as an agent, attorney,

1005
poll clerk, messenger, door-keeper, &c., to record his vote al the election.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Select Committee had certainly recommended that such an act should be made a misdemeanour; but on consideration he had thought it better to declare that the vote should be void. It was, however, for the Committee to decide the point.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought it would be sufficient to impose a penalty of £5 or £10 upon such persons.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYasked, whether the persons prevented from voting would be capable of enforcing their pecuniary claims against the candidates?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that under the clause as it stood at present the person hired would be entitled to claim remuneration, but would be deprived of his vote. If the Amendment were adopted, which made the offence a misdemeanour, of course he would not be entitled to claim remuneration.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he should support the Amendment, which he thought would make the clause more efficient.
Amendment negatived.
MR. CAVEsaid, that he opposed the clause with some reluctance, because he fully admitted the magnitude of the abuses at which it was levelled; and when they heard of twenty-five solicitors employed on each side in a small borough, and changing sides with their retainers, it could not be doubted that such a state of things ought, if possible, to be put an end to; but the question was, whether this enactment would have the desired effect. He very much doubted it. Why were these solicitors paid? Was it for their own vote, or for those they could command? If, then, you struck off their vote, would you destroy their influence? If a man could bring fifty votes, would he be much less valuable with forty-nine? By the present law the procuring of votes for a fee is bribery, as much as voting for a fee, so that no new enactment is required. He quite admitted that the influence of solicitors over voters might be most oppressive, but the law already provided for this, and at any rate you did not prevent it by depriving the agent of his vote, or obliging him to act gratuitously. Was employing a solicitor or other agent for a fee bribery in itself or was it not? If it was, let them prohibit it, and make it fatal to the seat. If it was not bribery,
1006
but merely liable to abuse and extravagance, let them adopt the Irish law under the Acts 35 Geo. III., c. 4, and 1 & 2 Geo. IV., c. 58, and fix the number and the fees (as in case of polling clerks). This was recommended to the Committee as working well in Ireland. If this were objected to, then leave the law as it is, with the votes liable to be struck off on scrutiny; and let the Election Committee determine on petition whether the number employed is too great or fees too abundant; (this was done in the Oxford case when Mr. Neate was unseated); and especially let them inquire whether the agents have been in the habit of changing sides. His own experience was that agents were chosen in the same way as bishops and judges, not to buy their support, but on account of their declared opinions. He had never seen respectable solicitors accepting retainers from the opposite side, and it seemed hard to cast upon them the slur of disfranchisement and stigma of bribery and corruption. The result would probably be to throw the candidates into worse hands. Since he had given notice of this Motion a proposal had been made to him to amend the clause by striking out "agent attorney," and he admitted there was a broad distinction because it would be difficult to employ an attorney who was not a voter, and therefore a stranger might be brought down, and the House knew that the grossest cases of bribery had been by stranger agents. Still, he thought it unconstitutional to deprive the humbler voters of their franchise for no fault of their own. Unscrupulous people would easily evade the law by the payment of relations, as widows were put into post-offices to gain their sons' vote. An attempt was made to prevent this by 5 & 6 Vict., c. 102, but the law could not be carried out. Again, the fee to solicitors for looking after the registration might be increased on the tacit understanding that they acted as election agents gratuitously. And by this clause a candidate might disfranchise his enemy's voters by employing them as messengers. If they aspired to protect the candidate, let them not saddle him with the charges which ought to be borne by the public. In other respects no one could protect the candidate but the candidate himself. There was no doubt he ought to pay nothing, and in former days when there was, as we read, as much disinclination to serve as Member for a county as

1007
there is now to be sheriff of a county, this was so. Things were much changed now, and where there were a few bridges and crowds pressing over them the tolls would be high, and when they heard of £600 a year paid by a distinguished statesman for a borough in the West of England, they could hardly wonder at the opinion prevalent among the poorer electors that Parliament was a lucrative appointment, to some of the crumbs of which they were entitled. Legislation on these points had been constant, spasmodic, and not successful; and when legislators themselves conspired to make legislation abortive, the case was exceedingly hopeless. It was for these reasons, that while fully admitting the evils which this clause was intended to meet, yet because lie was afraid that it would not meet them, but would impose disabilities on honest men which the unscrupulous would evade, and because the same rule on this point could not hold good in constituencies widely differing in extent, and because he considered that an inoperative enactment was worse than none at all, that he ventured to move the omission of this clause, which was only a revival of the clause in the 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 37, which, on account of its unsatisfactory working, had been repealed by subsequent Acts.
MR. J. J. POWELL (Gloucester)seconded the Amendment.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, it was coming to this, that hon. Members must go down to their constituencies and be returned free of cost, solicitors, agents, and messengers, giving their votes and their services into the bargain; but they were really pushing the matter too far. He employed a respectable solicitor, and his Colleague, who sat on the Treasury Bench, did the same; and if he were in a solicitor's place, he would not like to manage an election and be either unpaid or disfranchised. The clause would lead to the employment of a clerk instead of his principal, and of a voter's son instead of the voter, so that the legislation proposed was mere subterfuge and sham.
LORD HENLEYsaid, he wished to diminish the employment of poor voters at election times, but at the same time he thought the clause severe, in depriving solicitors of their votes for managing an election. The management of: elections was as much the part of attorneys as the drawing up of a conveyance. He would omit the words "agents and
1008
attorneys" from the clause, and retain the rest of it.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYbelieved that political principle extended from agents down to the lowest person employed, and therefore he would support the omission of the clause. He trusted they would deal with the question as men of common sense, and not be led away by the desire to obtain a reputation for purity. Persons were employed at elections for their political principles, and it was for a Committee to decide whether there was corruption or not. Why deprive them of their votes because they were doing something to earn a livelihood in the vocation to which they were called? Was it to be expected that attorneys and agents would give up their regular businesses, and employ their clerks and others without receiving remuneration? It was sheer absurdity to expect it. However strong their political principles, they must naturally, if they gave up the regular work of their office, receive remuneration. The principle applied to all persons employed: if they did work, they had a right to be paid for it; and unless they were paid in such a manner as showed that they were paid with a corrupt purpose, their votes ought not to be struck out.
MR. F. S. POWELL (Cambridge)observed, that the provisions of the clause had been enacted by Lord Althorp; but having been found inoperative, were afterwards repealed. They would inflict injustice on parties, and tend to degrade the character of the electors. They would introduce the elements of uncertainty in every case, and make a petition almost inevitable. One curious difficulty would arise from the clause. A petition must be presented within a certain number of days, while a longer period was allowed to elapse before the payment of election accounts, and thus petitions would be presented upon the chance of some ground for them being found in the accounts to be subsequently published.
MR. VANCEsaid, he thought that the Government had brought forward the measure rather out of deference to the decision of the Select Committee than from any particular opinion of their own. His own experience of elections was, that high political principle was not confined to persons of high station, but was much oftener exhibited by those in a lower station of life. The clause was intended to disfranchise any one who accepted money from the candidate. The clause would be

1009
evaded, and by passing the clause they would add hypocrisy and evasion to the other crimes attendant upon elections. He considered that the law, as it at present stood, was amply sufficient to punish overemployment.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, if that clause were struck out, the others would be of no use. If lawyers and political agents were expunged from the clause, it would be a great injustice on others. Lawyers were the great source of expense at elections. He once had the misfortune to canvass the city of Worcester. He employed fourteen solicitors—to whom he paid upwards of £500, and he lost the election. He now had the honour to represent a borough where he employed no lawyer and no paid agent, but trusted simply to the good common sense of the electors.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped that whatever course the Committee adopted with respect to the clause, it would deal out even-handed justice. It would be most unfair to disfranchise the humbler men who were employed at elections, and leave the attorneys and the higher class of agents in possession of their votes.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. F. S. Powell), had referred to the 7 &8 Geo. IV., c. 37, in which a similar clause existed, and which Act had been repealed. It was true that the House declined to renew the Act until the whole subject had been inquired into by a Select Committee. A Committee did sit during two Sessions, and they reported that the repeal of the Act 7 &8 Geo. IV. had been prejudicial to purity of election, and it was proved that since the repeal it had become the practice to employ large numbers of voters, not only as professional agents, but as doorkeepers and messengers, who, under the guise of payment for their services, actually received payment for their votes. All that the Legislature could hope to do in reference to the matter was to make bribery and corruption as difficult and their detection as easy as possible, and it was no valid objection to any provision suggested with that view that it was open to evasion. The Committee on which both he and his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. G. Hardy) had sat, agreed in recommending the clause. He had not himself been present when that decision was come to, but his hon. Friend was there.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that though he attended the meeting of the
1010
Committee on the day in question, he was not present when the vote to which the right hon. Gentleman referred passed.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that at all events those of the Committee who were present were unanimous in favour of the clause; and that being so, he felt that he was bound to propose the clause in deference to their opinion. The evil which it was intended to meet was clearly proved before the Committee, and since the Bill was printed he had received letters from persons in different parts of the country, who said they attached great value to this clause, because the practice extensively prevailed of giving colourable employment at elections to persons who were really paid for their votes.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 110: Majority 7.

AYES.

Atherton, Sir W.

Gurney, S.

Ayrton, A. S.

Hadfield, G.

Aytoun, R. S.

Handley, J.

Baines, E.

Hankey, T.

Baring, T. G.

Headlarm, rt. hon. T. E.

Beale, S.

Henley, Lord

Black, A.

Hutt, rt. hon. W.

Blencowe, J. G.

Ingham, R.

Bruce, H. A.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Buller, Sir A. W.

Knatchbull-Hugessen, E

Bury, Viscount

Layard, A. H.

Butler, C. S.

Langton, W. H. G.

Buxton, C.

Lennox, Lord G. G.

Caird, J.

Levinge, Sir R.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

Carnegie, hon. C.

Lewis, H.

Childers, H. C. E.

Lindsay, W. S.

Cobbott, J. M.

Locke, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Lowe, rt. hon. R.

Cox, W.

M'Mahon, P.

Davey, R.

Maguire, J. F.

Doulton, F.

Marjoribanks, D. C.

Duke, Sir J.

Martin, J.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Mills, J. R.

Egerton, E. C.

Mitchell, T. A.

Enfield, Viscount

North, F.

Evans, T. W.

Packe, Colonel

Fenwick, H.

Padmore, R.

Fermoy, Lord

Paget, C.

Fortescue, C. S.

Paget, Lord C.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Palmer, Sir R.

Gilpin, C.

Palmerston, Viscount

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Peacocke, G. M. W.

Glyn, G. G.

Pease, H.

Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Greene, J,

Pilkington, J.

Gregson, S.

Potter, E.

Grenfell, H. R.

Pritchard, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Puller, C. W. G.

Gurdon, B.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Gurney, J. H.

Robertson, H.

1011

Russell, A.

Vivian, H. H.

Scott, Sir W.

Weguelin, T. M.

Scourfield, J. H.

White, J.

Seely, C.

White, L.

Seymour, H. D.

Wickham, H. W.

Sidney, T.

Williams, W.

Smith, A.

Wood, W.

Staniland, M.

Wyvill, M.

Stirling, W.

Stuart, Colonel

TELLERS.

Sykes, Col. W. H.

Mr. Brand

Thompson, H. S.

Sir W. Dunbar

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

NOES.

Addington, hon. W. W.

Kinglake, J. A.

Baring, A. H.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Bathurst, A. A.

Lacon, Sir E.

Beach, W. W. B.

Laird, J.

Beecroft, G. S.

Lawson, W.

Bentinck. G. W. P.

Leader, N. P.

Bentinck, G. C.

Longfield, R.

Blake, J.

Lygon, hon. F.

Bramley-Moore, J.

Malcolm, J. W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Malins, R.

Brooks, R.

Manners, rt. hon. Lord J.

Browne, Lord J. T.

Martin, P. W.

Buckley, General

Mitford, W. T.

Burghley, Lord

Moffatt, G.

Burrell, Sir P.

Montagu, Lord R.

Butler, J. H. A.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Cecil, Lord R.

Morris, D.

Clifton, Sir R. J.

Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

Clive, Capt. hon. G.W.

Mundy, W.

Cochrane A D R W. B.

Mure, D.

Codrington, Sir W.

Northcote, Sir S. H.

Cubitt, G.

Packe, C. W.

Dalglish, R.

Parker, Major W.

Dawson, R. P.

Peto, Sir S. M.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Pevensey, Viscount

Dodson, J. G.

Powell, F. S.

Dunne, Colonel

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Egerton, hon. W.

Rowley, hon. R. T.

Ewart, J. C.

Salt, T.

Ewing, H. E. Crum-

Selater-Booth, G.

Farquhar, Sir M.

Selwyn, C. J.

Farrer, J.

Smith, S. G.

Fellowes, E.

Somes, J.

Ferrand, W.

Stackpoole, W.

Gard, R. S.

Stanley, Lord

Gaskell, J. M.

Steel, J.

Getty, S. G.

Stuart, Lt.-Col. W.

Gore, J. R. O.

Talbot, hon. W. C.

Gower, G. W. G. L.

Taylor, Colonel

Graham, Lord W.

Tollemache, J.

Gray, Captain

Torrens, R.

Grogan, Sir E.

Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

Haliburton, T. C.

Turner, C.

Hardy, G.

Vance, J.

Hardy, J.

Vandeleur, Colonel

Hay, Sir J. C. D.

Vansittart, W.

Hennessy, J. P.

Walker, J. R.

Heygate, W. U.

Warner, E.

Hodgson, R.

Watlington, J. W. P.

Horsfall, T. B.

Western, S.

Hotham, Lord

Whitmore, H.

Hubbard, J. G.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Humberston, P. S.

Woodd, B. T.

Hunt, G. W.

Jervis, Captain

TELLERS.

Kelly, Sir F.

Mr. Cave

King, J. K.

Mr. J. J. Powell

Clause 3 (Authorized Agents for Payment of Expenses).
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would move the insertion of the words "or cause to be made" after "make" in line 8, and after "payment" the words "advance, loan, or deposit." The object of the alteration was to meet any possible case, colourable or otherwise.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would then move the insertion in line 10, after the word "election," of the words "before, during, or after such election."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as was also Clause 4.
Clause 5 (Publication of Statement of Election Expenses).
MR. HUNTsaid, he objected to the length of time allowed for publishing election accounts. The period specified in the Bill was three months; and sometimes when Committees were inquiring into election proceedings, and a desire was expressed that the accounts should be produced, they were met by the statement that the time had not expired. To prevent such a state of things in the future, he proposed that the time be limited to two months.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas understood to assent to the proposed Amendment.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would venture to suggest that for all practical purposes the legislation which was going forward might as well be carried on out of the House. The conversational tones of the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Durham (The Attorney General) prevented Members below the gangway from hearing a single word.
MR. F. S. POWELLobserved, that the returning officer was to publish the statement "as soon as conveniently may be." A very wide scope for discretion was thereby given, and he suggested that some definite time should be named.
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that the fixing of any definite time—say one or two months—would be accepted as the period within which publication was to be made, and would retard, instead of accelerating, the publication of the statement.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he would move that "fourteen days" be inserted.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 (Section 14 of Corrupt Practices Prevention Act extended to Misdemeanors, &c).
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of the object of the enactment.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was intended to get rid of a difficulty which had been found by the Court of Queen's Bench in construing a clause in the Corrupt Practices Act.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he desired to ask whether it was intended to apply a limitation of one year to prosecutions under that Act, and to place no limitation at all to prosecutions for offences at common law that might be committed at the same election.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it would be inconvenient to introduce into a Bill of that kind a limitation of the period during which prosecutions might be brought for common law offences, such as bribery. The Bill was not intended to interfere with the common law.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he thought it undesirable to leave a vindictive person the power either of prosecuting within a year under this Act, or beginning a prosecution at common law three or four or five years afterwards.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 (General Allegations sufficient in Indictments) agreed to.
Clause 8 (Evidence of Witness on Election Committee and before Commissions).
MR. LYGONsaid, he proposed to move the omission of the first part of the clause, which enacted that no person called as a witness before an Election Committee should be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer might criminate himself.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, to leave out from the words "No person," to the word "himself," in line 40.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that witnesses frequently refused to answer questions before Election Committees, and the Committees in consequence were unable to get to the bottom of the questions referred to them. It was then necessary to address the Crown for the appointment of a Royal Commission, by which considerable expense
1014
was incurred. If the power in question could safely be given to three gentlemen sitting as Commissioners, it could surely be safely exercised by a Committee of that House.
MR. LYGONsaid, he objected to the employment of the power either by a Committee or a Royal Commission. The principle sought to be established was a very dangerous one, and he should prefer to see it restricted rather than extended. He should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the subject.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was bound to admit that it was a departure from the ordinary rules of English law that persons should be bound, whether they would or not, to answer questions which might criminate themselves. But the proviso at the end of the clause laid down that no statement made by any person should, except in cases of indictment for perjury, be admissible against him. The clause was therefore disarmed of its sting. The Committee was aware of the almost insuperable difficulty there was in detecting corruption in the cases to which the Bill meant to apply, and it was therefore necessary to have recourse to such a provision as that which was now the subject of discussion.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had in Committee opposed the Resolution upon which the clause was formed, and he had still greater objections to the clause itself, because it was wider in its scope. The Resolution of the Committee was to the effect that no one should be allowed to refuse to answer a question which might tend to criminate him on the subject of bribery; but as the clause stood no one could refuse to answer any question on the ground that it would tend to criminate him. He contended that was too large a power to put into the hands of either a Committee or Commission. The Committee could not be called to account for giving or refusing a certificate, no matter how truly a witness might have answered. Prosecutions had been instituted in the Gloucester and Wakefield cases, and convictions had been obtained; but the feeling of the House and the country was against the proceedings, because it was felt that the persons had been trapped into an admission of guilt. It was true that the admissions were not actually employed as evidence against the gentlemen in the Wakefield case, but they were used in procuring testimony against them. The

1015
power which the clause would give he would riot intrust to the Judges of the land, still less would he intrust it to a Committee or Commission. The provision was, in his opinion, more corrupt than corruption itself.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought the power which the clause would give too large, because according to it a witness might be cross-examined on any point whatever. It would be necessary, therefore, to restrict the provision to cases of bribery. Then it was not compulsory on the Committee to give a certificate, it was only said it should be lawful for them to do so. Therefore, while the witness was compelled to make a disclosure, there was no guarantee that he should be protected. The effect of the clause would probably be that election agents would commit every possible offence; and if they could not keep everything hidden, they had only to make a full disclosure, and they would get an indemnity. The clause was so loosely drawn that the Committee could not pronounce an opinion upon it.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that a good deal of misconception pervaded the minds of hon. Members from their confusing two subjects—the extension of the power proposed in the clause to Committees, and the retention of it in Committees who already possessed it. He was bound to say, that if they took away the power of sending down Commissioners to certain places where extensive bribery and corruption had existed, armed with authority to compel evidence to be taken subject to whatever indemnity they chose to give, they were screening bribery in the most effectual way they could. Their object ought to be, not only to make bribery as difficult as possible, but to afford all due facility for its detection. He did not believe that in recent cases the bribery would have been detected unless the Committees had been armed with the power of compelling evidence.
MR. HUNTsaid, that the words in the clause were so large in their application that the sitting Member whose election might be under investigation by a Committee would be bound to answer any question put; and if the answer led to the loss of his seat, the proviso at the end of the clause would afford him no protection.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he thought it ought not to be left to the discretion either of a Commission or Committee to give an indemnity. The grant of the indemnity
1016
should be obligatory; and if the person receiving it had not spoken the truth, he should be liable to an indictment for perjury.
MR. BOVILLsaid, he did not regard bribery as a greater offence than larceny or murder, and the principle of the clause ought, in consistency, equally to apply to the latter crimes. If the Committee affirmed by legislation that persons answering all questions with respect to bribery should be protected, where could they stop? It was difficult to say, from the wording of the clause, whether those who would be compelled to answer would be certain of obtaining a certificate. Of all tribunals the least fit to be trusted with a discretion on such a point would be Commissions and Committees.
MR. J. J. POWELLremarked that the clause merely effected the extension of a provision which had been in operation in this country for some time, and had produced most beneficial effects. His hon. and learned Friend appeared to forget the distinction between the cases of trial for larceny, murder, or other criminal offences, and the proceedings before these Commissioners, because while in the former case a particular individual was charged with a specific crime, in the latter there was no allegation of specific offences against individual?, but the Commissions were distinctly and essentially Commissions of Inquiry. All that was required from the persons summoned before the Commissioners was that they should honestly tell the truth. He thought these Commissions of Inquiry had done great good. In the case of Gloucester, he could testify to the good wrought to the borough by the Commission lately held there; but unless persons were compelled to answer questions, it would be of no use to send these Commissions into the country.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he thought that the granting of certificates ought to be imperative upon the Committee in cases in which witnesses had made a full and fair disclosure.
SIR GEORGE GREYpointed out that the part of the clause now under discussion did not raise the question to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that the whole of the clause ought to be struck out.
MR. LYGONsaid, that he should persevere with his Amendment.
Question put, "That the words 'No person who is called as a witness' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 96: Majority 8.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 9.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Two Clauses added.
  Clause 23 (Appointment of Registrars).
  LORD NAASsaid, he desired that the Bill should be assimilated to the Act in force for England and Scotland with regard to the appointment of the officers under the Bill—namely, to vest the appointments in the boards of guardians. He would, therefore, move the insertion of words in Clause 23 to meet that object.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, to leave out from the words "The medical," to the word "district," in line 35, both inclusive, in order to insert the words "The guardians of any union shall appoint a person with such qualifications as the Registrar General may, by any general rule declare to be necessary, to be Registrar of Births and Deaths in each district, and in any case of vacancy in the office of Registrar, shall forthwith fill up the vacancy,"
  —instead thereof.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the question had already been considered by the House, the general opinion of which was in favour of the employment of medical officers.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, there was no provision in the Bill that there should be a certificate prior to every burial, as in England. He approved the Amendment.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought the Government were quite right in their proposal, and that the English system never could be adopted in Ireland.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he could not conceive a more clumsy or ill-drawn measure. Every clause had been forced on in the absence of many Irish Members, and on every clause the majority of Irish Members present had been against the Government. He did not see why the Irish people should not choose whom they pleased for registrars, and he should support the Amendment.
  COLONEL VANDELEURsaid, he took a different view of the immediate question
  1018
  before the House. He had reason to believe that the appointment of the medical officers as registrars in Ireland would prove most popular in Ireland.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary would not yield to the objections to the Bill.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 40: Majority 38.
  Schedule amended.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

  [BILL 22.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to call attention to what he considered to be two serious defects in the Bill. The one was the omission of a provision respecting the property of minors; the other was the want of a more convenient arrangement respecting the signature of trustees in the case of the paying out deposits.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he merely proposed that they should go into Committee pro formâ, and he did not intend to proceed with the consideration of the clauses until he had seen the deputations which he believed intended to wait upon him on the subject.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, that the Two-and-a-half per Cent stock, one of the species of stock which it was proposed to invest the funds in, stood at a less value by three-quarters per cent than the Three per Cent Reduced, or Three per Cent Consols. The Terminable Annuities also was not a favourite stock. He thought that the Bill ought to be confined to its three first clauses, and that the other two were not consistent with the declared object of the measure. If the Government chose to diminish the public debt, it should be done in a fair and open manner and with the intention of discharging the debt. He had a very strong objection to misleading the country by falsely discharging the debt under the name of an annuity.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To morrow.

  ADMIRALTY COURT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill to alter and amend the procedure and practice of the Court of Admiralty in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MAGUIRE and Mr. LONGFIELD.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 45.]

  ASSURANCES BEGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill for the Registration of Assurances in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir ROBERT PEEL, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 46.]

  INLAND REVENUE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENTS.
  Select Committee on the Inland Revenue and Customs Departments nominated:—Mr. HORS-FALL, Mr. PEEL, Mr. HANKEY, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY, Mr. EDWARD PLEYDELL BOUVERIE, Mr. CHARLES TURNER, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Mr. WILLIAM FORSTER, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Mr. HENNESSY, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. LAIRD, and Sir WILLIAM HAYTER:— Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  NAVY (PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT).
  Select Committee on Navy (Promotion and Retirement) nominated: — Mr. WALPOLE, Sir FRANCIS BAKING, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Sir JOHN HAY, Mr. STANS-FELD, Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE, Mr. AYRTON, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY, Sir HARRY VERNEY, Sir WILLIAM MILES, Mr. FINLAY, Mr. MAGUIRE, Mr. DODSON, and Mr. SCOURFIELD:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
— Select Committee. — Committee of Selection on Opposed Private Bills, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS.—First Reading.—Bills of Exchange and Notes (Metropolis) [H. C.] (No. 26).
Second Reading.—Drainage of Land (Ireland) (No. 18), and referred to a Select Committee; Naval Coast Volunteers Act Amendment [H. L] (No. 19).
Committee.—Prince and Princess of Wales' Annuities (No. 24).
Report, —Prince and Princess of Wales' Annuities (No. 24).
Third Reading.—Gardens in Towns Protection [H. L.] (No. 14), and passed.

OPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS.—SELECT COMMITTEE.
The Lords following; viz. — L. COLVILLE of CULROSS, L. PONSONBY, L. COLCHESTER, L. STANLEY of ALDERLEY—were appointed, with the Chairman of Committees, a Committee to select and propose to the House the Names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the Consideration of each Opposed Private Bill.
PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES' ANNUITIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, and the Lords Summoned, read: Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill; agreed to: House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND NOTES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 to be considered To-morrow, in order to their being dispensed with; and the LORDS SUMMONED: (The Lord President.) (No. 26.)
DRAINAGE OF LAND (IRELAND) BLIL. [No. 18.]

  SECOND READING. REFERRED TO SELECT COMMITTEE.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that it came up to their Lordships' House under circumstances which must be regarded as satisfactory, inasmuch as it had passed the other House with the general approval of the Irish Members. This formed the eleventh Bill on this subject presented to the British Parliament during Her present Majesty's reign. The fact was, that no part of the United Kingdom required draining so much as Ireland. Centuries age thousands of acres of some of the finest woods in Europe were, by want of draining, arising from insecurity of life and property gradually sunk in the peat mosses, and large tracts of arable land in Ireland, were rendered comparatively unprofitable from the want of an effective system of drainage. Hitherto those works had been generally done by the Government. The present measure, however, recognised the self-reliant principle, which, he thought, was best calculated to confer upon the country the advantages sought for. The provisions of the Bill were somewhat similar to those of the English Act, the 24 &25 Viet., c. 133. The initiation of its operation was given to the Irish Board of Works. Upon the application of a proportion of the proprietors of any land requiring a system of drainage, the Commissioners of the Board of Public Works were to send an Inspector to the district indicated, and upon his report the Commissioners may, if they think proper, and if two-thirds of the proprietors consent, constitute the district a drainage district. The management of the works was then intrusted to an incorporate Drainage Board, the members of which were to be elected by the proprietors of the district. The 20th and following clauses defined the general powers of these Drainage Boards. The 36th and 37th sections empower the Drainage Boards to borrow money on debenture. When the works were completed, the Drainage Board were to make au award, by which

  961
  the proportions of the expenses were to be charged on the lands within the district. The Board were also empowered to determine the amount of increased rent to be paid in respect of lands improved; and were to hold annual meetings, and fix the amount to be raised for maintenance and repairs for the ensuing year. The Bill also contains provisions, giving power to neighbouring owners to procure outfalls. Such being the nature of the measure, he trusted their Lordships would assent to its passing as speedily as possible, because in the present distressed state of Ireland, occasioned by the occurrence of three consecutive bad harvests, the Bill would confer a great boon upon the country, by the employment it would open up to the labouring portion of the population. The distress that existed in Ireland had been borne with remarkable patience. This Bill would give great facilities for the relief of that distress, and he trusted their Lordships would pass it without delay.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF LUCANsaid, he was quite willing to allow the Bill to be read a second time, if the noble Lord would let it be referred to a Select Committee. The reference to a Select Committee need not prevent its passing before Easter.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that he was anxious the Bill should be passed without unnecessary delay, and therefore he was unwilling to refer it to a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF CORKsaid, it was a Bill of eighty-five clauses, and the provisions were of such a nature that they could better be discussed in a Select Committee. It had been hurried up to this House, and required the consideration of owners of land in Ireland. He hoped his noble Friend would not persist in his objection to the course proposed by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREjoined in the appeal to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it had been generally understood by the Irish Peers that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.
  Motion agreed to
  Bill read 2a accordingly; and referred to a Select Committee: The Lords following were named of the Committee: —
  E. DERBY, E. ESSEX, E. LUCAN, E. BELMORE, V. LIFFORD, V. HAWARDEN, L. BOYLE, L. PONSONBY, L. DlGBY, L. WODEHOUSE, L. CROFTON, L. SOMERHILL, L. DARTREY, and L. LYVEDEN.

NAVAL COAST VOLUNTEERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 19.)

  SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that they were in a better position with regard to reserves for the navy than at any former period. On the first of February, 1863, the number of Royal Naval Reserve men was 14,000; of Coast Volunteers, 8,000; of Coastguard on shore, 3,000; and of Coastguard in ships, 2,000. The total number of men available as a reserve was 28,800; and as the number was in creasing week by week, they might expect, by the end of the year, to have 30,000 men available as reserve seamen. The only drawback to this great scheme of a Reserve was the provision originally introduced in order to induce the men to join the Coast Volunteers, that the Coast Volunteers were not to be taken more than 300 miles from the shores of the country. The arrangement was not then objected to; but now, it being considered that some inconvenience might arise in case of emergency, the Bill proposed to abolish that limit with regard to men who should join the force hereafter. For instance, vessels might be manned principally with ordinary seamen, or men of the Royal Naval Reserve, but might have a few Coast Volunteers; and if those vessels were in pursuit of a privateer, or required to proceed even a few miles beyond the prescribed limit for the protection of trade, or for any purpose, the service must be given up, unless they chose to break faith with the men. It was of the utmost importance that faith should be kept with the men, and that the terms on which they entered should not be violated. It was therefore proposed to reserve to the present Coast Volunteers the limit on which they had taken service, but not to enter any more with that limitation. This alteration might possibly lead to some diminution of the Coast Volunteer force, but, seeing how the Royal Naval Volunteer force was increasing, the advantage of the absence of the restriction as to distance would more than compensate for the disadvantage of that diminution. The Bill contained only one clause. He had now explained the principle, and he asked their Lordships to read it a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that the original intention of the Act was to

  963
  enable fishermen and seafaring persons on the coast to join the reserve force for the defence of the country, and he would suggest that it would be better without any definite law, that the Admiralty should let it be understood that men settled with their wives and families would not be taken out of the Channel except on a great emergency. There were many men who would be willing to serve in the Channel who would not like to be despatched on foreign service. The Bill itself was a very good one; but he was afraid the Bill would have the effect of inducing many men who were at present members of the Reserve to withdraw; but he hoped they would be fairly dealt with by the Admiralty. He might take that opportunity of making a few remarks upon the state of the navy. When the Royal Commission sat to consider the Manning of the Navy, one of the most important branches of their inquiry related to the question of what the peace establishment should be, bearing in mind the numbers of the volunteer force. According to the best information, it was deemed that it would be sufficient for the protection of our coasts and for other purposes if they had 56,000 seamen and marines, together with a reserve of 30,000 Volunteers available on an emergency—as, for instance, in case of war suddenly breaking out with France, which was the only naval Power of serious importance. Looking at the question as a naval officer merely, he should be glad to see a great navy; but looking at it not only as a naval officer, but as a Member of Parliament, and having regard to the finances of the country, he was surprised that the Government should have proposed in their Estimates so large a naval force for the present year as 76,000 men. In 1854 they had a naval force of 61,400 men; and in 1855, the year of the Crimean war, they had a force of 64,432 men. But now, in addition to the 76,000 men proposed in the Estimates, they had a powerful naval reserve, amounting to nearly 30,000 men. If this country did not stand in need of such a large naval force, they had no right to put their hands in the pockets of the people to such an extent. He was not in the secrets of the Cabinet, and the only information of which he was possessed was derived from the newspapers; but he was at a loss to understand what cause there was to keep up such a large naval force in time of peace. He believed that we had a larger
  964
  naval force now than since the great war. Did the Government think that the United States were in a condition to bring on a European war? He confessed that he did not see any cause for alarm in that quarter, for he thought that that country had been already sufficiently weakened by the civil contest in which it was engaged to be dangerous to the peace of Europe; and though there were some threatening elements in the Polish difficulty, that question had not arisen when the Estimates were framed. He hoped the noble Duke would state to their Lordships the reasons why it was thought necessary to keep up such an immense naval force.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, I did not expect, on the second reading of this Volunteer Bill, to be called on to go into the whole question of the naval provision of the year; but I must make a few observations in answer to the speech of the noble Earl. I agree with him that we ought not to make use of the Coast Volunteers for the general purpose of manning the navy. They are only entered for one year, and in the event of a war of course it would be impossible so to make use of them. The 30,000 men of the Reserve are never to be used except on a great emergency, when this country itself is in danger. Of course the Government would be slow to issue the proclamation, unless circumstances had occurred which were of such vast importance as to make it absolutely necessary that they should adopt a measure which would disturb the whole mercantile marine of the country. In regard to the manning of the fleet, the noble Earl seems to have forgotton that portion of the Report of the Commission which recommends that a force of 20,000 marines shall be kept up. It is always inexpedient to keep up a large force of marines unless you can send a considerable proportion to sea; and I have thought it right not to raise the force above the number of 18,000. The Commission recommended that we should always have a number of men in all our seaports, to be ready for any ships which were put into commission. Your Lordships may remember that in 1859, though there was a bounty of £10 offered, ships were kept many weeks in port waiting for men; but now I am happy to say that whenever a ship is put into commission, in a day or two I hear that she has got all her men. We get the best men, too, for we now reject all men who have not good characters, or who may he phy-

  965
  sically unfit for the service. We have got, therefore, not only a large force, but a good force. The noble Earl must deduct from the 76,000 men the 18,000 marines, the 9,000 boys, and also those men who are employed in the protection of the revenue, amounting to several thousands, who are now reckoned part of the navy. Though the state of our foreign relations is satisfactory, yet there are disturbances in different parts of the world which make it unadvisable largely to reduce our naval force. I would point to the far East—to China and Japan—and I would say, that looking to the disturbances in which we have been involved in those distant parts of the world, and the expenditure which we have been forced to incur, it would be unadvisable suddenly and rapidly to reduce our naval force there. It would be bad policy, and it might lead to fresh disturbance and a new outbreak, and might necessitate another naval expedition to vindicate the honour of our flag. Again, a large force is needed in consequence of the disturbances in North America. Our trade is continually liable to alarm and interruption, and it looks to the Admiralty for protection. Every one of our island possessions in that part of the world asks for the presence of a ship to see that they are protected from vessels of one side or the other, which might otherwise not be very particular in respecting the Queen's proclamation of neutrality. Governors of colonies are continually asking for vessels; and Admiral Milne, the commander on the station, a man of great prudence and judgment, and who, having been at the Admiralty, knows the importance of economy, has frequently written to me to say that it would not be for the public service to reduce our force on that station. In the Mediterranean we have been able to make a large reduction in consequence of the state of our relations with the Powers of Europe. I fully agree with the noble Earl in the importance of economy in this branch of the public service, and I carefully considered in what departments reductions might judiciously and safely be carried out. I could not, consistently with my duty, recommend to the Government a reduction in the number of men; but in the Department of Stores, I found that we had a very large supply on hand, and that the consumption was comparatively small. In that Department, therefore, we have been able to make a reduction; but still, at the end of the year, the navy will be in
  966
  a better condition as regards timber and many other stores than it has been at any time within the last twenty years.
  Motion, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.