Sitting of 2 August 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—On Ecclesiastical Titles and Roman Catholic Relief Acts Committee. [No. 503.]
SUPPLY — considered in Committee — Resolution [August 1] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Railways (Ireland).*
First Reading—Railways (Ireland)* [298].
Committee—Courts of Law Fees, &c.* [287]; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [14] [R.P]; Public Health (Scotland)* (re-comm.) [284]; Turnpike Acts Continuance [232]; Quinagh

753
and Parsonstown Drainage* [294]; Recovery of certain Debts (Scotland)* [220]; Trusts (Scotland)* (re-comm.)* [266].
Report—Courts of Law Fees, &c.* [287]; Public Health (Scotland)* (re-comm.) [284]; Turnpike Acts Continuance [232]; Quinagh and Parsonstown Drainage* [294]; Recovery of Certain Debts (Scotland)* [220 &c 296]; Trusts (Scotland)* (re-comm.) [266 & 297].
Considered as amended—Courts of Law Fees, &c.* [287]; Court of Chancery Officers* [235]; Factory Acts Extension* [236]; Consecration and Ordination Fees* [256]; Guarantee of Government Officers* [283].
Third Reading—Courts of Law Fees, &c.* [287]: Inland Revenue* [239]; Dominica Loan* [291]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 6)* [244]; Prorogation of Parliament* [277]; Naval Stores (No. 2)* [289]; Militia Pay*; Quinagh and Parsonstown Drainage* [294]; Guarantee of Government Officers* [283], and passed.
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 14].
(Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens, Mr. Kinnaird, and Mr. Locke.)
ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 14].

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. BAZLEYmoved, as an Amendment, the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that the provisions in this Bill by which it is proposed to impose upon the local authority the obligation, if and when required by the owners, to purchase condemned properties at prices to be ascertained under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, should receive the assent of this House."
  The hon. Gentleman objected to the provision requiring the corporations of municipalities to purchase dilapidated property, and to build houses for the working classes on the sites. Such a provision was calculated to induce owners of property to allow their houses to fall into a state of ruin in the hope that they would get a good price for them from the local authorities. It was impossible to expect corporate bodies to take those duties upon themselves in addition to their other responsible duties. This Bill was, in this respect, an interference with the free agency of the public at large and with the rights of property. The provision in question would necessarily enhance the value of dilapidated property at the expense of the public. He hoped that the hon. Member for Finsbury
  754
  would consent to expunge this obnoxious clause, and would amend his Bill so as to make property responsible in its duties as well as its privileges. At that advanced period of the Session he thought that the hon. Member would do well to withdraw his Bill and introduce a more satisfactory one in the next Session.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that the provisions in this Bill by which it is proposed to impose upon the local authority the obligation, if and when required by the owners, to purchase condemned properties at prices to be ascertained under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, should receive the assent of this House,"—(Mr. Bazley,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. POWELLremarked that the proposition of the hon. Member for Manchester was a most inconvenient one, inasmuch as, if carried, it would seriously interfere with the further progress of the Bill, and thus set at nought the great labours bestowed upon it in advancing it to its present stage.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester was a practical way of getting rid of an objectionable Bill. He agreed with that hon. Gentleman that it was monstrous to suppose that the municipal authorities could provide houses for the poor. The ratepayers had quite enough to do with their money without being required to build dwellings for the working classes. If such a principle were admitted he did not know where it would stop. The next demand made upon them might be to provide clothing, if not carriages and horses, for the poor. He trusted that the House would support the Motion of the hon. member for Manchester.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought it desirable that this measure should be submitted to the consideration of a Committee. He however confessed he was of opinion that there was great weight in the objections of the hon. member for Manchester as to the policy of obliging corporate bodies to become the purchasers of dilapidated property. Such a measure would probably lead to great inconvenience.
  MR. WHALLEYagreed with the observations

  755
  of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, as well as with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester, which he contended was the only safe course under the circumstances, to adopt. If they allowed the Bill, in its present shape, to go into Committee it would be almost impossible to mould it into a proper form. It was extending the principle of centralization in perhaps, the most offensive way ever proposed in that House.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he was afraid that neither the hon. Member for Peterborough nor the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth could have considered this subject very deeply, seeing that this was the first occasion that they had ever turned their attention to it. ["No!"] Well, perhaps he should have said the second time. The hon. Members objected to the power of purchasing house property of this description being given to the local authorities; but if the local authorities were not to have that power, who was to have it? [Mr. Serjeant GASELEE: The people themselves.] But who was to set the people in motion? Where were they to find a body of men so capable of discharging such a duty as the municipal authorities? It was an extraordinary fact that people who were generally so anxious to promote the welfare of the poor always offered the most violent opposition to any proposition improving their condition which involved the levying of a rate. What did the Bill propose to do? Medical officers by hundreds had shown that in Manchester and in other populous towns there were places which bred fevers and other terrible diseases, and which, in other respects, were totally unfit for human habitation. These places were incapable of improvement; down they must come, and proper dwellings must be erected in their place. Well, the Bill proposed to give the local authorities power to perform this necessary work, and provided that the cost of doing it should be met by a rate. No objection was ever raised against the cost of making a sewer being defrayed by a rate; and it was quite as important for the general health that these nests of fever should be done away with as that new sewers should be made. The hon. Gentleman behind him felt no compunction at bringing forward a railway Bill by which hundreds of poor people would be evicted from their dwellings, but he shrank from any proposition which would, in any degree, remedy
  756
  the evil the construction of the line had caused. He, however, denied that any eventual expense would be imposed upon the towns were this Bill agreed to, because experience had shown that in Liverpool, where a law of this kind was in force, the amount of the rate had been more than balanced by the decrease in the poor rates. He understood that the same might be said of Glasgow. He admitted that difficulties might arise as to the mode in which the owners of the property taken were to be compensated; but details of this kind might be easily altered in Committee; and he trusted that the House would not lose an opportunity like the present of getting rid of fever haunts because there happened to be an objection in one or two particulars to the machinery of the Bill.
  MR. GREENEremarked that this matter had been carefully considered by the Select Committee of which he was a Member. That Committee took into consideration both the welfare of the ratepayers and the requirements of the poor. If this Bill were rejected, the House would lay itself open to the charge that they cared very little for the interests and welfare of the poor except to make it a matter of claptrap on special occasion. The utmost that could be raised was a 3d. rate, and he contended it was a measure of economy, for nothing was more expensive or costly than disease and crime. When a man lost his work he became chargeable to the parish. Therefore, he trusted the House would go into Committee upon the Bill, and, if there were any clauses that required further consideration, make such Amendments as would render the Bill more satisfactory to the country, and more advantageous to the poor. The people ought not to be housed any longer in dwellings which were unfit for a sporting dog, while the House of Commons were wasting their time about matters of much less importance than the improvement of the condition of those classes whom they professed to desire to raise in the social scale. It was vain to attempt to educate the people and to talk morality to them as long as they dwelt in houses that were not even fit for the accommodation of cattle.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he did not understand the object of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Manchester to be the defeat of the Bill; but, if that were the object, he could not give the Amendment

  757
  his support. He was strongly in favour of the Bill, though, at the same time, the Amendment involved a principle to which he entirely subscribed—namely, that it should not be at the discretion of any owner of property to compel the municipality to purchase. If such a principle were admitted, a premium would be held out to a person who had encumbered property which he wished to get rid of to let it fall into decay in order that he might sell it to the municipality at a higher price than it was actually worth.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he wished the hon. Member for Sunderland would consider what conceivable object he and the other promoters could possibly have had in bringing forward this measure if the result of it would be to inflict loss on the ratepayers of the country. Was it likely that they intended to promote so suicidal an object? If the Bill were to work in the manner predicted by his hon. Friend, the supporters of it would be covered with discredit in less than twelve months. The Corporation of Manchester was the implacable enemy of the Bill; and he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Manchester had brought forward this Amendment with a view to the defeat of the measure. At a meeting of the Sanitary Improvement Congress, which was recently held at Manchester, the most disgraceful revelations on these dwellings were made, and upon that narrow issue he was willing to rest the necessity for this legislation. There was not to be found a more flagrant and scandalous case of inhuman habitations in existence on a larger scale than was to be found at Manchester. Yet Manchester now wished the House to adopt the laissez faire, and to defer this Bill to another year. Of course, if the Government wished the Bill not to pass this Session, it could not possibly pass. He was surprised at the statement that had been just made by the Home Secretary, because he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were in favour of the principle of the Bill; and without their assent it would be useless for him to attempt to pass the Bill through Committee. Great care had been taken in framing the various clauses by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Mr. Goschen), and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird); and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets
  758
  had given notice of a clause limiting the price to be paid for property under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to the price which a willing seller would be ready to receive and a willing buyer to give.
  MR. LEEMANregretted that the hon. and learned Member for Finsbury had not answered the question contained in the hon. Member for Manchester's Amendment—namely, whether he intended to expunge the operation of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act from this Bill? If the hon. and learned Gentleman was as well acquainted as many Members of the House were with the practical working of that Act, he would at once perceive that no such clause as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would meet the difficulties which had been started, and he thought very properly, by the hon. Member for Manchester. He gave the hon. and learned Gentleman every credit for the object he had in view; but the machinery by which he sought to carry out the object must be most objectionable to the municipalities of the country. The Bill contained no machinery for enabling local Boards to offer opposition before a grand jury, nor did it give those Boards any power of appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions. The Bill also offered a bonus to owners of old property to let it go to wreck, and would be an inducement to surveyors and architects to support the owners in their improvidence. When a property had become sufficiently dilapidated as to be seized on by the local authorities under the Act, the owner received the specified notice; and although the Bill said the property was to be sold at such a price as would be fixed on between a willing seller and a willing buyer, it did not more accurately describe what the price should be; and, of course, the ower, who had been waiting for the notice, would immediately declare he was a most unwilling seller; he would then take his notice to his surveyor, who would chime in with his employer's desires, and recommend the appointment of an arbitrator under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. The surveyor would naturally recommend himself as arbitrator, another would be appointed on the other side, an umpire would be agreed on by them, witnesses would be called, and expenses would run up, in many cases to an amount greater than the value of the property arbitrated on; and what made the matter worse was that, under the provisions of the Lands Clauses

  759
  Consolidated Act, these expenses would, in most cases, have to be borne, not by the owner of the property, but by the corporation. He was as desirous as the hon. and learned Gentleman was to see old property improved; but he protested against the proposed mode of compelling town councils to buy condemned houses under provisions which would most unjustly entail expenditure on the part of the ratepayers, and reward householders for negligence.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the town council of Bradford were quite in favour of the principle of the Bill; but that they at the same time felt that it would be excessively unfair to hold out a premium to the owner of property to neglect it in order that he might get more money for it eventually. That objection might be met by the introduction of Amendments into the 22nd clause, which would preclude the owner of such property from obtaining for it more than the market value. It would be easy when the House went into Committee to introduce clauses to meet the practical objections which had been raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman).
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONpointed out that at every stage of the Bill the language of the Government had been perfectly consistent in regard to its progress. The late Secretary for the Home Department warmly approved, on the second reading, the objects which it sought to promote, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the other day given expression to similar sentiments. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley) could, he thought, be regarded in no other light than as intended to induce the Committee to withdraw the Bill, and at the present period of the Session a perhaps not less certain mode of defeating it was to debate its provisions at length.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) had argued against this Bill on grounds that would have prevented the construction of every railway in the kingdom. Two-thirds of the criticism on the Bill might be at once obviated by adopting Amendments that have stood on the Paper for the last two months.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he was of opinion that the objections which had been raised against the Bill would be very well met in Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the discussion
  760
  on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester showed that he was fully justified in bringing it forward because there was scarcely a single speaker who had addressed the House who did not appear to be of opinion that some other machinery than the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act should be introduced into the Bill. Where property was taken compulsorily the owner's interest ought to be well guarded. All questions of difference must come before some tribunal for decision. The hon. Member for Bradford said he would always have a jury. He (Mr. Henley) did not know what was the expense of a jury; but it was probably less than arbitration. The hon. Member for York had remarked on the necessity of giving to town councils the right of traversing presentments. In this he entirely concurred; and so he did in another remark of the hon. Member, that the power of building should be confined to large places. He believed that there already existed power to shut up places unfit for human habitation, or put them in repair. But in large places the inconvenience to the working men was extreme, if houses were taken down without the provision of other residences within a reasonable distance from their work. In smaller places the mischief was less. But all these points were questions for the Committee when they came to clauses. The Bill might do good, though he was not sure that granting power to public bodies to purchase property and re-build was not open to much discussion, as the tendency of interference on the part of public bodies in such matters was to check private enterprize.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, as there seemed to be every desire to carefully consider in Committee the suggestion he had thrown out, he would withdraw his present Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation of Terms).
  MR. GOSCHENmoved to add that—
  "Building company shall mean and include any society, company, or association incorporated under 'The Companies Act, 1862,' or any other Act for the time being in force, for the incorporation of joint stock companies, or by any special

  761
  Act or Royal charter for the purpose either solely or amongst other things, of purchasing land and building thereon."
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 106 incorporated).
  MR. WHALLEYmoved an addition, providing that no rate should be levied until the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by Parliament, as in the case of inclosure of lands.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (On Representation by Four Householders that Disease exists in a House, Officer of Health to inspect and report).
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he had been requested to move that in line 30 the following words be left out, "contagious disease then exists or has frequently existed in any premises."
  Motion agreed to.
  In line 31 the words "or that such" omitted, and "any" inserted.
  In line 32, after "disease," the words "and have in fact occasioned disease," inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Officers of Health to deliver Copies of Report to Clerk of Local Authority and Clerk of Peace).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved in line 40 to insert—
  "Or if the premises be within a borough having a commission of the peace but no separate Court of Quarter Sessions, then to the clerk of the borough justices."
  Words inserted.
  MR. SAMUELSONmoved to add at the end of the clause the following:—
  "In places where the local authority have appointed as one of their officers a surveyor or engineer, the officer of health shall furnish such surveyor or engineer with a copy of his Report, previously to sending a copy to the clerk of the local authority, and it shall be the duty of such surveyor or engineer to consider the Report so furnished to him, and to send his opinion thereon to the clerk of the local authority."
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Clerk of Local Authority to lay Report before Council).
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it would, in his opinion, be quite impossible
  762
  to make a grand jury in counties deal with these cases.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENthought it was unadvisable to place this class of work upon grand juries.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved in line 7, after "sessions" to insert "or at a sessions to be holden by the borough justices for the purpose."
  MR. HENLEYthought it would be impossible to make the language of Clauses 9 and 10 applicable to grand juries.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that if his Amendment were agreed to it would remove the objection urged respecting county grand juries.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsuggested that as far as England was concerned the ordinary course of the law should be followed—namely, of bringing these cases before Petty Sessions, when an appeal would lie at Quarter Sessions. He would suggest to the hon. Member to withdraw Clauses 9 and 10, and bring up a new clause on the Report to effect this object.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSacceded to the suggestion.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clauses 9 and 10 negatived.
  Clauses 11, 12, and 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Owner may appeal against Presentment).
  MR. M'LARENproposed in line 25, after "proper," to insert—
  "Or may make an order closing the house, and requiring the owner to deal with the house either in conformity with the Report of the inspector, or in such manner as the Court may think fit, for the purpose of rendering the house fit for human habitation."
  The hon. Member explained that these words were in the draft Bill framed by the counsel to the Home Office.
  MR. GOLDNEYsuggested that the Amendment should not be pressed now, but introduced into a later clause where it would be more applicable.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he had no difficulty in acceding to the suggestion.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 15 (Owner to execute specific Works or sell Premises to the local Authorities).
  MR. GOLDNEYproposed to amend the clause to the extent of giving compulsory power to the local authority to purchase houses which the owner declined to render fit for human habitation.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENthought that if the owners were obliged to shut up such premises, all that was necessary to be done in this matter would be accomplished. The power which it was proposed to give to local authorities to purchase property of this kind would, in some parts of the country, be found a very obnoxious one.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he could not concur in the view of the right hon. Gentleman. This question went to the root of the Bill, and unless compulsory power to purchase was taken, to be vested in some local body, the evil which this Bill was intended to meet would not be met.
  MR. HENLEYremarked that if the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire were acceded to, it would do away with the good the Bill was intended to effect. There was plenty of power now, without this legislation, to shut up unhealthy houses. The object of this Bill was to put houses in a fit condition for people to live in, or else to pull them down and build up better ones.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUremarked, that if they merely shut up a house or forced the owner to sell it to another poor man it would be allowed to remain in the same state. But if they enabled the local authority to purchase it, the objectionable dwelling could be knocked down, and a better building erected on the site.
  MR. POTTERconsidered their only course was to close up such property leaving the owners to make the best they could of it.
  MR. POWELLremarked upon the important results that would arise from building warehouses on the sites of those dilapidated dwellings, thereby giving rise to a great demand for labour and benefiting the working man.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not see how they could provide better dwellings for the people by merely shutting up the property in an objectionable state.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYreminded the Committee that the hon. and learned Member for Finsbury had consented to agree to the Amendment that was suggested, and therefore they were not at present in a position to discuss the question. A person having property should use it without injuring other people.
  MR. M'LARENsuggested that as an Amendment was to be introduced respecting
  764
  the doubtful points of the Bill, they should go on with the other clauses, and, if possible, finish the Bill; and all other matters could be discussed when the new clauses were brought up.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed, to.
  Clauses 16, 17, and 18 agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

INDIA—BANDA AND KIRWEE BOOTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the distribution of the Banda and Kirwee Booty is likely to be completed, and how much of it has been already distributed, and which portions of the forces entitled have received their share?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that according to the General Orders issued in India in May last it was stated that the first instalment of 500 rupees a share was authorized to be paid immediately in India, and that warrants would be issued making it payable in England on the 15th of May. He had been expecting those warrants since by every mail, but they had not yet been received. He could not say how much had been distributed in England, but he hoped to receive full information by the next mail.

JAMAICA—THE PROSECUTION OF MR. EYRE.—QUESTION.
MAJOR ANSONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether he indorses the opinion of his predecessor with regard to the criminal prosecution of Mr. Eyre, published in The Times of July 29; and, whether, in consequence of that opinion, and taking into consideration the fact that more than one ineffectual attempt has been made by certain persons styling themselves the Jamaica Committee, to carry out the objects they have in view, the Government will now undertake to defend Mr. Eyre against any further persecution?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The opinion expressed by Sir John Rolt, my predecessor, upon this subject, appears, from the newspapers, when I read it, to have been formed after his attention had been called to certain statements and papers

765
which were laid before him. Those statements and papers I have not seen, and it would not be right, therefore, for me to say whether I approve or disapprove the opinion of my learned predecessor. As to the latter part of the Question, I am not aware that proceedings either civil or criminal against Mr. Eyre are pending at the present time, and it would obviously be beyond my province to state what course Her Majesty's Government would take in the possible event alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member.

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR CROWN LANDS.—QUESTION,
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Commissioners for Crown Lands are authorized or accustomed to grant sites for churches of the Established Church without charge; and, whether they are authorized or accustomed to refuse to sell land for sites in good situations, and on reasonable terms, for the erection of places of worship by Nonconformists?
MR. HUNTsaid, that the Commissioners for Woods had no power, as such, to grant lands for the purposes of sites for churches. The regulations in that respect were laid down by the 10 Geo. IV., c. 50. That Act conferred special powers to grant sites for churches and chapels, clergymen's residences and schools on the hereditary estates of the Crown, provided the extent of land were not beyond five acres, or its value above £1,000 in any one case. After the sale or leasing of Crown lands, the Commissioners had power to grant certain portions for the erection of places of worship, and in the exercise of that power, the Commissioners had frequently granted leases of land, for Conformist places of worship.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his statement that he had received no complaints as to weights and measures from Peterborough and other places, Whether he has made or deems it requisite to make further inquiry as to the fact of such complaints having been received at the office of his department?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had on a former occasion stated that he
  766
  had received no complaints as to weights and measures from Peterborough and other places. On instituting further inquiries he had learnt that complaints had been received from Hoxton, Birkenhead, and Peterborough.

PARLIAMENT—MEETING IN THE TEA-ROOM.—QUESTION.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Speaker, Whether he has been informed of a meeting having taken place in the Tea-Room of the House on Monday the 29th instant, which was attended by other gentlemen than Members of the House, and at which speeches were made by such gentlemen relating to proceedings then about to be discussed on the progress of a Bill through this House, or in a Committee of the Whole House; and, whether such a proceeding is, in his opinion, in accordance with the established rules of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: The Committee Rooms of this House are, during the Session of Parliament, under the charge of the Sergeant-at-Arms. As the Question has reference to the duties of an officer of this House, I shall be happy to answer it. It is well known that occasionally Members desiring to confer together on matters of business before the House apply to the Sergeant-at-Arms to place one of the Committee-Rooms at their disposal, and when this request is complied with it is generally on the understanding that the room will be limited to the use of Members only. It is true that on Monday last a meeting of a different and of quite an unusual character took place—in the terms of the Question—
"A meeting in the Tea-Room, which was attended by other gentlemen than Members of the House, and at which speeches were made by such gentlemen relating to proceedings on the progress of a Bill through the House."
And the Question for me is whether such a proceeding is in accordance with the established rules of the House? The proceeding in question is not in accordance with the established rules of the House. I believe the transaction is of a novel character. As soon as information of the meeting was given to the Deputy-Sergeant-at-Arms, who was in attendance, he, with great propriety, proceeded to the room and informed the embers mpresent that the course pursued was quite irregular. The meeting broke up and the members dispersed. It gives me great satisfaction to

767
add that the Members who were instrumental in calling the meeting have informed the Sergeant-at-Arms that they were not aware that the course pursued was a breach of Order, and have expressed their regret that the irregularity should have been committed. I feel, therefore, that under these circumstances there should be no difference of opinion in the House on the subject. There will be a general agreement that the ancient rule and practice must be upheld, that the rooms of this building must be reserved for the use of Members only, and for such purposes as may be permitted. I have no doubt that is the opinion of the House, and that there will be no repetition of this proceeding.
MR. AYRTON: I should like to put another Question to you, Sir, having reference to this subject. I have observed, as a matter of fact, that the Tea-room has been largely used for the convenience of Members who desire to consult with their constituents. It is obvious that if Members of the House have to communicate with their constituents, or other persons interested in the business before the House, some observations must be made upon the one side and the other, and in that respect the conference that took place on Monday last does not differ from any other conference I have seen in the Tea-room. The question then arises, is there no part of this vast building in which Members of the House of Commons can communicate with their constituents on subjects connected with the business of the House, and are Members of the House of Commons to be thus placed in a position different from that of any other body of persons who meet to transact business? If so, I must say that this is one of the most inconvenient buildings that have been devised for the use of man; and I would ask you, Sir, to be good enough during the recess to communicate with the authorities on such matters, in order that the convenience referred to may be extended to Members of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The Question addressed to me by the hon. and learned Member is entirely different from that of which notice has been given; because, if I am rightly informed, the gentlemen present at the meeting constituted themselves into a sort of public meeting. A chairman was appointed, and addresses were delivered. Now, that involves a totally different point from that before raised. My answer was given on the point of
768
employing any room in this House for the purpose of a meeting of this description. With regard to the Question now raised, I am quite aware that inconveniences of the nature referred to arise from the arrangements of the House, and they have been lately increased in consequence of the hotels and other buildings in Palace Yard, where deputations were accustomed to assemble, having been pulled down. The Question of the hon. and learned Member is, I admit, important and worthy of consideration; but it should, perhaps, be rather addressed to those who have charge of the public buildings than to myself.
MR. KINNAIRD: I wish to say upon this subject that it is impossible for Members who are really attending to their business in the House to go to distant hotels, in order to confer with their constituents, or any others who may wish to speak with them in reference to the business before the House. The House ought certainly to provide some accommodation of the kind asked for.
MR. WHALLEY: The object of my rising is to address the same Question to the First Minister of Works. I ask him, in the first place, whether it is within the cognizance of the Committee that was lately appointed on the recommendation of this House to take notice of the inconvenience to which Members are subjected who have business to transact with strangers; and, if not, then, whether he would consider it within his own cognizance, and endeavour to remedy the inconvenience? I put this Question to the noble Lord, because whenever I had any communication with his predecessor on matters of a similar nature, I was received with the greatest courtesy, and the inconvenience was removed.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: There is no doubt that the subject referred to strictly comes within the province of the Select Committee appointed to consider the arrangements of the House. That Committee has concluded its labours for the present, but it is proposed that it should be re-appointed as soon as Parliament re-assembles.
MR. J. STUART MILL: As one of the Members who was present in the Tea-room on the occasion in question, I desire to express my regret for having unwittingly been guilty of an irregularity against the forms of this House, an irregularity of which I was not aware at the time. In order

769
to set one point right, I desire to say that the conference in question was not in the nature of a public meeting. It was really a deputation to consult with certain Members of Parliament, and nothing in the way of speech-making was done which is not usually done at deputations.
COLONEL STUART KNOX: I would ask the hon. Member whether it is not a fact that members of the Reform League at that meeting in the Tea-room held out a threat that unless hon. Members voted in support of their views those Members need not put themselves forward again as candidates for metropolitan constituencies?
MR. J. STUART MILL: I heard no such statement from any person present, whether a member of the Reform League or not.

METROPOLIS—THREATENED MEETING IN HYDE PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. NEATEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps he has taken, or intends to take in consequence of the notice given by the Reform League of their intention to hold a monster meeting in Hyde Park on Monday next, for the purpose stated in such notice?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I have no official information of such a meeting, and I know nothing more about it than what has appeared in the newspapers. Of course, it will be my duty to see that order is observed when the meeting takes place.

COLONIAL BISHOPS.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House, in continuation of the Paper recently presented on the Church of England in the Colonies, an amended Return showing from what sources, whether from general donations and subscriptions, or from individual munificence, the Trustees of the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund have been enabled to provide competent endowments for the several Bishoprics erected since 1841 in the Colonies, under Her Majesty's Letters Patent, and in what way such endowments had been invested?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the Return that had been made was compiled partly from official information in the office; but it was made more complete by information
770
which he had received from the private sources of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. He believed the hon. Gentleman was aware that the funds which the Society furnished for the salaries of the Bishops were derived from private munificence, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with having called public attention to that fact.
MR. HADFIELDasked, if the hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay before the House full information of all the grants that were made out of the Consolidated Fund to Bishops in Scotland or elsewhere, as well as in the Colonies?
MR. ADDERLEY: All the grants from the Consolidated Fund are contained in the Returns.
MR. HADFIELD: Are there no grants to Scotland?
MR. ADDERLEY: No.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

INDIA—FAMINE IN ORISSA.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to a very important question. In the course of last year 750,000 of Her Majesty's subjects in India perished from famine. Though Papers had been presented to the House, their information was very insufficient. A Commission had been appointed to inquire, and its Report had been presented to the India House in a perfect form; but it was not so when laid on the table of the House. There were important omissions which prevented their forming a complete judgment on the whole subject. The original Report contained an Appendix in which were collected various important letters, and a Supplementary Report drawn up by one of the Commissioners, showing the progress of the famine in various portions of the country. These had been withheld from Parliament. It was also important that hon. Members should know the opinions of the members of the Supreme Council of India. The Governor General was, of course, an important actor in the scene. But he did not act alone. He took the advice of his Council before

  771
  he sent in his opinion. The Minutes of that Council, however, were not on the table. A despatch, reviewing the whole of the subject, had been presented to Parliament. He wished to know whether any dissents were recorded from that despatch, and, if so, whether the Government would not lay the particulars on the table? On former occasions similar Returns had been granted. He had moved for a Return relating to the progress of the famine in Madras, but that Return, although promised, had not yet been laid on the table of the House. No less than 56,000 persons had perished by famine in Madras. From the short extracts on the subject which he had read it would appeal that there had been some degree of laxity on the part of the Government of that district, and that they were guilty of the fault of having taken the necessary measures too late. He hoped the Secretary of State would lay the Papers relating to Madras also upon the table of the House. One of the principal towns in Orissa was not more than 150 miles from Calcutta; yet, strange to say, there were no good roads leading from Calcutta to the chief towns in that district; and this, notwithstanding that the subject of roads had been agitated for ten or fifteen years. Orissa had a very important port at a place called False Point; yet there was no land communication between that place and Calcutta; and the port could not be approached during all the time that the monsoon was blowing. Orissa had a very heavy rain-fall, and was subject to terrible inundations. It had a fine river, but it had not yet been rendered navigable. There were very important irrigation works going on there, but unfortunately those works had been delayed, or probably the famine would not have happened. Orissa contained a territory of about 7,000 square miles, and tributary states contained 1,500 more. There had been a population of 3,000,000, but one-fourth of the whole population had perished in about twelve months. The territory was under the thirty years' settlement. That settlement was, unfortunately, approaching its termination at the period at which the dreadful calamity which he had to bring under the notice of the House happened. He said unfortunately because when the thirty years' lease of the Government was about to end the proprietors and farmers naturally looked to see whether they could not procure the next renewal
  772
  for thirty years at a cheaper rate. The consequence was that they so let out their land as to make it appear as of as little value as possible. The settlement made, too, thirty years ago, was extremely high, and the Government took to themselves a very large share of the gross profits of the land. Under that settlement it appeared they kept for themselves two-thirds of the gross profits, leaving only one-third to the Zemindar, who owned the soil, and he got what he could from the ryots before he let it out. The population, therefore, could not be otherwise than in a miserable condition, seeing that capital could not be accumulated while so large a portion of the produce of the soil was taken by the Government. There was, moreover, always a fight between the Zemindars and the Government as to how much the former could pay and the latter exact. Of late years the population of Orissa had been in a better position than formerly, because of the money which had been poured into India to carry, out the great railway undertakings and other public works which had been set on foot in that country. Orissa, too, was a great corn-producing district, the export of grain from it some three years ago having amounted to 30,000 tons. This had increased owing to a great deal of land being applied to the cultivation of cotton. There were reasons, besides the expiration of the thirty years' settlement to which he had referred, why the greater portion of the population were peculiarly unfit to bear the strain which had been put upon them. The salt manufacture had been taken away from them about three years ago. There had been great famines there in early times, but none since 1792 or 1793. The existing population, therefore, had grown up without a knowledge of the effects of famine, and were less prepared for the calamity than the inhabitants of the North Western Provinces and other parts of India. In 1864, though the exportations of grain were large, the crops were rather smaller than usual. The rainfall began to be deficient before the month of September, 1865. The irrigation companies would in a very short time have completed some of the most important works in which they were engaged. But all those works were of no use in enabling the starving people to receive food by the canals. It was to be regretted that the new settlement had not been completed before; but it appeared that the irrigation

  773
  companies waited for the Government, and the Government for them, to the great detriment of the province. In September, 1865, there was hardly one official connected with the Government well acquainted with Orissa. There were few Europeans in the province, and the irrigation officers and the missionaries were the first persons to give notice of the calamity which was impending. The deficiency at Orissa was greater on the recent occasion than had occurred in the case of any other famine in India. In the North Western Provinces in 1837 and 1838, and again in 1861, the deficiency of the crops were never more than four-tenths, but the scarcity in Orissa was of a far more extensive character. After the famine the district was exposed to another calamity. Scarcely had the population recovered from the drought when the floods came and struck them down in vast numbers. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal attributed to these floods, and not to the famine, the mortality which prevailed. But the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject stated that Sir Cecil Beadon was the only person who entertained that opinion. They said that there was great mortality before the floods came. The officials at Bengal attached a different meaning to the word famine to that which was generally given to it, and said that famine ought not to be said to exist as long as any means of life could be obtained for money. No doubt in all cases of famine the wealthy were able to buy some food. Shortly before the 10th of October alarming reports came from a district in Orissa to the effect that the rice trade was completely stopped, and that no food had been procurable for some time. The Commissioner, who was new to the province and without experience there, attributed the stoppage of the sale of rice to a wicked combination among the dealers in the country. But that was not the opinion of Mr. Barlow, a sagacious officer, who had been long in the country. On the 11th of November he suggested that an inquiry should be instituted. It was most unfortunate that his Reports at that early period had not been attended to. In November Mr. Barlow made the important recommendation that a shipload of grain should be imported. A petition from certain Zemindars was also received, stating that the rice crop did not amount to one-third of that of last year. But the Board of Revenue rejected
  774
  the petition, though while it was being considered at Calcutta the people in a particular district were, for want of rice, living on roots. He (Mr. Seymour) had himself passed through a province in Persia, which was at the time suffering from famine, and it was impossible to conceive anything more horrible than the sufferings endured under such a state of things. Petitions continued to pour in from the Zemindars, but the Commissioner opposed the making of inquiries for fear the Government should have to remit a portion of their revenue. On November 14th he again stated that there was no famine; that the scarcity arose from a combination among the dealers, and that there was nothing to warrant apprehension. He continued to refuse inquiry, and on the 20th of November he went away to the hills. The Commissioners who afterwards inquired into the matter said that the Commissioner's (Mr. Ravenshaw's) opinion was rash, and was founded upon defective information; that he was entirely new to the district, and that he was not in a position to form a competent opinion in opposition to those which he had received from a person who was well acquainted with the country. The Government of Bengal, on receiving Mr. Ravenshaw's letters, directed the Board of Revenue to report fully. On the 25th of November that Board reported, but upon wholly insufficient materials and without proper inquiry, and in that Report they declared their general policy. On December 11th, the Government of Bengal approved the circular of the Board, and stated that in an emergency of this kind the only dependence was on private liberality. At this very moment, a few days after the Board had issued this circular, a very different view was taken by the non-official people in Calcutta. A representation was addressed to the Governor General by the Messrs. Gisborne, eminent merchants there, stating the very serious apprehensions that were entertained of a famine, and that the only proper means of meeting so dreadful a calamity would be at once sending orders for the importation of rice to support the population. At that very time, also, the officers of the Irrigation Company in Orissa were sending home most alarming accounts that they apprehended famine, and that the only way of averting it was the importation of food. Therefore, there was a direct contradiction in the views of the higher

  775
  officials and the non-official people, the opinion of the latter being backed by those who had the most official knowledge of Orissa. The Commissioners stated that the Board was not justified in issuing so important a circular as that, and that this was the point where there should have been a most careful inquiry. The Board determined by their circular on the publication of the retail prices of grain, that there should be no interference with the grain dealers, to employ the labouring classes, to wean the people from relying on Government, and if famine should come that they should rely on private liberality. These principles were brought before the Supreme Government and the Government in England, and approved by both those authorities. In certain cases these principles were right, but in such a condition of affairs as prevailed at Orissa they were wrong. When scarcity occurred there were no prices; no sales were effected. But the Board continued to publish those prices which were a mere delusion, the figures being purely imaginary, and thereby tending very much to mislead the public. After this no further attempt was made to gain systematic information, which was a very unfortunate omission. Who were the responsible parties for this state of things? The duties of the Lieutenant Governor and the Board appear to have been extremely undefined. But the Board was not responsible for the good government of the Bengal territory; they were merely the subordinates of the Lieutenant Governor. He it was then who was responsible for faults made at this important period. The effect of the circular of the Board was very unfortunate on the public generally. In December a new state of things occurred. There was a new crop; but it was hurried so quickly into the market by the Zemindars, in order to enable them to pay their rents, that there was a sudden glut of food for sale, which was quickly bought up, at lower prices than usual by the public, who were thus led to believe that there were greater supplies for them than really turned out to be the case. This state of things lasted throughout December and January, and there was a lull in the alarm felt. The Lieutenant Governor applied for five lacs, or £50,000. At this time there were more applications for remissions, and a peremptory order came from the Revenue Board to the Collectors, which was final and conclusive against any remissions to the Zemindars. This marked an important
  776
  epoch in the famine. The policy of the Board was settled. There was to be no famine, and there were to be no remissions. Consequently, the Collectors gave in to their superior authority, and ceased to represent what they knew to be the fact. The Report of the Commission said on this that the Board was certainly not justified in passing these resolutions. At this time they tried to get up relief Committees from private liberality. But seeing the inaction of the Government private persons did not attend, and the attempt entirely failed. Unfortunately the Chief Commissioner was absent, and the publication of the prices current was fallacious. At this time there was much correspondence between the Board of Revenue and the collectors. The collectors represented the state of the province to the Board of Revenue, but nothing would induce them to take proper measures for the importation of grain. At last they did agree to send a few bags to one place where the famine was very severe; but such was the difficulty of access to the place that the steamer would not stop unless 3,000 bags were sent, and they would only send 1,200, consequently none were sent. Then Mr. Barlow, Mr. Nolan, and the engineers had arranged a scheme for public works. One portion of it was that the persons employed should be paid, not in money, but in food. That also fell through. The Commissioner refused to sanction it. All the efforts made by Mr. Barlow, Mr. Nolan, and other officials in Orissa to alleviate the sufferings of the people of Orissa were paralyzed by the Government of Bengal. There was also an unfortunate order from the Lieutenant Governor that money-wages only should be paid, and at the ordinary rate. The officers of public works were not to assist in giving wages in grain, and the purveying of grain was left entirely to the civil authorities, who had too much to do to attend to the matter. Again, the Board declared they did not think it necessary to import grain. Mr. Barlow at last made up his mind to go through the district, however much his conduct might be disapproved. He made his tour, and in January he sent a full report of the dreaful state of things which he had witnessed to the Commissioner, to be forwarded to the Government of Bengal. That Report was forwarded to the Government of Bengal; but it produced no effect. At the end of January Mr. Barlow again

  777
  writes, "The only way to benefit the people is to make it a condition to import rice." The executive engineer of The works also wrote, "Not only our works, but the people's lives depend upon an early supply of rice." In spite of these applications the Government of Bengal decided that it could not have anything to do with the importation of rice. Mr. Ravenshaw visited the district about this time, and when he found what the state of the country was he sent a most important telegram to Calcutta on the 31st of January, in which he asked that rice might be sent. The answer to that telegram was sent by the authorities of Calcutta on the 1st of February, when they said that the Government must decline to import rice, since, if the market were favourable to its importation, rice would be sure to find its way there. Mr. Ravenshaw, not possessing sufficient official boldness for the occasion, let the matter drop. This was the turning point of the whole proceedings, for this line of policy being pursued throughout the whole period the population was doomed, and the frightful calamity that subsequently took place was inevitable. Soon after this, in the middle of February, Sir Cecil Beadon, accompanied by several officials, visited the province, when it might have been hoped that his eyesight would have convinced him of the necessity that existed for some steps to be taken to prevent the population dying of hunger. Extraordinary to relate, however, nothing he saw appeared to have the slightest effect upon him, and he states that he neither saw nor heard anything about the famine in the course of his tour, which lasted a week. It was only fair to him to say that he disclaimed all knowledge of Mr. Ravenshaw's telegram; but he (Mr. Seymour) could only say, as he thought the House would say, he ought to have had knowledge of it. Shortly after he had completed this tour Sir Cecil Beadon made a speech, which gave rise to great dissatisfaction, in which he said that the people must rely upon themselves, and that if he interfered with the prices of grain he should be little better than a dacoit or thief. It was apparently nothing to him if rice went up to a rupee a seer, at which it would, of course, be utterly unprocurable—he would do nothing. The Irrigation Company, however, took a very different view of the matter, and fed the large number of labourers employed upon their works with
  778
  rice which they themselves imported in the beginning of January. From the end of February it became daily more difficult to give assistance to the district on account of the change in the monsoon. At that period the south-west wind commences, and the surf becomes very heavy in the Bay of Bengal, rendering it almost impossible for vessels to bring rice from the East. A most painful and extraordinary incident now took place. In November a large French vessel laden with rice was wrecked, as it would seem providentially, on the coast of the district, and the rice forming its cargo, which was found in good condition, was allowed to remain on the beach, guarded by the police, from the end of December to February while they were peddling about the price of it. When they could not come to a settlement, that same rice was actually packed up again and carried away from the starving district. At the time of the Irish famine the public would not allow the Government to remain inactive, but obliged them to send vast supplies into the country. The authorities in Bengal were so far afraid of contravening the principles of political economy laid down by the hon. Member for Westminster, as to Supply and Demand in his celebrated work, that they refused any assistance towards procuring supplies of food for a long period, although the people were dying in thousands of famine. If they had studied with greater care the principles of the hon. Gentleman they would have seen that what he laid down was this—that the Government ought not to interfere with the regular course of trade in such matters, but that if a case should arise in which no merchants would be found to come forward, and that there was no trading in the particular commodities required, then of course it became an exceptional case, and it was the bounden duty of the Government to interfere to save the lives of the people. [Mr. J. STUART MILL: Hear, hear!] The question arose, how much blame attached to the Viceroy for not exercising the power entrusted to him in order to save the people? An interview upon the subject took place between the Lieutenant Governor and the Viceroy, when the latter took the common sense view, and intimated pretty strongly that the time had arrived when the importation of rice should be allowed to take place. It was for the House to decide whether the Viceroy had properly

  779
  discharged his duty in the matter. In March a very important letter, not included among those which were laid on the table, was laid before the Government of Bengal. It was written on the 28th of December, 1865, by Sir Arthur Cotton, who, in the view of an impending famine, recommended that vast quantities of food should be imported, and that money should be given to the Irrigation Company to extend their works as much as possible, and to employ as many people as they could. Sir Arthur also recommended that rafts should be formed which could be towed by a steamer, and on which large quantities of food could be conveyed. If the recommendations in that letter had been attended to at once they might have been carried into effect before the monsoon set in; but, of course, after that they could be of no avail. After the visit of the Lieutenant Governor there was a dreary blank of three months, during which the Government and its agents seemed to have accepted the position of drifting helplessly into the great tempest of calamities which was about to burst on the country. The resident engineer, Mr. Cromlyn, and the superintendent of police both represented the state of things in the strongest language. At this very time, when the Government was so hard to move, the Commission was nearly trampled under foot by the starving multitudes clamorous for food. It was in May that the extreme misery was reached, and then Mr. Barlow, having failed to get his measures carried out, wrote a series of letters, which was not, though it ought to have been, included in the correspondence on the table. In them he gave a frightful picture of the state of affairs; but having been so much discouraged with regard to his former Reports, he only made a modest demand for a grant of £50 a month from the Government. Mr. Ravenshaw did not receive the letter till the end of May, having been away for two months. Mr. Cromlyn, the engineer of the railway at Balasore, who had written in March, and had received no answer till the end of May, sent a telegram, saying that 60,000 rupees were no good, what they wanted was rice, and that a period of want for seven months was staring them in the face, which would not have been the case had the irrigation works been finished. Notwithstanding these and other Reports regarding the famine, the Governor General left quietly for Balasore on the 15th
  780
  of April. The place was only 150 miles from Calcutta, there was a good metal road between the two places, and there was a telegraph, and yet he was not made acquainted with what was going on at Orissa. On the 10th of May the Governor General sent for a detailed Report from the Commissioner, who simply referred him to his previous one, and the Viceroy telegraphed to the Lieutenant Governor for information, having been alarmed at the non-official statements made in the papers. It was then discovered that there was a balance of £60,000, a portion of the North West famine fund, and that was applied to the relief of the distress. The Lieutenant Governor wrote to the Board of Revenue, authorizing it to send rice to the famine-struck districts, but they, adhering to their false principles of political economy, neglected to do so, and in the meantime rice was selling at ten seers a rupee. On the 22nd of May, although the famine was frightful and thousands were dying daily in the streets, the authorities adhered to the false notions of political economy and refused to send rice. The people were not in want of money but of rice. Then Mr. Chapman, finding that this North West fund existed, actually sent back to the subscribers a fund which he had raised for those affected by the famine, and this caused great satisfaction at Orissa. Mr. Ravenshaw at length telegraphed for rice; and at length the Bengal officials recognized the existence of the famine. On the 22nd of May, when thousands of people were dying in the streets in Orissa, the Board of Revenue refused to send to Arracan for rice, and the Lieutenant Governor neglected to exert the power he had to compel them to send for it without further delay. He insisted there should be no interference with trade, until at length he discovered that they were on the eve of one of the most terrible famines which had ever been known in that part of India. The attention of the public of Calcutta had been called to the state of affairs by the press of India and a young gentleman named Sykes, to whom great credit was due, and as the result of his exertions £1,800 was raised as a famine fund for the starving population of India. That, as the Commissioners stated, was a crumb of comfort. There was another letter which had not been laid before Parliament. It was addressed to Mr. Barlow by the Lieutenant Governor, complaining of his "random statements,"

  781
  a term quite unjustifiable, thus proving that the latter, like the Board of Revenue, could not bear to hear that the famine was so bad as had been represented by Mr. Barlow and others. In June a series of weekly Reports were commenced of all districts visited, and these showed that everywhere rice was wanted. Mr. Ravenshaw, however, continued to insist that rice was in the country, and that ignorance of free trade principles alone kept the people from selling it. But soon afterwards he telegraphed that if the troops were to live rice must be sent, and at length a cargo of rice was ordered from Burmah, and the authorities at Bengal began to realize that a famine was raging. Even then Mr. Ravenshaw harked back on his old words, and begged that not too much rice should be imported, and that too many stores should not be opened. The Board refused to import rice as late as Juno 9th, although that was the time when the famine was at its worst. As late as the 9th of June Mr. Ravenshaw thought things would come round. At that date the Lieutenant Governor asked for the whole balance of the North West famine fund, and ordered £20,000 of it to be spent in rice; but even then the Board of Revenue would not avail themselves of the permission. It became a question for the House whether the Lieutenant Governor would not have been right to overrule the Board of Revenue, and insist on the rice being imported. On the 16th the Lieutenant Governor, who had been at Dharjeeling, returned, and on the 19th a consultation took place. From that time the famine was recognized, and rice was imported. An estimate had since been made that every maund of rice imported had saved a human life. Great difficulty however was experienced in getting the rice from False Point to the famine districts. It took sixteen days to get it from False Point to Kuttack. Moreover, two French ships—the Charlemagne and the Pius IX.—loaded with rice, left the port when the suffering was at its height, and took their cargoes elsewhere, in consequence of the haggling that arose as to the price to be paid for the rice. Several ships, too, which had been reported as on their way with rice, were afterwards found to have been ordered to China, and were only to take rice to Orissa on their way home, and one ship—the Asia—was actually at China, when its coming was advised. The Commissioners said they could offer no
  782
  explanations of these extraordinary statements. The Tubal Cain lost her cargo at Balasore, and the people of Kuttack were reduced to frightful suffering in consequence. In fact, it was not till September that there was proper relief to the people in the interior. The culminating point of the calamity was in the second week in August. When every one was expecting that the famine was drawing to an end, there came on the unhappy people a fresh calamity. A flood came on and swept away the crops. Mr. Marshall stated that the rice imported was scarcely enough to feed one-twentieth of the population at full rations during six months; Lieutenant Murray stated that he could hardly persuade the Board of Revenue that there was any famine in the country at all; yet one fact ought to have arrested their attention, and that was the enormous increase of crime, which was universally attributed to the distress. In one town, not more than sixty miles from Calcutta, the distress was frightfully severe, and there was a large influx of the starving population into Calcutta. Hospitals were established for the poor, and nothing was wanted in that city to provide for their wants. No greater contrast could be afforded than what was done at Calcutta and what was done in other places. Towards the end of the year the famine decreased, and a Commission was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case, and they had made a Report. In that Report they censured numerous officials, particularly Sir Cecil Beadon, and in the latter censure he particularly concurred. There were Minutes from Sir Cecil Beadon with regard to the observations of the Commissioners. But, after carefully reading those Minutes, he could not see that Sir Cecil Beadon had answered satisfactorily the censures which had been passed upon him. He did not think that, when he found the Board of Revenue stood in the way of the measures which it was necessary to carry out, he had discharged his duty property in not exercising the authority with which he had been invested by the Government in this country. He stated that in his visits to Orissa he saw no indications of distress, and that it was the universal opinion that there were stores of grain in that district. There was, however, the evidence of the native dealers to show that they at an early period offered the keys of their stores to the authorities for the purpose of ascertaining whether

  783
  they contained grain, so that the Lieutenant Governor could scarcely plead ignorance on that point. It further appeared that some of the most important acts which were done by the Board of Revenue were not known to him until afterwards. The real question at issue was, whether the loss of life at Orissa was inevitable, and, if not, who it was to whom blame really attached in the matter? He was very unwilling to pass a censure on the subordinate officials, though some of them were, he thought, deserving of it. The greatest responsibility rested on Sir Cecil Beadon. His ignorance was a crime, and a cause of the most intense suffering, and ought to be visited with the most severe censure. He was invested with the chief authority, and was therefore more responsible than the Viceroy, whose duty at the same time it was to call for details. If he failed to do so, he too, was of course, not free from responsibility. He now came to the despatch of the Secretary of State (Sir Stafford Northcote) which had been laid on the table of the House the day before reviewing the whole proceedings. That despatch was inconclusive and unsatisfactory. It was too sparing in apportioning blame to the various officers concerned. It only partially reviewed what had taken place, and left open the question of punishment that should be awarded to those who were to blame for this tremendous public calamity. It was difficult to find from it that anybody was to blame. Had the calamity been a trivial one they could not have been more gently dealt with. He regretted, as the despatch was looked forward to with extreme interest in India, that it was not of a more decided character. There was in that country a vast bureaucracy which was not under the eye of public opinion, and therefore despatches from home were regarded there as of the utmost importance, either when praising those who deserved well, or censuring those who laid themselves open to blame. It was only by despatches from the Government that the discipline of the Civil Service could be maintained and justice done to the Natives. Here was a calamity under which 750,000 of Her Majesty's subjects had perished. Similar calamities had occurred in other parts of India, but they were met in a different manner. The blame in this case was admitted, but it was hardly attributed to anybody, though a case which called for condign punishment. The despatch
  784
  said in almost so many words that the matter was to be passed over in the hope that it would not occur again. That was not fair towards the Natives of India. They depended upon our good government, and it was our duty to see that their lives should be cared for as much as those of Her Majesty's subjects in this country. He was unwilling to call for the expression of any specific blame against any particular individual, because he thought that it was the duty of the Government to apportion the blame. Nevertheless, if no further action were taken by the Government in the matter, he trusted that some influential Member of the House would again call attention to the subject. He regretted that the House was not in possession of papers with respect to Madras, because, while the suffering there was great, the conduct of the officials was very meritorious, and if similar conduct had been pursued in Bengal the loss of life would not have been so great. But though no punishment was awarded to Sir Cecil Beadon and others, they must suffer in their own minds on account of the dreadful calamity they had been the cause of producing, while men like Mr. Barlow and Mr. Forbes would receive in their own consciousness the reward of their own good actions.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he was glad that the subject had been brought forward. He had been most anxious to see if the officials in this country had done their duty, whilst the officials in India had neglected theirs. When he read the Papers laid on the table of the House by the Secretary of State for India, he was greatly disappointed. If during the summer and autumn any grave disapprobation was expressed of the conduct of the officials in India, gentlemen in this country had contrived to conceal that disapprobation, and had not given any reprobation of the conduct of the authorities in India to the British public. The papers contained details of a great and most appalling calamity, yet not one functionary in India was equal to the occasion, or had the courage to rise above the region of routine or red-tapism. On the first day of the Session, the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne), informed the House that the most meagre account of these events had been sent to his Department, and yet 700,000 human beings had perished. This proved that the apathy and indifference of the authorities

  785
  in India were extreme. The situation of Orissa was of itself a reason why the conduct of the officials was doubly culpable. It was a province contiguous to Calcutta, and the most distant part of it could be reached in a day and night by palanquin. He had himself seen two famines in India—the last of which occurred in 1852–3. At that time Sir Henry Pottinger proved himself equal to the emergency, and by the arrangements which he made, and the expenditure of between £150,000 to £200,000, the famine was stayed. But what was the case at Orissa? The famine commenced with the failure of the crops in 1865, and though that fact was thoroughly known to the officials and to the Supreme Government, the only alacrity shown was by the Board of Revenue, and that alacrity was of a mischievous kind, for they amused themselves by dispatching circular orders, stating, among other things, that the starving people must depend on private liberality, and that at the time when starvation and death were rife. More heartless and disgraceful letters were never penned by any Board in the world. The officials in the province of Orissa did their duty. They were alive to the dangers about to overtake them, and made suggestions which were set aside by the superior authorities. They, therefore, fell back into silence, and at last into sullen despair. Nothing was done in Orissa for several months. Letters occasionally appeared in the newspapers which he read with the belief that they were not true. It now appeared that they did not represent the real horrors that were passing in the district. In May, the Commissioner proposed that the Government should give £50 a month to feed 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of people. In June, the Lieutenant Governor (Sir Cecil Beadon), proposed to send—£100,000? Not at all, but £20,000 from a private fund. And all this time the officials were reporting that the yells of the dying and starving multitudes were ringing around them. During that time 10,000 persons were dying daily—they were dying in heaps. There had not been such a terrible calamity as this at Orissa since the country had been governed by Christian authorities. Such a calamity had not occurred for the last 1800 years. 700,000 persons had died through neglect, and he called that a great crime, which demanded condign punishment. Sir Cecil Beadon, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, was of course
  786
  immediately answerable for the government of that province, but he was himself responsible to the Governor General of India, by whom he had been appointed, and by whom he might be removed from his office. Sir John Lawrence, the Governor General, seemed throughout these proceedings to have condoned any laches on the part of Sir Cecil Beadon. During the whole period of that terrible calamity he resided himself at Simla; and, in the retirement of the mountains, appeared to have known as little of what was passing around his capital as if he had been living in California or Greenland. He appeared to have placed as much confidence in his Lieutenant Governor as the Lieutenant Governor had in his own good intentions. Sir John Lawrence never seemed to have moved from his apathetic indifference till he received some very pressing orders from. England. Towards the end of 1866, he appointed a Commission to report. They gave a detailed narrative of what had occurred in Orissa—a narrative which had not been sent before. That Commission consisted principally of officials, and the duty imposed on them was to report on their superiors, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and the Governor General. It was not to be supposed that they would deal with these gentlemen except in a very tender way. Accordingly, they found everything was slurred over in the most easy manner. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal was, of course, mildly censured; but then he is described as an extremely estimable gentleman—a gentleman whose greatest fault was an incapacity to believe in disaster. With this mild censure, it was hoped the whole affair would be consigned to oblivion, as a circumstance over which the Government had little or no control. Now, that was not the opinion he entertained. He thought Sir John Lawrence was mainly responsible for this disaster. It was said in excuse of the Governor General, that he was kept in the dark by his Lieutenant Governor; but Sir John Lawrence had himself stated in 1866 that his mind had been greatly troubled by the state of things in Kuttack. With reference to the finances of India, the Supreme Government has the entire control, and therefore the Governor General must have known how much money was being spent in that province in relieving the starving population. General Durand stated that Sir Cecil Beadon had the entire revenue of India

  787
  at his control, but not a single shilling could be spent in a district except by order of the Governor General in Council. All the evidence went to show that the authorities in India laboured for a considerable time under the impression that the public money ought not to be applied in mitigation of the disaster. But while the Government money was not to be spent in saving the people from death, immense advantage was to be taken of other people's money. He did not argue this from inference; he wished to state something from fact. Certain facts had been stated in the public newspapers which, if incorrect, ought to be contradicted. In autumn last year the newspapers in this country informed us that a telegram dated Simla had reached the Office of the India Department from Sir John Lawrence, stating that affairs in Orissa were very distressing, and desiring, to enable him to relieve the distress, that an independent subscription should be got up in the city of London through the instrumentality of the Lord Mayor. The public papers gave the substance of the reply of the noble Lord then at the head of the India Office (Viscount Cranborne)—to the effect that he would not countenance the application for alms to the City of London; that Sir John Lawrence was at the head of the Government which was in possession of £47,000,000 a year of revenue, and that the resources of the country ought to be devoted to the saving of life and the relief of destitution. That was a very proper and praiseworthy reply. The misfortune was it came too late. That reply was, he believed, sent by telegram to Simla, and the authorities in Bengal published its import in the Indian newspapers, although it was not to be found in the voluminous Papers laid on the table of the House of Commons. He had himself read in The Friend of India of October 20, the purport of Lord Cranborne's telegram. It was accompanied by some comments, which from their tone appeared to have been written by some high functionary in India. After giving the purport of the despatch, The Friend of India wrote as follows:—
  "With the receipt of Lord Cranborne's prompt and large-minded telegram to the Viceroy, directing the free advance of the public funds to meet the emergency, all difficulty on this score has been removed."
  Now, what did that imply? It implied that at that time the authorities in India up to the 20th of October, 1866, had not
  788
  thought it expedient or proper to take the public funds of India to meet the great emergency that had arisen. The commentator went on thus—
  "And if relief to the suffering people of Orissa be not immediately given the fault and censure will rest upon ourselves."
  The following comment was well worthy of remark—
  "Deplorable as the statement is, death has done much to simplify the duties that will hereafter devolve upon us."
  A more disgraceful observation than that he had never seen in any newspaper. What was the plain English of all this? That up to the 20th of October, the rulers of India never thought it worth while to devote the resources at their command for the relief of suffering humanity. They had not thought it their duty. They did not think themselves censurable for neglect; but they thanked Heaven that now death had much simplified their task, they would not have much to expend. He had only to repeat that, in his judgment, in the main the Governor General of India was responsible for this great calamity, and Sir Cecil Beadon was also responsible. The House would not be doing its duty if it did not take some serious notice of this disaster. He thought that those who by their apathy and indifference had caused it, should meet with some punishment and censure. He begged to second the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poole.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of any Papers which are necessary to complete the Report and Appendices of the Famine Commission, and of any Minutes by Members of the Supreme Council of India relating to the Famine, or Dissents or Minutes by Members of the Indian Council in London on the Despatch of the Secretary of State for India (Public, No. 99),"—(Mr. Henry Seymour,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he was sure the House would not listen to him with less attention if he began by stating frankly that he should probably not have taken any part in the discussion had he not happened to be a near relation of one of those

  789
  gentlemen who had taken an active part in these transactions—he meant Sir Cecil Beadon. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, Sir Cecil Beadon, was one of a class who well deserved the sympathy of the House—a class of public servants who left this country for India at an early age, and, if they rose—as often they did—to eminence, owed it only to their own industry, ability, and other high qualifications. In defending Sir Cecil Beadon it would become his painful duty to lay a portion of the blame, which had been thrown upon him, upon others, for he should have to contend that a large share of the responsibility for what had taken place rested upon Sir John Lawrence himself. In doing this, however, he trusted he should never forget the debt of gratitude which this country owed Sir John Lawrence for his conduct during the Indian mutiny; for it was in a great measure owing to the exertions of that distinguished individual that our Indian Empire had been preserved to British rule. But neither must it be forgotten that at the time when the outcries against the Sepoys were loudest and the demands for vengeance, both at home and in India, were strongest, no one opposed himself more strongly to sanguinary acts of retaliation than Sir Cecil Beadon. He thought there were reasons why these public men should be judged frankly and fairly, and he would ask the House to recollect the circumstances in which they were placed at the time. The House had not yet been told that the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal was the ruler of 40,000,000 of people, and of a territory many times larger than the British Isles, the different parts of which were not united by roads of any description which would have enabled a calamity of this kind to have been averted by immediate action. On the contrary, the different portions of the country were separated by great swamps and forests and by inaccessible mountains. How was the ruler of a country like that to act in the case of such an emergency as had happened in 1866? He was not going to deny the possibility of anything being done in such an event; he merely wished to show what great difficulties were inherent in the nature of the case, and he hoped by so doing at any rate to diminish the amount of responsibility which the last two speakers had endeavoured to throw upon this gentleman. A public officer in the position of Sir Cecil Beadon must necessarily
  790
  have to rely greatly upon his subordinate officers for information upon all subjects connected with the country over which he ruled, and in the present case he was compelled to be guided by the reports of the resident Commissioners and Collectors of the district — men who had been selected to fill those offices from their peculiar aptitude for the position. It was always a matter of enormous difficulty to deal with national famines; thus in the case of the famine in Ireland, notwithstanding that the Government had the whole resources of this wealthy country at its command, and notwithstanding that the sister island was accessible from all points, 200,000 persons perished from starvation or died in consequence of disease resulting from the famine; and that the loss was not far greater was due, not to the action of the Government, but to the extraordinary exertions of private benevolence. Under no circumstances, therefore, could Orissa have escaped without considerable loss. Another point in this case which must not be lost sight of was that Orissa was not the only portion of the territory under the command of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in which the famine was raging. It seemed that large quantities of rice had been exported from these parts of India to Australia, the Mauritius, and other distant places, and the result was that in 1865 there was a great scarcity of grain in various districts of Bengal. The Famine Commissioners in their Report said—
  "If this had happened in 1865–66, could the void have been supplied? We fear not. Probably, if the full extent of the actual calamity of 1866 had been anticipated by the Government in the end of 1865, the sufficient supply of rice to the population of Orissa would have fully taxed all the resources of Government. If nothing had been available from Bengal, we very much doubt whether a sufficient supply could have been obtained from Burmah and the limited surplus-producing districts of the Madras coast; without absolutely stopping exportation to other countries it might have been impossible, and in that case Mauritius, Ceylon, and other places would have starved. If these importations by sea would scarcely have sufficed for Orissa, much less would they have sufficed for all the population of Bengal and Behar. We may say broadly that rice could not have been found to supply a great deficiency in those provinces. Behar would certainly have been included in such a calamity, as we know that it was included in the great failure of 1769–70. In fact, it may be said to have its supply of rain from Bengal, and a failure in Bengal involves a failure in Behar. Altogether, gloomy as the view may seem, we must express our belief that if the same calamity which happened

  791
  in the last century to Bengal, and last year to Orissa, had happened last year to Bengal also, the failure to supply by importation which resulted in Orissa from want of information and other causes would have occurred in Bengal from the want of any adequate source of supply, and that rich Bengal, with abundance of money, would have perished for want of food."
  It would have been, of course, improper for the Government to have interfered with the natural and ordinary means of supply until a great emergency arose, and until it became clear that nothing but the action of the Government could save the people. It must be recollected that hitherto in all the great famines that had devastated India the Government had never had recourse to the measures which it was alleged should have been taken in the present instance. Up to the end of the year 1864 Orissa had been an exporting country, and Mr. Ravenshaw, who was the Chief Commissioner of Orissa, said that the crops on the two lands were of average quality, and that there was plenty of grain in the hands of the dealers, which would sooner or later find its way into the market. The Board of Revenue also made inquiries, and the result of the information they obtained led them to infer that the time had not arrived for the Government to take any extraordinary action in the matter. Mr. Ravenshaw afterwards confessed that he had fallen into an error; but at the same time pointed out that it was an error which had likewise been fallen into by the Government, by all official persons, by the press, and by the public. It was asserted, however, that Mr. Barlow was an eminent exception to the general rule, and that the imminence of a famine had been foreseen by him. Now, it was undoubtedly true that Mr. Barlow did apply for a supply of rice for certain small districts in Poree, but he only did so upon condition that the rice should cost less than it could be purchased for in the Poree district itself. Such, generally speaking, was the purport of Mr. Barlow's earlier applications. But in February, 1866, the Lieutenant Governor himself went to Poree, and, of course, it was utterly impossible that he should not be guided to a great extent by the opinions and statements of the responsible officers in the district. Several officials then stated that, though there was a difficulty in procuring rice, an actual famine was not to be apprehended; and at a meeting held on the 25th of February, 1866, Mr. Barlow, who was now represented as knowing the real state of affairs,
  792
  said he did not think matters were so bad that it would be necessary to write to the English newspapers, although it might be advisable to make an appeal to the Native press. That statement was a most important one, because it was now pretended that the Lieutenant Governor ought to have personally seen all the signs of an impending famine. He would undertake to say that any hon. Member who carefully studied the Papers which had been laid upon the table must come to the conclusion that there were no undoubted signs of famine at that period, although it could not be denied that there were indications of scarcity. It was maintained that Mr. Barlow was afraid to inform the Lieutenant Governor of the necessity of importing rice; but such an imputation was most unjust both to Mr. Barlow and to Sir Cecil Beadon, than whom no officer could be more accessible. Indeed, on the 30th of March, 1866, Mr. Barlow wrote to say that Sir Cecil Beadon's Government was so extremely ready to act on his suggestions and so liberal in their policy that he was compelled to be cautious in what he asked for lest he should get a great deal more than he required. In point of fact, the Lieutenant Governor was seen by many of the Natives and all the leading men among the population, and not one of them assigned any reason for supposing that a famine was imminent. Even as late as the 11th of June, 1866, Mr. Ravenshaw wrote to say that though there was little or no rice in the country up to the beginning of that month, yet he had received ample assurances that there would be enough to last till the next harvest, and he himself concurred in that belief. It was clear, therefore, that at that date Mr. Ravenshaw was only beginning to doubt whether there was a sufficient stock of rice in the country. It was plain that a hideous famine had occurred, and that great loss of life had resulted from it. This all must deplore, but who could parcel out the blame? He contended that when men like Sir John Lawrence hesitated, when members of the Council commented on the order sent by Sir Cecil Beadon for food as premature, when every person in authority in the district was of opinion that extraordinary measures were not necessary, it was impossible to fix the fault on any particular person. Sir Cecil Beadon naturally depended on information furnished him by others; he was not the governor of a small province, but of

  793
  40,000,000 of people, scattered over a vast territory, and the information furnished him was such as would have led any other man in his position to the conclusion that the threatened calamity was not nearly as great as it turned out to be. He was therefore of opinion that the Secretary for India had acted not only justly but wisely in the language used in his despatch. It was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that no person was to blame; the knowledge which he had obtained showed that all the officers had acted in accordance with their light; he knew them to be earnest in the discharge of their duty; they had given proof to the country that they were as remarkable for humanity as for energy, and therefore the fair presumption was that, as in many others of the calamities which had visited this and other countries, as much was due to the system as to the men, and that hon. Members should be slow in passing condemnation upon a man who had rendered the most distinguished services, and who was returning to this country after an absence of thirty-three years, shattered in health from the effects of the climate and his arduous labours.
  LORD WILLIAM HAYsaid, that it was not the system which was wrong, but the man who was at the head of the Government of Bengal. Taking into consideration the principles which guided the Lieutenant Governor, and the inaction which characterized his conduct, it was not to be wondered at that the evils which occurred last year had taken place. The question now asked in the House was who was to blame for the calamities of 1865, and the Secretary of State for India, anticipating that such a question would be asked, instituted a Commission to investigate the matter. That Commission was appointed by the Governor General of India, who placed at its head a man who combined in himself qualifications not often found in the same individual in the Civil Service of India, a knowledge of law only to be obtained by great study, and an acquaintance with the habits and means, and, above all, with the feeling and sentiments of the people of India, which was not surpassed, and hardly equalled, by any member of the Civil Service in India. He drew attention to that circumstance because the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) said that it was impossible for a Commission so constituted
  794
  fairly to investigate the matter. He would remind the hon. Member that the officer who presided over the Commission was a Member of the Supreme Court at Calcutta, and was as fit to try a case of this sort as the Lord Chief Justice of England was to try a question connected with the rights of the Crown. The Report of the Commission did "nothing extenuate, naught set down in malice." It was composed of three Volumes, the first of which was the Report proper, and the Evidence taken by the Commissioners; the second, certain distinct narratives, which were placed in an Appendix; the third contained a mass of documentary evidence of the most interesting kind, commencing in the month of October, 1865, and giving a full and detailed history from that period down to the month of January, 1867. The Report arrived in this country at the end of May. What was done? The Secretary for India laid on the table of the House a blue book supposed to contain all the Papers necessary to elucidate this question. But, curious to say, the India Office took the trouble of striking out all the references to the Appendices. On the 22nd of July the House was presented with another blue book containing the Evidence taken by the Commissioners, and also the map of the district. It also contained the diaries of the police, of the revenue officers, of Mr. Barlow, and many other officials and demi-officials. There was in it besides a most important document — namely, the letter written by Messrs. Gisborne and Co., dated the 3rd of November, 1865, addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. That letter had the following paragraph:—
  "In reference to the famine, which is now an acknowledged fact, and in extent and severity is daily increasing, we have a proposal for obtaining a supply of rice, which we desire to submit to you."
  The letter concluded in these words—
  "Should our proposal meet with his honour's approval, it is needless to remark that, considering the lives dependent upon the issue, we cannot act with too much promptitude."
  Among the other Papers in the blue book was the diary of the sub-inspector of police which showed the real state of things. On the 26th of October, 1865, he said the absorbing topic was the impending famine and the scarcity which would arise. On a subsequent day he spoke of the state of things getting darker and darker, and of the actual distress and

  795
  starvation which prevailed. In November he said the poorer classes were compelled to resort to jungle root for food, and in February, 1866—when Sir Cecil Beadon saw no signs of famine — he said that several persons, rather than die of starvation, committed suicide, and that great numbers were then dying from want of food. One circumstance he mentioned was this—that some poor villagers clubbed together to buy a jungle tree for what was equivalent to 5s. or 6s. of English money, and had it cut up and ground in hand-mills, and then made into cakes for eating. Another incident related in the papers was one witnessed by Dr. Jackson, of a woman whose bowels were actually being eaten by dogs while she was alive, but unable from extreme weakness to defend herself. They were told of a lunatic eating the dead body of a fellow-creature, and of another man who was not a lunatic doing the same thing, and also of the stench from dead bodies unburied at one station being so great that it extended for four miles. In one instance a Commissioner had his pockets rifled by a crowd of half-starved women and children. These things occurred at a time when the Lieutenant Governor saw no signs of famine. There were besides, among the documents he referred to, a copy of a speech delivered by the Lieutenant Governor to the people of Kuttack, which, considering it was delivered to a starving people, was outrageous, and a memorandum by the Secretary of the Revenue Board written in 1867, in which, the conduct of that Board was defended in most astonishing language. What made these things the more horrible was that when relief came tardily and insufficiently, there was one inflexible rule that it should not be given on Sunday. When they acted in that way, was it surprising that Christianity had made very slight progress in India? It was said that, in this country, when any disaster or blunder occurred, there was great difficulty in finding out who was responsible, but that was not so in India. There the Government was a pure despotism acting upon enlightened principles, and the highest functionaries, the Governor General himself, were not in a position to disregard applications for aid or representations coming to them from subordinate officials. He wanted to know why the Secretary for India had not given a larger amount of information than appeared in the blue book? It could not be on the ground
  796
  of expense, because he had not grudged expense in other matters. If the authorities of the India Office had wished to make the subject as unintelligible and unpalatable as they possibly could, they could not have adopted better means for that purpose than by producing the Papers in their present shape. He supported the Motion because he wished all the Papers to be laid before the House. The despatch of the Secretary for India was a most unsatisfactory document, as it did not answer the question, Who was to blame? It seemed as if the Board of Revenue had been made the scapegoat to take away the sins of the Lieutenant Governor, who had unlimited power in times of emergency. Sir Cecil Beadon took a strange view of his duty, and the Secretary for India seemed to support that view when he said—
  "It is not to be wondered at in the early part of the famine that Sir Cecil Beadon should have placed implicit reliance on the watchfulness and sagacity of the Board of Revenue."
  When he (Lord William Hay) first read that paragraph, he thought that the word "not" was written by mistake. That Board was nothing more than a department, and there were other departments and other sources from which the Lieutenant Governor could have obtained information. Sir Cecil Beadon's chief defence was, that he had not sufficient information; but ample information was possessed by Messrs. Gisborne, and captains of ships, and other persons. Sir Cecil Beadon was charged with an "incapacity for belief." This charge was supported by the statement that he had himself seen the people with roots in their hands. In reference to this fact, Sir Cecil had stated that when he saw the people with the roots one of them said something which he could not understand—and this ignorance of the language was an important point—and he was under the impression that the roots were part of the ordinary food of the people at that time of year. Very different had been the course pursued on the occasion of the famine of 1860. There was a total failure of rain in the North West Provinces in the month of June; and Lieutenant Governor Edmonstone issued elaborate instructions to all his subordinates as to what they should do. To revert to the case of the Irish famine in 1845, on the first failure of the potato crop, Sir Robert Peel held a Cabinet Council, and decided that £100,000

  797
  should at once be sent to America to purchase grain for the use of the people. There was one line in his Minute which was well worth consideration—it was this, "inaction, postponement of the thing is at any rate impossible." Sir Charles Trevelyan, in his book, which had been quoted in evidence, said it was folly to interfere; but he proved the very contrary. If that was true with regard to Ireland, so near to England, how much more so was it in the case of India and Orissa, which was isolated from the rest of the world in so remarkable a degree? What was the real secret of all this failure? The Lieutenant Governor (Sir Cecil Beadon) had been in ill-health about two years. His medical advisers said they would not be responsible for his life if he remained another year in India. He was unfit for the position both mentally and physically, and incapable of meeting the great emergency. This was very hard upon his subordinates. With regard to the censure passed on the Governor General, it was somewhat obscure, and he should be glad to know from the Secretary of State what it exactly meant. On the 30th of April last, Sir Cecil Beadon himself said—
  "I fully believed in the disaster that was likely to be caused by the failure of the crops of 1865, and I did all that a Government could do to avert it."
  Sir Cecil then insinuated that long before Sir John Lawrence wished to import food, he (Sir Cecil Beadon) had recommended the importation of corn into Orissa; but in saying this he forgot that, in a former note, he had said—
  "I may perhaps be permitted to say that his Excellency the Viceroy consulted me personally as to the proposal to import rice into Bengal and Orissa; but at the time the proposal was made, and afterwards when I returned from Cuttack, in February, his Excellency was strongly inclined to act on that proposal, but he yielded to my opinion and that of others that it was not expedient or necessary."
  An officer who defended himself in such a manner as this could hardly expect much mercy from those who viewed his conduct as he (Lord William Hay) did. With reference to the conduct of the Governor General, it was fully apparent that he had felt there was something wrong in Orissa, and was not satisfied until the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal had visited the spot. The Lieutenant Governor did visit the spot, and he reported that there was no reason for apprehending a famine. When the Governor General, before starting
  798
  for Simla, called his Council together, and told them he was afraid there was something wrong in Orissa, he was told that Sir Cecil Beadon had been in the country thirty years, that he knew it thoroughly, and that he was a person in whom the greatest confidence ought to be reposed. Under such circumstance, a Governor General might almost be said to be in a subordinate position, as he had no alternative but that of reliance on the officers who had charge of the various districts. With regard to Mr. Barlow, he appeared to have been very hardly used in this matter. The district of Orissa measured 250 miles by 200, and of this district Mr. Barlow was Collector. It was unfair to accuse him of having ceased to give information of what was going on, when he was prevented by the Government from going to the district to make inquiries. The moment he heard of relief coming in the shape of public works he sat down and wrote a most admirable letter, showing that the people must be paid in grain. That was forwarded to Sir Cecil Beadon, and what was his reply—"You must on no account give rice." Not satisfied with this want of success, he again wrote to the department, and again met with a still more decided refusal. This sort of misunderstanding went on from February until June, displaying an amount of incompetency on the part of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal which was greatly to be deplored. The Board of Revenue had merely followed the ordinary course of business, they having transmitted to the Lieutenant Governor copies of all the proceedings in which they took part. He (Lord William Hay) could not approve of the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. On the contrary, he thought that it was calculated to mislead people at home, and to do a great deal of mischief in India. There was nothing which those in India prized or feared so much as the praise or censure of this country as expressed by the House of Commons. But praise or censure, to be of any effect, must be discriminating and deserved. In this case the blame was so evenly distributed, was veneered over so many persons that no one felt disgraced by it. It was felt to be rather an honour than a disgrace to sin with Sir John Lawrence. He (the noble Lord) did not so much find fault with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) as with the system that required a despatch, on

  799
  which a Secretary of State might have bestowed great care and thought, to be submitted to the Council. Some members of that Council might think that Sir John Lawrence was chiefly responsible, and others that the responsibility belonged to the Lieutenant Governor, and thus the despatch had to be modified till it became the meaningless and colourless thing it was. There might be on his Council men who were still smarting under rebukes which they had received from the very man whose conduct was under consideration. No doubt there might be Indian Secretaries of intelligence, force of character, and knowledge of India so great as to enable them to insist on their original despatch; but it was far more likely that the result of submitting it to the Council would be to make it, as this was, a meaningless, colourless, and wholly inadequate document failing to represent any opinion whatever. He could only hope that the result of debate would be to excite in this country sympathy for the sufferers of Orissa, for there were many widows and orphans that were wholly dependent upon the charity of their follow-subjects. If, however, their misfortunes should have the effect of turning the attention of the House to the system of Indian government, they would have the consolation of thinking that they would, at least, not have suffered in vain.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that it was a matter of the deepest regret to him as a Member of the Government that in this painful matter he could not make a perfect defence on behalf of those who had held the highest positions in the public service for many years, and who, at the close of an official life of the highest honour, found themselves impugned by so heavy a charge as that which had been brought against them in the House of Commons that night. It was a most unfortunate circumstance that the despatch in question necessarily contained so much of censure and so little of excuse. Having held a position in the India Office during the past year he desired to explain that the Papers relating to the case had not been laid before the House earlier than they were because they had not arrived from India. The Report, with the Papers already in the hands of the Indian Department, were immediately on their arrival, several months after they were expected, placed in the hands of a printer in order that they might be laid on the
  800
  table of the House at once. Consequently it was impossible that the press should be stayed so that the references to the Appendix might be placed in the body of the Report. So far, indeed, from there being any concealment, the truth was that it was owing to the great care and anxiety of the Secretary of State that the Papers were presented to Parliament as soon as they were. No doubt with some considerable delay more voluminous Papers might have been presented, but the Government had been content to lay before the House a succinct narrative of the painful events that had occurred as soon as possible. Those Papers had been placed on the table in their present form at the express request of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. H. Seymour). He would not follow that hon. Gentleman into all the details to which he had referred, because as most hon. Members had read many of the papers, it would be unnecessary for him to relate afresh the terrible circumstances of the famine. Everybody must entertain a feeling of sorrow almost amounting to disgust that under the highly vaunted British Government such terrible events should have occurred, and that so little should have been done at the moment and on the spot to prevent them. As had been most truly stated in the despatch of his right hon. Friend the blame must be spread over a wide surface, and there were causes of palliation. They were judging of the conduct of public servants, who had to administer the government of a country not immediately under their own eyes, and where, in times of distress, the first signs of trouble did not reach the authorities immediately after the necessity for action had arisen. Considerations of this kind had not been overlooked by the Secretary of State when the despatch was written; and he thought the House would not be of opinion that the Secretary of State had done wrong in making allowances, while judging of the conduct of those who in former years had deserved well of their country and who had proved their capacity during a long period of service. With respect to Sir Cecil Beadon, he could not understand the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Dumbarton and the noble Lord to the effect that the censure in the despatch of his right hon. Friend was light, and that the expressions used in it were no punishment. To a man of the known character of Sir Cecil Beadon, who had received marks of high honour for his services

  801
  to his country, the expressions made use of in the despatch of his right hon. Friend, written with deep regret, brought with them the severest punishment which could fall upon him. When dealing with one like the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal it was not necessary to use violent language. The despatch it was true contained no expressions of indignation, but the censure it conveyed would be felt from one end of India to the other, as being, perhaps, not undeserved, but at all events, not wanting in weight. Surely it was sufficient censure for Sir Cecil Beadon to be told that he could not see the truth with his own eyes; and that as Lieutenant Governor of Bengal he had failed to sound and guage the evidence brought before him. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also pointed out in his despatch how grievous was the fault of those who did not bring under the notice of the Lieutenant Governor the alarming news which had reached them. A more terrible omission could not be imagined than the withholding MR. Ravenshaw's telegram from the Lieutenant Governor. He was therefore unable to agree that the whole blame should rest on the Lieutenant Governor, and no blame on the subordinate officers. Hon. Members who had spoken in this debate had not been sparing in their censure, but they had distributed it in somewhat different directions. He could not agree that blame rested on the Governor General of India. With respect to the charges sought to be fixed on that high official, he must express his astonishment at the language of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Smollett), who stated that the Governor General had turned his back upon the perishing thousands of Orissa, and that he had only been roused from his "apathetic indifference" to the fate of these people by the reception of strong remonstrances from the Home Government. He wondered that the hon. Member with the Papers before him could have suffered himself to make such a statement to the House. The Papers showed that the Governor General called upon the Lieutenant Governor for an explanation of the rumours he had heard, and the Lieutenant Governor informed him that there was no famine in Bengal. From the time that the Lieutenant Governor came back from Orissa, the Governor General was in constant communication with him with respect to the agricultural prospects of the district. In March he called
  802
  for a special Report. On the 10th of May he called for an explanation of the alarming rumours then prevailing, and in the course of daily communications invariably informed the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal that every measure proposed for relief would be supported and that any money he might require for the purpose of meeting the evil should be placed at his disposal. It was so far from being true that Sir John Lawrence had only been awakened to a sense of his responsibility by the despatch of the noble Lord the late Secretary for India (Viscount Cranborne) that the letter which he wrote on the 16th of June, and which showed his just appreciation, of the calamity, crossed that despatch on its way to India. His right hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Bruce) in defending his relative Sir Cecil Beadon had failed to establish his point that the Governor General was to blame for his ignorance of the state of affairs at Orissa; because if, as his right hon. Friend contended, Sir Cecil Beadon was to be excused for his own ignorance, it would be unfair to bring a charge under that head against the Governor General, who must have had to rely on the public officers in Bengal for his information. Some hon. Members had expressed their belief that the despatch of the Secretary of State in reference to those transactions was not sufficiently vigorous and decisive; but it was perhaps the severest despatch which had been written during this century upon the conduct of Her Majesty's representatives in India. Indeed, the whole facts of the case showed most clearly that the charge against Sir John Lawrence was absolutely without foundation. It was not by seeking for a victim that justice would be done in this matter. That was not the true lesson to be derived from the terrible events which had occurred in Orissa. It was not by seeking out this or that man, whom they must all admit had endeavoured to do his duty, though he may have failed in so doing, and holding him up to public reprobation as one who had sullied his hitherto stainless life by bringing ruin upon thousands, that they might hope to prevent the recurrence of so deplorable a disaster as that which happened in Orissa. These events should rather incite them to see by what means they could strengthen the machinery of the government of the province, in the hope that, by giving larger powers to the representatives of Her Majesty, the energies of the country

  803
  might be stimulated to bar the recurrence of any similar disaster.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he hoped the Government would not refuse the papers for which the hon. Member for Poole had moved; at the same time he believed they had already before them all the information necessary to enable them to form a judgment upon the subject. In considering this question they ought not to forget the past services, the merits, and the character of the men on whom they had then to sit in judgment, and if that judgment should happen to be an unfavourable one, it ought not, at all events, to be accompanied by any presumptuous assumption that if they had themselves been similarly tried they would not have been found equally wanting. It was the duty of the House to express a judgment upon the events which they were now discussing, and upon the manner in which they had been dealt with by the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India. There could be no doubt about the great and appalling fact which was the subject of discussion, and that of the population of Orissa somewhere about 750,000 persons had perished. The Commission which, in consequence of the orders of the noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne) was issued, had to inquire into the causes of the famine, into its remedies, and into the faults of those whose duty it was to have met the coming evil by timely measures of relief, but who failed to do so. They had not on the present occasion to deal with the question of remedies. About the cause of the famine there could be no doubt, as it was well understood, and was not unknown in the history of India. There was no rainfall at the critical moment of the harvest; there were exhausted stocks from the large exports of previous years, and the consequences of these exhausted stocks and a failing harvest were aggravated and intensified by the fact that the harvest failed in a country which was peculiarly inaccessible. The first department responsible for any failure that might have occurred was the Board of Revenue, for if their Report of the 25th of November had been followed by due watchfulness it would be looked back upon now and interpreted in a different sense. It was not unnatural that the Board of Revenue—believing in a scarcity, but not in a famine—should guard themselves against claims for remission from some of the Zemindars able to
  804
  pay the revenue due from them even in a period of distress. But nothing through the sad pages appeared to him more melancholy than their exhibition of inaptitude — their narrow fear of responsibility—their dwarfish pedantry—uttering worthless commonplaces of political economy, misunderstood and misapplied, to check the action that might have saved thousands of lives whose sacrifice now lay heavy at their doors. The Report of the Revenue Board expressed not only the first but the last views of that body; and it was apparently with unwillingness that they in the end yielded to the orders of the Lieutenant Governor to buy rice and bring it into Orissa. Theirs was only a departmental responsibility, it was true; but it was their pre-eminence—and a sad and unfortunate pre-eminence it was—to have resisted all the necessary measures of relief from the beginning to the end, There were two other departments also whose conduct called for serious consideration — he meant the Department of Police and that of Works. It was stated in the evidence that the local police had the earliest information of the state of the district, and the danger of approaching famine. That information, however, had never been communicated by the heads of the police to the Lieutenant Governor, nor was he aware that Sir Cecil Beadon had ever called upon them to furnish him with any information of which they might have been in possession. And what had been done by the Department of Works towards preventing the evils which had arisen? The theory in Bengal was that the Government were in favour of a system of public works; but how were their views in that respect carried out? The Lieutenant Governor seemed to be under the impression that everything had been attempted which could be attempted, and the only fault which he appeared disposed to admit was that he did not perceive from the information before him the necessity at an early period of importing rice. As to the Board of Works, the Lieutenant Governor seemed to be under the impression that it had done everything in its power under the circumstances, and he boasted of the liberality with which funds were placed at their disposal. In his communication to the Governor General of India the Lieutenant Governor declared that there had been no want of activity or zeal either on its part or on that of its officers, and that

  805
  there was not a particle of evidence to show that there was an actual deficiency of food, or that the coming distress could not be relieved by a liberal expenditure of money. Now, what was that liberal expenditure of money? The Lieutenant Governor, almost with an air of triumph, said that in the first six months of 1866 not less than £30,000 was spent on public works in Orissa. But he (Mr. Stansfeld) should like to know how much had been spent in the first four months? During the latter period of the contributions they had degenerated into mere relief, whereas the money should have been timely distributed in order to avert the panic and the catastrophe which had ensued. The function of public works was to be beforehand with famine. But what portion of the expenditure was normal, and how much of it was really incurred by the Government of Bengal for the purpose of averting famine from the population? But taking the amount even at £30,000, he would ask what was the value of that sum as compared with the 500,000 or 750,000 persons whose lives had fallen a sacrifice to absolute starvation? The Lieutenant Governor seemed, however, to be so possessed with the idea that everything had been done, so far as public works were concerned, which could be done, that the only thing he would admit was some mistake of judgment with respect to the importation of rice. But the importation of rice or its non-importation was not, after all, a primary but a secondary cause of the evils which occurred. If we had a system of public works in Orissa, we should contemplate in a time of famine the necessity of feeding as well as employing and paying the native population. If a system of public works had been entered upon, and directed in a right manner from the first, the question of the importation of rice would have solved itself by a natural process. There were decisions of the authorities to which they might trace the evils that had afterwards occurred. The dates of them were the 26th of January and the 1st of February, 1866. In November a considerable scheme of public works was devised. A part of the scheme was to pay the labourers partly in money and partly in rice, and it was sanctioned by the Lieutenant Governor; but on the 19th of December he issued an order to pay in money and not in grain. The superintendent engineer communicated with the Commissioner that it was necessary to
  806
  supply food for so many coolies. On the 11th of January it was suggested that the Public Works Department should advance money for a supply of food out of the funds granted for roads; and Mr. Barlow, having found that rice could not be had in the bazaars and shops of the country, proposed that rice should be imported. The people's lives were depending upon the supply of rice. The reply received from the Public Works Department was that it could have nothing to do with providing rice. On the 26th of January the Public Works Department refused, as far as they were concerned, to advance funds at their disposal to pay for rice. The Government declined to import rice, alleging that, if the market was in favour of that article, it would find its way to Orissa without the interference of Government. The decision was that all payments for labour to relieve the distress must be in cash. The Public Works Department and Revenue Department prevented the proposed action of the local officers, and closed the door, not only against the importation of rice, but against the possibility of feeding, as well as of employing, the population upon the public works. From that moment the doom of the population appeared to be sealed, and nothing was seen but the appalling growth of a dread calamity, until at last it burst on the consciousness of the official mind when it was too late to supply a remedy. His right hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil had alluded to the system which prevailed at Bengal. The laissez faire system in that province was not suited to a state of things like the famine; but that could not be stated in justification or excuse for what had occurred, because the two departments had determinedly adopted a policy which must end in evil. With every desire to do justice to the Lieutenant Governor, it was impossible to relieve him from the responsibility which devolved upon him. In not enforcing a policy of action on his subordinates, Sir Cecil Beadon showed a want of that foresight, that initiative, that control, which was due from him, and which the country had a right to expect, without demanding the degree of foresight and preparation recommended by Sir Arthur Cotton. When, on the 26th of January and the 1st of February, it was brought to the knowledge of the two departments most concerned in this matter that the public works which were intended to preserve the people from famine could not

  807
  be carried out without arrangements for feeding the people, and that they could not be fed without importing rice, from that time a responsibility attached to those who took a wrong view and adopted a wrong policy. He approached with great diffidence and hesitation the question of the responsibility of Sir John Lawrence—a man whose reputation was the property of the country, who had been called "the saviour of India," and whose life had furnished ample evidence of vigour and capacity of action and of rule. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had been very unjust in talking of the "apathy" of Sir John Lawrence. Nothing was more patent than the lively interest which he had taken from the year 1865 in regard to the famine in Orissa. It was a mistake to impose any responsibility on the Viceroy with the view of lightening the responsibility of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. Sir John Lawrence brought the matter before the Council, and they determined that the matter should be left in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. In the despatches of Sir John Lawrence upon the subject there was a candour which was touching in its simplicity and truthfulness. It was manifest from the Papers that no officer of Government had given closer or more earnest attention to the subject of famine, or looked more anxiously to see how it might be averted. The Viceroy of India was bound, upon such a question, to listen to the views and opinions of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, with whom the government of that great district of India really rested, and to diminish the responsibility of the Lieutenant Governor was to weaken the action and efficiency of Government. But Sir John Lawrence had more experience and a truer instinct than any of those by whom he was surrounded. There was a time when he would have burst through the trammels of office, and acted for himself; as Lieutenant Governor, Sir John Lawrence would certainly have taken timely measures to meet the famine. He could only regret that, as supreme ruler of India, he had not thought it right, instead of yielding to the policy of his subordinates, himself to initiate the necessary measures. It was unnecessary for him to criticize the despatch of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India, which erred rather on the side of leniency than of severity. The calamity was so overwhelming, and the evil so complete, that it was not necessary to
  808
  differ as to the words which might be used in expressing condemnation. The right hon. Gentleman, when, in his despatch, he spoke of the unfortunate want of foresight and energy on the part of the Lieutenant Governor of the province in which the famine occurred, expressed a great deal in the words he had used, and he thought that the House would agree with what he had said. England and India had both received a lesson which they would not soon forget. Deeply regretting the past, he trusted that our future rule would give indications of renewed vigour and energy of administration, and of an added and renovated sense of the beneficent effects of foresight and initiative power which could alone justify the despotic, though paternal, rule of a superior race.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he should only weary the House if he were to follow in the footsteps of the hon. Gentleman who had just gone through the whole of the case with so much care and ability. In the criticism with which the hon. Gentleman had closed his speech he sympathized to some extent. His right hon. Friend must have felt it to be one of the most cruel necessities of his official position that he was bound to restrain the natural language of indignation. His right hon. Friend was not to be blamed; it was desirable that official expressions should be calm and measured. But it was likewise desirable that the opinion of the House should be expressed in no indistinct terms. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal was to the fullest extent responsible for not having made any preparation against the famine if he had sufficient information before him. The question upon which they had to decide, and upon which posterity would have to give its verdict, was this—was there sufficient information to raise in the mind of a reasonable man any suspicion, any apprehension, of a calamity such as had overtaken the people of Orissa? The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal argued this question as if it were necessary that the proof should be undoubted and the certainty complete that the people were going to starve before the slightest step could be taken to relieve them. There never could be such a certainty. They never could be sure that the danger apprehended would overtake those they were bound to protect. The question was—did the danger amount to that degree of probability which should affect the mind of a reasonable man? Now, what were the

  809
  probabilities? With scarcely an exception all who were untrammelled by official prejudices foresaw that a terrible calamity was impending. From the time the crop failed in 1865 the natives spoke of a coming famine as a certainty. In the second blue book was a series of accounts from various witnesses as to the probability of famine. They might be divided into three classes. First, Native witnesses, who never doubted that famine would arise from the failure of the crop in October, 1865. Next, the unofficial persons connected with the Government—irrigating companies, merchants, missionaries—who though more tardy than the first class at arriving at a conclusion, still spoke, all of them of the frightful famine. The third class was the officials, and they, with one or two honourable exceptions, seemed all to have been walking in a dream—to have been surrounded by some veil that hid from them what was visible to everybody else, and to have walked on in superb unconsciousness, believing that what had been must be, and that as long as they did nothing absolutely wrong, and did not displease their immediate superiors, they had fulfilled all the duties of their station. At the head of this official organization stood the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. Much had been said of the faults of the Commissioner. He did not deny them. His own feeling on reading these Papers was that, after these exposures, it was open to other nations to doubt whether it was possible, under any circumstances, that the English nation could learn the art of government. He did not wish in the least degree to detract from the blame that had been cast on the Board of Revenue; but he was surprised that they had been so long allowed to occupy the position they did occupy. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. J. Stuart Mill) had by his works been a great benefactor to mankind. But there was a curious reverse to the coin. No man's authority had been more systematically mis-used than his by unintelligent officials in propagating mischievous error. In Australia his authority had been used on the side of protection; in Bengal for starving some 750,000 persons. The doctrines of political economy had been worshipped as a sort of "fetish" by officials who, because they believed that in the long run supply and demand would square themselves, seemed to have utterly forgotten that human life was short, and that men could not subsist without food beyond a few days. They mechanically
  810
  left the laws of political economy to work themselves out while hundreds of thousands of human beings were perishing from famine. While he thought the answer to the telegram which had been alluded to was the most grievous error which any department in this Empire had committed within recent recollection, none of these things entirely exonerated the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. The question came back to this—was there sufficient information conveyed to his mind of the danger that was impending? He would refer to one passage from the Native evidence that was given before the Commission—the evidence of the Collector of Pooree. This witness spoke of his intercourse with the Lieutenant Governor, when he visited the province in February, 1866, and said that the cry of alarm was raised in the presence of the Lieutenant Governor, who spoke to him of the past and present state of the district. The witness told him that he had never seen such a famine before, and that the people were dying of hunger. He did not speak of the proportion of the crops that had failed, but mentioned generally the fact of the failure of the crops, and of the people dying in thousands. This was upon the 7th of February before the time the Lieutenant Governor received warnings from the Messrs. Gisborne and others. The Lieutenant Governor, before February, 1866, had received warnings from Sir Arthur Cotton, Mr. Barlow, the police of the district, and others. The Lieutenant Governor said, indeed, that these people did not ask him to import rice. They did not; but he seemed to have looked on himself as a sort of machine, which other people were to bring into play, and then it would produce certain measures. Supposing it had not been human beings but cattle that were in question, and one had been informed on the authority of a merchant, a missionary, an official, and many other persons that the cattle were dying, and that there was a considerable danger that the deaths among them would continue increasing, would one have gone same 200 miles from those cattle, made some little further inquiry, and then taken another journey to the hills on the frontier of a distant country, and stayed there for two months, ordering no special inquiry, and not worrying nor vexing one's officials at all about what was occurring? True, the Lieutenant Governor did not receive any information which proved to him that the people would die, and it appeared that

  811
  he did not think himself bound to move until it was absolutely proved to him that it was necessary to do so. But he knew, as well as anybody else, that unless he provided grain for these people before the bad weather set in the coast would be inaccessible. He must have known that if the famine which was impending occurred and he did not provide rice, hundreds of thousands of people would die, and on the other hand that if the danger passed away a certain sum of money might be wasted in providing rice. Having that choice before him, it would seem as if he chose rather to run the risk of losing the lives than to run the risk of wasting the money. He did not believe that that alternative really presented itself to the mind of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. He believed that that officer was in feeble physical health, and therefore incapable of giving the facts and warnings he received that attention which their importance demanded from one in his position. But, although that might prevent them from forming any bad conclusion as to his moral character, it could not relieve them from the necessity of apportioning to him a heavy blame for the calamity that ensued. He ought to have considered the frightful evils which depended on his being able satisfactorily to fulfil the duties of his high office, and no consideration ought to have induced him to continue in that office when his strength had ceased to be equal to the performance of his duties. In these despotic Governments they could not get rid of personal responsibility, or lay the blame for everything upon the system. The peculiarity of despotic Governments was that they they might be a great good if administered by competent men, and a frightful curse if administered by the incompetent. On the fidelity and capacity of the persons administering them would depend the weal or woe, the life or death, of millions of their fellow-creatures. He deprecated any attempt to divert the blame due to the individual by throwing it on the system. In England, where they were self-governed, if anything went terribly wrong, they thought that some system must be in fault; but it would be a great mistake to argue from their own experience to the case of despotic Governments such as existed in the East, where the man was everything and the system nothing. He did not think that the blame bestowed on Sir John Lawrence was fair, for the following reason—Sir John Lawrence
  812
  had an enormous duty of supervision to perform; the Governors of Bombay and Madras, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces, and various other high authorities were all under his supervision. He must take a general view of their main policy and decide the questions they submitted to him; but in deciding them in the first instance, he must accept the facts which others laid before him. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal stated to Sir John Lawrence in the most distinct manner that no supplies of rice were necessary. It would have been something more than instinct, it would have been inspiration, if, without any evidence at his hand, the Governor General had said, "This testimony is not true, and I will go directly contrary to it." There was a rumour, which it was to be hoped was unfounded, that his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) intended to append a Council to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal by way of remedying these evils. Another right hon. Friend of his (Mr. Henley), some months since, wishing to express his horror of a certain law, said it was an invention of Old Nick. If that remark could be applied to any institution, he thought it could be applied to Councils and Boards. Such things were trammels and screens to the incompetent. To the men who knew what they wanted to do they were useless; but they were excuses for procrastination to the men who doubted what they ought to do. If any instances of their evil action were wanting, it would be found in the course taken by the Governor General. The Governor General had that humility with regard to his own opinion and that deference for the opinions of others which was always the accompaniment of the greatest qualities to be found in human beings, and he believed he deferred unduly to the opinions of the Council by whom he was surrounded. When his right hon. Friend spoke of appointing a Council at Bengal he (Viscount Cranborne) must express an opinion that if the Governor General of India had not had that Council several hundreds of thousands who were now dead would have been alive. If the Governor General had not yielded to his Council large supplies of rice would have been imported at the proper time, and the people of Orissa would not have died. There was no greater error in our system of Government in India, than the perpetual effort to prevent

  813
  mal-administration by imposing checks, which frittered away responsibility and destroyed the individual and energetic action of men on the spot. If these events suggested any moral, it was the necessity of abolishing Dharjeeling. When the Governor General went to Simla he was still near his work, but it was difficult to convey an idea of the absurdity of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal going from Orissa to Dharjeeling. If they could suppose the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), the Chairman of the London and Brighton Railway Company, going to his constituents at Wick, staying there six months in the year, and attempting to manage the affairs of the Company from the islands of Orkney, they would have a fair idea of what happened in India when the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal attempted to manage Orissa from the borders of Thibet. People must obtain leave of absence for a time in a tropical climate, but a Governor ought never to go from the seat of government, and when the Lieutenant Governor went away his powers should be delegated to persons on the spot. But the great evil, and it was a hard thing to say, was that English officials in India, with many very honourable exceptions, did not regard the lives of the coloured inhabitants with the same feeling of intense sympathy which they would show to those of their own race, colour, and tongue. If that was the case it was not their fault alone. Some blame must be laid upon the society in which they had been brought up, and upon the public opinion in which they had been trained. It became them to remember that from that place, more than from any other in the kingdom, proceeded that influence which formed the public opinion of the age, and more especially that kind of public opinion which governed the action of officials in every part of the Empire. If they would have our officials in distant parts of the Empire, and especially in India, regard the lives of their coloured fellow-subjects with the same sympathy and with the same zealous and quick affection with which they would regard the lives of their fellow-subjects at home, it was the Members of that House who must give the tone and set the example. That sympathy and regard must arise from the zeal and jealousy with which the House watched their conduct and the fate of our Indian fellow-subjects. Until we showed them our thorough earnestness in this matter—until we were careful to correct
  814
  all abuses and display our own sense that they are as thoroughly our fellow-subjects as those in any other part of the Empire, we could not divest ourselves of all blame if we should find that officials in India did treat with something of coldness and indifference such frightful calamities as that which had so recently happened in that country.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he had no objection to consent to the Motion, with the exception of the latter part of it. He was unable to produce any "Dissents or Minutes by Members of the Indian Council in London" upon his despatch, because there were none. He must take upon himself the full responsibility of the despatch in the form in which it had been presented to the House. Although that despatch was laid before the Members of the Council, still, with the exception of certain trifling alterations suggested by Members of the Council, it was the same despatch that he originally draughted, and he laid it upon the table as the expression of his own opinion under the circumstances. He entirely declined to shield himself from any shortcomings by saying that it was not his despatch, but that of the Council. On a late occasion, the noble Lord opposite made some remarks with reference to a despatch, in which he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had overruled and ignored the advice of the Council on an important matter. He should have done so now if occasion had required it. That was one of those questions on which the Secretary of State was able to write whatever he pleased; and, although on such an occasion he naturally listened to what his Council suggested, he was alone responsible for what he sent out. He had written the despatch with considerable care, and after much reflection. He was not indisposed to hear it criticized; but the criticisms which had been passed upon it did not induce him to alter the views he had formed. Violence of language was not synonymous with strength, and moderation was not feebleness. It might happen that it was a greater proof of strength to be able to take a calm and just view of the circumstances with which you have to deal than to throw yourself into the stream of what was a very natural feeling, but which, in calmer moments, you felt was not altogether a fair and just decision. He had thought it his duty very carefully to restrain and guard the language he had used,

  815
  because he felt that, as his noble Friend (Viscount Cranborne) had said, official language ought to be carefully guarded, and expressions which might pass in speeches in that House ought not to be inserted hastily in a despatch. It was most essential that a Minister should not weaken his despatches by violence of language. A more important question was, however, whether the despatch was in substance fair and just, and that was the point on which he was anxious to have the verdict of that House. He had endeavoured in the despatch to get at what appeared to him to be the real root of the mischief of which they all complained, and he had endeavoured as far as possible to lay bare what he considered to be the root of all these evils. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Henry Seymour) said the despatch was not decisive. It was not so, because it was only the commencement of what the Government would have to do in consequence of these revelations. It was because he believed it to be only the prelude of what was to come after, that he had written it in the form in which it appeared. This was not a despatch in which the only thing he proposed to himself was to find out who was to blame, and to visit that individual with the severest censure. There was something more to do. In the first place, it the position of Sir Cecil Beadon had been different, his duty would have been also different. If he had written this despatch while Sir Cecil Beadon was Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, it would have been matter for serious consideration whether, after the evidence in these papers that he was incapable of administering that Presidency in a satisfactory manner at a time of great emergency, it would not have been his duty to recall him from that government, or, at all events, to express himself in such a manner as to have left no doubt of his opinion that it was the duty of that officer to resign a post for which he was physically incompetent. But that was not the position in which he stood. Sir Cecil Beadon had ceased to be the Lieutenant Governor, and was on his way to England. There was nothing to be done for the interest of the province by visiting his conduct with any severe censure, or anything in the nature of a punishment. Again, had he merely blamed Sir Cecil Beadon and taken no notice of the conduct of his subordinates, he should not have fully laid open the evils which
  816
  would eventually have to be grappled with by him and those who should succeed him. Those officers were still at their posts, and had no blame been cast on them, and all the mischief attributed to one man, it would have been very unfair. There were serious grounds for blaming others than the Lieutenant Governor, and also serious grounds for finding fault with the system which the Lieutenant Governor had had to administer. His noble Friend (Viscount Cranborne) had deprecated attacks on the system as allowing individuals to escape; but he had himself, before finishing his speech, animadverted upon the system. When referring to Sir Cecil Beadon his noble Friend put aside the advice and information he might have received from his subordinates, arguing that the system had nothing to do with it; but when referring to Sir John Lawrence he had urged that the fault was in the system, and that, had there been no Council, such great loss of life would not have occurred, for that the Viceroy would have insisted on the Lieutenant Governor doing his duty. The same rule, however, must be applied to both the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor. He had the highest sense of the services which Sir John Lawrence had rendered, and believed, notwithstanding the unfortunate expression of the hon. Member for Dumbarton, that he was not only the "saviour of India," but that he was especially distinguished for his intense interest in the welfare of the people of India. If, on this occasion, he had failed, it was because he was incapable of doing the work of 100 men. Had he been an absolute despot, or a being capable of seeing everything with his own eyes, and doing everything with his own hands, everything possible would have been achieved; but being only mortal, his strength was overtaxed by the burden resting upon him. A single man could not deal with those matters except though agents, on whom, to a certain extent, he must reply. Although, therefore, it would have been very fortunate had Sir John Lawrence acted on his early impressions, and insisted on putting aside other matters and looking into the question for himself, no blame whatever could be imputed to him for not having done so. In some degree the same remark applied to Sir Cecil Beadon. He had a great amount of business which he had to intrust to agents, and those agents failed him in many important particulars.

  817
  He was to blame for not sooner finding out that his agents were failing him, and nothing could excuse his want of perception and energy when he personally visited Orissa. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) had no wish to palliate the blame attaching to him for his very cursory inspection of the province under the peculiar circumstances attending his visit. Sir Cecil Beadon, however, it must be remembered, had been systematical misinformed by persons to whom he trusted; and, when finding fault with the system which was the cause of his having been so misled, he did not do so for the sake of covering the Lieutenant Governor, but in order to expose something which required to be remedied, and of showing that the system of Boards of Revenue and the mode in which they were intrusted with business was a bad one. His noble Friend had misunderstood a passage in his despatch if he thought it indicated an intention of creating a Council to the Lieutenant Governor. Its meaning was this—that it must fairly be remembered that Sir Cecil Beadon had a very large Presidency to administer, equal in extent and in difficulty to Bombay and Madras, and that he had not the assistance of a Council or of a secretariat equal to that of those Presidencies. The consequence was that a great many matters of detail fell upon him, and prevented a due attention to more important matters. It was one thing to say that a Lieutenant Governor was better without a Council, and another thing to say that the assistance rendered by councillors was not worth having. Members of Council in the various Presidencies were something more than merely consultative. They took different departments, superintended details, and saw large numbers of persons who would otherwise go to the Lieutenant Governor and take up much of his time. Anybody acquainted with official life knew how attention to a large amount of details, and interruptions by persons whose business was not particularly important, exhausted the energies of the head of an office and lessened the attention he could otherwise pay to important matters. This was all he had said regarding the system in Bengal as compared with the other Presidencies, his object being partly to show the difficulty of Sir Cecil Beadon's position, and that some allowance—he did not say excuse—should be made for him, and partly to lay the foundation for measures for putting Bengal on as good a footing as Bombay
  818
  and Madras. He could not understand why Bengal should be administered only by a Lieutenant Governor. The Governors of Bombay and Madras were selected by the Home Government, so that the Viceroy was not responsible for their capacity or incapacity; the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal was appointed by the Government of India, and was therefore in closer relations to it than the Governors of the other Presidencies. Hence the Governor General was somewhat responsible, even on matters of detail, for the Bengal Administration. He did not wish to go more fully into the matter, for much still remained open, and hon. Members who had read the latter portion of the Report would feel that it opened an enormous field for consideration. We had now an opportunity, better, perhaps, than had hitherto occurred, of revising many things in the administration of our Indian Empire which were a reproach to us, and which had been distinctly brought to light. He hoped the House would not be satisfied with censuring this or that officer, but would consider the relations between the Zemindars and the ryots, public works, irrigation, and other important questions. All of those questions were very well brought forward in the Report of the Commissioners, though they were too large for a debate of that sort, which naturally turned rather upon the conduct of individuals. We had not done with the subject. This catastrophe must always remain a monument of our failure, a humiliation to the people of this country, to the Government of this country, and to those of our Indian officials of whom we had been perhaps a little too proud. At the same time, we must hope that we might derive from it lessons which might be of real value to ourselves, and that out of this deplorable evil good of no insignificant kind might ultimately arise.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EDUCATION—MR. ARNOLD'S REPORT TO THE SCHOOLS INQUIRY COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it would not be possible to lay upon the table of the House, before the Session closes, Mr. Arnold's Report to the Schools Inquiry Commission? The Report related to Continental schools, and ought to be produced,

819
as that of Mr. Fraser had been on the schools in America.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that he really had no power in the matter. In consequence of the hon. Member having given notice of this Question, he had communicated with the Commissioner, and had received from them a reply that, although they had received Mr. Arnold's Report, as well as those of some of the Assistant Commissioners, they thought it would be inexpedient to produce it now, but that it would be presented with the general Reports in the course of the autumn. He could only add that, as soon as it was presented, the earliest opportunity would be taken of laying it upon the table.
MR. BRUCEsaid, it would be a great advantage, and would secure greater attention, to have these Reports presented in detail.
Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL— [BILL 232.]
(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL— [BILL 232.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Repeal and Continuance of Turnpike Acts).
  MR. WHALLEYmoved, "That the Chairman report Progress."
  Motion negatived.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he objected to the first clause. The public had been led to believe that in 136 districts the Turnpike Acts would not be renewed, but only thirty-seven were omitted from the Schedule.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that all the trusts mentioned in the Bill existed, and that the object of the Bill was to continue these trusts for another year.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. WHALLEYmoved a new clause, providing that a Report should be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State as to the debts of turnpike trusts.
  MR GATHORNE HARDYhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause, as it would be impossible to carry it out without further legislation.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. READmoved the insertion of a clause providing that a driver of a waggon or cart of any kind should not be liable to any penalty for riding upon the carriage on any turnpike road providing he did not ride upon the shafts, but carefully drove by means of reins held in his hands.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved a clause providing that ratepayers should have access to the accounts of the trust where repairs had been borne by the parish.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved a clause providing for an extra audit of the accounts of the trust wherever one or more trustees should desire it.
  Clause agreed to.
  On Second Schedule,
  MR. WHITEsaid, he had to complain that a tollgate was permitted to remain at the main outlet of the town of Brighton, though the debt of the trust had been paid off. With the view of doing away with this toll he moved to insert in the Schedule "3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 43, intituled 'An Act for more effectually repairing the Road from Lewes to Brighthelmston, in the county of Sussex.'"
  Amendment proposed, after line 2, to insert the words "3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 43, intituled, 'An Act for more effectually repairing the Road from Lewes to Brightelmston, in the county of Sussex.'"—(Mr. White.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the main ground for preserving the existing arrangement was the excessive pressure of rates which the alteration would impose on some small parishes, increasing them in one case by 800 and another by 650 per cent. He felt bound to resist the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 20; Noes 27: Majority 7.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Lord NAAS, Bill to amend and extend, as to Railways in Ireland, the provisions of an Act of the seventh and eighth years of Victoria, intituled, "An Act to attach certain conditions to the construction of future Railways authorized or to be authorized by any Act of the present or succeeding Sessions of Parliament; and for other purposes in relation to Railways," Ordered to be brought in by Lord NAAS, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 298.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Barrack Lane, Windsor (Rights of Way) nominated; on Great Eastern Railway (Finance) nominated.
Report—On Tenure (Ireland).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs Revenue* (284); Sewage* (285); Courts of Law Fees, &c.* (286); Inland Revenue* (287); Dominica Loan* (288); Local Government Supplemental (No. 6)* (289).
Second Reading—Justices of the Peace Disqualification Removal* (265); Poor Law Board, &c. (271); Royal Military Canal* (269); Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* (270); Canongate Annuity Tax (Edinburgh)* (264).
Committee—Representation of the People (227); Railways (Guards' and Passengers' Communication)* (255); Agricultural Gangs* (283).
Report—Tenure (Ireland)* (281).
Third Reading — Dundee Provisional Orders Confirmation* (257).

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—(No. 227.)—(The Earl of Derby.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving to insert after Clause 27 a clause enabling any voter for a county or borough to give his vote by a voting paper instead of personally, said that the principle was not a new one, having been introduced into the Reform Bill of 1859, which did not proceed very far in the other House. Although the plan was not then adopted, there had been some experience of its operation. The system had been for some years in practice in the election of Boards of Guardians, and he was not aware that there had been any complaints of its operation. The votes were given without difficulty, and the parties had an opportunity of exercising their best judgment. There had also been some experience of the working of voting papers in the election for Members for the Universities. This was a most important experiment, and it had been most successful. If he could show their Lordships that the difficulty of voting for the election of Members of Parliament under the present system was so great as to act as a positive disfranchisement of parties intrusted with the franchise, he should, he thought, make out a strong case for the adoption of his Amendment. He would, in the first instance, call their Lordships' attention to the very small number of voters who were able under the present system, from various causes, to tender their votes at elections, in comparison with the number registered on the electoral roll. He found from a singular Return presented to the House of Commons that at the last General Election very little more than half of those entitled to vote actually recorded their votes, the number varying from one-half to one-third. At Liverpool, out of 20,600 entitled to vote, only 14,600 voted. In the City of London, out of 15,500, only 10,900 voted; in Manchester, out of 21,000, only 14,900 voted; in Finsbury, out of 25,000, only
  706
  13,600 voted; in Marylebone, out of 23,000, only 11,600 voted; in Lambeth, out of 27,700, only 11,700 voted. In the counties there was an equally large proportion of the registered electors who abstained from voting, the last contested elections for South Lancashire and Middlesex being striking examples of it. In Middlesex, out of 13,700 on the register, only 6,000 polled. The explanation of this was that many persons, unless they took a very strong personal interest in election contests, or felt it their duty to vote, did not care to undergo the inconvenience, and in some cases the personal danger, of presenting themselves at the poll; and many, again, were physically incapable of bearing the excitement and crowding attending going to the polling-booth. The option of using voting papers was the obvious remedy, and it would be peculiarly advantageous to the new class of electors, to whom the loss of part of a day was a serious matter, by enabling them to vote without any pecuniary sacrifice. This provision was the more necessary, as the Bill contained a clause prohibiting the payment of the expenses of conveying voters to the poll. In Ireland there had been a recent striking example where the military had been employed in guarding voters proceeding to the poll, which would not have been necessary had the votes been taken by voting papers. He was satisfied, moreover, that the use of voting papers would have a wholesome effect in promoting purity of elections. He was not, indeed, so Utopian as to expect that bribery would thereby be put an end to altogether, but it would be made infinitely more difficult. He hoped that though the Government had met with a defeat on this point in the other House, they had not changed their opinion with regard to voting papers, and he was glad to find that the principle was embodied in the Scotch Bill, which had passed the second reading in the House of Commons. He had brought forward the subject very imperfectly, but he had done so from a sense of duty. If an election could not be carried on unless at the risk of tumult, intimidation, drunkenness, and, in fact, a variety of evil consequences, which had the effect of preventing nearly one-third of the voters from coming to the poll, he thought he had said enough to justify him in bringing this proposal before their Lordships. It was a proposal which was most deserving of their Lordships' serious consideration.
  After Clause 27, moved to insert the following clause:—
  "Any voter for a County or Borough may, in compliance with the Provisions hereinafter contained, give his Vote by a Voting Paper instead of personally.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I confess I was very desirous, in the first instance, of hearing the opinions of noble Lords on the question submitted to them by my noble Friend. For my own part I have no hesitation in saying that to the principle of voting papers I give my unqualified adhesion. I believe it to be a principle eminently calculated to do away with many of the disadvantages of our present system of elections; and, if properly guarded as respects fraud and personation, I think it would enable the infirm, the aged, the sick, the timid, to give their votes without concealment of their opinions, while it would save them from the disturbances, the possible riot, and, at all events, the tumult of a contested election. I think it is also a mode which would enable persons to give their votes irrespective of any undue solicitation or influence. ("Oh!") I know it may be said, on the other hand, that it will encourage undue influence; but I believe if due precautions are taken with regard to the circumstances under which the signature is attached that objection may be entirely obviated. But, even though some difficulties may arise from fraud and personation, still, I think, and have thought for many years, that the system of voting papers is eminently advantageous to the public service. The provision of voting by voting papers was introduced by the Government of which I had the honour to be at the head in their Bill of 1859, and very elaborate clauses were framed for the purpose of securing the voters and the public from possible abuse. Again, in the course of the present year, Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that they might introduce the same principle in the present Bill, but in a more concise form, by embodying in a single clause, mutatîs mutandis, those provisions which I venture to think have been found eminently advantageous in the case of the Universities. The House of Commons has assented to the introduction of that principle with regard to the University of London, as well as the other Universities, but have hesitated to apply it to counties and boroughs. For my own part, I do not see why the same principle might not be safely extended to counties and
  708
  boroughs—more especially to counties where there must be a considerable number of non-resident voters. Voting papers, too, would diminish the expenses of elections. I think the best trial of the system was made in the case of the Universities, because a very large proportion of the electors were non-resident, and its advantageous working has been shown in the recent election for the University of Oxford. I am not speaking now with reference to the result of that election, because I believe on that result it had no practical effect; but the fact was that at the late election in the University of Oxford the electors who recorded their votes were more than double the number that have usually come to the poll at previous elections. Nor have I heard the slightest complaint of any abuse in connection with the system. It was entirely new and worked by persona utterly unacquainted with it, but I have not heard that any inconvenience arose or any disadvantage was sustained; and certainly there was an enormous diminution of expense, even though double the usual number of electors recorded their votes on that occasion. I think that it is primâ facie evidence in favour of the practicability of applying this principle to places where there are a considerable number of non-resident voters. I do not think it ought to be so limited; but if your Lordships are disposed to do so, it might be applied to counties alone; but I am perfectly ready to go further. It would, I am convinced, do away with a great amount of tumult, bribery, and disturbance, and I believe that with it the community at large might frankly and freely give their votes according to their consciences, inclinations, and opinions. I hold, therefore, that the principle might be beneficially extended both to counties and boroughs. With regard to the particular scheme of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) I am not prepared at once to give my assent to its details. In point of fact I have not been able to consider those details, and I should like to have an opportunity of comparing them with those which provided for the same object in the Bill of 1859. I know that in that Bill very great pains were taken to obviate every possible objection, to insure that there should be no doubt as to the authenticity of the signature, and to guard against fraud in every possible respect. There was even the obligation of transmitting the voting paper in a registered letter, which was no doubt

  709
  an insignificant check, but still it was a check upon persons desirous of availing themselves of the privilege. My Lords, if the question, as I understand it, be simply the adoption of the words that "any voter for a county or borough may, in compliance with the provisions hereinafter contained, give his vote by a voting paper instead of personally'," and if "the provisions hereinafter contained" are to be subjected to subsequent discussion—say on bringing up the Report—perhaps my noble Friend would be content to act upon that understanding—I am prepared to give my cordial support to the proposal, as I believe it would be eminently advantageous. It was rejected in the House of Commons by a comparatively small majority; but I do not believe that the question was brought before them in such a manner as to enable the House to have a full and dispassionate inquiry. Upon the whole the decision was taken very hastily, and I should not be sorry that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of again debating this proposal, of re-considering the judgment they have passed upon it, and of seeing whether it would not be possible to introduce into this great measure of Parliamentary Reform provisions equally beneficial to the voter and to the community at large.
  EARL DE GREYsaid, he was not surprised to find that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to support the Motion of the noble Marquess, because in doing so they would be acting in perfect consistency with the course they adopted both in the present year and in 1859. At the same time he confessed that he was somewhat surprised at the conclusion of the noble Earl's speech, from which it appeared that he and his Colleagues had not considered the details of the noble Marquess's scheme, though in substance it had been on the table of their Lordship's House for a considerable period. The noble Earl said he had not considered the details of a question which turned to a very great extent on details, and of which the general principle could not be adopted without the minutest attention to details. He hoped their Lordships would not take the same view of the matter, whatever their opinion might be as to the desirability of such a proposal, but that they would insist on having a definite scheme before them, whether it should be that of the noble Marquess or any other. The noble Marquess rested his first argument on the fact that this system of voting papers had been in force for some time in
  710
  the election of Poor Law Gardians, where it had worked satisfactorily, the noble Marquess never having heard any complaints. Now, he (Earl De Grey) was of a totally different opinion, for he had heard many complaints from different parts of the country as to the operation of the system, and he trusted that before the discussion closed the noble Earl at the head of the Poor Law Board (the Earl of Devon) would state what he knew of it. He was surprised that the noble Marquess should have offered that argument, because the scheme of the noble Marquess himself was much better, and therefore the argument derived from the election of Boards of Guardians was more likely to have a prejudicial effect on the proposal than to serve it. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) rested his case very much upon the precedent of the Universities; but there appeared to be the broadest possible distinction between the case of the Universities and that of counties and boroughs. He was not at all sure that the system of voting papers worked well, even in the Universities; but then it was quite clear that in the Universities there was a large body of non-resident voters, who were not open to corruption or undue influence of any kind. A very different state of things, however, existed in counties and boroughs. Then the noble Earl said that by the present Bill the system of voting papers was extended to the London University. Well, there was no constituency to which the system was more applicable than to the University of London, because, unlike Oxford or Cambridge, it had no resident members. But in the counties and boroughs you were dealing with a large body of residents and a small minority of nonresident voters. Their Lordships were told that by adopting this plan they would give facilities for voting to the infirm, the sick, and the absent. He (Earl De Grey) admitted this at once; but he ventured to think that, however desirable it was to afford such facilities, they ought not to be given if the door would be thereby opened to intimidation and bribery. Then the noble Earl said that the timid would be allowed the opportunity of voting without inconvenience, and that much of the turmoil and excitement of an election contest would be got rid of. Well, but only the other night the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) objected to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), because he said it would introduce tameness

  711
  and take away all the spirit of an English election. Now, he did not think we need be at all afraid of this result, but if it came to pass at all it would be in consequence of such a proposal as that now before the House. No doubt these timid gentlemen were entitled to consideration; but he confessed that in their case, as in that of the sick and infirm, he did not think that for their benefit a system should be adopted which was open to serious objection on general grounds. As to the electors in counties who resided at a distance from the polling-places, the true remedy was an increase of polling-places. While this system would, of course, afford greater facilities to non-resident voters there, it would also increase, to a serious extent, the facilities for creating faggot votes, to be held by non-resident electors. For himself he should be sorry to see a large infusion of the non-resident element either into the counties or the boroughs. He heard with great surprise the statement of the noble Marquess, that this system would put an end to intimidation. Probably, the noble Marquess meant that his timid friends would then be able to vote without fear of being hooted at, or, perhaps, having a rotten egg thrown at them. But he did not think that serious disturbances were characteristic of English elections. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] At all events, while the noble Marquess was afraid of intimidation in this way, he was opening the door to intimidation of a much more subtle and serious character. The plan proposed by the noble Marquess was that the voter should sign a voting paper in the presence of a justice of the peace, and then it was to be at once transmitted to the returning officer. This scheme had been described by one of its warmest and ablest advocates, the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne) as being a scheme for taking the poll into the magistrate's drawing-room. No doubt this was the effect of the scheme; but so far was he from thinking this an advantage, that it seemed to him to describe a most un-English and most undesirable state of things. The results could not possibly be good. Take the case of a magistrate who was a large landlord, a large employer of labour, or a large proprietor of houses. Such a man, if so inclined, had only to say to those over whom he had influence, "Come and sign your voting papers before me," and you would set up the most perfect machinery for individual intimidation which
  712
  could possibly be devised. He was happy to say that he was not one of those who believed that at the present time intimidation largely existed in this country; it had greatly diminished, and was, he hoped, rapidly passing away. But he could not conceive any scheme more calculated than this was to re-introduce intimidation. By the adoption of voting papers they would be placing strong temptations in the hands of men who were strong partizans to abuse their power. This plan, in fact, would have all the disadvantages of secret voting, without those advantages which, as the advocates of the ballot alleged, belonged to that system. But there was another mode in which this voting was to be taken. In case the elector was unknown to the magistrate, a third person, known to the magistrate, was to intervene; and this person would inevitably be an election agent. The voters, many of whom would require to be told how to fill up their voting papers, would be brought into close connection with the agent, who would then be able to exchange his £5 note for actual value received in the shape of a voting paper. At present, if money were paid before the vote was given, there was some doubt whether that vote would be given on the right side. On the other hand, if money were promised to be paid after the vote was given, there was no guarantee for its payment, and in this way a double check was maintained upon bribery. But the voting paper system introduced an absolute certainty, and the money might be paid secretly and quietly, and the voting paper transmitted through the post to the returning officers, without any one having the means of ascertaining what was going on. When bribery was conducted on a great scale under the existing system, as at Wakefield and Lancaster, it always became known; it was rumoured about that a stranger with a lot of money was staying at a certain inn and an inkling of what was going on was quickly obtained; and no great difficulty was found in tracing the offenders. But here the election agent had only to take the voters outside the town to some magistrate who knew the agent but not the voters, and then the £5 could easily be handed over in exchange for the vote without anybody being the wiser, and it would be almost impossible to discover or convict those who were guilty of bribery. There was another serious objection to this proposal. He himself was a justice of the peace, and

  713
  had the highest respect for his fellow-magistrates; but nothing was so likely to place them in a false position as to bring them directly into contact, as magistrates, with the machinery of an election. Almost all the magistrates were politicians and party men, and this proposal placed temptations in their way to which they ought not to be exposed, and also subjected them to attacks and criticisms upon their proceedings and upon the course they had pursued in respect to these voting papers, which, he thought, would tend much to lower their character and position as magistrates. This was true not only of county but borough magistrates; they were for the most part much more connected with cliques and parties, while their scruples might be less than those of the county magistrates. Thus you would open the door to a great amount of undue influence and intimidation, and you would weaken the authority of magistrates all over the country by exposing them to charges of this description. There was another objection entitled to considerable weight. The system of voting papers would afford the greatest possible facility for the creation of faggot votes in the counties. The 40 s. freehold was a very low franchise, and it was very easy for persons to possess themselves of it, merely for the purpose of voting in counties with which they had no other connection. He did not object to those who had this franchise exercising their votes, but he did not think it desirable to encourage a class of voters, not otherwise connected with a county, and not likely to have its interests at heart. Under the present system practically a man could not give his vote in a large number of counties or boroughs, because at a General Election, when polls were going on simultaneously they could not go all over the kingdom for the purpose of recording their votes; but under the system now proposed to be established, great political associations—Conservative, Liberal, or Radical—might get a large number of votes in a great number of counties, and the voting papers might be sent out from the Carlton or the Reform Club, so as very seriously to affect the character of the elections, and greatly to interfere with the fair and just exercise of the right of voting by those who properly belong to the county. Another great objection to the system was the confusion and difficulty it would introduce into the conduct of elections. This was not a theory
  714
  of his own, but he had arrived at it from a study of the Amendment of the noble Marquess. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury said that the elections at the Universities had worked satisfactorily, but Sir Roundell Palmer, counsel to the University of Oxford, stated in "another place" that during the late election he was inundated with letters and telegrams upon various points of difficulty which arose out of the voting paper system. So under this clause all sorts of questions would be raised—some, perhaps, frivolous questions—by election agents at the poll, to be decided by the returning officer, who might not be the most competent person to decide them, and the result would be great confusion and difficulty. He was convinced this system would lead to all sorts of election dodges. For instance, when an election was running close, the close of the poll was near, and a candidate had a small majority, his agent would set to work to put all the questions allowed by law to electors, and delay their voting so as to keep his candidate at the head of the poll if possible. All kinds of wranglings might be got up as to the validity of a voting paper, and as to its being filled up in due and proper form, and he was confident that great practical inconvenience would result. If men who were members of the University of Oxford did not fill up voting papers in proper form, what would be the case when they had to be filled up by untrained men like many of those who would have the franchise under this Bill? It seemed to him that the arguments against this measure were more weighty than those in its favour. Above all he trusted they would not adopt an abstract general principle without knowing what were to be the details of the scheme. If he had succeeded in showing anything, he had shown how much depended upon details. He did not think the system was a good one under any circumstances; and it might be made almost infinitely bad if the details of the arrangement were imperfect. We were now arrived at the 2nd of August, and Monday, as we were reminded the other night, would be the 5th; and there would be some difficulty in settling the details of a new scheme in time to send the Bill down to the other House.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, most of the objections which the noble Earl who has just sat down, has urged against the scheme now before the House, have been stated before, and have been answered. The two

  715
  with which he concluded are really a fair specimen of the general character of the objections to this proposal and seem to give some degree of plausibility and soundness to arguments urged against the adoption of some scheme such as is now proposed. The noble Earl said that the greatest possible confusion would be introduced into elections by the system of voting papers, and he appealed to what took place at the University elections. Sir Roundell Palmer as counsel to the University of Oxford, was deluged during the continuance of the election for that University, with applications as to points of law which arose with regard to voting papers. I should have thought it a wonderful thing if, with a system entirely new, and never tried before, there had not been communications daily and hourly with counsel respecting the proper form of procedure. Has the noble Earl had no experience of an election for a borough or county, and had no opportunity of observing what points have to be settled by the counsel for one of the candidates or for the returning officer every hour of the day? With our regulated and well-known sytem of voting many questions arise which have to be decided on the spur of the moment; and your Lordships would not expect a system of voting by papers to be free from questions which would have to be dealt with by professional men as they arose. The noble Earl says that "dodges" and wrangles will be resorted to in order to delay the recording of votes, and he illustrated the point by narrating very truly what has often been observed, namely, that towards the close of a closely contested election the agents in their zeal will endeavour to occupy time by putting questions to voters with a view to delay them in giving their votes. But it so happens that a system of polling papers must be absolutely free from any wrangling of this kind. With personal polling, when a man comes up to give his vote, you must settle the questions which arise before the vote is accepted or refused, and you cannot pass them over; but if any objection be raised to a voting paper it can be just as well settled after the close of the poll, and not a second need be occupied in discussing the matter.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Has the noble and learned Lord read the Regulations in the new clause?
  LORD CAIRNS: I will read that on this point, although I do not commit myself to the wording.
  716
  "Any candidate at an election may inspect any voting paper received by the returning officer and compare the same with the counterfoil before the vote contained therein is recorded, and may object to the same on the ground of its not being in conformity with this Act, and the returning officer may allow or disallow the objection so made as he thinks just."
  Is there a word in that which implies that this is to be done before the close of the poll? [Earl GRANVILLE: Before the voting paper is recorded.] But the voting paper is there, and the point can be discussed afterwards, and the poll proceeded with. Any question can just as well be discussed the next day as on the day of election. I say this is one of the merits of the system. I am quite willing to weigh every objection which can be urged against the plan of the noble Marquess, but it lies on those who oppose a system of this kind to show that there is some valid objection why it should not be adopted. Provided there are proper checks and safeguards to prevent fraud, you ought not to impose upon any voter that he should spend time and suffer trouble and anxiety in going to the poll when he states, as he would in any other matter of business, what is the vote he desires to record. I maintain that this is a proposition which so completely commends itself to one's reason that it ought to be accepted unless some tangible objection be brought against it. The first and greatest objection is that voting papers will tend to the creation of "faggot votes," the very name of which raises a certain amount of odium. There was a time when the creation of faggot votes was a very useful operation—when county constituencies were very small and a few votes would have greatly influenced the result of an election, and when persons would consequently be willing to go to the trouble, the expense, and the inconvenience of creating such votes; but if you have to deal with large county constituencies such as those which we at present have, and with the still larger ones as they will be created by this Bill, I venture to say that no person in his senses would undertake a work always so inconvenient and always attended with so much trouble and expense, especially when it is remembered that it is a game that can be just as well played by both parties. The idea, therefore, that the creation of faggot votes will be promoted by the adoption of voting papers is to my mind an idea which has no foundation to recommend it. It is next urged that the adoption of this plan will promote bribery,

  717
  and that it would be a very easy matter for a person wishing to bribe to hand over a £5 note in exchange for the voting paper. But how is bribery now carried on? Do the Reports of Commissioners appointed at various times to inquire into these matters show that the money is paid beforehand, and that bargains are made quietly across a table in a manner that can be traced and detected? From the experience which we can all have gained from records of matters of this kind we know that the payment is made afterwards; and the mode in which that payment is now detected is quite as likely to lead to a detection of bribery committed in the case of voting papers as it is to the discovery of these practices when committed with open voting at the polling-booth. As long as the practice itself is not checked or put an end to, I am afraid that bribery will be committed just as frequently under the present system as it would be if we adopted the proposal before your Lordships. Beyond, therefore, the dogmatic assertion that bribery can be managed better by means of voting papers than under the present system, we have nothing to show that bribery would be increased by the adoption of these clauses, or to prove that any person would undertake to make exchanges of £5 notes for these voting papers. But, says the noble Earl (Earl de Grey), a large landed proprietor could easily have recourse to intimidation, and induce his tenants to sign the paper in his drawing-room, and it could then be transmitted to the returning officer. But, my Lords, if any large landed proprietor or any one possessed of the power is desirous of intimidating those whom he can influence in that way, that intimidation can be resorted to just as easily under the present system. If he does not exercise it in one way he will in another; if he does not exercise it in his drawing-room he will outside. My noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), in laying these clauses before your Lordships, referred to the case of voters who desired to avoid exposing themselves to the risk attending public disturbances, but, says the noble Earl opposite, our elections are perfectly free from annoyances of this kind.
  EARL DE GREY: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon, I did not say that.
  LORD CAIRNS: Then I suppose I may take it that the noble Earl does acknowledge the existence of such disturbances. At all events, if we can trust the reports
  718
  that were furnished, there were some elections not very long ago which, to say the least, were characterized by an absence of tameness, while at others it would occasionally have been disagreeable to have intervened even as a spectator. Have we any right to compel a man who is prepared honestly and faithfully to record his vote to run the gauntlet of an infuriated mob or to submit to disfranchisement? I cannot understand the argument that a poor man must make his way to the poll through rotten eggs and brickbats in order to testify—if he survives — that he has sufficient public spirit to become a martyr, when necessary, to the welfare of the State. Now, my Lords, I wish to say a word or two on the subject of expenditure. Your Lordships are free to a considerable extent from considerations which influence persons in "another place" on that score; but still your Lordships cannot fail to have observed the increasing expenditure of the country in this direction. The House of Commons have thought it right to introduce a clause which prohibits the payment of the expenses of conveyance in boroughs, but it leaves the candidate practically to bear the expense of conveyance in counties. Now, I wish to know whether it is a desirable thing to continue an expenditure in this country on a scale which results in thousands being lavished in an election for a large constituency—an expenditure without which no man has a chance of success, and which has now been declared illegal. The noble Earl says that polling-places ought to be increased, but that course would also be attended with a large expenditure, while the present system could not be done away with unless you erect polling-places opposite men's doors. In no case, my Lords, are you likely, I apprehend, to sanction those expenses being thrown upon any general county fund. But the objection on this score to the present system does not apply merely to the case of the counties. Even in the case of boroughs of any considerable size voting oftentimes involves not merely trouble and occasionally danger, but frequently time and expense; and if the expenditure of time and money can be avoided by any legislation on our part, it is our duty to afford relief to the voters. I think that the objections urged by the noble Earl opposite, therefore, vanish into thin air when you come to consider the advantages which are to be obtained from a system such as that suggested by my noble Friend. But,

  719
  says the noble Earl (Earl de Grey), your clause will place the magistrates of this country in a very invidious position—it will bring them into contact with the electors and oblige them, whether they wish it or not, to interfere in political matters. That objection is one well worthy the consideration and attention of your Lordships' House, but it would lead, not to the rejection of the clause, but to the substitution of some other check instead of the magistrates. In 1859 it was proposed that the voting papers should be signed in the presence of two witnesses, who should be householders, and who should be bound to give their names and addresses. This, therefore, is a very simple matter, and if your Lordships think that the services of the magistrates ought not to be resorted to in the case of the voting papers, nothing would be easier than to recur to the provision suggested in 1859 — a provision which to my mind would be quite as effectual a cheek. As to the time of the year at which we have arrived, though I think that that was an extremely good reason why we should not proceed to investigate an entirely new system of re-distribution, I cannot see that it is any ground for the rejection of such a proposal as this, which I feel sure is well worth acceptance and trial at your Lordships' hands.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) has stated with great perspicuity and force the arguments which may be urged in favour of this proposal; but when he says that we regard our present system of polling as one of the elements of our Constitution, I must say that I think that view is held by scarcely any noble Lord on this side of the House. The question before us is one which I think ought to be decided by full and fair argument; and I am perfectly willing to admit that there are certain advantages at first sight in favour of such a proposal as this. The noble and learned Lord said truly that one of its effects would be a diminution of election expenses. That cannot be denied; and I give him the full advantage of the argument. My Lords, to a certain extent also, but only to a certain extent, the use of voting papers may diminish risk and intimidation. I do not think we could hope that it would entirely put an end to them, because there would still be a large attendance of voters and non-electors at the polling-places, and the same influences that now operate would still prevail in causing
  720
  popular excitement. The noble and learned Lord rather ridiculed the idea of my noblo Friend (Earl de Grey), who alluded to the case of timid voters being obliged to run the gauntlet of being pelted with rotten eggs; and the noble and learned Lord asked, whether it was a part of our constitutional system that voters should be exposed to those outrages? Not only do I not hold it to be a part of our Constitutional system, but if any plan could be devised by which it would be put an end to I should be very glad, because I think it a disgrace to the country. The advantages to which I have referred might follow from the introduction of voting papers; but when you come to consider changes proposed in a system which has long been established, and which has been found to work well, you ought to see whether any advantages which those changes would bring about might not be overbalanced by disadvantages. The most objectionable practices in connection with elections are bribery and intimidation. Now, after listening to the noble and learned Lord, I cannot find that he has answered the arguments of my noble Friend on this head. The noble and learned Lord said, "Whatever you do, there will be bribery and intimidation." I admit it; but the question we have to consider is, whether voting papers would not afford greater facilities for bribery and intimidation? My noble Friend argued that they would; and I do not think the noble and learned Lord has answered that argument. At present, no doubt, bribery very often takes place after the election, because the payment is made then, the briber being assured that the vote has been given; but under the voting paper system he would have an assurance of the way the vote was to be given before it was recorded. It is obvious, therefore, that this system would facilitate bribery. Then, if we look at the machinery the noble Marquess proposes, it is not at all satisfactory. I apprehend that it would be very difficult to propose any machinery which would not be open to objection. At all events, we have not got such machinery in the plan before us. The agent of a candidate might see the voting paper after it had been attested, and even get possession of it; but whether he took it into his own custody or left it with the voter he would have an assurance as to the way in which the voter was going to vote. It appears to me that would be a great encouragement to bribery, and I think it would

  721
  also afford facilities for intimidation to landlords or employers, or any other parties who might exercise influence over voters. I may mention that I have heard from a very considerable number of gentlemen connected with Ireland that they have great apprehensions as to the introduction of voting papers leading to an increase of intimidation in that country. [A laugh.] A noble Lord laughs; but I venture to say that, with the priest on one side and the landlord on the other, scarcely a voter in the rural parts of that country would give an independent vote under the system of voting papers. I think that what my noble Friend (Earl do Grey) said as to the way in which objections might be taken to the voting papers is another point which has not been answered. One other argument against the system is the facility which it would afford for the manufacture of faggot votes. You may have clubs or societies which would make a practice of buying up 40 s. freeholds for parties who would have no connection with the county, and the votes of these parties may, by means of voting papers, be sent in a mass to the polling-places. I would express a hope that your Lordships will not come to what I cannot but think would be a hasty conclusion in favour of this clause. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) admitted that there was some force in the objection to the employment of justices in attesting these voting papers; and he suggested, as a substitute for that part of the plan, attestation in the presence of two householders. But can the noble and learned Lord think that the selection at hazard of two householders would afford a proper security? The objections to which I have referred illustrate the exceeding difficulty of carrying out the scheme in a satisfactory manner; and therefore I hope your Lordships will hesitate to give it your approval.
  LORD DE ROSsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) who had just spoken had argued that the use of voting papers in Ireland would increase intimidation in that country. He was astonished that the noble Earl with his knowledge of Ireland should have used such an argument. He (Lord de Ros) begged to recall their Lordship's attention to what an Irish election was. In England the first step taken, preparatory to an election, was to withdraw all the troops from the place or confine them to their barracks. In Ireland, on the contrary, the first step
  722
  taken was to call out every soldier that could be had, not to act in aid of the civil power—because there was no such thing as civil law in an Irish election—but to replace it. The noble Earl stated that intimidation would be increased; but he (Lord de Ros) asked were not the aged, the infirm, and the timid voters to be considered, or were they still to go to the poll by a road which would probably have a horse pond at one side and a pile of stones at the other, while they would very likely see the protecting detachment of cavalry attacked by volleys of stones. He assured their Lordships that that was by no means an exaggerated statement of what took place at an Irish election. When it was urged that there was little or no question of intimidation in England, he begged to remind their Lordships of the recent disclosures at Sheffield, and of the intimidation practised by tailors nearer home. He believed that the proposal commended itself to their Lordships' approval.
  LORD CLONCURRYsaid, that the violence at Irish elections did not take its rise in the locality. There was an organized system of sending peripatetic mobs to Irish counties, in order to coerce the voters. There were certain well-known ringleaders of those organized mobs, and individuals such as Alderman John Reynolds, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Lane Joynt had great experience in their organization. To a great extent these mobs were drawn from a well-known body—the coalporters of Dublin. Before he had the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House, he was entitled to vote in two or three counties, and thus had personal experience of the way in which these matters were carried on. Upon one occasion, some years ago, in the county of Limerick, a personal friend of his—the late Wyndham Goold—was a candidate, and was opposed by a notorious person named Ryan, a miller, who stood on what virtually were Riband, though he called them Repeal, principles. The right-hand man of Mr. Ryan, his gutter-agent in fact, was the same Mr. Lane Joynt who had recently been made Justice of the Peace, and Deputy Lieutenant for the county of Dublin. On that occasion part of Mr. Lane Joynt's tactics, he being the manager of the election, consisted of delay. Some of the coalporters, he believed had not come down in time, and hence the great thing was by delay to hinder as many persons as possible from recording their votes for Mr. Goold. Accordingly, the

  723
  bribery oath was tendered to all the respectable voters who came to the poll. This, their Lordships might not be aware, was a lengthy proceeding. To read out the bribery oath occupied from five to six minutes, and if the person reading it had any inducement to read slowly, ten minutes could easily be consumed in the process. The bribery oath was tendered to him and to others, who naturally felt with him that it was a deliberate insult. Being compelled in this manner to stand in the polling-booth longer than he would otherwise have done, he had the opportunity of watching the action of Mr. Lane Joynt, at whose instance the oath was administered. In the case of every frieze-coated voter who came to the poll, and who would not submit to his dictation, or to that of the coalporters and mobbites, he saw Mr. Lane Joynt give a nod towards the voter as he left the booth, indicating that something was to be done to him, and thereupon his right-hand man, Cullen, with a piece of chalk marked a cross upon the back of the frieze-coated voter. There was an old man named George Boyle in whom he felt an interest, and as this man was going out of the court he saw Cullen put the mark upon him. He knew at once what that meant—it was a signal to the mob outside to waylay and beat him. Having an interest in the old man, and wishing to protect him, he ran out of the court, and saw Boyle going up the street and Cullen following him. He lost sight of them at a corner about 200 yards from the court-house, and when he reached the spot he saw Cullen pounding the poor old man against the curbstone. He rushed at Cullen and collared him, threatening to inform the police and have him put into gaol for so gross an outrage. Cullen turned round upon him, and tried to push him down; but he found that was not so easy to be done. So he asked, "Are you a policeman? Do you belong to Limerick?" And while he was in the act of explaining that, whether he was a policeman or not, he would not allow such outrageous violence to take place, a friend came up—who could corroborate what he had now stated to their Lordships—and said, "Every man is a policeman when the peace is broken;" whereon the Dublin coalporter slunk off—for, happily, there were in Ireland some persons who did entertain that opinion. From that short narrative their Lordships might infer how elections were carried on in Ireland. He was convinced that a very
  724
  large proportion of the Irish Members now occupying seats in Parliament would never have been returned if local feelings, local interests, and local wishes had been exclusively consulted.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that the amusing speech their Lordships had just heard was really a little wide of the question, inasmuch as the present Bill did not apply in any way to Ireland, and though, no doubt, the principle of voting papers if adopted for England might be extended hereafter to Ireland; it was not then necessary for their Lordships to consider what might be the effect of the Amendment on the state of intimidation in that country. It was quite true, as had been stated by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) that the expenditure at county elections had been excessive, and hence any measure which would have for its object to reduce that expenditure ought to receive the support of the Legislature. One great source of expenditure it would certainly obviate—that incurred in bringing non-resident voters into the county in order to give their votes. It would also save the time and trouble of the voter; and their Lordships should remember that all voters in every constituency should have the power of recording their votes without inconvenience. It was said that if polling-places were multiplied, much of the expenditure and inconvenience of county elections would be avoided. But it must be borne in mind that it was impossible to multiply polling-places without increasing the cost of the staff in attendance at those polling-places. There must be agents to look after the voters, and those agents must be paid by somebody. On the other hand, there could be no doubt that by the use of voting papers the influence of agents over the scattered voters would be very much diminished. As to the question of intimidation, he did not believe that this species of influence, which was happily on the decline of late years, could be in any way increased by voting papers. In the counties there was very little bribery, though there might be some intimidation; but the influence of landlords over their tenants was a species of pressure which it would be difficult to remove by the use of voting papers. The adoption of that system would certainly enable persons infirm, or of retired habits, who now were unable to give their votes, to exercise the franchise. Many would fill up their papers in due form and send them in who shrank in

  725
  person from the turmoil of an election. When we were about so largely to increase the constituencies of the kingdom, it certainly seemed but reasonable that facilities for recording their votes should be afforded to all who were desirous of doing so. He thought it was of essential importance at the present moment, when the constituencies were to be so much enlarged, that the principle of that proposal should be affirmed, and for that reason he should give his vote for that principle, reserving his opinion on points of detail connected with the safest and most effectual means of carrying it out.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I think that the advantages which would result from the use of voting papers—the advantages as regards both the limitation of expense, and the reduction of intimidation, if not, indeed, also as regards the reduction of bribery—are advantages that are not denied on either side of the House. The only question really at issue is this—whether the objections to the proposal of my noble Friend below me (the Marquess of Salisbury) are not greater than the advantages which would result from its adoption; and I thought that point was very fairly and temperately stated by my noble Friend on the front Bench opposite (Earl de Grey)? It appears to me that the objections to the proposal of my noble Friend below me really resolve themselves into two, for in all these cases it is as fair as it is desirable to argue from experience and what we know. Now this procedure by voting papers has been tried under two systems—and only under two, as far as I know—namely, first of all in the Universities, and, secondly, under the Poor Law. The objection which has been made, and which was taken by my noble Friend opposite to the University system, was, I think a very fair objection in many respects. He stated, and truly stated, that at the last election for Oxford University, Sir Roundell Palmer was overwhelmed with legal questions which arose in regard to the use of these voting papers. But if I remember rightly, the point on which almost all these questions at the University election arose out of the proxy system, which is in force under the University Act, and the main point on which they hinged was the personal acquaintance with the voter which was to be vouched for by the proxy. I have always thought, and I expressed my opinion when the Bill was passing through Parliament that that was a very unfortunate
  726
  provision, to introduce into that Act, and I believe that experience has shown that it has given rise to an infinity of legal difficulties. But the House will observe that this objection does not apply in the smallest degree to the proposition now before the House. There is no proxy who is to take a part in the matter under the scheme of voting papers which is proposed by my noble Friend. The voting papers will go direct to the returning officer and will be recorded by him. Therefore I think that this disposes of one great class of objections which has been urged. But there is a second class, of objections which may be fairly brought forward from the experience of the Poor Law system, and I think that these clearly resolve themselves into this—that the voting papers, after having been signed and attested, as my noble Friend proposes, are left in the hands of the voters; and, that it constantly happens under the Poor Law system, that, for various purposes, these papers are collected by agents, whose business it is to collect them, or are forged or tampered with, thus leading to great fraud and abuse. I am bound to say that, in my opinion, if my noble Friend's Amendments are carried precisely as they are at present framed, there would be an opening for fraud in this particular direction. But I would venture to suggest to him this Amendment—that when the elector goes before the magistrate, and the magistrate there and then receives his signature to the paper, and attests it, from that moment the paper should not pass back into the voter's hand, but should be forwarded direct from the magistrate to the returning officer to be applied by him on the polling day. This, it seems to me, would be an effectual answer to all the objections which have been urged on this particular point, derived from the experience of the election of the Poor Law Guardian, and would completely close the door against anything like the fraud, the tampering, or the mere trafficking in these votes which might otherwise occur. There have indeed been objections raised as to the facilities which this plan would give to the manufacture of faggot votes, and to personation. I think these objections were answered by my noble and learned Friend below me (Lord Cairns). I go so far as to admit that there might possibly be some facilities given under this Amendment to the creation of faggot votes and to personation;

  727
  but it would only be in the same proportion relatively to the increase of these enormous constituencies, and just as you add to those constituencies so will such facilities arise. But I do not see that in any other sense this proposal will increase those facilities. I wish also to point out another answer to the argument frequently used with respect to bribery. We know very well that bribery mainly takes place during the last hours of an election, when the price of votes rises to an almost incalculable value, because towards the close of the poll a very few votes may possibly decide the election. But if a considerable proportion of votes have been tendered by means of voting papers, no one can tell with any certainly what the real state of the poll is, and it will become far more difficult, as it seems to me, for such an impure traffic as often now exists to go on. Therefore, in this point of view, I think that the use of voting papers is an influence that directly neutralizes bribery in that most critical period of the election when it is most rife. Those, in a few words, are the answers to some of the main objections urged on the other side of the House. I will only say this further—that you are now dealing with a very altered state of circumstances, You will have enormous constituencies to deal with. Take the case of Leeds, where, if I mistake not, you raise the number of electors there from 7,000 or 8,000 to some 27,000 or 28,000; or, of Dundee, where you raise the number from 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 to some 24,000 or 25,000. Under these circumstances a personal canvass becomes absolutely impossible, and personal voting becomes very difficult. It is therefore only reasonable that Parliament should give every facility that can be afforded for the due registration and transmission of votes. The evidence adduced, in regard to personal voting and the voting by voting papers in the case of Vestries and Guardians of the Poor, before the Select Committee of this House which sat seven or eight years ago, and of which my noble Friend on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) was the Chairman, all showed that just in proportion as you multiply your constituencies, so you must give them some facilities of this kind to record their opinions. There appears to be an impression on the part of some of my noble Friends opposite that the use of voting papers for party purposes would be rather more favourable to this side of the House than to the other. I do not believe there
  728
  is a more unfounded opinion than that. I believe this proposal would be valuable—as has been already pointed out—in the interest of property and of education, of age, infirmity, and sickness, and finally to those who are too timid to go in person to the poll; but I do not believe it would produce the smallest effect as regards the balance of political power. And I can say this, not on my own authority, but on that of a gentleman than whom there can be no better authority in this country—I mean the Secretary to the Liberal Association for the City of London—I remember that in the evidence which he gave before the Committee to which I have referred he urged most strongly upon the Committee the great importance at Parliamentary elections of allowing voting papers to be used. It is impossible to have a more trustworthy or, I believe, a more intelligent opinion than that of Mr. Sidney Smith on such a point. I do not believe that this Amendment would operate in any party sense. If I thought it would do so I should certainly decline to vote for it; but, believing that it will be beneficial to all classes, all parties, and all interests in this country, I shall heartily and readily give it my support.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl who has just sat down must, I think, have imperfectly heard the observations of noble Lords on this side of the House. Neither of those two noble Lords said that the system of voting papers would tend to diminish corruption, or that it would be more favourable in its operation to one party than the other.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had only stated generally that there appeared to be an impression on the minds of noble Lords on the other side of the House that the system of voting papers would operate more favourably on the one side than the other.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have troubled your Lordships so often in the course of these debates that I will only offer a few-observations. I object to this abstract principle altogether, and I understand that it is only on the abstract principle of the Motion that we are called upon to vote on this occasion. Three sentences will express all that I desire to say against this proposal. I object to it because it greatly tends, notwithstanding the Regulations proposed, to increase the tendency to personation. I object to it in the next place because it will greatly aggravate the practice

  729
  of bribery, by making it safe. I object to it in the third place because it will have a tendency to increase very greatly the practice of intimidation. I observe that the noble Earl opposite smiles at my enumeration of these reasons. I need not mention the person who first used them; but I will not quote the author for fear of being charged with that personal recrimination which has so much prevailed during these debates, or having some other hard word hurled at my head. They are, however, pregnant and comprehensive, and they include within themselves the real objections to these proposals. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) was inclined to deny the tendency of voting papers to increase bribery, but I think it would have that effect, because it would render bribery more safe. It is alleged that we never hear of money being given before an election; but that is exactly why this system will increase bribery to such an extent—by rendering such corrupt transactions more easy and practicable. My noble Friend (Earl de Grey) has objected to the scheme because it will tend to great confusion at elections and delay at the close. Now, one of the greatest improvements made by the Reform Bill was the abolition of the practice of employing counsel at an immense expense on the hustings. At present, all that is asked of the voter is, "Who are you?" "Are you the same person?" and "Have you voted before?" But by the scheme of the noble Marquess it is proposed that before the vote is recorded any candidate, or his agent, may inspect the voting papers, compare them with the counterfoils, and object to them on certain specified grounds. The parties must consequently be entitled to employ counsel for these purposes; and let your Lordships imagine the effect of such pleading at an election for Birmingham, and say whether it will not cause confusion, and delay the close of an election. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) says that the Government have not had time to consider this question, but that they will probably be able to make a great improvement in the details. I think, however, the clause so objectionable for the reasons I have given, and I am so certain that it will lead to the adoption of the ballot, that I shall object to the clause on the abstract principle. It is very hard upon those noble Lords who may be wavering in opinion, and who wish to consider how the plan may be carried out, that they should be called
  730
  upon to vote "Content" or "Not-Content," to the proposition, when they are told that the details of the plan upon which so much depends, have yet to be thought over and considered by the Government, and they are therefore quite uncertain what shape the details and regulations of the scheme will ultimately assume.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, the Bill proposed largely to increase the number of electors. It had been shewn from statistics in a recent article in the Edinburgh Review that in twelve boroughs containing the largest constituencies, and together comprehending 130,000 electors, less than 55 per cent voted at the then last election—that was to say one-half of the constituencies practically disfranchised themselves. Whereas, from his experience of the Poor Law Board he could state that the system of voting papers at elections for Boards of Guardians, even conducted in the unsatisfactory manner they were, at a cost so small as to prevent the adoption of the most obvious and not very expensive precautions against abuse and fraud, had greatly increased the number of votes. At the election for Guardians for St. Pancras, for instance, the votes had been more than doubled by the adoption of polling-papers. If, therefore, the object of their Lordships was really to enfranchise as large a number of persons as possible, he maintained that, after allowing a margin for a certain amount of personation consequent upon the use of voting papers, the adoption of the system would yet afford a much juster representation to constituencies than existed under the present system.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 114; Not-Contents 36: Majority 78.

  CONTENTS.

  Cambridge, D.

  Bathurst, E.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bradford, E.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Derby, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Devon, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Abercorn, M.

  Bristol, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Effingham, E.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Eldon, E.

  Westminster, M.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  731

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Clinton, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Grey, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Congleton, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Denman, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Morton, E.

  Digby, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Powis, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Romney, E. [Teller.]

  Feversham, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Londesborough, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Eversley, V.

  Exmouth, V.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Melville, V.

  Northwick, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Overstone, L.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Raglan, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Rivers, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Saltoun, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Aveland, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Cairns, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Templemore, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Walsingham, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Churston, L.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Clarina, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Camden, M.

  Sydney, V.

  Abingdon, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Belper, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  De Grey, E.

  Granville, E.

  Camoys, L.

  Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

  Clermont, L.

  Minto, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Morley, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Portsmouth, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Russell, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Halifax, V.

  Leigh, L.

  732

  Monson, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked, what course it was intended to pursue in reference to the Regulations?
  THE MAUQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he proposed to read the clause, pro formâ, and to defer the consideration of the details until the Report.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had entirely misunderstood the course suggested. The noble Earl had condemned in strong terms the conduct of the Government in dealing with this clause, as if these Regulations had been proposed by the Government. But the proposition did not arise from the Government. The Government were prepared to go on with the consideration of the Regulations at once, and they merely suggested delay because they gathered from some remarks which had been made that their Lordships were not prepared now to enter upon the discussion of the details.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think his complaint at all an unreasonable one. Their Lordships were entitled to know what course the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Regulations.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the Government were ready to express their opinions upon the Regulations proposed by the noble Marquess, and they had only suggested that the discussion should be taken upon the Report, because they thought that would be for the convenience of the House. He was unable to understand on what ground the Government was attacked.
  EARL GREYsaid, that if the consideration of the clause was adjourned till the Report, there would be no opportunity of re-considering the Amendments that might be introduced, except at the last stage of the Bill, and he was convinced that unless they were extremely careful in settling the details serious difficulties would result. He must express his extreme surprise that the Government seemed so little disposed to assist the House in the matter. It seemed to him that when the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had made up his mind to recommend the House to adopt the scheme, the

  733
  Government ought also to have been prepared to go at once into a careful consideration of the details in Committee; for the Regulations proposed by the noble Marquess had been on the table some days. Their Lordships had a right to complain of the conduct of the Government, that they should now be unprepared to state what course it would be advisable in their opinion, to adopt in the settlement of the details of the clause. It would be extremely difficult to discuss these points properly in Committee without such assistance from the Government; but he should be prepared to do this if it was necessary.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was extremely obliged to the noble Earl for his advice, but could not concur in the view he had taken. This was not a question brought forward by the Government. The clause of the noble Marquess embodied a principle to which the Government had given their support in the other House. It was not accepted by the other House; and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had brought forward the question as an Amendment, and had given notice of Regulations for carrying out the principle. He (the Earl of Derby) was asked somewhat irregularly, before they had heard the objections to the proposal of the noble Marquess, whether he assented to the proposal or not, and his answer was that he accepted it in substance, and should be ready at any time to discuss the particular details which the noble Marquess sought to introduce. They had given a general assent to the proposal of the noble Marquess; but, because they were not prepared at once to enter into every detail, they were told they failed in their duty to the House.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, as far as his experience went, he never saw a Government conduct a Bill in such a way. His noble Friend near him (Earl Granville) very naturally asked what the Government had to say to the Amendments moved in their own Bill. The noble Earl at the head of the Government had said with respect to the Amendment of the noble Marquess that he was prepared to assent ex animo to the proposal in principle, but that he had not had time to consider the details, and he would like, before the Report, to see how the scheme should be carried out. That showed that the Government, not having made up their minds, wished for time to consider how the principle might be carried into effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he was quite prepared to go on now; or to have the clauses now read pro formâ and discussed afterwards on the Report.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he was not quite sure that he understood what noble Lords opposite desired. What he was anxious about was that they should not do anything which was likely to be misunderstood by Members of the Committee who were present a short time since, but had left the House under the full impression that the course to be adopted was this—that these clauses were to remain in print until the Report, and that upon the Report the Government were to give a distinct expression of their views on the details of the plan, and the Members of the House to have an opportunity of stating their opinions upon those details. If they went through the clauses now, they must either do so pro formâ, and then no serious attention would be given to them; and if they went through them step by step that would not be consistent with the understanding upon which many noble Lords had left the House. His opinion was that they would be all better prepared to discuss the clauses on the Report.
  EARL DE GREYsaid, he did not think that any such understanding had been come to. He and other noble Lords had stated that they hoped their Lordships would not take that course, and they on that side were no parties to any such understanding. The Committee was the proper place for dealing with questions of detail, and it was the business of every noble Lord, and especially of the Government, to give their opinions upon the details of all clauses proposed in Committee, and not to hand them over to the House to be dealt with at a later period.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, that, after the decision which had been come to, it was the duty of both sides to endeavour to carry this scheme into execution, and he felt satisfied that they were disposed to do so. He did not quite understand what was meant by passing the clauses pro formâ. He agreed with the suggestion that they should not pass these clauses at all; but that they should be printed for the purpose of being introduced upon the Report or upon the re-commitment of the Bill, after they had received the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that they should rest satisfied with the clause

  735
  which had been adopted, and postpone the consideration of the rest.
  This course agreed to.
  Clauses 28 to 32 inclusive agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 33 (Payment of Expenses of Conveying Voters to the Poll illegal).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the clause prohibited the payment of expenses for conveying voters to the poll, and enacted that—
  "If any such Candidate, or any Person on his behalf, shall pay any money on account of the Conveyance of any Voter to the Poll, such Payment shall be deemed to be an illegal Payment within the meaning of 'The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854.'"
  He wished to know what was the penalty attaching to such payment under the Act in question, and whether it would vitiate the election? It could not have been meant that any person acting on behalf of the candidate, and making such a payment, should vitiate the election, and he should, therefore, suggest to insert after the words any other person "with his privity" or on his behalf.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that if there was a case of bribery, and the payment constituting it was made with the consent of the sitting Member, he would be liable to the penalties provided in the Act.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the offender must not only represent himself as acting on behalf of the sitting Member, but must be acting on his behalf and must have authority so to act, or his act must be afterwards recognized.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked, whether there would be any objection to add the words he had suggested?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought it better not to add them, as they would only create a doubt where none existed.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 34, 35, 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 (Receipt of Parochial Relief).
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDmoved an Amendment—
  "And the Overseers of every Parish shall omit from the Lists made out by them of Persons entitled to Vote for the County and Borough in which such Parish is situate, the Names of all Persons who have received Parochial Relief within Twelve Calendar Months next previous to the last Day of July in the Year in which the List is made out."
  The noble Earl stated that they were able to do so easily, because under a recent
  736
  regulation of the Poor Law Board a list of those who had received relief was supplied half-yearly to overseers. The Reform Act did not require this of the overseers, but merely said that those who had been in receipt of relief should not be registered.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, hat what the noble Earl had stated was correct, and accepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  Clauses 38 to 42, which regulate the Election in the University of London,
  THE EARL OF POWISmoved an Amendment for the purpose of assimilating the elections to those for the other Universities by enabling the poll to be kept open for five days instead of three days, by excepting Ascension Day as well as Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday, by allowing the poll to be kept open later than four o'clock in the afternoon, and by investing the Vice Chancellor with discretion to open three polling-places instead of one.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was important the provisions as to elections should be the same at all the Universities, and, though he would rather have reduced the number of days from five to three for the other Universities than have raised those for London from three to five, he would, for the sake of uniformity, accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 43 (Residence for Electors of the City of London extended to twenty-five miles).
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the clause as originally proposed by the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) was slightly different from the clause in its present form. By the old Reform Bill the franchise in London was given to occupiers and freemen who were liverymen residing within seven miles of the City. It was, however, evident that, from the alterations which had taken place of late years in habits of residence, the area must be considerably enlarged, or a great number of these voters would be disfranchised. Mr. Crawford proposed a clause extending the area to twenty-five miles; but the House, apparently under a misapprehension, believing that it was intended to refer to freemen generally—a body upon whom

  737
  they did not look with much favour—struck out that portion referring to the freemen who were liverymen, adopting the remainder, which related to the occupiers. Now, these liverymen were an important class, and had paid heavy fees on joining the guilds to which they belonged, corporations which possessed large property in London, and whose interests would remain unrepresented unless their members were allowed to vote. He therefore proposed the restoration of the words struck out by the other House.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 44 and 45 amended and agreed to.
  Clause 46 (Corrupt Payment of Rates to be punishable as Bribery).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved the omission of the word "corruptly," as a limitation which might possibly lead to the defeat of the object they had in view.
  LORD CAIRNSremarked, that if the word "corruptly" were left out a man paying his rate through his agent would be liable to disfranchisement. He suggested the insertion of the words "otherwise than of the proper monies of such voter."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Word "corruptly" struck out.
  On Question That the Clause as amended stand Part of the Bill?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that with the view of guarding against such a case as that suggested by Lord Cairns it would be necessary to substitute some word for the word "corruptly."
  After some conversation, it was agreed to postpone the consideration of the word to be inserted to the Report.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  EARL DE GREYproposed to insert a clause after Clause 46, which, he said, was rendered additionally necessary by the recent decision of their Lordships with regard to voting papers—
  (Returning Officer, &c., acting as Agent, guilty of Misdemeanour.)
  "No Returning Officer for any County or Borough, nor his Deputy, nor any Partner or Clerk of either of them, shall act as Agent for any Candidate in the Management or Conduct of his Election as a Member to serve in Parliament for such County or Borough; and if any Returning Officer, his Deputy, the Partner or Clerk of either of them shall so act, he shall be guilty of a Misdemeanour."—(Earl De Grey.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  EARL STANHOPEproposed to insert after Clause 46 a clause of which he had given notice. It had reference to the existing limitation of the duration of Parliament at the demise of the Crown. Blackstone, in his Commentaries, said—
  "The dissolution formerly happened immediately upon the death of the reigning Sovereign, for he being considered in law as the head of the Parliament (caput, principium, et finis) that failing, the whole body was held to be extinct."
  It appears, then, that our ancient lawyers did not value this provision from any supposed Constitutional advantage, but only from a fanciful analogy between a living creature and the body politic. As a creature cannot continue to live when deprived of its head, so it was argued must a Parliament cease and determine when the Sovereign is no more. Soon after the Revolution, however, there was a change in the law. The Act 7 & 8 Will. III., c. 15, continued the existence of Parliament for a term not exceeding six months from the demise of the Crown; but that Act being embodied in the subsequent Act of Queen Anne had been superseded by it, and was now among the statutes repealed. The 6 Anne, c. 7, was "An Act for the security of Her Majesty's person and Government, and of the succession to the Crown of Great Britain in the Protestant line." Clause 4 of that Act provided that the existing Parliament at the demise of the Crown, might continue "for and during the term of six months and no longer." Such a provision might give rise to considerable inconvenience and detriment to the public weal, and he thought it required alteration. What, he proposed was to make the dissolution under such circumstances permissive, not compulsory, leaving it to the option of the Ministry to dissolve the Parliament or to continue it to the time when it naturally expired. It might be desirable to have a new Parliament; but, on the other hand, if they took the case of a new Sovereign who wished to retain the Ministers in office at the time of the accession, and to pursue exactly the same policy as his predecessor, inconvenience might arise from the dissolution which the existing statute made obligatory. He thought he could quote several instances of inconvenience having resulted from the existing law; but he would confine himself to citing one. In 1818 there was a General Election, and the new House of Commons worked in perfect harmony with the Ministers of the day, and, in

  739
  accordance also, he might add, with what seemed to be the feeling of the country. That Parliament sat till 1820, and in all probability would have sat for four years longer but for the decease of the Sovereign. King George III., as was well known, had long ceased to take an active part in the affairs of the State, as was sufficiently shown by the appointment of a Regent. Nevertheless, at great inconvenience and with loud complaints on all sides, Parliament was unavoidably, and without any possible alternative, dissolved. He need not trouble their Lordships with any further illustrations; there could be no stronger instance than the one he had just alleged, and he had now, he thought, sufficiently indicated the object which he had in view. He did not propose in any degree to limit the Prerogative of the Crown, the exercise of which would, as in other cases, be optional upon the recommendation of Ministers. But he believed the proposal to render the measure optional instead of compulsory was one that had in its favour plain practical advantages, and he therefore ventured to recommend it to their Lordships.
  Moved, after Clause 46, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Demise of the Crown not to dissolve) Parliament.)
  "Whereas great Inconvenience may arise from the Enactments now in force limiting the Duration of the Parliament in being at the Demise of the Crown: Be it therefore enacted that the Parliament in being at any future Demise of the Crown shall not be determined or dissolved by such Demise, but shall continue so long as it would have continued but for such Demise, unless it should be sooner prorogued or dissolved by the Crown, anything in the Act passed in the Sixth Year of Her late Majesty Queen Anne, Chapter Seven in any way notwithstanding."—(The Earl Stanhope.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: If I am called on suddenly to give an opinion upon the Motion submitted by the noble Earl, I should certainly say that it has considerable advantages in its favour, and, for my own part, that I do not perceive any disadvantages in the way of accepting the proposal which he has made. At the same time, as the question raised is one of a Constitutional character, it is one upon which I should be unwilling in the name of my Colleagues to pronounce a hasty assent. On the whole, I am disposed to believe that the advantages of the proposal overbalance any theoretical objections which might be raised against it. But I would
  740
  ask the noble Earl himself whether, as the point at issue is one of Constitutional moment, he does not think that it is one hardly fitting to be introduced into a Bill which professes to deal with the Reform of Parliament only. If my noble Friend, on reflection, is disposed to press this clause with a view of submitting it in the present Bill for the consideration of the House of Commons, I certainly shall not think it my duty to throw any obstacles in the way. At the same time I invite him to consider whether, as the subject is not very closely connected with the provisions of the Bill, and as it is one which the House of Commons will no doubt wish carefully to consider, it might not be desirable to withdraw the clause at present, with a view of embodying it hereafter in a separate Bill.
  LORD CRANWORTHthought that the clause proposed was at least as germane to the present Bill as it would be to any other. Its subject-matter was intimately connected with the Representation of the People.
  LORD DENMANsaid, the Septennial Act (1716) had originated in their Lordships' House, and it was very desirable to make this clause part of the present Bill.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, the advantages of the clause seemed to be clear and manifest, and he thought the present peculiarly a time for introducing improvements in the constitutional forms relating to the Representation of the People. He was not at all willing to give up the present opportunity on the chance of effecting the same object by means of a separate Bill. He hoped, therefore, his noble Friend at the head of the Government would forgive him, under these circumstances, for not acceeding to his suggestion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  EARL GREYsaid, he rose to propose to substitute for Clause 47 of the Bill a clause which, instead of merely allowing Members to be transferred from one office to another without vacating their seats, would do away with the necessity for re-election in all cases of Members of Parliament accepting any office under the Crown now tenable by law with a seat in the House of Commons. When the Reform Bill of 1832 was in progress, the expediency of making this change in the law had been considered by the Government of that day. He could not say whether the question had been formally brought before

  741
  the Cabinet; but he could assert from his own distinct recollection that it had been seriously considered at that time by the leading Ministers in the two Houses of Parliament,—that they had been convinced of its being most desirable to alter the law in the manner he now recommended, and only abstained from advising Parliament to do so because they were of opinion that, in the face of an opposition so bitter and so powerful as that with which they had to contend, it was inexpedient to make any proposal which was not absolutely necessary, and would afford a plausible handle for attack. On this ground, and on this ground only, it was determined in 1832 to abstain from attempting to introduce into the Reform Act a provision to the same effect as that which he now proposed, though it was anticipated that much inconvenience would result from its absence in the altered circumstances that would arise from that measure. Experience had shown that inconvenience to have been even greater than was anticipated. Before the passing of the Reform Act of 1832, a large number of seats were at the absolute disposal of the Government for the time being; no difficulty therefore could arise as to bringing any Member of the Administration into the House of Commons, nor could serious inconvenience be caused by the failure of any person appointed to office to secure his re-election. But, since 1832, the case had been greatly altered; and it must be well known to all who were acquainted with the political events of the last few years that the existing law on this point had produced much inconvenience. Cases, were known to him, and, he had no doubt, to the noble Earl opposite, in which appointments that would have been greatly for the public advantage had been prevented, because it had been found that the re-election of persons on whom it was desired to confer offices under the Crown could not be reckoned upon. Other cases had arisen in which persons who had been brought into the Government had failed to get re-elected, and other seats had to be found for them by arrangements open to no slight objection. These difficulties would be increased by the change which was about to be made in the constitution of the House of Commons by this Bill. In his opinion, it would be highly desirable to give to the Crown facilities for filling the great offices in the State with the best men that could be found for them without depending for seats for them on the caprice
  742
  of particular electoral bodies. But, if they were not prepared to go so far as this, they ought, at all events, to avoid throwing needless difficulties in the way of making a good selection of persons to hold these offices, by repealing the law which made the accepting them vacate the seats of those on whom they were conferred. An additional reason for doing this was afforded by the Motion carried a few evenings ago by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns)—indeed, this arrangement was almost a necessary consequence of the clause which that noble Lord had introduced into the Bill, because a Member elected by the minority of what had been called a three-cornered constituency would almost inevitably lose his seat if required to offer himself for re-election; all such Members, therefore, would be almost debarred from office without the clause he proposed. The existing law was moreover inconsistent in itself, and would be rendered still more so by the clause as it stood in the Bill. What could be more inconsistent or absurd than the law which made the acceptance of office by a junior Lord of the Treasury or Admiralty vacate the seat of a Member of the House of Commons, while no such consequence followed from his accepting the much more important and more lucrative office of Secretary to one of these Boards, or of Under Secretary of State? Within the last few days they had virtually put an end to the necessity of re-election, with regard to one office, by abolishing the office of Vice President of the Board of Trade, and instituting for it a new Under Secretary. The offices of Secretary to the Government Boards and of Under Secretary of State did not vacate the seats of those who were appointed to them, because owing to the form of the appointment they were not considered to be offices under the Crown in a technical sense, but there was no real distinction between these and other political offices, either in their character or in the tenure by which they were held; it was absurd therefore to apply a different rule to these two classes of offices, with respect to the vacating of seats by their acceptance. But the clause as it stood in the Bill would actually make the absurdity greater than at present. It provided that the seat of a person appointed to one of the offices enumerated in the Schedule should not be vacated if at the time the appointment took place he held another of these offices. Now, the Schedule

  743
  referred to did not, of course, include the offices which might by the existing law be accepted without vacating a seat in the House of Commons. This absurd consequence would therefore follow from the enactment they were asked to pass: if a Member of the other House, holding the office of a junior Lord of the Treasury, were suddenly promoted to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not incur the necessity of going to his constituents for re-election; but if his promotion were somewhat less rapid, if he were first advanced from being a junior Lord to being Secretary of the Treasury, and then, after ever so short a tenure of the latter office, promoted to the still higher one, his seat would be vacated. This could hardly be intended, but such undoubtedly would be the effect of the Bill in its present shape; and such was the absurdity into which they would be led by maintaining the existing law, which applied a different rule as to vacating seats to different political offices when there was no earthly reason for doing so. The truth was, this system had never been deliberately adopted by Parliament; it arose by mere accident in the course of a strife as to whether placemen should be admitted into Parliament at all. No doubt the compromise by which that strife had been settled had been an excellent one, in so far as it limited the number of the Servants of the Crown who could sit in the House of Commons, and to this limitation it was most important to adhere; but he maintained that for the efficiency of Parliamentary government it was essential that there should be no useless check upon the power of the Crown to select the fittest persons to fill the high offices of State. With these views he ventured to submit to their Lordships the substitution of the clause of which he had given notice.
  An Amendment moved to omit Clause 47, and insert the following Clause:—
  "Whereas, by the existing Law there are some political Offices of which the Acceptance does, and others of which the Acceptance does not, vacate the Seats of Members of the House of Commons, and it is desirable to establish a uniform Rule on the Subject; and whereas the necessity for the Reelection of Persons entering into the Service of the Crown is sometimes highly injurious to the Public Interest: Be it enacted, That no Member of the House of Commons shall vacate his Seat by the Acceptance of an Office which does not now disqualify him from sitting in Parliament if re-elected."—(The Earl Grey.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought that the course adopted by the House of Commons
  744
  on this question—a question which more especially concerned the House of Commons than it did their Lordships' House—was a rational and a sound one—namely, that where a person had been returned to Parliament with the full knowledge of his constituents that he was a person holding a high office, and consequently that he was a member of the Government, and should subsequently change to another office being still a member of the same Government, it should not be necessary for him to present himself for re-election. But, on the other hand, to propose, as the noble Earl did, that a person who had been elected—say for Liverpool—as being wholly independent of the Government and perfectly free to devote the whole of his time and attention to his duties towards that constituency, but who after his election accepted an office which bound him hand and foot to the Government, and not only deprived his constituents of a great portion of the time and attention which he had intended to devote to their service, but also to a certain extent crippled independence of judgment—to propose that such a person should not have to go before his constituents in order to know whether, in those altered circumstances, they were willing to continue him as their representative appeared to him a proceeding which considerably trenched on the constitutional rights of the electors. No doubt the course which the noble Earl recommended would be exceedingly convenient to the Government, who in arranging their distribution of offices were sometimes in doubt as to whether, if particular persons were selected, they would be able to secure their scats in the other House; but, on the other hand, they ought not to interfere with the rights of the constituencies in the manner to which he had referred.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, that the measure before their Lordships was necessarily to a great degree an experiment, and that there was one part of that experiment to which he looked with considerable anxiety,—namely, its effect upon that union between the Executive Government and the House of Commons, which was one of the most important elements in the practical working of our Constitution. The question therefore was not confined to the Government but affected the interests of the public. He did not think there was much chance that a Member who had been elected while holding office under one Government and therefore maintaining their principles would

  745
  be likely to betray his trust by joining another Government holding different principles, and he therefore did not see why he should present himself for re-election on transferring his services from one department to another. The result might be that a Member of the other House particularly suited for the head of a vacant department might be passed over on account of the uncertainty of his re-election, and a Member of their Lordships' House appointed in his stead. This would lead gradually to a separation between the Executive Government and the House of Commons which might be productive of very evil consequences. His noble Friend had done good service in bringing the subject before their Lordships, and he thought their Lordships might insert the clause and give the House of Commons an opportunity of considering it.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that in his opinion no stronger arguments could have been introduced in opposition to the clause than those which the noble Baron had brought forward in its favour. He agreed in every word he said as to the extreme importance of the Executive being in connection with and possessing the full confidence of the House of Commons; but how did the Executive possess that confidence except by having a majority in the House, and also from the circumstance that every Member of the Government enjoyed in his own person the full and perfect confidence of the constituency which returned him to Parliament? The purport of the noble Baron's remarks was that the inconveniences of the present system consisted in the uncertainty of re-election, and the danger that a Member of the Government would be rejected. If there was no danger there was no inconvenience. But what would be the position of the Executive towards the House of Commons if one-half or three-fourths of the Government were sitting for constituencies who would in all probability reject them if they went down for re-election? There was, of course, always a remedy for this state of things in a Vote of Want of Confidence; but setting that aside they might, if they passed this clause, have a Government, half the Members of which were afraid to face their constituents, and who yet might hold their seats in the House of Commons and profess to govern the country, although they had lost the confidence of their own constituents. Nothing would more tend to sever the connection and confidence between the Executive and
  746
  the House of Commons. He agreed that the question was one mainly for the House of Commons; but he thought their Lordships would be taking a step as much at variance with the Constitution of the country as could be imagined if they expressed the opinion that Members of Parliament might become members of the Government without presenting themselves to their constituents for re-election.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought the present system was a relic of the time when the Crown and the House of Commons were looked upon as two antagonistic powers, and when the theory was that a person appointed to an office under the Crown might be looked upon with a certain amount of jealousy by his constituents. But now that the Government were identified with the House of Commons, the reason for this jealousy no longer existed. Experience had now shown that this practice was inconvenient not only to the Government, but to the country. There ought to be no obstructions in the way of the proper man being put in the proper place.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the adoption of this clause would have the effect of sweeping away that venerable fiction of the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and there would then be no means of vacating a seat in Parliament.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYagreed in the opinion that a mere change from one Ministerial office to another should not vacate a seat; but he thought that when a Member accepted office for the first time it was but reasonable and natural that his constituents should have an opportunity of deciding whether they would continue their confidence in him as their representative.
  EARL GREYwould point out to their Lordships that not one of those noble Lords who objected to the Amendment had shown why the rule of vacating a seat should not apply to the Secretaries to the Treasury and Admiralty and the Under Secretaries for the Home Office, the Colonies, and India. The reason, as he had before stated, was simply the accident that they were technically appointed by others, and not by the Crown, although in reality their offices were completely political and under the Crown. It the principle was good why not apply it to all? It was absurd at that time of day that their legislation should be so inconsistent with itself. There was a great difference between the

  747
  circumstances of the present time and that to which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had referred. He (Earl Grey) would remind their Lordships that when the noble Earl was appointed Secretary for Ireland in 1830 he lost his election, being defeated at Preston by Mr. Hunt. It was a very great loss to the Government of that day to be deprived of the services of the noble Earl—and how was that loss met? The King was considered to have the personal appointment to one of the seats for Windsor. The King accordingly used his influence with the Member in question, who vacated his seat and the noble Earl was elected. It had sometimes happened that determined efforts had been made to prevent the re-election of newly-appointed Ministers, who had only been able to re-enter the House of Commons by certain Members being induced to vacate their seats—an arrangement of very questionable propriety. If power were given to the Crown to bring into the House a limited number of public servants—a plan which he thought would be a very good one—there would be no necessity for his proposition; but he contended that, as things stood, its adoption would enable the government of the country to be more conveniently carried on.
  On Question That the Clause stand Part of the Bill? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  EARL GREYmoved to insert a clause prohibiting all persons employed in the Civil Service or any other Department of the Government, except those holding offices tenable with seats in Parliament, from voting or interfering in elections. What he proposed was in effect to apply to all the branches of the Public Service the rule which was already imposed on officials in the Excise, Customs, and Post Office, which, at the time the Act was passed, were the only departments in which a large number of public servants were employed; but circumstances had changed, and there was now a large body of public servants to whom the prohibition did not apply. But the same reasons that prevailed to prevent Revenue officials from voting must be applicable to the other services of the Crown. In the other House, during the progress of the present Bill, a proposal was made to repeal the existing prohibition, but both the present and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer urged conclusive reasons against it, and it was rejected by the House. Now
  748
  every word they had said against repealing the existing law as regarded persons employed in the Revenue Departments, applied in favour of extending the law to all other branches of the Civil Service. The Bill of last year contained a clause disqualifying persons employed in dockyards, but he thought all persons engaged in the Civil Service should be disqualified. One of the best features of our Public Service was that the great body of officials were not ousted when a change of Government occurred, whereas in America the contrary was the case, the consequence being great corruption and party virulence. The possession of votes, however, by public servants tended to detract from their neutrality, and there was a danger of their combining and exercising pressure on a considerable number of Members of the House of Commons in order to obtain from the Government concessions which were not for the public advantage. Instances were not wanting that showed the existence of this danger. One of the most remarkable occurred lately, in the case of a naval officer in Portsmouth, who wrote a letter recommending the persons in the Government service there to combine together in order that their influence might be brought to bear upon their Members for the redress of some grievances; and he was informed that, notwithstanding the stringent rules against it, Members were now induced to make most pressing applications to the Admiralty, in order to obtain advancement for particular persons, and he feared that if many persons engaged in the Public Service in a humble capacity enjoyed votes the practice would be greatly extended. Consistency required that the law wisely passed by our ancestors with regard to the only considerable class of public servants then in existence should be extended to other classes.
  Moved, after Clause 47, to insert the following Clause:—
  "Whereas all Persons employed in the collection of the Revenue are now by law prohibited from voting or interfering in Elections, and there is no Reason for making a Distinction between this and other Departments of the Public Service: Be it enacted That this prohibition shall extend to all Persons employed in the Civil Service of the Government in any Department, except those holding Offices tenable with Seats in Parliament."—(The Earl Grey.)
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYopposed the clause on the ground that this Bill was au enfranchising and not a disfranchising

  749
  measures, and on that ground, if on no other, he should oppose the Amendment. But he also objected to it because it would disfranchise a class of persons as well educated and as competent to exercise the franchise as any body of men in England; and, thirdly, because it would be most invidious at the present moment to make an exception in the case of these persons, against whom no imputation, as far as he was aware, had ever been brought in respect of the way in which they had exercised the franchise. He could not conceive a more insulting act to this very useful body of men than to disfranchise them.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
  Clause 50 (Temporary Provisions consequent on Formation of new Boroughs).
  THE EARL OF DEVONmoved to insert at the end of the clause the following words:—
  "In the Case of a Parish wholly or partly situated within the Limits of a Borough constituted by this Act the Revising Barrister in revising at any Time before the summoning of a future Parliament the List of Voters for the County in which such Parish is situate shall write the Word 'Borough' opposite to the Name of each Voter whose Qualification in respect of the Premises described in the List would not after the summoning of a future Parliament entitle such Voter to Vote for the County; and at any Election taking place after the summoning of a future Parliament the Vote of every Person against whose Name the Word 'Borough' is written if tendered in respect of such Qualification shall be rejected by the Returning Officer."
  Motion agreed to.
  Words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 51 agreed to.
  Clause 52 (General Saving Clause),
  THE EARL OF DEVONproposed in page 18, to omit from "the" in line 20 to "sheriff" in line 21, and insert—
  "From and after the passing of this Act the County Palatine of Lancaster shall cease to be a County Palatine, in so far as respects the Issue, Direction, and Transmission of Writs for the Election of Members to serve in Parliament for any Division of the said County or any Borough situate in the said County; and such Writs may be issued under the same Seal, be directed to the like Officer, and transmitted in the like Manner, under, to, and in which Writs, may be issued, directed, and transmitted in the Case of Divisions of Counties and Boroughs not forming Part of or situate in a County Palatine, and any Writ issued, directed, and transmitted in manner directed by this Section shall be valid accordingly."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 53 agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Construction of Act).
  LORD CAIRNS, in order to give effect to the decision of the Committee the other night, moved to add at the end of the clause—
  "Provided that so much of Clause 78 of the last-mentioned Act as provides that nothing in that Act contained shall entitle any Person to vote in the Election of Members to serve in Parliament for the City of Oxford or Town of Cambridge in respect of the Occupation of any Chambers or Premises in any of the Colleges or Halls of the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge shall not apply to the Franchises conferred by this Act."
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYre-minded the noble and learned Lord that an understanding was come to the other evening that an opportunity should be given to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) of bringing forward the Proviso which he had put on the paper.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the persons to whom the clause referred had no interest whatever in common with the towns. The proposal of the noble and learned Lord would either alter the representation of the towns or it would not. If it did not, there was no reason for making the proposal; if it did, it would create the greatest ill-feeling between the towns and the Universities, and would be an unmitigated evil.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked the noble Earl opposite, whether he had received any communication from the Universities with regard to this subject? because he had been informed that several of the most distinguished professors had expressed a very strong opinion as to the disadvantages attending the proposal, apart altogether from the political view of the case.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that no communication from the Universities had been made to him on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEreserved to himself, on the part of the right rev. Prelate, the right of reviving the question on the Report. He would be glad if the noble Earl would have the kindness to communicate with persons in the Universities in whom he placed confidence, in order to ascertain what they thought would be the effect of this provision.
  Motion agreed to.
  Words added to the clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 55 agreed to.
  LORD CAIRNS moved to insert a Saving Clause as to the Dissolution of Parliament—
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, in the Event of a Dissolution of Parliament taking place and Writs being issued before the First Day of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, for the Election of Members to serve in a new Parliament, such Election shall take place in the same Manner in all respects as if no Alteration had been made by this Act in the Franchise of Electors, or in the Places authorized to return a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, with this Exception, that the Boroughs by this Act disfranchised shall not be entitled to return Members to serve in any such new Parliament."
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 55 (Interpretation of Terms).
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDproposed to add the following words:—
  "Where a Borough Rate or County Rate is levied as a separate Rate and not paid out of the Poor Rate, the term 'Poor Rate' shall for the purposes of the Franchises conferred by this Act, be deemed to include such Borough Rate or County Rate."
  The noble Earl said the principle of the Bill, founded upon personal rating, was in his opinion a sound one, but it was only right that there should be uniformity of application in all cases. The abolition of composition in boroughs would give rise to great difficulty in levying the rates in some of these boroughs; and he hoped that before the final passing of the Bill some scheme would be adopted by which the difficulty might be met. Under the new system, a vast number of the small householders would have to be proceeded against for the recovery of the rates, and in this manner they would be literally forced on to the register. He thought there should be some arrangement by which the payment of the rate should be voluntary, and if not paid voluntarily within a certain time that then the person should be disqualified.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that the remarks of the noble Earl opened up a very wide question into which he would not enter. It was sufficient to say, with reference to the Amendment, that the term "poor rate" had been altered at the out-set, in order to assimilate it to other parts of the Bill. Properly, the poor rate included the county rate; but there were some cases in which the borough rate or the county rate was raised separately. The Amendment would prevent a want of uniformity which would otherwise prevail,
  752
  and therefore the Government would adopt it.
  Motion agreed to; Words added; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to with Amendments.
  House resumed.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 282).

POOR LAW BOARD, &c., BILL—(No. 271).
(The Earl of Devon.)
POOR LAW BOARD, &c., BILL—(No. 271).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DEVON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that through the pressure of public business in the other House, it had become necessary to omit several important clauses; but he hoped to re-introduce them next Session. The Bill contained a variety of provisions to improve the working of the Poor Law, and one important clause provided, in conformity with the recommendation of a Committee of the other House, that instead of the Poor Law Board being renewed from time to time it should be made permanent.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he quite agreed with this Amendment of the law. It was exceedingly desirable that a permanent character should be given to the Poor Law Board; and, indeed, it was a matter for regret that that had not been done some years ago.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.