Sitting of 19 March 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Right Hon. Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, baronet, for Devon (Northern Division).
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolution [March 18] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Public Houses, &c.
Ordered—Turnpike Trusts; National Gallery Enlargement; Public Houses, &c.; Houses of Parliament; Consolidated Fund* (£7,924,000).
First Reading—Turnpike Trusts [80]: Houses of Parliament [81]; National Gallery Enlargement [82]; Public Houses Regulation [83].
Committee—Chester Courts* [69].
Report—Chester Courts* [69].
Third Reading—Criminal Lunatics* [67], and passed.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS— REMOVAL OF MAGISTRATES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD HENRY THYNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he proposes so call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to those magistrates who have been reported on by the Commissioners who lately sat on the corrupt boroughs, as being privy and assenting to corrupt practices, with a view of their being struck off the several Commissions of the Peace to which they may belong?
  MR. WALPOLE, in reply, said, he was not acquainted with the facts of the case to which the noble Lord's Question alluded.

  INDIA—BANKS OF BOMBAY AND BENGAL—QUESTION.
  MR. J. PEELsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to a report which has been published in the newspapers of the intended amalgamation of the Banks of Bombay and Bengal: and, whether any change is contemplated in the arrangements now existing between the Indian Government and those establishments?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, his attention had been called to a short paragraph which appeared in the City Article of one of the newspapers some time ago to that effect, but the Government had received no official communication from India on the subject; and
  122
  he was unable to say whether the Indian Government contemplated any change in the existing arrangements with regard to it.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—THE RE- PORTERS' GALLERY.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he had a Question to put to the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works on this subject which required a word of explanation. He understood there were some thirty seats in the Reporters' Gallery. He regretted that there was not a great number more. All those seats were appropriated to the metropolitan morning papers, to the entire exclusion, he believed, of the weekly London papers and also of the English provincial papers, as well as of the whole Irish and Scottish press, and to which it was therefore felt that great injury was done by that arrangement. He desired, therefore, to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Why it happens that, while accommodation is provided for the representatives of the London Press in the Reporters' Gallery, the representatives of the Irish and Scotch journals are excluded from all facilities for reporting the proceedings of the House?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in reply, that the Reporters' Gallery of that House was under the management of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and he had every reason to believe that officer paid every attention to the comfort and convenience of the gentlemen who had duties to discharge there. It was true the accommodation there was very limited; but the desire was that the arrangements which were made should be such as would be most conducive to the convenience of all organs of public opinion, whether they were printed in London, in the Provinces, or in Ireland, or Scotland. And although, owing to the confined space, it was impossible to accommodate more than the reporters of the London press, yet it was well known that arrangements existed by which certain representatives of the London morning journals also acted for the leading newspapers of Dublin, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. In addition to that, there were telegraphic summaries of the debates sent to such of the provincial papers that required them. The provincial journals were thus enabled to publish, simultaneousely with the London papers, ample reports of what took place in that, House.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he would appeal to

  123
  the noble Lord to enlarge the space set apart for reporters.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the subject should receive careful consideration; but he was not prepared off-hand to say that the space could be enlarged.

  CASE OF MR. CHURCHWARD.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor), Whether he will enlarge his Motion for an Address to the Crown to remove Mr. Churchward from the Commission of the Peace so as to include all magistrates who have been found guilty of, or consenting or privy to, corrupt practices by Bribery Commissions?
    MR. TAYLORsaid, he thought the hon. Member could hardly be serious in the question he asked. He (Mr. Taylor) had given a notice of a specific character in regard to a specific case, of the circumstances of which he had done his best to make himself master; but the hon. Member now asked him to deal with cases of which he knew nothing. If, however, the hon. Member himself would bring forward and prove those other cases, he would undertake to give him his support.
    MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would give notice that he intended to move an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, that on a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that if the House should be of opinion that it would not be convenient to couple legislation on this subject with the measure of the Government relating to the franchise and the re-distribution of seats, he would personally undertake in a separate Bill for dealing with it on the very same night. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had unintentionally and inadvertently violated the letter of the pledge which he then gave. He wished therefore to ask him, Whether he was prepared to redeem the spirit of that pledge by introducing a Bill for the prevention of Bribery and Corruption at Elections; and when he intended to do so?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope to be able to lay the Bill on the table before the holydays. I cannot exactly say on what day.
    SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEY: Will it not be before the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have made inquiries, and I find that that would be impossible.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—QUESTION.
    MR. BRIGHT: I beg, Sir, to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and possibly he may object that I have not given him notice of it. If therefore he cannot answer it to-night, perhaps he will reply to it on Thursday, though I hope he will be able to give an answer at once. The reason I put the question is because it may affect the views and course of a good many Gentlemen on this side of the House on Monday evening next. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, after the expression of opinion last night with regard to an important portion of his proposition—I mean what is called the dual voting—he intends to adhere to that proposal of the Bill, and whether he considers it an important and essential portion of his measure?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have no objection whatever to answer the hon. Gentleman's Question at present, and I do not wish him to put it off till Thursday. The Bill which I asked leave to introduce yesterday is only just in the possession of hon. Members. I wish them to consider it; and I think, when we discuss it on the second reading, when every important part of it has been fairly considered by both sides of the House, that is the legitimate occasion on which to express an opinion on a point so important.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have several Questions, Sir, to put to the Government with reference to this Bill; and they differ from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), inasmuch as they do not touch any matter of policy, but only ask for information. The right hon. Gentleman having truly said that the Bill was in our hands only this morning, I have not been able to give him notice of my Questions; but I shall be most happy to place them on the votes in case he finds it inconvenient to answer them on my reading them over to him. My Questions, Sir, are these—
    Firstly, Whether the conditions of voting in Boroughs, so far as they are affected by

    125
    the Bill of the Government, are to be the same for occupiers of the value of £10 and upwards as for occupiers under £l0; or, if not, in what respect they differ?
    Secondly, Whether it is intended by the Bill that the occupying franchise in Boroughs, which now depends upon the occupation of "any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building," is henceforward to depend upon the occupation of dwelling houses exclusively?
    Thirdly, Whether the total number of male occupiers stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on Monday consisted exclusively of the occupiers of dwelling houses?
    Fourthly, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the table their estimates of the numbers of Voters to be enfranchised under the several Clauses of the Bill, together with the data, so far as they think fit, upon which such estimates are framed?
    And lastly, Whether an occupier claiming to be registered under Clause 34, when a composition or other reduced rate on the premises has been duly paid by his landlord, must, in order to be registered, pay the difference between such reduced rate and the rate which would have been chargeable upon him if directly rated?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it is impossible for me to give an answer to those Questions at once. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had better lay them on the table, so that I May see them in print before I reply to them.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Shall I put them on the Notice Paper for to-morrow?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, for to-morrow.
    MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer somewhat of the same nature as that which was addressed to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham. That hon. Gentleman desired to know whether the Government regarded the principle of dual voting as an essential part of their scheme of Reform; and whether, if that proposal were negatived by the House, it would be regarded by them as fatal to the principle of their Bill. Now, he hoped the Government—["Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite in order in addressing a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but not in entering into any discussion on the subject.
    MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONE: The Question he wished to put was, Whether or not the last Government, in dealing with Reform, having refused to answer any inquiry as to the course they would take in the event of certain parts of their Bill being rejected, the present Government would not best consult their own honour—["Order, order!"]
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, Sir, the proper mode of dealing with these Questions is to give the explanation which may be deemed necessary in fair discussion, when my Colleagues and myself have an opportunity of generally reviewing the whole subject. I cannot help being of opinion that by answering those Questions now, when such an opportunity does not present itself, we may give a very false impression as to the motives by which we are actuated and the object which we desire to attain. It is only when we can avail ourselves of such opportunities as that to which I have referred that the Government will be able clearly to indicate the policy upon which they mean to proceed.

    CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS— REMOVAL OF MAGISTRATES—CER- TAIN MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE.

      QUESTION.
      MR. BAGGEsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Mr. William Henry Leatham is the same Mr. Leatham who was found personally guilty of bribery by on Election Committee of this House after the General Election of 1859, and ordered by this House to be prosecuted by Mr. Attorney General; whether Mr. Philip Vanderbyl, who is stated in the Great Yarmouth Commission Report to have entered into a corrupt agreement with a Mr. Brogden that, in the event of his being returned, he would repay the said Mr. Brogden one-half the money advanced by him for the purposes of bribery; whether Mr. E. W. Watkin, who is mentioned in the Report of the Great Yarmouth Commission and is included in the list, Schedule D, of persons having given bribes at the Election in that Borough in 1839: and, whether Mr. Alfred Seymour, who is mentioned in the Report of the Totnes Commission as having been privy and assenting to the corrupt practices that prevailed at that Election, are Members of this House, and, if justices of the peace, it is the intention of the Govern-

      127
      ment to remove them from the several Commissions to which they belong?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Questions put to me by my hon. Friend are Questions which it is no doubt very difficult to answer; because in the annals of jurisprudence there is, it appears to me, no circumstance more startling than the frequent instances of mistaken identity. I think therefore, Sir, that any individual occupying at the present day so responsible a position as that which I have the honour to hold, ought to be extremely cautious in giving an opinion on matters with regard to which such mistakes might occur. There is certainly a startling similarity in the names which have been quoted by my hon. Friend, and those which are habitually used by some Members of this House. But then if, on the other hand, I were to judge of the accuracy of the views on this point, which he seems to entertain by the general tone of expression and conduct of the gentlemen to whom I suppose he refers, I should say, looking at the unquestioned purity of their motives, the highly liberal tone which they always adopt, and the readiness which they invariably show in condemning anything like Tory corruption, there is primâ facie evidence that they cannot really be the same persons. I regard it to be my duty, as Leader of the House, to give all the information I can to its Members, and to suggest to them on all occasions the most practical means of securing the object they wish to attain. I would, then, suggest to my hon. Friend that a Select Committee might furnish a better mode of ascertaining the truth in this instance, than any information which I have it in my power to supply.
      MR. WATKIN: Sir, I rely upon the good feeling of the House and its love of fair play on both sides, to allow me to read a letter I addressed to the Lord Chancellor this morning, and which as I furnished a copy to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer I had hoped he would have read, and so saved me the trouble of making any explanation to the House. I perfectly agree with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bagge), that a man who would either give a bribe himself or wilfully and knowingly suffer a bribe to be given on his behalf, was not worthy to hold Her Majesty's Commission. The moment I saw the notice it struck me that the most honourable and manly course for me to pursue—and allow me to say
      128
      that in following an honourable or manly course it is not necessary for me to take lessons in propriety from hon. Gentlemen opposite—was to immediately address the Lord Chancellor, and I accordingly wrote to his Lordship as follows:—
      "House of Commons, March 19, 1867.
      "My Lord,—I respectfully apply to your Lordship to order a full inquiry into my personal conduct as impugned in the Report of the Great Yarmouth Commissioners. I entertain the opinion that any man who would himself give a bribe, and knowingly or wilfully would enable, or would knowingly countenance bribery and corruption, commits a serious offence, and the fact that persons in high places may have been led into such an offence would not justify my honour or con, science did I feel myself fairly open to accusation. When the Commissioners first assembled, I think in August last, I volunteered to give evidence, but I regret to say that I was not called till October. I was my own voluntary accuser of an imprudence and indiscretion which I would rather exaggerate than excuse, and the blame of which I will not seek to lay at the door of others who might have protected me. In volunteering evidence, I felt it my duty in the public interest to assist the labours of the Commissioners, however far truth might compel me to inculpate myself; and I shall never regret the step I took, although it has enabled a more unjust and ungenerous report, which I challenge as contrary and in excess of the evidence as regards myself. The moment the Report was printed I drew up a notice for a further and a searching inquiry, but under the advice of friends, both in and out of the House, I postponed giving it. The discussion as to one of your Lordship's recent appointments has led to various notices en revanche, and although I might paas them by as factious and unworthy, I am impressed with the gravity of the question which lies behind; and therefore, in now respectfully applying to your Lordship, I beg to say that I shall refrain from acting as a magistrate until I learn your Lordship's decision.—I have the honour to remain, &c."
      MR. VANDERBYL: I think, Sir, the introduction of my name into this Question was totally uncalled for, The hon. Member for West Norfolk must be sufficiently well acquainted with the constitution of the House to know that I am a Member. With regard to the second part of the Question, as I am not in the Commission of the Peace I have nothing to do with it, and I cannot see what was the use of introducing my name into the Question. I think it is pretty well known that there must have been some peculiar motive which has induced the hon. Gentleman to put this Question upon the Paper.

      FIRE INSURANCE.—RESOLUTION.
      MR. H. B. SHERIDANrose to move—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, a further reduction of the Duty on Fire Insurances would

      129
      have a tendency to bring within the protection of Insurance a large amount, of the present uninsured property of the Country, and that a further reduction of the Duty should therefore be made at the earliest opportunity."
      He said: There was nothing contained in this Resolution that was new to the House. The House had on more than one occasion given its assent to Resolutions having for their object the reduction of the duty on fire insurance. In the course of the various discussions which had taken place on this subject in former years, the House had stated its opinion to be that if a considerable reduction in this duty were to be immediately effected great results to the revenue might be expected; and it had, under every circumstance, and notwithstanding the arguments used by those who opposed a reduction of the duty, affirmed the proposition that it was of consequence to the country that this duty should not remain at its present amount. He did not think that the House would require any apology from him for bringing this question before it at this time; as the only chance which he, or any independent Member of that House, had of obtaining a reduction of any particular duty was to submit for the consideration of the House, prior to the introduction of the general financial scheme of the Government, a Resolution of the nature he proposed. After the ample discussion the question had undergone in previous years, he should not think it necessary to repeat the figures and arguments which he had more that once submitted to the House. The House had invariably come to the conclusion that the duty was excessive, and could not on fiscal grounds be maintained; that it ought to be materially reduced, and that the reduction ought to be direct and immediate. He should then confine himself to a very brief statement of the arguments on which he and those who agreed with him generally relied for a reduction of the duty on fire insurance. He had the misfortune at the time to which he referred to come into conflict with the right hon. Gentleman who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), and who had large financial plans of his own for the amelioration of the burdens on the people of this country. Therefore no arguments that he (Mr. Sheridan) used could induce the right hon. Gentleman to look at a subsidiary question like this before he had accomplished his own great designs. But at length, yielding to the pressure of the House, the right hon.
      130
      Gentleman consented to consider this question, and he proposed a reduction of a qualified character upon stock-in-trade. The objectors to the tax had invariably objected to the peculiar unfairness which characterized the levying of the duty. But having consented to a reduction to ls. 6d. on stock-in-trade, the right hon. Gentleman was induced, by a further Resolution of this House, to extend the reduction generally to all descriptions of property, and now the duty on all descriptions of insurable property stood at ls. 6d. per cent. It was entirely an experiment on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The persons who advocated the reduction had invariably urged that the duty should not be more than ls., many said 6d. was sufficient, and some indeed proposed 1d. The reduction to ls. 6d. was a great reduction, but it had brought about an increase in the amount insured of £145,000,000. If from that amount was deducted the increase which might naturally be expected from the increase of wealth in the country, some definite conclusion would be arrived at, The Report of the Inland Revenue showed there was an increase of £65,000,000 more than was to be expected under former circumstances. But it could not be expected that this small increase would satisfy the advocates of a reduction, for they held the belief that unless the reduction was made of a wide and sweeping character, no perceptible influence would be exercised on the revenue. Therefore, he maintained that the 1s. 6d. was an experiment rather than adopted in obedience to the wishes of this House. The country was still anxious for further reduction. The House had only to refer to the petitions presented to this House to satisfy themselves that such was the case. During some two or three years nearly 1,000 petitions were presented. There were 300 this Session alone. They were not the petitions of ordinary persons, who signed without distinctly understanding their nature; but the petitions of Town Councillors, merchants, magistrates, persons in official position, and generally taxpayers. No less than 466 petitions had been presented within the last two years from Chambers of Commerce and Town Councils under their corporate seal. Also from Insurance Companies and Agents. They all favoured the t object he had in view, and they favoured it mostly on this ground: that it was unlike any other tax in our fiscal system—it exhibited unfairness in a most unequivocal

      131
      manner. It taxed one man and let off another. All other duties—on sugar, tea, tobacco, spirits—were different; in this instance the prudent and saving man was taxed, while the imprudent escaped. It was not a tax upon property, but upon a principle of action, upon the doctrine of insurance. Unlike other taxes, too, its effect was to weaken itself; because it taxed the man who desired to take care of property which was valuable, not only to himself, but to the country. If uninsured property was destroyed by fire the loser was often unable to pay either Imperial taxes or local rates, and might, indeed, sink from a thriving tradesman into a miserable pauper. The object of the Legislature should rather be to give a man a bonus to insure than levy a tax upon him for so doing. It should rather tax the man who did not insure. Property insured was of the greatest possible value—of as much value to the country almost as to the owner. It was a security for numberless taxes, for Government taxes, for metropolitan and other improvement rates, for poor rates, and other local burdens. It was so much realized wealth. There was no nation in Europe which imposed a tax of this kind like England. It was a tax upon an idea, a sentiment, an intention, an unfulfilled resolution, upon a desire to provide one's self against a terrible social calamity. It would be far better to tax the amount insured than the small deposits. Those deposits, in some cases, had been paid for over fifty years, and yet not the smallest result been gained; therefore he contended it was unjust to tax them. The tax upon insurance was a tax upon an idea, it was a tax upon a mere expectation that if property were insured against fire, something would be obtained for the money expended on insurance. But if no fire took place nothing would be obtained by the insurer. Mr. Newmarch said it would be just as sensible to tax a person who deposited, say, 1s. 6d. at a time in a money box to provide against a rainy day, as to tax a person who deposited money in an insurance office to provide against fire. It would be just as sensible to tax the inclination of a testator to leave a legacy as to impose a tax on insurers against fire. And if the Government must tax ideas, it would be better to tax vice rather than virtue. But it could never be contended that it was necessary for the support of the Government to put taxes upon prudence. This tax had been condemned by
      132
      all writers on political economy, by the Insurance Companies and their agents, by public opinion, and by the press. He proposed nothing to alarm the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He merely said it was expedient a further reduction of duty should take place. He proposed to reduce the duty from 1s. 6d. to 1s. during the next year, commencing at the June quarter, and in the following year again to reduce 6d., leaving the duty a sixpenny duty. By the Report of the Commisioners of Inland Revenue it appeared that four quarters' receipts of the duty at 1s. 6d., up to September, 1866, had amounted to £989,673. If they took this as a basis of calculation, and assumed that subsequent receipts would be on the same scale, the calculation would stand thus:—A reduction to 1s. from the 25th of June 1867, would give: One quarter at present rate, from March to June, at 1s. 6d., £247,000; three quarters, from June to March, 1868, at 1s., £495,000. The natural increase was now £50,000; with reduced duty the increase would be £100,000. The receipts for the year ending March 1868, would be £842,000; that would entail a loss the first year of (in round numbers) £147,000. In the second year the first quarter would again be at the 1s. rate—namely, one quarter, from March to June 1868, at 1s., would produce £190,000; three quarters, from June to March 1869, at 6d., £285,000. Assume the increase to be from this reduction £100,000 more than the present increase at the unreduced rate, that would give £150,000; making the receipts for the year ending March 1869, £625,000. The loss in the two years would amount to £511,000. And it might be fairly estimated that the revenue would continue at that rate to increase steadily, until a larger amount than at present received was produced. He proposed to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, merely suggesting to him the propriety of reducing this tax from 1s. 6d. to 1s. per cent on the sum assured from the June quarter, and from 1s. to 6d. in the following year. Such a reduction would not only satisfy those who petitioned the House, but would gratify the general wishes of the country, whilst a great boon would be conferred upon—nay, simple justice would be done to—the insuring public.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That, in the opinion of this House, a further reduction of the Duty on Fire Insurances would

      133
      have a tendency to bring within the protection of Insurance a large amount of the present uninsured property of the Country, and that a further reduction of the Duty should therefore be made at the earliest opportunity."—(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan.)
      MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had acted most consistently in bringing this question before the House, and he had done great good on former occasions by bringing it forward. He regretted, however, that the hon. Gentleman had brought the matter forward on this occasion; because, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, a Committee had recently been appointed to inquire into the whole of the system pursued by insurance companies, and as to the best means of securing property from fire. The property in the metropolis was worth £900,000,000. Only about one-third of that was insured. The insurance companies were the only parties who protected property in the metropolis. That cost them £25,000 a year. If the owners of the uninsured property could be induced to insure it, the insurance companies would then be able to expend £75,000 a year in protecting the property of the metropolis. He thought the Government ought to protect the property of the country against fire, as the French Government protected property in France. The French Government protected not only the property but the lives of the people against fire. Last year he believed there were 1,200 or 1,300 fires in the metropolis, attended with great loss of life! Therefore this was an important Imperial question, which materially affected the Government, and which must be carefully investigated by the Committee on Fires. They might as well put a tax on fenders and fireguards as upon insurances against fire. The insurance rate was so high that he had known cases in which it was found that the destruction of property by fire caused less outlay than the insurance of it would have cost. He spoke of farm buildings in his own county. The small amount of property insured in this country proved at once that there was something wrong in this tax. He thought the tax ought to be abolished altogether. Whatever it produced to the revenue, he thought it was a vicious tax. It would be as just to tax the arms by which a man defended his life, as to tax insurance against fire. The loss of life by fire in the metropolis and in many large towns was lamentable; and he thought the Government, as in great cities
      134
      abroad, ought to be the parties to whom the people should look for protection against fire instead of actually making a profit out of insurance. This question had always been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman with great ability, and he had always supported him. Still, he could not but think that it was not opportune so soon after the appointment of the Committee on Fires to have brought it forward now, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not ask the House to divide.
      MR. HUBBARDsaid, he was not only opposed to the duty on fire insurance, but also to the duty on marine insurance. He would venture to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, not because the subject required investigation, but because it had been so often investigated. He thought the obnoxious nature of this tax had been fully acknowledged by public men on both sides of the House, and the House itself had repeatedly expressed a wish for its abolition. The total abolition of the tax was a mere question of time. It was due, however, to the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that at this moment the proposal should not be forced upon him. He could not doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was exceedingly desirous of meeting every fair claim, and of redressing every grievance that might be brought tinder his notice. Not long since the right hon. Gentleman had yielded to the representations of Irish Members in reference to the extension of time for the repayment of loans to Irish railways; and no doubt in the matter of the tax on insurance he would be equally ready to listen to the views that might be pressed upon him.
      MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my hon. Friend who has just sat down has made an appeal to the hon. Member for Dudley to withdraw his Motion, and has founded that appeal upon the conviction he entertains that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make provisions for complying with the wish which the hon. Member says this House has repeatedly expressed that the tax upon insurance shall not continue. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is accurate in his declaration that the House has more than once expressed a desire for a reduction of this tax. I do not think such an opinion has been expressed since the reduction of the tax to 1s. 6d. I shall be glad if the hon. Member for Dudley withdraws his Motion; and the opinion that I shall express in reference to the tax is not

      135
      one which ought to deter him from that course. I would object to any Motion the effect of which would be to fetter the discretion of the House in forming its impartial judgment when the revenue and Estimates are before us, as to whether we have any means of granting remissions, and if so, what those remissions should be. Both in office and out of office I have uniformly contended for that principle. It is a very disagreeable office which the Finance Minister has to perform, in interfering with the very natural, reasonable, and often very legitimate desires of hon. Gentlemen with regard to particular taxes. That Minister has to hear many representations of grievances, those who come to him caring only for their own particular grievances; and, as happened at the doors of Westminster Hall on Monday morning, those who came to hear the Minister tried to outrun each other, and none of them cared what became of those who were left behind. I do not wish that the repeal of this tax should depend upon the energy or activity of the Members who are the advocates of such repeals; but that it should depend in part upon the judgment of the Government, who must take the initiative, and supremely upon the judgment of the House. To make it satisfactory to the country it is in general necessary, though there may be cases of exception under extraordinary circumstances, that that judgment should be formed by the House when it has the opportunity of considering at once and comprehensively the whole state of the finances, and of balancing one claim against another. Upon that ground I hope that the House will not accede to the Motion. In any case, I feel it my duty to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the discharge of a disagreeable duty, from which I understand he does not intend to shrink. The principal error—if he will forgive the for using the term respecting one who has so deeply studied the question—into which I think the hon. Member for Dudley has fallen, is, that if the tax were reduced the revenue would be recovered through the augmentation in the number of insurances. That, I contend, is an entire delusion. The reduction of taxes on articles of consumption affecting the masses of the people enormously widens the field of consumption; and we know from experience that those reductions—great as they have been—result in a positive increase of revenue even on the article itself. The Customs revenue of the pre-
      136
      sent year—after the vast operations performed on it—will be almost larger than in former years. But this is not true with respect to taxes upon property. I know no case in which loss caused by the reduction of taxes upon property has been recovered. Let us not, therefore, entertain expectations that cannot be realized, but look to the case as it stands. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has distinctly shown to us two things: first of all, that this is a tax upon property; and secondly, that it is a bad tax upon property. Still, in the present relative position of the taxes upon property and upon labour, it is a serious matter to abandon taxes upon property without obtaining compensation from other taxes upon property. I own, and I will even urge, that the tax upon insurance demands, upon the first convenient opportunity, the consideration of the Government; and that the object of that consideration should be, in the first place, to reduce that tax itself to a point so low that it cannot be a sensible restraint upon insurance. We might, perhaps, meet the objection to relieving property from taxation while taxes press so heavily upon labour which has so much higher claims to reduction by finding another means of taxing property in lieu of it—means that would be equal instead of unequal. It should not be a tax upon the virtue of prudence, but should be entirely independent of it, leaving that virtue to operate thoroughly in its own field. We should leave the whole community to insure their buildings, and everything requiring to be insured, I will not say without a tax, because our condition requires us to tax those transactions of trade and industry that are the life and vigour of the community. I would not, therefore, propose a total exemption, for that would strike at the root of the whole system of taxes, with which we cannot dispense; but we might go down to something so near the nature of a nominal rate as to make insurance easy, but couple with it the condition that we ought not to make that the opportunity for relieving property, the taxes upon which at this moment are anything but extravagant, and which have been lightened by the reduction of the income tax. Leaving property to bear its burdens, we should accede when possible to the reduction of the tax to a low point, analogous to some of the small taxes which are so low that they do not interfere with the transactions to which they relate, I strongly support the Go-

      137
      vernment in refusing to give a pledge that will fetter the future discretion of the House, while I hope that in a proper manner, and in conjunction with other collateral arrangements, the existence of this tax, with the evils it produces, will receive the early attention of those competent to deal with it.
      MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should support the Motion, the adoption of which he thought would induce a larger number of persons whose property was now uninsured to provide against losses which would result from fire. He did not see that there was any difficulty in the way of the Government giving a pledge that at as early a period as possible the tax would be reduced. He considered the tax immoral, injurious, and intolerable, and could not long rest on its present footing.
      MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he should support the Motion. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) had to contend with the usual obstacle which beset private Members when pleading for the remission or reduction of a duty—the inconvenience which the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being would be sure to insist would result from choosing so inopportune a time for the proposal. But for the perseverance of the hon. Member for Dudley, there would have been no reduction of the duty. He was right in enforcing the consideration of the subject again on the House; because, from the reduction having been insufficient, the question had not had a fair trial. The effect of the tax at the present time was that a vast amount of property was uninsured; the owners being deterred from insuring by the excessive tax they would have to pay for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had stated that he had never known a case in which the reduction of a tax upon property had been followed by recovery; but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the case of the income tax. When a high rate prevailed there was a great amount of evasion of the tax; but when the rate was lowered a greater amount in proportion was received.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not intend to enter into the merits of the question, and I must reserve my opinion upon it until flu proper time arrives; but I must ask tin House to support me in resisting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that it is extremely incon-
      138
      venient, and I think disadvantageous to the public service, that upon the eve of a statement of the general condition of the finances of the country, and the consequences of that condition, the House should be called upon to pledge itself to a Resolution of this kind, which must not only be a source of great embarrassment to the Minister, but also to the House. The House has had experience of the in convenience of Resolutions of this general character—as, for example, that in regard to the income tax; and I trust the House, recollecting that, will not sanction further a course which every one connected with the finances has found to be inconvenient. The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of placing before the House his views upon the matter. It is a question which he completely understands, and always expounds with great ability; and if, after mature consideration, the House should agree with him, it will be due to the information which he has placed before them, and which may influence their judgment. But what I ask the House to do is, that they should keep themselves perfectly free as to the course which they may see fit to sanction when they are in complete possession of the financial condition of the country. It is said that the House may, by waiting for the financial statement, lose the opportunity of expressing its opinion on what should be the financial policy of the Government. That, however, hardly applies to existing circumstances. When the statement is placed before the House it will have sufficient power to control any course which it may think fit to suggest. Such course will depend upon the wisdom and expediency of the recommendations which I may offer. I trust therefore the hon. Gentleman will not press his Resolution to a division. As I do not wish to give any opinion upon the merits of the question which has been brought before us, I must, if the hon. Gentleman does not yield to the requests of his friends and supporters, move the Previous Question.
      MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he could quite understand the argument which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the House. It was the usual argument which was addressed by Gentlemen placed in his position who did not like the House to make any suggestions to them as regarded the disposal of their surplus finance. He quite differed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that there was anything

      139
      in this Resolution which could be construed into an embarrassment. The Resolution was nothing more than the expression of an opinion that a further reduction of the fire insurance duty would be very desirable. There could be nothing in such a Resolution which would dictate to the right hon. Gentleman. He had to congratulate the House upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who had to-night frankly admitted for the first time that this was a tax which could not be defended on any sound principle, and which ought not to be maintained if there could be any mode devised by which it could be reasonably got rid of. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley), in a speech at Kings Lynn made on the 20th of October, said the worst tax beyond exception which we had was that on fire insurance; that it discouraged prudence and encouraged gambling. Fortified by such an opinion as this, and believing that there was nothing whatever in the Resolution which had to do with the position of hon. Members on either side of the House, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon the Resolution which he had moved.
      Whereupon Previous Question put, "That that Question be now put.—(Mr. Hunt.)
      The House divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 215: Majority 59.

    TURNPIKE TRUSTS BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENSir, I rise to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to Turnpike, Trusts. In attempting to legislate upon this question, I know that I am undertaking a task which is not unattended with difficulty—there are so many conflicting interests to satisfy, so many different opinions to reconcile, that no man could hope to frame a measure which would not necessarily be subject to much criticism and munch opposition. Moreover, this is a subject which would more fitly be dealt with by the Government of the day than by a private Member; and it is not until I had ascertained by inquiry from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) that there was but little probability of his dealing with it during the present Session, that I ventured to give that notice for which I now bespeak the kind indulgence of the House. And, perhaps, it will be well to
      140
      clear the way at the outset by the remark, which will be easily understood by those who are conversant with the subject, that the Bill which I shall have the honour to propose will in no way affect the interests either of Ireland, or of Scotland, or of South Wales. Ireland, indeed, is a step in advance of England in this matter; since the year 1857 her tolls have been abolished, and the repairs of her roads borne by the rates of counties and baronies. Scotland has a system of valuation of her own, differing from that of England; and if any alteration in her road laws is required, it may safely be left to her own representatives, who have always shown themselves so competent to manage Scotch legislation. And as to South Wales having courted legislation by a series of popular protests against turnpike tolls, which are known by the name of the Rebecca riots, South Wales has been since the year 1844 under a Consolidation Act, by which the extinction of her debt was provided for by an advance out of the Consolidated Fund, repayable by Terminable Annuities of thirty years. It is therefore with England and North Wales alone that I have to do. I have to show that the present system is a bad system, and further, that the alterations which I propose may be adopted to the advantage of the public without being attended with such hardship or injustice to localities as would, in any material degree, neutralize or counterbalance such advantage.
      Now, Sir, that the present system is a bad system is an opinion which, rightly or wrongly, has been entertained by Parliament for the last thirty years, so far as Parliament has expressed any opinion upon the subject. I can hardly sum up the objections better than in the words of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1836. They say—
      "The great proportion of the witnesses appear nearly unanimous in their testimony that the system of exacting toll from the public for the use of the roads is vexatious and expensive in the collection, by the number of collectors and tollgates kept up, and from a combination occasionally found amongst the lessees of such toll-gates in the vicinity of large towns, by which, in some instances, time fair equivalent in rent is not obtained by the trustees." "Where great towns are not found, the chief burden of the toll seems to fall upon the landholder and the inhabitants of the neighbourhood; and whilst they are paying more in tolls than they would probably pay in some other manner if the system were altered, they find their property in houses and land deteriorated in value from the impediments to a free intercourse of commodities arising from tolls."
      This Committee was of opinion that

      141
      "the abolition of tolls throughout the Kingdom would be beneficial to the community," and this opinion was fully endorsed by the Committee which sat in 1864, under the Chairmanship of the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (whose name is with my own on the back of the present Bill), and which summed up its opinion upon the point in these words—
      "Tolls appear to your Committee to be un equal in pressure, costly in collection, inconvenient to the public, and injurious as causing a serious impediment to intercourse and traffic."
      Now, Sir, if I took these words for my text it would be easy for me to found upon them a somewhat lengthy argument. But it will probably be more convenient to the House that I should assume, for the moment, that the opinion of these Committees, adverse to the present system, is a correct opinion; that I should endeavour to state, as clearly as I can, the present condition of the question, the alterations which I propose, and the advantages which I believe would be derived from those alterations. The House will, of course, be aware that the great majority of turnpike trusts have their origin in local Acts passed within the last century, limited at first for a term of years, and subsequently renewed by Parliament from time to time. In the year 1850, when the system was in a state of great confusion, an Act was passed which enabled the Home Secretary, on receiving from the trustees of any trust notification of the consent of two-thirds of the mortgagees, to issue a provisional order, reducing the rate of interest and extinguishing arrears. This has been done in the case of upwards of 160 trusts; but there are many cases which, the consent of the mortgagees not having been either asked or obtained, will not come within the power of the Home Secretary until their Acts expire. You may, in fact, divide the turnpike trusts of England and North Wales into two divisions—1, those whose local Acts have not expired, or have been renewed; 2, these whose local Acts, having expired, are continued by the Animal Continuance Act. And, again, there is another important division which may be made—namely, trusts in debt and trusts out of debt.
      Now, Sir, the arrangement of the Annual Continuance Act is to my mind not a very satisfactory part of the duties of the Home Office. There is no definite principle clearly laid down to guide the decision as to which Acts shall be continued and
      142
      which shall be inserted in the schedule of the Act to expire on the 1st November in the then next year. The consequence is that one Home Secretary, taking a different view from another, and acting upon a different principle, the operation of the law is uncertain, and therefore unequal and unfair. When I had the honour of succeeding Mr. Baring, the present Lord Northbrook, as Under Secretary at the Home Office last year, I found that this subject was one which had been intrusted to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth, and I succeeded to the charge. To this and to every other question with which he had to deal Mr. Baring brought that acuteness of intellect and careful attention which I venture to say constituted him a valuable public servant. He had sat upon the Select Committee of 1864, and, acting in the spirit of the Report of that Committee, had turned his attention particularly to the cases of those trusts which, being out of debt, were annually continued. Early in February last year a circular was sent from the Home Office to all trusts which were out of debt, asking in each case full particulars of the circumstances of the trust, and whether there were any special reasons for its continuance. It fell to my lot to receive and consider the answers returned to these circulars. Now, Sir, the number of trusts, according to the last statement of turnpike income and expenditure in possession of the House—that for the year ending 31st December, 1864—had been 1,055 at that period. In the schedule prepared by Mr. Baring in 1865, eighteen trusts had been marked for abolition, freeing from tolls 476 miles of road. This left 1,037 trusts, of which 534 were under the operation of the Annual Continuance Act, and 114 of this number were trusts out of debt, to which the Home Office Circulars applied. Having obtained the consent of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Department to the principle upon which I proposed to act, I carefully considered each case, and finally inserted in the schedule for abolition 83 out of the 114. Out of 420 trusts in debt, I found special circumstances which enabled me to place in the schedule upwards of forty more, so that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had maintained last year's schedule in its integrity, the 1st of next November would have seen the termination of about 130 trusts, freeing from tolls some 3,000 miles of road, and only leaving in existence thirty-one trusts

      143
      out of debt, which number might shortly have been further reduced. From information reaching me from different parts of the country, I am induced to believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has materially diminished this schedule. I do not presume to blame him—he may be right and I may have been wrong—the utmost I should be inclined to say of him is, that I fear that in listening to the representations of trustees and of persons fearing an increase of rates in their parishes, he has evinced a tender-heartedness, admirable in an individual, but sometimes inconvenient in the management of a great public Department. I will not weary the House with individual instances which have come to my knowledge, but I will quote one as a sample of the whole. I take the case of the Devizes trust. This trust is twenty-seven miles in length. In 1865 its debt was reduced from £700 to 2500. The property of the trust was carefully valued at £595, sufficient of itself to have extinguished the debt, and responsible people in Devizes were ready to guarantee the trustees indemnity for any loss to be sustained by the removal of the toll-gates. The trust was inserted in the schedule of 1865; but, at the instance of the hon. Member for Devizes, it was re-inserted in the Continuance Act of that year. Having most fully considered the case, I again placed it in last year's schedule, and I believe all parties would have acquiesced in such an arrangement. Now, if the trustees had come to Parliament for a new Bill, those who desired the abolition of the trust would have had an opportunity of being heard against the Bill, and I venture to say the Bill could not have been obtained. But, instead of this being the case, I understand that the Home Secretary, listening to representations from I know not whom, has again inserted this trust in the Continuance Act. Now, Sir, I instance the case of this trust, because I venture to say that there are no arguments to be advanced in favour of its continuance further than those general arguments of persons who are the advocates of the present system and who dread the increase of rates, so that if the right hon. Gentleman has spared this trust, there is no reason why he should not equally spare the great majority of those which were scheduled last year. Again, I say that I do not presume to blame the right hon. Gentleman for acting upon a different principle from those who preceded him. I am
      144
      only pointing out the uncertain operation of the law; and in justification of my own course, I will merely refer to the concluding words of the Report of the Committee of 1864, where, after referring to the case of trusts out of debt, they proceed to say—
      "Your Committee suggest that such trusts should be excluded from the operation of the Continuance Act, and be obliged to come to Parliament for a renewal of their Acts."
      But, Sir, if the Home Secretary had maintained last year's schedule in its integrity, there would have still remained the necessity for legislation. And, no doubt, it would be most desirable, if it were possible, that we should deal simultaneously with all turnpike trusts. But before I state to the House the proposals which I shall venture to make in this direction, it is necessary that I should say a few words upon the state of the income and expenditure of these trusts. I find that the income of turnpike trusts from all sources amounted in the year ending the 31st December, 1864, to £1,037,000. The expenditure in the same year was £1,017,000, of which £147,000 had been employed in paying off debt, and £120,000 in paying the interest of debt.
      Now, Sir, I put plainly before the House one of the immense evils of the present system of this expenditure, to meet which the public has to endure this inconvenient tax. The amount which goes in collection and management is variously estimated at from 30 to 50 per cent on the revenue. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but from all the information I have been able to obtain, I believe I may safely estimate this expense at an average throughout the country of 40 per cent. You have the salaries of clerks, treasurers, and surveyors. You have the cost of maintaining, lighting, and repairing toll-gates, and keeping a staff of collectors. You have legal charges and the great periodical expense of renewals, and you have also, in the many cases in which tolls are let, that which it is impossible to estimate accurately, and which is beyond this estimate—namely, the profit of the lessee. He must have a profit, and that profit must come out of the pocket of the public. Then, Sir, I say that on the grounds of public economy alone, if I went no further, the turnpike trust system stands condemned. But apart from the expense of collection and management, the House must not suppose that the remaining expenditure is devoted to, and is sufficient for, the neces-

      145
      sary repairs of roads and the payment of debt. The conditions and circumstances of trusts vary greatly. Some trusts, no doubt, are annually paying off some portion—often a very small portion—of their debt. Some, without hope of doing this, have their income absorbed in the payment of establishment charges and interest of debt, whilst the repairs of their roads are even now borne by the parishes. Some trusts, I am afraid, keep up a nominal debt for the sake of obtaining a place in the Continuance Act; and a considerable number, although in debt, actually spend in improvements money which ought to go towards the liquidation of that debt. The House will be surprised to learn that out of 187 trusts, which employed a portion of their income in improvements in the year 1864, no less than 151 were actually in debt at the time of so doing, and of this number eighty trusts, or more than half, paid off not 1d. of principal debt during the year. No doubt, the application of a general principle to these trusts is not an easy task. The complications and varieties of the system, whilst they render its alteration desirable, infinitely increase the difficulty of effecting that alteration by any uniform and simultaneous act of legislation. But, Sir, supposing that we agreex2014;as I hope the House will agree—that alteration is necessary, there are two great difficulties which always stare us in the face—first, the alleged hardship of throwing upon individual parishes the repairs of roads which were originally constructed for through traffic, and not for local traffic; and secondly, the debt. With permission of the House, I will deal with the debt first.
      I find that the turnpike debt in England and North Wales amounted in the year 1837, in round numbers, to £7,000,000. In 1860, it, was £4,688,000, and in 1864, the total amount of debt was about £4,500,000. But for floating debt, balances due to treasurers, and a large sum of unpaid interest which cannot be fairly called debt, and would infallibly be extinguished by the orders of the Secretary of State, as the Acts expired, I strike off at once £500,000, and I take the actual amount of bonded debt in the year 1864 to have been about £4,000,000. As the Returns of income and expenditure for 1865 and 1866 are not, and cannot yet be, in our possession, I am unable to state the precise amount of the debt at the close of last year; but as I find that the average annual amount of debt paid off during the
      146
      six years ending the 31st December, 1864, was about £135,000, I shall not be far wrong if I estimate the debt on the 31st December, 1866, to have been about £3,700,000; and as the marketable value of the debt, upon an average throughout the country, certainly does not exceed 70 per cent, I take the actual marketable value to be from £2,500,000 to £2,600,000 at the present time.
      Now, what is the condition of the mortgagees and bondholders? I speak the more feelingly, but also the more freely, as being myself one of that honourable fraternity. I am sure that this House would always wish to deal tenderly with persons who had invested their money upon anything like the faith of Parliamentary security. But what is our position? Some of us, no doubt, have advanced our money because we thought it a good investment, and had faith in the continuance of the system. Many of us, or our fathers before us, advanced money in order that our own estates and neighbourhoods might be improved by the making of good roads, and from such roads we have received a very considerable benefit. But all, wisely or unwisely, invested their money in that which they knew clearly at the time to be in law a terminable security—all have had fair warning for the last thirty years of the spirit in which Parliament was likely to regard this question, and I say that we should do wrong if by our legislation we attempted to give an increased or fictitious I value to a debt which in very many instances is of exceedingly small value. You might almost as well propose to compensate those who have invested their money in coaches and roadside inns, the value of whose property has been so much deteriorated by the introduction of railroads. Besides, Sir, we are bound to consider what would be the position of the bondholders, and what their prospect of payment, if we were not to legislate at all upon the subject. Comparatively few of them could ever hope to receive any considerable portion of their principal; as the Acts expire, their trusts would come under the control of the Secretary of State, their interest would inevitably be reduced, their arrears of interest extinguished, and their fate would be uncertain at best. I ant always most unwilling to trouble the House with derails and statistics; but, as this is one of the main difficulties of the question, I have taken infinite pains to analyse closely the condition of these trusts, so that the

      147
      House and the country might have clearly before them the varying, different, and uncertain value of this debt with which we have to deal.
      I find that in 2 counties the average rate of interest is 5 per cent. In 10 counties it is 4, but less than 5. In 25 counties 3 per cent up to 3½ per cent, and in 9 counties it is less than 3 per cent. This exhausts the 46 counties of England and North Wales. I find that out of 873 trusts which were in debt in the year 1864, only 431 paid off any portion, and some a very small portion, of the principal of their debt during that year; 442 paid off no principal at all. Of these 873 trusts, representing £4,000,000 of bonded debt, I find that 316 trusts, representing £1,616,000, paid 3 per cent, or less than 3 per cent interest; of which 143 trusts, representing £768,000, paid 2 per cent, and less than 2 per cent; of the remaining trusts, representing something less than £2,400,000, as many as 229, representing upwards of £900,000, paid 5 per cent; and, at first sight, this would, of course, appear to be good property. But when you look closely into their condition, you will find that only 67 of these trusts, representing £260,000 (and this includes a Middlesex trust representing adebt of above £57,000), paid off any principal either in 1863 or 1864; the remaining 162, representing debt of £650,000, paid off, and were likely to pay off, no principal whatever. Their high interest, therefore, affords little criterion of their real marketable value, and when their trusts expire it would at once be reduced by order of the Secretary of State. The question seriously arises whether, if the present system is admitted to be inconvenient and vexatious, Parliament will for ever maintain that system in order to secure the interest of their money to persons who have invested that money in a terminable security, and can never hope to receive their principal. It is very well to deal tenderly with individuals; but, after all, it is justice to the public which should guide our legislation.
      And now, Sir, I come to the second difficulty—namely, the hardship to individual parishes if the repairs of the turnpike roads within them were to fall upon them. Sir, it was the opinion of the Committee of 1861 that, to obviate this hardship, there should be an extension of the area of rating. But that Committee, whilst unanimous in this recommendation, failed to agree upon any specific area. For my own
      148
      part, I do not scruple to say that I think the best and simplest solution of the question would be to make the Highway Act of 1862 compulsory, and to put the repairs of all roads, highway and turnpike, upon the district fund of the highway district to which they belong. The whole district benefits by good roads, and, to my mind, the system of parochial management of roads is the system of a bygone age. Sir, when the Highway Act of 1862 was passed, I was strongly of opinion that the proper course to pursue was to make the new highway districts coterminous with the union districts, with a power of subdivision where necessary. You had a staff of officers already at work—you had a place of meeting ready to your hand—you had a combination to which parishes had become accustomed—and I believe this course would have increased the popularity as well as the efficiency of the measure. But the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) was of a different opinion; Parliament decided otherwise, and we have to deal with things as they are. I know that the proposal to make the Highway Act compulsory under existing circumstances would create touch opposition. I scarcely venture to propose it upon my own responsibility; but if the Government should give their sanction, and if I perceived an indication of the opinion of the House in this direction, I should be perfectly ready to engraft it upon the Bill, which I think it would simplify and render more efficacious. I may mention that the Highway Act, according to the Return of 1865, was then in force in 35 counties, or parts of counties, in England, and one in Wales, comprising upwards of 300 districts, and a very large mileage of road. Sir, I do propose that, wherever the Highway Act is in force, the repairs of these roads should be placed upon the common fund of each district. And where the Highway Act is not in force, if it is right that the parishes should any longer escape their common law liability to repair the roads within them, I do not think it ought to be by means of the wasteful and inconvenient system of turnpike tolls. Let us look the matter fairly in the face. The evidence taken before your Select Committee goes to prove that, in the vast majority of cases, the through traffic upon these roads has sunk into comparative insignificance since the introduction and multiplication of railroads. These roads now practically ex-

      149
      ist for the purposes of local traffic, and those who pay the tolls are the same persons as those who pay the rates—namely, the owners and occupiers of the district. Then, if I have shown you that the expense of turnpike toll collection and management is enormous, is it worth while to continue this expense for the sake of the very small benefit which is derived from through traffic, that is to say, from the payment of tolls by persons who are strangers and not ratepayers in the parishes? Is it worth while to keep up, side by side in the same locality, a double set of officials—a double expense for practically the same object, and an irresponsible instead of a representative management? For bear in mind, that as soon as you shift this burden from the tolls to the rates, you apply the principle of representation following taxation, and you give to the parishes a power and an interest in the control of expenditure which they do not now possess. But, Sir, it is frequently urged, as an argument in favour of the present system, that those who use the roads should pay for them. I respectfully submit that this is a result which is not obtained under the system of toll-gates. I say nothing of the fact that all those who walk equally use the roads and pay nothing; but a very large percentage of the riding and driving public constantly evade tolls by means of lanes and byways, and whilst the expenses of parishes which have to repair such lanes and byways is thereby increased, you cannot, by possibility, place your toll-gates in such a position as to render the incidence of this tax just and equal. Besides, if the argument is worth anything, that those who use the roads should pay for their maintenance, it is equally applicable to the case of highways; and yet every person who rides or drives is using highways, to the repairs of which he contributes nothing, the very moment that he passes the boundary of the parish in which he happens to live and to be rated. It must also be borne in mind that the existence of a good road must, more or less, benefit a parish and improve the value of its property. In many instances, too, these turnpike roads were originally highways, and in all such cases the parishes would only be reverting to that common law liability from which they have for many years been relieved at the expense of the public. But, Sir, it is said that great injustice will arise in the case of roads in the vicinity of large towns—of coal-mines, of ironworks, and of manufac-
      150
      turing establishments, whose heavy traffic will tear up the roads which country parishes will have to repair. It must not, however, be forgotten that the very existence of such places is of enormous advantage to the neighbouring parishes—supplying their local wants, employing their surplus labour, and immensely improving the value of their property. In many instances, too, the increase of railway accommodation has removed or lessened the heavy traffic complained of; and, acknowledging as I do that there may be some cases of hardship, where through traffic from town to town really exists, or from other particular circumstances, I propose to give power to the justices in quarter sessions to grant contributions from the county rate in aid of the rates of any parish or parishes which shall appear to them to be unduly enhanced by the operation of this Act.
      Sir, I have prepared a summary of the Bill which I propose to introduce, and perhaps it will be a convenient course that I should now read it to the House. First, I propose that all trusts out of debt, excepting those which are scheduled to expire on the 1st November in the present year, shall expire on the 1st November, 1868. I propose that, where the Highway Act is in force, the repairs of the roads within the district, and the debt, where debt exists, shall be charged upon the district fund, with power given to maintain toll-gates daring the continuance of the trust, the proceeds being firstly applicable to the expenses of such gates, and the liquidation of debt as hereinafter provided. Where the Highway Act is not in force, I propose that the repairs shall be borne by the parishes, as is the case under the existing law, according to the mileage of road in each parish, with power to justices in quarter sessions to contribute from the county rate in aid of the rates of any parish which shall appear to them to be unduly enhanced by the operation of this Act. Then, with respect to the termination of trusts now in debt. The trustees of trusts whose Acts have expired, and of other trusts when their Acts expire, shall endeavour at once to make an arrangement with the creditors of the trust, and communicate the result to the Home Secretary on or before the 1st March, 1868, in the first case, and in other cases, on or before the 1st March in the year following the expiration of the trust—notice of the proposed arrangement to be advertised in at least one newspaper circulating in the district, prior to

      151
      the transmission to the Secretary of State. This is to give the local authorities and the public an opportunity of objecting if they please. If such arrangement is approved by the Secretary of State, he shall forthwith, but not before the 31st March (so as to give time to any objecting party to represent his objections to the Secretary of State), issue an order confirming the same, fixing a date for the termination of the trust, authorizing the continuance of toll-gates upon the conditions stated above, in cases where an annual sum is to be paid to the creditors, and stating such sum, or, otherwise, stating the sum agreed upon to be paid in full discharge of the principal of the debt. In cases where the Highway Act is not in force, the order is to apportion the debt among the parishes of the trust according to the rateable value of each parish, and the income of the tolls in like proportion. Where no arrangement is announced to the Secretary of State on or before the 1st of March, he is to ascertain the marketable value of the debt, and to issue an order as above, naming an annual sum to be paid to the creditors during the existence of the trust. In all cases the basis of any such sum shall be the average surplus revenue which, during the three years ending December 31st, 1866, shall have been annually applicable to the payment of interest and principal of debt. Upon the issue of any such order of the Secretary of State, the duties and powers of the trustees are at once to terminate, and the trusts and trust property to be transferred to the local authorities. "Local authorities" I interpret to mean highway districts, where such exist, Local improvement Boards, and parish vestries in other places. No order shall extend the duration of any trust beyond the term of ten years from the 1st November, 1868, and those trusts whose Acts extend beyond such term are not to be extended beyond the limit of their present Acts. Then I give power to local authorities to borrow money to pay off debts; or if the debt can be extinguished by voluntary subscriptions or sale of property, prior to the date named for the expiration of the trusts, to obtain a certificate of the fact from the Secretary of State, and to remove toll-bars. The only other clause with which I need trouble the House is that which relates to compensation of officers. Last year I received at the Home Office a large deputation upon this subject, and, after much consideration, I agreed to insert in the Continuance Act
      152
      a clause giving power to trustees who, upon the termination of their trust, should have balances in their hand, to compensate at their discretion any clerks or surveyors whose offices were about to be abolished, provided that such officers should have served for ten consecutive years before the expiration of the trust, and that the amount of compensation should in no case exceed the amount of three or four (I forget the exact figure) years' salary. When the right hon. Gentleman came to the Home Office, he declined to adopt this clause, which he had not sufficiently considered. But when the Bill was before the House, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) moved my clause in Committee, and, after some discussion, it was carried by the unanimous vote of the House. It was, however, lost in the other House; and I now propose to introduce it in this I Bill, giving to the trustees, with consent of the Secretary of State, power to compensate, in the same manner, and under the same conditions.
      I hope the House will see clearly the principle upon which I desire to act, I wish at first to court an amicable arrangement of the debt at once between trustees and mortgagees, and I bring in the Secretary of State to see that the public is not wronged in any such arrangement. Failing such arrangement, I bring him in as the arbiter between the two parties. Under the present law he has this power practically at his option when the trusts expire, and I desire to enforce and expedite his action. Of course, the details of the measure, if I am allowed to introduce it, will be better understood when the Bill is printed. The first great advantage which I anticipate is the reduction in all cases, and the abolition in many, of the enormous expense of collection and management. Then, by dispensing with the necessity of an annual Continuance Act, we shall get rid of the element of uncertainty, and persons interested in trusts will know for certain the date at which the trust will positively expire. I have fixed the date beyond which trusts may not be continued at ten years from the 1st of November, 1868, but in most cases I hope a much shorter time will be sufficient. I may state for the information of the House, that, setting aside a few trusts which may have been renewed during the last two or three years, there are 311 trusts, limited as to time, whose Acts have not yet expired, and of these all but twenty-one will have expired

      153
      before November 1st, 1878. So that any inconvenience to localities from the circumstance of one trust being abolished whilst an adjoining one remains, will decrease year by year, and in a dozen years' time will be almost entirely at an end.
      I will not detain the House with allusions to other schemes which have been proposed for dealing with this question. There are great objections made to the proposal to charge these burdens upon the county rates, and I do not think that Parliament would sanction an attack upon the Consolidated Fund. If Parliament should agree to this Bill I believe it would be found to work well. If I have not sufficiently dwelt upon the disadvantages of the present system, it has been from a sincere desire not to weary the House with matter which any Member may collect for himself from the Reports of our Select Committees. The Committee of 1836 condemned the present system. The Committee of 1864 confirmed that condemnation, and dimly shadowed forth some portions of a future arrangement. I venture to go one step further, and to propose a definite plan. If the Government and the House should think it best to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, it will not be for me to raise any objection. I have endeavoured to state my views to the House clearly and intelligibly, and if I have presumed too much in dealing with this subject as a private Member, I can assure the House that my sole motive has been to promote, so far as I might be able, such a settlement of the question as may tend to the public advantage. He moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
      MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, it was exceedingly difficult to determine fairly how roads should be repaired. It must be either by rate or by tolls, and rates were most popular, because it was always most agreeable to put your hands into the pockets of others. No doubt, the principle of tolls was that every person should pay for that which he had, and in that view tolls were more just than rates. If a system of tolls could be devised for London, it would be more just than throwing the burden of the maintenance of the roads on the inhabitants; but practical reasons prevented it. Where difficulties could be obviated, tolls were in many cases preferable. In the district with which he was connected the system worked with great satisfaction. The tolls could be collected every seven miles, and persons did not feel that they paid more than they
      154
      ought to pay. The hon. Gentleman had approached this subject much more effectually than the Committee. He objected to a Committee condemning a system while they dimly shadowed forth a remedy. There were some difficulties connected with the plan recommended. For instance, it would be a troublesome office for the quarter sessions to decide the amount of subventions from the county rate to be applied to a particular parish. Again, there would be objections to the continuance of tolls to pay off debts and the yearly gate expenses, and not for the maintenance of the roads which for the time would fall on the parishes. He had some experience of the "Rebecca" riots in Wales, one of the causes of which was the levying of tolls for debts, and not for the repair of the roads; and such an arrangement would be very difficult to manage with satisfaction. The system adopted in Wales, which did not, however, involve the total abolition of tolls, worked extremely well, and he should be glad to see it extended. No doubt all payments were excessively disagreeable. It was a very serious matter to impose a rate of 4d. in the pound in many parishes, as they might know, for if they attempted to impose 1d. or 2d. on the income tax, such a proposition would endanger the Government. The problem was in some way to provide that the persons who used the roads should pay more than those who did not use them. In the Isle of Man there were no gates, and the roads were maintained by a tax on wheels; but such a solution of the problem might not be feasible in this country.
      MR. READsaid, the hon. Gentleman had earned the gratitude of the House by the way in which he had attempted to grapple with the subject. Nothing could be worse than the present state of the law, under which turnpikes were yearly dying out, and grievous burdens were being inflicted on some parishes, for, although much through traffic had been diverted by railways, there remained a vast amount of traffic between country towns. In the county of Norfolk there was only one highway district, and the ratepayers were endeavouring at the next sessions to extricate their necks from the ropes cast around them. He objected to permissive Bills, believing that what was good ought to be enforced on the country. He would go so far as to say that all the roads in a district should be made chargeable to a common fund, just as the poor were chargeable to the common fund of a union.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he joined in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this measure, which showed that he understood the subject, and had mastered its details, though he was inclined to think that he rather underrated the difficulty of the task which he had undertaken. He believed that when they got into Committee upon the Bill there would be raised many objections which it would be very difficult to meet. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was a member of the Committee of 1864, and he found the difficulties of the question to be very much greater than he had anticipated, and that was the reason why, whilst the Committee condemned the present system, they found it impossible to arrive at a decision as to what should be the remedy. Permissive legislation was objectionable as casting odium on those by whom it was carried out. He thought that it would be extremely objectionable to keep up the tolls at the same time that the cost of repairing the roads was cast upon the parish. He also thought that it would be found impracticable for the quarter sessions to grant rates in aid to particular parishes. He looked forward with great interest to know what were the precise provisions of the Bill, and should be sincerely glad if the matter could be successfully dealt with.
      SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he thought that any one who had taken an interest in the subject must have heard with great satisfaction the ability with which it had been handled by the hon. Gentleman, who must be prepared to meet with considerable opposition. This was a mere question between supporting the roads by rates or by tolls. He agreed that in large towns the toll system was unjust, and was only approved of by the man who lived on the lucky side of the gate. Every man who lived on the right side a toll-bar was glad that it should continue; but the man who unhappily lived on the wrong side had to pay not only for himself, but also for his friend on the other side. The inequality of the incidence of the present system could not be defended. It was a very proper desire that those who used the roads should pay for them; but the fact of the case was, those did not pay for the roads who used them. An immense number used roads without paying for them, and those who did pay for them paid for them twice over. He regretted that no measure for the re-
      156
      form of roads in Scotland had been brought in by Government, because the system under which the roads were managed in that country was altogether effete and obsolete, the expenses of management and of collection amounting to between 25 to 30 per cent of the gross receipts. The system adopted in the Isle of Man of levying a rate upon wheels was equally unfair with that now in force in England. It should not be forgotten in discussing this question that pedestrians were interested equally with the owners of vehicles in the proper repair of the roads; and therefore it was not fair to throw the whole burden of the expense incurred in keeping the roads in a good condition upon the latter. It would be found on grappling with the roads debt that it was much less than was generally supposed, since a large portion of it brought no benefit to the creditors. Those who were interested in road reform would wish success to the hon. Member's measure.
      MR. GREENEsaid, that before the hon. Gentleman could expect to obtain the support of the Gentlemen of the different counties, He must suggest some method by which a portion of the expenses of repairing the roads might be borne by some common fund. The occupation roads might be repaired by the different parishes, and the expense of repairing the main roads between large towns and other parts of the country might be thrown upon some general fund.
      MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Sandwich for the lucid manner in which he had introduced this subject to the notice of the House. The question for decision was whether the expense of repairing the roads was to be met by rates or by tolls. When it was decided that tolls were to be done away with, and that the expense of repairs was to be met by a rate, the question would arise over what area that rate was to be extended. The three modes of raising the rate which had been suggested—namely, by a county rate, by a highway district rate, and by a parochial rate, had been distinctly condemned by the Committee of 1864, who suggested that the trusts might be watched and gradually got rid of from time to time as the debts upon them were extinguished. In his opinion this question could never be properly grappled with until the Permissive Bill for the highway districts was turned into a compulsory Act, and the charge of the turnpike roads,

      157
      as well as of the highways, was thrown upon the highway districts. If that object could be accomplished, the question might be brought to a speedy and satisfactory termination. As to the trusts which had debts still unpaid, he feared that if his hon. Friend endeavoured to cast upon the parishes the burden of their debts, as well as the maintenance of the roads, he would hardly be able to pass his Bill. He did not quite understand the proposal as to a subvention from the county rate, yet that was a matter which would require great consideration, as it would involve the transfer of a burden from one place to another, which was not a proper mode of dealing with such a question. It was said that these burdens should be thrown upon the parishes; but many rural parishes did not benefit by roads which ran through them nearly so much as the people of adjoining towns. He had no wish to discuss the Bill at the present moment; but he thought that a discussion upon the second reading of the Bill would be useful. He hoped that when the Bill again came on for discussion, those Members who took a great interest in this subject would be able to devise some means by which the trusts might be gradually got rid of. The hon. Member had stated it to be his intention to propose, after the second reading of the Bill, that it should be referred to a Select Committee. On behalf of the Government, he had no hesitation in giving his sanction to such a proposal, as he believed great good would result from its being carried into effect.
      MR. AYRTONsaid, he had been consulted by the hon. Gentleman when the Bill was being prepared, and he desired to say a few words upon the points that had arisen in the course of the discussion. It was, of course, difficult to explain all the details of the measure at this stage of the proceedings; but he believed that when the Bill was in the hands of hon. Members it would be admitted that it grappled successfully with the difficulties of the case. The proposal was not to throw the debt of trusts on parishes which had to maintain the roads, but to provide that if parishes undertook a debt equal to that now distributed among the creditors, they might assume the trust and be repaid out of the produce of the tolls. He justified the county contributions, because there were many roads which formed the communication between remote parts of the county and large towns, but were now of little
      158
      use to the parishes through which they passed. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely misapprehended the proposal with reference to dealing with any existing debt. Of course it would be idle to throw a debt upon a parish, and at the same time to make that parish bear the expense of maintaining the roads. But it was an injustice to compel those who maintained their own roads to pay turnpike tolls. The struggles that often took place in that House for the maintenance of trusts where a debt of a few hundred pounds existed, were not for the benefit of the public, but were fostered by professional people for their own benefit. In the metropolis all the turnpikes had ban got rid of; but it was a great injustice that persons residing in the country were at liberty to drive into the metropolis at the expense of the inhabitants who maintained the roads, whereas Londoners driving into the country were at once beset with turnpikes, and had to pay tolls in order that the roads might be kept up in all the surrounding districts. Indeed, the number of roads maintained by the ratepayers was now so great that the continuance of turnpikes at all was an injustice. The present system had gone on a great deal too long, and ought to be altogether abolished; and he thought the present measure would meet a great variety of circumstances, and would, though not immediately, bring about the total abolition of turnpikes. It was not sought to effect that end at once and violently, but to deal with each particular case as it arose in a quiet and temperate manner.
      MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid: I will not repay the House for the kind indulgence with which they have heard me to-night by detaining them with any lengthy reply. There are only three observations to which I desire to allude. My hon. Friend the Member for Haverford-west (Mr. Scourfield) has mentioned the difficulty there will be in asking the quarter sessions to adjudicate as to the granting aid to parishes from the county rate. I am quite aware of it. But the whole question is surrounded with difficulties; and, to be quite frank with the House, I hope and expect that one result of calling the attention of the quarter sessions to this matter will be the adoption of the Highway Act in many places where it has not hitherto been adopted, and the demonstration to parishes that by adopting this Act the area of their rating will be extended, will, I hope, render the adoption

      159
      of the Highway Act more popular than it now is with some of the agricultural ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) says that the Select Committee of 1864 negatived the parochial rate. I had forgotten the fact for a moment; but let me remind him that the present law throws the repairs of those roads upon the parochial rates when the trusts expire; so that now, unless they obtain, at great expense, a new Act of Parliament, it is practically only by the arbitrary power of the Secretary of State that the trust is maintained and the roads kept from the parochial rates. This is a great responsibility upon the Secretary of State, from which I wish to relieve him. But I wish the House to note carefully one expression which fell from my right hon. Friend. He said that he feared "we should never deal satisfactorily with the subject until the Highway Act was made compulsory." Well, Sir, I rejoice to hear the opinion of my right hon. Friend, and when we go to our Select Committee I hope that he, or those who are authorized to speak for him on that Committee, will make a proposition in accordance with that opinion. Upon that and every other point I shall be most ready to receive and adopt suggestions for the improvement of the Bill, and I trust out of that Committee we may produce a useful and satisfactory measure.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to Turnpike Trusts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Mr. GEORGE CLIVE, Mr. AYRTON, and Mr. GOLDNEY.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 80.]

    NATIONAL GALLERY ENLARGEMENT BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSmoved for leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision for the enlargement of the National Gallery. He said, that under the arrangement sanctioned by Parliament last year, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) hoped he should be able to purchase by private contract the property to which this measure referred—namely, Archbishop Tenison's school and the parochial schools of St. Martin. Difficulties, however, had arisen, and it was necessary to pass the Bill awarding compensation to the owners, which he now moved for leave to introduce.
      Motion agreed to.
      160
      Bill to make further provision for the enlargement of the National Gallery, ordered to be brought in by Lord JOHN MANNERS and Mr. HUNT.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 82.]

    PUBLIC-HOUSES, &c., BILL.—LEAVE.

      FIRST READING.
      MR. GRAVESsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking for leave to introduce a Bill for the better regulation of public-houses, refreshment-houses, and beer-houses.
      MR. SPEAKER: It is necessary that a proposition for a Bill of this nature should be first brought forward in a Committee of the Whole House.
      Acts read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Acts relating to Public Houses, &C."
      MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would move an Amendment that the House go into Committee that day six months.
      MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman could not do so. The Amendment should have been proposed before the Question was put from the Chair.
      MR. ROEBUCK: I was listening as attentively as I could, and I was not aware that you put the Question. I should like to have an opportunity of moving my Amendment, and I think I ought to have it.
      MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if there had been any misunderstanding, and if the Motion was to be opposed, the better course would be that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) should make his statement, and that the Question should be put again.
      MR. GRAVESsaid, that in consequence of the objection which had just been made in so unusual a manner to the granting leave to introduce this Bill, he would meet the case as it stood. On that day week, when he was about to make a Motion similar to that which he had now placed on the paper, he was met by an intimation from the Speaker that it was doubtful whether the subject was one which a private Member was competent to deal with. On the intimation being made he immediately withdrew that Motion, and having since had the benefit of advice from the Speaker he had been encouraged to proceed with the present Motion, which he had learnt

      161
      was not contrary to the rules or the practice of the House. Looking at the frequent discussions on the subject which had taken place in that House and the great interest which attached to the question out of doors, he thought it might be taken for granted that a very deep conviction existed that the time had arrived when a better system of licensing ought to be established. He knew no question more important than that to which he was about to draw the attention of the House, both as regarded the magnitude of the trades involved and its indirect bearing on the social and moral welfare of the great masses of our population. He was sure that, notwithstanding the objection taken on the very threshold of the inquiry by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), any proposal which would lead to a thorough discussion of this great subject would be received with satisfaction by the House. It was not his intention to enter on the present occasion into any lengthened explanation of the main features of the Bill, because that could be much more conveniently done on the second reading. Its main features would be found to be in harmony with the recommendations of the Committee of 1854, and with the provisions of the Bill which some two years ago was introduced into that House at the request of the licensed victuallers of Liverpool. The present Bill was not a private Bill It recommended uniformity of licence; that it should be in the power of the justices alone to grant such; that all applicants must be of good character; and that all such applicants should have a right to receive a licence, subject, however, to a veto on the part of the owners or occupiers of the houses in the neighbourhood of the applicant; that there should be a minimum of Excise duty, with a minimum sating qualification, but subject to a reduction in the duty if the house were closed on Sundays that there should be a limitation with respect to the hours of opening, with power to the local authorities in the different boroughs to make still further restrictions, There were also certain saving clauses in the Bill with regard to existing privileges. He would not say that this Bill was all that could be desired in dealing with an important and a complicated question; but it was an effort as far as it went; and he hoped the House would allow it to go into Committee and be there considered. It had been framed by the magistrates and the corporation, and was sup-
      162
      ported by the inhabitants of Liverpool. If the House permitted the Bill to be introduced, it was his intention to fix the second reading for a distant day, so as to enable his Colleague (Mr. Horsfall) to resume the conduct of the Bill, and to give the House a full opportunity for its examination. He now moved that the Speaker leave the Chair.
      MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that his object was to learn the intentions and views of the Government on this question. It was a large one, and affected many interests which had grown up and been fostered by Acts of Parliament. It was also a question which largely affected the public morality. There was a class of persons called teetotallers, who supported permissive Bills in order to put down the sale of intoxicating liquors. But the Bill of the hon. Member was advocated by a different class, for it went to establish a free trade in liquors. The wisdom of Parliament had always made a distinction between the sale of commodities that were harmless and those that were not so. A bale of cotton might be passed from hand to hand without danger, and no restrictions were placed on its sale. But it was different with gunpowder. And so with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors, which affected the public morality. Parliament had interfered for centuries, and under this interference or sanction of Parliament there had grown up large interests which this Bill went directly to affect. No private Member ought to be permitted to do this. The Government ought to take up the question, and tell the House what they intended to do. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) whether the Government, who must know what was the object of the Bill, were prepared to support it. If they were not he would withdraw his opposition; if they were, he would go to a division. He believed the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Stanley) was prepared to support this Bill. ["No!"] He was glad to hear that. He had thought from some part of the noble Lord's remarks, as chairman of quarter sessions, that he was in favour of free trade in intoxicating liquors. For himself, he was entirely opposed to it. He was also opposed to the permissive Bill of the teetotallers; but he was prepared to support a judicious intermediate action between these two extremes. He wished, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would explain to

      163
      the House what course he intended to take in this matter, and for that purpose he moved that the House go into Committee that day six months.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "immediately," and insert the words "upon this day six months,"—(Mr. Roebuck,)—instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the word 'immediately' stand part of the Question."
      MR. POWELLsaid, that at any rate he thought the House ought to go into Committee to allow the hon. Member to introduce his Bill. Their present system of licensing consisted of two parts, each inconsistent with the other, and neither satisfactory. He would not say what was the right system to be adopted, but this he knew—that the country was greatly dissatisfied and disgusted with the present system. Our restraints had broken down, and if we intended to diminish drunkenness we must adopt some other means of doing so. Therefore he thought they were bound to go into Committee and consider the present proposal. It deserved so much of support if it were only for the way in which it proposed to deal with the liquor traffic on Sundays. At present every one who took out a licence was bound to keep open all the seven days of the week. He thought it would be a great improvement if the parties had the option of only taking out a licence, with a proportionate reduction for six days. It had been tried with the cabs, and found to work advantageously, and he saw no reason why it should not be equally beneficial in the case of public-houses.
      MR. PEASEsaid, that a short time ago he put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether he had the licensing system under his consideration, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had. He was not aware the hon. Member (Mr. Graves) had intended to bring this Bill before the House. A friend of his (Mr. Lawson), the late Member for Carlisle, had also brought the question before the House a few years ago, tending to show the dissatisfaction with the present system. There were great anomalies in the present licensing system. It was a great hardship on licensed victuallers to have to apply year after year for a renewal of their licenses to benches of magistrates differently constituted. It sometimes occurred that a
      164
      man applied in vain year after year for a license, but ultimately obtained it on the same grounds as those which he had originally urged. The magistrates in one town proceeded on a different system from that acted on by the magistrates in another town. Thus, the Liverpool magistrates thought it their duty to grant licenses to all persons who applied for them, provided that the applicants were fitted to keep a licensed house; but the magistrates of Manchester exercised a discretion as to the number of licenses. The amount of drunkenness in Liverpool, with a population very nearly the same in number, though of a different character, was nearly double that in Manchester. He thought it would be useful to have his hon. Friend's Bill discussed; but he hoped the Government would bring in a general measure.
      MR. WALPOLE: Sir, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) having made such a direct appeal to me on this subject, I will give the House the reason why we think we ought to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) to go into Committee. It is a matter of courtesy to allow a Member to introduce his Bill. It is the usual, though not the invariable rule of the House that any Member who wishes may introduce a Bill and lay it upon the table of the House. That is a very convenient practice, for it gives a Member an opportunity for explanation at a further stage; it allows him to introduce the question he wishes to bring before the House in the most convenient form for discussion. Thai being so, my hon. Friend asks us to go into a Committee of the Whole House on a most important subject. The object of going into Committee is that leave may be given him to introduce a Bill for the better regulation of licenses, for the sale of wine, spirits, and beer. I mentioned the other day, as the hon. Member for Durham county (Mr. Pease) has just reminded the House, that proposals relating to this question have come before me from various sources, which it was my duty to consider. It will be for the general advantage if the same questions are brought before the House. I may state that I have formed an opinion on the subject, and when the proper time comes I shall be prepared to give my opinion. I have made up my mind as to the kind of measure that ought to be introduced; but I am not prepared to introduce it till I have consulted with my Colleagues, and till I see that the state

      165
      of the public business will allow me to make progress with it, Still, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) wishes to go into Committee of the Whole House on an important. measure, I think the House is bound to afford him an opportunity.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the House would not refuse to give the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) an opportunity of bringing in his Bill, though he should oppose some of its provisions, The licensing system was in a very unsatisfactory state; and there was no place in which that was felt more than in Liverpool. Last year the persons responsible for the maintenance of the peace and morality of the town felt themselves constrained to attempt to deal with the evils by which they were confronted, by means of a private Bill. The majority of the House of Commons, of whom he had been one, would not allow such a precedent to be established. But now that the measure again made its appearance in an unobjectionable form, and that the Bill no longer embodied the expression merely of the opinions of the people of Liverpool, great cause for complaint would exist if it were hastily rejected. He quite agreed that the question was one which the present or former Governments ought to have taken up. The right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary (Mr. Walpole) had proved in time past his desire to meet this question. He believed that the expression of opinion throughout the country necessary to carry a Government measure upon the subject would be much encouraged, by taking a preliminary discussion upon the Bill now proposed.
      MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that having attained his object he would withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. GRAVESsaid, that the rate of licences would be higher in Liverpool; but he could not say what would be the effect of the Bill with regard to other places.
      MR. WALPOLEsaid, it would not be competent for the hon. Member for Liverpool to fix by his Bill the rate to be paid for licences without the consent of the Government.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Main Question put, and agreed to.
      Acts considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a
      166
      Bill for the better Regulation of Public Houses, Refreshment Houses, and Beer Houses.
      House resumed.
      Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GRAVES, Mr. HORSFALL and Mr. HIBBERT.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 83.]

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to authorize the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings to acquire lands for the purpose of the new Palace at Westminster, and to construct an Embankment on the North shore of the River Thames, in the parish of St. John the Evangelist, Westminster. He said, that for the last few years a continual nuisance and danger had been experienced from the state of the premises near the Victoria Tower. It had been strongly recommended by the Commission of 1863 that the premises should be purchased by the Government, and that the embankment of the Thames should be carried along their site. He might mention that no later than last summer an attempt had been made to blow up that portion of the palace, and that, as lately an the 19th January last, a gas engine had exploded in the straw yard abutting on the Victoria Tower. These buildings would be pulled down, and on the western extremity of the land so acquired it was proposed to erect a handsome range of houses, and the money which would be derived from the sale of that portion of the ground was expected to largely compensate for the cost of purchasing the property. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would not object to the introduction of the Bill.
      COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to inquire what number of houses were included in the Bill; and whether any estimate had been made of the money required for their purchase?
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Colonel would look at the Estimates he would find a full account of the proposed expenditure. The sum total was £175,000, of which £30,000 would be proposed during the present year.
      MR. HENDERSONsaid, that the Bill would provide a protection against what might be a national calamity. Some time ago he had visited the premises, and within

      167
      twenty yards of the Palace he saw a coal yard, at the foot of which were two barges loading gas tar. In an adjoining yard there were 200 or 300 tons of straw, between which and the gas tar a man was smoking. A spark from his pipe might have caused a conflagration, which if the wind had been in a certain direction would have reached the Palace.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill to authorize the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings to acquire lands for the purposes of the New Palace at Westminster, and to construct an Embankment on the North shore of the River Thames, in the parish of St. John the Evangelist, Westminster, ordered to be brought in by Lord JOHN MANNERS, and Mr. HUNT.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 81.]

    CASE OF MR. CHURCHWARD.

      MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
      MR. TAYLORsaid, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for the removal of Mr. Churchward from the Commission of the Peace for the Borough of Dover. He had no special connection either with Dover or the county of Kent, nor had he any ill-feeling towards the person whose conduct he impugned, and until a communication was made to him a week ago, he had no knowledge of that gentleman. In the communication which he received from Dover he was told that the people of Dover felt themselves injured and insulted—he used their phrase without endorsing it—by what they termed "an atrocious job," which had placed on the bench of magistrates at Dover a person whose political misdoings had been recorded again and again in the votes of the House, and were enshrined in the deliberate and solemn Report of a Commission. He felt it his duty to look into these assertions, and to search the records of the House where the facts were to be found. Having done so, he thought it his duty to address a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, but did not place the question on the paper without some misgivings and doubts. He said to himself, "Is it conceivable, if the facts are as stated, that any Government would recommend Her Majesty to nominate any such person to the commission of the peace?" He fancied that he might find some commixture, some confusion of names
      168
      and dates, and be thrown over at last. He thought that if any Government could not have ventured on such a course of proceeding, the present Government would have been the last to do so—that a Government which occupied so peculiar a position in relation to the majority of the House would have been the last Government to deprive themselves of all the characteristics which were supposed to be inherent in what was vulgarly known as a new broom. Was it conceivable, he thought, that Her Majesty's Government, the head of the great Tory party in this country—that party which within one year had refused even to entertain a Reform Bill unless in its four corners there were stringent and effective clauses against bribery and corruption—that party which at the beginning of the Session had before it the Reports of four Commissions relating to certain boroughs which they now proposed wholly to disfranchise, innocent and guilty together—was it conceivable that such a Government could have made such a recommendation? Under those circumstances, could it be conceived that Her Majesty's Government actually recommended Her Majesty to place on the commission of peace at Dover a gentleman who had been reported by a Committee as guilty of bribery? When he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the question he put to him on a previous occasion he did so with fear and trembling, for he thought he might find himself, to use a familiar phrase, "thrown on his back." He believed, and he said it with all sincerity, that there was not a man on either side of the House who would have felt more pain and disgust than the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to be obliged to give the answer he was compelled to give, which amounted to an admission that Mr. Churchward was the man against whom these heavy charges had been substantiated before the tribunal he had mentioned. The only qualification to that admission was an appeal ad misericordiam with regard to the Report of the Committee of 1853. The right hon. Gentleman stated that his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, until he saw his (Mr. Taylor's) Motion on the paper, was unaware that there was any stain whatever on the political reputation of Mr. Churchward. He (Mr. Taylor) must say that the Colleagues of the noble and learned Lord had behaved with great unkindness, if not unfairness, to him, because it could not be doubted that many of them were but too well aware of

      169
      the facts of the case. They all knew that—
      "Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise;"
      but this bliss was a stolen pleasure which was not permissible in the case of men who discharged high political functions and duties, and who, in discharging them, were bound to exercise certain responsibilities. Among them was the responsibility of not being unaware of that which was sufficiently well known to all the world besides, It happened, with some singularity, that there was a case absolutely parallel with the one before the House, All the circumstances were the same, the same Lord Chancellor and the same Home Secretary being concerned in it, and the only thing which was not the same was that the right hon. Gentleman opposite on that occasion—in 1858—said his noble Friend would instantly proceed to undo the mischief that had been done. The case was that of two persons who had been appointed to the commission of the peace in Canterbury, and who had previously, as in this case, been reported by the Commissioners as having been guilty of bribery, A complaint was made by the hon. and learned Member for South wark (Mr. Locke), and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) then said—
      "His noble Friend (the Lord Chancellor) was not in the least degree aware that the names of either of those persons were in the schedule of the Commissioners' Report to which reference had been made. The moment the case was brought to his Attention, he caused inquiry to be made, and finding that the parties were the same, he instantly sent down to Canterbury to say that he should require both those gentlemen to resign."—[3 Hansard, cl. 264.]
      He (Mr. Taylor) asserted as a fact—if he were mistaken he should be open to correction—that in September last there was a proposal to place this Mr. Churchward upon the county bench of magistrates in Kent. When that was known a special meeting of the Wingham division of magistrates was called, and largely attended by gentlemen principally belonging to the Tory party, and they sent up an official protest to the lord-lieutenant of the county against that nomination. The result was that no more was heard of that matter. The next time Mr. Churchward turned up he was in the borough of Dover, and it was said that the noble Lord had received recommendations with regard to him which he was bound to entertain. He (Mr. Taylor) wished to know whether they were the usual recommendations from the mayor,
      170
      aldermen, and common council of the borough? Having asked his question of the right hon. Gentleman, and received the answer he did, he was bound to take this further step by putting this Motion on the paper. He was also bound to look more closely into the whole transaction to see if there was any defence, palliation, excuse, or diminution of the apparent enormity of the act committed, and he was bound to confess that the more he looked into it the worse it appeared; and it seemed to him that no apology could be offered for it. The Home Secretary, in answering his question with reference to the Report of the Committee of 1853, said it was not quite fair to call what was done simple bribery, because no money was given, but only situations promised. But was that a less evil or crime than the giving of money? In his opinion the offence was multiplied threefold, for it was permanent instead of temporary, and indefinite in extent instead of being defined and limited. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not read a certain paragraph in the Report, which showed that Mr. Churchward, by his own admission, had not only obtained twenty appointments, but had sent thirty or forty men into the dockyard, of whom twenty-five were accepted. That possibly explained why the dockyards always rose before them in such unfavourable colours; why everything there cost so much, and why so many of the ills and abuses mentioned by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) were occurring, It that was the way the dockyards were managed they were not honest yards, where a fair day's work was done for a fair day's wages. They were sinks for used up infamy and hospitals for decayed scoundrels. In 1859 the Committee of Mail Contracts made a Report, in which the following passage occurred:—
      "While most anxious for the fulfilment of all engagements entered into in good faith between the Government and individuals, the Committee submits for the consideration of the House whether Mr. Churchward, in having resorted to corrupt expedients, affecting injuriously the character of the representation of the people in Parliament has not rendered it impossible for the House of Commons, with due regard to its honour and dignity, to vote the sums of money necessary to fulfil the agreement to extend his contract from the 20th of June, 1803, to the 20th of April, 1870."
      That was something much more than a mere formal record placed in the Report that somebody had been guilty of bribery. It stated, in point of fact, that so atrocious and

      171
      enormous were the political misdeeds which had been committed, that they justified the Committee in recommending the House to absolutely quash and violate the contract with Mr. Churchward, which was ultimately done. That Committee was composed of an equal number of Gentlemen from each side of the House, and the resolutions condemning Mr. Churchward were passed by large majorities, showing that so patent and so strong was the evil proved, that it utterly overrode all those conventional biases which honestly enough would sometimes lead gentlemen of similar opinions to band themselves together on one side or the other. That decision had been three times arraigned in the House, and three times the claims of Mr. Churchward had been decided against, certainly not by very large majorities, as the majorities had been 45 once, then 8, and then 14. But their debates on those occasions were not got up with any idea of whitewashing the character of Mr. Churchward. The question had been simply whether the arrangement with Mr. Churchward was an economical one for the country. So that even if the majorities had gone the other way, and the House had chosen to resuscitate the contract, it would not by its vote have redeemed the character of Mr. Churchward. He would now read a few words spoken in one of those debates by Mr. Cobden, the Chairman of the Committee, whose judgment he had last quoted, and who summed up the case in that concise and masterly manner which was characteristic of him. Mr. Cobden said—
      "Some people argue that we cannot legally refuse to pay the money. Well, then, I would not pay it in any way but a legal way. I quite join with hon. Gentlemen in that view. If they think that Mr. Churchward has a legal claim, let him establish that claim; and for my part I would vote money to enable him to establish his claim—to pay all the legal expenses of a trial—rather than I would agree to grant the money for this contract after the Report of the Committee. What will the public say out of doors? Really, we ought to affect a virtue if we have it not. A Committee of this House reports that a person goes to a public office wanting to bribe a Lord of the Admiralty to assist in bestowing a contract by the most corrupt means. And what is the sort of bribe that is offered? Why, it is the very kind of bribery that ought to be most repugnant to this House. On the one hand, we have before us, as the House of Commons, a case in which an attempt is made upon the virtue of a public functionary, whom we are here especially to superintend and watch; and, on the other hand, the bribe offered us is an attempt to dispose, by corrupt means, of the votes of constituents, in whose
      172
      purity and independence I should think that we, as the House of Commons, ought to be most deeply interested."—[3 Hansard, clxx. 1896.]
      This was the case, and he (Mr. Taylor) would leave it now without further comment; comment could add nothing to it; and the reckless exaggeration of a partisan, of which, he was sure, he had not been guilty, would not make the case stronger. There were differences of opinion with regard to the moral sin of bribery and corruption; some thinking that illicit political influence had become really a time-hallowed part of our constitution, while others thought that, however devious and unclean might be the paths by which Members for certain constituencies found their way into Parliament, still, when they reached this House they should be recognised and welcomed as honourable and independent gentlemen, really interested equally with themselves in the good of the country. And, as regarded the constituencies, some might think that when once they went through the ordeal of temptation and a certain fall, they were much the same as other constituencies. He would not discuss those points. But there was one point upon which he thought there would have been no difference of opinion on either side of the house, and that was that however little it might matter comparatively how they formed the House wherein their laws were made, no stain should touch, no blot of suspicion should lie upon those who administered those laws. He had thought it was the boast of this country that whatever might be our political peccadilloes, at any rate the purity of the ermine, the independence and honour of the magisterial bench, could never be impeached. We were in the habit of criticising severely, and perhaps not altogether unjustly, the system in America of electing their Judges for a term of years, and of asking how, under such a system, they could hope to have Judges free from political bias, acting without fear or favour, and beyond all suspicion. Now, he should say that the language which they often heard upon that subject received, in the present case, but a very sorry illustration. There they had a person whose political character was not equivocal, whose political misdeeds had been enshrined in the Report of a Committee, while that Report had itself been endorsed again and again by majorities of that House—they had such a person recommended by the Government to Her Majesty for the commission

      173
      of the peace—for an office in which he would have to judge without fear, favour, or partiality, and even without the suspicion of being subject to any such influences, the various causes which might come before him, and in which the interests of different classes must be involved. It would be a deliberate poisoning of the fountain of justice at its very source.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for the removal of Mr. Churchward from the Commission of the Peace for the Borough of Dover."—(Mr. Taylor.)
      MAJOR DICKSONsaid, he would not trespass at any length on the time of the House; but he felt sure he should receive its indulgence when he rose, as he then did, to defend the character of a person who had suffered a very grievous persecution, and whom he believed to be an upright and honourable man. He thought he should be neither doing his duty as one of the Members for Dover, nor doing justice to a gentleman whom he had no hesitation in saying in that House he was proud to number among his constituents, if he did not state that he looked upon the attack which had been made upon that gentleman by the hon. Member for Leicester as not only wanton and cowardly, but—
      MR. OSBORNE: Sir, I rise to order. The word "cowardly," Sir, is quite unknown in this House.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member will, no doubt, withdraw that word.
      MAJOR DICKSONsaid, he should be sorry if he had said anything which was contrary to the Rules of the House; but he was about to express his reason for his opinion. He must say that He looked upon that attack as unjustifiable. The House would remember that when he had appealed to the Hon. Member in the name of justice to postpone that Motion for a few days only, until certain right hon. Gentlemen could be present who were intimately acquainted with the whole of the facts of the case, and able to bear testimony upon it, the hon. Member refused to accede to so reasonable an appeal. He could not, therefore, compliment the hon. Gentleman on his idea of justice; neither could he share with him the belief that it was right, or proper, or just, to sacrifice the character of an individual to gain a momentary party triumph. The hon. Member had spoken of the decision which was come to by the
      174
      Committee of 1853, but he had slurred over the second Report of that Committee. He had hardly noticed the fact that the second Report was a complete answer to the first. The hon. Gentleman was as well aware as he was that Mr. Churchward himself had in vain petitioned that House to be heard at its Bar, and examined by counsel. He was also aware that for the last eight years Mr. Churchward had been trying to bring his case before a court of justice, and had always been thwarted by the Government of the day. In 1865 he brought an action in the Court of Queen's Bench, upon the main question, and how was he met? By a demurrer in law, and therefore he was again unable to vindicate his character. The persecution which Mr. Churchward had met with had no precedent in political history. Political spite, he might say, instigated the proceedings of 1859; and political spite, coupled with personal animosity, instigated the proceedings of 1867. The hon. Member for Leicester had told them that he had been asked by the town of Dover to bring that matter forward, and wished them to suppose that Mr. Churchward's appointment had given offence to the whole of that town. [Mr. TAYLOR: Not to the whole town, but to individuals in it.] To prove that Mr. Churchward was held in high esteem in Dover he would read to the House an address to that gentleman, which had been signed by all the leading men of the town in the short space of three hours. The address said—
      "We, the undersigned inhabitants of Dover, beg to express to you our deep regret at the attack that was made upon you on Friday last in the House of Commons in connection with your recent appointment as a magistrate of the borough. We venture to express our sense of the high estimation in which during your long residence among us you have been so deservedly held by a large majority of the inhabitants, and also of your fitness in ever, to fill the office of a magistrate; and we would desire to express to you our heartfelt wish that you may long be spared to assist in administering justice among us, and promoting and measures tending to the advancement and prosperity of our town."
      Well, how did that matter originate? Was it brought forward by a leading Liberal? He could state that a Liberal of distinction and high honour was asked to bring it forward, and he distinctly refused to have anything to do with it. That proceeding had been instigated by a man who was formerly one of Mr. Churchward's servants, who was discharged for some reason into which he need not enter, and who

      175
      was now actuated by spite towards his old employer. He knew that a gentleman high in station and character, a Member of that House, connected with Dover, and who was known to be an enemy of Mr. Churchward, had declined to make himself the dirty tool and cat's-paw of the hon. Member for Leicester. If the hon. Member was bursting with a desire to expose all political corruption and vice, he need not have gone to Dover to get a case. He need not have gone back fifteen or even eight years, but only about eight weeks, and he would have found sitting on the Benches opposite, almost by his very side, men who had been proved guilty before Committees of that House of conduct ten times as bad as that of Mr. Churchward. Now what, he would ask, were the accusations which were brought against Mr. Churchward? They were two. One of them related to events which had occurred as far back as 1852; the other to some proceedings which had taken place in 1859. In 1853 a Committee of that House had assembled to inquire into the question whether Mr. Mare had been duly elected for Plymouth in the preceding year, and he admitted that when they first met they had arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Churchward had bribed certain individuals at that election by offering them employment. The first Resolution, however, to which that same Committee had come on re-assembling was—
      "That a general belief prevailed at Plymouth, both previous to and at the election of burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of Plymouth in 1852, that it was not illegal for a candidate, or his agents, to obtain, or promise to obtain, situations or employment for electors who had previously pledged their votes."
      That Resolution entirely removed from Mr. Churchward the odium which the Committee would seem to have cast upon him by their first decision. It should also be remembered that the proceedings connected with the Plymouth election extended over a period of four months, that a Conservative Government was then in power, and he would, under those circumstances, put it to the common sense of the House whether it was not to be expected that the followers of that party were more likely to receive any appointments which were vacant than those who happened to profess Liberal opinions. He would ask the House whether, having taken into account the Resolution which he had just read, Mr. Churchward, after the lapse of
      176
      fifteen years, was deserving of the special condemnation of his conduct which the hon. Gentleman opposite invited it to pronounce. There was another gentleman, named Mennie, whose name had been brought prominently forward in connection with the election for Plymouth, who had afterwards been made a magistrate. His appointment to that position had been challenged in that House or in the House of Lords; but it was resolved, after the decision arrived at by the Committee, clearing the character of the Conservative agents, that the appointment ought to be allowed to stand. After those transactions, in 1854, a Liberal Government, of which Earl Russell was a member, entered with Mr. Churchward into a contract for the conveyance of the mails between Dover and the Continent, which was renewed by the same Government in 1855. They must, therefore, have supposed that there was no serious reflection on his character. Beyond that, Mr. Churchward had been allowed, unchallenged, to raise a Volunteer Corps in Dover, in which he held a commission. Now, when the House was sitting in judgment upon him, he thought he might without offence ask whether there were any within its walls who, when engaged in the turmoil of a General Election, might not have committed offences as grave as those with which that gentleman was charged. He would say to hon. Members, "let him among us who can put his hand upon his heart and declare that he is without sin cast the first stone." He came next to the year 1859, in which year two Committees sat—the one to inquire whether Admiral Leake and Mr. Nicol had been duly elected Members for Dover, the other to investigate the circumstances connected with the renewal of the mail contract. As to the Election Committee, its Chairman told Mr. Churchward, at the Conclusion of its proceedings, in the open Committee-room, that nothing had transpired in the course of the inquiry which in the slightest degree affected his honour or character. He admitted, however, that the second Committee, which he had just mentioned, had come to the decision that Mr. Churchward had resorted to corrupt expedients. It must at the same time be borne in mind that this was a decision which had been challenged, as being entirely contrary to evidence, and with respect to which many distinguished Members of that and the other House of Parliament as well as of the bar entertained

      177
      the opinion that on the evidence before them the Committee should have arrived at a different conclusion. It was a decision that had been arrived at altogether upon the evidence of three individuals, and from a conversation ulna lasted only five minutes. He had always understood that in dealing with evidence it was customary when two persons said one thing and a third something different, to believe the statement of the two rather than that of the single individual. On the occasion in question, however, the Committee felt themselves justified in ignoring the testimony of two gentlemen, and taking instead that of one. The three gentlemen who were in the room in which the conversation to which he was alluding took place were Captain Carnegie, Mr. Churchward, and Mr. Herbert Murray, and he would, in the first place, read to the House the evidence of Captain Carnegie, who said—
      "Mr. Churchward spoke to me on the subject of the pending election fur Dover—he made an allusion to his anxiety to obtain the renewal of his contract. Mr. Churchward spoke most freely and openly to me upon the subject the contract. I thought it the most imprudent and incautious speech that ever came from a man's mouth, and it made so great an impression upon me that I recollect every word of it. He led me to the belief that this contract was to be renewed. That was the impression left upon my mind."
      The following was Mr. Churchward's account of the same conversation:—
      "In the course of his interview with Captain Carnegie the word contract was never mentioned. The word contract was never used, and my recollection of the circumstance is perfect."
      Mr. Murray said—
      "I do not think the contract was ever mentioned. I am quite quite sure that nothing passed between Mr. Churchward and Captain Carnegie about the contract. I am under the impression that Captain Carnegie is confusing some conversation with him with the one between Mr. Churchward himself and Captain Carnegie. I am quite sure that Mr. Churchward never said those words to Captain Carnegie in my presence."
      Now, it was on that evidence, and that alone, that the words "corrupt expedients were employed. Mr. Murray further stated, that "the extension of his contract was not the price of Mr. Churchward's support to the Government at Dover." Sir John Pakington said that "he had no knowledge of the means by which the Dover election was to be carried." Sir Stafford Northcote said that political motives had no effect in the
      178
      granting of the contract." Mr. Corry said that "as far as the Admiralty were concerned, the question was determined by their recommendation to the Treasury on the 24th of February," which was before the alleged statement took place, thus affording a strong presumption that Mr. Churchward could not have used the language attributed to him. Captain Carnegie, moreover, admitted that—
      "Mr. Murray could not have forwarded Mr. Churchward's views at the Admiralty, as before his interviews the question had been disposed of by that Department."
      Captain Carnegie added, that it was no discredit to a Government contractor to vote for a Government candidate; and Sir Stafford Northcote further said that he had sent for Mr. Churchward, that that gentleman did not apply to him, and that with him mainly rested the responsibility of granting the contract, which was practically settled before the elections came on. Under all those circumstances, he confidently appealed to the House to say whether the charge contained in the Report of the Committee was not simply implied rather than proved, as would seem to be shown by the fact that upon a confessedly partisan division their decision was ratified only by a very small majority. To show what were the views which were entertained on the point by those men who had the best means of judging of the merits of the case, he would read to the House the letters of a right hon. Gentleman and a noble Lord, who now occupied seats on the Treasury Bench. The first letter was as follows:—
      "42, Harley Street, May 20, 1863.
      "My dear Sir,—I must thank you for your note, which has given me much pleasure. It was a great mortification to me to fail of persuading the House of Commons to take a just view of a case which has been so shamefully misrepresented, and I could not but fear that the division was owing to my imperfect statement or ineffective mode of handling the argument. I am truly glad to find that you, at least, give me credit for having done what I could. We shall fight the battle again on the 28th, and I hope with better success, though it is difficult to do away with an impression such as has been produced upon the Hinds of too many Members. Few will give themselves the trouble to examine and weigh the evidence. If they did, they could hardly resist the conviction that if there was any wrong in the proceedings in 1859 (and I do not think there is clear proof of there having been any at all), it was not wrong done by you, but wrong done to you. This has been my feeling throughout, and I cannot doubt that any impartial person who would take the trouble of carefully studying the facts

      179
      with no other desire but to get at the truth would come to the same conclusion.—I remain, faithfully
      yours,
      STAFFORD H. NORTHCOTE.
      J. G. Churchward, Esq."
      The second letter was from the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works, who said—
      "Sir,—I avail myself of the opportunity offered by your letter of the 1st to repeat to you personally and privately that which I said publicly in the House of Commons—my entire belief in your honour and good faith, and my conviction that the finding of the Committee, and the action taken by the Government, therefore, are alike opposed to common Sense and common justice. Whether it is still possible to reverse the decision of the House of Commons I cannot presume to say; but if, I will not say your friends, but the friends of honesty, think fit to take further steps in the House, I shall most cordially co-operate with them; and I will anyhow express a hope that, for the future, you will feel that if you have lost a contract through political malevolence you have gained friends, among whom desires to be ranked
      —Yours very faithfully,
      JOHN MANNERS.
      J. G. Churchward, Esq."
      He thought he had now shown the House that there was no good ground for the accusations which had been brought against Mr. Churchward, and that he was, at all events, justified in asking it to withhold its decision. Mr. Churchward, as they all knew, had been endeavouring for a long time, at great cost, to have the case heard in a court of justice; and it would be contrary to every principle of the Constitution if they were to come to a decision that night, and so to prejudice the case in the eyes of those outside the House. By the law, as it at present stood respecting bribery, Members of Parliament who might have been found guilty of the grossest corruption were not prevented from resuming their position as Members of the House. He had no desire to cast a stone at any individual Member; rather than do so he had withdrawn the Motion that stood in his name that evening. One hon. Gentleman whose name had been mentioned (Mr. Watkin) was a personal friend of his. He was happy to see the course he had adopted in writing to the Lord Chancellor; and he had no doubt but that he would be able, when the time arrived, to clear himself on the floor of the House, as Mr. Churchward would be able and glad to do if he had the honour of a seat there. But he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had already ruined Mr. Churchward's property and fortune, and he had never in any way murmured at the decision. He (Major Dickson) did not find fault with hon. Gentlemen opposite on that account, Very likely
      180
      if he had himself been sitting at the time on that side of the House he should have done the same. It was done in a moment of political agitation and excitement; but he would appeal to them whether now, in their calmer moments, they were still determined to blacken and destroy Mr. Churchward's character? Were they going to sacrifice an honourable man just for the sake of gaining a fleeting triumph over the Treasury Bench? Would they not have ample opportunities within the next month? was not dual voting to be shortly discussed, when they could exercise their feelings without restraint? Surely that would be a more fitting occasion for triumph, as well as a more liberal and generous one, than that a great party should combine to destroy the reputation of a private gentleman Would it be wise at this moment, when the bitterest animosities of party were ready to burst forth, for hon. Gentlemen to throw this firebrand into the camp, especially when men of all parties in Dover were joining hand with hand in the endeavour to promote the common welfare of the town? For himself he was actuated by no personal animosities; he cared not whether a man were a Radical or a Tory so that he was an honest man; and he appealed to the hon. Member for Leicester, notwithstanding his extreme opinions, whether it was worthy of his high character to stand up in that House and blacken the character of an honourable gentleman when he had not a tittle of evidence to justify the proceeding. He called upon the House, in the sacred name of justice, to pause before committing a wrong which could never be repaired. He could not, indeed, hope fur justice from mere bigoted political partisans; but he was addressing a British House of Commons. He left the case confidently in the hands of hon. Members on both sides of the House, confident that they would be guided by those rules of honour and fairness and justice which regulated the conduct and actions of all honourable men.
      MR. BENTINCKsaid, that at an early period of the evening he addressed a question to the hon. Member for Leicester for the purpose of ascertaining whether the hon, Member would include in his Motion all magistrates in a position similar to Mr. Churchward, and the hon. Member asked whether the question was put seriously. Now, he thought that the discussion, as far as it had gone, showed that there was a great deal of seriousness in the matter. He would not detain the House long, for,

      181
      after the able address of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dover (Major Dickson), he did not think that much was required to be said in favour of Mr. Churchward. As he understood the hon. Member for Leicester to say that Mr. Churchward or any person found to have committed bribery was not fit to be magistrate, he thought that the hon. Member would have done better if he had dealt with the case more generally, and had not selected merely one isolated instance. In cases of this kind, and especially in Mr. Churchward's case, there had been exhibited a great deal of party feeling; and though he did not suppose that the hon. Member for Leicester was actuated by party motives, yet the hon. Member would have done well had he made his Motion more comprehensive. It was well known that there were many magistrates in the position, in this respect, of Mr. Churchward, and as, of course, there was no party feeling or political animosity in the present Motion, as the pure and proper administration of justice was the only object in view, it was clear that the wider the scope of the Motion the more effective it must be. He was of opinion that all personalities should be avoided, and therefore he would mention no case involving the name of any Gentleman in that House; but every one conversant with the political history of this country knew that not only Committees of that House, but tribunals more strictly judicial, such as Royal Commissions, had found that there were many instances of gentlemen who had dealt in election matters in the same manner as Mr. Churchward was charged with acting. He, consequently, proposed to move, by way of Amendment, to omit all the words in the Motion after the word "of," and to add the following words:—
      "All persons in the Commission of the Peace in any County, City, or Borough who have been found, either by Committees of this house or by Royal Commissions guilty of, or privy or assenting to, corrupt practices in Parliamentary Elections,"
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the words "removal of" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "all persons in the Commission of the Peace of any County, City, or Borough who have been found, either by Committees of this Rouse or by Royal Commissions guilty of, or privy or assenting to, corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections."—(Mr. Bentinck.)
      MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the purpose of the Amendment is, I suppose, to get additional words tacked to the Motion with
      182
      the view of enabling hon. Members to vole against the Motion in its original form. I did not gather from the speech of the hon. Mover of the Amendment whether that was his intention, and I shall be glad to know whether the additional words are proposed with that view. If so, I think it is the duty of the Government to state, for the guidance of the House, their opinion on a question of a very grave and important nature, and the importance of which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) at all appreciates. I heard his answer to-night to a question put to him from his own side of the House relating to two Members of this House. I did not hear, but I became acquainted in the usual way with the answer he gave on a former occasion to a somewhat similar question. I own I can sympathize with the right hon. Gentleman up to a certain point, inasmuch as I think that class of questions is one of extreme delicacy and difficulty; but I do not sympathize with his practice in attempting to get rid of these subjects as if they were matters that could be treated with great levity. With regard to the Amendment, it appears to me that the subject embraced by it is a very serious and grave one. I am far from saying that much of the matter comprised in it may not deserve the consideration of this House, and I think that, as the circumstances referred to arise out of recent Reports of Commissions, it would have been proper for the Executive Government to state their opinion for the guidance of the House in respect to the course to be taken, The Amendment is not necessarily in propriety or justice entitled to be annexed to the original Motion. This Amendment lays down the principle, if I understand it aright, that whenever a Select Committee of this House or a Royal Commission has found that any person was guilty of corrupt practices such person shall be included within the scope of the Motion, and Her Majesty shall be prayed to remove him from the commission of the peace. That is a very great extension of the original Motion, and an extension nut only as to the persons, but as to the principle. I fully admit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be perfectly justified in challenging my hon. Friend to accede to an addition to his Motion with regard to all persons who stand in the same position as Mr. Churchward; but that is not the issue which he has raised. Here I may remark that I was totally ig-

      183
      norant of anything that had happened as to the case of Mr. Churchward since the last debate in this House, until I heard of the question put by my hon. Friend, and I am exceedingly sorry that anything should have occurred which should render it necessary to recur to a matter that cannot be associated with agreeable recollections for any of us. Mr. Churchward does not stand simply in the position of a gentleman against whom a Select Committee of this House, or any tribunal extraneous to this House, has formed a certain judgment. The broad and palpable difference is this, that the judgment of the Committee has been adopted in the first instance by the Executive Government, and in the second instance by the House itself. It is not therefore upon the decision of a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, but upon the vote and judgment of the House itself that my hon. Friend, as I apprehend, takes his stand. The distinction is broad and clear between that sort of preliminary finding, which the decision of the Committee of 1859 would have been had nothing followed, and the finding we have now before us, when that decision was challenged, and after full debate was affirmed by a majority in this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Dickson) in his very able speech has cited, as though they were independent witnesses, the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India (Sir Stafford Northcote) who was concerned in these transactions—although, by the direct assertion of the Committee, innocently concerned, and everybody who knows him must be convinced that he could not be otherwise concerned—and of a noble Lord (Lord John Manners) who was one of the minority in the Committee. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also goes back to the evidence, and thinks his account of that evidence is sufficient to induce the House to overlook, and to condemn, as partial and prejudiced, the judgment of that Committee. That judgment, however, is a formidable document. I must call the attention of the House to two paragraphs in it, and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman read a letter written by the noble Lord ascribing the judgment to political malevolence—
      LORD JOHN MANNERS: No, I did not.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I think I heard the words.
      MR. OSBORNE: It was the gloss which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put upon the noble Lord's letter.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I am glad to hear it is so; but I confess I should have thought that was the natural construction of the words. If, however, that was not the noble Lord's intention, so much the better. Well, in the Committee these questions were asked by Mr. Crawford—I confess I am very sorry to be obliged to read this, but after what has been said with regard to the judgment of the Committee I am compelled to do so—
      "Did you vote at the previous election for Dover? Mr. Churchward: Yes.
      "For whom did you vote? For the Secretary to the Admiralty, Mr. Bernal Osborne.
      "Then you voted for the Gentleman with the long tongue?' Yes, I voted for the Gentleman with the long tongue; I voted for Mr. Osborne.
      "Did you vote for him from political considerations? No; not at all. I distinctly stated that I did not support him on political considerations, but because I thought that as he was the Secretary to the Admiralty, and as there was a chance of the harbour being turned over to the Admiralty, and that they were likely to buy it, I thought that Mr. Bernal Osborne could serve the interests of Dover and also my interests better than any one else."
      That was the view taken with regard to the exercise of the franchise, and he made the announcement with satisfaction. With what face, I ask, are we to set ourselves to take measures for the prevention of bribery if such disposal of a vote, the exercise of a public trust, with a view to private benefit, is allowed to pass without censure? I now come to paragraph No. 6, which contained the words, "having resorted to corrupt expedients." An Amendment was moved by a Gentleman, always to be named with honour for his strict political integrity and his jealous guardianship of public interest, the late Sir Henry Willoughby, for leaving out those words and substituting for them "endeavoured to exercise an undue influence, as appears from his conversation with Captain Carnegie," The Committee divided, and a minority of 6 voted for the Amendment, and a majority of 8 against it, the majority including the late Lord Northbrook, then Sir Francis Baring, a man than whom a more perfect example of purity and impartiality in his public conduct with respect to any question of this class never occupied a place in this House. The paragraph was then put to the vote as it stands, being in the following terms:—
      "While most anxious for the fulfilment of all

      185
      engagements entered into in good faith between the Government and individuals, the Committee submits for the consideration of the House whether Mr. Churchward, in having resorted to corrupt expedients affecting injuriously the character of the representation of the people in Parliament, has not rendered it impossible for the House of Commons, with due regard to its honour and dignity, to vote the sums of money necessary to fulfil the agreement to extend his contrast from the 20th of June, 1863, to the 26th of April, 1870."
      That paragraph, containing the full breadth of the censure which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has impugned, was carried by a majority of 9 to 4, and in the majority was Sir Henry Willoughby, though that distinguished gentleman was on the same political side as Mr. Churchward. The Committee's Report came under the consideration of Lord Palmerston's Government, and they had to consider whether, with that Report before them, they would take upon themselves the responsibility of proposing this money. They determined that they would not assume any such responsibility. The question, however, was raised in this House by those who represented the views of the four dissenting members of the Committee. In the month of March, 1860, Captain Leicester Vernon challenged the Report of the Committee, and made a Motion to this effect—
      "That this House, having considered the Report and the evidence presented by the Select Committee on Packet and Telegraph Contracts, it of opinion that the contract entered into ought to be fulfilled."
      It was impossible to raise the issue more distinctly between the Committee and Mr. Churchward than was then done. That Motion was the subject of a long, animated, and searching debate, the result being that when the House divided 117 persons supported it, and 162 adopted the Report of the Committee by giving a negative to the Motion. There was afterwards a series of proceedings year after year with which the House need not be troubled, and never, except on a single occasion, was a vote of this House passed for money for the Dover contract without certainly in the most invidious manner including the name of Mr. Churchward, in order to oust him from any monies stipulated in the contract made by him and condemned by the Committee. Once that mode of proceeding was questioned by a Motion to alter the form of the vote—the question of the Report of the Committee was never directly raised—and upon that occasion the Motion was rejected, I admit by a very small majority. But the Report of the Committee, when directly
      186
      brought to issue, was, as I have shown, made its own by this House; this House, therefore, is as responsible for that Report as if we had all been members of the Committee, and that is the foundation of the relation between the House of Commons and Mr. Churchward. Now, I think it was most unfortunate, I think it was not consistent with a due respect to this House, that the Lord Chancellor, the head of the legal profession, should, under these circumstances, and at the very time, or immediately after the very period when the House had been renewing its Vote of Censure against Mr. Churchward, have appointed that gentleman to the magistracy. And here I may say that, in one respect, I am glad that a question was put from the opposite side of the House to-night, whatever the motive in putting it might be, because it gave to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) an opportunity of making a declaration which I cannot but think does him the highest honour. He had called for inquiry, but of course he might know there would be difficulties in the way, and consequently he had voluntarily abjured all assumption of the dignity and power of the magistracy until he should be acquitted if the charge brought against him. I do not dwell on the charge made against Mr. Churchward in 1853, because I am not cognizant of the circumstances of the Report of that year, further than that I find, on referring to it, that the conduct pursued had been of a very extraordinary character, since it seems that something like forty or forty-five Government employments had been procured by Mr. Churchward for the purpose of distributing them among the electors of Plymouth. Now, under these circumstances, what are we to do? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department told us the, other night that the Lord Chancellor made this appointment in ignorance of what had taken place between this House and Mr. Churchward. Sir, I must say, if that be so, the Lord Chancellor has the utmost reason to complain of those gentlemen, however respectable, who recommended him to appoint Mr. Church ward to the magistracy in ignorance of facts grave and serious, But, if the Lord Chancellor acted in ignorance, it was his ditty upon the discovery of the facts to undo what he had done before. It is no answer to the House to say that he was ignorant of the circumstances. I must confess when I heard that this debate was ac-

      187
      tually to take place I did hope that we should have had either from some Member of the Government who had communicated with Mr. Churchward, or from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Dickson), some declaration which would have relieved us from the painful issue raised between the dignity and duty of this House to support its own authoritative judgments and the character of Mr. Churchward. Had Mr. Churchward authorized anybody on his behalf to whisper one syllable of regret for the conduct which drew upon him the censure of the Committee, and after that Report the judgment of this House and the loss of the contract, which, no doubt, must have been attended with more or less loss of commercial profit in itself legitimate, I feel confident—though I have not had any communication with him on that point—my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester would have withdrawn his Motion. I, for one, would not have supported it had any such communication been made. Does Mr. Churchward regret the conduct which brought down upon him the Reports of 1853 and of 1859 and the judgments of this House; or are we to be told, as has been fairly stated or implied in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that this judgment of the House and of its Committees were acts performed in the spirit of political partisanship? Well, then, that is to be the reason why Mr. Churchward is to remain a magistrate. Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see the fatal error that he commits when he himself raises the issue between the character of this House and the character of Mr. Churchward, because if Mr. Churchward is to remain a magistrate it is because the judgment of the Committee and of this House were governed by the spirit of political partisanship. That, therefore, is the admission we are called upon to make. Well, then, if that be the issue I accept it, but I accept it with regret. The smallest intimation on the part of Mr. Churchward, which, forbearing to accuse this House, would have expressed regret for the conduct in question might, I think, have induced the House to acquiesce, though not without some difficulty. But even in the choice between difficulties the House, I am sure, would have acquiesced; because it is irksome, it is odious, it is invidious, to have to go back upon questions of this kind which one might have hoped had been long closed. But as we are now distinctly told by the hon. and gallant Gen-
      188
      tleman who appears here as the advocate and champion of Mr. Churchward that we must retrace our steps and must negative the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester because our judgments were founded on political partisanship—[Major DICKSON: I asked to postpone the Motion.] That is not the question at all; no Motion of that kind has been made, for an Amendment of another description is before the House. All I can say is if a Motion had been made to postpone the decision on the ground that there was some hope of an apology from Mr. Churchward, I, for one, would be prepared to recommend it. Or if some other Gentleman, authorized to speak for Mr. Churchward, will give us that satisfaction which the hon. and gallant Member has declined—has more than declined—to give, because he brings the majority of this House into court and condemns us—if that satisfaction is given, I, for one, shall feel that my duty is performed, and I shall gladly retire from this arena. But if it be not given, whatever pain I may feel, I see no option left me but to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester, who has undertaken the discharge of a most painful duty.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, there are many points connected with this question upon which it is impossible that should remain silent. I stand here, however, at some disadvantage, because I have just returned from my election in the country. I was not aware of what was coming before the House, and I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to-night to enter upon the general question; but as my name has been prominently brought forward in more than one of the speeches made to-night, and as I am now addressing a House of Commons, many Members of which are not familiar with what took place in the last House, I feel it my duty to say a few words with respect to the exact circumstances of the transactions of 1839, as well as I can recall them at this moment. I would premise that I know very little of what took place in 1853, and that I am not aware of the circumstances under which Mr. Churchward has now been appointed to the magistracy of Dover. It appears to be the feeling of the House, and a very natural feeling it is, that the circumstances which attended the making and the cancelling of the contract entered into by the Government of 1859 require the grave consideration of this House. As I was one of the parties that led to the appointment

      189
      of the Committee, I may state the general character of the transaction, and why I feel that Mr. Churchward received an injury on the part of the house of Commons. I believed then, and I have always felt, that he was treated in a manner that gave him legitimate cause of complaint. Laying aside all questions of his general fitness for appointment to the magistracy, it was due to him that those who were in any way connected with the transaction of 1859 should endeavour to mark their sense that he was an injured man. That is the feeling with which I rose, and I feel it the more strongly because it was the pleasure of the Committee of 1859 to pronounce a verdict in which I on one side and Mr. Churchward on the other might be said to have been put on our trial, and the result was that they acquitted me and condemned him. Under these circumstances I was placed in a position which I felt to be most painful, because I always considered that if there had been condemnation of both, or an acquittal of both, little could have been said; but when the Committee chose to single him out for condemnation and pronounce an acquittal on me, they came to a verdict which I have repeatedly said I could not accede to—a verdict which, so long as I ant able to stand up, I shall say was an unjust verdict. I am sorry, Sir, that I have not had time to refer carefully to the proceedings of the Committee; but I remember, generally, what the circumstances were. They were these: Mr. Churchward—I am telling an old story to many Gentlemen, but there are other, who were not Members of the last Parliament—Mr. Churchward was a contractor with the Government. His contract had several years to run. Mr. Churchward came to the government of Lord Derby in 1859, when I was Secretary of the Treasury, and he asked a renewal of that contract some years before it expired. He gave as a reason that he was prepared to enlarge the service and build new vessels or something equivalent. His application was referred in due course to the Admiralty, and the Board of Admiralty reported in favour of his proposal. It was sent to the Postmaster General, who reported against the extension of the contract. The matter then came to the Treasury, and a Report was made by the permanent Under Secretary or some other officer of the Treasury. I forget on which side he reported. It then came to me at a time when an election was just about to take place. The important point,
      190
      however, was this:—that the Board of Admiralty had reported in its favour before there was any prospect of an election. It came to me just at the moment the election was about to take place. In consequence of Mr. Churchward being likely to take an active part in the Dover election I put aside the papers, not intending to take them up again till the election was over. But I was afterwards induced to take them up by these considerations I do not think I had any communication with Mr. Churchward; but my attention being brought to the subject. I sent for Mr. Churchward and suggested to him that he should modify his proposal. He said he would not do so. He added something about a contract with the French Government, and that there were special reasons for taking up the subject at that moment. I said there was a difficulty in dealing with it just when an election was about, to take place. Mr. Churchward said it was a very hard ease that it should be put off; he had made the proposal to the Government several months ago; it had been hung up in a public office, and was now to be put off because of an election which had, in fact, nothing to do with it. I thought he was right, and I thought I should be acting as a coward if I put it off. Accordingly, I considered it on its merits; I thought he had a good case for the renewal of his contract; I agreed to renew it, and it was renewed. These circumstances were brought forward; a Committee of the House was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case; and before that Committee there was brought out what I certainly never heard of, that a conversation had taken place between Mr. Churchward and Captain Carnegie, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, who was afterwards a candidate for Dover. It appears that in this conversation he, in the first instance, promised Captain Carnegie his support, and after he had so promised he made allusion to his contract and asked him to do what he could for him. But no communication was ever made by Captain Carnegie on the subject. The Admiralty had reported in its favour, and took no further step in the matter. Well, under these circumstances, when the matter came to be inquired into before the Committee, they came to the conclusion by a majority to the effect reported to the House; but when it is said that the Committee came to their decision by a large majority, and that the Com-

      191
      mittee was composed of Members taken equally from both sides of the House, I must say that, although the Members were taken equally from both sides of the House, yet there were two taken from this side who were in a very peculiar position, I was one, and Mr. Corry—I mention his name as he is not at present a Member of this House—who was then Secretary to the Admiralty, was the other. We were both placed on the Committee; but, although we took part in the examination of witnesses, we felt that being Members of the Government that made the contract, and Members of the Departments concerned in it, it would not be consistent with decency if we took part in the decision of the Committee, and the Members of this side were in a considerable minority, because two of them felt themselves to be in that critical kind of position. It is perfectly true that Sir Henry Willoughby, who sat on our side, voted on that occasion with the majority; but in the decision before, the majority consisted exclusively of Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I do not say the case was not one in which there might be difference of opinion. I am not endeavouring to charge the Committee of 1859 with having acted with a partisan spirit, but what I am anxious to say is this—that, looking carefully into the matter, and inquiring into what the conduct of Mr. Churchward was, I found it utterly impossible to come to the conclusion that he had recourse to corrupt expedients to obtain the contract on any grounds which did not fix on the Government that renewed it the imputation that they were parties to that corrupt contract. It was absurd to make a charge of corrupt expedients when he made no application, direct or indirect, to the Department which had the whole management of the business in its hands. I therefore say that the verdict was an inconsistent and perfectly futile judgment. If the opinion of the Committee was that there was anything corrupt in that contract, it was the duty of the Committee to report against those who granted it as well as against him who applied for it. Well, when they came to the conclusion that nothing implicated the officers of the Admiralty or Treasury in anything corrupt, I thought it was scarcely consistent that they should have fastened on Mr. Churchward the charge of having recourse to corrupt expedients. Having said this much I come back to the point that we have been in these relations with
      192
      Mr. Churchward—that we have felt he has had a grievous stigma inflicted upon him, and been subjected to heavy pecuniary loss, while we have been, I suppose I may say, honourably acquitted. That has been a very painful reflection to me and to others who hold the same opinion; and the more that whenever Mr. Churchward endeavoured to bring forward his case to have it fairly and impartially investigated he has always been refused the opportunity. He applied to be heard before the Dover Election Committee, where he might have been examined on oath; but he was told there was no reason for hearing him. He has more than once brought actions in Courts of Law; but he has been met by demurrer, on the technical ground that it was a matter alleged to affect the prerogative or public policy. He tried to refer the matter to arbitration—to Sir John Coleridge and several other gentlemen of high standing; but he has never been allowed that opportunity. The position, therefore, of Mr. Churchward, in the opinion of those cognizant of the proceedings of 1859, is one extremely painful—and which it is quite unfair that he should be placed in. I always myself said that I could not accept with any satisfaction the decision to which the Committee of 1859 arrived, which acquitted me while Mr. Churchward was found guilty. I am not at all aware as to how far he is fitted to be appointed a magistrate, but I shall certainly, as far as I can by my vote to-night, support the credit and reputation of a man who I think has been very unjustly treated.
      MR. OSBORNE: Sir, I feel personally thankful to the right hon. Member who has just concluded his speech for not giving us a history of the events of 1853. I did think his friend, Mr. Churchward, might have applied to him the same epithet that he applied to me—that of being "long-tongued,"—with his digest of a blue book, which he has been pouting like invidious poison into our ears. I should not, upon this occasion, have displayed the length of that peccant member which has given me such unenviable notoriety, had I not been somewhat unnecessarily dragged into the debate. I never voted upon the Committee, as I thought had I done so I should have exposed myself to have my motives impugned, for there is probably no Gentleman in this House who knows more of Mr. Churchward than I do, and probably no Gentleman in this House rejoices less than I do in his acquaintance. But I

      193
      cannot for that reason sit still upon this occasion. I abstain from giving my opinion upon the subject under discussion. I merely rise for one purpose. I think it has been rather insinuated by the hon. and gallant Officer (Major Dickson), who rejoices in the friendship of Mr. Churchward, that this Motion—and I stand corrected if I am wrong—had been brought to me to bring forward. I ask that hon. and gallant Officer, does he intend to fasten that upon me? I ask him this because, if he does intend to fasten that upon me, I tell him that—he is labouring under a very great mistake. Sir, that Motion was brought to me in the lobby of this House. [Major DICKSON: That is all I said.] Yes; but you afterwards said that I had got a tool to hold it. [Major DICKSON dissented.] I am glad to hear it. I wish the House to understand my position. Something was brought to me, but I said, "No; you can't touch pitch without being defiled. I will have nothing to do with Mr. Churchward. You may get somebody else to do the work I will not take any part in it." I said, "I will take no part in the debate"—have been forced to get up now by the insinuations of the hon. and gallant Officer—"and what is more, when the subject is brought forward I will give no vote." I have never voted against Mr. Churchward. I felt that I was not in a position to do so. I hope the House will give me credit for that, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Officer will give me credit for it. As to my having endeavoured to get anybody to bring this Motion forward, had I wanted to bring it forward, I should have brought it forward on my own responsibility. But I go further. I believe that the Lord High Chancellor of England has been most grossly and improperly calumniated in this matter. I believe that he is totally incapable of giving a commission of the peace to a man who he thought was an improper one to hold it. Having gone so far, I will say nothing about the occurrence of the year 1859, or of the "martyred Churchward" of the Treasury Bench; but this I will say, that if the Government have instructed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), who we all know is the soul of honour, to get up in his place—as I recommend him to do, and if he does it I will ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion—and say, "Mr. Churchward will retire quietly into the society of those friends who value his ac-
      194
      quaintance in private life"—I merely throw this out as a suggestion—I think that it will make everybody comfortable. I shall give no vote in this instance, and I only rose in consequence of the insinuations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I hope that the hon. and gallant Officer is satisfied, and I hope Mr. Churchward will be satisfied.
      MR. BARROWsaid, he had been accused of being too loud on the hustings in his demand that corruption should be brought to punishment; but he held one great maxim of English policy to be that a man should not be punished two or three times for the same offence, and that such punishment should not be inflicted before the offender had been heard in his own defence. The real question before the House was this—would the House of Commons, upon various reports of what had occurred fourteeen years ago, stigmatise a man for life, and punish him with the severest punishment that it was within their power to inflict? The House had already punished Mr. Churchward very seriously. He had no acquaintance with Mr. Churchward, and never had any conversation with him, and, except from what he had heard respecting him in that House, he knew nothing about that gentleman. But he thought that, whatever right the House might have to act upon the Report of one of its Committees, appointed to investigate a question affecting one of its own Members, they had no right to pronounce judicially upon the conduct of any man who had not been heard in his own defence, He understood from the speeches of two hon. Members that Mr. Churchward hail challenged inquiry into the facts alleged against him, and that his application had been refused on some technical objection. He thought this was a good reason why the Motion of the hon. Gentleman asking the House to stigmatize Mr. Churchward without his being heard in his own defence should be rejected.
      SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: Sir, it is most painful for those who have to charge such a duty to rise in support of a Motion of this kind; but I cannot at all agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that this Motion is a proceeding in pœna against Mr. Churchward. What is the occasion of the Motion? It is that Mr. Churchward has been selected recently and for the first time as a fit person to be appointed one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the borough of Dover.

      195
      Therefore the step which has occasioned this Motion has not been taken by the hon. Gentleman who makes this Motion, but by the Government that made the appointment. I say "by the Government" deliberately; because I feel sure that had the matter rested solely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, for whom I entertain the utmost personal regard and respect, and had all the facts of the case been brought before him, he would not have thought this a desirable appointment. But we are told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) that we are to take a much broader view of the matter, and that Her Majesty's Government fully and entirely accept the responsibility of the appointment of Mr. Churchward upon the footing of its being a proper mode of redressing an act of injustice which has been committed by this House. I must say that that view appears to me to be a most extraordinary one, and that this step on the part of Her Majesty's Government opens up still more serious questions for our consideration than that which appeared to be raised by the Motion before the House. Are the judgments of this House never to be authoritative—are they never to be settled? Is every Ministry who succeed another Ministry at all times to be entitled to disregard the repeated judgments of the House—judgments which have even passed into the form of Acts of Parliament—Session after Session? I thought that the divisions of even our Committees, if we believed that they had discharged their duties honestly and fairly, were always entitled to our support. But this is not merely a case where only the judgment of a Committee is involved. The Committee which decided this case was one constituted of as honourable gentlemen as ever sat on such an inquiry. They were Sir Francis Baring (Lord Northbrook), Sir Henry Willoughby, Mr. Scholefield, and others, all of whom concurred in passing this Report. Therefore, I say that it is a very serious thing for the House, which had trusted entirely to this Report, upon the authority of those hon. Members, to be asked to sanction the proceeding of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, and to treat as a nullity the finding of that Committee upon this important subject. The finding of that Committee has been followed up by three consecutive Resolutions of this House, and on those Resolutions no less than four Acts of Parliament have been founded; and yet after that we
      196
      are told by the present Government that they conceive it to be their duty to mark by some honour to Mr. Churchward their sense of the injustice which the decision of the House has done him. In that case I say that at least the House ought to require very strong and clear proof before they admit that any injustice has been done in this matter. Having more than once considered the evidence laid before the Committee, I differ from those who say that injustice has been done, and I shall be much deceived if that be not the opinion of the majority of those whom I am addressing. In the first place, let me call the attention of the House to this transaction, the evidence upon which, without trenching on the region of oral statement, mainly consists of written documents. I put aside the fact that Mr. Churchward had been subjected to the adverse Report of a Committee, on account of electioneering prosecuted with political zeal. Mr. Churchward obtained the contract, and under Lord Aberdeen's Government he applied for an extension of his contract without success. The correspondence ceases in 1857, a new Government comes in, he renews his application to them in January, 1859, and, of course, everybody who recollects the particulars of that Government acknowledge that even at that time the possibility of a general election was a thing which might be present to men's minds. The Board of Admiralty, not the First Lord, conceived that the investigation of the application on its merits belonged to the Treasury, and forwarded the application to the Treasury, with a "favourable recommendation," which, given by the Board of Admiralty, meant nothing whatever, as the Board did not profess to be judges of the question of renewing the contract, and did not profess to investigate the matter on its merits. The First Lord said he knew nothing about it; and therefore the reference to the Board of Admiralty of the 23rd of February was a matter of trifling importance. What was done? The Treasury, no doubt, discharged its duty in referring the matter to the Post Office; and on the 10th of January the Postmaster General reported strongly against the application for the renewal of the contract. Mr. Stephenson, of the Treasury, confirmed the Postmaster General; Mr. Hamilton, of the Treasury, differed from them. Before anything more was done, came the defeat of the then Government

      197
      on the then Reform Bill, and it is remarkable that these questions always coincide with Reform Bills. Of course, everybody at that time knew that a dissolution was impending; and it actually took place on the 19th of April. Now the plot thickens. I have said before, and say again, I am ready to acquit the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote) of doing anything unworthy of his position; therefore, I protest against the fallacies into which his excessive generosity leads him, when he says, "If yon condemn Mr. Churchward you must condemn me." I say there is no ground for any such conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman might have had, and I dare say had, reasons before him which might satisfy other men as well as himself. He was therefore totally free from the imputation of any improper motive. What he eventually did was right; but the evidence is irresistible, and it convinced the Committee that, as regards Mr. Churchward, electioneering was mixed up with the matter, and that the two things went on together. On the 4th of April Mr. Churchward writes a very urgent letter to Mr. Hamilton, of the Treasury, in which he says—
      "No compensation whatever could be offered me equivalent to the extension of my contract that I have prayed for. The extension is the pivot on which every department of my business turns. With the extension I have hopes of the ultimate success of my enterprize."
      And so on, urging the case in the strongest possible manner. The next day, as it appears from the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote), Mr. Murray, Private Secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty, writes to Captain Carnegie a letter, in which he says—
      "My dear Carnegie,—Sir William Jolliffe is very anxious to see you this evening at the Committee-room, at 6, Victoria Street. They say they must get you to stand either for Dover or Devonport, both of which must be fought by Admiralty men. I am inclined to think you would have the best chance at Devonport. I don't like Dover much. The enthusiasts think they can turn out Russell. I told them they might turn out Osborne, but had no chance with Russell; and, in fact, I believe the latter would pull through the former. I will send for Churchward and ask him what the chances are; but I think, as a friend, you will have to stand for one of these two places."
      While on the 4th of April Mr. Churchward is writing and pressing his claims for the extension of the contract, on the 5th of April Mr. Murray is communicating with
      198
      Mr. Churchward with a view to what is going on at Dover. That is not all. There is a letter written clearly about that time, though the date is not given. It is given on the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, and I ask particular attention to its terms. The right hon. Baronet is asked—
      "Had you any other pressure put upon you except that which Sir William Jolliffe brought to bear to induce you to expedite this business just at the critical time of the election?"
      My right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) said that Sir William Jolliffe, who occupied an important and responsible position in that Government, urged the business to be expedited.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No! just the contrary. Sir William Jolliffe said—
      "This is a matter not to be brought forward during an election. There is an election coming on. You had better, therefore, deal with it before, or put it off until after, the election."
      SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and I accept that statement. To the question I have read my right hon. Friend replied—
      "There was another person who mentioned the matter, not to me, but to Mr. Hamilton, about the same time or, as nearly as possible, at the same time Mr. Hamilton received from Mr. Whitmore a letter, which has been already mentioned as having been written by Mr. Herbert Murray to Mr. Whitmore at the Treasury. I do not remember the exact terms, but it was to this effect, We are anxious to expedite Mr. Churchward's matter, and we want him to go down to Dover to canvass.'"
      The question is whether we are to stigmatize the Committee as having come to an unwarrantable verdict. It is to be recollected that Captain Carnegie, after personal communication with Mr. Churchward as well as with Mr. Murray, believed that there was substantially an understanding or bargain for Mr. Churchward's vote and interest. Mr. Churchward distinctly denies that, but Captain Carnegie says—
      "Mr. Churchward spoke to me on the subject of the pending election for Dover, and, having volunteered his support and promised me his assistance in general terms, he made an allusion to his anxiety to obtain the renewal of his contract, and he said that they were anxious to deter signing the renewal of his contract until after the election was over; but he felt that that would be too hard upon him, and that he would rather prefer voting for Mr. Bernal Osborne and for myself, inasmuch as he would then have a friend in power, whoever was in office. He also added that he thought they wanted him to return two Government Members for Dover, and if they did so he should be obliged to comply with it."

      199
      Afterwards Mr. Carnegie says he distinctly understood the effect of this communication to be that Mr. Churchward, if his wishes as to the contract were gratified, would help to return two Government Members for Dover; otherwise his feelings and his own interest in possible events would be to divide his vote and interest, and give half of it to Mr. Bernal Osborne. Was that not evidence which the Committee were entitled to believe, concurring, as it does, with the documents and facts I have mentioned? The Treasury Minute approving the contract was signed on the 15th of April. Is it possible, in this state of things, for the House to say it is in a situation to treat Mr. Churchward as an injured man, injured by this House? But the picture would not be complete without Mr. Churchward's portraiture of himself. Mr. Churchward denies he entered into such a bargain; he denies that such a conversation with Captain Carnegie took place. It was for the Committee to judge to whom they could give most credit, and of materials for their judgment there were some by no means of slight importance in the answers given by Mr. Churchward himself to several questions put to him. In answer to the question, "Did you vote for him (Mr. Osborne) from political considerations?" he said—
      "No, not at all. I distinctly stated that I did not support him on political considerations, but because I thought that, as he was the secretary of the Admiralty, and there was a chance of the harbour being turned over to the Admiralty, and that they were likely to buy it, Mr. Bernal Osborne could serve the interest of Dover, and also my interest, better than anyone else."
      This is the account of this gentleman himself, giving the grounds on which he disposed of his political influence. But if these were the grounds, according to his own account, why Mr. Churchward gave his vote and used his influence, is it not probable that Captain Carnegie's account of what had previously taken place was the correct one? The question is, which of these accounts is the correct one? Did Mr. Churchward use his political influence in accordance with the interests of Dover and of himself, or upon purely political and independent grounds? Then, to proceed to the Question No. 1,075—
      "With regard to the vote you gave at Dover, you gave it entirely on personal grounds, as concerned yourself, and without reference to the contract?—On personal grounds, certainly, but it did enter into my consideration at the time that, inasmuch as I had received at the hands of the
      200
      Government an extension of my contract, it would be unbecoming in me to oppose the Government."
      Therefore it singularly enough happened that this consideration did actuate the vote which he gave. So that although he denied that he had told Captain Carnegie that it was to be so, singularly enough the event occurred, and according to his own showing a sense of gratitude directed the vote which he gave. Gratitude for what? For the extension of this contract. Then what was his answer to Question 1,879?—
      "Having heard the evidence (of Captain Carnegie and Mr. Murray), do you adhere to the version you gave to the Committee the other day?—I repeat that at that interview, in the presence of Mr. Murray, not one word was mentioned respecting the contract, or my anxiety to obtain the signing of the contract. I should not have dreamt of doing so imprudent a thing."
      The House will judge whether the Committee should have thought that was consistent with the statement of Captain Carnegie. Then came this question—
      "What number of votes have you in connection with your establishment?—I think there are about fifty-two belonging to my establishment who have votes.
      "Did they all vote right?—I think they did. I do not think I had one traitor."
      I have no inclination to detain the House; but I cannot help saying that, after the evidence which was adduced, the Committee were most fully justified in the conclusion at which they arrived as far as Mr. Churchward was concerned. If the House does not wish to give countenance to the mixing up the obtaining of Government contracts with electioneering for the Government, the House will not by its vote to-night depart from the principles on which it has already acted, or express its approbation of the selection of this gentleman to fill the office of a justice of the peace, especially of a justice of the peace for that very borough of Dover.
      MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he was at all times most unwilling to obtrude himself on the notice of the House; but there were occasions on which silence might be construed as a want of moral courage, and the present was, in his opinion, one of those occasions. As one of the Members for Dover, he thought it was his duty to say a few words respecting the Motion under discussion; because he feared a great act of injustice would be perpetrated on the Government and on Mr. Churchward if that Motion were allowed to pass. It was cruel in the extreme to attack an individual

      201
      in the way in which Mr. Churchward had been attacked that evening without any adequate cause. The present attack did not emanate from Dover, nor from the county of Kent, nor from any locality connected with Mr. Churchward or his doings. There were hon. Gentlemen round about him, representatives of the county of Kent, who, if there had been any impropriety in this appointment, would have been ready to point it out to the House. But the attack proceeded from that cold and bitter locality the North of England, and was supported by the hon. Gentleman who once represented Dover, but who now hailed from another place, he having owed his displacement in Dover to the influence of Mr. Churchward, his legitimate and proper influence in that borough. What were the charges brought against the Government and against Mr. Churchward? First, that in 1853 a Committee which sat to inquire into the election for Plymouth found that Mr. Churchward had been guilty of bribery, in the sense of having offered a place to an individual who had voted. The Committee sat a second time, to determine whether further proceedings should be taken or not, and the first Resolution they adopted was to the effect that it was the prevailing opinion in Plymouth at that time that after a man had promised his vote the promise of a place was not an infraction of the law. What was the second Resolution of the Committee? It was that the circumstances of the case did not call for further proceedings. Then there were the proceedings of the Committee of 1859. In 1859 a Committee of that House found that Mr. Churchward had been guilty of resorting to corrupt expedients affecting injuriously the character of the representatives of the people in circumstances affecting a contract for the mail packet service. The question in dispute was one involving moral character, and if such a question were put to the House there could be no doubt of the result. Now, what were the numbers on the two divisions? On the first, 162 to 117; and on the second, 176 to 168. Those numbers clearly proved that the house was not voting simply and solely on a question of moral character or conduct. It was plain that it was a party question, and that parties being then nearly equally divided, the divisions were very close ones. Mr. Churchward, however, did not submit quietly to the judgment of the House, but instituted legal proceedings for the purpose of proving the validity of the
      202
      contract. The then Attorney General, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), opposed those proceedings; but, instead of pleading that the contract was corrupt, and consequently invalid, he raised a demurrer to the effect that on the terms of the contract there was no mutual obligation. Unfortunately for Mr. Churchward it was a unilateral contract. Mr. Churchward was bound to carry the mails if required, but the Government was not bound to employ him. Such, at least, was the decision of the Courts of Law. But it should be borne in mind that Mr. Churchward had to fight the Government, which was so ably represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond, and what chance had he under those circumstances? Hon. Members had noticed that evening the spirit displayed by the late Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman put into the Acts of Parliament a clause such as had never before been introduced into any Act, and that clause excluded Mr. Churchward from the benefit of contracts made with the Government. Such a proceeding was, in his judgment, unconstitutional. The evidence of corruption in regard to the contract was simply that Mr. Churchward, being in a room with two gentlemen of unimpeachable character, made use of a particular expression. Mr. Churchward ought to have been entitled to show that his contract was good, notwithstanding that the House of Commons might have been affronted by a conversation that had taken place, in which it was supposed that Mr. Churchward said he could influence votes at Dover. If so, that might be the act of a simple man, but not of a corrupt man. The use of such words tended to show that there was no corruption, for people did not talk corruptly if they thought and acted corruptly. It was idle to contend that light words spoken in casual conversation were to have any relevance as regards the contract being corrupt. Indeed, it was immaterial whether those words were used or not. It was proved at the time that the contract was necessary, that the Government were rightly to extend the period of the contract, and that it was right that Mr. Churchward should come to the Government and ask them to extend it. Mr. Churchward was able to obtain a more rapid transit of the French mails. The contract was entered into properly and righteously enough, and there was nothing even alleged to be wrong, but

      203
      a supposed statement which was denied. Mr. Churchward had been unjustly used, especially when the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, the then Attorney General, shut him up in a Court of Law, by insisting that the contract did not mean that he was to receive payment, but meant that he was always to have his boats ready for the service of Her Majesty's Government. An attack was unjustly and unfairly made upon Mr. Churchward, so as to put him in a position of not being entitled to receive the grant which the Crown had made for the services which that gentleman had rendered. And that was followed up by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond, the late Attorney General, preventing Mr. Churchward from showing in a Court of Law that his contract was a valid one, by meeting him with a demurrer to that very contract for the rescinding of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was responsible. Mr. Churchward had been most unjustly treated. When he (Mr. Freshfield) heard that night the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, made as it was in that spirit of advocacy which was so oppressive, when administered by so eminent an advocate, he could not refrain from addressing the House against this attempt to shut out Mr. Churchward under those circumstances from exercising the office of magistrate for the borough of Dover, which his position in that place justly entitled him to occupy. This proceeding would be a great hardship on Mr. Churchward, following, as it would, the hardship of having denied him the benefit of the contract which he made with the Crown.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      The House divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 161: Majority 20.

      AYES.

      Adair, H. E.

      Candlish, J.

      Adam, W. P.

      Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

      Amberley, Viscount

      Carnegie, hon. C.

      Anstruther, Sir R.

      Cave, T.

      Antrobus, E.

      Cavendish, Lord G.

      Barnes, T.

      Cheetham, J.

      Barry, A. H. S.

      Childers, H. C. E.

      Barry, C. R.

      Clay, J.

      Bass, M. T.

      Clement, W. J.

      Biddulph, Colonel R. M.

      Clive, G.

      Bonham-Carter, J.

      Cogan, rt. hn. W. H. F.

      Brand, hon. H.

      Collier, Sir R. P.

      Bruce, Lord C.

      Colvile, C. R.

      Bryan, G. L.

      Cowen, J.

      Buller, Sir E. M.

      Cowper, hon. H. F.

      Buxton, Sir T. F.

      Crawford, R. W.

      Calcraft, J. H M.

      Crossley, Sir F.

      204

      De La Poer, E.

      M'Laren, D.

      Dent, J. D.

      Marjoribanks, D. C.

      Dillwyn, L. L.

      Merry, J.

      Duff, R. W.

      Milbank, F. A.

      Dunlop, A. C. S. M.

      Mill, J. S.

      Edwards, C.

      Mills, J. R.

      Erskine, Vice-Ad. J. E.

      Milton, Viscount

      Evans, T. W.

      Moffatt, G.

      Ewing, H. E. Crum-

      Monsell, rt. hon. W.

      Eykyn, R.

      Moore, C.

      Fawcett, H.

      Morrison, W.

      Fildes, J.

      Murphy, N. D.

      FitzGerald, Lord O. A.

      O'Brien, Sir P.

      Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W. W.

      O'Conor Don, The

      Foljambe, F. J. S.

      O'Donoghue, The

      Forster, C.

      O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

      Forster, W. E.

      Onslow, G.

      Fortescue, hon. D. F.

      O'Reilly, M. W.

      Gavin, Major

      Otway, A. J.

      Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

      Padmore, R.

      Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

      Palmer, Sir R.

      Gladstone, W. H.

      Pease, J. W.

      Glyn, G. G.

      Pelham, Lord

      Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

      Pim, J.

      Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

      Pollard-Urquhart, W.

      Gray, Sir J.

      Potter, E.

      Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

      Power, Sir J.

      Grove, T. F.

      Robertson, D.

      Gurney, S.

      Rothschild, Baron M. de

      Hadfield, G.

      Rothschild, N. M. de

      Hamilton, E. W. T.

      Samuelson, B.

      Hardcastle, J. A

      Scholefield, W.

      Harris, J. D.

      Sherriff, A. C.

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Simeon, Sir J.

      Henderson, J.

      Smith, J.

      Herbert, H. A.

      Speirs, A. A.

      Hodgkinson, G.

      Stacpoole, W.

      Holden, I.

      Stansfeld, J.

      Howard, hon. C. W. G.

      Sullivan, E.

      Hughes, T.

      Synan, E. J.

      Ingham, R.

      Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury-

      Jervoise, Sir J. C.

      Johnstone, Sir J.

      Trevelyan, G. O.

      Kinglake, J. A.

      Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

      Kingscote, Colonel

      Whatman, J.

      Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

      White, hon. Capt. C.

      Layard, A. H.

      White, J.

      Lamont, J.

      Whitworth, B.

      Lawson, rt. hon. J. A.

      Williamson, Sir H.

      Leatham, W. H.

      Woods, H.

      Lefevre, G. J. S.

      Wyvill, M.

      Locke, J.

      Young, R.

      Lowe, rt. hon. R.

      Lusk, A.

      TELLERS.

      Mackie, J.

      Taylor, P. A.

      Mackinnon, Capt. L. B.

      Craufurd, E. H. J.

      NOES.

      Annersley, hon. Col. H.

      Bingham, Lord

      Archdall, Captain M.

      Bourne, Colonel

      Bagge, W.

      Bowen, J. B.

      Bailey, Sir J. R.

      Bowyer, Sir G.

      Barnett, H.

      Bridges, Sir B. W.

      Barrington, Viscount

      Bromley, W. D.

      Barrow, W. H.

      Bruce, Sir H. H.

      Barttelot, Colonel

      Cartwright, Colonel

      Bateson, Sir T.

      Cave, rt. hon. S.

      Bathurst, A. A.

      Chatterton, H. E.

      Beach, Sir M. H.

      Clinton, Lord A. P.

      Beach, W. W. B.

      Clive, Capt. hon. G. W.

      Beecroft, G. S.

      Cobbold, J. C.

      Benyon, R.

      Cole, hon. H.

      Bernard, hn. Col. H. B.

      Cole, hon. J. L.

      205

      Corrance, F. S.

      Lindsay, Col. R. L.

      Courtenay, Lord

      MacEvoy, E.

      Cooper, E. H.

      M'Kenna, J. N.

      Cox, W. T.

      M'Lagan, P.

      Dick, F.

      Mainwaring, T.

      Dickson, Major A. G.

      Malcolm, J. W.

      Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

      Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

      Dowdeswell, W. E.

      Mitchell, A.

      Du Cane, C.

      Montgomery, Sir G.

      Dyke, W. H.

      Mordaunt, Sir C.

      Dyott, Colonel R.

      Morgan, O.

      Earle, R. A.

      Morgan, hon. Major

      Eaton, H. W,

      Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

      Edwards, Sir H.

      Naas, Lord

      Egerton, E. C.

      Neate, C.

      Egerton, hon. W.

      Neeld, Sir J.

      Fane, Colonel J. W.

      Neville-Grenville, R.

      Fellowes, E.

      Newdegate, C. N.

      Fergusson, Sir J.

      Newport, Viscount

      Floyer, J.

      Noel, hon. G. J.

      Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

      North, Colonel

      Freshfield, C. K.

      Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S.H.

      Gallwey, Sir W. P.

      O'Beirne, J. L.

      Gilpin, Colonel

      O'Neill, E.

      Goddard, A. L.

      Paget, R. H.

      Goldney, G.

      Parker, Major W.

      Gore, J. R. O.

      Powell, F. S.

      Gore, W. R. O.

      Read, C. S.

      Gorst, J. E.

      Repton, G. W. J.

      Grant, A.

      Ridley, Sir M. W.

      Graves, S. R.

      Robertson, P. F.

      Greenall, G.

      Russell, Sir C.

      Greene, E.

      Schreiber, C.

      Grey, hon. T. de

      Sclater-Booth, G.

      Griffith, C. D.

      Selwyn, H. J.

      Gurney, rt. hon. R.

      Selwyn, C. J.

      Hamilton, Lord C.

      Severne, J. E.

      Hamilton, I. T.

      Sheridan, H. B.

      Hanmer, Sir J.

      Simonds, W. B.

      Hartley, J.

      Smith, A.

      Hartopp, E. B.

      Stanhope, J. B.

      Hay, Sir J. C. D.

      Stanley, Lord

      Henniker-Major, hon. J. M.

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir W.

      Stopford, S. G.

      Herbert, hn. Colonel P.

      Stuart, Lt.-Colonel W.

      Hesketh, Sir T. G.

      Surtees, F.

      Hildyard, T. B. T.

      Surtees, H. E.

      Hodgson, W. N.

      Taylor, Colonel

      Hogg, Lt.-Col. J. M.

      Thynne, Lord H. F.

      Holmesdale, Viscount

      Tollemache, J.

      Huddleston, J. W.

      Turner, C.

      Hunt, G. W.

      Vance, J.

      Innes, A. C.

      Vandeleur, Colonel

      Jolliffe, hon. H. H.

      Verner, E. W.

      Karslake, Sir J. B.

      Walker, Major G. G.

      Karslake, E. K.

      Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

      Kavanagh, A.

      Walsh, Sir J.

      Kelk, J.

      Waterhouse, S.

      Kendall, N.

      Whalley, G. H

      King, J. G.

      Whitmore, H.

      Knightley, Sir R.

      Wise, H. C.

      Knox, hn. Major S.

      Woodd, B. T.

      Lacon, Sir E.

      Wyld, J.

      Laird, J.

      Wyndham, hon. P.

      Leader, N. P.

      Lennox, Lord G. G.

      TELLERS.

      Lennox, Lord H. G.

      Bentinck, G. A. C.

      Lindsay, hon. Col. C.

      Lowther, J.

      Question put, "That those words be there added."
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope the House will pause before assenting to a general proposition of this nature without any examination into it.
      MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I hope the House and I hope the country will consider well the purport of the short speech that has now been extracted from the right hon. Gentleman. About an hour ago it was my duty to rise upon the Amendment propounded—no doubt, honestly propounded—by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck), and I pointed out, or endeavoured to point out, that the subject-matter of the Amendment, at the proper time, deserved the consideration of the House of Commons. In doing so, Sir, I was guided mainly by the fact that this important Amendment had been proposed and the discussion on it raised without previous notice given to the House. On that account it did appear to me that the time for the discussion of the question had not arrived, and that it should not be discussed except on notice, because of its novelty and because of the breadth of the field which it covered. The right hon. Gentleman has now discovered this. "The engineer hoist with his own petard," and smarting under the consequences of the victory which his Friends have gained for him, now falls back on words of wisdom, which he would not speak while it was yet time. I raised that issue. I did not object to the substance of the Amendment. I am convinced that the time is come when this House should take care as to the impression it creates out of doors with regard to the seriousness of its intentions at striking at acts of bribery in high places. But upon the issue of the unfitness of the present time. I objected to the addition of the words of the Amendment. The House has overruled my objection by a majority. The House has decided by a majority that this is the time to entertain the question, and Her Majesty's Government have formed a portion of that majority. If, Sir, this be the time to entertain the question, I feel that my duty to the House, and my respect to the House, bind me to say "Aye" or "No" on it. My choice is made in a moment. I will say "Aye" on it.
      MR. NEWDEGATE: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) warned us to think well before we adopted the Amendment that is now before us. I voted against the Motion, because I felt that we were likely to be guilty of a gross injus-

      207
      tice in punishing a man a second time for an offence committed in a matter which a Committee had recommended should not be further proceeded with, and I voted in the majority. The right hon. Gentleman now for the sake of attracting popular attention supports an Amendment which he condemned at the beginning of this debate. I have no love of corruption. I supported last year the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire (Sir Rainald Knightley) upon the subject of bribery and corruption, and I did so honestly, in the sense in which Mr. Pitt proposed to punish bribery and corruption—namely, by disfranchising the corrupt constituencies. I am prepared to pursue that course again; and I know that the hon. Baronet will not be wanting when the time comes. But I am not going to vote for an Address to the Crown to issue a fishing inquiry into transactions of years long past. I am not going to vote for a proposition that the right hon. Gentleman condemned at the beginning of this discussion. He may find it convenient to change his opinion during the evening. I shall retain mine. All I hope is that when the time comes for the hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire to cite Mr. Pitt's opinion for the effectual prevention of bribery we shall be supported by the right hon. Gentleman.
      Motion agreed to.
      Words added.
      Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
      Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for the removal of all persons in the Commission of the Peace of any County, City, or Borough who have been found, either by Committees of this House or by Royal Commissions guilty of, or privy or assenting to, corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections.

    NAVY—PADDLE-WHEEL STEAMERS.

      MOTION FOR PAPERS.
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, it would be in the recollection of Members of the House that the right hon. Gentleman now Secretary of State for War, and then at the head of die Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), made a statement in answer to a question put to him that on his accession to office he had not found the reserves of ships in time state in which he had a right to expect them. There was no quali-
      208
      fication in that statement as to the class of vessels. It was accepted by the public as referring generally to the state of the navy and to all classes of ships, and there resulted a series of attacks in the press upon the administration of the late Board. The statement further alarmed not only those who were prone to panics about the state of the navy, but those who dreaded another re-construction of the navy similar to that inaugurated in 1859 by the right hon. Gentleman. At the commencement of this Session, the Duke of Somerset addressed himself to this subject in "another place," and defended the condition in which he had left the navy. The noble Earl at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby) answered him, and produced in justification of his Colleague an extract from a memorandum by Sir Frederick Grey, which had been found among papers left at the Admiralty, and on the faith of which he said the right hon. Gentleman had made his answer in this House. Sir Frederick Grey was very much dissatisfied with the use made of his name, and of some casual remarks of his in a memorandum upon the policy of building some paddle-wheel steamers, and had asked him to move for a Return of the memorandum. Finding, however, that it would be contrary to the forms of the House to move for a paper which had been quoted in "another place," he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) contented himself with making a general denial on behalf of Sir Frederick Grey, in the course of the debate on the state of the dockyards, and there the matter would have rested. But in the course of the very able and clear statement made by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), on bringing in the Estimates, the memorandum was again quoted. Sir Frederick Grey now wished that his memorandum and the submission of the Controller, to which it was an answer, should be laid before the House, so that it might be seen how little ground existed for quoting him in justification of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. The memorandum was written in February of last year, before the Estimates were brought in. It had reference solely to a proposal to build a paddle-wheel steamer, on the merits of which there was some difference of opinion. Sir Frederick Grey contended that in no wise could it be used in support of the general statement made last Session, or in any way as justifying the charges against the late Board. There never was

      209
      any difference of opinion between himself and the Duke of Somerset as regarded the policy of building ships, or the condition in which the navy was at any time, and he said that any attempt to quote him as an authority for statements of such a nature was entirely unwarranted.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of a Submission of the Comptroller of the Navy to the Board of Admiralty, and a Memorandum thereon by Admiral Sir Frederick Grey, on the building of Paddle-wheel Steamers, dated 1866,"—(Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.)
      LORD HENRY LENNONsaid, he felt compelled to resist the application. The memorandum was attached to confidential communications between the Controller and the Board of Admiralty on questions of public policy and referring to other matters. It would be extremely inconvenient for the public service that these papers should be produced. That was his only reason for resisting the Motion. Both in the debates in that House and in "another place" ample justice had been done to the Duke of Somerset and the late Board of Admiralty.
      SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was the universal rule that when a document was quoted by a Minister of the Crown the Government were bound to lay it on the table of the House. He should not press for any document the production of which was declared to be injurious to the public service; but he could not help expressing his surprise that in both Houses of Parliament a document should have been used in debate which it was now declared could not be produced.
      LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he feared he had not made himself understood. The memorandum was only a short one, but it was attached to correspondence of considerable length relating to matters of public policy which it was not desirable to produce, but without which it would be scarcely intelligible.
      MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if that were the case the document should not have been quoted. Towards the end of last Session it was said that the present Board of Admiralty found the reserve in a state in which they did not expect to see it. That statement was challenged in "another place;" and in reply a minute of Sir Frederick Grey was quoted, which should not have been done if the document could not be produced without injury to the public
      210
      service. Sir Frederick Grey was put in an unfair position by its non-production.
      SIR JOHN HAYsaid, there was no objection to produce Sir Frederick Grey's memorial itself if it were desired. It had already appeared in print. But the confidential communications contained in the Controller's submission it would be extremely undesirable to lay before the House.
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he had no wish for the memorial without the submission of the Controller to which it formed an answer. On Sir Frederick Grey's part he entirely repudiated the construction which had been put upon that document.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    OFFICES AND OATHS BILL— [BILL 7.]
    (Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. Cogan, Sir John Gray.)
    OFFICES AND OATHS BILL— [BILL 7.]

      COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Colman O' Loghlen.)
      MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he objected to proceeding with such an important Bill at that late hour (quarter past twelve.) That measure and the one which immediately followed it (Transubstantiation, &c., Declaration Bill) involved important constitutional questions which must be considered together, and it would be impossible properly to debate theist at that hour. There were many Amendments on the paper respecting it, and he thought it impossible that they could make any progress with the measure at that sitting. He should therefore move that the House do now adjourn.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
      MR. COGANsaid, he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare would be allowed to go into Committee. After the lengthened debate and the exciting scenes which had already taken place, his hon. and learned Friend would be satisfied if the Bill were committed pro formâ. As a matter of courtesy he hoped this would be conceded.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had supported this Bill at every stage, and was still prepared to give it his best adhesion.

      211
      At the same time, though limited in extent, the Bill certainly did involve serious constitutional questions which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate) consistently treated as belonging to a very high range of politics. A debate of somewhat unusual length and animation on a subject of considerable interest had already taken place that evening. He could not but think that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was justified in objecting to going on with the Bill at present, and he should therefore recommend his hon. Friend not to press his Motion.
      MR. GREGORYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in any future discussion of the Bill would meet them in a fair and honourable spirit, and that no vexatious delays would be interposed to the progress of the Bill.
      MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that his only wish was that the House should fully understand the great and important principle involved in the question.
      SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire objected to going into Committee on the Bill at present, and as the right hon. Member for South Lancashire recommended that he should not press his Motion, he would give notice of the Committee on the Bill for that day week.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
      House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Increase of Episcopate* (51).
Second Reading—Metropolitan Poor (45).
Committee—Duty on Dogs* (42).
Report—Traffic Regulation Metropolis (46 & 52); Duty on Dogs* (42).
Withdrawn—Railway Traffic Protection (43).

METROPOLITAN POOR BILL—(No, 45.)
(The Earl of Devon.)
METROPOLITAN POOR BILL—(No, 45.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DEVON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the objects of the measure were three-fold—first, to provide for the sick poor, both outdoor and indoor, within the metropolitan area, for the insane and other classes of the inmates of workhouses, better accommodation than they at present enjoyed;

  103
  secondly, to assimilate the powers and duties of guardians in certain parishes under local Acts to those of guardians acting under the general law; and thirdly, to provide for the equalization of certain charges over the whole metropolis; and for other purposes relating to the relief of the poor within the metropolis. The evils which the Bill was intended to remedy might be classed under two heads—first, the inadequate, inefficient, and ill-managed accommodation for the sick in the metropolitan workhouses; and secondly, the want in many of those workhouses of a sufficient and well-trained staff of nurses. That the accommodation for the sick in workhouses should be exceedingly bad was hardly to be wondered at when they recollected that at the first introduction of the Poor Law Amendment Act it was hardly at all contemplated that the sick and infirm should be received within the walls of the workhouses, which were mainly intended as places for able-bodied paupers. But as years passed on the law was so administered that the workhouses became, to a great extent, hospitals for the sick and infirm. A paper which he held in his hand showed that in 1865 no less than 25 per cent of the inmates of all the metropolitan workhouses were sick and infirm, and that this was considerably above the average throughout the country; and when they considered the great number of cases of this kind which were continually received into the metropolitan workhouses, it was easy to understand how the amount of accommodation was inadequate. From the Return with which the Poor Law Board had been supplied, it appeared that whereas indoor relief in England and Wales amounted to only 14 per cent upon all cases, in the metropolis it rose as high as 27 per cent. He was happy to be able to acknowledge that in many cases within the metropolis well-considered, judicious, and philanthropic provision had been made by Boards of Guardians for the accommodation of the sick and infirm, and had thus met to some degree the want of sufficient hospital accommodation. But that was not the case throughout. There were many cases in which it would be impossible to provide proper accommodation for want of space, and he feared he must say there were a few in which when motives had been scrutinized the guardians did not show an inclination to provide a remedy for wants which in other districts had been more liberally supplied. Another cause
  104
  which prevented the improvement of the accommodation for the sick was the limitation which applied to the Poor Law Board, as to the amount of money which they could compel the guardians to expend. It was well known to their Lordships that until last year the Poor Law Board could not compel a Board of Guardians in any parish to carry out any alterations, the cost of which would be more than £50. It was thus obviously impossible for the Poor Law Board to provide that any great alterations should take place. Another consideration which pressed upon the Poor Law Board was this. Until a late period the Poor Law Board were advised by competent medical authorities that a space of 500 cubic feet was sufficient for each sick person. Doubts, however, had been thrown upon the correctness of that belief, and in order to solve them, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter. That Committee, at the head of which was Sir Thomas Watson, the distinguished President of the College of Physicians, was composed of physicians and surgeons and other gentlemen whose studies and duties had familiarized them with the subject. The Committee reported that not less than 850 cubic feet on an average ought to be allowed to each sick inmate, and in certain offensive cases not less than 1,200; but that in chronic infirm cases, in wards occupied by day as well as by night, 500 cubic feet would be enough; and 300 cubic feet for healthy classes of children. It had been determined, therefore, by the Poor law Board that 850 cubic feet was the minimum which the guardians would be authorized to provide for the sick. But in addition to these general grounds for this measure, there were some special and individual cases which had strongly impressed the Poor Law Board with the necessity of amending the present system. He referred to the cases of Timothy Daley, who died in the Holborn Workhouse on the 23rd of December, 1864, and that of Richard Gibson, who died in the workhouse of St. Giles and St. George. In consequence of the complaints which had been made with respect to these cases, inquiries were held by Poor Law Inspectors, and the result proved not only the allegations of personal neglect in these particular cases, but that also the sick wards in these hospitals were insufficient and ill-arranged; and inquiries that subsequently took place into the management

  105
  of the Paddington Workhouse showed in that case also that the staff of nurses was Insufficient, and the provision for the sick and the medical arrangements generally unsatisfactory. In speaking of the investigations carried on by paid officers of the Poor Law Board, he would not be doing his duty if he passed over without acknowledgment the services rendered by professional and scientific gentlemen connected with The Lancet, who, at the cost of much valuable time and money, visited the workhouses of the metropolis, and supplied the Poor Law Board from time to time with most material facts in reference to their condition. The result of the information thus collected was the appointment of Mr. Farnall and Dr. Smith to make a special investigation into the state of the wards in the workhouses, and their Report, though differing in other respects, agreed in this—that the wards were overcrowded, and that the general arrangements for the sick were very unsatisfactory. Shortly after his right hon. Friend Mr. Gathorne Hardy) came into office, two other Inspectors were appointed to make inquiry, not merely into the state of the sick wards, but, into the general accommodation in the metropolitan workhouses. These gentlemen were instructed to take as the basis of their judgment the opinion given with respect to the amount of cubic feet. Having made a careful inquiry, the Inspectors came to this conclusion—that in twenty-four unions and parishes the existing workhouses were such that by partial re-construction they might be made adequate to the necessities of the case; but with respect to the remaining fifteen, the greater number of them were not capable of being made suitable to the purposes for which they were required. Sufficient proof had therefore been brought forward to show that the Poor Law Board had ample grounds for adopting some comprehensive measures for the improvement of the workhouse infirmaries. With regard to the provision of an efficient and proper nursing staff, the evidence was not less strong. The subject had often engaged the attention of the Poor Law Board, and had been pressed by their Inspectors on the Poor Law Guardians, to whom a circular had been issued and re-issued. It would be improper on such an occasion to omit reference to the improved feeling on the subject which had resulted from the admiration the country must feel for the exertions of that excellent and gifted
  106
  woman, Miss Nightingale, whose name would always be received with that respect which was due to her Christian activity and self-devotion. Contemporaneously with her labours, the ill-arrangement of the sick wards of the workhouses, and the want of a proper nursing staff, had pressed themselves on the Poor Law Board as matters requiring attention; and the available remedies seemed to be additional buildings; increase of staff, and greater means of classification. The first consideration that presented itself to the Poor Law Board, on reviewing the question, was that there were no fewer than thirty-nine different areas of taxation within the metropolis, fifteen of these being unions under Boards of Guardians, and fourteen parishes under the general law; while no less than ten were governed by guardians elected in different ways by vestrymen. The obvious conclusion that pressed itself on the Board was that it was absolutely necessary to create new and larger districts in order to carry out the remedies that were proposed. Having thus adverted to the evils which it, was sought to remedy, and the reasons of introducing Poor Law Board for introducing the measure, he would proceed to call attention to some of the provisions of the Bill. Three Committees which had inquired into the subject had stated in their Reports that the extension of the power of the Poor Law Board over local guardians was necessary. The Bill therefore gave power to the Poor Law Board to provide asylums for the reception and relief of the sick, insane, or infirm poor; to combine unions or parishes, or unions and parishes into districts, to constitute bodies of managers partly elected and partly nominated, with powers to erect new buildings, purchase lands, and borrow money. It was further provided that the appointment and duties of the officers were to be determined by the managers; but their salaries were to be determined by the Board. Auditors were to be appointed, and might be removed at the pleasure of the Board. In the provision for the application of the asylums, the words were very general, and included fever, small pox, and lunatics. There was also a provision for the establishment of dispensaries to afford outdoor medical relief, with a committee of management and the necessary officers. The medicines were to be provided by the Board of Guardians, in order to secure that they should be of the best description. The next clause to which he would call attention way, that very

  107
  important one which provided for the establishment of a general metropolitan fund, to which all unions and parishes were to contribute, and out of which would be made the disbursements required by the purposes of this Act. The question of the equalization of all the metropolitan rates had for years been under consideration both in and out of the House. The equalization of metropolitan rates involved grave and serious considerations; but, stopping short of that, there remained a middle course, which he thought the Poor Law Board had properly decided to adopt—namely, to take certain charges, and make them payable equally over the whole of the metropolis. The charges proposed to be thrown on this common fund were—first, the maintenance of lunatics in the asylums, and licensed houses for the insane poor; secondly, the maintenance of the patients in the asylums for patients suffering from fever or small pox; thirdly, for the medicine and attendance supplied for the relief of the poor; fourthly, salaries of all officers employed in the relief of the poor and the management of schools, asylums, and dispensaries; fifthly, for compensation in cases arising under this Act; sixthly, for payment of fees for registration of births and deaths; seventhly, the payment of fees for vaccination; eighthly, the maintenance of pauper children in district or licensed schools; and lastly, for relief of destitute persons under peculiar circumstances. He trusted that when the measure passed into law the effect would be to extend to pauper children an education which would fit them for the duties of their after life. He had thus endeavoured to explain what appeared to him to be the material provisions of this Bill, which came up to their Lordships with the almost unanimous approval of the other House. The measure had been generally approved by his right hon. Friend the late President of the Poor Law Board, and he believed it had commended itself to most of those who were aware of the evils which it sought to remove. He was anxious to say that the Bill was brought forward in no spirit of distrust or jealousy of the local authorities. It was intended to extend the authority of the Poor Law Board no further than was absolutely necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Bill. That harmonious co-operation between the central authority and the local Boards of Guardians, which he was happy to say had hitherto prevailed, would, he trusted, continue to prevail, and would
  108
  show itself in the ready assistance which the Poor Law Board hoped to receive from the guardians in carrying out the provisions of this measure. In the full confidence that the Bill would be beneficial, alike to the poor and to the ratepayers, he now moved that it be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Devon.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that as he had had charge in that House of the Bill relating to the houseless poor in the metropolis, and as he had always taken a great interest in the subject of the Poor Laws, he might perhaps be allowed to say a few words in reference to this measure. Speaking of it generally, he must say that he viewed it with unqualified satisfaction. He believed it would lead to the introduction of a much better management of the metropolitan poor than had heretofore existed; he thought, also, that the Bill reflected great credit on the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Department. His noble Friend (the Earl of Devon), in moving the second reading of the Bill, had fully explained its provisions; but he was astonished to hear the remark that the Bill was not framed in consequence of any distrust of the local Boards. It seemed to him, on the contrary, that this Bill was based entirely and properly so based, on that distrust of the Boards of Guardians which experience had shown to be too well founded. The local guardians of the metropolis having disregarded the rules and orders of the Poor Law Board, that Board had very properly brought in a measure to remove the management of the metropolitan poor, to a certain extent, from the local authorities. He therefore thought the Bill was prepared in distrust of the local guardians who had been found wanting. For himself, he regretted that the Bill did not go somewhat further in this direction—although he did not say that it might not be prudent not to make a greater change on the present occasion. He would suggest, however, whether it might not be well worthy of consideration whether they ought not to remove altogether from the guardians the management of the sick poor, and to establish for the sick poor separate infirmaries or hospitals where they might be placed under the management of persons specially qualified for the purpose. Notwithstanding what had been said by his noble Friend, a striking proof of the existence of distrust

  109
  of the local authorities was to be found in the very valuable provisions of the Bill under which the Poor Law Board was enabled to appoint a certain number of ex officio guardians. That provision would enable the Poor Law Board to appoint persons to control the management of the guardians in cases where that management was not satisfactory. He feared, however, it might turn out that notwithstanding the provision for appointing ex officio guardians the poor might not be sufficiently cared for. Another provision of the Bill was one that he regarded as of great importance—that by which the expenses of certain classes of the poor are thrown on the whole metropolis instead of the separate parishes. This extended further the principle introduced into the law by the late President of the Poor Law Board in the Houseless Poor Act. It no doubt infringed the old maxim of each parish meeting its own expenditure. But looking at the peculiar position of the metropolis, at the great wealth accumulated in some districts of it, and at the enormous aggregation of poverty in others, those expenses which were not likely to lead to any abuse ought to be borne by the common fund of the whole metropolis. At the same time, he was glad that the Bill did not carry this principle further, for it would be dangerous to enact that the whole expenses of the poor of this great metropolis should be borne out of a common fund. If that system were adopted the management must necessarily become lax, while the expenses would be greatly augmented. He saw in this Bill another feature which afforded him great pleasure, and that was that Parliament had no longer that extreme jealousy of the Poor Law Board which it had so often evinced. At one time—more than once, he might say—the Poor Law Board had been looked on with such jealousy that it was difficult for them to carry any Bill through Parliament prolonging their existence. He was glad to see that by this Bill the powers of time Board were to be increased. He thought such an increase absolutely necessary for the proper management of the poor. The Poor Law Board which had always discharged its duties with diligence and care, whatever Ministry had been in office, should have the power of enforcing compliance with its orders. Unfortunately, at present they could only do so by mandamus in the Court of Queen's Bench, which was not a very easy or agreeable proceeding. Much as he valued the principle of
  110
  local management, he thought Parliament, had done wisely in saying that a central body should have the necessary power to compel the local authorities to carry out its rules and regulations. He trusted that the powers conferred by this measure would be sufficiently extensive, and in conclusion stated that he cordially supported the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

TRAFFIC REGULATION (METROPOLIS) BILL—(No. 46.)
(The Earl of Belmore.)
TRAFFIC REGULATION (METROPOLIS) BILL—(No. 46.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHremarked that the effect of Clause 9 (Prohibition of Carriage of Advertisements) would be to throw out of employment about 700 persons who were now earning an honest livelihood by carrying advertisement boards about the street. He admitted that these board men—or "sandwiches" as they had been called—might, in some instances, be a great nuisance, and therefore they ought to be placed under proper control; at the same time, he thought it would be unjust to deprive these men of their means of subsistence. He therefore moved an Amendment to the 9th clause to the effect that no picture, print, board, placard, or notice should be carried or distributed in the streets except in such form and manner as might be approved by the Commissioner of Police.
  Amendment moved, after ("Notice") to insert ("except in such Form and Manner as may be approved of by the Commissioner of Police.")—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment suggested by the noble Earl; but if they were inserted, he should move the insertion of other words also, which would prevent the distribution in the streets of papers or posters relating to medical subjects.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the clause was better as it stood.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 16: Majority 8.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Huntingdon, E.

  Romney, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Belmore, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Denbigh, E. [Teller.]

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Harrowby, E. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Bath, M.

  Sydney, V.

  Airlie, E.

  Crewe, L.

  De Grey, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Granville, E.

  Foley, L.

  Grey, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Hardwicke, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Kimberley, E.

  Morley, E.

  EARL GRANVILLEobserved, that their Lordships were placed in a rather curious position. He heard other noble Lords had come down prepared to support the measure; but in the division just taken the Government had divided against a clause in their own Bill.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE moved an Amendment prohibiting the exhibition of prints, &c., or the distribution of pamphlets and posters relating to medical subjects in the streets.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsuggested that it should be postponed till the third reading.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREagreed to postpone the Amendment.
  Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 52.)

RAILWAY TRAFFIC PROTECTION BILL.
(No. 43.)—(The Lord Redesdale.)
RAILWAY TRAFFIC PROTECTION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Redesdale.)
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, when this Bill was before the House on a former occasion, I understood from the noble Lord
  112
  who has charge of the measure (Lord Redesdale) that he would not be unwilling to content himself with the second reading at that time, postponing its further progress to a period when, as we were informed was probable, a measure of a more complete and comprehensive description would be brought under our notice. As, however, the noble Lord has desired that we now should proceed with the Bill, I trust your Lordships will allow me to do what otherwise would not be necessary, to express the very great alarm which I feel at legislation which, as far as I remember, is entirely unprecedented. If this Bill proposed to deal with nothing more than debts contracted by railway companies at a future time, and did nothing more than prevent creditors from issuing executions upon railway property in respect of claims of that description, I should have nothing more to say than this—that it appeared to me a grave and difficult question whether we should allow great mercantile companies to contract debts without incurring the usual responsibility of being subjected, as regards their property, to executions at law. But that is not the nature of the Bill now before your Lordships, by any means. This Bill deals with debts which are already contracted. It takes up the case of creditors who have lent their money or supplied goods to railway companies, and who now are entitled to recover judgment and issue execution against the railway companies; and it absolutely prevents them from issuing execution upon any judgment which they may obtain. That is the operation of the Bill, which at present is limited to the 1st August next. I have always understood that in your Lordships' House one of the most sacred principles was that legislation, as affecting contracts already entered into, should not be retrospective. But this is not the only evil. On looking closely into this measure, I find that, not only does it affect the rights of creditors which already exist, but it raises an invidious distinction between one class of creditors and another. It takes away from one class of creditors the rights which they possess, and to another it preserves those rights intact. If your Lordships will refer to the Bill that you are asked to assent to, you will find that from the operation of the measure are entirely saved those executions that may be levied for the recovery of local rates. And not only so, but from the wording of

  113
  this Bill it would have no operation upon Crown debts: and we all know that very large sums are due from railway companies to the Crown in respect of taxation and other charges on companies. It comes to this, therefore—that for local rates and Crown debts you leave the local and Imperial authorities perfectly free to issue executions against railway companies; while you deprive the creditors who supplied, it may be, the very materials with which the line was made or with which it carries on its business of all means of enforcing their claims. It may be said that the enforcement of their rights is only postponed till August, and that after August the 1st they will be able to enforce their judgments. But when August arrives it is quite possible that the unfortunate creditors may be met with this answer—"No doubt, sufficient property was in existence at the time this Bill passed, but since then that property has been swept away in discharge of local rates and Imperial taxation." What, then, is the reason given why this Bill should be assented to? It is said that it would be of great public utility to save railway companies from executions being levied upon the rolling stock, lest the public traffic should be inconvenienced. That is to say, for a great public object you sacrifice the rights of the private creditor. You desire that a public object should be attained; and, in order to attain, you sacrifice not the rights of the public, who are to be benefited, but the rights of the private creditor, who receives no benefit. I ask your Lordships to observe some of the effects which this Bill will have in depriving creditors of the means of recovering their debts. I take, for example, the very ordinary case of a railway leasing its line to another company on certain terms of yearly or quarterly payments. According to this measure, if the payments in respect of the leased line should be in arrear, the only means of recovering these will be absolutely withdrawn, though the lessees continue to receive the profits of the line. Again, what are your Lordships asked to do with regard to that large and important class of actions arising out of accidents upon railways, either in respect of carelessness in the carriage of goods, or of accidents to limb, possibly to life? We are in the midst of the various assizes of the country, and in the annals of the different circuits we read every morning in the newspapers of consi-
  114
  derable sums recovered against railway companies. The persons who recover those damages are sometimes the parties themselves who have been injured, and are frequently the families of those who have suffered, and who are themselves reduced, it may be, to very great distress and indigence consequent on the sudden withdrawal of their means of support. They have recovered judgment, they are ready to issue execution, they have no means of obtaining the money awarded except through the medium of an execution: and your Lordships are asked to prevent this execution from issuing, at all events till the month of August next, when there may not be monies enough remaining. I will go further. It may have been the fortune or misfortune of some of your Lordships to have had some of your land taken by railway companies. There is an erroneous impression abroad that a railway cannot take land without first paying for it; but your Lordships know that if a railway company desires to take any land it has only to obtain the certificate of any two surveyors as to its value, pay the sum named into court, and then take possession. When the real price of the land is ascertained, however, it generally amounts to twice or thrice the sum paid into court on the certificate of the surveyors, and for that additional price the landowner has to bring an action or obtain a decree in equity to obtain the purchase money. In the meantime the land has been taken, the railway made and earning money upon it; and yet when the landowner issues execution, your Lordships are asked to say that he shall not have his execution in satisfaction of his claim. There is, however, a still stronger case. There is too much reason to suppose that a great portion of the rolling stock at present possessed by the railways of the country is not paid for, but has been supplied on the credit of the company. I hope and believe that in most cases creditors are safe in giving credit; but your Lordships are asked to protect railway companies in the enjoyment of that stock and their earnings by its means, but to cut off from the unpaid creditor, whose rolling stock it is, and for which he has not been paid, the means by which he could recover his money. Who, I ask, is to be benefited by this proposed legislation? Are the shareholders? There may be a railway company so utterly insolvent that it may be a temporary accommodation to it to have

  115
  its rolling stock protected from execution; but the effect on a solvent company will be to go far to destroy its credit. My Lords, every railway company is obliged to have very large supplies of coal and oil, it has to pay for labour, and supply and replace rolling stock. At present solvent railway companies have no difficulty in obtaining all they require on credit, because those persons who supply these goods know perfectly well that when the time comes for payment and their claims are not met that they can at once levy execution and compel payment; but if that right is taken away they will refuse to give credit on the ground that the debenture-holders will sweep away the earnings and they will not consent to make supplies except on the terms of being paid in ready money. This Bill, if passed, will have a most serious effect on all the solvent railway companies in the country. The Bill by the preamble no doubt points to the benefit of debenture-holders; but if passed it will do little good even to them, for it takes away from them the right, whatever it may be, that at present exists, of issuing execution for the principal and interest overdue, and instead of their having a valuable security it will be considerably deteriorated. It is said that the public will be benefited; but I venture to think that the public are never benefited by anything which is not an adherence to contract and to the rights acquired by the members of the public; and I cannot imagine how the public can be benefited if you materially alter the law of contracts. These are matters deserving of great consideration before we make further progress with the Bill. I have another objection against the Bill. This Bill appears to me to deal with nothing more than the merest fragment of one of the greatest and most important questions your Lordships can be called upon to consider. We have many millions invested in railway shares, and in debentures, and there is also a large floating unsecured railway debt. It is manifest to your Lordships from the progress of events that sooner or later—and I venture to think it cannot be done too soon—it will be necessary to consider not merely the interests of one particular class, but the whole subject. The legislation with regard to railways has gone on for some time upon the old and antiquated idea that a railway is a public highway; and that all you had to do was to set the highway
  116
  going and then everybody would be able to pass over it and the railway company would have nothing to do but to guard the highway. But this idea has vanished for some years, and we have now got the great carrying trade of the country monopolised by and centred in the railway companies. They have become in the progress of years great commercial undertakings, and we have to consider whether we are prepared to sanction the continuance of these great commercial undertakings on a footing different from all other commercial undertakings of the country. What would be said if it were proposed with regard to any other trading undertaking that it should be carried on with impunity against execution for debts? That would be impossible; and yet your Lordships cannot fail to observe that virtually this is the principle which is introduced into this Bill. I entreat your Lordships—I entreat the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill, whose great wisdom and experience on questions of this kind no one more readily recognises than myself, to pause in the progress of this measure until we have before us that which we are likely to have before long—namely, a comprehensive measure which can be considered with care and attention as a whole, and which I trust may, in its reception by the Legislature, have some beneficial effect in settling this large and most difficult question.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he felt he had a most difficult task to perform in answering the searching argument of the noble and learned Lord who was so experienced a pleader, and knew so well how to express what he felt in the most complete and comprehensive manner. But, in the first place, he submitted that the chief object of the Bill was to allow the more comprehensive measure to proceed unimpeded. At the present moment nothing would impede that legislation more than a seizure of the rolling stock of any important railway by any one creditor or body of creditors. It could not be said that solvent railways would be damaged by it, because almost all the solvent railway companies in the kingdom desired it to pass. Even the most important companies, who, as far as regards income and expenditure, were perfectly solvent, but who found great difficulty in raising money to meet debentures and other liabilities, which were on the point of falling in, looked with great apprehension to the consequences of the possible seizure of

  117
  their line or rolling stock. The answer to the many suppositious cases conceived by the noble and learned Lord was the same. The Bill was simply designed as a temporary measure to prevent an evil which was imminent as long as the whole class of railway evils remained without any effectual remedy. Nor could it be said that the security of the creditors would be depreciated by the passing of this Bill; it was important above all things that the earnings of a company should be protected, and that the ability of the company to make profit should be continued. Without the protection which the Bill proposed to afford, the whole security of creditors might be rendered worthless by the stoppage of a line. Take the means away and the whole became worthless. If an unpaid landowner seized the line, it ceased to work and nothing was earned; and although that individual landowner might get satisfaction none of his fellow creditors could hope to do so:—and, in the same manner, the money required for the interest of the debenture-holders, the payment of wages. He most decidedly differed from the noble public highways. He held that they were, and Parliament acted on that principle with regard to them, although, for the convenience of the public, they would be more beneficial to the public, by companies undertaking the working of them. It had been held that railways were granted for the public benefit, and that one class of creditors had not the power of stopping the line. Now, he thought that principle ought to be applied to every creditor as well as to one class; and Parliament, when it granted borrowing powers to railways, intended that the lenders should have the best remedy for the recovery of their money, though it might have turned out in regard to the working of the Acts that those remedies did not belong to them. He thought the principle of the decision recently given by the noble and learned Lord, that debenture-holders had not the remedy of seizing the rolling stock, ought to be applied to all other classes of creditors, because, whatever might be the strict construction of many Acts, there was no doubt Parliament had intended that debenture-holders should have the same rights as other creditors. Although on abstract grounds it might appear unfair that creditors should be deprived of their present remedy, the
  118
  proposal was a fair one as affecting the bulk of persons to whom railway companies were indebted, and the rejection of the measure would increase the depression which now prevailed, and would prevent companies from raising money on reasonable terms. He should, however, place himself in the hands of their Lordships, and if they desired that the Bill should be postponed or abandoned it would be useless for him to press it.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEthought the noble and learned Lord had conjured up a number of imaginary injuries which might befall creditors, but had not sufficiently considered the injury which a railway would sustain by the seizure of its rolling stock and the suspension of its traffic. The consequences to the entire body of creditors, whether shareholders, debenture-holders, or ordinary creditors, would be ruinous in the extreme. At the present moment there were so many railway companies under difficulties caused by the peculiar state of the law with regard to the different rights and claims of debenture-holders, that it was almost impossible for any railway, however solvent (except in the case of the very large railway companies which were paying good dividends), to renew their debentures. There were, in face, many large railways which could not and did not know how to get money for that purpose. The present condition of the whole of the railway companies arose from the state of the money-market; and the emergency was such that the only means of relief was in passing a measure similar to that then before their Lordships. The railways had got the monopoly of the traffic of the country, and the inconvenience and injury to the public from a stoppage of the traffic would be enormous. This was only a temporary measure to prevent such a disastrous state of things arising before Parliament could pass a comprehensive Bill to put matters on a more satisfactory footing. The comprehensive measure which had been spoken of was yet in nubibus, and if it should get into Parliament it was impossible to say whether it would pass. If, however, it did, the present Bill would present no hindrance to it, and indeed he believed it was calculated to facilitate its passage.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, there was no doubt some force in the objections to allowing the rolling stock of a railway to be taken in execution; but his noble and learned Friend had convinced him that, whatever course their Lordships might

  119
  take, it ought not to be such as would lead the public to believe that for any purpose whatever their Lordships' House would initiate that which was a positive injustice to present creditors. There were persons who no doubt had sold rolling stock to railway companies upon the faith that they would get paid in the ordinary way, and for Parliament to say that they should not be paid between this time and the 1st of August, might bring ruin and bankruptcy upon many. Whatever inconveniences might arise he hoped, for the honour of their Lordships' House, they would refuse to sanction a measure of so unjust a character.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, he trusted the noble Lord would not proceed with the Bill, for it was doubtful whether it would obviate the inconveniences anticipated, and it might possibly act prejudicially both to solvent and to embarrassed companies. They might prevent by this Bill the seizure of rolling stock between this time and the 1st of August; but during that period debentures would require to be renewed; and it would be difficult to obtain an advance of money, even in the case of perfectly sound and solvent railway companies, when the nature of the security was in any possible doubt. If this Bill were passed, capitalists would naturally hesitate to advance money for the repayment of which the only practically available security had been placed in abeyance. If the whole law of debtor and creditor as regarded these large undertakings were placed in abeyance for some months, what security would capitalists have that it might not be altered again? The result, therefore, of the Bill would be to depreciate railway securities and to raise the rate of interest which lenders would require, and this might place in embarrassment many companies that were at present able to meet their obligations, by absorbing the margin which now existed between receipts and expenditure. Was the evil anticipated so great as to demand and justify so extreme a remedy and so doubtful a policy? He did not think the inconvenience to the public from the seizure of rolling stock could be so great as had been supposed, because the rolling stock was only available for use on railway lines, and adjoining lines having also rolling stock and the right to run over those lines would find it to be to their interest to prevent any stoppage of the traffic, when the traffic was worth carrying. There was hardly any case in
  120
  which adjoining railways had not a powerful interest in the traffic and interests of the principal lines, and which would not suffer proportionally by the seizure of the rolling stock and the stoppage of the traffic. Believing, then, that the Bill if passed would be a cause of great difficulty and embarrassment to solvent as well as insolvent companies, he urged upon the noble Lord seriously to consider the propriety of postponing the further progress of the Bill until the measure on the general subject before the other House of Parliament had come before their Lordships.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, after what had fallen from the noble Duke, and the general expression of opinion, he had no wish to press the Bill through Committee. He certainly, however, did not think that the measure was looked upon with an evil eye by railway companies generally. He should, therefore, assent to the withdrawal of the measure.
  EARL GREYthought that the noble Lord was perfectly right in withdrawing the Bill. He wished, however, to be in formed when it was likely the measure of the Government would be before their Lordships' House. Although he disapproved of the present temporary Bill, he nevertheless thought that the present state of the railway interests was such as to demand not only very grave but very prompt consideration. When they considered the many important questions to be disposed of by the other House of Parliament—considering that besides the financial business before them that House was also engaged in remodelling the Constitution—it appeared to him that there was very little hope of the general measure on this subject being speedily submitted to their Lordships. It was, he thought, to be regretted that that measure had not been initiated in their Lordships' House, when they would have had the valuable assistance of many noble and learned Lords who were thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and were great authorities upon it.
  Then the said Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  INCREASE OF EPISCOPATE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for enabling Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Successors to erect Three additional Sees in England, and for providing Assistance to Bishops disabled by Age or other Infirmity—Was presented by The Lord LYTTELTON; read 1a. (No. 51.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.