Sitting of 6 July 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland) Committee [No. 392J; Extradition [No. 393].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 3] reported—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class V.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Public Departments Payments *; Registration (Ireland) *.
First Reading—Public Departments Payments* [212]; Registration (Ireland) [213].
Second Reading—Portpatrick and Belfast and County Down Railway Companies [201]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act Amendment* [206].
Committee—Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (re-comm.) [63]—R.P.; Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) (re-cemm.)* [150]; Court of Justiciary (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [174]; Municipal Elections (Scotland)* [189]; Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment* [193]; Petit Juries (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [209]; Indorsing of Warrants* [208].
Report—Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [150]; Court of Justiciary (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [174]; Municipal Elections (Scotland)* [189–211]; Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment* [193]; Petit Juries (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [209]; Indorsing of Warrants * [208].
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Police Funds* [132]; Assignees of Marine Policies* [203].
Third Reading—Registration [190]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners* [168]; Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ireland)* [183]; Fairs (Metropolis)* [205]; Clerks of the Peace, &c. (Ireland) * [194], and passed.

Withdrawn—Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (1845
Amendment* [176].

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. PARRYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it be the intention of the Government to take any steps, during the present Session of Parliament, to carry out the recommendations in the Report of the Commismissioners appointed in November 1866, to inquire into the question of the accommodation of Public Departments?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in reply, that it was not the intention of the Government to take any steps during the remainder of the Session to carry out the recommendations of the Commission appointed to inquire in 1866 into the subject of the accommodation of Public Departments. It was, however, intended to give at the proper time the usual notices for the acquisition of property in order that there might be legislation in the ensuing Session.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK IMPROVE MENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he proposes to cut down any more trees near the monument to the late Prince Consort; if so, how many; and generally what are his intentions as to laying out Hyde Park in that neighbourhood?
LORD JOHN MANNERSstated, in reply, that he did not propose to cut down any more trees of the slightest importance in order to make a drive to the south of the Albert Memorial in Hyde Park this year. As to what was intended to be done generally with respect to the laying out of the Park in that neighbourhood, he could only repeat the answer he had already given to the right hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper). It was proposed to

717
make this year a drive to the south of the Albert Memorial, and it would be necessary to build anew lodge at the Exhibition Road Gate, as well as at the other side of Queen's Gate. There would, also, be a drive made from the Serpentine to the Exhibition Road. Those were the entire of the works with which it was intended to proceed this year. Next year it would, he thought, be necessary to take- a Vote for the purpose of re-laying and re-forming the ground to the north of the Albert Memorial.

IRELAND—IRISH RECORDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the volumes of original Orders of the Lord Lieutenant and Council, 1592–1615, and of Kings' Letters, obtained from the Philadelphia Public Library, will be sent to Dublin; and, whether these Papers are to be calendared in the series of Calendars of Irish State Papers, under the direction of the Master of the Rolls?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that the volumes of original Orders of the Lord Lieutenant and Council, 1592–1615, and of Kings' Letters obtained from the Philadelphia Public Library, were now in the hands of the bookbinders for the purpose of being handsomely bound. They would, he hoped, be ready to be sent to the Public Record Office in Dublin in a very short time. Copies would be taken for the use of students in this country There were other Papers of great importance relating to Ireland being calendared, and these would take precedence of the Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman's Question referred in that respect.

METROPOLIS—FINSBURY PARK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works, having power under "The Finsbury Park Act, 1857," to purchase 250 acres of land, have purchased only 130 acres; and, whether the said Board propose to sell for building purposes twenty acres of the reduced quantity—being nearly the whole of the frontages—whereby the benefit and use intended for the public will be further and most seriously prejudiced?
  MR. TITEsaid, in reply, that at the time when the Act was passed the Metropolitan Board were in rather happier circumstances than now appeared to be the case, inasmuch as Government had undertaken to defray half the cost of the Park. A very charming site was pointed out at Hornsey Wood House, where there was a beautiful lake with a very fine view. In consequence of the opposition of the House of Commons to the first Vote of £50,000 for the Park, the Board of Works had an extremely difficult task east upon them in the creation of a Park of such extent, as well as the keeping it up, as the whole expense fell upon the ratepayers. The subject was discussed at great length by the Board, and the result was that they determined to "cut their coat according to their cloth," and to purchase 130 instead of 250 acres. That they had done, and the ground was now being enclosed. The total expense incurred up to the present was £94,000, and the cost would exceed over £100,000 before the scheme was completed; in addition to which the Park would have to be kept up. Under these circumstances the Board had deemed it right to utilize portions of the land which lay at the lower part of the Park, and that might, he thought, be done without damage to the large area remaining, and the burdens on the ratepayers thus diminished.

TURKEY—RAILWAYS—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in support of the claims of English shareholders in Turkish Railways for the arrears of interest due under the guarantee of the Turkish Government?
LORD STANLEYreplied that requisitions had been addressed to the Porte at various dates on the subject. The latest of those representations bore the date of the 11th of June last, and to that there had not been yet time to receive an answer.

ARMY—WINDSOR CAVALRY BARRACKS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has seen the Report in the papers of the Sanitary Commissioners of the Lancet on the Windsor Cavalry Bar-

  719
  racks, and whether there is any truth in that Report as to the bad state of the Barracks?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he had seen the Report in question, which made very favourable mention of the Windsor Cavalry Barracks in some, although it complained of their condition in other respects. The chief points of complaint were the failure of certain modern inventions for the promotion of cleanliness, the absence of sufficient accommodation for the families of married men, and the want of water. As to the first point, he could only say that the inventions to which reference was made were not, he believed, always found to be successful. There were complaints on the subject last winter, and a medical officer, in conjunction with an officer of Engineers, had been sent to visit the different barracks to ascertain the real state of the case. The Report of those gentlemen had not, however, yet been received, and he could not, therefore, give a decided answer with respect to those mentioned. The complaint in reference to the accommodation provided for married soldiers he must say he looked upon as somewhat unreasonable. It was well to bear in mind the position occupied by married soldiers ten or twelve years ago, when they and their wives were obliged to occupy the same rooms with single men. During the last twelve years £240,000 had been expended in providing quarters for them; and the expenditure for the purpose of providing the married soldiers and their wives with separate rooms was going on at the rate of £30,000 or £40,000 per annum. It was now, however, made matter of complaint that a married soldier with a family of five or six children was not provided with two rooms; but he thought that single rooms ought to be provided before such complaints could fairly be indulged in. As to the want of water, he had merely to to state that the Windsor Barracks had a water company to supply them, and that he could not understand why they should suffer any inconvenience in that respect.

  ARMY—ARTILLERY PRACTICE AT DOVER, &c—QUESTION.
  MAJOR DICKSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that a Schooner had been struck in Dover Roads by a 68-pounder shot?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would cause inquiries to be made on the subject. He would also take the present opportunity of informing the House, with regard to what was reported to have occurred at Portsmouth a few days ago that a strict investigation was now going on under the superintendence of a General Officer.

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend Mr. DILLWYN, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that negotiations, contingent upon the passing of the Telegraphs Bill either in this or the next Session of Parliament, for the purchase of their interest in Telegraph Companies by the Government have been entered into by the Post Office authorities with certain Railway and other Companies, notwithstanding that a Select Committee of this House is now conducting an inquiry into the whole question of the expediency of the Government's taking up the Telegraphs; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of the suggested form of Agreement upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that agreements had been entered into with the telegraph and railway companies who were opposing the Bill, subject to the approval of the Select Committee. These agreements would be scrutinized by the Committee, and should they recommend the Bill the House would then, of course, have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon them.

REGISTRATION BILL— [BILL 190.]
(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir James Fergusson.)
REGISTRATION BILL— [BILL 190.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that he did not wish to retard the progress of the Bill; but he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question touching a decision given by the Court of Common Pleas on Saturday last. It would be in the remembrance of the House, that the

  721
  Representation of the People Bill was intended to enfranchise a very large class of persons who occupied parts of dwelling houses. By the decision which had been come to, it now appeared that a great number of those people were not liable to be rated nor entitled to the franchise. The effect of the decision would be to disfranchise not fewer than from 100,000 to 200,000 persons whom it was intended to enfranchise by the Act. In the borough which he represented, from 3,000 to 4,000 persons who had been rated, but who the decision stated had been illegally rated, would be disfranchised; and at Newcastle-on-Tyne, he believed, from 5,000 to 6,000 would be disfranchised in this way. Probably not more than half those who were to be enfranchised by the Act of last year would get the franchise within these boroughs. He presumed that it would be impossible to deal with the matter by the Bill now before the House, but to-morrow he would ask whether the Government would introduce a short Bill to give effect to what was undoubtedly the intention of the House when they passed the Reform Act last year, namely, to confer the franchise on the occupiers of parts of houses when separately occupied.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked whether there was any limit to the number of persons resident in one house who might be enfranchised under the provisions of the Reform Act of last year relating to lodgers? He was informed that in some places attempts were made unnaturally to crowd houses with a number of families which the houses were quite unable to contain properly, and this was supposed to be done with the view of giving the franchise to the residents in those houses.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he conceived that the question to be decided would not be how many persons were in a house, but whether the persons in it were or were not bonâ fide lodgers, and the only limitation was that each occupancy must be of the value of £10 a year.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he regretted that the Select Committee on this Bill, of which he was a Member, had not taken evidence as to the possibility of it being carried into execution without great inconvenience. He had suggested that some Revising Banisters, election agents, and other persons officially connected with the matter, should be examined; but this was negatived, and they had to proceed with very imperfect in-
  722
  formation. The question was whether this Bill would work properly. If it did not they would have a House returned that did not represent the country; and this would probably lead to there being an early dissolution. There would be an enormous crop of Election Petitions. He had heard Revising Barristers, returning officers, and election agents say that the system contained in this Bill would break down. A few nights ago he had a conversation with the town clerk of one of the great towns, and he said that the list could be prepared, no doubt, but it could not be done properly. He (Sir George Bowyer) also thought that it should be fully considered whether time should not be given for appeal to the Court of Common Pleas before the elections took place. November was the time for Municipal Elections all over the country; and the two kinds of elections taking place about the same time would produce much inconvenience and disturbance. The Municipal Elections would no doubt all be party fights, and the Parliamentary Elections would most probably be conducted with more than the usual bitterness. He should not, however, vote against the third reading of the Bill.
  Bill read a third time, and passed.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL. 63.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir Stafford Northcote.)
ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL. 63.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5 (To whom and by whom Election Petition may be presented).
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he strongly objected to the new procedure with regard to Election Petitions sketched out in this Bill. The remedy proposed with respect to corrupt practices was simply as to the mode of proceeding. It entirely destroyed the existing system, which retained the jurisdiction in Committees of the House, subject to the general supervision of the House itself, and gave it to a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. The remedy

  723
  proposed was utterly incomplete. The Bill did not deal cither with Scotch or Irish Election Petitions. With regard to about three-fourths of the Election Petitions—those relating to England—tho new procedure would be established, but all Irish and Scotch Election Petitions would continue to be tried by the same machinery which had been employed during the last 100 years. As regarded Ireland and Scotland, therefore, the grievance now complained of would remain unredressed. He had heard no answer to that objection. It went to the very root of the Bill. Surely if the Bill wore good at all it would be good for the whole of the United Kingdom. If the present procedure was radically bad—if the Committees were incompetent, and justice was not fairly administered, how could they maintain such a tribunal for the trial of Election Petitions from Scotland and Ireland? It was, indeed, said, to the credit of Scotland, that very few Election Petitions had come from that part of the country; but this did not hold true with regard to Ireland. So far as he recollected there had never been a General Election without several important Election Petitions from Ireland, and to avoid dealing with the Irish part of the case was really to shirk the whole question. The proposal in the Bill was to transfer the jurisdiction to a single irresponsible Judge unassisted by a jury and without appeal; but how would that work in Ireland? Would anybody propose that a single Irish Judge, an Orangeman, should decide as to the seat of a Homan Catholic Member, or that a Roman Catholic Judge should decide as to the seat of an Orange Member? What were the objections to the present tribunal? It was not alleged by anybody well acquainted with the facts that it was partial; during the last twenty years he had been Chairman of a very great number of such Committees, and he had a strong opinion that they did their best to try the question submitted to them with the greatest impartiality. Indeed, he believed their decision was very often against the party feeling of the majority. Since the numbers of the Committee had been reduced to five, speaking on the whole, there was no party colour in their decisions. Then what was the objection? It was not that they were partial or corrupt, but that they were more or less incompetent. They were often presided over by Gentlemen who had no legal training—who were not skilled in the law of evi-
  724
  dence, or capable of dealing with questions of complicated law and fact. Within moderate limits that was more or less true. No doubt there was a very powerful and vigorous Bar practising before Committees, and unless a Committee was presided over by one competent to deal with the case, the Bar, unfortunately, might prove too strong for it. But what was the remedy? Not to destroy the jurisdiction altogether—not to take it out of the House—not to abandon one of the privileges to which in old times their fathers attached the greatest value, and which hereafter might be of the utmost importance if it were maintained—but to try and improve the tribunal, and this was the object of the Amendment of which he had given Notice. The suggestion he had to make to the Committee was not one of his own devising. At his request a plan had been drawn up by an eminent Member of the Northern Circuit, Mr. Pickering, who had had large experience before Election Committees. Mr. Pickering said, "Don't take away the jurisdiction from the House, for the public has confidence in the honesty of the decisions of the Committees; but they distrust the skill and ability of those Committees to deal with the legal questions that come before them. Therefore make your remedy co-extensive with your want, by placing a skilled president at the head of a Committee of Members of the House, to be chosen by the Committee of Selection. Leave the decision of questions of fact still with the Committee. Let it consist of five Members without a Chairman, instead of four with a Chairman as at present. In order to abbreviate the duration of the proceedings, let the formal Notices necessary to enable them to get under way be shortened. When the Committee is appointed, call on one of the Judges from the Superior Courts to preside over it precisely as he would do at a trial at Nisi Prius, directing the Committee as to the law, and stating to them the issues they have to try, but leaving them to determine the question of fact precisely as if they were a jury. The decision of a tribunal so constituted would be received with respect." That was the scheme which he (Mr. Bouverie) ventured to set up in opposition to the proposal of the Government, which had been so many times altered since it was first laid before the House. He objected most strongly to the Government scheme, in the first place, be-

  725
  cause it proposed to leave the determination of these questions in the hands of a single irresponsible Judge. The questions which arose upon Election Petitions were not such as, under any circumstances, ought to be submitted to the decision of one mind, however skilled or however impartial. If the questions of fact could be submitted to a jury he should not so much object to the Government plan; and he did not see whence a better jury could be selected than from among their own body. A tribunal like that he had suggested would prove far more deadly to the Member petitioned against than that proposed by the Government, because Members of that House, when sitting on Election Committees, were in the habit of accepting, as proof of agency, connections between the principal and the agent which were too slight to be regarded as evidence by a strictly legal tribunal. The effect of passing this measure might be to make the practice less stringent than it was at present. It would be a grave matter to leave decisions in these cases to one man; for even if he were an angel of light his impartiality would be sure to be called into question. But we knew that Judges were not impeccable beings living in an etherial atmosphere, and never subject to motives, feelings, and partialities. The history of that country ought to satisfy hon. Members how dangerous it was to trust their privileges to the decision of one Judge. They should recollect that once having parted with their authority, however much they might impugn, the decisions of the Judge, they would have no power to remove him. A Committee, on the other hand, after deciding one particular case, was re-absorbed into the body of the House; and if its decision had been influenced by bias, possibly the next Committee might have a bias the other way, and so set matters straight. He once knew a distinguished member of the Western Circuit who, on retiring from the scene of his professional labours, said—
  "I have lost a great many cases I ought to have won, and won a great many I ought to have lost; and therefore, upon the whole, I think that justice has been fairly administered."
  Such a balance might, however, well be struck with reference to the political results of the decisions of Election Committees; whereas, if a Judge appointed to determine these cases were to permit his political feelings to influence his judgment it might be twenty or twenty-five years
  726
  before he could be succeeded by a more impartial person. Every person necessarily hold the English Judges of the present day in the highest respect; but what did those eminent persons themselves say with reference to the Government proposal. They all said, "Don't give us this jurisdiction—it would lead to our impartiality being impugned; we dread being intrusted with power like this, which we tell you we are not fitted to hold; and if you do intrust us with it, the character of the Bench for impartiality will be injured." But had there not been times when the impartiality of the Bench had been suspected, at all events in Scotland? He held in his hand an extract from the late Lord Cockburn's Memorials, which referred to the trials for sedition which occurred seventy or eighty years ago. That extract was as follows:—
  "I fear that no impartial censor can avoid detecting, throughout the whole course of the trials, not mere casual indications of bias, but absolute straining for convictions. … If ever there was an occasion when a Judge might have shone simply by being just, this was one. But the Bench was the place upon which political passions, not aggravated by the prosecution, and distressing to many of the jurymen, settled and operated. … If, instead of a supreme Court of Justice sitting for the trial of guilt or of innocence, it had been an ancient Commission appointed by the Crown to procure convictions, little of its judicial manner would have required to be changed."
  That was the opinion of a man of mature judgment upon the Bench. The Judge who presided over the Bench of Scotland at that time said on one occasion, "Let them find me the prisoners, and I will find them the law." They must not judge of the effect of the proposed change by what was likely to occur in ordinary times. The measure should be tested by the more trying occasions which had often occurred in Parliamentary history, and would assuredly occur again; he therefore asked the Committee to consider whether, under trying circumstances, it could rely on the unrestrained action of a single Judge inquiring into the question as to whether a given Member was entitled to his scat, for the Bill proposed to do nothing less than give power to a single man to expel a Member of the House, however distinguished he might be, and to incapacitate such a Gentleman from again, sitting in that House for a period of twenty-one years. What would have been Mr. Fox's fate in 1794 if his return had been subject to the decision of Lord Braxfield, the Scotch Judge? Did they

  727
  think he would have had the slightest chance of obtaining justice from the hands of that Judge, however good his title to the scat? He would have been excluded from the House. Another objection to the proposed change of jurisdiction was that it did not afford any increased means of protection against corruption. Royal Commissioners had power to extract truth from unwilling witnesses, and in that way to try the borough, but the Judges under the Bill would simply try a case as between plaintiff and defendant, and as soon as the Petitioner found enough had come out as against his opponent he would cease to produce evidence for fear of blackening the borough which he hoped to represent. This was what happened before the Committee now, and this was what would happen before the single Judge who would sit simply as a Judge at Nisi Prius. Was it, then, worth while giving up the jurisdiction only to change the Committee for a Judge? At present it was acknowledged that the worst cases of corruption never came before the House, and this desire for concealment would increase in the future, now that Totnes and its companion boroughs had been dealt with so severely. It was questionable, by the way, whether the House would have learnt as much of the corruption of Totnes as it had but for one peculiar circumstance. It happened that the competing candidate, instead of having the seat in view, was determined to ruin the borough; he accordingly produced witnesses who, under ordinary circumstances, would have been kept out of the way, and thus the Commission was informed in the freest manner of past corruption and the political condition of the borough. But the great cheval de bataille of those who supported the Bill had been the local inquiry. "Let us go to the spot and have a local inquiry" was in every one's mouth. But "local inquiry" was a phrase often used without consideration. If the Judge were empowered to act as an inquisitor, and able to hunt up every case smelling of corruption, a local inquiry would be worth something; but he had already shown that the Judge had no more power than a Committee, and would, therefore, be able to conduct as searching an inquiry in London as on the spot. Then, again, in many cases a local inquiry was not needed, and in many others it would be idle to attempt it. Of what use would local inquiry be when purely technical or legal points were to be dis-
  728
  cussed; and how could a county or a borough such as Shoreham be subjected to a searching local inquiry unless the Court perambulated and took evidence at each polling-place? It would be as expensive to bring witnesses to the country town as to London. A suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) deserved attention. Designing, he presumed, to secure inquiry as to the purity of a borough, the hon. Member proposed that every Election should be followed by a regular scrutiny of the poll-books by the Revising Barrister, and that the said Barrister should make a Return to that House. But was that a practical suggestion? Could such a scrutiny be carried out consistently with the speedy return of Members to the House? The hon. Member doubtless remembered the famous Westminster scrutiny in 1783 after Mr. Fox had been returned at the head of the poll. After two years' labour the scrutiny was declared incomplete, and it was said it would take another two years to finish it. Considering how many constituencies we have larger than Westminster then was, it would be at once apparent that if a scrutiny were to follow a General Election no one would know for years who was to sit in the House and who not. In conclusion, he looked with great dread on this proposal to sacrifice part of the ancient and valued privileges of the House; and this reluctance to part with a time-honoured jurisdiction was increased when he remembered that the present Parliament was about to come to an end. He deprecated the diminution of an inheritance which the House had received ungrudgingly from its predecessors, as if, forsooth, the Parliament of the future were to be deemed unworthy of privileges which this Parliament in its wisdom had used on the whole successfully. On these grounds he would vote against the clause with a view, if possible, to move the insertion of clauses embodying his scheme.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he could not help thinking the greater part of his right hon. Friend's speech would have come more appropriately on the Motion for the second reading. The main objections to the proposal of his right hon. Friend were—first, that he made no provision whatever for a local inquiry, and, next, that he made no provision for an inquiry when the House was not sitting. Now, those two provisions appeared to him to be the main points of the Bill,

  729
  and a measure which omitted them would hardly be worth passing. The House generally, he believed, was in favour of a local inquiry, and those who differed on many other points were agreed upon that one. A local inquiry was the most potent instrument for eliciting the truth, and, with such an inquiry, if a witness made a false statement he might be immediately contradicted, because another witness might be called on the spot. Many men who did not mind forswearing themselves before a Committee of that House would shrink from doing so before their fellow-townsmen. Moreover, a local inquiry would be attended with a diminished expense, because it would obviate the necessity of bringing witnesses to London, where they had a sort of Saturnalia. The expense of taking counsel to the spot would be very moderate. The fees of counsel formed but a small item of the cost. Anyone who looked through an attorney's bill would find the fact to be as he stated it. It had been said that it would be beneath the dignity of the House to part with that jurisdiction; but if they were to stand on the question of dignity he thought they would make about as great a sacrifice in consenting to be deposed from the position of Judges to that of juries as in being ousted of that jurisdiction altogether. Again, it was very doubtful whether the plan of his right hon. Friend would work; and, even if it would, it would not be worth while making so great a change unless they were to have a local inquiry, and also an inquiry when the House was not sitting. If, however, there was to be an inquiry on the spot, he held that that inquiry ought to be final, otherwise they would have two inquiries instead of one, with, of course, a double expense. If the inquiry was not to be final, to whom was the appeal to lie? If to a Committee of that House, the Committee would have the power of reversing, upon written evidence, a decision founded upon oral evidence—a result which would be most unsatisfactory. But if the local inquiry was to be final, it could not be intrusted to any tribunal but the highest. It ought not to be intrusted to barristers of ten years' standing, nor to County Court Judges, nor to Commissioners. It was said the Judges, in determining those questions, would not have the confidence of the country. But if the Judges would not have the confidence of the country, he should like to
  730
  know what tribunal would? The question resolved itself into this—either the House must retain its jurisdiction, in which case he could see material improvement of which it was capable, or the House must part with that jurisdiction; and he thought it should part with it only to the highest tribunal. It was asked, was a Judge to be the judge of a matter of fact? They all knew that Chancery Judges were judges of matters of fact. The Common Law Judges also had the power of deciding matters of fact, which they exercised occasionally, and exercised it, as far as his own observation went, very satisfactorily. In the Probate Court and County Courts Judges decided matters of fact daily. He believed that the inquiries to be instituted under that Bill would be the most searching ever yet instituted, and would prove a better instrument for checking corruption at elections than any which now existed. And why did he say so? Because they had been told by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) that no corrupt place could stand such an investigation. A place that could not stand it ought not to return Members. If, therefore, they refused to adopt such a measure the public might well question the sincerity of their desire to suppress electoral corruption. He wished that the inquiry should be made as stringent as possible, so that those boroughs which could not stand the test might be known. As to the objection that the Bill did not apply to Scotland and Ireland, let it be extended, if it was a good measure, to both those countries as well as to England. It appeared to him that this was an important clause in a valuable Bill. Its rejection would be fatal to the measure, and he therefore hoped the Committee would adhere to it.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he objected to the Bill as introduced by the Government, because it was an abdication of the jurisdiction which the House had exercised so long and so efficiently, and also because it was proposed to intrust that jurisdiction to a tribunal which, he believed, would be very inefficient. The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) argued that the House had abdicated its jurisdiction 100 years ago; but did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, because the House had thought fit to intrust that power to a component part of its own body, controlled by the House, elected by the House, and making its Report to the House, that was

  731
  the same thing as intrusting it to a person over whom the House had no control, and who was, in feet, nothing less than a nominee of the Crown? He presumed the House was to some extent committed to the principle of the Bill, and therefore he would record his vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). It might be said that there was a great objection to the present system, because the Chairmen of the Committees were not trained lawyers. He was prepared to admit that there was ground for that objection—that the law was laid down in one Committee-room differently from what it was laid down in other Committee-rooms, and that evidence which would be accepted by one Committee would be rejected by another; but these objections would, he believed, be removed by the Amendment now under consideration, because that Amendment, as he understood, proposed that questions of law should be decided by the assessors, matters of fact being left to a Jury of that House. He denied that all Judges entertained a willingness to be made judges of fact. He had the authority of an Equity Judge, recently a Member of that House, for saying that nothing more perplexed him than to have to decide questions of fact. It had been urged that by doing away with the proposed system of local inquiry the best portion of this Bill would be lost; but, for his part, he failed to perceive the advantages which were to be derived from local inquiries, which were generally, as they could see from what occurred at arbitrations, prolonged and expensive in their character. In favour of that proposal, however, it had been urged that the witnesses examined would be certain to tell the truth in the presence of their fellow-townsmen, and that they would be deterred by the gestures and murmurs of the bystanders—and he could scarcely refrain from smiling when he heard the Solicitor General employ that phrase—from stating that which was untrue. But at present in the County Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, and examinations before magistrates, we had these local inquiries, and it was not found in practice that the gestures and murmurs of the bystanders deterred the witnesses from committing perjury. He doubted, too, whether the advantages which would result from a speedy inquiry were so great as some hon. Members appeared to imagine, because experience had proved that
  732
  bribery and corruption were more easily traced after the lapse of some time, when political excitement had subsided and opportunity had been afforded for the passions aroused by electioneering contests to cool. For those reasons he should support the Amendment, believing that the alteration it proposed would remove the defects which existed in the present system, preserving in its integrity that portion of the present system which commanded the confidence of the House and the respect of the public.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he would not detain the Committee, but having taken the initiative in the Select Committee in endeavouring to prevent the total transfer of the jurisdiction of the House over these matters, he wished to state the course which he was prepared to take. He had certainly desired that the House should preserve its jurisdiction, and hand over its privileges unimpaired to the Parliament which was about to be elected by the enlarged constituencies; but both the Select Committee and the Committee of the House, having decided that the jurisdiction should be transferred, he was not prepared to imperil and delay the Bill by voting for any one of the numerous Amendments which were intended practically to reverse the decision at which the Committee had arrived. He thought there was something more important to the character of the House than the preservation of its jurisdiction—namely, that it should show the country that it was really in earnest in desiring to repress that bribery and corruption against which the Bill was aimed. In that view he should support the present clause, and should do all in his power to strengthen the hands of Government in passing as stringent a Bill as possible against those corrupt practices which were a scandal to the country.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he adhered to the objections which he originally entertained against this measure, objections which had been exceedingly strengthened by what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier). The hon. and learned Gentleman had argued that there must be one tribunal to decide those questions finally, and that it would never do to have any of the schemes by which the local inquiries were to be instituted subject to revision. The hon. and learned Gentleman had next said, "Why should

  733
  not a single Judge decide all matters of fact?" and had then gone over pretty-nearly the whole list of our judicial tribunals; but in no one of the cases referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman were important matters decided without there being a power of appeal. [Sir ROBERT COLLIER explained that he had intended there should be no appeal to the House.] Well, that was a very pretty I question indeed. For the last fifty years the object of the Legislature had been to remove these decisions from that House, and to bring them to be decided by a limited tribunal; because if they once came to the floor of that House, as sure as six and six made twelve they would be affected by political and party feelings. It was, no doubt, very possible to pick holes in any scheme, but the plan suggested by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Bouverie), at least, gave a jury, and Le was in favour of such a plan, because he believed that its advantages would over-ride the advantages to be derived from any system of local inquiry. The fact was that their minds had been run away with; owing to the results which had attended certain local inquiries held by barristers who had gone to the spot with indemnities in their hands. No doubt the expenses of witnesses coming to London were very heavy, but he should like to know what the cost would be of taking down to those places gentlemen learned in the law and Parliamentary agents? He had never had the pleasure of going through even a London inquiry, and therefore he did not feel himself competent to speak on the question of expense; he did, however, know that when high professional men were taken from the spot where they ordinarily pursued their avocations and were carried miles away, for an indefinite time, their charges were not apt to be light. And, more than that, those charges were not taxable. It was possible to confine the expenses of witnesses within reasonable limits, but the other gentlemen to whom he had referred were above all law, though they themselves were agents of the law. He had always expressed a strong opinion, and everything that had happened tended to confirm him in that conviction, that it was against the whole principle of our law to leave questions so important as these to be decided by a single man. He believed there was no precedent for it. He should, therefore, support the
  734
  proposal of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). This was a difficult subject, and notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had said, he considered it was the duty of the Committee to discuss and re-discuss the point until they arrived at a safe and satisfactory conclusion. He must again state that he preferred a jury to a single Judge with, power by his decision to brand a man with infamy.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he thought it was desirable that the discussion should not be complicated by a reference to all the various plans which had been suggested; and he should therefore address himself to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) as compared with the provisions of the Bill. His right hon. Friend contended that Committees of the House, as at present constituted, gave their decisions in Election cases with great impartiality, and he was not prepared to deny that such was the fact as far as the decision with respect to the seat and the existence of corrupt practices was concerned. Did a Committee of that House, however, he should like to know, ever find a Member guilty of bribery? ["Yes."] Not once in fifty years. But if it were proved that a candidate had deposited a large sum at his bankers, that he made no inquiry as to how it was expended, and that his recognized agents had laid out portions of it in bribing, would not any tribunal, except one composed of Members of the same class as himself, and who were liable to the same temptations, find him guilty of some kind of corruption? What he desired to see was a tribunal which would consider bribery which was tolerated by a candidate as if it had been committed by him, and that would not be done, he believed, so long as the decision rested with the House itself. The Amendment of his right hon. Friend would be an improvement on the existing state of things, but it failed in the essential condition of providing a local inquiry, and one that could be pursued when Parliament was not sitting. By means of a local inquiry the commission of offences could be much more easily detected than if the investigation were conducted at a distance. If local inquiry was of no advantage, what was the use of the Judges going circuit? The cases were precisely analogous. Although he thought that

  735
  the plan of the Government possessed a great advantage over that of his right hon. Friend, yet he was far from being disposed to place implicit confidence in the Judges. He could not forget that they had been politicians, and that they were sometimes thought to be politicians still. There was reason to believe that a recent charge in the Court of Queen's Bench would cost the Government several votes on the present Bill, though it would not cost them his. If, however, the Bill were passed as it stood, it would not be in the power of the House—as they had been reminded at an earlier stage of the debate by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)—after trying the experiment, to discontinue it without the consent of the other branch of the Legislature. Now, he thought it very important that the House should be able to put a stop to the experiment without any consent but its own, and he should therefore suggest that the operation of the Act be limited to two years. Under ordinary circumstances he should say five years, but having regard to the experience which they would at once have of the working of the Act, he thought two years sufficient. In the meantime we should have a most important General Election, and there would, in all probability, be a sufficient number of Election Petitions to give an ample trial of the experiment.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would not repeat the usual formula that he had no wish to prolong the debate; but he rose with a sincere desire to expedite, as much as possible, the proceedings in connection with the Bill. On a former night he had voted against the Motion for transferring the jurisdiction. As between the two pro positions before the Committee, though he was prepared to vote for the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), he had no desire to see a division take place. The question was not what was best in the abstract, but what was best under the circumstances, and the wisest scheme under all the circumstances of the case was, in his opinion, that which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). That plan provided for a local inquiry by means of attorneys of the House of Commons to be appointed by the Speaker, while it proposed but a very small innovation on the existing system. It also had the advantage of being easily revocable. There would be no great inconvenience
  736
  arising from its adoption or in receding from it afterwards in the event of its not being found to answer the purpose which the House had in view. He hoped, therefore, the Government would be disposed to look upon it with favour. If, however, they too strongly approved their own scheme to allow the adoption of that of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in its stead, then arose the question on what terms and conditions the Government proposal ought to be accepted. In answering that question the plan suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster Mr. Stuart Mill) was, in his opinion, well worthy of consideration. If the operation f the Bill were limited to two years, time would be given to see how it worked, and, f it did not work satisfactorily, the House of Commons would at the end of that time be enabled to reconsider its position with perfect independence. He trusted, under those circumstances, the Government would look upon the proposal of his hon. Friend as one which would tend very materially to diminish the difficulties of the case and one to which it would be well to assent. As to the apparent inconsistency which had been pointed out by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock in legislating as the Bill proposed for England and not for Scotland and Ireland, he would only say that the force of that objection would be greatly mitigated if the Bill were to have only a temporary operation. Besides it was quite plain that, in legislating, for England the House was legislating for that part of the United Kingdom in which the chief dangers and difficulties against which it was intended to guard must be held to lie; for in Scotland, be it said to her honour, bribery and intimidation were comparatively unknown, while in Ireland there was comparatively a narrow field with which to deal. If the Bill were limited in its operation to two years, a serious question would no doubt arise with respect to the appointment of the Judges under its provisions, and to provide for the absorption of those gentlemen on the first vacancies which might occur after a General Election, even within the term of two years, would, of course, be the absolute duty of the Government of the day, for it would be preposterous to appoint Judges with vested interests and entitled to pensions for life only for so short a period. He could not see why they should not be absorbed into the ordinary tribunals, for the judicial appointments under this Bill would be made

  737
  from the same class of men, and for the same qualities of character, capacity, and learning as the ordinary appointments of Judges. He had, in conclusion, simply to repeat the hope that the Government would consider favourably the proposals which he had mentioned, for it was desirable to get through the Bill with as little delay as possible, and to save it from the risk of miscarriage.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he hoped that the Government would be inclined favourably to consider the overture made to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone). The real pith of the matter would consist in the limited time now proposed by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill). But rather than not have any improvement, he would consent to adopt the plan of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie).
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill relating to Election Petitions from Ireland? If not, there would be two separate systems in operation with regard to the trial of Election Petitions; but he would seriously object to the application to Ireland of such a scheme as that under consideration. He was opposed to the principle of transferring the jurisdiction in Election matters from that House to any other tribunal.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the real question before the Committee was the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie); and, if that were carried, the Government would consider that the Bill had received a very considerable blow, which would be fatal, in his mind, to the whole Government proposition. It appeared to him that the best course to pursue would be to come to a decision on that Amendment. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) to limit the period during which the Bill should be in force, was one which deserved the consideration of the House; but it would be far more convenient if that question should be discussed on the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Westminster had given Notice. It would receive from the Government a candid consideration, but he was not prepared, upon the moment, to accept a proposal which really required much consideration. It would be a matter, open to
  738
  discussion, whether it was advisable to limit the duration of the Bill at all; and, if it were thought proper to do so, it would still be a question, whether the limit should be two years or the end of the next Parliament.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he preferred the Amendment of the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) to the clause in the Bill; but if he had an assurance from the Government that they would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), he would then willingly vote for the clause.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he felt disappointed at the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury; and he thought it incumbent on him distinctly to declare that he should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) with the intention of afterwards supporting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he wished to have a distinct answer to the question whether or not the Bill was to apply to Ireland? The Bill, as altered from the shape in which it was introduced, was an exceedingly bad one, and he should give it his decided opposition.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 127: Majority 77.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Regulations as to Presentation of Election Petition).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to have some explanation. The clause proposed that the Petition must be presented within twenty-one days after the return, unless it specifically alleged payment of the money subsequent to that period; and the Petition might then be presented within twenty-eight days after the date of such payment. The important question, therefore, would arise, whether a Member's seat should be questioned at any time during the continuance of the Parliament to which he was elected. But that was not the only question that would arise. Any number of Petitions might be presented—one after the other had been disposed of. First, there might be the general Petition, to be presented within twenty-one days; and when that was disposed of, another Petition might be presented, making some distinct charge of corruption within twenty-eight days of

  739
  the time of presenting the Petition; and that might be followed by a third Petition in reference to another corrupt payment, and so on. If a Member was thus liable to have his seat questioned, he would be in rather an unfortunate position as regarded his independence. There was no provision in the Bill which directed that after one Petition was tried no other should be presented. With the view of were distinctly raising the question, he should propose to omit in Section 2, from the word "unless" to the end of the clause.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had alluded to the provision in this clause, as though it was of a novel character; but, in fact, that proposition was an exact copy, in a statutory form, of the ordinary Sessional Order, passed at the commencement of each Session. It was introduced for the purpose of meeting the case where the sitting Member, in order to avoid being unseated, had deferred the corrupt payment until after the time for presenting an ordinary Petition had expired. It was most desirable that there should be nothing in the Rill to preclude the inquiry which could at present be made under the jurisdiction of the House, where those guilty of corrupt practices had deferred their payments.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he must beg to point out that, while the usual Sessional Order permitted Petitions to be presented from the date of the General Election to fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament, the present clause limited the time for presenting them to twenty-one days after the return of the Writ, so that however gross the corruption and bribery might have been, if the means of exposing it were not discovered within twenty-one days of the date of the return, it would be impossible to present a Petition, unless some subsequent corrupt payment was alleged. That confirmed him in the belief that the effect of the Bill would not be to promote the discovery of bribery and corruption, but quite the reverse; that considerable additional discouragement would be thrown in the way of its discovery and exposure. No doubt the chances of compromise would be lessened, but the question was whether such an advantage would be a compensation.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that in cases where the right to a seat was involved the clause directed that the Peti-
  740
  tion must be presented within twenty-one days after the return to the Writ. This was in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, who thought that the time now allowed—namely, fourteen days, was too short for the presentation of Petitions which simply claimed the seat. Where corrupt payments, however, were alleged, the Petition must be presented within twenty-eight days after the alleged corrupt payment was made. The clause did not deal with another class of Petitions, in which the question of the right to a seat was not involved, but merely the question of the existence of general corruption in a borough. Nothing that was contained in the Bill would affect the right of that House to appoint at any time a Commission to inquire into the existence of such general corruption; but as some doubt had been expressed as to the power of Commissioners appointed in such case, he intended to bring up a clause that evening to confirm the power of the House to appoint Commissioners for that purpose.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was at a loss to know what were the views of the Solicitor General with reference to the Bill. If they repealed the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, would they not give up the jurisdiction which they had by the law of Parliament, over questions of corruption at elections? If the House preserved its general jurisdiction in such cases, they ought to consider what would be the position of the Judges. He should like to know how much law the Judges on the one hand were to administer under this Bill, and how much jurisdiction the Members of the House were, on the other, to retain under their general laws? No doubt if, as the Solicitor General stated, the House reserved all its own power in the case of corrupt practices, and only gave a limited jurisdiction to the Judges, much of the objection to the Bill would be removed, but unless it was distinctly laid down in what cases the House would use its jurisdiction, the Judges would be placed in some difficulty.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the Select Committee had come to the conclusion that it was advisable to repeal the Act to which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had referred, because it had proved in operation to be futile with reference to inquiry into general corrupt practices; and it was therefore inserted in the Schedule. He proposed, in order to meet the objection which

  741
  he had mentioned, to bring up a clause which he believed would be found to meet all objections—
  "If, upon a Petition to the House of Commons presented within 21 days after the return to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery of a Member to serve in Parliament for any borough or county, or within 14 days alter the meeting of Parliament, and signed by any two or more electors of such borough or county, and alleging that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the then last election for such borough or county, and that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have there so prevailed, an Address be presented by both Houses of Parliament praying that such allegations may be inquired into the Crown may appoint Commissioners to inquire into the same, and if such Commissioners in such case be appointed they shall inquire in the same manner, and with the same powers, and subject to all the provisions of the statute 15th and 16th of Victoria' cap. 57."
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he could confirm the statement of the Solicitor General as to the Act referred to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets being inoperative. The Committee thought it hardly worth while to retain it on the statute book. Whether it were repealed or not was immaterial as regarded the inquiry under this Bill.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he must still contend for the accuracy of the view which he had expressed. He maintained that if they repealed the Act they would shut the door against all general inquiry into corrupt practices. He thought it should be struck out of the Schedule, otherwise more harm than good would be the result of the Bill.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would beg to remind the Committee that they were discussing matters which did not properly come under consideration at this time. If they desired to progress in this matter, it would be much better to confine themselves to the question immediately under consideration, which was whether twenty-one days were a sufficient time for the presentation of a Petition after a General Election, and twenty-eight days for a Petition complaining of undue influence and corruption. It was necessary to shorten the time if they expected two Judges to get through the work.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he believed that the time allowed was quite sufficient, inasmuch as the existence of bribery was pretty well known at the time at which it was committed. "With reference to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr.
  742
  Ayrton), it was scarcely advisable to retain a statute which never could work. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had, however, promised to bring up a clause on the subject, and that clause could be discussed at the proper time. He thought it would be better to postpone further discussion on the point until they came to the Schedules.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought a longer time than twenty-one days was necessary; because facts leaked out from the vexation and disputes which usually followed an election, and ample time should be given for them to come to a head. He was of this opinion, although he admitted that in some instances more than twenty-one days was practically given.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his experience had led him to believe that neither twenty-one nor twenty-eight days produced knowledge of bribery; whether bribery existed or not was always very well known while the election was in progress. Agents were on the watch, and kept their eyes on the forty thieves to be found in every borough [Mr. BOUVERIE: Not in every borough.], and the agents soon knew whether any of the forty thieves had been bribed. What remained unknown was the time and place when the bribery was committed, and that was only divulged in the committee-room, and very often not there.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. J. STUART MILLstated that as his three Amendments on this clause had been virtually disposed of, he did not propose to move them.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he thought that Notice of a Petition having been presented, should be required to be given to the constituency. He therefore moved, in line 16, after "prescribed," to insert—
  "And by sending a copy thereof, within the prescribed time, to the Returning Officer of the Borough or County to which the Petition relates, who shall forthwith publish the same."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobjected to the Amendment on the ground that it was inexpedient to multiply conditions precedent to a prosecution. The more they multiplied such conditions, the more opportunities they afforded for evading the jurisdiction of the Judges. There could, however, be no objection to a separate clause embodying the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he considered that it was essential that the constituency should be informed that a Petition was presented, because otherwise the thing might be kept perfectly quiet and the constituency might know nothing about it.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he approved of the Amendment, but thought it should be proposed as a new clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he thought the amount of security mentioned in the clause might be too small in many cases. He desired to give power to increase the security required of the petitioner above £l,000, and, therefore, he moved in line 27, after the word "of," to insert the words "not less than."
  MR. CLAYsaid, he thought the suggestion a good one, but doubted whether it could be carried out by the Amendment.
  MR. POWELLsaid, that his proposal involved another Amendment in the next clause.
  MR. NEATEthought £1,000 sufficient security.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he felt there was danger of preventing Petitions if too high a security were required.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he hoped the Government would insert "£2,000." He spoke feelingly on that subject. He had no idea of men of straw being allowed to harass Members by attacking their seats without the slightest excuse for doing so. That system was practised in order to carry on that great abuse the pairing off of one Petition against another.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that in the case of men of straw it would be all the same whether they were made answerable for £1,000 or £2,000.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, that if the object of the Bill was to prevent bribery and corruption, they ought not to impose these penalties—for they were nothing else but penalties—upon petitioners who might be poor electors, who had themselves suffered from such corrupt practices. It ought not to go forth to the world that unless such persons could produce £1,000, or could get somebody else to be answerable for that amount—supposing they should fail in establishing bribery—they would be precluded from coming forward to expose or punish if. There
  744
  ought to be some public officer whose duty it should be to investigate in the first instance whether there had been bribery and corruption in any particular constituency. Provision ought to be made to punish the man who got up a Petition to serve private purposes.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Recognizance may be objected to).
  MR. J. STUART MILL MR. J. STUART MILL moved, to add at the end of the clause the words—
  "And the respondent making any such objection shall be required to serve notice of it, precisely describing the ground of it, on the Petitioner, or on all the Petitioners, if more time one, within the said prescribed time, not exceeding five days."
  They ought not to discourage, but rather to facilitate the presentation of Petitions, and petitioners ought to have such warning of any objection taken to their sureties as would enable them, if any mistakes had been made, to rectify them.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
  "And the respondent making any such objection shall be required to serve notice of it on the Petitioner, or on all the Petitioners if more than one, within the prescribed time not exceeding five, days."—(Mr. Mill.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the present practice in that matter worked very well, and he thought the use of the word "precisely" in the Amendment would not add much to its efficacy, while it might raise numerous questions in regard to every one of the notices served.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he had no objection to omit from his Amendment the words "precisely describing the ground of it," but he thought that notice of objection ought to be given.
  After a few remarks from Mr. CANDLISH, Mr. Serjeant GASELEE, and Mr. NEATE,
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved, that all the practice was to be prescribed by rule of Court, and he thought they might trust to the Court to see that proper notice was given.
  MR. P. WYKEHAM-MARTINsaid, that while hon. Members were anxious to give facilities for presenting Petitions in every possible way, they ought not to forget that there were such things as poor candidates. He would mention the in-

  745
  stance of a former Member of that House who had been petitioned against, and who rose in his place and stated upon his honour that he had a good defence to make, but that he was unable to raise the necessary £1,000 for the purpose. The consequence was that he was obliged to give up his seat.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he was also of opinion that too great facilities should not be given to men of straw, low attorneys, and villains of all kinds, who might desire to get up Petitions against men who might have been returned by a good majority. For his own part he looked upon bribery as a most heinous offence, and would not allow a single farthing to be expended on his behalf that might not appear in the auditor's books; but then he knew from his experience how vexatiously Petitions were sometimes presented against particular returns. The House should bear in mind that there was such a thing as an honest candidate, and should not seek to favour only petitioners and sureties, who very often were men of straw. In his own case, a Petition had been presented against him by two persons, one of whom became bankrupt, and the other went to the Continent in order to avoid being mulcted in costs. An offer was made to withdraw the Petition if he would not insist upon costs; but to that he refused to assent. Ultimately the Petition was not prosecuted. The costs in that case amounted to between £200 and £300, which was no light sum f for a man of moderate means to lose through being called upon to defend his seat before a Committee. How much greater the expense might be if a man were called upon to defend his seat at a distance from London he was not prepared to say. He thought that the proposed Amendment too much lost sight of the case of the honest candidate.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERthought the object of the hon Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) a very excellent one, but it was met by the clause as it stood.
  VISCOUNT AMBERLEYsaid, that though there was great force in what had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman), yet it must be remembered that there was also a great hardship on the other side; and it appeared to him that the hon. Member for Westminster was right in proposing to facilitate as much as possible the presentation of Petitions.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he was fully aware of the evil to which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) referred. He believed that there were nearly as many dishonest Petitions as there were corrupt elections. But the remedy for this evil must be taught independently, and not by rendering bonâ fide Petitions expensive and difficult.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 85: Majority 54.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Determination of Objection to Recognizance).
  MR. POWELLproposed to insert the following words after "mentioned," in, line 12—
  "Or if proof be not given in manner prescribed that the notice of the presentation of the petition and of the nature of the proposed security has been duly sewed as hereinbefore provided."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought facilities ought not to be given by which men of straw might, from improper motives, present Petitions against the return of Members. The effect of this clause would be where the security required was insufficient that a London Club would be got to advance the £1,000. Now, as the money would be spent in that locality, and the Judge would bring a train with him, it would be the direct interest of those living on the spot to get up such an inquiry. He moved the omission of the words relating to the deposit of the money.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, did not see that any injustice would be done by allowing the petitioner, instead of giving security, to deposit a sum, of money.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he hoped the House would not encourage frivolous Petitions. He intended to move a Resolution requiring that a certain number of persons should unite in every Petition.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must point out to hon. Members who talked so much about men of straw, that the clause was framed to provide against such persons coming forward with Petitions, by requiring them to deposit a considerable amount of money by way of security. By the law, as it at present stood,

  747
  a candidate might enter into his recognizances with a sum of money.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he thought that the proposal of the Bill was in point of fact equivalent to a revival of the old custom of straw bail. With a view to prevent unjust and frivolous Petitions being fomented, he should support the Amendment.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. The object was that the party petitioned against should have good security, and no security could be so good as the actual deposit of the money.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (CLAUSE A.—Appointment of Judges for Trial of Election Petitions).
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that the time had now come when the Committee would expect to hear from the Prime Minister whether he agreed with the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) that the Bill should be in operation for a limited period only. He (Sir Roundell Palmer) had always doubted the wisdom and policy of the Bill. Those who, like himself, regarded the Bill with disfavour would prefer its being looked upon in the light of an experiment; but, on the other hand, there was no disguising the fact that if at the end of the time determined on it were not thought advisable to continue the measure, the two Judges who were to be appointed under the Bill would be left without any functions to perform, and must, of course, be ultimately merged in the general body of the Judges. Whether or not an increase in the number of our Judges was necessary was a very important question, but one which it was scarcely their province at that moment to determine. A Royal Commission had been recently appointed to inquire into the subject, and it would not be right to anticipate their decision by something incidentally arising in this Bill. He hoped the Commission would recommend something acceptable to the country. He had a great objection to special jurisdictions, and he thought that if new Judges were to be appointed they should form part of the present body. If two Judges were to be appointed specially for this jurisdiction, he doubted whether two men could be found who would in every respect command the confidence of the public; and if, by any chance, the Judges elected should not prove
  748
  acoeptable to the country, if their decisions should not be viewed with public favour, Parliament would be in the unfortunate position of having intrusted to these gentlemen the power, without the intervention of a jury, and without appeal, of dealing with matters of the highest importance, and of attaching by their decisions in many cases a stigma which must last for seven years, and which at the least amounted to political disfranchisement for that period. The Judges chosen for this purpose would not be taken from the general body in rotation. However incompetent or unqualified for the duty they might be, when once they were appointed to the post their decisions must be submitted to without chance of redress. All the Judges were not held in equal regard by the public. They did not all in an equal degree give satisfaction to the public. Moreover, the defects and infirmities of particular men selected for the discharge of special duties would appear more prominently and be more remarked than those of men who had to perform only ordinary duties. There should therefore, be an interchange of this special work with the ordinary duties. The one would, as now, act as a set off against the other. Honesty and integrity were the characteristics of our Judges, and he hoped nothing would be done that would tend to impair public confidence in them. He had, also, some objections to the wording of the clause, which, for instance, empowered Her Majesty to appoint "any number of persons not exceeding two." These "Honorary" Justices would be in the same position as to salary as the other Judges, and they were to be styled "the Honorary Justices of the Court of Common Pleas," with which Court they were to have nothing to do except in name. Why the Bill should fix them in a Court to which they did not belong, and probably take them out of their own Court to do so, he could not understand. They were to be in other respects in a higher position than the other Puisne Judges, because they were to be Privy Councillors, and they were to sit as Judges in the Court of Exchequer Chamber or in any other Court of Error or Appeal from the superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster. It appeared to him that, if Parliament were about to make a superior order of Judges to exercise a higher jurisdiction, it would be better to call them by a name that would distinguish them in conformity with

  749
  the duties given to them. It might be said that the Petitions were to be presented to the Court of Common Pleas, and that therefore the Honorary Justices ought to be called Judges of that Court. But he denied the consequence. If these Judges were not numerous enough, and it became necessary to take other Judges to assist, them who were not Justices of the Court of Common Picas, it would be absurd to call them so.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he thought they ought to be Judges who had held the office of Judge for five years.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was always contemplated that they should be Judges of this standing.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it would be better to add two Judges to the number of the present Judicial Bench, or to the Court of Common Pleas, if that were thought preferable, leaving for after selection the two Judges for the particular duty under this Bill; so that if the system should not be found to work well, those Judges would merge into the Court as vacancies occurred, and we should return to our present starting point. This plan would involve no disturbance of the ordinary organization. The new Judges would sit at chambers, go circuit, and take the usual part in the Exchequer Chamber. They would act as Assessors to the House of Lords, or assist in the Court of Probate and Divorce, the Court of Chancery, & c. When an Election Petition was presented to the Court of Common Pleas, there would be the advantage of seven Judges to choose from instead of two. Then comes a larger question. He wished the Committee to ask themselves how the Judges were going to try these Petitions? According to past experience the number of Petitions after a General Election would be about forty. Many hon. Members who were favourable to the Reform Bill of last year believed there would be a great many more Petitions in the next Parliament; and the present measure appeared to have originated in the fear and belief that corruption would be increased, and that the next, House of Commons could not safely be intrusted to discharge the duties which the present House performed. Supposing that there were as many Election Petitions at the next election as in times past, how were these two Judges to try forty cases? How long must they sit to enable them to do so? It would be necessary to have
  750
  have-a-dozen Judges or more to conduct these inquiries, and it was therefore better that there should be no distinction between the Judges. There was something very objectionable in the selection by the Crown, on the eve of a General Election, of Judges who were to sit upon Petitions against the return of Members of that House. He hoped the Government would repudiate the invidious position which would be given them under the Bill. He hoped that, instead of having a special tribunal, they would give jurisdiction to all the Judges indiscriminately, and leave it to them to decide who should try these petitions, as they now decided in regard to circuits. In order to raise the question, he would move the omission of all the words after "exceeding," in page 4, line 26, leaving it to the Solicitor General to make such an addition to the clause as would carry out the object he had in view.
  Amendment, proposed, in page 4, line 26, to leave out from the word "exceeding" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. KARSLAKEsaid, he concurred in the opinion that the two Judges to be appointed should be added to the judicial Bench and exercise a general jurisdiction, it being undesirable that they should have special and exclusive functions. He would suggest a proviso that they should take office subject to the future determination of the Mouse as to what their duties should be. This would not interfere with any of the very valuable provisions of the Bill.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, that as the transfer of jurisdiction had been determined upon, all that remained was to carry it out in the best manner. He did not think it would be desirable to give the two additional Judges to the Court of Common Pleas; because if such a course were adopted the Judges of that Court might appear to be selected exclusively for that office. In his opinion it would be better that an additional Judge should be appointed both in the Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, and if it should be thought necessary in the Court of Exchequer also, so as to assist the present judicial Bench in their ordinary duties, and the Puisne Judges should take these Election Petitions in turn.
  MR. DENMANpointed out that if no two of the fifteen Judges could be found to undertake this jurisdiction—a contingency not unlikely to be realized—the whole thing would come to a dead-lock,

  751
  the Bill containing no compulsory powers. It was only on the two Judges who undertook the office not being able to get through the work that the other part of the Bill came into play. He shared in the objection that had been made to the establishment of a separate Court; but if they did not take that course, they would impose duties on the Judges which they did not desire to accept. He objected to a single Judge deciding these cases, and also to the 19th clause, which allowed evidence of bribery to be gone into prior to proof of agency. He recommended the Government to postpone the clauses for a day or two, and then bring in a better scheme.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that if the Committee were compelled to listen to long speeches on subjects already decided on, very little hope of making Progress could be entertained. He rose simply to disclaim the notion suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) as that which prompted supporters of the Bill. As a Member of the Select Committee which considered the Bill of last Session, he assured the Committee that the recommendations made were founded, not on fears for the future, but on experience of the past. The Select Committee was satisfied a change was needed, but that no change would be effectual unless the jurisdiction were removed from the House. He was bound to say he preferred the scheme of his hon. and learned Friend to the scheme of the Bill, which he would support merely as superior to the present system. He thought there were great objections to the Minister of the day choosing the Judges who were to fill the office. He was in favour of adding to the Judges, and leaving the work with them as a body, on the understanding that the Judge for the occasion would be selected by a rota. The only objection he could conceive to the scheme was the antipathy to it expressed on the pan of the Judges themselves. But if that proposal were not adopted he should support the Bill, because he was unwilling to lose the chance of effecting a great reform from a desire to carry a still larger reform. They were all aware that the Bench was at present under-manned, and independently of any considerations connected with that subject, it was desirable that its strength should be increased. Perhaps some changes in that respect would be suggested by the Commission now in-
  752
  quiring into the subject; this question, however, could not be postponed until that Commission had reported.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that if he could not get a better measure he should support the Bill, because he believed that; human ingenuity could not devise anything worse than the system under which Election Petitions were at present tried. He thought, however, that the whole of this jurisdiction ought not to be given to the Court of Common Pleas, but that an additional Judge should be appointed to each of the Common Law Courts. These Judges ought to go circuit, and do all ordinary business. The Judges on whom the trial of Election Petitions should devolve should be appointed by rota or ballot. According to the plan of the Government two gentlemen who were distinguished, not for their learning, but for their party spirit, would be appointed to try Election Petitions, and nobody would be satisfied with them. As he had said some months ago, he believed the whole of the Judges would undertake this work if they were coaxed a little. On that point he spoke with some authority, for although he had not the honour to be a Judge himself, he was a Judge's son, and he would say that the Judges were a little underpaid. Till very lately the Judges had £5,500 a year, but now they received only £6,000 a year; that was to say, no more than a Vice Chancellor, who had not to pay the expense of going circuit. If £500 were added to the salaries of the Judges all this difficulty would be overcome.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would remind the Committee that the Judges objected to the work being thrown on them as a body, because it would entail odium on them and depreciate their authority in matters of greater importance. Everyone was interested in the purity of the Bench and the authority it exercised. It was a strong argument against change of jurisdiction if no one could be found competent to take it. He believed, however, that if special Judges were appointed to the Election Petitions jurisdiction, perfectly qualified persona could be found to fulfil the functions.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the first objection taken by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was that the Judges whom it was proposed to appoint would be improperly named, and besides this he made a verbal criticism by way of ob-

  753
  jection that they should be called Judges of the Court of Common Pleas. But inasmuch as the Committee had already determined that the Petitions should be presented to the Court of Common Pleas, as every preliminary step was to be taken in that Court, as the Masters of that Court were the officers who were to carry out the Act, and when a Judge actually tried a Petition he would require to have all the powers of a Judge of that Court at Nisi Prius, it was thought better that he should be called a Judge of the Common Pleas, and there was a provision in the Bill to give him all the powers which he would have as a Judge of that Court. Then he came to the main objection, which was that it was proposed to appoint two Judges, and it was said that the original plan recommended by the Select Committee, that the matter should be left to all the Judges, was far preferable. That might be so or it might not, but the Committee ought to consider that if they departed from the plan at present embodied in the Bill and attempted to go back to the scheme against which such strong remonstrances had been made by the Judges—remonstrances which had not been withdrawn—they would be in the greatest possible danger of losing the Bill. It might be all very well to say that they could carry the Bill by majorities in that House but if the Judges persisted in their remonstrances there would probably be resistance in "another place" at their instigation, and he could not help thinking that it would greatly jeopardize the Bill. Now, what was the great difference between the plan inserted in the Bill and the plan of the Select Committee? It was true that by the Bill as it stood at present two Judges were to be appointed, who were to be peculiarly Election Judges. But by a clause, which, though not forming part of the Bill at present, could be easily introduced, it might be provided that in times of pressure there should be power to call upon the other Judges to assist in the trial of Petitions. In this way, there would be two Judges who would have the management of Election Petitions at ordinary times, and who would be very useful in instituting the forms of procedure, and getting the Court into working gear, a thing which was always very difficult at first; and after a General Election, when the number of Petitions to be tried was very large, the other Judges, or at least a great part of them, might render assistance. The only difference between the
  754
  two plans was this—that, according to the scheme embodied in the Bill, they would have two Judges specially appointed for the purpose of managing the general business of the Court with regard to Election Petitions, and of trying some of the Petitions. Now it was no fair argument against the plan to misstate what the consequences would be, as when it was said that the Government would have the power before a General Election of selecting and appointing two Judges. But the Judges were to be appointed, as all Judges were, upon the responsibility of Ministers and by Patent from the Crown, and, according to an Amendment which had been accepted, they were to be persons who had acted as Judges for five years. They would, therefore, have been removed from all political connection for five years, they would be persons in whom the country had learnt to confide, and they would be irremovable. The public would have in. their case everything that had given the country confidence in its other Judges, and, therefore, it could not fairly be said that they would be appointed for political purposes, and open to political influences. The only question to be tried was whether a person had been bribed or not, and he did think it a stigma upon the Judges to say that Judges who had been appointed Judges for five years could not be got who would not be liable to the imputations of corrupt motives. ["No, no!"] His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton. (Mr. Denman) said "No." He did not intend to say that his hon. and learned Friend meant to cast such an imputation on the Judges, but his argument went to that extent. It had been objected that when these Judges were not engaged in trying Election Petitions they would be perfectly idle; but the 12th clause provided that when they were not engaged in trying Election Petitions they might be performing other duties most useful to the country, which would give them ample employment and be of material assistsnce to the other Courts. The only duties they would not have to perform would be the going on circuit and sitting in chambers. The only other objection taken by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was that these Judges would be constantly trying Election Petitions, and would have no interchange of duties. But if that was an objection it applied with equal force to a great many other Judges. The Judges in Chancery had no inter-

  755
  change of duties, the Judge of Probate and Divorce, who gave general satisfaction to the country, had no interchange of duties. The question, then, really was whether they would pass this Bill, or now, on the 6th of July, go into some virtually new Bill of which they knew nothing. He would strongly urge on the Committee that they would do well to accept this Bill.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that the speech of the Solicitor General might be divided into two parts—argument and menace. And first as to the argument. He did not think that his hon. and learned Friend could gravely contend, if they were to sit down to devise the best system for trying Election Petitions by Judges, that this Bill would be found to contain it. Her Majesty's Government hardly thought so, and he was very unwilling to press on them, because he thought that in this matter they had shown a great and sincere wish to carry out the Report of the Committee. He wished, therefore, to speak with all moderation of their conduct on this question. Many reasons might have led them to take the course which they had adopted; and he did not mean to say that this scheme, lame and imperfect as it was, would not be better than losing the Bill altogether. But when the scheme was argued on its merits—when it was put as a matter not of threat but of reason—he must demur to what his hon. and learned Friend had said. For what could possibly be worse than to pick out two persons on whom the eyes of all persons likely to have business coming before the Courts would be fixed, and who were inevitably to decide on these matters? Let those persons be ever so moderate—let them be the perfection of carefulness, prudence, and impartiality—they would not escape all manner of censure and cavil. Then there was another question, which was, that when they created a tribunal for a particular purpose there ought to be some reasonable proportion between the powers of the tribunal and the duties it would have to perform. Now, how could it be supposed that two Judges could try a tenth part of the Petitions after a General Election? It was clearly ridiculous to suppose that the means provided had any sort of relation to the end to be attained. Well, that had been foreseen, and it was provided against; because the two Judges who were to be specially marked out from the rest of their brethren as political persons, whenever they found that they had
  756
  more to do than they could do, which would always be the case after a General Election, were to certify that fact. They might as well be required to certify that they could not lift three tons. And then what would happen? The House objected to Select Committees for the trial of Petitions on the ground that they were appointed by partizans from among partizans, and that, however pure they might be they did not escape suspicion. But what was to happen in this case? These Judges, having certified a notorious fact, Her Majesty's Government—who were of all people in the world those who had the greatest reason to wish Election Petitions to be decided in a particular way—were to appoint other persons to assist them. Now, if you wanted to subject two honest and upright men to suspicion and obloquy, and if you wanted to discredit the Government who appointed them, you could not hit upon a more certain way of attaining this end. He felt confident that every Judge would, to the best of his knowledge and understanding, do his duty; but it was necessary that our tribunals should be not only upright, but unquestioned; and that they could never be if this proposal were persisted in. He appealed to the Government, who had been driven into their present course by circumstances beyond their control, to take into consideration the unanimity which prevailed on this subject both in the House and in the Committee. Such unanimity gave the Government fair reason for re-considering the question. In a matter of this vast constitutional importance neither the Government nor the House could suffer themselves to be influenced by the motives which had been suggested. They were told that they had not got the consent of the Judges. He could only say that the House of Commons must not regard the consent of the Judges. If they were Judges in their Court, this House, as a constituent part of the Parliament of this country, were Judges in this Court; and when Parliament had given its decision, the Judges were bound to obey, just as every litigant was bound to obey their decisions. It was due to the Judges that the most careful consideration should be given to all they alleged, and that they should not be overweighted by duties; at the same time Parliament was bound to consider the public interests, and not allow itself to be swayed by personal considerations. A great evil was

  757
  to be dealt with. Parliament stood between the present and the future, and must do the best it could to purify our electoral system. It was not to be endured that in discharging this duty they should be prevented from doing what they honestly believed to be right by apprehensions of what might happen "elsewhere." Let this House do what it thought right, and let the other House be responsible for any course it might choose to take. These matters were too important and too sacred to admit of a compromise. This House was bound to act as it thought best for the public interest, and to speak as men entrusted with the consciences of the people, not leaving it to be supposed that they thought so poorly of the rights confided to them by their constituents as to create an inferior machinery for dealing with these questions when they were capable of devising a much better tribunal. He hoped the House would not swerve one hair's breadth from what they believed to be the right path on account of any such considerations as had been presented to them. They should do their duty, and leave the House of Peers to do theirs. It seemed to him that the proper course would be to authorize the appointment of three new Judges, who should be in no way earmarked or distinguished from the rest of the Judges—who should sink into the general body of Judges, and exercise the same duty as their fellows in the different Courts. Parliament ought to provide that they should in some general way arrange a rotation in which they should perform these duties; and they should be subject to any arrangement Parliament might decide upon hereafter when the Commission for the re-constitution of our judicial system presented their Report. He hoped that the same Judges would not try a number of Petitions. That should be specially avoided. Each Judge should have a Petition to try, so that there should be no pretence for fixing peculiar odium upon any one Judge, but they should return to their respective Courts as little noticed as possible. This was the feeling of the Committee; it was the feeling of the House; and he hoped still that it might be the feeling of the Government.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, on the 6th of July the right hon. Gentleman and many Members of the Committee have arrived at a conclusion which was originally adopted by the Select Committee, and which the Government approved in the
  758
  Bill they brought forward. That was probably on the 6th of February, and I think it is much to be regretted that so long a period should have elapsed without the Committee having expressed in a very distinct manner their opinion on the subject. I cannot agree that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General addressed any menace to the Committee. I think his suggestions were prudential. If we are anxious to carry a Bill we must consider in what form it will be practicable to carry it. Now, remembering the effect which the manifesto of the Judges had upon the opinion of the House of Commons, I do not think it is to be looked upon in the light of a menace, if we suggest that it is not improbable that their representations may have some influence upon the opinions of the other House of Parliament. I am not prepared to run this risk. I preferred the scheme proposed by the Select Committee, and I preferred the Bill which I submitted to the House. But if not with the unanimous consent, it was with the very general consent of the House that the Government adopted the modified course which they pursued upon this subject. At this period of the Session I am not prepared to adopt the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe). Though I myself am not ready to deny their justice and their propriety, I must look to attaining the greatest amount of benefit I can attain under the difficult circumstances with which we have to contend, and therefore I must ask the Committee to express their opinion upon this clause. As to the inquiries which have been addressed to me, and to which the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) has referred, whether I would agree to pass this measure for a limited period, one great objection to such a course, if we did not adopt the plan suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, is this—where should we get the capable officers who would administer this Bill? I must act, therefore, with the greatest reserve before deciding upon this question. But that is not the point we are called upon to decide, which is the clause before us; and, believing that upon the whole the course we are asked to take is a dangerous one, I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he did not think that the speech of the Solicitor General contained anything like menace. He had

  759
  merely suggested that if the Bill were altered in a fundamental point the protest of the Judges might induce the Lords to reject the Bill. If two or three months back there had been a Motion in this House to keep to the Bill originally proposed by the Government and disregard the protest of the Judges, he should have agreed to that Motion; but, in acceding to the second reading of the present measure, the House of Commons virtually agreed to the plan of the Government, and he should, therefore, support them in this instance.
  Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 136: Majority 65.
  MR. DISRAELI: It was originally intended to report Progress about this period of the evening, and the decision which the Committee has arrived at is an additional reason for doing so and affording the Government an opportunity to consider whether they can meet the exigencies of the case. I cannot conceal from myself, although I do not say it by way of menace, that I have great difficulties to contend with.
  MR BOUVERIEsaid, there was a clause upon the Paper drawn up by himself which expressly made the provision that three Judges should be appointed. If the Committee adopted that clause, it would give effect to all that was implied in the decision just come to. It would be a great convenience to all those who were most sincerely anxious to support the Government in passing this Bill if a day were fixed for resuming the consideration of it.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, it would be a great convenience to those who wished to support the Government if the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, would let them know on what day he would go on with the Bill.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that in his opinion the case presented no difficulty for the Government at all, as the Committee had by its decision reverted to the original Government plan of employing all the Judges. The opinion of the House had been at first unfavourable to this idea, but it now appeared that they were willing to adopt it.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to name the earliest day on which
  760
  he would proceed with the Bill. The majority of Members had come to the conclusion that a change was desirable, and they had indicated the direction in which it was desired. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to complain of in the conduct of the Opposition or of the House generally. All that was wished was that he should bring in the Bill he originally introduced.
  MR. DISRAELI: I must give the same answer both to the hon. Gentleman, opposite and to the hon. Gentleman near me. The Committee has not yet agreed to report Progress, and therefore it is quite premature to make the inquiry.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he thought the situation a very simple one. The Government paid to the protest made by the Judges the respect to which it was entitled, and they had altered their Bill. The House of Commons also, out of respect to the Judges, offered no objection to the Government bringing forward a new scheme. Its difficulties, however, were apparently so great, as were the disadvantages of any plan except that which the Government first recommended, that the House had wisely determined to revert to the original plan of the Government and to increase the strength of the judicial Bench by the addition of three Judges. He had far too much respect for the Judges of the country to believe that they would persist in the objection they had made.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

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

THE NEW ZEALAND MEDAL.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he regretted that he was absent on Friday evening when the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield) drew attention to the propriety of granting a medal to the men who were engaged in the New Zealand War. He wished to take this opportunity of stating that it was their intention to grant a medal to the soldiers and sailors engaged in that war.
ARMY—WARLIKE STORES.

  RESOLUTION.
  MAJOR ANSON, in rising to move a Resolution on the subject of our Expenditure on Warlike Stores, said, he felt bound to call the attention of the House to this subject in consequence of the enormous amount which our expenditure for Warlike Stores had now reached. Since the close of the Crimean War we had expended on this single item no less than £19,000,000, while £4,000,000 had been voted over and above the amount actually expended. From the confused manner in which the accounts were made up, it was impossible to arrive at any but very indefinite ideas respecting any particular item. In this respect our system of accounts presented a roost disadvantageous contrast with that of the French, which stated the expenditure under each head with the greatest accuracy. He had, however, compared our expenditure with that of the French in regard to Warlike Stores during the ten years following the close of the Crimean War, and in instituting this comparison he had classified the Warlike Stores under three heads—1. General stores. 2. Small arms. 3. Gunpowder. He found that during the ten years ending March, 1867, we had spent on general stores £9,875,431, as against £4,920,862 expended by the French in the same period. On small arms we had expended £3,891,779, while the French had only expended £1,679,822. And in respect of the item of gunpowder alone we had in the period referred to spent £1,671,207, as against £535,362 spent by the French. The total expenditure incurred by us during those ten years was, in round numbers, £15,438,000; and by the French £7,136,000; showing a difference against us of £8,302,000. While on this subject he wished to point out to the House that of the loan of £17,000,000 sterling contracted this year by the French the sum of £4,784,000 was taken for the purchase of warlike matériel during the years 1867, 1868, and 1869. That loan was contracted with the view of re-arming the whole of the French army with breech-loading rifles, and supplying the French navy with new artillery. Now, while we had voted two-thirds of that sum for 1867–8, we, unlike the French, had not determined what arm should be supplied to our troops, much less calculated what would be the total expenditure incurred.
  762
  Indeed, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War, when bringing forward the Army Estimates, had stated that we were only on the very threshhold of the re-organization of our artillery. He believed he should not be incorrect in stating that it was under the consideration of the War Department to renew the whole of our field artillery. Under such circumstances, he thought himself perfectly justified in saying that great extravagance on our part might be assumed. He would, however, remind the House of the extraordinary causes of expenditure on the two armies during the period of ten years to which he was referring. In regard to our own army there were the Chinese War in 1858, 1859, and 1860, the New Zealand War, and the panic arising out of the Trent affair. During the same period the French were engaged in the Chinese War, conducted constant warlike operations in Cochin China, in Syria, in Algeria, at Rome, in the Italian campaign of 1859, and in Mexico. Taking all these facts into consideration, he believed he was justified in charging this country with being very extravagant in its expenditure on Warlike Stores. There were several causes for this extravagant expenditure, as, for example, the want of control; the separation of the military and civil elements in the army the bad system adopted of supplying the colonies with stores from this country and returning them to this country at a great loss when they become old and useless, and the craving after unnecessary perfection in regard to guns and matériel. The House of Commons was greatly to blame for all this, for after voting large sums to be expended in matériel, no pains were taken to ascertain whether the Stores had been wasted or applied in a proper manner. The result was that every one who had any concern in the expenditure for those Warlike Stores was as careless about it as the House of Commons; and, indeed, it was but natural that when the body which set itself up as the guardian of the public purse was so careless in the matter every one else should be the same. What he proposed was that for the future the House of Commons should have an accurate Return each Session of the stock of warlike matériel in the Government stores—the Return to show what the consumption had been during the previous year, the quantity used by the troops, the quantity under repair, and the quantity added to the stock. This system had

  763
  been introduced in France as far back as forty years ago, and had led to great economy in the expenditure for warlike purposes. In a pamphlet published by Major General Balfour the arguments used by the gentleman who had proposed it in the French Chambers will be found stated. That gentleman asked whether public property was precious only when it consisted of monies, and whether 100,000 francs ought not to be looked after when they were transferred to bronze, hemp, or other articles, as well as when they were in specie. He further observed that the Chambers, while holding Ministers responsible for even a centime in money, kept no efficient control over the vast sums expended in Warlike Stores. Major General Balfour himself expressed a strong opinion as to the necessity for a regular Return to Parliament of the consumption and stock of Stores. Last year he brought forward a Motion on the subject of the conversion of guns. At that time we had 30,000 cast-iron guns rotting in our stores, which, guns had for several years previously been treated as so much rubbish. The officers of the Government had done everything to prevent them from being regarded as anything else. If year after year those guns had appeared in a Return presented to Parliament was it at all likely that the House of Commons would have gone on voting large sums for new guns without making an effort to have those old ones utilized in some way. Again, if such a Return was laid before Parliament, the House of Commons would not allow the War Department to fling in their face its inefficiency in respect of accounting for certain items of military expenditure in the colonies. This was done now in a note stating—
  "This is exclusive of the army accoutrements, barrack, hospital, and other stores, a great portion of which is supplied from this country, and the value of which cannot be stated."
  The Department might just as well say that the cost of the food and clothing of soldiers in the colonies could not be stated. He had now to call attention to the manufacturing establishments. During the last Parliament those establishments were the subject of very great anxiety to the House of Commons; but the present Parliament had taken little or no notice of those establishments. It had allowed them to increase without making any inquiry or putting any check upon them. He ventured to remind the House of the arguments used
  764
  in favour of those establishments. They were to give the Government the power of manufacturing for themselves in times of emergency, and also, he might say, to give them a certain efficiency in manufacturing. The second object in view was to have a check over trade prices in times of emergency. The third was, by having large manufacturing establishments, to enable the War Department to do with only a small stock on hand in times of peace. In his evidence before the Ordnance Select Committee Colonel Boxer adduced the last-mentioned argument in favour of those establishments. He now ventured to ask what had been the result of setting up those large manufacturing establishments? He admitted that in point of execution the gun-carriages and other work were perfection. With regard to our manufacturing establishments being a check over trade prices, he was afraid they had never shot the mark; because so effectual had been their check over trade prices that we had almost ceased to have any trade prices as a check over the prices of our manufacturing establishments. He thought this position was a worse one than would have been even that of our having no check over trade prices. It was true that for small articles, such as small arms, we went to the trade; but speaking as regarded the heavier articles, he was correct in saying that we had now no trade prices. With regard to the third expected advantage—the decrease of our stock of stores in times of peace, having no Return to go by he was unable to give a correct statement of facts; but he would venture to say that in neither this country nor any other were there to be found any establishments so filled to repletion as our Government establishments were with every kind of Warlike Stores. Though the last Parliament was of opinion that manufacturing establishments were desirable, that was only to a moderate extent. Sir Benjamin Hawes and Mr. Godley both stated their opinion that the Government should not carry the system of manufacturing in public establishments too far. The former Gentleman said he thought that we should rely more on private enterprize. The country had gone on increasing its establishments to such an extent that they had come at last to believe that they had a vested right, not only to manufacture but to invent; and that if any man dared to enter the field against them he was to be opposed by every means. To such an extent had

  765
  the system been carried, that he no longer felt any faith in figures which might be placed in the mouth of any Secretary of State for War, or any Estimates which might be laid before a Select Committee—when comparison was made between Government work and that of an outsider. These were grave charges, but he was prepared to substantiate them. Last year, when he had raised the question as to the conversion of guns, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State replied that it was chiefly a question of expense, and the difference in price between the now 6½-ton gun as made at Woolwich, and the converted gun, was the difference between £405 and £263, or £142. This was while the Gun Factories were opposing the work; but by a Report of the Ordnance Select Committee, recently laid on the table, he found from an Estimate of the Royal Gun Factories, for the same work, that the difference was put at £268 instead of £142—this change in the price being mainly owing to the Ordnance Select Committee having reported favourably. He had further been informed that when the Royal Gun Factories heard that there was a chance of the conversion of these guns being given to the trade, they immediately reduced their estimates by £23 a gun. In 1864, the question of heavy ordnance was mooted; but the expense of their manufacture was so heavy that, the Ordnance Select Committee were—
  "Instructed to give their early and best attention to the question of providing some cheaper mode of construction for heavy guns, looking to the probable introduction of a large number of such guns for coast defences, and to the importance of reducing the expense which would attend their supply as made at present."
  With such directions as these, the servants of the Government to whom the Committee had to refer for information, ought to have taken especial care that their figures were correct, or as nearly so as possible. There were three proposals submitted—two by the Royal Gun Factories, and one by Major Palliser; but, according to the existing practice, the Gun Factories had to estimate for all three. The proposals made by the Royal Gun Factories were a wrought iron gun with a wrought-iron barrel, or a wrought-iron gun with a steel barrel. Major Palliser's proposal was a cast iron gun with a wrought-iron barrel. The respective estimates sent in by the Royal Gun Factories were—Wrought-iron gun, with steel barrel, £684; ditto,
  766
  with wrought-iron barrel, £482; cast-iron gun with wrought-iron barrel, £600. The glaring injustice of asserting that to make a gun two-thirds of cast-iron and one-third of wrought-iron would cost £118 more than to make one wholly of wrought-iron would at once be evident; but the Ordnance Select Committee were bound to take the Estimates furnished to them, and upon these Estimates they reported as follows:—
  "The Committee do not at present recommend experiments to test the efficiency of Major Palliser's method, on the ground that it appears to be loss economical than the gun constructed wholly of wrought iron."
  There was an end of the outsider, of course. This Report went forth to the War Office, and was acted upon, and not till he himself agitated this question and moved for the Return was there any suspicion of a mistake in the estimates. As soon, however, as the question was referred to the Royal Gun Factories, they appended the following Note to their Return:—
  "This does not include an estimate of the cost of the 12½-ton gun made of cast-iron with a wrought-iron barrel. The Superintendent, Royal Gun Factories, states that when called upon by the Ordnance Select Committee for such an estimate, he explained to them his inability to furnish it, and that the estimate he did lay before that body (and which appears in their Report) was one of a compound gun, constructed on a general principle, in accordance with Major Palliser's views, as expressed in a (published) Letter to Captain Heyman, Secretary to the Ordnance Select Committee, on the 18th of May, 1864, and illustrated by a drawing; but, finding that this was not the description of gun they desired, he withdrew it."
  The Ordnance Select Committee appended the following Note to their Report:—
  "In this Report the estimates sent in by the Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factories have been taken into consideration, as well as that of the Palliser gun, handed in by the Superintendent, and withdrawn by him, as before stated. The Ordnance Select Committee, in their Report, have treated the latter as if it were an estimate for a cast-iron gun with a wrought-iron barrel; and now state that, as far as their records show, it stands as given in their Report, and they were not aware the estimate had been withdrawn. They see no reason, however, to doubt the fact."
  This transaction called for no remark whatever from him; the facts spoke for themselves. He sincerely trusted the Secretary of State for War would look upon them in their true light, and not treat them, as he did in November, as mere matters of account. He proposed to trace the history of these guns somewhat fur-

  767
  ther. In consequence of the Report of the Ordnance Select Committee a sample gun was made in 1864 on the cheap construction pattern, with a steel tube, the cost, which he had taken from the manufacturing accounts, being—for labour, £156; material, £516; percentage, £72; making a total of £744, or £61 more than the original estimate. In 1866 the gallant General the late Secretary of State for War (General Peel) adopted the cheap construction principle; and twenty-five guns of that class were ordered. The manufacturing accounts laid before the House this year showed that these cheap construction guns cost in each case—labour, £194; material, £554; percentage, £82; making a total of £830, or £76 more than the sample gun, and £147 more than the original estimate. The difference between the gun of 1866 and the sample gun, in labour alone, was £38, although in 1866 there were greater facilities in the shape of heavy steam cranes and hammers, and although the sample gun was made in seven pieces and the gun of 1866 in six pieces. Moreover, they had acquired greater experience in 1866; and it was always cheaper to make a number of guns than to make only one. With regard, again, to material, the steel in the gun of 1866 cost £48 less than in the gun of 1864; while the total material was represented as costing £38 more. Upon this calculation the iron and coal of the gun of 1866 would have cost £86 more than the iron and coal of the sample gun of 1864; but in point of fact iron had fallen £1 per ton meanwhile, and the material used was absolutely less than that used in the sample gun of 1864. He trusted that these statements of his would be thoroughly investigated, and for that purpose he was ready to lay them before a Select Committee. He had no personal interest to serve or to promote; his only object was to point out the system which this country had raised up, and the powerful influence which it brought to bear against both manufacturers and inventors in this country. The right hon. Baronet, when he brought forward the Army Estimates, admitted that they ought to be a subject of very great anxiety to the House of Commons, and that the House had little or no control over them; and he also proposed, as some improvement in the organization of those establishments, to set up one man as the head of the Arsenal at Woolwich. If, however, the man they
  768
  appointed merely represented the different interests of those manufacturing establishments in the War Office, where they were already sufficiently powerful, he could not be of the slightest use in looking after their economical working. To what were the evils to which he referred due? Simply to the enormous increase of those establishments. The House voted, year after year, large sums of money for the increase of the capital account of those establishments; and yet they were unable to tell whether that outlay would be remunerative or not. Nay, more; there was no man in the War Department who was able to give an opinion on that point. The evidence given by Mr. Anderson, chief engineer of the Royal Gun Factory, before the Committee of 1860, with respect to an increased outlay of £100,000 upon that establishment, showed that no man but Mr. Anderson himself was able to give an opinion whether that increased outlay-would be remunerative. Again, with the facilities which those manufacturing establishments now had for coming to the House and increasing their capital account it was no wonder that they should do so. And that they did not only in the Estimates brought before the House, but by the various applications they made after the Vote was passed to the War Office and the Treasury for the transfer of money from one item to another. Never in one single instance had the head of those manufacturing Departments asked for a transfer from capital account to wages, but it was invariably from wages to material and from material to capital account. In 1864–5 no less than £45,000 was transferred from wages to materials in the Royal Gun Factories alone. In 1865–66 the Royal Gun Factories applied for £4,100 for increasing the machinery; and it was said that it would be more than covered by the saving in material. On the 17th of October an application was made for £14,000 for increasing the material, to be paid for out of the savings in wages. In December, in consequence of the great pressure of work at the Royal Gun Factories, it was necessary to spend a large sum of money for furnaces. In spite of the Appropriation Act passed every year, the House had no control whatever over the money it voted for those manufacturing establishments. In the expenditure for the year ending the 31 it of March, 1867, there was an excess over the grants made by that House of £41,129

  769
  for the Royal Gun-carriage Department; also an excess of £53,820, for the Royal Gun Factories; all that being for machinery, new works, and materials; for the Royal Laboratory the excess was £54,415; and the excess for the Royal Small Arms Factories was £89,065—making an excess, in those four Departments only, of £238,429; or with the surplus on other Votes, a total excess of £274,661 upon Estimates of £970,000. The House did not know how many guns or gun carriages they had for that money. If £100,000 were voted for machinery for the manufacture of large guns the money was spread over every article they made in the Gun Factories, so that the House could not know the actual cost of the guns, or make any comparison of the prices with those of the private trade, Another objection to the present system was that they were unable to separate their naval and military accounts for raw material. Everybody who wished for economy in the army expenditure had always felt the importance of having a separation between their naval and military accounts; but such a thing was impossible as long as they maintained the present system with regard to those manufacturing establishments. They had never known in one single year whether they worked those establishments at a profit or a loss. Now, he had a proposal which he wished the House to consider. He said they ought to throw on the man to whom they intrusted a manufacturing establishment the responsibility of proving that any application he made for an increase of the capital account was really necessary. He proposed that they should say to Colonel Boxer or any other person who was placed over those establishments—"We shall set you up with plant, machinery, buildings, and everything that is necessary to carry on your work; that plant, machinery, &c., shall be valued at; a certain sum of money, on which you shall pay so much interest in hard cash into the Treasury; the only person you shall have any communication with in the War Department shall be the Director of Contracts or the head of the Control Department; you shall enter with him into contracts in exactly the same way as he enters into contracts with the private trade; the articles you produce in your manufactories shall be subjected to an independent inspection exactly like the articles produced by the private trade;
  770
  and you shall charge to the Superintendent of Contracts in the War Department such a sum as will not only enable you to produce the article you require, but to pay the interest on your capital, and also to provide for wear and tear and depreciation of machinery," He maintained that by that plan they would place their manufactories on a sound commercial footing; and that was the only way in which they could possibly obtain an accurate account of the articles they produced and their cost. They would thus be able to tell whether the money had been properly expended or not, and the result would be an enormous saving in many items of expenditure which under the present system were wasted. Moreover, instead of interfering, as they did at the present moment, in carrying out experiments with the public money, those establishments would confine themselves to their proper work—namely, that of manufacturing, and doing it in the best and cheapest manner they could. When the responsibility was thus thrown on them for the increase of the capital account, they would take care, before they spent money on new plant, machinery, and new buildings, that they saw their way to its being remunerative. We should also be able, for the first time in the history of this country to separate our naval and military accounts. The establishment could open a separate account with the Admiralty, and the Indian Government would be able to go to them and order what they wanted in exactly the same way they did with private contractors. He had heard it urged as an objection to his proposal that it would be impossible to pit Government manufactories against private trade; but he had the testimony of Colonel Boxer to the effect that the Government Departments possessed many advantages over private establishments, and that it would be a disgrace to them if they did not manufacture much more cheaply than private manufacturers. The result of the adoption of such a plan as he suggested would be to secure a clear system of accounts. He believed there had been gross extravagance in those establishments, and the sooner they were put on a proper footing the better.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in order to ensure economy in our Expenditure on Warlike Stores, it is advisable to have an

  771
  annual Statement laid upon the Table of this House, showing the quantity and value of each description of Stores in the possession of the Troops, or in the Arsenals and Storehouses, the quantity issued and consumed during each year, and the replacements in consequence of a change of pattern or of the ordinary annual consumption; that in order to prevent the manufacture of Warlike Stores becoming a mere monopoly in the hands of the Government Establishments it is advisable to purchase a certain proportion of the articles required for Military purposes from the private trade; and to ensure accuracy of accounts, economy of production, and fair comparison of. Government with trade prices, the Manufacturing Departments shall be treated as private firms, the Government purchasing the articles required at remunerative prices, to be provided from Army and other Votes, and the capital charges of the Establishments (whether for buildings, plant, or working capital,) being provided by advances at interest made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners,"—(Major Anson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HAYTERsaid, that before the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War replied, it would be convenient that he should call the attention of the House to what was comparatively a small matter, but nevertheless one of great importance—namely, the advantage of returning to the old practice in respect to the serving out of ball ammunition. The practice up to the year 1827 was to keep the twenty rounds of ball ammunition now carried by all non-commissioned officers and privates of the army in store, to be served out to the men only when going on guard, or when held in readiness for immediate duty. That practice still obtained in the cavalry. It was absurd to suppose that it would be considered a slur upon the army to withdraw this ammunition from the possession of the men. He heard a general complaint expressed of the delicate character of the Snider ammunition, inasmuch as it was apt to bleak through the paper, and becoming loose was rendered unfit for use. "When such an accident occurred the whole expense of re-covering it fell upon the captains of companies, which was viewed by them as unjust. If the practice he suggested were adopted also, they would get rid of the double process which was now required on every field day, when the ball cartridge had to be delivered into store, previous to the issue of the blank. Should it be necessary to hold the troops in readiness, a previous order would be given by the
  772
  general officers in command, or whole battalions might be served with ball cartridge in twenty minutes. Much greater security would also be obtained against the acts of men of violent and furious temper, or of drunken habits, who in their moments of insanity were tempted to perpetrate crimes of murder or manslaughter, from which they themselves would wish to be guarded against. He need only remind the House that in 1861 there were six cases of military murder to show the importance of adopting some means to prevent the repetition of such offences. In the present year a case had lately occurred at the Horfield Barracks, Bristol, in which a Serjeant Maskell, of the 3rd Buffs, armed with a breech-loader, had fired five successive shots in the barrack-yard and ultimately taken the life of a private soldier, before the guard could close with him, and this murder was also committed with the service ball ammunition. Although happily there had been a considerable diminution of such crimes of late years, they nevertheless occasionally occurred under circumstances to excite the utmost horror and alarm. Military friends of his were in favour of the plan he recommended, and amongst them he would wish to include Lord Penrhyn, who as an old adjutant, and strong Conservative in military matters, gave to this proposal his most strenuous support.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War would not follow the advice of the hon. and gallant Member. Every officer he had spoken with expressed, surprise that an officer could be found to make such a suggestion, which, in plain. English, meant that our soldiers were such a body of assassins that they ought not to be trusted with ammunition. It was a gross insult to the army. If they could not be trusted with ammunition, they were not fit to be soldiers at all.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, who rose with other hon. Members, said, he had given way to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter), as he thought that he was going to address the House on the larger question introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson). He was ready to admit the great importance of the proposals embraced in the Motion of that hon. and gallant Member who was entitled to thanks for the attention he had given to a subject, which not only involved the interests of the country as regarded

  773
  our armaments, but also affected in no ordinary degree the expenditure of the country. But the manner in which the hon. and gallant Member had brought that subject before the House was a matter of regret. He (Sir John Pakington) had come down to the House prepared to discuss the Motion which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had placed upon the Paper, but greatly to his surprise the hon. and gallant Member had devoted a great part of his speech to a discussion of the most minute details touching complicated questions respecting the Government Manufacturing Departments. They all knew the state of transition in which they lived. Only a few years ago the largest gun in the service was a 95-cwt. gun, not weighing five tons, and now they had 22-ton guns. There were all sorts of pending questions, involving an endless variety in construction with respect to cast-iron, wrought-iron, wrought-iron linings, steel guns, and various methods of rifling. All these were unsettled questions, and, in addition, there was the most hostile rivalry between the Government Manufacturing Departments and outsiders, and endless inventors contending that they had the power of providing a cheaper and more efficient gun. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member might lead one to suppose that he had been inspired by some of those outsiders and inventors. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had entered on this discussion without any Notice whatever, and with a spirit which showed hostility to some extent, or, at all events, doubt with respect to the honesty of the public Departments. This course of proceeding was hardly fair. The matter brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member was one of great difficulty, and it was the duty of the Government to be impartial with respect to it, and to take the line which to the best of their judgment appeared the most conducive to the public interests. For his own part, he could say that he had no undue leaning to the Government Manufacturing Departments. The hon. and gallant Member begun by stating that he had serious charges to make, in that case it was his duty to have given distinct warning of those charges; but the Motion placed upon the Paper certainly did not give such warning. "What was to be thought of the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member made the charges, when he declared that he had no faith in the figures of the public Departments?
  774
  That was tantamount to saying that when the public Departments stated their case he would not believe them. With reference to the price of guns good reasons could be given, but the hon. and gallant Member never mentioned what was the particular gun of which he spoke, and it must be remembered that there were endless varieties of guns. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about Major Palliser and of the comparative prices of guns made in the public arsenals and by the private trade. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman went into the subject with due care, he would find that in almost every instance the guns made at the public arsenals were made at a cheaper and lower rate than those of the private trade. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not believe figures. However, he (Sir John Pakington) maintained that until the balance-sheets came out and there had been an opportunity of testing the accuracy of the figures they must be accepted as correct. Having thus met that part of his hon. and gallant Friend's speech which he had no right to expect, he begged now to turn to what he had a right to expect from the Motion which stood on. the Paper in his name. He was sorry his hon. and gallant Friend had not been content to deal with it, for it was a very large subject, involving three different propositions, and on each of them he was prepared to state the course which, the Government intended to pursue. The first proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend was that we should have an annual statement laid upon the table of this House, showing the quantity and value of each, description of stores in the possession of the troops or in the arsenals and storehouses, the quantity issued and consumed during each year, and the replacements in consequence of a change of pattern or of the ordinary annual consumption. The French Government had adopted the plan of laying a very accurate statement before the Legislature of the state of their stores, and he was quite willing to meet his hon. and gallant Friend by the admission that it was most desirable to have such a statement laid before the House. The only objection he knew to such a statement was that he was afraid it would be impossible to provide it without some not inconsiderable expense in the way of assistance in the Department. But he would endeavour to ascertain—and it could only be done accurately by experience—what the expense would be of

  775
  conceding that portion of his hon. and gallant Friend's requirement. He was convinced that it would be satisfactory to the House and to the public, and would check the tendency to accumulate an undue amount of stores in our arsenals and elsewhere; but he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend was aware that from the nature of the Return it would be impossible to give it immediately following the year to which it applied. On the French plan a year always intervened. He would have a Return prepared in the shape to which his hon. and gallant Friend referred, showing fairly and honestly the stale of our stores; but the House must not expect that the statement of our stores closing, say, on the 31st of March, 1868, could be laid on the table in the course of 1869, but he saw no reason why it should not be presented the year after but one. The next portion of the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend was—
  "That in order to prevent the manufacture of Warlike Stores becoming a mere monopoly in the hands of the Government Establishments it is advisable to purchase a certain proportion of the articles required for Military purposes from the private trade."
  Now, his hon. and gallant Friend could hardly be aware of the extent to which that was already done. If he examined the Estimates of the present year he would see that we now resort to private trade for a very large portion of our stores. He would state to the House exactly how we stood in that respect. Take the article of clothing, to which he referred: there would this year be manufactured and repaired at their own clothing factory to the amount of £509,746, leaving to the amount of £418,288 to be purchased. Of gunpowder there would be manufactured during the year to the amount of £4,382, and £9,700 would be purchased. Of small arms there would be manufactured to the amount of £146,702 while £76,000 would be purchased. Iron ordnance would be manufactured to the value of £203,446, and the value of £10,400 would be purchased. With respect to the Laboratory, he was sorry he could make no such statement. The Laboratory was one of the heaviest sources of expenditure, and there he could show no per contra to be derived from the trade; but he quite acceded to the principle that it was very desirable with regard to projectiles as well as arms themselves that private trade should be resorted to. The fact that it
  776
  was not was to be attributed to the great change occurring in that Department, and particularly the adaptation of the Snider rifle. With regard to gun-carriages, these would be manufactured to the amount of £215,175, and £38,450 would be purchased. The general result was that there would he manufactured and repaired during the present year stores to the amount of £1,661,565, leaving to be purchased £834,838. All this was being done during the current year without any Motion by his hon. and gallant Friend, so that actually they were at the present moment resorting to private trade for one-third of our whole stores. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would see from this that there was no indisposition to establish that check on the manufacturing establishments which he desired by resorting largely to private trade for our stores. The most important part of his hon. and gallant Friend's Motion was the last, in which he wished to make a complete change in our whole system of manufacturing establishments. He proposed that—
  "To ensure accuracy of accounts, economy of production, and fair comparison of Government with trade prices, the Manufacturing Departments shall be treated as private firms, the Government purchasing the articles required at remunerative prices, to be provided from Army and other Votes, and the capital charges of the Establishments—whether for buildings, plant, or working capital—being provided by advances at interest made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners."
  He wished that instead of dwelling during the greater part of his speech on facts and details his hon. and gallant Friend had devoted his time to a little more explanation of the manner in which he proposed to work out this great and important change. He (Sir John Pakington) was by no means disposed to refuse it. He quite admitted its importance; and if the change were successfully brought about it would tend in a very great degree to simplify the accounts. On the other hand he believed it was a change wholly without precedent, There were, he believed, some precedents in France. The French Government had carried out that system in two respects—with regard to printing and gunpowder; but these were very small precedents. He believed there was no precedent in any country for carrying on a large Government establishment on the principle which his hon. and gallant Friend proposed. There were great difficulties of detail which he wished had been explained. How were the funds to be provided for carrying on

  777
  these manufacturing establishments? Were these establishments to be removed from Parliamentary control? Then again, if these large Government establishments were to be placed on the same footing with private firms, were they to accept business from all customers that might come for goods, or were they to be restricted to supplying the requirements of the Government? These were questions that required much consideration, and the Government would have to weigh the matter very carefully before it committed itself to the proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which affected not only the War Department but the Admiralty and Treasury Departments. Under these circumstances he could not say that he was at once prepared to adopt the plan of the hon. and gallant Member, which would effect a complete revolution in that branch of the public service to which it had relation—a revolution, however, that certainly held out great promise of improvement, but he was willing to submit the plan of the hon. and gallant Member to a joint Committee of the War Department, the Admiralty, and the Treasury, for them to inquire into the subject and report upon it. The hon. and gallant Member's first suggestion respecting a Return he thought should be adopted; his second plan, he had shown, was already carried out to a great extent; and with respect to his third plan he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentlemen that it should receive the most careful consideration.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he did not think that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War had met the charges of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson), or that he was entitled to shelter himself behind the excuse that, not expecting from the form of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Notice that the subject of the accounts would be brought forward, he had not prepared himself to enter into the question. His hon. and gallant Friend had referred to the great waste of money which was taking place in the War Department, and that was also a point eminently worthy of consideration. In addition to the cases specified by his hon. and gallant Friend he (Mr. Otway) had some charges to bring against the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. The first was that when an invention had been approved and the inventor had been rewarded by that House, the Committee to which, reference had been made
  778
  took upon themselves so to alter the invention as to render it perfectly worthless. Thus, the rockets invented by Mr. Hale, who had received £8,000 for his invention from that House, had been so altered as to be almost useless. His second charge was that such vast quantities of gunpowder were kept in store for so long a time in the various batteries that it was deteriorating in power. His third charge was that 1,000 rounds of ammunition per gun were despatched to Abyssinia, while probably not two rounds per gun were actually fired, nor was there any possibility of the number of rounds sent being used in any campaign in that country. He hoped that the mutters alluded to by his hon. and gallant Friend would be investigated, and that the Government would be prepared with some more satisfactory explanation.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite that it was impossible for him to meet the charges of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson) without ample notice having been given of them. Instead of wording the Notice as his hon. and gallant Friend had done, he could not help thinking, if his hon. and gallant Friend had intended to bring such grave charges forward, he ought to have used such language as—"In order to prevent erroneous Estimates, in order to prevent utterly falsified accounts being presented, such and such things ought to be done." He thought, however, that when charges of so grave a character were made it was not sufficient that the right hon. Baronet opposite should come down to that House and content himself with making a counter-statement. The hon. and gallant Member, after making such serious charges against the Department, ought not to be satisfied without moving for a Select Committee, or obtaining a promise from the Secretary of War that the whole matter should be fully inquired into by an independent body. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the difficulty which stood in the way of dealing with the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He went even further, and contended that the proposal to work those establishments as private firms was utterly impracticable. He had had some little experience in connection, with those establishments, and believed that they had conferred great advantage on the country. It was no doubt expe-

  779
  dient to resort as far as possible to private enterprize; but it was, in his opinion, nevertheless of the greatest importance that these establishments should be maintained in a state of thorough efficiency. He had made these few remarks because he thought it of the highest importance that there should be the most perfect honesty and rectitude on the part of those who managed these establishments, and because he thought that the accounts ought to be above the shadow even of suspicion.
  MAJOR ANSONdesired to say a word in personal explanation of the charge which had been brought against him. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War had complained that he had brought this matter forward without having given sufficient notice of his intention. He certainly was under the impression that the right hon. Baronet knew that he was going to make these charges, and he could only further say that he had not made a single charge which had not been previously brought officially before the Secretary of State.
  COLONEL ANNESLETsaid, that some of the charges brought forward were of a most extraordinary character. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway), for instance, had made it a matter of compliant against the Government that they had supplied each of the guns sent to Abyssinia with 1,000 rounds, while not more than two rounds to each gun had actually been expended. (Mr. OTWAY: Had probably been expended.] The fact, however, was that there had been scarcely any fighting in Abyssinia, and if the reverse had been the case, and the Government had neglected the precaution of providing an ample supply of ammunition, the hon. Member for Chatham would have been only too ready to have charged the Government with their neglect. He ventured to think that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) was incorrect in the opinion which he had expressed, because his belief was that the officers of the army were far from wishing to deprive the soldiers of the ammunition which at present was placed in their care. If that were done, what would be the result when the soldiers were called upon to engage in active service at a moment's notice, a tiling to which they were always liable? During the prevalence of the Fenian alarms, for instance, a detachment of troops was telegraphed for at twelve o'clock, and left town for Osborne in con-
  780
  sequence of that telegram within an hour, a promptness which could scarcely have been attained if the delay consequent on the distribution of ammunition to each man had had to be incurred.
  SIR. GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he regarded these establishments as resembling to some extent the gardens in which the proprietors cultivated their own vegetables at a cost greater than the price which would have been demanded for them in the market. The Government had not the same motives to economy which were to be found in private establishments. They laboured under no fear of bankruptcy, and consequently did not pay that attention to details which private persons find so necessary to the success of their undertakings. He thought, therefore, that it would be much better for the Government to go into the open market and purchase what they required as cheaply as they could, instead of carrying on those expensive establishments. But if the Government were resolved to maintain the manufacturing establishments, the strictest accounts ought to be kept in order to compare the cost of munitions of war supplied by private manufacturers with those manufactured by the Government. The only sound principle on which public manufactories could be conducted, was that laid down by Sir Henry Parnell in his Work on Financial Reform, who said that they ought to be maintained on the same principle as private manufactories, and that, there should be an account current of profit and loss between them and the Financial Department.
  GENERAL PERCY HERBERTsaid, that when the Government purchased Warlike Stores the quality was almost invariably found inferior. If the Government did not manufacture a large portion of their gunpowder, they would run the risk of getting powder of inferior quality, which would derange all calculations of range and accuracy of firing.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, his hon. and gallant Relative (Major Anson) being unable again to address the House, wished him to express his desire for a searching investigation into the statements he had made, and his intention to move on Thursday next for a Select Committee. He would prefer, however, that the inquiry should be proposed or instituted by the Government.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

PORTPATRICK AND BELFAST AND COUNTY DOWN RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL— [BILL 201.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
PORTPATRICK AND BELFAST AND COUNTY DOWN RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL— [BILL 201.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated, that the object of this measure was to release the Treasury from an undertaking entered into by them in 1856, to establish a short sea service between the West of Scotland and the North of Ireland, the railway companies being at the same time bound under penalties to construct lines to the ports of Portpatrick and Donaghadee. Those lines had been completed, and nearly £50,000 had been spent on Portpatrick harbour; but it had already begun to silt up, and was found to be unfit for a night, and consequently for a punctual mail service, while the postal accommodation could be provided far more cheaply and equally well by accelerating the mails viâ Dublin. If the service were established moreover, the sum it would be worth paying would not satisfy the companies, and there would be the liability to spend large sums on the harbours. Under these circumstances a compromise had seemed to him expedient, and he had effected on arrangement with the County Down Railway Company that it should waive its claim for the establishment of the service in consideration of a loan of £166,000, the amount of its debenture debt, at 3½ per cent for a term of years. The claims of the Portpatrick Company were greater, there being seven miles of line which would be rendered useless; but after nearly two years' negotiations that company had agreed to accept a loan of £153,000 on the same terms and a free grant of £20,000. The companies would have to show that their security was good, and the loan would yield a small profit, which would, he believed, recoup the Treasury the £20,000. The arrangement would, on the whole, be an economical one. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he believed the arrangement to be a judicious one, and the best escape from an impolitic undertaking. When he was at the Treasury, the obstacle to the settlement of the question was a claim set up by the companies, not merely to a short sea service, but to a second express mail communication between London and the North of Ireland by that route. The latter would have been enormously expensive, and he resisted the claim, which had turned out to be unfounded. He thought his right hon. Friend had now very fairly met the legitimate claims of the companies.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.

REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF MAYO, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Registration in Ireland, explained that by this measure it was proposed to shorten considerably the period for revision of the electoral lists. The effect of it would be that the Courts for revising the lists would be held between the 8th of September and the 6th of October, so that, the register would be in the hands of the sheriff by the 1st of November. The general result would be that the whole of the proceedings would be concluded on or before the 1st of November, instead of the 30th, as at present, and therefore the time for the conclusion of all the proceedings would be nearly the same as under the English Bill. He wished it to be understood that this measure would not at all interfere with the old franchises; but would apply solely to those which would be created under the I Irish Reform Bill. Supplemental lists of the persons entitled to the new franchise would be placed before the Revising Barristers at the time of the revision Sessions; but the ordinary register for the old franchise would not be interfered with. There would also be a provision for increasing the number of polling-places, and another for facilitating the representation of Masters of Arts in the University of Dublin.
  Bill to amend the Law of Registration in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The EARL of MAYO and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 213.]

  PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS PAYMENTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Bill to empower certain Public Departments to pay otherwise than to Executors or Administrators small sums due on account of Pay or Allowances to Persons deceased, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH and Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 212.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Burials (Ireland) * (212); Land Writs Registration (Scotland)* (213); Registration* (218).
Second Reading—Medway Regulation Act Continuance* (199); Bank of Bombay* (196); County General Assessment (Scotland) * (190); Courts of Law Fees, &c. (Scotland)* (189).
Committee—County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction* (108–219); Vagrant Act Amendment* (138); Boundary (170).
Report—Army Chaplains* (146); Vagrant Act Amendment* (138); Boundary (170); Representation of the People (Scotland) (192–220).
Third Reading—Liquidation* (181), and passed.
Withdrawn—Metropolitan Regulations* (149); Industrial Schools Act (1866) Amendment* (151); Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment* (169).

NOVA SCOTIA—PETITIONS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, I have two Petitions—one from the Delegates, one from the Inhabitants of Nova Scotia, both for the same object—namely, the with
  680
  drawal of that colony from the operation of the recent Act on British North America—a withdrawal which would bring it into the same position as Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland, since these are both attached to Great Britain as before, and able to join Canada whenever it seems good to them. Such is the aim of the Petitioners, but such is not the object of the Motion which I have the honour to submit. It is for inquiry on the spot into the alleged dissatisfaction of the colony, with a view to avert risks which are not distant but immediate; above all, with a view to save Confederation from the blow which threatens its existence. Having last Session taken an humble part in supporting the demand of Nova Scotia for a respite until their General Election had occurred, I have been asked to bring the subject forward. Delays have taken place for which I am not in any way responsible. However trying to myself, they have this compensation—that we have still the freedom to deliberate upon the affairs of Nova Scotia; that it is not too late to guard against an error which might have been beyond the power of recalling. My Lords, amidst many circumstances of a nature to depress anyone who brings this question under the notice of the House, there is one at least of hope and of encouragement. It is that no one is committed against the line of action I am going to recommend. The despatch of the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies contains arguments against the Repeal of the Act on British North America, but none against inquiry. Neither the late Government nor the present, nor the noble Earl who introduced the Act, nor the noble Marquess who used to govern Nova Scotia, in the debates of last year advanced the startling proposition, that if discontent arose in any part of British North America which had been confederated, it should not be an object of inquiry by Great Britain. It is clear that where Confederation leads to discontent, its partizans are rather bound by self-respect to court inquiry than resist it. Even if some weeks ago the Government concurred in a Vote of the House of Commons to withhold it, the aspect of the subject is now still graver than it was; and the well-known fact that such a Vote has aggravated the bitter feelings which existed in the colony, releases them from any obligation to demand its weak, subservient, and impolitic renewal of your Lordships. My Lords, it will greatly

  681
  shorten the task I hare before me, and thus diminish the fatigue which might arise from it, to place before the House the real issue in debate, and disengage it from the false issues which are too frequently confounded with it. Indeed, were this effectually done, my duty would be over; for if the proper issue is acknowledged, there can hardly remain a doubt as to the answer which it merits. My Lords, I therefore anxiously maintain that the issue is not as to whether British North America ought to be confederated. I am ready to concede anything which noble Lords desire upon the subject. It may be a sagacious policy to lay materials for balancing excessive power on the other side of the Atlantic. Such instances as the Achæan League, the Swiss Cantons, the United Provinces of Holland, the great Republic of America, may show that, against considerable risks, a federated system can defend itself. As an exit to the difficulties which for some time hung over Canada, within certain limits, no doubt, Confederation is entitled to applause. And if the object of our statesmanship is to pave the way for independence in British North America, Confederation very likely will accelerate it. But let not this House be ensnared into a debate upon a question which is not now before them. So, too, with regard to the preliminary circumstances by which Nova Scotia was included in the measure. How far their people have been steady in their objects—how far their politicians have been uniform in language—are points just now entirely irrelevant. Let it be granted, if you will, that, in the face of a petition from 30,000 men for reference to the opinion of the colony, the Bill was not precipitately carried. Your Lordships have not met to-day to explore the wisdom of the scheme, or to investigate its origin, or criticize its authors, but to consider how to meet an actual emergency. Does the existing discontent of Nova Scotia require conciliatory treatment—not from justice, but from prudence? If it does, what treatment would be adequate is the only point which comes under the legitimate attention of your Lordships. It will be incumbent upon me to give proofs of the existing discontent, and to place on a firm ground the necessity of meeting it at present; but it is better first perhaps to answer the question which must occur to every noble Lord—namely, what is the exact danger to be associated with it?
  682
  The answer to that question is too easy—the discontent points to separation, not from Canada, but from the Empire. Supposing that coercion was endorsed by public feeling in Great Britain—supposing it was not actually prohibited in the United States it would be certain to cause a flame of sympathy with the insurgents. New Brunswick, adjoining Nova Scotia, would be most likely drawn into the current. Maine is conterminous with the greater portion of New Brunswick. Irregular support might very quickly pass over the boundary. The Government of Washington, however much it is esteemed abroad, at home is far from being omnipotent. With the best intentions, they may soon become an object of remonstrance. Remonstrance between Cabinets may end in war, and must in further alienation. War with the United States on many grounds is deprecated by Great Britain, but more especially on this one, that, unlike other wars, in whatever manner it results, it can never raise our influence among the countries which surround us. But if Nova Scotia is abandoned Halifax is lost. On its value as a maritime and military post it would be presumptuous on my part to venture an opinion. But on this vital point I have felt bound to refer to one of the most interesting documents colonial literature furnishes—the Report of the Select Committee on the Defence of the Colonies, appointed by the House of Commons in 1861, and for which the world is indebted to the labours of Mr. Arthur Mills. Before that Committee, the most distinguished men, political and military, united in a chorus on the necessity of retaining Halifax; and to that chorus I may give to the noble Earl who generally sits on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) what may seem in his case the unaccustomed office of a Leader. Earl Grey, in his evidence, assigned Halifax to the same category as Malta and Gibralta, a place important to our naval power, because fleets could be re-fitted there. The Duke of Newcastle, who a short time before had travelled in America, regarded it as valuable in the light of a military post, but still more in the light of a naval station, inasmuch as it is one of the finest, if not the finest, harbour in the world. Mr. Herman Merivale, whose name has been so long familiar to the public as a great Colonial authority, referred to Halifax as a stronghold for the protection of our commerce, and used that remarkable expression, that he deemed it

  683
  a kind of insurance against war with the United States. These are politicians. But Rear Admiral Erskine held that in the event of war with the United States, Bermuda and Halifax would be both of them essential. Rear Admiral Sir Charles Elliot thought Halifax the most important naval station of the Empire. Sir John Burgoyne considered the Mauritius, Bermuda, and Halifax, as all essential to our power, and acknowledged the importance which the navy habitually attribute to the latter. The loss of Halifax, under embarrassments which tend to involve us with the United States, might fairly be accepted as a second element of danger. The third is obvious in a moment. If Nova Scotia violently left us, and became absorbed into another State, the rest of British America would not be easily defended. At least Confederation would receive a blow which could not be repaired. So long as she is yours, she can always form a part of any system you combine; when she has ceased to belong to you the combination cannot be restored, and the disruption is not temporary but eternal.
  My Lords, I have given a rough outline of the hazard we incur should the existing discontent become more serious and active. I will now attempt to place the discontent beyond the range of incredulity. The necessity of meeting it in no way depends upon the adequacy or inadequacy of its causes. But by glancing at them for a moment, the House is better qualified, perhaps, to judge of its importance. It appears to have arisen partly from these circumstances. In 1863, a General Election took place in Nova Scotia, at which the question of confederating British North America was never mentioned on the hustings. It was understood to be dismissed, and did not therefore challenge any verdict from the Province. The Assembly, which was thus formed, alone empowered Delegates to come over and assist in London to frame the Act on British North America. But the Delegates exceeded their authority when they committed Nova Scotia to a system which Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland determined not to enter. Unless supported by these maritime dependencies, Nova Scotia could not join a central body with advantage or with dignity. Another fact might by itself create a deep dissatisfaction. Between 1863 and 1867 an organic change was carried in the right of voting at constituencies. Organic changes of this kind, adopted after full debate, in
  684
  any country, whether they form a democratic step or one which is not democratic, are an indisputable title to a new election before another great political conclusion is arrived at. But all the sanction, if there be sanction which Nova Scotia ever gave to the Act on British America, emerges from a Parliament whose basis was condemned, while the hostility surrounding it proceeds from the new electoral arrangements, which, in spite of a grave demand, we were not willing to refer to. As regards Canadian legislation, since the Act has worked, the greatest topic of complaint resides in the ad valorem duties which have been raised to 15 per cent. Such a measure, however requisite for Canada, whose revenue arises from these sources, is not the less repugnant to a colony, which aspires to Free Trade, which scatters vessels among all the harbours of the world, and which depends on imports and on exports. But there is something deeper than commercial regulations to explain the variance we have to deal with at this moment. To those who have traced its history, however superficially, it is known that Nova Scotia leans towards Great Britain. From the time of James I. the people have been uniformly loyal. In the war which founded the United States, in that of 1812, in all the Canadian rebellions, they have been unmoveable in their allegiance. Not contemplating separate existence, they desire to prolong and strengthen their connection with this country—their views, their objects, and their interests are British. If we may judge it by the language of its founders, the new Dominion has an opposite propensity. If we may judge it by its recent indications, the ties which bind it to this country may dissolve at any moment. The ideas of a dominion in the ordinary course of things would undermine the faith of a dependency. Clinging to the Empire, Nova Scotia cannot easily or quickly be transformed into an harmonious part of an amalgamated whole, which was rather framed to quit, which has not shown at least a disposition to adhere to it. My Lords, the evidence of discontent may very rapidly be stated. The only difficulty is in choosing illustrations or deciding which ought to be first presented to the House. When the Act on British North America was carried, it was necessary to send nineteen Members to the general and thirty-eight to the local Parliament, under the new franchise. Of these only four support Confederation; the remainder,

  685
  both at Ottawa and Halifax, have actively opposed it. The debates which took place in the latter town last January are the index of what is felt in Nova Scotia. No one who has not read can thoroughly appreciate the unanimity, the indignation, and yet the loyal confidence in British justice which pervades there. Twenty-eight speeches were pronounced in favour of repeal, and one in answer to them. The debates led to Resolutions against the Act on British North America, which have been embodied in an Address to the Crown. They led to the appointment of the Delegates who have been in London since the spring to demand redress for Nova Scotia. After referring to these regular and constitutional expressions of opinion, it is superfluous to mention the public meetings which have taken place against Confederation in every county of the Province. Agitation does little to enhance the facts I have adduced, but it is sufficient proof that the new Parliament has not misrepresented the opinions which surround it. The existing sentiment is forcibly betrayed by this remarkable occurrence—the Canadian Government during the present year, are not prepared to call out the Nova Scotian Militia. But if your Lordships want a crowning proof of discontent, you have it in this manner. Although for months the Delegates have been in London, using every effort which was open to them to enlist on the side they were commissioned to espouse, the feelings of this country; although their labours have been known to every man in Nova Scotia no kind of counter delegation, or petition, or voice, or whisper has been heard of, and there has been no attempt to interrupt their progress or to balance their authority. By every form of Parliamentary and public demonstration the undivided feeling of the colony has been pronounced against the union with Canada. But in point of fact, my Lords, the dissatisfaction will not be contested, and there is no occasion to bring it in its full proportions under the notice of the House. The ground invariably taken by the rash advisers who stand in. the way of all conciliation at this moment, is that the feeling which sent the Delegates over the Atlantic will pass away so rapidly that it is useless to allay it. No man who is not gifted with the prescience which belongs to the Creator could guarantee such an event, and it would be infatuation therefore, to rely upon it. But will the House permit me to explain to them with what rapidity the dis-
  686
  content must pass away, in order that this arrogant and empty calculation may be a pretext for the conduct it encourages. The local Parliament of Halifax meets again on the 8th of Angust. With a view to join its proceedings, the Delegates on Saturday embarked for Nova Scotia. The same Members will assemble there whose Resolutions led to their appointment. The twenty-eight speakers, whose language found an echo in the colony, will again be present. The Assembly must again consider its position. It must either turn its back upon conclusions the most solemn, or be forced into reluctant opposition to this country, unless in the meanwhile something has been granted to it. The point to be considered is, will the discontent have passed away before the 8th of August if it has not been assuaged? Will it pass away before that moment, if everything has been done which can be done to aggravate and to embitter it? My Lords, this circumstance suffices to establish the urgent and immediate want of some conciliatory measure to guard against irreparable differences, which a few weeks may bring about, whether the discontent is doomed to last, or springs from causes utterly ephemeral and fugitive. I am not, therefore, bound to measure its duration beyond the moment I have pointed to. At that moment it may lead to steps which cannot be receded from. In the meanwhile we have no neutral path. We act before the world—400,000 men are looking to our sentence. Unless by granting we abate the discontent, we must inflame it by refusing. It is, therefore, unnecessary to show what I have shown incidentally—that its foundations are rather durable than, transitory. It is unnecessary to overthrow the idle theory which sciolists have mooted—that populations are always reconciled to unions which they regard with horror; at the outset; a theory which may have been suggested to them by a well-known character of Sheridan, in "The Rivals,"—Mrs. Malaprop,—who laid down "That the best marriages were those which began with a little mutual aversion." I need not remind the House that in 1830 Holland and Belgium did break loose from one another, and that some centuries before Spain and Portugal were not long combined under one sceptre. I need not maintain cither what I should maintain without fear were it incumbent on us that the union of States, and federation of dependencies, do not fall under one law and cannot be

  687
  confounded in their probable development. A mass of argument may be abandoned, which many of your Lordships would have felt bound in my position to adduce, if you will only bear in mind that the Business of the Empire, with a view to its security, is to remove the state of feeling which pourtrayed itself at Halifax, in January, before it has in August the opportunity of ripening to danger. Without some conciliatory measure you are not entitled to assume, you have not any shadow of a reason to suppose that it will vanish before August. What that measure ought to be is the only further point to be determined by your Lordships.
  My Lords, the inquiry which I move for—the repeal which the Petitioners declared are the conciliatory measures which present themselves. And, although, I will not admit that the withdrawal of Nova Scotia from the union could be attended with any greater disadvantages than attach to the present isolation of Prince Edwards Island and Newfoundland, I will admit that the time has not arrived for altering the Act on British North America, however recklessly adopted. Canada has sent a representative to deprecate it; to grant nothing to Canadian views might be as far from prudence and reserve, as to grant everything to Canadian views would be remote from magnanimity and justice. When two colonial interests are rivals before Parliament it is not desirable that either should be allowed to trample on the other. To guard as far as possible against Canadian resentment or Canadian embarrassment, inquiry on the spot may be a requisite preliminary to any alteration in the Act on British North America. We know because the delegates assured us that Nova Scotia would accept it as a guarantee for the removal of the evils under which they labour at this moment. Indeed, an instant change in the Act on British North America could not be effected. It can only be brought about by an Imperial enactment which the present state of Public Business in the Houses would forbid. Inquiry is therefore the alternative. But I am far from wishing to contend that inquiry in any shape whatever would be equal to the danger which impends so nearly; or meet the agitated feelings of the colony as a substitute for the repeal which their Petition has demanded. An inquiry conducted by a new Governor General of Canada—and something of the kind has been alluded to—passing Halifax upon his route to Ottawa,
  688
  would no doubt be taken rather as a mockery than a consession. He could only be regarded as the living organ of the power against which Nova Scotia is inflamed. Whatever labour he employed, he must either come to one conclusion or encounter a resenting interest in Canada, to paralyze the very functions he was sent out to discharge. If superhuman virtue rendered him impartial, impartiality would never be ascribed to him. And supposing him, on just and proper grounds, to hold that Nova Scotia ought not to share the independence of Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland, his report would simply excite distrust, while our object is not only to arrive at truth, but recommend it to the colony, The presence at Halifax of such a man with such a duty would be more likely to accelerate a riot than prevent one. But a Commission sent out from this country for the bonâ fide purpose of inquiry, and not identified with Canada, would have several distinct effects which ought to be presented to your Lordships. It would at once create a breathing time and respite. It would at once suspend the animosity which threatens us. We should no longer have to fear a hostile resolution from the Parliament at Halifax, of such a kind as to produce a grave Imperial dilemma. No disaster could arise until inquiry was exhausted. So far the Delegates assure us. Another practical effect of such a measure would be to draw out, if it exists, from the hiding-places which conceal it, the Nova Scotian party who support Confederation. The apparent unanimity against it would be severely tested. It would also have a salutary influence in Canada. Whatever can be done by the Canadian Legislature to remedy the discontent of Nova Scotia, would be done with zeal where Great Britain had determined to examine it. Inquiry of this nature, therefore, tends at once to disperse the cloud which hangs over a portion of the Empire and to elicit all the agencies by which the Act on British North America may possibly be vindicated. The kind of objections with which it has hitherto been met are such as I hope to hear tonight, because objections of a certain character do more than anything to confirm impartial men in favour of the course which they endeavour to disparage. They are nothing but a delicate avowal of logical resistance in extremes, and rather signals of distress than tokens of hostility. It has been said that an inquiry into the dis-

  689
  content of Nova Scotia would disturb the Government of Ottawa, and it might have been alleged at the same time, perhaps, the Government of Pekin. The Government of Ottawa must be frail indeed if such a measure would endanger it. The inquiry would first take place in Nova Scotia; it might be useful to extend it to New Brunswick. Canadian views might be effectually sounded at Toronto and Quebec, and the Commission need not go to Ottawa at all, if it was dreaded as the nurse of factions hostile to the Government. It has been said that Great Britain has renounced her title to examine the complaints of her dependencies, even when they call on her to do so; but it has never been pointed out at what time or in what manner: to such shadows are men driven when they oppose a course of which they sec the policy and justice. We are sometimes warned that an inquiry would inflame or agitate the colony: as if it could be more unsettled than it is, when all its constitutional authorities protest against the system you impose; and when you cannot arm its population with impunity. The most ingenuous and startling objection is that inquiry must lead to the withdrawal of Nova Scotia from the Union. The supporters of that Union betray a modest estimate of their production, when they avow that the moment you explore, Nova Scotia must be separated from it, and that to probe their wrongs is but another term for acquiescing in their remedy. My Lords, I disclaim the admission that repeal would be the unavoidable conclusion of inquiry. But if it is, what are we to think of those who venture to withhold it, and yet maintain the act they think it certain to expose, so far as it governs the relations of Nova Scotia and Canada? What objection can remain, then, to a course so moderate, so constitutional, so necessary? Shall we be told it is unprecedented? I am not quite certain that it is, or that when the troubles of America began between 1765 and 1795 a Commission of some kind was not appointed to compose them. But if the measure is unprecedented, it is because at that conjuncture it was wanting. And ought that to be regarded as a final argument against it? My Lords, had it been resorted to, blood might never have been shed at Lexington, or Congress met at Philadelphia, or the name of Bunker's Hill have become familiar to the world. Had it been resorted to, we might not have now observed a stream of bitterness di-
  690
  rected towards Ireland, a rival on the ocean, and in the torn remnant of our North American possessions a greater source of danger than of power. If, indeed, the measure is unprecedented, and if the absence of the precedent has led to these results, what fact could lend a weight more tragic and convincing to the case of those who urged it now upon the Legislature? My Lords, I ask your Lordships to adopt it, not because its omission in former times has been the source of griefs impossible to number and evils yet to come, but because it meets the exigency of the moment—because it involves the imminence of action where inaction would be fatal—because you cannot do less to encounter Nova Scotian discontent; and you must do something to encounter it, or be prepared to add the burden of a colonial and international embarrassment to the tasks of an exhausted Government and deeply agitated time. Beyond this, I recommend it to your Lordships because, as far as I can judge, you have two objects—to uphold Confederation, to keep Nova Scotia in the Empire; and because it is the single path by which those objects can be compassed. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to proceed to Nova Scotia for the Purpose of examining the Causes of the alleged Dissatisfaction, with a View to their Removal."—(The Lord Stratheden.)
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: My Lords, I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that the Motion of the noble Lord, which has been so long on the Notice Paper of the House, has not been brought to an issue at an earlier period after the discussion on the question in "another place, "and before the Delegates from Nova Scotia and the other Provinces, who came over to watch the proceedings in this country on behalf of their respective interests had departed. It would have been much better that this question should have been discussed, as I expected it would have been, almost simultaneously in both Houses, rather than that a long time should have been allowed to elapse between the: two discussions, and that opportunity should thus have been afforded for the continuance of popular agitation and excitement on the subject. But in asking your Lordships to dissent from the Motion and to leave the matter in the hands of the Government my task is rendered

  691
  easier by finding from the speech of the noble Lord that the course which has been taken hitherto by the Government has not been altogether unattended with beneficial results. The noble Lord pointed out—and justly pointed out—the danger of any policy which should not be shaped by the policy of conciliation. The noble Lord has omitted to point out the only strong demand made in the Petitions laid before the Parliament of this country by the Delegates who came from Nova Scotia to call attention to the injuries they apprehended from the measure of last Session; and the noble Lord, speaking as the advocate of those who placed their case in his hands, admits that the demand for the repeal of the Confederation Act, which alone was asked for in the Petitions first presented to this House, may now be dismissed from consideration. The noble Lord says the question is now one of inquiry into the depth, the extent, and the causes of the discontent which now prevails—as I admit it does; but I think the measures to be adopted depend greatly upon the grounds of that discontent and upon the extent of it. It seemed to me that the noble Lord avoided pointing out the full state of the case, as regards Nova Scotia. He omitted to notice a prominent fact which it is right should be brought under your notice. It is, that many of the grievances which had been anticipated from the union of the Provinces, and which did actually arise from the first action of the Canadian Parliament, and which were strongly dwelt upon in the Petitions first presented to this House, have been entirely removed by the action of the succeeding Parliament. Some of those who in the recent election for Nova Scotia were returned avowedly to oppose Confederation, yet took a wise and politic course in announcing to their constituents that they would go to Ottawa and sec what the result of Confederation was. One grievance strongly dwelt upon was the increase of taxation in Nova Scotia from interference with its revenues; but the noble Lord did not point out that at the time of the Confederation, such was the financial condition of Nova Scotia from the pressure of loans becoming due, that it would have been necessary to increase taxation in order to meet its liabilities quite as much as it had been augmented by the Confederation with Canada. Nor has the noble Lord pointed out that the Confederation has resulted in the entire freedom of commerce from light-
  692
  house and Customs' duties, and other restrictions to which it was formerly subjected. Noble Lords will find that the Parliament of Canada, so far from acting in a spirit of hostility or indifference to the Parliament of Nova Scotia or the maritime Provinces, has, in point of fact, laid down for itself a policy entirely to the contrary effect. It approached the subject of the Dominion with no indication of a reckless desire to involve itself in a large expenditure for the benefit of Canada alone; but, on the contrary, the policy indicated by the Canadian Parliament was conciliatory to the maritime Provinces, and favourable to the interests of shipping and commerce. Indeed it seems to me that Parliament has, as far as it has gone, met the question in a fair and just spirit, and certainly up to the present time there has been no proceeding on its part which would justify the demand in Nova Scotia for inquiry. It is said, however, that the whole Province of Nova Scotia now demands an inquiry, and that it did at one time demand repeal of the Confederation. But this I cannot admit to be the fact. My judgment on this question is not based merely upon the representations of active and able Delegates, but I have endeavoured to ascertain, as well as I can, the real facts of the case. Now, it is a striking fact that, notwithstanding the complaints which have proceeded from Nova Scotia, at the General Election which, occurred after the Confederation had been, entered into, not one half of the votes in the Province of Nova Scotia were given in favour of the repeal of the Confederation. This circumstance is the more remarkable when it is remembered that there had been a great agitation on the subject going on for a considerable period. The whole constituency under the limited franchise recently introduced was 48,000 or more, while for the successful candidates who were opposed to Confederation only about 22,500 out of the entire number of 48,000 votes were polled. Thus, it seems that, although there was a great change in the representation, there are no facts to show that the feeling in the Province against Confederation was by any means unanimous. Looking at the nature of the alleged grievances, I think the proper course to pursue was to allow the Canadian Parliament the opportunity of showing their determination to remove any grievances that might exist, and that they duly appreciated the importance to themselves of the hearty co-operation of the

  693
  maritime Provinces, especially Nova Scotia, in establishing the Union. I believe as time goes on the people of Nova Scotia will themselves doubtless arrive at the conclusion that, under the system of government that has now been inaugurated in regard to every branch of their commerce they are more favourably treated and better off than they would have been had they remained independent, or entered into a separate Confederation with Newfoundland or New Brunswick. The noble Lord has referred to a point which I believe was not very strongly dwelt upon by the Delegates themselves—namely, that the authority given to the Delegates by the Province of Nova Scotia, if given at all, was given only in respect of a Confederation in which they were to be one in five, and not one in three. It is hardly necessary to dwell upon that point, because, whatever may have been the instruction originally given to the Delegates, the Government of Nova Scotia expressed their satisfaction at the Confederation Act after it had been introduced into the Imperial Parliament, knowing of course, that it would effect only a Confederation of a limited kind, in which neither Newfoundland nor Prince Edward's Island was included. I understand, however, that the only question now to be decided is what course ought to be pursued in order to allay the discontent which prevails among a large number of the people of Nova Scotia. Now, under the circumstances I should deprecate such an inquiry as has been proposed by the noble Lord—not because there may not be a precedent for the adoption of such a course or because I am opposed to inquiry into grievances wherever a fair ground for it has been established, but because, in my opinion, the Nova Scotians will find that their true interest lies in their union with Canada, and that they are not suffering from the grievances so strongly set forth in their Petition which was presented at the commencement of this Session. The action of the Dominion Parliament will, I think, have very much altered their opinion on this point, and I trust the agitation will to some extent have subsided. It is most important that the people of Nova Scotia should feel at as early a date as possible the beneficial effect of the various measures of relief passed by the Dominion Parliament. I cannot but think that a Commission to inquire into these questions now, before any experience has been arrived at of the operation of the measure, would be
  694
  calculated to excite false hopes, and to stimulate that discontent which no doubt exists, but for which, I think, there is no good reason—at all events, on the grounds now put forward. There has been another reason alleged why Nova Scotia is an unwilling party to the Confederation—namely, her ancient history and well-known loyalty towards England. That, no doubt, is a feeling which ought not to be disregarded—a feeling which ought not to be lightly passed over; but in affairs of this kind we must look to the course of events generally. In that Province the subject of Confederation was mooted several years ago; and her Parliament debated it, and confirmed the scheme of Confederation which was ultimately passed. I think, therefore, we should pause before we take any steps which would cause hesitation in the minds of persons in Canada or other parts of North America who may be embarking in undertakings in Nova Scotia The policy of Her Majesty's Government has been to point out to the Province the various steps that have been taken to meet the grievances which, have been alleged. I cannot but think your Lordships will be of opinion that this is the more prudent course to pursue, and that you will refuse your consent to the Motion of the noble Lord for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into those grievances. For Her Majesty's Government I can only say that we shall proceed in a spirit of conciliation towards the Province, and use our influence with Canada in favour of a similar policy on the part of the Dominion Government.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, if any special responsibility in so great a measure as this can be said to attach to any individual, I presume that in this case that responsibility would attach to me; because it fell to my lot, when I filled the same position as that which my noble Friend who has just spoken now holds, to negotiate with the Delegates from North America the terms of the Union which was concluded by the Act of Confederation, and to submit that Act for the approval of the Imperial Parliament. My Lords, I think I may say there has rarely been any settlement so large in its operation which has more completely commanded the assent of all parties in this country. The Act passed through both Houses of Parliament—I cannot say without a dissentient voice, but with very few dissentient voices indeed. At the same time I cannot

  695
  for a moment allow that it passed without full consideration. The question had occupied the attention of successive Governments here, as it had been fully discussed in the North American Provinces. It is no wonder that this should have been so, because the real question was whether a great country, ruled by the same Sovereign, animated by one feeling of loyalty towards that Sovereign, and—as the noble Duke has remarked—united by natural bonds of interest and designed by nature as one—whether that country should henceforward be consolidated, or should continue to be divided by those artificial divisions which man had set up. I hope I never disguised from Parliament that there was a considerable party in Nova Scotia opposed to the Confederation. I did not conceal anything; I printed every statement on the subject, and even invited the attention of your Lordships to such opposition as did exist. What the character and extent of the opposition were was another question. Parliament, having heard and seen all that had been said on the subject, decided in favour of the measure by no faltering vote; and I think the reasons on which Parliament decided were good and valid reasons. If your Lordships allow me I will refer to dates in order to make the matter clearer. In 1861—the question had been mooted before then, but I shall not go further back than 1861—the House of Assembly in Nova Scotia declared in general terms its assent to a scheme of Confederation. Two years after, in 1863, a new Parliament was convened; and in the following year, 1864, there was a conference of Delegates. First, Delegates of all the maritime Provinces met at Charlottetown, in Prince Edward's Island, to consider the question of a union of the maritime Provinces alone. Subsequently the Canadian Delegates joined in; the conference was transferred to Quebec, and the Quebec Resolutions were the basis on which it was agreed that not one, two, or three, but all the five colonies should be united in a Confederation. In two years afterwards—namely, in 1866, the Parliament of Nova Scotia agreed to the Confederation, not in general, but in explicit and precise terms, and sent over Delegates to settle with Her Majesty's Ministers the terms of the Act. Those Delegates came to this country, and it was my duty to confer with them. In 1867 I introduced the Bill which your Lordships were pleased to pass, and which received the approval of the House of Commons
  696
  also. When the Act passed and went out to Nova Scotia, it was solemnly ratified by the Parliament of that Province. Immediately, however, on this another disolution took place and another Parliament was convened in Nova Scotia, and it passed Resolutions against the Act—Resolutions on which the Petitions presented by the noble Lord are founded. That was the course of proceeding. But the noble Lord has said this evening, as he said last year, that knowing there was a certain amount of opposition to the measure, though the character and extent of that opposition were unknown, it was our duty to have tested the feeling of the Province by a dissolution. On constitutional grounds, no doubt, I readily agree that it is never right to take any country or any body by surprise; but I should wholly demur to the doctrine that it is necessary to refer back to the constituencies each particular point, even though important, as it arises. If that were necessary Members of Parliament would not be representatives of the people; they would be simply delegates. This has been repeatedly held by the highest Parliamentary authorities, from Mr. Pitt to Sir Robert Peel. Parliaments that had sat several years, and had been originally called together for the discussion of other questions passed the Act of Union, Roman Catholic Emancipation, and the Repeal of the Corn Laws. But if you look to the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, I think you will find—I say it without any intention of offence—that these changes in public opinion, rapid in all popularly governed countries, are very rapid there; and on no subject have they been more rapid than on this question of Confederation. In 1864 Newfoundland and Prince Edward's Island were favourable to some Confederation. They assented to the Quebec Resolutions, which was a practical embodiment of the Confederation scheme, and which afterwards formed the basis of the Act. Two years later those colonies opposed this principle, to which they had previously declared themselves to be favourable. In 1865 the colony of New Brunswick was opposed to Confederation. In 1866—the year afterwards—that colony having passed through one of those phases of opinion which frequently set in, was in favour of Confederation, and was incorporated under the Act of last Session. Therefore, I say it was not competent for Parliament last year to look be-

  697
  hind the vote of those authorities who had agreed to the scheme of Confederation; it was not our business to disregard or put on one side the accredited envoys from those colonies to us. If there be one thing more than another which representative self-government of the colonies means, it is this—that the Home Government and the Imperial Parliament will only deal with the duly accredited agents of those colonies as representing the local authority, and the adoption of any other principle will lead us into very serious difficulties. The position of affairs last year was a very peculiar one. Your Lordships will, doubtless, remember the Constitution by which Upper and Lower Canada were united. No doubt, that proved in many respects very successful; but in other respects it had run itself out, and when Parliament passed that Act of last year it was perfectly evident to all parties that a dead-lock had arisen in the legislative machinery which governed the relations of Upper and Lower Canada, and that unless some remedy were applied great inconvenience must result. Nor let the House forget that just about the same time there was open and aggressive manifestation of Fenianism upon the border, and that the Fenians had carried fire and sword into an unoffending Province, and were keeping all things in a state of difficulty and disturbance. And therefore it was that parties within the colony—men of all shades of political opinion, holding the most different views, and who for years, had been opposed upon questions of vital importance, made great sacrifices—sacrifices national, political, even religious in their character—and combined in one general policy which they believed to be for the safety and general welfare of the country. I think your Lordships cannot fail to perceive that if at such a moment we had allowed any delay in giving effect to what was the common desire, it must have had the effect of indefinitely postponing any settlement of this question, What is the demand put forward by the noble Lord opposite? The noble Lord says it is the issue of a Commission of Inquiry. But if your Lordships look at the Resolution of the Nova Scotian Parliament upon which that demand is based, you will see that it goes a long way in the direction of guiding the Commission to a conclusion, and indicates that Nova Scotia will be satisfied with nothing less than the repeal of the Confederation by which they are bound to Canada. We must all do justice to the ancient loyalty
  698
  and high feeling of the Nova Scotians. The noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham) did no more than justice when he spoke of Nova Scotia as one of our most ancient and valued colonies, whose feelings towards this country have never for a moment been doubted or questioned; and I feel sure that Parliament, in dealing with a question in which their feelings are so deeply interested would wish to deal, not alone in the most kindly, but in the most respectful manner. At the same time, the Nova Scotians will well understand that in treating this question and arguing upon it we must deal with them as men of sense—not, I hope, giving them offence, but putting before them those solid arguments upon which the question rests. Let it not for a moment be supposed that I contemplate the employment of coercion; I hold that such a word has no place whatever in the vocabulary of the relations that should exist between this country and the colonies. But, at the same time, speaking with perfect frankness and sincerity, I say that from one point of view the demand is premature, and from another point of view that it comes too late. It is premature, because the Confederation which is complained of has not yet been in existence for a single twelvemonth, and, as the noble Duke pointed out, not one-half of the total electors have expressed their opinion upon it. The total constituency amounts to 48,000 electors, and those voting for the repeal of the Confederation only amounted to 22,000—there being, moreover, a very large minority of not less than 15,000 who threw their votes in favour of the maintenance of the Union. No Union, as far as I know, in the history of the world has ever worked quite smoothly in its commencement. It could not, in the nature of things, be possible that it should do so. More than once, certainly, after the Union of England and Scotland Motions were made for the repeal of that Union. Yet no one doubts now with what incalculable blessings that Union was fraught to both countries, or how wise those statesmen were who turned a deaf ear to the temporary desires of the people. But in another point of view, this demand comes too late, for the Nova Scotians have elected their Members and sent them to the Parliament at Ottawa, upon a distinct promise that fair play should be given to the new constitutional Act. It could scarcely be said that fair play had been given to it if, before twelve months are out, you are asked to repeal the mea-

  699
  sure. And it cannot be forgotten that there would be the most serious practical difficulties in doing anything of the kind. To begin with, Nova Scotia has already obtained a great many of the advantages of union; and even if she were ready to relinquish these, they are of a kind that cannot easily be put off. For instance, a sum of money has been already expended upon public works, not less, I believe, than 30,000 dollars upon the survey and location of the railroad. Again, the money securities of Nova Scotia, which before the Union were at a discount, have been so enhanced in value that they now—including discount and premium—equal a total rise of 10 per cent. If, then, you attempt to repeal that Act, you at once involve yourself in difficulties of a very serious character. Again, I say the Nova Scotians must forgive me for speaking with perfect frankness; I do not think that their present demand is a reasonable one. What is the claim which Nova Scotia and all the British North American colonies have invariably made upon this country? It is that they shall be viewed and treated as integral parts of this great Empire. And what has been the answer of one English statesman after another? They have said to the colonies, "As long as you continue true to your allegiance—as long as you desire to retain your connection with this country—so long will we stand by you; no open aggression shall be made upon you, and not even the breath of insult shall pass over you." But, on the other hand, this promise was never made without an implied and tacit understanding on the part of the colonies that they should do their part in the matter; they have been told over and over again that they must organize and place themselves in a position which would be tenable and defensible in case of war. Well, what is that position? All the authorities, military and civilian, are agreed in this—that the best and almost the only military organization which it is possible for these colonies to adopt is Confederation. If that policy be applicable to any one of the colonies more than another, it is to Nova Scotia, which has been described by one of their own most able advocates as the frontage of the whole British North American Continent, whose harbours, citadel, and arsenal were not made for Nova Scotia alone; but were designed by nature for the common benefit of herself and of her sister Provinces. But
  700
  I know very well that it is said by some persons in Nova Scotia, "Nova Scotia has a peculiar geographical formation, of which, if she were disposed to take advantage"—I deny that she is disposed to take advantage it—"she could strengthen herself within that peninsula, and remain careless and secure while the lands of her sister colonies were desolated by war." I do not believe for one moment that the Nova Scotians—as loyal, as true, and as generous a people as ever lived—would recognize or admit such an argument, still less that they would stoop to so unworthy a policy. But it is an argument which has been put forward by a narrow section, and it deserves to be met. There was such a case before in the world's history about 3,000 years ago; it is one of the earliest wars that has been described, but its record still kindles enthusiasm when it is read, When the liberty and the civilization of Greece broke the whole force of the Persian invader, there was a peninsula within which it was proposed by a section, arguing in the same narrow spirit that the section of today argues, to intrench themselves, leaving the remainder of their countrymen to be decimated by war, and their lands to be wasted by a foreign enemy. Happily for the liberties of men, that fatal proposal was over-ruled: they fought and they conquered, and whom does history now delight to honour? Those who made common cause with the rest of Greece and refused to be sharers in an ungenerous, unworthy, and selfish policy, or those whose conduct had then, and has been since, branded as false to the interests of Greece, of liberty, and of civilization? I am satisfied that the same will be the case with Nova Scotia; that selfish considerations will not prevail, and that the arguments of a narrow section will not find favour. It is unwise, it is unreasonable, for the colonies to expect us to make sacrifices for them if they are prepared in return to make no sacrifices for us. I was glad to hear what fell from the noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham) when he told us that the Parliament of Canada have shown every inclination to deal in the most gentle and conciliatory spirit with Nova Scotia. In my opinion, in so doing they act rightly and wisely. Your Lordships and Parliament may do something, but the Canadian Parliament can do a great deal more in this matter. The burdens they have struck off and the disposition they have shown to make

  701
  allowance for the present feeling and irritation of the Nova Scotians evince a desire to do full justice to all Nova Scotian interests. But the question remains for us—can we agree to such a proposition as the noble Baron (Lord Stratheden) has brought forward? I submit that you cannot do so. In fairness to the whole Dominion of Canada you cannot re-open at the end of one year a question which would break up the Union. In the next place there is no precedent for such a Motion as this. We are now asked to recommend the issue of a Commission of Inquiry to repeal a great constitutional measure which has not been in existence twelve months. There is no precedent for this. More than this, what we are asked to do is to place the Parliament and this country in a position of unparallelled indignity, and to confess that our whole colonial Empire is one gigantic failure. Time, which changes so many things, also heals many things, and I trust that it will heal the irritation which is felt in parts of Nova Scotia. Of one thing I am satisfied, that we cannot take any hasty and precipitate step, and on the Other hand, the Nova Scotians must remember that none can be exempt from difficulties, trials, burdens, and sacrifices who desire to maintain their position in that Imperial commonwealth to which they belong, and in the glory of which we are all common sharers. I hope your Lordships will reject the prayer of this Petition.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that with the personal feelings he entertained towards Nova Scotia no one could be more ready than himself to adopt any measure calculated to allay the irritation that existed, and to promote the interests of that colony. The noble Lord who brought forward the subject (Lord Stratheden) had greatly narrowed it by admitting that the repeal of the Union was not now the question to be discussed; but still he (the Marquess of Normanby) should not be doing his duty if he gave a silent vote on this Motion. The Petition was one of so extraordinary a character, having been signed by nearly all the Members of the local Legislature of Nova Scotia, that if he simply considered the interests of the Nova Scotians he should not hesitate, however much he might regret such a decision, to vote for the repeal of the Union. But it was not the interests of Nova Scotia alone which their Lordships had now to consider, and he believed that the appointment of a Commission would
  702
  only tend to increase the dissatisfaction and irritation now existing in Nova Scotia. What he hoped would occur to allay that irritation was a change of opinion on the part of the Nova Scotians themselves. In small communities, where local interests were concerned, opinions were apt to be taken up suddenly, and these opinions were liable to sudden changes. The noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham) had referred to the case of New Brunswick. The elections in 1855 resulted in an overwhelming majority against the Union; but within a year a large majority was returned in favour of the Union. Taking everything into consideration, and knowing the energy shown by the opponents of the Union; and how they had agitated the country from one end to the other—how they had predicted evils of every kind, and declared that the trade of Nova Scotia would be ruined by a hostile tariff, and that their Militia would be moved to the frontiers of Canada, to protect that Province—he was by no means surprised at what had occurred. But he believed that as soon as the Nova Scotians found that these predictions had not been fulfilled, they would themselves acknowledge the wisdom of their Lordships in rejecting their present demand, and would be thankful for the opportunity of re-considering the matter more calmly. He believed that the Canadian Parliament would be found willing and ready to redress any grievances of Nova Scotia which might be pointed out. He had foundation for this belief; for during the last Session several duties which peculiarly affected Nova Scotia were taken off; the duty on corn was modified the tonnage dues for lights on the coast, and taxes on all the articles used in shipbuilding were repealed—burdens which affected Nova Scotia as a maritime Province. Steps had also been taken to encourage the direct trade with the West Indies. Seeing what had already occurred in the Canadian Parliament, he was justified in believing that in future the Nova Scotians would be treated with generosity, with justice, and as an integral portion of the Canadian Dominion, and that in a short time they would themselves wonder at the opposition they had offered to the Union. As in his opinion the issue of a Commission would only aggravate the evil, he should vote against the Motion.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he in a great measure attributed the discontent that existed to the haste with which the Confede-

  703
  ration Act was pressed forward by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) last year. Objection had been taken to the Irish Church being dealt with by a moribund Parliament. Now, it was a moribund Parliament in Nova Scotia which sanctioned Confederation, and he last year pressed upon the noble Earl the important consideration that the elections were just coming on, and that it would be much better to delay the consideration of the subject until the opinions of the constituencies had been ascertained. That result proved to be adverse to the measure, but he thought the elections turned less upon Confederation than on another question on which a strong feeling prevailed. He had always advocated Confederation, but such a measure should be based upon consent, and though he admitted that technially there had been consent, it would have been better to wait for the decision of the new Parliament, which he believed would not in that case have been so adverse. The discontent which existed was not to be allayed by telling the colonists that they were in the wrong and that the Canadian Parliament would hereafter grant them everything they required. In conversation with the Delegates, he found that they complained especially of the want of sympathy manifested by the British Parliament, and he regretted that the noble Duke did not take advantage of their visit to this country to propose an Inquiry by a Committee of this House, for the Delegates would have gone away much better satisfied if their opinions had been put on record. They also complained that only ten Peers were present when the Confederation Act passed. He had no doubt of the loyalty of the Nova Scotians, but he feared that unless they found themselves objects of sympathy and interest on the part of the mother-country they would turn their eyes to the United States. Now, while thinking that if our North American colonies chose to separate from us they should be allowed to do so amicably, he had no wish that they should throw themselves into the arms of the United States. He regretted that the noble Duke had not uttered a word of conciliation. Had he promised a Committee of Inquiry next Session, or given some assurance that their case would be considered, the colonists would have been move disposed to weigh the points which had been urged by him. To look to the Confederate Parliament for redress was the very thing to which they objected; for,
  704
  while not disinclined to Confederation with the maritime Provinces, they protested against union with Canada, on the ground that the interests and feelings of Canada were hostile to their own. They held, moreover, that an undue burden would fall upon them with regard to the defence of Canada, which, in case of war, would be the first point of attack. The experiment of Confederation must now be tried, and he trusted it would succeed; but it would have had a better chance of success had the language, not so much of the noble Duke as of his Under Secretary in the House of Commons, been more sympathetic and conciliatory.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that bearing in mind the disclosures which had recently been made with regard to the Union with Ireland, and in other similar cases, he could not help suspecting that something occurred during the Session of the colonial Parliament in 1866 of which we were not cognizant. It would be impossible, however, to inquire into secret proceedings,—if there had been any; and it would be contrary to the principles of our colonial policy to refer the question of Confederation to a Commission at the very commencement of its operation. He thought the colonists had cried out before they were hurt, for, with the exception of a slight increase in certain duties, they did not appear to have actually suffered, while they would no doubt be benefited by future legislation. As to the argument that the colonial Legislature had no right to overthrow its own Constitution, it did not do so, but simply expressed an opinion in favour of Confederation, while the Imperial Parliament decided upon the measure. He must again express his regret that sufficient discussion had not taken place before the passing of the Confederation Act, and that a greater desire to conciliate had not been manifested. He trusted that every expression of sympathy would be used towards the people of Nova Scotia; and he, for his part, would not say that at no future time and under no possible circumstances should an independent Inquiry be undertaken by this country in the sense the people of Nova Scotia wished. He did not see any ground for supposing that the Parliament of Canada would not do justice to Nova Scotia, and therefore he would remit the petitioners to that authority. As far as expressions of our sympathy went we should give them; but he would say that it was impossible for us at the present mo-

  705
  ment to consent to the prayer of the Petition.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, the noble Lord who had spoken last but one (Lord Lyveden) had blamed his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) for having been in so great a hurry, and stated that, as far as Nova Scotia was concerned, the Act of Confederation was passed by a moribund Parliament. But he begged to point out that the Parliament which had decided on the Act had been elected on a much wider franchise than the Parliament which now existed, and, therefore, as far as a wider franchise was a test, the late Parliament ought to be regarded as a better index of the popular will than the present. This Act of Confederation had been in force only a few months, and he could not imagine why their Lordships should so stultify themselves as to re-open the whole question, or do that which the Province by its Delegates regarded as a preliminary step to a repeal of the Union. There never was an Act of Union which at once satisfied the people affected by it. Let their Lordships take the Union of Scotland with England, and consider how much opposed to it the most patriotic Scotchmen of the day were. The same was the case with the Union of North Germany, which had been the dream of the most patriotic Germans for centuries, but which a great many Germans at present were not satisfied with. His noble Friend (Lord Lyveden) said he feared that if their Lordships did not immediately comply with the wishes of the Nova Scotians they would annex themselves to the United States. He (the Earl of Airlie) could not conceive that the Nova Scotians would be so blind to their own interests. Did not his noble Friend know that the Nova Scotians were, above all things, a maritime and commercial people; that the trade of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was largely a shipbuilding trade; and what was the condition to which those interests were reduced in the United States? The United States, partly from financial necessity, partly from a sneaking regard for Protection, had piled duty upon duty upon copper, iron, hemp, and everything that enters into the construction of ships? He believed that in New York there was not a single ship building at present, nor in Massachusetts, nor in almost any part of the Union. They all knew that at this moment the shipbuilding trade of the United States had been transferred to the maritime Provinces. Well, then, did his
  706
  noble Friend believe that a people who were so much interested in shipbuilding as the Nova Scotians would annex themselves to the United Sates, and so ruin their trade? But it was not shipbuilding only, but almost every kind of manufacture that was in distress in the United States. The iron manufacture of Pennsylvania, the woollen manufacture and the cotton manufacture of the New England States, were all reduced o the greatest state of depression; and did his noble Friend think that in such circumstances the people of Nova Scotia would throw themselves into the arms of the United States and reduce themselves to ruin? He agreed with his noble Friend and all who had spoken on the subject, that it was the duty of the Canadian Government as far as possible to conciliate the people of Nova Scotia. Her Majesty's Government ought to make them clearly understand that the consolidation of the new Dominion must be the work of the Canadian Government much more than of Her Majesty's Government. That new Dominion must be consolidated much more by affection from within than by pressure from without. He hoped the Canadian Government would have the wisdom to see this, and also that if they were to become a great people they must disregard provincial prejudices. In London people never thought of inquiring whether a man had been born in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales; so in Ottawa he trusted that, provided a man had sufficient capacity to fill a public office, they would never inquire whether he came from the maritime Provinces or otherwise. He believed the Canadians had the means of making their position so strong and so powerful as not only to overcome the discontent of Nova Scotia, but even to induce the people of Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland to gravitate towards the new Dominion.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he should be glad if Nova Scotians would attend to the advice that had been given them by their Lordships, and admit that they were entirely in the wrong; but if the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies had read the protest which the Delegates who had lately gone from this country had left behind, he would not think that they would lightly abandon the pretensions which they had put forth. His noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) had vindicated his own conduct in passing the measure; but a little delay would probably have been found wiser in

  707
  the end. The noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies had talked a good deal of the good that would hereafter result from Confederation; but neither his noble Friend nor the noble Duke had dealt with the discontent which, notwithstanding all that had been said, was almost universal in Nova Scotia. Now, how did they intend to deal with this discontent? His noble Friend opposite had said, with that wisdom which he possessed in so high a degree, that coercion was a word he did not like to use between England and her colonies. Both his noble Friend's historical recollections and his own inclinations would have made him averse from employing coercion towards the Nova Scotians; but his noble Friend could not deny that we had in a way coerced them into this union, and that we were now coercing them to remain in it. Now there could be no doubt that if anything in addition to the eloquence of noble Lords could convince the Nova Scotians how much they were in the wrong it would be a new inquiry. The votes of the late elections showed what discontent existed. Out of thirty-eight persons elected to the Provincial Parliament thirty-six had sent to this country an Address praying, not for inquiry but for repeal; and of the nineteen elected to represent the Province of Canada, seventeen were in favour, at all events, of a suspension of the Act of Confederation. Great importance must be attached to the possession of Nova Scotia, not only as a colony, but as containing at Halifax an important naval and military station, and as being, therefore, like Gibraltar and Malta, not a mere territorial possession, but a position essential to the maintenance of our maritime supremacy. We should be very cautious how we alienated the affections of these people. It was very well to lay down what we considered was good for them but the question was rather what they thought was good for themselves. They believed that this Union would injure them. They might be excessively foolish in entertaining that idea; but as they did entertain it we should be exceedingly unwise to irritate them by disregarding their opinions. We might need, sooner than we expected, the help of Nova Scotia in order to maintain our position in North America, and we should take care to retain her good-will and friendship. In the reign of George III. no doubt his Ministers thought the people of Boston unwise in objecting to the imposition of the tea duty; but that was not the way to deal with such a ques
  708
  tion. He thought, therefore, that however difficult such an Inquiry as was asked for, it ought to be instituted. The expense would not be great; and if it were true that the arguments were so strong in favour of Confederation, these would be elicited and would prevail; and we might hope to have a loyal colony instead of a discontented one.
  EARL RUSSELL: Feeling that this question is one of the gravest importance, I wish to say a few words respecting it. It appears to me that whatever mistakes may have been made hitherto—and mistakes there have been—what we have to consider is the present state of affairs, and the best thing to be done upon the noble Lord's Motion. Now, looking at the facts of the case, I find that in 1863 the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia came to a Resolution that—
  "In the opinion of this House it is desirable that a Confederation of the British North American Colonies should take place."
  That, of course, implies a Confederation including Canada. It is, therefore, too late now to say that they objected altogether to union with Canada. Acting in conformity with precedent and with reason, I cannot say that that Resolution was not sufficient to proceed upon, and that there ought to have been a special Assembly called for the purpose of considering this question. The Legislative Council were fully entitled to adopt the Resolutions to which they came, and their Resolutions are binding. But then came a further Resolution, that it is desirable—
  "To arrange with the Imperial Government a scheme of union which will effectually insure just provision for the rights and interests of this Province."
  The question arises whether we have made sufficient provision for the rights and interests of the Province of Nova Scotia. The colony has made a representation to the Imperial Parliament—and we all know that this has been an exceedingly loyal colony, and that it had rights and interests which it desired to preserve; and I think we shall all feel also that those rights and interests ought to be effectually provided for. The Province of Lower Canada had certain, rights and interests which were guaranteed by the Act of the Imperial Legislature, and these rights and interests were provided for in the Act of Confederation; and, in like manner, the Act of Confederation should have provided, and I trust did pro-

  709
  vide, for the rights and interests of the people of Nova Scotia. But then, when I am asked what is to be the remedy for any grievance which may be felt by the colony, and whether we should ask Her Majesty to send out a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into this matter, I should say that the Confederation having been made under the sanction of the Assembly and Council of Nova Scotia itself, the sending out of a Commission in order to inquire, in effect whether the Act of Confederation should be repealed and the Confederation altogether dissolved, would not be for the benefit of Nova Scotia or for the benefit of any of Her Majesty's subjects in British North America, but would merely be the introduction of new discord and new confusion into the Province. If that be the case, the only remedy I can see is that Her Majesty's Government, through the Secretary of State, should inquire most carefully into the complaints that are made by these loyal subjects of the Crown. I myself have the greatest respect for the people of Nova Scotia. We have seen how their industry has tended to the prosperity of that colony; we have seen, when parts of Canada were in insurrection, how true and how loyal the people of Nova Scotia were. I trust, therefore, that the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies will take pains to inquire into all these grievances and into all provisions which the colonists may think injurious to their interests; that having done so he will lay before Parliament the result of the inquiry; that Nova Scotia will understand that, having adopted the Confederation, we cannot depart from it; but that everything which concerns the rights and interests of Nova Scotia shall be abundantly provided for. I am sure that the Government, and all parties in this country, sincerely desire the welfare of Nova Scotia. We desire nothing that can be incompatible or inconconsistent with the prosperity of the colony; our wish is that such grievances as she can show to exist should be speedily and completely redressed; and that Nova Scotia may remain, as she has heretofore been, a loyal and contented Province, a source of strength and an ornament to the Empire.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in reply, said, that as in the course of the debate there had been no arguments adduced against inquiry he had little to reply to. The noble Earl the former Secretary of State had entered into a defence of what he regarded as his policy. The only remark which it
  710
  suggested was, Quis vituperavit Herculem? The policy of the noble Earl was not the subject which their Lordships were considering. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) had indeed asserted that a Commission would aggravate the discontent in Nova Scotia. It became, therefore, a balance between the authority of the noble Marquess and that of the Delegates, who, with local knowledge yet more recent, held an opposite opinion. The House had one conclusive reason for acquiescing in the judgment of the Delegates. As they were to a great extent the leaders of the colony they had an obviously considerable power to influence its temper and proceedings. Was it supposed that if their mission was entirely defeated and all their labours scattered to the winds, that power would be strongly exercised in favour of Great Britain, whose decision in the case supposed they could not possibly extenuate. At the same time as the Government had determined to oppose the Motion, and as the noble Earl (Earl Russell) had not determined to support it, he (Lord Campbell) did not insist upon dividing. It might not tend to the solution of the difficulty or the peace of British North America to show that when argument had been entirely on one side, numbers were almost entirely on the other.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

BOUNDARY BILL—(No. 170.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
BOUNDARY BILL—(No. 170.)

  COMMITTEE. REPORT.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  The Amendment moved on Thursday last (Earl Beauchamp) (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHrose to move his Amendment, which was that Jarrow should be included in the borough of South Shields. He considered that a great public wrong had been done by the action of the Government in this matter of the Boundary Bill. The question of the boundaries having been removed out of the arena of party conflict by the appointment of a Royal Commission, the Government, without any just ground, instead of adhering faithfully and steadfastly to the Report of the Commission, referred the matter to a Select Committee of the other House, by

  711
  whom the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners were completely upset, and in consequence of the delay thus occasioned their Lordships were precluded from the opportunity of considering the details of the Bill. Why the recommendations of the Commissioners should not have been adopted he was at a loss to understand. The name of the Chairman of the Royal Commission was alone a sufficient guarantee to the public of the impartiality of its decisions. The Bill had been sent up to this House at a time when it was almost impossible to consider it in its details. Whatever interpretation might be put upon the language of the Prime Minister—and a very forced interpretation was put upon it—it was admitted that any private Member of their Lordships' House might take up the question. His noble Friend (the Earl of Beauchamp) gave Notice of an Amendment, which would have given their Lordships an opportunity of considering some of the details of the Bill; but, upon being appealed to by the Government, the noble Earl withdrew his Motion. He (Lord Ravensworth) then, on the spur of the moment, gave Notice of his intention to call attention to one portion of the Bill. There were many boroughs which, no doubt, presented a strong case for the extension of their boundary, that of South Shields was as strong as any. Its population in 1861 was 35,000, and the Commissioners proposed to add to it Jarrow, which contained a population of 15,000 industrious men, chiefly engaged in shipbuilding. Jarrow was a place of great antiquity, and was in every respect identified with South Shields; yet the recommendation of the Commission was overthrown by the Committee, the grounds of whose decision were not stated in their Report. He had presented a petition signed by 440 of the most influential inhabitants, manufacturers and others in South Shields, praying that the Report of the Commission might be sustained. Much more depended upon their Lordships considering this question than the satisfaction of South Shields and of Jarrow. Unless steps were taken to include such places as Jarrow within the limits of the Parliamentary boroughs next to them, very grave questions would arise in future, for it was impossible to suppose a system of representation could continue which excluded from the franchise the population on one side of the street and admitted the householders on the other side. Yet this description at present applied to many bo
  712
  roughs, and particularly to Nottingham, Birmingham, and South Shields. He feared the next demand would be to have the county mapped out into equal electoral districts; and this, no doubt, would be followed by the equalization of the county and borough franchises. It was because he was desirous to avoid such demands, and to effect a real settlement of this question for a generation at least, that, in spite of adverse circumstances, he begged to move that the Parliamentary limits of the borough of South Shields be extended, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners.
  An Amendment moved, Clause 4, after ("Salisbury") insert ("South Shields.")—(The Lord Ravensworth).
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he was anxious that there should not be a repetition of the scene witnessed by their Lordships the other evening, and hoped the discussion on this subject would terminate in a way very different from that in which it had been begun. He would, therefore, not follow his noble Friend in his history of what occurred in the House of Commons, but would be content to refer to the reasons which he gave the other evening to his noble Friend, Lord Beauchamp—who was now absent from the House—when, on behalf of the Government, he begged his noble Friend to withdraw the Amendments which stood in his name. He would not repeat those reasons, but must ask his noble Friend (Lord Ravensworth) not to persist in the Motion he had just made. His noble Friend, however, would not infer from this request that he at all dissented from the arguments just addressed to their Lordships. Indeed, from the very commencement of the discussions in the other House the Government had always been of opinion that the decision of the Royal Commissioners was on the whole the best. Under the circumstances, however, he must ask his noble Friend to withdraw the Amendment, and allow the Bill to pass in its present form.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he wished to state why he should support the Amendment. He had not entered into the debate the other night because it was carried on in a tone which he did not desire to adopt; but on the present occasion he deemed it necessary to make some remarks on the manner in which the House had been treated in regard to this Bill and the Scotch Reform Bill, which were two of the most im-

  713
  portant measures that ever came under the consideration of Parliament. They related to the Constitution of the country, and yet their Lordships were told they were not to introduce any Amendments into them. Now, why had not the Boundary Bill been sent up from the House of Commons at an earlier period? Because, he would reply, the Opposition had taken up the time of the House with the consideration of another uncalled-for and totally useless measure. Their Lordships were now told, however, that the Bill could not be altered, because it was of great importance that the elections should occur in November; but was that object of such vital importance as to call for the passing through their Lordships' House without any discussion of a measure effecting the representation of the people? To compare the two things was what no Statesman ought to do, and what no man, with any regard for the country, could do. Why should not this Bill be amended? The Scotch Bill had been amended, and there would nevertheless be time for its being re-discussed in the other House. It seemed to him that the question of passing a good Boundary Bill was of much more importance than whether the elections took place in November or not. He could not understand, therefore, why the Amendment of the noble Duke the Postmaster General with regard to Glasgow was not to be entertained. The addition of it would not lead to more than a couple of hours' discussion, which would cause no delay whatever. He hoped that on the third reading that Amendment would be moved; for he believed that the arguments in favour of extending the boundary of Glasgow were unanswerable. The independence of their Lordships' House was concerned in this matter. Even now Amendments might be introduced into the Bill, and yet they were told not to make them, as there might be some hazard about the proceeding. Now, the House of Commons might discuss the Amendments in the same time their Lordships would probably take in inserting them. If the House of Commons accepted them, well and good; if they rejected them it would then be the duty of their Lordships to determine whether they would insist upon them, or whether they would consent to withdraw them in order to prevent further delay. For these reasons he should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that a most important constitutional principle was in-
  714
  volved in this question; and if the noble Lord pressed his Amendment to a division he should feel it his duty to vote in favour of it.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the proposal of the Government that no alteration should be introduced into the Boundary Bill was made simply because it was desired to have the dissolution in November; and the 20th July was the last day for sending in claims for the county votes. Under the circumstances the Government felt bound to abide by the pledge which they gave to the House the other evening.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Nobody can complain of the course which the three independent Peers have taken this evening. Although, in discussions which were certainly carried on with great spirit, to say the least of it, on both sides, we complained of the course which Her Majesty's Government seemed inclined to take, we never pretended to impugn the right of the House to act as it thought fit. To-night Her Majesty's Government have behaved in a most honourable way; and I may add that I believe my noble Friends opposite are incapable of intentionally acting in any other way.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 27: Majority, 18.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  CONTENTS.

  Bristol, M.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Sondes, L.

  Colchester, L.

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

  Denman, L.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Ravensworth, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Halifax, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Mar. lborough, D.

  Colonsay, L

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Crofton, L.

  Farnham, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Foley, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Seaton, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Granville, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Stratheden, L.

  Lichfield, E. [Teller.]

  Sundridge, L (D. Argyll)

  Malmesbury, E.

  PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 192.)
  (The Lord Privy Seal.)
  PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 192.)

    REPORT.
    Amendments reported (according to Order).
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLexplained that the Amendments for which he was responsible had been introduced with the sanction of the noble, and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, and were not intended to delay in any way the passing of the Bill.
    LORD REDESDALEsaid, that if any Amendments whatever were introduced the effect must be to send back the Bill for re-consideration to the House of Commons. He was unable to see any difference in principle between the consideration of one Amendment and another; and therefore he begged to give Notice that upon the third reading he should move the Amendment of which Notice had been given with regard to the city of Glasgow.
    Further Amendments made: Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 220.)
    House adjourned at a Quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.