Sitting of 23 July 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—District Church Tithes Act Amendment * [246].
Considered as amended—Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [243]; Hudson's Bay Company * [240].
Third Reading—Electric Telegraphs * [239]; Hudson's Bay Company * [240]; Saint Mary; Somerset's Church, London, * [217], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

METROPOLIS—THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.—QUESTION.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Under whose authority and responsibility the New Law Courts will be erected and the approaches to them formed, whether of the Treasury, or of the Commissioners of Works and Buildings, or of the New Courts of Justice Commission; from what funds is the whole expense of these Courts and approaches to be paid; and whether, before any contracts are made for executing any portion of the works, the House of Commons will have an opportunity of inspecting the plans, elevations, and description of the building, and the plans of proposed approaches?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, if the hon. Alderman would refer to the Act which regulated these matters he would find that the plans were to be settled by the Treasury with the advice of the Commissioners. With regard to the funds, the Act provided that £200,000 should be voted by Parliament in consideration of certain buildings now occupied as Law Courts on the western side of Westminster Hall to be surrendered to the Government; that £1,000,000 should be paid out of the Surplus Fee Fund, and the remainder was to come out of the fees paid by suitors other than those in the Court of Chancery, extending over a period of fifty years. With regard to the contracts lie was unable to answer that part of the Question, for this very day there was a meeting of Commissioners to consider the question of the final plan; and therefore whether it would be possible to decide on the general plan before the meeting of Parliament be was unable to say.

INDIA—SALE OF GIRLS.

  QUESTION.
  MB. BAZLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether sales of girls take place at the Bazaar of Manickguage, situate within the Burdwan Zillah; and, in the event of such being the fact, whether the Indian Government will repress those sales, and prevent all tendencies to slavery in the Indian Empire?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, he could not find that any information has been received at the India Office to the effect that sales of girls take place at the Bazaar of Manickguage, in the Burdwan Zillah.

NAVY—REPORTS ON TURRET-SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEELYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the extracts which he read on the 2nd land 13th instant. If he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies in full of the Reports and Letters of Captain Macdonald, Captain Vansittart, Admiral Ryder, and one of the Officers of the Ocean, Captain Chamberlain, of Admiral Warden, Admiral; Yelverton, Captain Foley, Captain Hood,; Captain King Hall, and Captain Willes, I relating to Turret and Broadside-ships, with the Letters, if any, proceeding from any officer in the Admiralty to which any of those Reports and Letters were replies?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, in reply, that he could only say that the Reports to which the hon. Gentleman alluded had been addressed to his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, with whom he had communicated as soon as he became aware that the Question would be put, but as yet he had received no answer. He must, therefore, request the hon. Gentleman to repeat the Question tomorrow.

BRITISH FACTORY AT ST. PETERSBURG.—QUESTION.
MR. CLAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Is the British Factory at St. Petersburg recognized by Her Majesty's Ambassador or Her Majesty's Consul there; and, docs Her Majesty's Government authorize the levying of a rate on British shipping at Cronstadt and St. Petersburg for the support of a Church which is only recog-

1667
nized by the Russian Government as aChapel attached to the British Embassy?
LORD STANLEY, in reply, said, 'the Russian Company was an association created under a Royal Charter and an Act of Parliament, and it must therefore be recognized by the British Embassy and the British Consul in the same way that any 'Other mercantile association constituted under British law would be. With regard to the charge in question, the rate levied at Cronstadt and St. Petersburg for the support of the Church there, it was matter, he understood, of private agreement among the British mercantile houses engaged in the Russian trade, and, as far as he could ascertain, was not raised under any British authorization. The British Embassy had no control over the collection or distribution of the funds. The whole matter had been inquired into about five years ago. He had received no information, however, on the subject since he took charge of the Foreign Office.

NAVY—SHEERNESS DOCKYARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Government will give an assurance that they will take no steps during the Recess to reduce the establishment at Sheerness Dockyard; and, whether the Government will take into their consideration the propriety of extending the capabilities of Sheerness Dockyard as a fitting and repairing yard in connection with the new works at Chatham?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, in reply, that the Question of his hon. Friend appeared to be based on the supposition that the Government had formed the idea of abolishing Sheerness Dockyard; but no such idea, so far as he was aware, was entertained. With regard to the second Question he need scarcely point out to his hon. Friend that the Admiralty could not expend during the coming year more money than had been voted, and no sum had been taken for the purpose stated. He might add, for the satisfaction of his hon. Friend, that Sheerness Dockyard had done good service during the year, both in the way of repairing and building ships.

ARMY—MANUFACTURE OF CAR-TRIDGES.—QUESTION.
GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whe-
1668
ther it be true that the manufacture of the Cartridge known as No. V. has been suspended (in the Government arsenals) by desire of the Commander-in-Chief on account of the accidents that have arisen by its use; whether the non-competitive Contract made with the Messrs. Eley for the supply of these same Cartridges No. V. has also been suspended; whether these Cartridges were the result of experiments made in the Royal Arsenal; whether Colonel Boxer, R.A., has taken out a patent for them; and whether he receives a royalty on his patent from those who manufacture them; and, whether a Contract for the manufacture of Cartridges, to be called No. VI. Boxer Ammunition, is to be made without competition, in the same manner as that for No. V. was made.?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply to the first Question of the hon. Member he bad to state that the contract had been suspended, on account of the accidents which had lately occurred during practice at Aldershot, with a view to the substitution of a cartridge of a stronger make. With regard to the second Question, the contract had not been suspended, and his hon. and gallant Friend was mistaken in calling it non-competitive, because the parties had been invited to tender. In answer to the third Question, these cartridges were the result of such experiments, and Colonel Boxer had taken out a patent for them. Lastly, no such intention was entertained by the Government as was glanced at in the fourth Question, and the usual course would be pursued.

ARMY—ARTILLERY PRACTICE AT PORTSMOUTH.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has informed himself as to the reckless Artillery practice at Portsmouth and Dover; and, if so, what measures he has taken to prevent a course so dangerous to the safety of Her Majesty's subjects?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that full inquiries had been made in regard to the artillery practice at Portsmouth, when it was found that the officer in command had acted in complete disregard of the strict rule laid down by the Commander-in-Chief in 1865—that no artillery practice of the kind should ever be continued after nine o'clock in the

1669
morning. He had therefore acted on this occasion in violation of orders, and had been reprimanded in consequence. But a further step had been taken so as to render such irregularities impossible. The firing would for the future be on the eastern side of Gosport. With regard to f Dover, lie could not give so complete an answer. The investigation was still going on. There was some discrepancy as to the evidence, and he was not yet in a position to give a final Answer to the Question.

POST OFFICE—THE WEST INDIA MAIL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the delay of the last West India Mail has been brought to the notice of the Treasury; whether any fine has been required or will be required of the Royal Mail Company in consequence; and, whether the steamer conveying such Mails was surveyed previous to her departure from the; West Indies? In explanation of the Question, he had to state that the last vessel, the Danube, was five days overdue when it arrived. It was a vessel which had beenemployed in the intercolonial traffic, was wholly unfit for the purpose, and if it had not been fine weather would probably have gone to the bottom, in consequence of its being necessary to place 400 tons of coal required for the voyage on deck.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, said, in reply, that it is not the practice to report to the Treasury delays which occur in the cases of steamers under contract; but he had made inquiries and found that the Danube, with the last West India Mail, was three days, or rather more, late at Southampton. Unless the delay arose from unavoidable accidents, a fine of £250 will be imposed, the Danube had been surveyed, but not immediately before her return to this country. She was an intercolonial steamer, and by special permission of the Postmaster General she was allowed to be sent home, in order to facilitate some new arrangements in the West Indies.

IRELAND—EEL WEIR AT ROOSKY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. ORMSBY GOREsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, What steps have been taken to carry out the recommendation of the Committee on the Shannon River to remove the Eel weir at Roosky?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that until the present lease had expired it would be impossible to remove the weir. The Shannon Commissioners were, unfortunately, in receipt of a very small income, and there would be some difficulty in carrying out the arrangement of the Committee. But he would take care that the matter was not lost sight of.

INDIA—TIIE BUDGET.—QUESTION.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—seeing that another Session was coming to a close, and the India Budget was not announced—Whether he has taken into consideration the desirability of having the Indian accounts made up to such a period as would enable him to bring forward the Budget in the early part of the Session of Parliament, instead of, as heretofore, at the close; and whether he is prepared to name the day on which he intends to bring forward the India Budget?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, he proposed to make the statement upon the India Budget on Monday next. With respect to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, he might mention that some two years ago the question as to the possibility of antedating the time for the closing of the annual accounts of India had been raised with the view that the India Budget might be brought forward in that House at an earlier period of the Session, and it was then ascertained that to antedate the closing of the annual accounts of India more than a month would result in great inconvenience to the Indian Government. At present the Indian accounts reached this country in April; it was necessary that they should then be examined here, and therefore there was no probability that under the present arrangement the accounts could be brought before the House at an earlier period of the Session. Even if the Indian accounts were ready at au, earlier date it would be impossible to bring them on during a period of the Session when the House was occupied with matters of more pressing importance. The mere operation of laying the accounts before that House was to some extent of a formal character; but the opportunity thereby afforded enabled hon. Gentlemen to bring on a general discussion on Indian questions of interest. He thought there

1671
was no difficulty in the way of those who were interested in such questions being in attendance when the statement was made. He proposed to take that opportunity of moving that the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon the Government of India Act Amendment Bill and the Governor General of India Bill on the Paper for that night should be read, in order that it might be discharged.

SCOTLAND—BRIDGE AT DUNKELD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been drawn to the repeated disturbances caused by the demand of a money payment for crossing the Bridge over the Tay at Dunkeld, which charge the residents in the neighbourhood considered to be illegally made; and if he were prepared to state whether such charge was a legal one or not?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, my attention has been drawn to the recent disturbances connected with the payment of tolls for crossing the bridge over the Tay at Dunkeld. These tolls were the subject of a Question put to me in February of this year by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), and I must refer the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) to the Answer then given by me. The right to exact tolls was constituted by Act of Parliament, which declares that the right should continue till the whole expenditure on the bridge and works therewith connected should be re-paid out of the tolls. As I formerly stated, the Postmaster General, Lord Canning, in 1853 took legal proceedings in order to show that the right to exact the tolls was at an end in consequence of re-payment of the expenditure out of the tolls; but he was satisfied, and judicially admitted that there were no grounds for his contention. I understand that legal proceedings have been taken since February, at the instance of certain residents in the neighbourhood, with the view of having a legal investigation into this matter; and I regret extremely that parties should have had recourse to violence in order to prevent the exaction of a toll which primâ facie is legal, and the illegality of which is at present the subject of proceedings in the Courts of Law. The Government have no interest in this question of the toll, and can interfere only for the
  1672
  purpose of preventing riotous proceedings and of preserving the public peace.

METROPOLITAN FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET.—QUESTION.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether the Government has entered into any further negotiations with the Corporation of the City of London with the view of inducing that body to agree to become the market authority under the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill? He wished to know also, Whether any offer has been made to the Corporation by which they are to have power, in the event of their accepting that responsibility, of raising the tolls in the Islington Market beyond the rate which has been fixed by Parliament; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman will put the House in possession of any inducements which may have been held out, or any terms offered to the Corporation of London to induce them to become the market authorities under the Bill previously to the Bill coming on again for discussion?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am unable to put the House in possession of any further information than they are already possessed of, because if hon. Members will refer to the Notice Paper they will find that my noble Friend (Lord Robert Montagu) has put upon it an Amendment upon the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill, to the effect that if the Corporation of London shall become the market authorities under that Bill, and should suffer any loss arising from the construction of the proposed new market, they shall have power, with the consent of the Board of Trade, to raise the tolls of the Islington Market within certain limits to be prescribed. The only objection that the Corporation had to becoming the market authorities under the Bill was the fear that they might suffer loss. Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable that those who are anxious for the construction of the new market, for the better protection of their flocks and herds, should consent to the raising of the tolls of their own market in the event of loss being occasioned by the construction of the new one. I believe that a Court of the Common Council of the City of London has been held this morning to take the subject into consideration, and should they agree to

1673
the terms all difficulties in the matter will be removed.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Then, at present, the right hon. Gentleman does not know whether the Corporation has accepted those terms or not?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am unable at the present moment to say whether those terms have or have not been accepted by the Corporation.

CASE OF JAMES AUSTIN.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to the case of James Austin, Whether he has seen a letter in The Times, containing a distinct denial on the part of the accused of the statements made by the Superintendent of Police; and whether the statements in that letter are correct or not?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that he had received a communication from the clerk to the magistrates who committed James Austin, to prison for applying at the tramp ward of the workhouse when he had money in his possession as described in the newspapers. It seems that he gave two names, that he was smoking in the ward, and denied that he had tobacco about him; that he had wrapped up his money in some rags in order to conceal it, and that all the circumstances tended to show that he was committing a, fraud on the workhouse authorities.

NAVY—THE "RESEARCH" AND THE "ENTERPRISE."—EXPLANATION.
MR. SEELYdesired to say a few words on this subject by way of explanation. Since his remarks the other evening he had received the following letter—
"Admiralty, S.W., July 17.
"Dear Mr. Scely,—In the reports of your speech, both in The Times and Morning Post, which I enclose I find it stated as a matter of fact, not as a matter of opinion, that the designs of this (the Research) and her sister ship the Enterprise were submitted to the Chief Designer of Works, who reported against them, but, notwithstanding this adverse Report, the Admiralty adopted the designs, in consequenco of which proceeding three of the most eminent officials connected with the Department resigned their situations. Now, the facts are these—Mr. Reed submitted the design for the Enterprise on April 9, 1862 (she was designed before the Research), with an alternative suggestion of wood or iron top-Bides. This design I referred to the Constructor's
1674
Department, and received a reply, a copy of which I enclose. Messrs. Watts, Large, and Abethell signed that paper, and, you will see, approved of the design, and did not condemn it. The resignation of Mr. Watts took place in January, 1868. Mr. Large's resignation took place in May, 1864, Mr. Abethell's in April, 1864, and cannot have been in any way influenced, as you suppose, by the adoption of a design which they approved. I hope that it will be in your power to rectify this mistake as to a matter of fact.—Believe me to be yours very truly,
" ROB. SPENCER ROBINSON.
" C. Seely, Esq., M.P."
The Constructor's Report to the Controller, on the 16th of April, 1862, was as follows:—
"By your directions we have examined the plan proposed by Mr. Reed for the partial protection of ships of the Rinaldo class by armour-plating, and we are of opinion that the plan is perfectly practicable, and that it affords as much protection as can be obtained in ships of such comparatively small dimensions; but to secure this object we are strongly of opinion that the topsides should be entirely of iron, above the water line, before and abaft the armour-plating amidships to prevent the ship being set fire to by combustible projectiles; and from the conversation with Mr. Reed yesterday we find that ho is of the same opinion.—(Signed by Messrs. Watts, Large, and Abethell.)"
He had written the following letter to Mr. Watts:—
"26, Prince's Gate, July 18.
"My dear Sir,—I enclose you a note I have received from the Controller of the Navy, together with a copy of your Report 'on the plan proposed by Mr. Reed for the partial protection of ships of the Rinaldo class by armour-plating.' Will you be good enough to favour me with your opinion thereon?—Yours very faithfully,
"CHARLES SEELY.
"James Watts, Esq.,"
To this letter Mr. Watts sent the following reply:—
"6, Howley Place, Paddington, July 20.
"Dear Sir,—I never intended in the Report referred to to convey the idea that I approved the plan proposed by Mr. Reed for the conversion of small vessels of the Rinaldo class into iron-clads—my opinion was well known to be adverse to doing so—but merely to say that I, as well as my Colleagues, considered it quite practicable, in a mechanical point of view, and that of the two plans proposed that for the Enterprise was considered preferable for the reasons given.—Yours sincerely,
"J. WATTS.
"Charles Seely, Esq."
He had only further to say that in his statement that these three gentlemen had resigned in consequence of the Admiralty having adopted these designs, notwithstanding their adverse Report, he was in error, inasmuch as that had not been the sole cause of their resignation.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
(Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir Stafford Northcote.)
ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.

  [BILL 243.] CONSIDERATION.
  Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved the insertion of a fresh clause (Applications to the Court respecting trials.)
  Clause (Applications to the Court respecting trials,)—(Mr. Ayrton)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the first part of the clause enabled the Judge to reserve any difficult point of law and to take the opinion of the full Court before giving a final decision, and the object of the second part of the clause was in certain cases to give one of the parties a light of moving for a new trial. The House, however, had evinced a desire that these decisions should be arrived at as speedily as possible, and that when arrived at they should be final. The first part of the clause be should certainly recommend to the House if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to strike out the second part.
  MR. AYRTONconsented to the course proposed.
  Clause amended, and added.
  MR. NEATEproposed a clause (As to corrupt practices committed by voters), making the hiring or inducing any persons or person to disturb any meeting at which any candidate shall attend, or be expected to attend, a corrupt practice within the meaning of the 17th section of the Act.
  Clause (Hiring persons to disturb meeting a corrupt practice,)—(Mr. Neate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. DISRAELItrusted that the House would not consent to constituting mere noise a corrupt practice. [Mr. NEATE: The hiring.] The hiring would have to be proved.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEE, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), moved the following clause:—
  1676
  "Whenever any person or persons shall have been reported by the Judges to have been guilty of corrupt practices, the Attorney General shall institute against such persons or person such proceedings as the Law will allow."
  Clause (Attorney General to prosecute persons reported guilty of corrupt practices,)—(Mr. Neate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpresumed the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) had not moved the clause because he had discovered it was unnecessary. It would be observed that the Law Officers should be compelled to prosecute in every case, where perhaps the evidence was only that of a person bribed, and where no jury would convict.
  MR. J. STUART MILLthought it very important that some official person should be charged with the duty of considering whether a prosecution was necessary or not.
  MR. BOUVERIEthought it better that the House should be left to decide what action should be taken on the report of the Judge.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLexpressed his apprehension that the provisions of the measure would not be sufficiently stringent to prevent violence and intimidation in Ireland. The House would remember the successful opposition got up the other day to the proposal of his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to increase the number of polling-places, and they would also bear in mind the endeavours made a short time ago to pass a Bill which would have deprived the Government of the power of employing the military at the elections in Ireland. What the object in both cases was he would leave the House to judge. It was clear that if the polling-places were not increased, and the Government could not employ the military at elections, mob rule would prevail, and a free election would be in many cases impossible. Thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, there would be an unusual amount of party heat at the forthcoming elections in Ireland. It was too late now for a private Member to do anything to improve this Bill; but if he could he would make clerical interferences at elections in Ireland a misdemeanour, except in the case of the election in Trinity College. Further, he would make it compulsory on a Committee to unseat any Member at whose election,

  1677
  there had been violence, intimidation, or clerical interference, because some recent decisions of Election Committees had created an impression in Ireland that those practices were not only sanctioned but approved by the House of Commons.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved, in Clause 23, line 30, after "deputy," to insert "and in Ireland a shorthand writer to be named by the Court." He said there were many competent shorthand writers in Ireland, and to send over members of Gurney's staff would be like sending coals to Newcastle.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that as in these cases so much would depend upon accuracy, and as uniformity in the manner in which the Reports were to be presented to the House would be very desirable, he thought the Amendment ought not to be adopted.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid he would not press the Amendment, as the Bill was only a temporary one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER moved to add to Clause 43 words providing that any canvasser or agent who had been convicted by a competent tribunal of corrupt practices should, in the event of his procuring an engagement in a like capacity at any future Election, be held to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be punishable accordingly.
  Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 36, after the word "void," to add the words "and such canvasser or agent shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, while disclaiming all sympathy with the class against whom the Amendment was directed, pointed out the inexpediency of punishing in too harsh a manner offences committed under the Bill. According to the Amendment, canvassers or agents who had been declared guilty of and been punished for corrupt practices would, if engaged again within a period of seven years, be liable to two years' imprisonment. Surely so severe a punishment was neither more nor less than injustice.
  ME. SERJEANT GASELEEsupported the Amendment, being of opinion that punishment ought to be inflicted upon
  1678
  agents who prowled about for the purpose of taking in innocent candidates.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he hoped the House would divide, as the country would like to see the names of the hon. Members who thought it was too severe a course to punish an agent or canvasser who, having been guilty of corrupt practices in one election, procured similar employment in a subsequent election.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was not afraid of voting against this proviso notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill). He should have had no objection to persons who had been directly convicted of corrupt practices by a jury being rendered incapable of employment at subsequent elections; but it would be nothing short of injustice to inflict such a penalty on a person who, perhaps, had only incidentally and in a rough and ready kind of way been found guilty by an Election Committee.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he thought the House ought to be extremely cautious in manufacturing new misdemeanours. He should vote against the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 105: Majority 13.
  MR. FAWCETTrose to move the following new clause:—
  (Conditions of nomination.)
  "That it shall not be lawful for any person to be nominated as a candidate at any such Election, unless he or some person on his behalf shall have paid to the returning officer the sum of one hundred pounds to be applied in the following manner (that is to say): where a poll shall take place at any such Election, the returning officer shall apply the monies so paid to him by any such candidate who shall not, at the close of the poll, have received a number of votes equal at least to one-fifth part of the votes received by the successful candidate if only one, or by such one of the successful candidates if there shall be more than one, as shall have received the smallest number of votes, in and towards defraying the lawful expenses of the returning officer relating to such Election; and after any such Election the returning officer shall forthwith repay to any such candidate who shall have been declared elected without a poll, or who, whether declared elected or not, shall have received a number of votes equal at least to such fifth part, the monies so paid by or for him as aforesaid."
  The hon. Member said, his object was to prevent unnecessary expense being thrown upon localities by the nomination of candidates who presented themselves to consti-

  1679
  tuencies for the mere purpose of obtaining notoriety and without any prospect of success. The object of this proviso was to protect the constituencies from being put to unnecessary expense by men of straw being proposed as candidates. He was perfectly willing to accept any alterations in the details of the proviso that might be made by the general wish of the House. If the sum of £100 was thought too small, lie should assent to its being increased, and if it should be thought too large he should be equally willing that it should be reduced. Ho should also be willing that the candidate who was nominated, but did not demand a poll, should not forfeit so much as the candidate who, after demanding a poll, did not go to it. Then, with regard to what was a reasonable amount of support, he had come to the conclusion that it would be sufficient if the candidate obtained one-fifth of the votes that were obtained by the successful candidate who was the lowest upon the poll; but here again he was ready to defer to the opinion of the House, and to increase the proportion to one-quarter or one-third, or reduce it to one-sixth or one-eighth. lie had no objection to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther), nor to that of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont.) The proviso of the latter required that no money should be deposited in the first instance; but that if a candidate should not poll a reasonable number of votes he should pay his share of the expenses. lie begged to move that the words of the new clause should be added to Clause 53.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 35, after the word "Act," to add the words—
  "It shall not be lawful for any person to be nominated as a candidate at any such Election, unless he or some person on his behalf shall hare paid to the returning officer the sum of one hundred pounds to be applied in the following manner."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he did not think the sum fixed by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was large enough. He thought that the amount of the deposit required should be increased to £300 in counties and £150 in boroughs.
  MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, that the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton tended to infringe the right of every elector
  1680
  to propose and second any person whom he might deem worthy to represent him. They all must be anxious to prevent "straw candidates" from being proposed at elections at the last moment, which would entail an unnecessary expenditure upon the constituencies, and therefore he proposed that in the case of a candidate not polling a reasonable number of votes he should be liable to pay his share of the election expenses, as was the case at present. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 35, after the word "Act," to add the words—
  "Provided, every candidate who shall not have polled one-fifth of the total number of Electors voting at any Election for a County or a Borough shall be liable (in the same way as if this Act had not passed) for his share of the expenses lawfully incurred by the returning officers for the provision of hustings, poll clerks, polling booths or rooms, and any other requisites for the conduct of the Election."—(Mr. Beaumont.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought the proviso of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) would impose an obstacle to free election, and he hoped he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that proposed by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont).
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in deference to what was clearly the general wish of the House.
  Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
  ME. BERESFORD HOPEsuggested the possibility of a person being nominated in his absence by those who wished to render him liable for these expenses, and proposed to amend the proviso by inserting the words "nominated with his own consent."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he also wished to guard against persons being put to expense by being nominated without their consent. Unless a candidate polled one-third of the votes of the whole constituency he ought to be required to pay a share of the expenses. He therefore moved to amend the proviso of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont) by substituting "one-third" for "one-fifth." He thought there was very few constituencies in which a man could not obtain a fifth of the votes, and therefore ho thought one-third would be the better proportion to fix.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "fifth," in order to insert the word "third,"—(Mr. James Lowther,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 1 fifth' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYremarked that in the event of the proposition of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther) being adopted, if there were more than three candidates in a constituency of 9,000 electors they might all be fined, including those who were successful.
  VISCOUNT AMBERLEYopposed the Amendment on the ground that it put the proportion too high.
  MR. HEADLAMlikewise considered the proposition objectionable.
  MB. FAWCETTpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for York proposed that each candidate, in order to escape paying his share of the expenses, must poll one-third of the whole constituency, whereas his proposition had been that the candidate should only be required to poll one-fifth of the number of votes polled by the successful candidate who stood the lowest on the poll.
  MR. LOWTHERsaid, he could not see the force of the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but he would withdraw his Amendment, in the hope that his so doing would lead the more certainly to the rejection of the original Clause 53.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped that before the House divided some Member who was acquainted with the facts would say whether a man nominated against his will would not be liable to pay under this amended clause, supposing he came within it.
  MR. W. B. BEAUMONT, in order to meet that objection, proposed to add the words "that the proposer and seconder of a candidate who shall have been nominated without his consent shall be liable to pay such expenses."
  Amendment to the said proposed Amendment and proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 35, after the word "Act," to add the words—
  "Provided, That every unsuccessful candidate who shall not have polled one-fifth of the total
  1682
  number of Electors voting at any Election for a County or a Borough shall be liable (in the same way as if this Act had not passed) for his share of the expenses lawfully incurred by the returning officers for the provision of hustings, poll clerks, polling booths or rooms, and any other requisites for the conduct of the Election, and the proposer and seconder of such candidate (who shall have been nominated without his consent) shall in like manner be liable for such aforesaid share."—(Mr. Beaumont.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added.
  MR. CRAWFORDinformed the House that on one occasion he had been nominated for the city of London without his consent, when between 3,000 and 4,000 voters polled for him. He declined to pay his share of the expenses of the election; but had only escaped paying them after some difficulty.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the fact of a man not polling a reasonable number of votes was a tolerably good proof that he ought never to have been a candidate at all, and therefore he ought to pay the expenses to which he had unnecessarily put the constituency.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the nominator and seconder of a candidate who did not poll a certain number of votes ought to be compelled to pay a share of the expenses of the election. The amount of the deposit required ought to be £300 for counties, and half that amount for boroughs.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that by the clause to which this Amendment related they had thrown the expenses of the polling and the hustings upon the rates; but they were now in this difficulty, that everybody felt they ought to prevent persons coming forward and throwing the expenses on the rates, who in point of fact ought not to stand at all. The object of the Amendment was to prevent men of straw from coming forward; but what security did it afford against such a thing happening? They had no deposit and indeed no security of any kind. He therefore objected to the Amendment, because it afforded no sort of security whatever, and must, in his opinion, be entirely ineffectual.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, that according to his experience, polling-places constituted a very great and serious expense. He thought it hard that the returning officer should be mulcted for performing his duty, and that the ratepayers should have to pay for the hustings, while it was a monstrous injustice that the suc-

  1683
  cessful candidate should have to pay because another man wished to make a speech. It would be no consolation to any of these parties to learn that the man who came forward on the hustings and put them to all this expense was liable, if that man were, as he oftentimes might be, merely a man of straw.
  CAPTAIN HAYTERsaid, the difficulty might be got over by making the mover and seconder as well as the candidate liable for the expenses. There would then be. three instead of only one security.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to the whole proposal, because they had by the clause which was in the Bill, and which they were going to discuss presently, thrown the expense upon the ratepayers. It was contended that these expenses ought not to be thrown upon a candidate, and no doubt a great deal might be said in favour of a proposition which was especially popular with candidates when a General Election was approaching. But then they had this bugbear. If they saved themselves, would not anybody who wished to enjoy a little fun, or, perhaps, from a feeling of strong opposition, spring up and land them in a contest for which there was no sort of reason or sense? Ho had heard it said that they ought, if possible, to prevent any opposition being made unless that opposition had a chance of success; but this doctrine, he contended, was unconstitutional. Indeed, it was the constitutional duty of a minority, if they felt discontented with the opinions of the favoured candidate, to bring forward a candidate of their own, irrespective of all considerations as to the proportion of the constituency that they were likely to poll. The House had no right to limit the choice of candidates as it was now proposed to do, by saying that a man should be fined unless he polled a certain number of votes.
  MR. LABOUCHEREremarked that the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouvcrie) might be constitutional; but they certainly could not be regarded as practical. It would be a great absurdity to allow a small number of electors to put the candidates and the other electors to great expense. The evident intention of the Solicitor General was to throw as many difficulties as he could in the way, in order to prevent the final acceptance by the House of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), and which had been carried by two very large majorities.
  1684
  ["Oh, oh!"] He suggested that any difficulty which really existed might be met by providing that any person demanding a poll should, either by himself or by the person who nominated him, give good security for a certain sum.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, some such proviso as that proposed was absolutely necessary, because it frequently happened, as in the case of an opponent of his on a former election, that a candidate was thrust on the constituency. The candidate was unable to pay the expenses, and after the election was over he left; but he had, however, afterwards to pay on an actual arrest and imprisonment. Had the mover and seconder been liable there would have been a security.
  VISCOUNT AMBERLEYinstanced the case of a candidate in whose favour three votes were recorded. It was evident that there would be as much security for the hustings expenses from such a candidate under this clause as there was under the present system.
  MR. REARDENregarded this as an attempt to fine any working men who might come forward as candidates.
  MR. NEATEreminded the House that the expenses of polling-pooths had been thrown on the candidate by the Act of 1832 as a compromise. Formerly the constituency bore the expense on the principle that the representative performed a public duty, but then the candidate paid heavily for carrying voters to the central I polling-places.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsuggested that i words should be introduced requiring all the candidates to guarantee the payment of the expenses, so as to prevent men of) straw from offering themselves as candidates.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, the object was to prevent the nomination of persons having; no reasonable chance of being returned. ', He therefore moved, in substitution of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northumberland, a proviso requiring that any person demanding a poll should pay, or give security for, to the returning officer£100 in the case of boroughs, and £200 in the case of counties, which should be used towards defraying the expenses of the election if such candidate did not poll one-fifth of the votes registered.
  Amendment proposed to the said pro-| posed Amendment, to leave out from the word "every" to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to insert the words—

  1685
  "Candidate or other person demanding a poll at any Election for any County or Borough shall on demand by the returning officer pay or secure to his satisfaction one hundred pounds in the case of a Borough, and two hundred pounds in the case of a County, which shall be applied by the returning officer in aid towards the expenses of such Election, in case such candidate shall not poll one-fifth of the constituency."—(Mr. Leeman.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, it was but a repetition of an Amendment that had been withdrawn.
  MR. HEADLAMhoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) would not be pressed, as it was in reality simply the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton repeated. The object of the House was to press forward, and he did not think they could hope for a clearer proposition than the hon. Member for Northumberland's.
  MR. J. STUART MILLthought the object which the hon. Member for York had in view would be sufficiently attained by the proposal of the hon. Member for Northumberland.
  MR. NEWDEGATEthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) a very reasonable proposal, though he did not think that £100 in the case of a borough, or £200 in the case of a county, would be sufficient, as there would be so large a number of polling-places under the new regiéme.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, he was ready to withdraw his Amendment, though he felt convinced that of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont) would not meet the necessities of the case.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That the words 'Provided That every unsuccessful candidate who shall not have polled one-fifth of the total number of Electors voting at any Election for a County or a Borough shall be liable (in the same way as if this Act had not passed) for his share of the expenses lawfully incurred by the returning officers for the provision of hustings, poll clerks, polling booths or rooms, and any other requisites for the conduct of the Election, and the proposer and seconder of such candidate (who shall have been nominated without his consent) shall in like manner be liable for such aforesaid share,' be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 119: Majority 9.
  MR. MONK MR. MONK moved an Amendment to provide that one moiety of such expense shall be defrayed as heretofore by the candidate or candidates. [''No, no!"] He thought it would be a safeguard both to the candidate and to those who had to collect the rates.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 35, after the word "Act," to add the words—
  "Provided always, That one moiety of such expenses shall be defrayed as heretofore by the candidate or candidates at such Election."—(Mr. Monk."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. WHITEsaid, the amount of expenses of returning officers in the whole of the counties of England and Wales at the last General Election was £15,655; in Scotland, £939; and in Ireland £2,239, making a total of £18,833. The expenses of the boroughs in England and Wales were £26,375; in Scotland, £1,206; and in Ireland, £1,004, making a total of £28,585. The aggregate total for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was £47,418. These sums represented in England and Wales 6d. per county and 1s. per borough voter, and in Scotland 4½d. per county and 8d. per borough elector. According to the official electoral statistics and Poor Law Returns, the total expenses to be defrayed by the ratepayers would vary in counties from one-sixth to one-twentieth of 1d. in the pound; in boroughs from one-tenth to one-third of 1d. in the pound. In Brighton, if Parliaments were triennial and there were always a contest, the annual charge on the ratepayers would not amount to one-eighth of 1d. in the pound.
  MR. DISRAELIremarked that this was merely the reproduction of an Amendment which had already been before the House, and in regard to which a decision had been arrived at either in form or in spirit. Now, although it was not desirable to check anything like legitimate discussion, yet he was certainly of opinion that the House ought to refrain from debating matters on which it had recently come to a decision. He should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman if it were pressed to a division.
  MR. MONKsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT MILTON VISCOUNT MILTON moved the following clause:—
  (Levying of county rate where county is divided.)
  "In case the county for which the county rate is made is or shall be divided into two or more parts for Parliamentary representation, the same expenses shall be charged upon and defrayed by and out of the county rate levied within and for that part of the county for which an Election shall take place; and the justices or clerk of the peace for the county shall apportion such expenses amongst the parishes, townships, and places only in that part of the county in and for which an Election shall have taken place, and in issuing the precept for the county rate, shall add thereto the proportion payable in respect of such expenses by each of the last-mentioned parishes, townships, and places, and the same shall be leviable and recoverable in like manner and as part of the county rate."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he did not suppose that the noble Lord could understand the argument which he adduced on this subject the other day. ["Oh, oh !"] He merely meant that the noble Lord could hardly be expected to follow the bearings of an argument founded on the obsure and intricate clauses of a rating Act of Parliament. Without repeating that argument, he would merely remark that in his judgment the clause would not work, and was inconsistent with the existing machinery of the county rates. The Act under which alone the county rate could be levied said that it must be an equal rate—assessed equally upon every parish, and upon all the property in each parish of the county.
  MR. HEADLAMbelieved that there would not be the slightest difficulty in working a clause of this kind.
  MR. NEATEthought the Solicitor General ought not to have interposed petty technical difficulties. He wished to say a few words founded on common sense and justice—though he did not expect that the hon. and learned Gentleman would understand his argument, as it dealt with a matter of principle and not of detail. If the county magistrates could not assess the rate proposed, they had less administrative power than he gave them credit for.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was quite sure there would be no difficulty in working the clause as note amended, though that was altogether a separate question from the proposed Amendment. On the whole, lie thought the fairest way would be for each division to pay its own expenses, and he saw no practical difficulty in it. The
  1688
  Under Sheriff would bring in his Bill, which would go in the usual way to the Finance Committee, by whom it would be audited.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, the Solicitor General had told him the same thing on former Amendments—that they were not workable—but there was no real difficulty.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had now to move to omit Clause 53. The House must feel that they had exhausted the question, and that the opinion of every man was already made up, and therefore he would simply make the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 53, as amended.—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
  MR. LABOUCHERErose to Order. The Bill as it now stood provided that the cost of the hustings, &c, should be borne by the whole of the ratepayers, and the Solicitor General's Amendment to omit the clause would throw the burden on a certain limited number of persons. He submitted that the Amendment altering as it did the incidence of taxation, could not now be proposed.
  MR. SPEAKERdecided that it was quite competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose the rejection of the clause, as the omission of the clause would have the effect of relieving the ratepayers of a charge which it was proposed to place upon them.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in moving the rejection of the clause, said, he understood that the clause was supported on the general ground that the position of a Member of Parliament was one which it was a duty and not a privilege to occupy, and that therefore the ratepayers ought to pay the expenses as being a public charge. But he could not understand how a man, after going with his cap in his hand to an elector and saying, "If you vote for me, you will confer on me the greatest possible favour," could ask that man to pay his share of the expenses. If this clause were sanctioned, candidates would come forward merely for the purpose of creating expense—knowing that they would not be liable to pay anything themselves, but that all the expense would be thrown on the ratepayers. After all the fruitless efforts which had been made that morning to frame a proviso which would render the clause acceptable, he thought he was justified in moving its omission.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the question really involved was one of far more importance than the acceptance or rejection of any clause in a Bill, and involved the position of independent Members of that House. Why did the Prime Minister say he would move the rejection of this clause? The Solicitor General thought he had a majority behind him, and he hardly deigned to offer a single argument; a division would be hurried on, and discussion, if possible, would be burked. If it had not been for the large attendance of Members who were waiting for another Bill to come on that evening (the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill), he believed he should, for a third lime, have beaten the Government. After his clause was carried, he I had consented to withdraw the proviso at the end, in reference to the deposit of expenses, in order to meet the wishes of, Members and the convenience of the House; and he hoped that those who recollected 'the circumstances would not be deterred from voting with him. The clause was objected to on the ground that it would impose a heavy burden on the constituencies; but the fact was that a rate of half a farthing in boroughs and a quarter of a farthing in counties would far more than discharge those expenses, and a General Election occurred only about once in four years. By retaining this clause, they would interest the constituencies so much in economy that the necessary expenses would not be more than half what they were at present. If the constituencies had to pay for the hustings, they would either have the nomination in a public room or substantial hustings would be erected once for all, and the expense would not exceed £5, instead of probably being £150. It was said that the clause would be favourable to vexatious contests; but he utterly denied this. At present these were got up by a class of publicans and solicitors who had an interest in them from what they made by them; but under this clause the candidate would be brought face to face with public opinion, and would have no interest in resisting it. The working of the clause therefore would decidedly diminish the tendency to contests. The Solicitor General's representation of the position of a candidate was degrading to public men, and most humiliating. He should receive some compensation even if defeated, because this renewed discussion would tell the country in an unmistakable way what were the doctrines which in-
  1690
  duced the Government to seek to reverse the decision of the House. ["Divide!"] There was no expression of public opinion against the clause, and he could produce resolutions passed at twenty public meetings declaring in favour of the principle. If they reversed the decision already come to, it would more and more show that that House was becoming the rich man's House and not the poor man's. ["Oh, oh !"] If the House was properly to represent the country, each class in the country should be represented in it. He wished to see capital and labour represented there; and no one could effectually represent labour except a person who had been for some time himself a working man. He appealed to Members to remember what had occurred, and how he had carried this clause on two divisions. The Government did everything they could up to Tuesday night, at half-past eleven o'clock—he would not say intentionally—to induce the House to think that they would not seek to reverse the decision come to on Saturday last. Even a Member of the Government had given Notice of his intention—though he did not persevere in it—to introduce a similar clause with respect to Scotland. Therefore, he asked Members to support the clause, and in doing so to support the privileges of independent Members.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not often agree with the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawereett); but on this occasion he thought he was right, and therefore he should give him his vote. The Reform Bill would, no doubt, much increase the expense of elections. Though the expenses of the returning officer might not be larger, yet, in order to affirm the principle that Membership of that House imposed a public duty, he should vote with the hon. Member for Brighton; but he thought some addition ought to be made to the clause, to prevent men of straw being set up as candidates. He deeply regretted that the Amendment of the hon. Member for York had been withdrawn.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsupported the clause, and protested against the idea of the Solicitor General that independent Members went hat in hand to their constituents seeking their support, instead of offering their services when great public duties had to be performed. The constituents, entirely recognizing this fact, were ready to have the necessary expenses of elections thrown on their shoulders.
  MR. J. STUART MILL: If the Government were aware of the profound feeling of satisfaction that went forth through the country on learning that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton was carried, they would, instead of imposing any technical objection in the way of the passing of the clause, introduce a Bill, if necessary, for the purpose of giving it effect, and pass it through both Houses, as they could easily do, within a week. The representative of an extensive constituency remarked to me that the adoption of the clause marked the commencement of a purer era, and would bring forward: more eligible candidates.
  COLONEL B. KNOXprotested against being rated for the purpose of saving the pocket of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. J. Stuart Mill).
  MR. MELLYreminded the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel B. Knox) that no legislation could affect the expenses incurred at the election of the hon. Member for Westminster, inasmuch as the hon. Gentleman had been returned, and would be again, at the expense of his friends and supporters.
  Question put, "That Clause 53, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 115: Majority 18.
  MR. NEATE MR. NEATE moved the adjournment of the debate. His hon. Friends on the Liberal side of the House were as guilty of connivance at corrupt practices as those on the other side. [" Oh, oh !"] He did not wish to include all the Liberal party in that denunciation. His object in moving the adjournment of the debate was that those who wished to introduce purity and economy at Parliamentary Elections might have an opportunity of doing so.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned till Monday next."—(Mr. Neate.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member did not include him in his denunciation. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend would not persevere in his Motion. At the same time, he would say that the hon. and learned Member could scarcely himself attach more importance than he (Mr. Gladstone) did to the subject on which they had just divided; and no person could more cordially feel with him than he did. If the hon. Member
  1692
  for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) chose to try the question again, he could do so; and the question was, whether they should lose time in pressing forward a Bill which they must all feel was necessary.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Electric Telegraphs* (282); Expiring Laws Continuance (280); Inland Revenue (279); Registration (Ireland)* (281); Saint Mary Somerset's Church, London,* (278).
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 3)* (255).
Committee—Public Schools (262–285); Colonial Shipping* (274); Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland)* (268); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act Amendment* (267).
Report—Sanitary Act (1866) Amendment* (252); Municipal Elections (Scotland)* (276); Larceny and Embezzlement* (277); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (253); Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland)* (268); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act Amendment* (267).
Third. Reading—Railway Companies (Ireland) Advances* (226); Vaccination (Ireland)*
1652
(254); Courts of Chancery and Exchequer (Ireland) Fee Funds* (171); Court of Session (Scotland)* (246); Tithe Commutation, &c. Acts Amendment* (256); Public Departments Payments* (264); Sir Robert Napier's Annuity* (265); Tain Provisional Order Confirmation (242); Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation* (241); New Zealand Assembly's Powers* (247); Clerks of the Peace, &c. (Ireland)* (261); Militia Pay*; New Zealand Company (164), and passed.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 262.)
(The Earl of Derby.)
PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 262.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 postponed.
  Clause 6 (Power of Governing Bodies to alter their Constitutions).
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, the time given by the clause to the Governing Bodies of Schools in which to reform themselves—namely, till the 1st of January next—was insufficient for the purpose. He was desirous of extending the period by another whole year, unless their Lordships thought a more limited extension would be preferable, and he would therefore propose to insert 1870 instead of 1869.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that when the second reading of the Bill was discussed there was a general feeling that the period expiring on the 1st of January next, as fixed by the Bill was not sufficient. On the other hand, he submitted that it would be unduly prolonging it to substitute the 1st of January, 1870, for the 1st of January, 1869, as suggested by the noble Viscount. An extension of three or at most six months would, he thought, fully meet all the requirements of the case.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHconcurred with his noble Friends in thinking the period fixed by the clause somewhat too limited. At the same time, it should be remembered that the purpose for which the Governing Bodies were to be called together was not one that would necessarily require long deliberation. They were not to frame statutes, but simply to propose a reform in the constitution of their own bodies. He suggested, there fore, that the 1st of May, 1869, should be inserted instead of the 1st of January, 1869; also retaining power to the Queen in Council to allow an additional three months, if that should be deemed necessary.
  Clause amended by inserting the words "the First Day of May" instead of "the First Day of January."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (General Power to make Regulations).
  LORD LYTTELTON LORD LYTTELTON moved an Amendment to leave out ("and with respect to the System of Promotion in the School").
  On Question, That the said Words stand Part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 15; Not-Contents 36: Majority 21.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Amendment made.

  CONTENTS.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Chichester, E.

  Melville, V.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

  Colchester, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Denman, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Sondes, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancelor.)

  Sydney, V.

  Churston, L.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Ebury, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Mar. lborough, D.

  Harris, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Hartismore, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Exeter, M.

  Houghton, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Monson, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  De Grey, E, [Teller.]

  Northwick, L.

  Devon, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Granville, E.

  Seaton, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Stratheden, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Sundridge, L.(D.Argyll.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  LORD LYTTELTONthen proposed to insert after "Boys" the words "not being boarders," with the view of restricting the operation of the Conscience Clause to day scholars. While agreeing that the parents of day scholars should be at liberty to withdraw their sons from the religious instruction of the school, he contended that it would be unfair to place a Master under
  1654
  this restriction with regard to his boarders, towards whom he stood in loco parentis for nine months of the year.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that in these schools the day scholars were so few that a Conscience Clause confined to them would be of no practical importance. He fully appreciated the value of common religious instruction and worship; but he had heard great regret expressed by Roman Catholic noblemen and gentlemen that they were unable to send their sons to our great public schools, because they would there be compelled to receive religious instruction of which their parents disapproved, and he thought a common education, irrespective of religious opinions, was so desirable that on this ground he must oppose the Amendment. He did not suppose that a large number of Protestant Dissenters would attend these schools.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. He thought the object of his noble Friend might be attained without the proposed exception, which might seriously interfere with the number of boys at Eton and the other schools not in the metropolis. The object of his noble Friend, as he understood it, was not to interfere with liberty of conscience in regard to the general teaching of the school, but to remove any difficulties with respect to domestic arrangements in the houses of the Masters. Now, it was perfectly competent for a Master to make any regulations he pleased with regard to the religious instruction of those under his own roof, and he might very properly make it a condition with the parents that their sons should conform to the religious instruction given them.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Another Amendment made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD LYTTELTON LORD LYTTELTON moved to insert after Clause 13 the following clause:—
  "All matters relating to the Studies, Discipline, and Administration of any School to which this Act applies, except such as are 'otherwise assigned in this Act, shall be left to the uncontrolled Discretion and Power of the Head Master.'"
  There were two authorities, the Governing Body and the Head Master, and it was impossible to make an accurate limitation of what their powers should respectively be. When they had defined as far as possible the respective powers of the two

  1655
  authorities they must leave in the one hand or the other a general power. The Commissioners recommended that the Governing Body should be authorized to make arrangements for the general regulation and management of the School, except in matters specially reserved for the Head Master. Now there was no such reservation in the Bill. His belief was that it would be better to leave the large and important class of subjects embraced in the clause to the discretion of the Head Master, over whom the Governing Body would have sufficient control, seeing that they had in their hands the power; both of appointing and dismissing him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he; could not accept the proposition of the noble Lord. What was proposed to do was this—to take away from the Governing Body and vest in a person who was their servant the power as to all matters relating to studies, discipline, and administration. That was inverting the natural order of things and making the Head Master the Governing Body.
  EARL TORTESCUEsaid, the noble and learned Lord seemed to forget that the Governing Body had the absolute and uncontrolled power of dismissing the Head Master, which would be quite sufficient security that the Head Master would exercise the power proposed to be vested in him by the clause in a proper manner.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the reason advanced in support of the clause was the very strongest that could be urged against it. The proposition was to give the Head Master powers which the Governing Body could not control unless they dismissed the Head Master, who might be a very excellent Master in other respects, and whom the Governing Body might be very unwilling to dismiss.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that according to the fifth general recommendation of the Public School Commissioners the Head Master should have the uncontrolled power of making arrangements for the School, regulating the hours of school work, the holidays, maintaining discipline, and other such matters. If it was not the intention of the Government to give effect to that recommendation, he pressed them to say whether they would not admit the principle of reserving certain important powers to the Head Master.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid,
  1656
  the Head Master was vested with the power of selecting and dismissing the Under Masters, and the Governing Body had given to them by the Bill the power of making regulations with regard to certain specified subjects upon which they were in the habit of consulting the Head Master, and giving him a full opportunity of expressing his views. To increase the power of the Master would he to reduce that of the Governing Body. It seemed to be mistakenly supposed that the Governing Body had an authority co-existent with that of the Head Master; but the Governing Body met, perhaps, only twice a year. It was a legislative body which made general regulations, and could not interfere in minute particulars. The whole executive power must necessarily be left to the Head Master. The effect of the proposed Amendment would be to define the provinces within which the Master would retain the executive power; but the inevitable consequence would be the clashing of the authority of the Head Master with that of the Governing Body, when the former found that he had statutory power to do certain things which were not specified and defined, but were merely implied in words of vague and general meaning.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONunderstood it to be alleged, on the one hand, that the Governing Body had all the powers of government which were vested in the Head Master; and, on the other hand, that the powers of the Governing Body were limited to those defined by the clause. There were many points not alluded to in the clause; and it appeared to be desirable that there should be a clear understanding—that it should be laid down who was to have the power in certain matters, and that it should he stated whether what was not reserved to the Governing Body was given to the Head Master. He thought that the Government should endeavour to bring up on the Report some clauses which should give certain defined powers to the Head Master in conformity with the recommendations of the Commissioners.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought some misapprehension had arisen from the fact that the 13th clause specified, under ten different heads, the provinces in which the power of making regulations was reserved to the Governing Body; but it would have been wholly unnecessary to have given them those powers if there had

  1657
  been a tabula rasa before. The clause was obviously introduced because it might turn out that the existing statutes, charters of foundation, or other instruments might contain provisions as to regulations in conflict with the reservation of them to the Governing Body; and therefore it was to be enacted that notwithstanding any Act of Parliament, custom, &c, the Governing Body should have the power of making these regulations. The object was to clear the Governing Body of all antecedent rules as to the exercise of these powers, and therefore they were specified. It was impossible the Governing Body could control the Head Master in the matter of punishments, or the number of lines to be learnt by a scholar, and such minute details; and, unless everything to be done by the Head Master was to be defined, it was impossible to escape the conclusion that every power not given to the Governing Body was to be exercised by the Head Master. The 13th clause was not meant to describe all the powers of the Governing Body; it was meant only to remove particular statutes and instruments of foundation out of the way.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was a circumstance which ought clearly to weigh with the Government that the Amendment embodied an unanimous recommendation of the Commission, who had all the facts before them.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he could not undertake to consider what special powers should be left to the Head Master. The subject had been carefully and anxiously considered by the Select Committee. It would produce the greatest possible inconvenience to specify certain particulars which should be under the control and jurisdiction of the Head Master. The inclusion of one thing would be the exclusion of another, and in many respects there might be a clashing of authority between the Head Master and those who were practically his masters. It would be an unheard-of thing to give a statutory power to a servant liable to dismissal. If a clause were prepared and submitted he would consider it; but he could not undertake to do anything more on the part of the Government.
  LORD LYTTELTONasked, whether the Government would consider the principle free from details?
  LORD OVERSTONEpointed out the extreme importance of maintaining the influence and position of the Head Master
  1658
  of a School, and quoted the anecdote of the Head Master requesting the King to remove his hat in the School, and afterwards stating that he should lose all his influence over the boys if they supposed that the world contained a greater man than himself. The powers of the Head Master should be plenary and complete; and though no doubt some restraining power was necessary on the part of the Governing Body, it should be kept in the background as much as possible. He hoped the Government would take time to consider the reasonable and just views taken on this point by the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton).
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, he could not help concurring with his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) that both for the sake of securing the best possible man for Head Master and for the efficient carrying on of the School, it was desirable that some attempt should be made to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners upon this point.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he was willing to leave the general powers to the Governing Body; but the Bill would work much better if certain things were left in the power of the Head Master. He would endeavour to embody his views in a new clause, and bring it up on the Report.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the Government could not assent to the proposal to leave the residuum of the powers not mentioned in the Bill to the Head Master. He did not know what would be the definition attempted by the noble Lord; but the Government would not, of course, be pledged to consider it.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Appointment of Commissioners).
  LORD LYTTELTONproposed to add two names to the Commission—that of Canon Blakesley and Sir Roundell Palmer. Mr. Blakesley's name had been omitted from the clause in the House of Commons under a total misapprehension, and he had been treated with extreme injustice and want of consideration. As senior Tutor at Trinity College for some time, his name would have given weight to the Commission, and a great mistake had been committed in leaving out his name. No doubt the gentleman by whom he had been supplanted was able and competent; but he was not nearly so well known ns Mr.

  1659
  Blakesley was. He (Lord Lyttelton) therefore proposed the re-introduction of Mr. Blakesley's name, and could not believe that there -would be any difficulty on the part of their Lordships in acceding to the Motion. It was thought advisable that the number of the Commission should be an odd number, and the most rev. Prelate said he had no objection to nine members. At present Cambridge was not adequately represented on the Commission, Oxford having more than two to one members. Moreover, there was at present only one clergyman upon the Commission, and in both these respects it would be well that Canon Blakesley should be added. The other name he should propose to add was that of Sir Roundell Palmer.
  Moved to add the Names of Sir Roundell Palmer and the Reverend Joseph William Blakesley to the Commission to be appointed under the Act.—(The Lord Lyttelton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORagreed with the noble Lord that Canon Blakesley had not been well treated, and that the Commission was injured by the absence of his name from it. No person in the kingdom could be better fitted to serve upon such a Commission; but, unfortunately, other things had to be considered in this case. It was much to be regretted that in the other House of Parliament the question of the name of one of the Commissioners had been made the subject of personal feeling, and if that discussion were reopened there would be considerable doubt as to the further progress of the Bill. This was the reason and the only reason why the Government was unable to accede to a proposal which in itself was very reasonable and even desirable. The interest taken by Mr. Blakesley in this subject and his feeling of self-respect would probably lead him to desire that no peril should arise to the Bill and that his name should not be the subject of personal controversy.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 29; Not-Contents 25: Majority 4.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Normanby, M.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Lyveden, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Mostyn, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Northwick, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Granville, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Nelson, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Saltersford, L.(E. Courtown.)

  Verulam, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Seaton, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Stratheden, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Mar. lborough, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Exeter, M. [Teller.]

  1661

  Fortesue, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrtose.)

  Foley, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Stratford de Redcliffe,V.

  Houghton, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Churston, L.

  Silchester, L. (E.Longsford.)

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Sondes, L.

  Clinton, L.

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

  Colchester, L.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that after the, decision which had just been arrived at, the number required to constitute a Quorum ought to be increased. He should move that the number, instead of 3, should be 5.
  On Question, That the "Word proposed to be left out stand Part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 25; Not-Contents 28: Majority 3.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 27, 28, and 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Extension of Time for Governing Bodies to make Statutes).
  THE DUKE OP MARLBOROUGH, in consequence of the time within which the Governing Bodies might amend their constitution having been extended from the 1st of January to the 1st of May next, proposed a verbal Amendment limiting the power of further extending the time by Order in Council to one month instead of three months.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: The Report thereof to be received Tomorrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 285.)

EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS IN WAR—THE RUSSIAN CIRCULAR.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Your Lordships must have seen a short time ago in The Times and other public journals a Circular issued by the Russian Government in relation to the use of explosive materials in war. It is not now the time to argue this question, but it is a matter of very great importance, as coming from so great a military power as the Russian Empire; and it is still more important from the fact that, as we are told, the Prussian Government have come to the same conclusion, and that the French Government are not unwilling to take this new principle into consideration. This is no new principle among civilized nations, which have always adopted the principle of not employing poisonous materials in war. The principle laid down by the Russian Government is, indeed, exactly the same which civilized Powers have acted upon for so many years. Your
1662
Lordships will perhaps all agree that nothing should be done to prevent the shortening of the conflict in the day of battle, and the putting as many men as possible hors de combat; but we all feel that we ought to mitigate the horrors of war as much as we can, and that we should not do anything to promote unnecessary suffering after the hour of conflict. It is in that sense that I beg to put the Question of which I have given Notice—to inquire, "Whether the Circular of the Russian Government in relation to explosive materials in war has reached Her Majesty's Ministers; and, if so, whether they are disposed to take it into their favourable consideration?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: It is quite true that Her Majesty's Government have received from the Russian Government a communication of the nature to which my noble Friend alludes, and that communication, I think, does the greatest possible honour to the Emperor of Russia. As far as my own feelings are concerned, I hold that nothing can show a more chivalrous nature than that communication from the head of a great military Power. The facts are as follows:—It appears that, among the many military inventions lately discovered, two very formidable projectiles have been submitted to the War Department at St. Petersburg. One consists of a rifle ball containing explosive and poisonous matter, with a cap fixed to it containing a substance which on striking the human body, and that of horses, explodes within them and infuses such a substance as prevents the possibility of their recovery after they have been so mangled. The other is also a projectile which is sent from a rifle, but is intended to perforate and blow up caissons. Now, the latter projectile is, I think, a perfectly fair and legitimate weapon of war; but the other I can only call a diabolical invention, and one which ought to be classed with the poisoned arrows of the wild Indians. That being the case, one can hardly wonder that a noble-minded Sovereign like the Emperor of Russia should have felt horrified at the possible use of such a weapon. It appears that on its being submitted to him by the Minister of War he instructed his diplomatic agents at the various Courts of Europe to propose to the different Governments that they should come to an international understanding that this horrible weapon of war should not be used. Baron Brunnow accordingly drew up a

1663
Protocol, which he submitted to Her Majesty's Government, suggesting the form in which these communications should be made. In consequence of this the Prussian Government, I understand, have fully-entered into the humane feelings of the Russian. Government; but they submitted at the same time that, seeing the vast; number of inventions now under the inspection of military Governments, it would be better not to confine the investigation to this one invention, but that a Military Commission should meet at St. Petersburg to consider the whole subject in the spirit which had animated the Russian Government. Her Majesty's Government have entered entirely into the feeling of the Prussian Government. Nothing has actually been settled as yet; but a Military Commission will assemble as soon as possible at St. Petersburg to consider the whole subject. I cannot give any information as to the views of the French Government; but I confidently hope that they will accede to this arrangement. At the same time, we must not take it for granted that these new military inventions and improvements in military projectiles necessarily occasion a greater destruction of life than formerly occurred. The fact is a curious one; but experience would go to show that since arms of precision and projectiles of long distance have been invented the actual number of lives destroyed in warfare has been far less than it was when men used to come to closer quarters. A French officer has put into my hands a statement from which it appears that during the great wars of the beginning of this century there was much larger destruction of human life than there has been since arms of precision and projectiles of long distances have been used. At the battle of Friedland the French lost 14 men per cent, the Russians 30 per cent, and the Austrians 44, or nearly half. At Wagram the French lost 13 and the Austrians 14 per cent. At the battle of Moscowa the French lost 33 and the Russians 44 per cent. At Waterloo the French lost 36 and the Allies 30 per cent. Forty years afterwards, and since these new weapons have been used, the French lost at Magenta 7 per cent and the Austrians also 7 per cent. At Solferino the French and Sardinians lost 10 per cent and the Austrians only 8 per cent. I do not pretend to explain these facts, but it may be presumed that troops do not come to such close quarters as formerly;
1664
and the result is that the percentage of men destroyed in war at the beginning of the century was very nearly double what it has been in recent engagements.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that all must agree that it was the duty of all civilized nations to abstain from using weapons of a poisonous nature. He trusted, however, that any officers who might be instructed by Her Majesty's Government to represent this country at this Military Congress at St. Petersburg would act with great caution, so as to avoid the possible danger of checking further improvements in warlike materials. Our mechanical skill was one of our great sources of power in the art of war, and it was most important that, while we paid regard to the interests of humanity, we should not debar ourselves by this Commission from the full and unfettered application of the mechanical skill of the country to the improvement of its warlike materials.

THE CANNING STATUE.—QUESTION.
LORD CAMPBELLasked the Lord Privy Seal the date of the Division in the House of Commons which, as stated by the noble Earl on a recent occasion, sanctioned the present site of Mr. Canning's statue?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYexplained that the gentleman whom he sent to the Board of Works for the purpose of ascertaining the facts misunderstood the information he received, and consequently misled him. Although, however, there was no division on the occasion referred to, that did not affect the main question, for the discussion in the House of Commons was as favourable to the present position of the statue as that in this House was unfavourable. Lord John Manners subsequently proposed a Vote of £1,000 for the arrangement of the ground, thus giving the other House a full opportunity of giving its opinion had it been opposed to the present site. He might also mention that a background was necessary; the cloak and disposition of the drapery showed that the back of the statue was never intended for inspection, and when; placed in the middle of the square the view from one direction was therefore very, unfavourable.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.