Sitting of 3 March 1869

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—General Valuation, &c. (Ireland).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered; First Reading—Lands Clauses Consolidation Act Amendment* [31]; Life Insurance Companies [35]; Game Laws (Scotland) (No. 2) [36].
Second Reading—Sunday Trading [5]; Election Expenses [7] negatived.

BAYSWATER MARKET AND BATHS BILL, (by Order.) SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. T. CHAMBERS MR. T. CHAMBERS moved that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months. This was a Bill for the establishment of a market and baths between Westbourne Grove and Westbourne Park, in the parish of Paddington, and for this purpose four persons, whose names were mentioned in the Bill, were incorporated, with power to take land compulsorily. The addresses of these persons were unknown, and he had tried in vain to find them. The promoters of the scheme proposed to take certain land belonging to the vestry and the trustees of the poor of the parish of Paddington. They also sought powers to build houses upon the frontage of this land. Five years was the period they asked for the completion of the works, and after the market and baths

541
were constructed they wished to be allowed to hold them for ninety-nine years, or to be permitted to sell or dispose of them to a corporation or other persons. The objections to the Bill were very numerous. First of all, there was not the slightest necessity for a market in the locality, nor did the inhabitants demand any such tiling. The affair was, in fact, a mere building speculation. The parish authorities opposed the measure, because they were to be deprived of land which they held for behoof of the poor, merely to accommodate certain private and unknown speculators who desired to turn the scheme to their individual profit. Those who promoted the Bill pointed to Lambeth as an instance of the good that was gained by the establishment in the metropolis of markets like the one proposed. It was quite true that the market at Lambeth served very useful purposes; but the case of Paddington was very different from that of Lambeth. The latter had a very poor population to whom the market was a convenience, but the former was a district filled almost entirely with houses of a first-class character, which were inhabited by rich people, whose convenience was amply provided for by a large number of shops of every description. This proposed market was to be placed in a situation where there was a very great traffic of cabs and omnibuses, and would prove an obstruction. Moreover, it was the intention of the promoters to open up Westbourne Park, and make it a thoroughfare—a step that would seriously diminish, the value of the house property in that neighbourhood, as the people who lived there had taken up their residence in that spot on account of its quietness and its retired situation. Apart, however, from these objections, there was one which took precedence of them all; and that was that it was not the practice of Parliament to give compulsory powers to any company merely for the advancement of a purely private speculation. They had an instance of this in what occurred not long ago. A proposal was made by some private speculators to pull down the houses in the narrow part of the Strand, in front of Holywell Street, for the purpose of erecting a large hotel. "When the Bill came under the consideration of Lord Redesdale that noble Lord declared that
542
Parliament would never give such a power to private speculators; and that it. would be very unfair to throw upon the parish the immense expense of opposing such a measure before a Select Committee. The Bill was accordingly thrown out upon the Standing Orders, and this was what he (Mr. Chambers) wished the House to do upon the present occasion. The inhabitants of Paddington had instructed him to say that they did not want the proposed market; that it would be a nuisance to the neighbour-bood, and would seriously deteriorate the value of property, and that the vestry ought not to be deprived of the land which they held for behoof of the poor, and which was yearly increasing in value. He hoped, therefore, that the House would reject the Bill, and not allow it to go before a Select Committee.
COLONEL SYKESseconded the Motion. He had no hesitation in saying that the proposal of the promoters of this scheme was an outrage upon the people of Paddington. It was a mere jobbing speculation on the part of persons, whose very names were unknown, to rob the poor in order to advance their own interests. He was sure the good sense of the House would never grant such a demand.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and. at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr Thomas Chambers.)
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill put off for six months.

METROPOLITAN STREET TRAMWAYS BILL, (by Order.) SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. PEASE MR. PEASE moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He said he did so simply because no other Member had placed any notice of opposition to this project on the Paper. The other evening the House, on constitutional grounds, refused to allow a Bill

543
to be introduced by a noble Lord; and there was an equally important constitutional question at stake in connection with this Bill—namely, whether or not the House would grant permission to a private company to monopolize a large portion, and in some cases one-half of the roadway of some of the chief thoroughfares of the metropolis. The House would have to judge whether this could be done without seriously affecting the public interests and greatly damaging the public convenience. There was a Motion on the Paper to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, but he thought the House would come to a much better decision than any Committee. Hitherto the history of tramways in the metropolis had been one of failure and disaster. The first scheme of the kind that ever was proposed was rejected in 1858, and in 1861 upon the proposal being revived, it was thrown out without a division. Again in 1866–7 a Tramway Bill was rejected upon the Standing Orders, and in the following Session it met with a similar fate at the hands of the House itself without a division. Trial of the tramway system had been made in the "Westminster Bridge Road and Victoria Street, and in Bayswater Road, but without success, and ultimately the rails were pulled up and the schemes altogether abandoned, all parties agreeing that it was altogether unsuited to the thoroughfares of the metropolis. Had the parties who promoted this Bill confined their proposal to Kennington Road he should probably not have objected, but they proposed to lay down tramways in "Westminster Bridge Road, where the traffic was very great, and where great public inconvenience would be the result. They were told that the system worked well in New York, but it was to be remembered that neither in Fifth Avenue nor in Broadway of that city, which were chief thoroughfares, were there any tramways. Moreover, the people of New York were in a measure compelled to use tramways on account of the state of the pavement which, according to Mr. Sala, was so execrable that hansom cabs could not traverse the streets. Copenhagen was also cited as an instance of the good working of the tramway system, but it would be well to bear in mind that more carriages passed up and down Westminster Road in the course of a day than were to be found in all
544
Copenhagen. "Were the rails laid alongside the road they would seriously interfere with the business of the tradesmen and merchants along the route, for it would prevent carriages from standing before their shop doors; and would prevent carts from being loaded and unloaded with their goods. If, on the other hand, the rails were laid, in the middle of the road the progress of vehicles would be seriously interrupted, and drivers would have continually to cross and re-cross the rails. The narrow part of the Westminster Bridge Road was only 37 feet 6 inches wide, and if the tramway were laid in the centre only 14 feet would be left on each side for other vehicles. In Palace Road the width was only 29 feet. In Stangate the width was only 13 feet 10 inches. He was told that the rails to be used by this company were very superior to those which were laid down by George Francis Train. There certainly was some difference between them, but it was not such as to warrant any argument being based upon them in favour of the Bill. No one could deny that after the rail had been down a short time the rail on the blocks of granite would be three or four inches above the road, and would be dangerous to any carriage that was driven over the rails. He begged to remind the House that the Metropolitan Police Bill which had recently been passed placed in the hands of the Commissioner of Police great powers for the purpose of regulating the traffic, and these powers would, to a large extent, be rendered nugatory if they now placed half their streets in the hands of a private company. But it was urged that these tramways would be a great benefit to the working classes. On that plea he had supported the experiment made of a tramway along the Old North Road, one of the widest highways of Darlington, but after a short time everybody came to the conclusion that it was only a great nuisance, and it was taken up. But let them look a little into the benefits which were to be conferred on working men by this scheme. There would be two carriages morning and evening, at the rate of ½d. a mile, which would, allowing sixty to the carriage, accommodate 120 workmen. For the rest of the working men and the public there was a minimum charge of 3d. a mile, so that the plea was simply absurd, and

545
would not for a moment compare with facilities afforded by the railway companies—the Metropolitan having agreed to run workmen's trains morning and evening, charging 1d. for the whole distance from Kensington to Trinity Square, Tower Hill. For these reasons, he hoped the House would reject the measure, and not throw upon the objectors the expense of fighting the Bill before a Select Committee.
MR. LOCKEseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Pease.)
CAPTAIN GROSVENORsaid, although he rose for the purpose of asking the House to take an entirely different view of the case from that which had been taken by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he (Captain Grosvenor) could not affect to feel surprised at the prejudice which existed against the tramway system when he considered that it was associated in the public mind with the recollection of that obnoxious agitator, Mr. George Francis Train. That gentleman obtained leave to lay down various tramways, and not satisfied with constituting himself a public nuisance by his manner, tone, and general method of procedure he laid down his rails upon a principle so faulty as to threaten the destruction of any carriage with ordinary wheels that ventured upon their track. He would remind the House, however, that it was not Mr. Train who was now applying for power to lay down tramways, nor did the promoters intend to revive the imperfect invention of that gentleman. They proposed to pursue a course in every way the opposite of his. First, by every means to conciliate the public; and, secondly, to lay down rails in such a manner that they could not by any possibility obstruct the ordinary traffic. The interests of the company itself, as well as the strict provision in the Bill, guaranteed that this would be done—because if the rails were not laid down in a manner which commended itself to the public, they would have to be taken up again at great expense. As regarded the practicability of the project, it had long since been established by actual experience. Darlington had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as an
546
instance of the failure of the system, but for his part he would adduce the case of Birkenhead, where it had been amply tried, and was a great success. An attempt had been made by some interested persons in Birkenhead to do away with the tramways on the ground that they were an inconvenience, but the jury before whom the case was tried declared that they were not a nuisance but an advantage; and the verdict was confirmed by acclamation in the town. That was in 1865, and from that time up to the present Birkenhead had enjoyed the use of the tramways. The prejudice, therefore, which existed against the name of Mr. Train should not be allowed to stand in the way of effecting a great public improvement. "Who were the objectors to the proposal? The proprietors of the public vehicles that at present plied in the thoroughfares of the metropolis. From what these gentlemen said, one would suppose that London was supplied with better and cheaper means of locomotion than any other city in the world, instead of something like the reverse being the case. These omnibus proprietors who now opposed tramways, had not been always of opinion that they were mischievous. On the contrary, he found from the Report of the General Omnibus Company of 1857 that their chief engineer was ill favour of the tramway system; and, in The Times of November 20 in that year he had seen it stated that the company were about to expend £50,000 of their surplus capital in laying down tramways for their own use. The fact that the directors had not carried out their intention he regarded as a loss both to themselves and the public, His object in mentioning this was to show that the omnibus company who now objected to tramways had really approved of their principle. It seemed to him that the practical objections to this Bill were very difficult to find, and though he had listened with attention to the statement of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) he had not been much assisted in getting at these objections. One statement made by the hon. Gentleman was to the effect that the streets of London were too narrow for the successful application of the tramway system. An answer to that was to be found in the practice of foreign cities where tramways were common, although the streets were

547
narrow and also crowded. Apart from this, however, the Bill did not contemplate the introduction of tramways into any thoroughfare that could properly be called both crowded and narrow. The vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, had petitioned against an analogous measure on the ground that they objected to giving up a portion of the public way to a company of speculators. This was not a question, however, of giving up a portion of the thoroughfares; for after the tramway was laid down the public would have precisely the same rights over the roadway as at present. The only right the vestry would give up was that of paying for the maintenance of that portion of the road used by the company. It was urged that the promoters were speculators, and that they ought not to be encouraged; but he did not think the House would be inclined unduly to curtail the spirit of legitimate enterprize. It was gratifying to find that, with one exception, the vestries concerned on the other side of the water, appreciating the advantages which would thus be conferred upon the ratepayers, gave their cordial support to the promoters of the Bill. He felt confident that, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case, the inducements held out to the promoters by special Standing Orders to proceed with their Bill, and the money which had been spent in bringing matters to this stage, the House would at all events afford the promoters the opportunity of obtaining a fair and candid consideration of their scheme. This was all that the promoters asked, and all that they required in order to prove that the realization of their scheme would confer a substantial and unqualified benefit upon all classes of the community.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he was not surprised at the support which the hon. and gallant Member for "Westminster (Captain Grosvenor) gave the Bill when he considered that the scheme did not propose to carry the tramways into Westminster. But on behalf of the people of Southwark, who were directly interested, he (Mr. Locke) was there to oppose the measure. Unfortunately with regard to private Bills, nobody seemed to know anything about them. It was very difficult to ascertain, for instance, who were for and who against such Bills. In the present case they were told that a num
548
ber of philanthropists had banded themselves together for the purpose of benefiting the public at large. He, for his part, however, must acknowledge that he had never seen one of those so-called benefactors in his life. He believed that, in this instance, a good many of them came from across the Atlantic, and they came according to their own account in order to benefit the British public; but he hoped the British public would be able to estimate these proposals at their true worth. These philanthropists maintained that the tramways would be flush with the road, but how could any tramway having a groove in it for a flange to run in be flush with the road? The difficulty with regard to Mr. Train's tramways was, that no carriage could pass over them without danger, and sometimes accidents were the result. The Court of Queen's Bench having declared them a nuisance they had to be taken up. He had taken the trouble to go to Kennington to look at the plans and the model of the rails of the proposed tramway, in order to see whether they fulfilled the description given of them in the Notice Papers of the House. He had found that the tramway was not flush with the roadway, and that the same kind of inconvenience would occur as occurred in reference to Mr. Train's tramway, though perhaps it would not be to the same extent. These philanthropists would monopolize the road. ["No, no!"] What he called monopolizing a road was this—that the tramway upon which the carriages were to run would be so laid down that the vehicles passing along them could by no possibility turn out of the way, for there were flanges to the wheels. If this was not "monopolizing" part of the road, he did not know what he was to understand by monopoly. He would call to the minds of hon. Members the state of Westminster Bridge when it was first thrown open to the public, and when no vehicle could cross from side to side of the road, the centre being appropriated to heavy traffic. Everybody objected to that state of things, but no one moved in the matter except himself, and he asked a Question—indeed he believed that he kept on asking it about once a fortnight throughout the Session. He spoke to his right hon. Friend, the then First Commissioner of Works (Mr. W. Cowper) upon the matter, and what he heard from

549
him was, that Mr. Page was enamoured of the plan, that he (the First Commissioner) did not approve of it, and that it would in time go. Now it had gone, and they had an opportunity of seeing what Westminster Bridge was with the tramway gone. He asked the House to consider where it was proposed that these tramways should go in Southwark. They were to start from Westminster Bridge, and go along York Road, which was not a very wide road; they were to cross Waterloo Road, and were then to go the whole length of Stamford Street, then to cross Blackfriars Road into Southwark Street, and thence along Southwark Bridge Road to the bridge. He could not conceive a greater inconvenience than that of a company monopolizing these roads, which formed a principal line of communication between Westminster and the City. If the Bill were passed hon. Members, on taking this new and quick route, would have those tremendous vehicles of the company rushing along their road and subjecting them to all kinds of danger; and it was not shown that any particular class of people would be benefited by it. It was indeed said that it would be a great thing for the working classes; but this was said by the philanthropists; and no doubt it would be a great good to these last-named people. There had lately been great difficulty in floating anything; there was no buoyancy in the British public; but when any concern could be got to float no doubt it was a good thing for those who got it off. It was said that if the thing did not pay the company would give it up; but who was to make them give it up? and they all knew possession was nine points of the law. He should like to know who would be the man to "bell the cat" and turn the company out of our narrow streets. His plan was not to let them in. The philanthropists said that they must adopt this scheme because so many places had adopted it. It was said that it had been adopted in America. Now he (Mr. Locke) had never been there, but the other day he heard a gentleman speak who was very fond of America, and doated upon American institutions, and he said that the greatest nuisance was these tramways in Philadelphia. Paris also appeared in the programme of the philanthropists, and it was stated in their document that they had
550
got a tramway from Paris to Boulogne. [An hon. MEMBER: Bois de Boulogne.] No, it was "Boulogne." Every hon. Member knew that there was a little village a short distance out of Paris called Boulogne; and the company had used the name of this place, and left the ignorant to imagine that the tramway went all the way to the town of Boulogne, and greatly facilitated the communication between Paris and England. Now, where were the tramways laid down in Paris? They started close to the Place de Carrousel, which was a large open space, and they ran along by the river on an immensely wide road; and in this way they got to St. Cloud, and, he believed, also to Versailles. The case might have been somewhat parallel to London if there had been tramways along the Boulevards—which, by-the-by, were perhaps twice as wide as any street in London; but though Boron Haussmann was a bold man, yet he had never attempted this, and he (Mr. Locke) firmly believed that were he to attempt to lay down a tramway along the Boulevard, even with the Emperor to back him, the public would not submit to it. There was no tramway in Paris along any street in which there was a large traffic, though there was no better managed city; nor any where there were more omnibuses, nor where it was more necessary that the working classes should be accommodated. In his opinion there was no necessity for this Bill going to a Committee, because hon. Members could well judge of the question 'from their own knowledge of the state of the public roads. In his opinion the steamboat and omnibus accommodation were amply sufficient to supply all the public wants along the line which he had pointed out, through which it was the intention of the Company to lay clown these trams in the borough of Southwark, and he hoped that the House would vote that the Bill should be read a second time that clay six months.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to give his testimony as an independent witness to the value of tramways. Although up to a recent period he had been much prejudiced against them, his recent experience of their working in New York and New Orleans had led him to the conclusion that they were of the greatest public utility. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease)

551
had quoted Mr. Sala as a conclusive authority on the subject; but although one who appreciated light literature and admired Mr. Sala's ability, he contended that Mr. Sala's fault was that of a sensational writer who could do nothing unless he laid on the colours thick. Mr. Sala was a most amusing companion at the breakfast table; but he was about the last writer in England upon whose testimony he would rely, or to whom any Member, having respect for his position as a legislator, should go for facts on a matter of grave importance. Mr. Sala's description of New York was extravagant and nothing but a caricature, the result of Mr. Sala's playfulness of style. He said this from what he had seen during five weeks' residence in the City of New York. The tramways would be of the greatest use to all classes, and the argument that the two workmen's cars would carry only 120 persons during the day was fallacious, because the passengers would not ride the whole length of the line, and would most probably be replaced four times in a journey. The fact was that the train ways in New York and elsewhere were of the greatest value to the working classes. He admitted that some of the American tramways were faulty, but the majority of those he passed over in carriages did not obstruct the passage of the wheels in the least. He knew that in New Orleans the tramways were an immense property, and he believed that there was hardly a town in America of 40,000 inhabitants in which there was not a street tramway. He asked, would there be any harm in sending the matter to a Select Committee, so that they might not legislate upon any absurd, prejudice or false statement? The reason why tramways were not generally adopted in Paris was that the system of "correspondence" was perfect, and one of the cheapest in the world. He, like the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), did not believe in philanthropists, but he did believe in speculators, and it would not be worthy of the House to be carried away by an idle sneer against a class of men who had done so much for England. Our railways and many other most important social undertakings were entirely the result of private speculation.
MR. LAIRDsaid, he could give his most emphatic testimony to the value of street tramways. Some years ago one
552
was laid down in Birkenhead, and the mode of working was at first greatly complained of. The rails were thereupon removed and replaced by others, and from that time there had been no complaint. Now, nothing would occasion a greater annoyance to the inhabitants of Birkenhead than that the street railways should be removed. They ran from, the Ferry to the very heart of the town, and were a convenience to thousands of working men. He himself was constantly riding through the streets of the town, but he never found that there was any danger or inconvenience arising from the tramway. There was another street railway in Liverpool, which ran by the six miles of docks, and. it was a great accommodation, and he had never heard of any inconvenience arising from it.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he wished to express the opinion of the Board of Trade that this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee, and to state that the Metropolitan Board of Works entertained the same opinion. The question then before them was not whether the scheme proposed was all that could be wished, but whether, considering the testimony borne to the value of tramways by the last two speakers, the subject did not deserve inquiry. He could support the view taken by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) from his own experience of tramways in America; he had never experienced any shock when passing over the line in a private carriage. He fully concurred as to the advantages derived from tramways fin "America. There was scarcely a town in that country which was without a tramway, and he saw no reason why a good system of trams should not be tried in the less crowded thoroughfares of the metropolis. There were no less than three Bills now before the House which proposed that forty-one miles of tramways should be laid down in the suburbs, and he understood that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) to move to refer all these Bills to the same Committee, and that the Standing Orders should be suspended, so as to permit anybody whatever to oppose the Bills without being objected to on the ground of locus standi. On the part of the Government he should support that Motion, he hoped therefore that the Bill would be read a second time.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, his experience of the American tramways had been quite the opposite of that of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire). Tramways wore possible in the United States only because the streets were very broad, ran at right angles, and were but little encumbered by traffic. If tramways were so advantageous as had been stated, why did not the most enterprizing people in the world lay them down in Broadway? In Montreal, the only tramway that paid was one that ran from one end of the town to the other, and it paid because in some parts the roads were so narrow that people were obliged to use the tramway to make their journey. The lion, and gallant Member for Westminster (Captain Grosvenor) had said that if the tram were found to be a public inconvenience it would not pay, and then the company would have to remove it; but if the company monopolized the road, as the Montreal tram did, the line would be sure to pay, because the public would be obliged to use it. It was said that if tramways were adopted, the inhabitants would have to keep only half the width, of the roads in repair; but then the half would have the traffic upon it doubled, because the traffic would be diverted from the tramway to the common road; so that the cost of machinery of the road borne by the parish would be much the same as it was now. Another objection was the stopping of the ordinary traffic by the police to allow the passengers to get from the trams to the pathway. The danger of the trams was notorious. He had recently heard of a gentleman's carriage being smashed to pieces through being unable to get off the Hue in time; and when in New York, he had heard of forty accidents occurring in one day. He had himself driven before a car on a tram, and it reminded him of nothing as much as flying before an express train at full speed.
MR. BAKERsaid, he strongly objected to the measure, and must oppose the second reading. The proposed trams ran into Essex, although the title referred only to the metropolis. As the measure stood trams might be extended even into Sussex. There was a part of the road between Whitechapel and Stratford so narrow that it was called "the funnel," and let the police do their best to regulate the traffic, it would be impossible,
554
if this tramway were established, but that accidents would be greatly increased.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, he thought it was very inconvenient to decide questions of this sort in the House. As the testimony with regard to the working of tramways in New York and elsewhere were most conflicting, the proper course would be to send the Bill to a Committee. They could not have before them in the House the plans and sections necessary to determine the matter, and surely it was not because ten years ago an objectionable plan was brought forward, that they should now decide against any plan whatever. At present the working classes in London travelled great distances on foot, and anyone who devised a plan by which they could be relieved of this necessity must be regarded as a public benefactor.
MR. M'ARTHURsaid, that most of the arguments against proceeding further with the measure, reminded him of those which were formerly used against railways. He had travelled in street tramways in the crowded thoroughfares of New York, and he had no hesitation in saying' that if the system were once fairly introduced into the metropolis, such advantage would result, that everybody would be opposed to its withdrawal. He hoped the measure would be allowed to go to a Select Committee.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) in his description of the tramway in Paris, had omitted a most important point, which was that it ran at right angles to the four or five bridges over which the entire traffic of the city passed. When he met the hon. Gentleman in Paris at the time of the Exhibition those bridges were crowded with carriages, which crossed the tramway diagonally without slackening their speed; and he wanted to know whether his hon. Friend had ever heard of an accident having occurred there. He thought it hard that any well-considered plan should inherit the prejudice which had been created by the scheme of Mr. Train.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, admitting that the question of rails or or carriages or of the public advantage of tramways was a proper one for a Committee, he entertained a strong preliminary objection to the measure—he objected to giving up a por-

555
tion of the public streets to any private company. If the scheme were a good one the road ought to be under the control of the public authorities; the most that should be done was to let it to a company. He hoped the Board of Trade would protect the interests of the public in that respect, and not allow a portion of the Queen's highway to be alienated, as it would be, for ever by this Bill.
MR. WALTERsaid, if his vote, on this question depended solely upon his experience of Mr. Train's railway he would have given this proposal his unqualified opposition. But, having witnessed the operation of the tramway system in almost every important town in North America, and knowing what was to be said on both sides of the question, he felt unable to refuse his assent to sending the Bill to a Committee. He thought it would be of great importance to what sort of a Committee the Bill should be referred, as this was a question which could only be decided properly by experience, and the British public were very little conversant with the working of the tramway system. Our crowded thoroughfares in the City of London, and the more densely peopled portions of the metropolis were totally unsuited to it; but there were, nevertheless, parts of the metropolitan area—for instance, the Stockwell Road, the Whitechapel Road, and many others of the less crowded thoroughfares in which a system of tramways would be an unmixed benefit. It would, he thought, be the duty of any Committee to take a much broader view than was opened by this Bill, and to see whether a much larger scheme might not be adopted in the outskirts of London without interfering with the crowded thoroughfares. As to what had been said of New York, you would not find a single gentleman there who would not bear testimony to the great advantage to the whole community of the tramway system, and yet there had been a constant fight going on between the authorities of the town and the tramway companies about getting a tramway into Broadway. He remembered one Sunday morning finding the road in Broadway pulled up and a number of men laying down tramway rails as fast as they could. The reason they did it on Sunday was because the courts of law could not grant an injunction to
556
restrain them on that day. That was what some would think rather taking a Yankee advantage. But, when he returned to New York, he found the street restored to its normal condition and the tramway taken away. We might take a lesson from the Americans with respect to this matter. They were a practical people, and they would no more allow a tramway to be put down in one of their crowded thoroughfares than they would dispense with them where they could be usefully applied.
MR. BREWERsaid, that the reason why the authorities of St. George's, Hanover Square, gave only a very qualified opposition to the proposal was because they considered that the traffic of London was one of the difficulties of the age. They doubted, however, whether it would be expedient to transfer the care of the roads from a public body to a private one. The substitution of a groove for a flange was considered a great improvement.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 209; Noes 78: Majority 131.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That the Metropolitan Street Tramways Bill and all other Metropolitan Street Tramways Bills be referred to the same Committee; and that all Petitioners who may pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, against any of the said Bills, be heard, without reference to any question of locus standi, upon the allegations contained in their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bills against such Petitions.—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)

PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it might be convenient to hon. Members if, in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, he were to inform the House that, if the state of Public Business would admit, it was the intention of his right hon. Friend to move that the House, at its rising on Tuesday, the 23rd inst., be adjourned until the 1st of April.

  ASSESSED RATES BILL.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it was proposed to put this Bill down for Monday instead of Thursday, but, if it should be found that it would be inconvenient to hon.

  557
  Members to discuss it on that day, the Government would be prepared to consider any application on the subject. It was very desirable, however, that the House should proceed with the second reading as soon as possible.

SUNDAY TRADING BILL— [Bill,5.]
(Mr. Thomas Hughes, Lord Claud Hamilton.)
SUNDAY TRADING BILL— [Bill,5.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHES, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, he desired shortly to remind the House of the position of the question to which it related. Legislation on that question had been recommended by two Select Committees of the House of Commons, and one Select Committee of the House of Lords; and the present Bill, or one exactly similar, except on certain, minor; points, was introduced by himself, and read the second time without a division in that House in 1867, and. again in 1868; its second reading was carried on a division by a majority of more than 2 to 1. Two successive Secretaries of State under the last Government approved of considering the Bill in Committee, and of legislation on the subject; and he was authorized to say that the present Government also thought it desirable to allow it to go into Committee that it might be modified in the second clause, on which the Bill chiefly turned, and that some measure of that kind ought to be passed. At present the law in reference to Sunday trading rested upon the statute of the 29th of Charles II., and the lapse of more than 200 years since that Act was passed had greatly changed the state of things to which such legislation was applicable. Indeed, the position which that Act occupied on the Statute-book was of itself sufficient to show that it was not likely to be suited to modern circumstances, and required amendment, for it stood between the Statute of Frauds and the Act repealing the Writ de Hœretico Comburendo. The statute of Charles II. prohibited the dealing on Sundays in any article whatever, with the exception of milk, up to nine o'clock a.m., and of cooked provisions in places properly licensed for their sale. The method provided by that Act for carrying out its principle was one that had been found totally unworkable—namely, a fine of 5s., levied in the first instance on the goods
  558
  offered for sale. The process was that the goods should be seized and sold by the authorities, the fines deducted from the proceeds of the sale, and the surplus handed over to the persons who had broken the law. Some time ago, in order to enforce the law, about 800 summonses were taken out in South London against persons charged with that offence, 700 of those persons promised to abstain from Sunday trading, saying that they should be thankful if all shops could be closed; but the 100 remaining on the list completely defied the law. The magistrates found they had not the power to make the law work, and the consequence, in regard to Sunday trading in the metropolis was that matters were getting worse and worse, and the law was now deliberately broken week after week m every street and square. He should mention, perhaps, that since the statute of Charles II., a small Act had been passed in the reign of Queen Anne enabling mackerel to be sold at certain hours on Sunday, as also another Act regulating the baking trade. In the year 1858 the then Archdeacon of Middlesex (Archdeacon Sinclair) went carefully into this subject, and compiled statistics showing that in certain districts of the metropolis, then comprising a population of about 500,000, out of nearly 13,000 shops 6,825, or more than half the entire number, were kept open after ten o'clock on Sunday morning. Since then matters had grown worse, tradesmen who formerly, in his own experience, did little or no business on Sundays now systematically violated the law, unwillingly in most cases, but driven on by the intense competition to which they were subject; and that was going on in all parts of London. Last Sunday he (Mr. Hughes) walked through a small district of the metropolis, and at the end of one street he found the three shops adjoining each other open to the public, and their proprietors canvassing for business. Those shops were a butcher's, a shoe shop, and a tinman's. He remembered, a few years ago, when the butcher did business in a quiet deprecatory way, and his neighbours were closed; now he was roaring "Who'll buy" in the middle of the street; the shoeman was polishing shoes in his apron, showing however his respect for the day by wearing his best hat and coat; and the tinman's door was open with goods deposited for sale round it. He firmly believed that what

  559
  Lord Russell said in 1866 was perfectly true—namely, that unless Parliament interposed to do something in this matter they ran great risk of losing Sunday altogether as a civil institution, for he would not here treat of that day in its religious aspect. Much had been spoken and written about the want of reverence for the law in England of late years, and no doubt there were many signs which showed the fact to be so; but how were they to expect the people in general to retain their respect for law when it was allowed to be openly broken week after week, in every part of the metropolis, without the Government or the local authorities being able to stop its breach? A correspondent of The Times last autumn gave a description of the great bird fair near Bethnal Green. That description was not exaggerated, and it showed that in a large district, including two churches, a regular fair was held, in which not only fancy dogs and birds, but marine stores, haberdashery, and other goods, were sold not merely at an early hour but during the hours of Divine service. Parliament, he maintained, "was bound to make the law in that matter such as they believed would be for the good of the public, and also to give the local authorities the means of carrying it out. What, then, were the alternatives open to them? Firstly, they might sweep away all legislation on that subject, and leave Sunday trading entirely to the good sense of the community. He did not, however, believe the House would agree to that. Secondly, they might strengthen the Act of Charles II. by imposing penalties that could really be worked so as to make that Act one which could be effectually enforced in the metropolis and in other large towns. He would be sorry to see anything of that kind done. He came, therefore, to the third alternative. He thought it was better not to strengthen the Act of Charles II., and leave it simply as the governing statute on that subject. Still, as many persons felt great attachment to that statute, they might enact that, excepting so far as the Act of Charles II. was inconsistent with or was altered by the provisions of that Bill, it should continue unrepealed. Then came the question, what were the proper modifications of that Act which ought now to be sanctioned? The second clause of the present Bill stated what those proposed modifications were. No doubt
  560
  there would be large differences of opinion as to what trading ought and what ought not to be permitted on Sunday morning, but that was a question on which only a Committee of that House could properly decide. He would simply now say that the principle on which the Bill went was this—That all provisions of a perishable kind might be sold up to nine o'clock on Sunday morning; that cooked provisions and some other articles should be allowed to be sold up to ten o'clock; and that certain of those articles, such as milk and cooked provisions, should also be allowed to be sold after one o'clock; but that between ten and one there should be no sale whatever of any articles. It was said that this legislation would specially affect what were called "the dangerous classes"—that there would be some disturbance in the metropolis if such a measure as that were passed. He did not believe that to be so in the least, and he had given the question a good deal of careful attention; but even if it were the fact, he had yet to learn that Parliament was bound to legislate only for the safe classes. It was, he held, absolutely necessary to legislate on that question, and it was their duty to pass such laws in relation to it, as to other matters, as they conscientiously believed would be most beneficial to the whole community, whatever particular class they might please or displease. And if the present authorities or the present police were not sufficient to carry out the law so passed, let them be doubled, or, if that were still found insufficient, let them be doubled again. The old system of letting all these things take their course, hoping that they would come out right of themselves, had been tried many years, and certainly in that metropolis it had proved a great failure. What the people wanted in London, as elsewhere, was not less government but more. They wanted in many departments a stronger hand than they now had; and as Parliament now for the first time represented every class, and, therefore, had the whole country at its back, surely it ought to be able to legislate in the direction he had indicated. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he had not intended to address the House upon this Bill, but as no other Member appeared disposed to oppose the Bill at this stage, he would move its rejection. The question involved considerations connected both with political economy and with the liquor traffic, which ought to be kept distinct from mere Sabbatarian views: and he thought the better course would be to refrain from all partial legislation of that kind, which would only tend to make of their existing legislation on that subject "confusion worse confounded." If the hon. Gentleman would draw up a Bill distinctly embodying his own views, instead of vainly attempting to reconcile the divergent opinions of incongruous parties, who would not be satisfied with that measure when it had passed, the House would then be enabled to deal with it. As the Bill now stood he strongly objected to it, and begged to move that it be read the second time that day six months.
  MR. BRADYseconded the Amendment. He was sure from personal knowledge and observation that such a measure would be distasteful to the great majority of the people of London. It was a mistake to suppose that the Sabbath was less observed in the metropolis now than it was twenty or thirty years ago. The fact was that there was a much more satisfactory observance than was formerly the case. The hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Hughes) on a former occasion brought forward this measure to please a certain section of his Lambeth constituency, but he was at a loss to know why he had again brought forward the subject with no further additional arguments in its favour than the hon. Member's reference to three houses—the butcher's, the tinker's, and the shoemaker's. The measure would operate harshly on the poorer classes, many of whom received their wages too late on Saturday to make their purchases on that day, and, moreover, had no pantries in which to keep their provisions in proper condition even for a single night during hot weather. Moreover it was necessary that Sunday trading should be allowed, in order that small tradesmen, who often had to borrow money late on Saturday night of the publican, should be able to procure the necessaries of life.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Taylor.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he would give his support to the Bill. He considered that they ought to legislate in such a way as would enable respectable tradesmen who had been accustomed to close their shops on Sundays in a Christian country to continue to do so. Again, the young persons employed all the week in shops ought to have an opportunity afforded them of going either to places of worship or to their homes on Sunday as they thought best. He, for one, disclaimed the name of Sabbatarian. The State enacted a day of rest as a civil institution, and to that he hoped it would steadfastly adhere. The State ought to enforce nothing but rest; it ought not to call upon those who rested to go to church. That was a matter of conscience. But he trusted the State would always secure to those who wished to go to a place of worship on Sunday the requisite time for doing so.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was unfortunately unable to be present, he desired to state on his behalf that the Government did not wish to offer any objection to the second reading of the Bill. As it was usual to allow Bills of that kind to be read the second time in order that their details might receive careful consideration in Committee, he trusted the practice would not be departed from in that instance. By reading that measure the second time they would, after all, only bear testimony to what he believed to be the feeling of a great majority of the people of this country, that one day out of seven ought to be set apart for religious devotion if people desired it, or, at all events, for abstinence from ordinary work. How far that principle should be sustained by penal legislation was another question, and one that would call for careful examination in Committee. Therefore, in assenting to the second reading, his right hon. Friend did not pledge himself to any of the details of the measure. In Committee the difficulties which surrounded the subject would be clearly seen; and if his hon. Friend (Mr. Hughes) suc-

  563
  ceeded in surmounting them, and in framing provisions which met with general satisfaction, he would render good service to the public. He concurred, in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) that the inhabitants of the metropolis were not degenerating in regard to the observance of Sunday. On the contrary, for many years past there had been a great improvement in that respect, and an increasing appreciation on the part of the working population of the desirableness of one day in the week being set apart by law for rest from labour. The Act of Charles II., as observed by his hon. Friend, was a very imperfect measure; it was no doubt passed in a time of considerable excitement, and it did not now fulfil the purposes for which it was designed. It could not be affirmed, therefore, that the law was in a proper state; although how it was to be amended was a matter of considerable difficulty. That, however, was a question for the Committee; and he, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) would not press his Amendment to the second reading.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

ELECTION EXPENSES BILL— [Bill 7.]
(Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Baines, Mr. M'Laren.)
ELECTION EXPENSES BILL— [Bill 7.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. FAWCETT, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, he believed an appeal would be made to him from the Treasury Bench to refer the measure to the consideration of the Select Committee which would be appointed to-morrow to inquire into the present modes of conducting Parliamentary and Municipal Elections. If, however, such a proposal were made, he should do all in his power to resist it, as he strongly deprecated the practice of referring to Committees questions which the House itself was perfectly competent to decide. Such a practice led to a great deal of unnecessary expense, and his experience had shown him that Committees were granted with much too great readiness and frequency. After the ample discussion that had already taken place on the subject no one could deny
  564
  that the House was in a position to at once come to a decision upon this question without inquiry before a Select Committee. Besides, the questions which would be referred to the Committee about to be appointed were quite of a different nature from that to which his Bill related. The Bill dealt solely with the necessary expenses of candidates, whereas the Committee would inquire into the subject of expenses which were entirely voluntary. He felt, therefore, that he should be promoting the interests of the subject with which the Committee would have to deal if he declared that, as far as he was concerned, he would, if possible, press forward the present measure through all its stages. It had been asked why the necessary expenses of candidates should not be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund instead of charging it upon the rates? In reply to that objection he would remark that some people imagined that the Consolidated Fund was a great source of wealth constantly supplied by the bounty of nature, and from which riches flowed as from a perennial fountain. In point of fact, however, the Consolidated Fund simply represented so much money gathered, from the taxpayers, and he objected to this charge being placed upon it, because in such an event, the necessary expenses of elections instead of being diminished would be enormously increased. If they made the constituencies pay the necessary expenses of elections they would interest them in economy, whereas if they threw it on the Consolidated Fund they would interest them in extravagance; and in fact he would much rather things should continue as they were than throw the charge on the Consolidated Fund. But perhaps some hon. Gentlemen might say, "We are in favour of the principle of your proposal, but object to the present mode of raising local taxes"—["Hear, hear!"]—Well, they could not object to the present plan of levying iaxes more than he did, and if the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) had carried his Motion to a division the other night the hon. Baronet would not have found a more cordial supporter of it than himself. Hon. Members opposite might feel assured, therefore, that his sympathies on this subject were entirely with them. He asked the House to pass this measure because he felt con-

  565
  vinced it was based upon a just principle. It was most important that constituencies should be made to feel that the position of a representative of the people was not one which ought to be bought at an enormous price, but that a man who did his duty to his constituents rendered to them and to the country an important public service, and that it was wrong to call upon him to pay for the opportunity of discharging such a service. This was the main principle on which he rested his argument in favour of the Bill. Some hon. Members, however, would probably assert that they could not support the measure because the constituencies would not like it; but such an assumption on their part would be ill-founded, for whenever the proposal had been explained at a public meeting the poorest of the ratepayers had expressed themselves in favour of it, as they clearly comprehended that unless some measure of the kind were passed there would be no chance of the interests of labour being properly represented in the House of Commons, while they regarded the argument about adding a burden to the rates as paltry and contemptible. On the point of expense, he had made a calculation with reference to a certain borough where there had been a contest at every election during the last fifteen years. Now, taking into account the population of that borough, the amount of its rateable property, and the necessary expenses of all the elections which had occurred, he found that, had the present Bill been in operation, the whole charge thrown upon a ratepayer in a £10-house would have been the price of half an ounce of tobacco once in three years. The people generally were in favour of the Bill, because they felt convinced that under the present system the largest class in this country could not be properly represented. After the Irish Church had been disposed of there could be no doubt that the question of national education, which was peculiarly a working class question, would become the principal subject of discussion in that House, and was it not highly desirable that there should be working men's representatives to inform the House of the views entertained by their constituents? It might perhaps be objected that his Bill dealt only with a very small branch of a very important subject. That was no doubt true, but
  566
  nevertheless it dealt with a distinct branch, as there was obviously a broad line of demarcation between expenses which were necessary and those which were voluntary. A most important principle was involved in the Bill, which he believed would be fruitful in its consequences, and of great advantage to the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. BAINESsaid, that representing a large constituency, numbering 35,000 electors, he could corroborate the statement of Ids hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) that the poorer classes had, whenever they had been appealed to on the subject, expressed themselves in favour of the Bill. In his opinion, indeed, a more popular measure could hardly be proposed. It was not right that there should be a monopoly of the plutocracy in that House. His own experience enabled him to show that the official expenses of conducting elections might be reduced, if the local authorities had a motive for doing it, as by this Bill they would have. In Leeds, at the last election, a number of gentlemen voluntarily offered to discharge gratuitously the duties of deputy returning officers and poll clerks, the result being that the expenses of the candidates wore greatly diminished, and he had no doubt voluntary agency would become general if the expenses of the returning officer were thrown on the rates. This would correct some of the abuses which had grown up under paid agency. He was persuaded that a greater mistake could not be committed than to imagine that, if the expenses of elections were diminished, any great number of working men would be brought into that House. The difficulty in the case of the working man of being detached from his labour and of living for six months in an expensive metropolis, must show how visionary any such idea was. Their desire should be, however, to facilitate the introduction of working men into that House; and if they wished thus to get a real representation of the wishes and sentiments of the great bulk of the people they would diminish, as far as possible, the expenses of elections. He therefore had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped the House would meet the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) with a direct negative. The hon. Member had distinctly stated that the Government would offer to refer the subject to the Select Committee which was to be appointed to consider election matters. He hoped the Government would be sufficiently firm to say either "Aye" or "No" to the second reading, as it was a matter which they must have maturely considered as it was so fully debated last year. It was perfectly true, no doubt, that the hon. Member for Brighton carried his clause on two occasions, but it was no less true that that clause was rejected last year by a very large majority. This was not only a very serious question in itself, but, if entertained, it might lead to the time of the House being occupied with a re-discussion of the Reform Act and other Acts connected with that measure. He trusted, therefore, that the House would nip this scheme in the bud by declaring that the Bill ought not to be read a second time. There were two reasons which ought to induce the House to take that course. In the first place there was the Motion brought forward the other evening respecting local taxation, which the Government had promised to inquire into; and he felt assured that that inquiry would conclusively show that the taxes pressed unfairly on house and landed property. Next there was the statement of the First Minister of the Crown that part of the surplus of the Irish Church revenues were to be given in lieu of certain portions of the county cess, which weighed heavily on the ratepayers in Ireland. Now, he maintained, that the county rates were a great burden in England, and consequently he opposed the present Bill. One objection to it was that if a Member took Office in the Government the constituency would have to defray the cost of his re-election. He might multiply objections against the Bill; but on the present occasion he would content himself with expressing his belief that the House would act wisely in not assenting to the second reading.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the expenses of returning officers were not the only expenses which candidates were required to meet, but still they formed no inconsiderable sum. He would remark that
  568
  if the expense of providing polling-booths were thrown on the local authorities they would keep them from one election to another at a very trifling cost. Was it reasonable that they should punish a man because he set up as a candidate? Was it wise that they should secure that poor men should be excluded from Parliament? In his own borough (Birmingham) the expenses of the returning officer had amounted to about £2,177 at the last election. How, he would ask, could Chatham or Canning have entered Parliament if these expenses had been so heavy in former times? The ratepayers were willing to bear the burden, and why then should the House not permit them to do so? He hoped the House would agree to the second reading.
  SIR HERBERT CROFTasked leave to raise, for the first time, his voice in that House, and he did so in opposition to the Bill, on behalf of the already overburdened yeomen of England, on whom this Bill, if passed, would impose an additional tax. He denied that they wished to be further taxed in respect of hustings expenses. A Herefordshire yeoman said to him the other day that he would see him further before he would pay such expenses. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had not made out his case. Why did not the hon. Gentleman inform the House what kind of men the Bill was intended to benefit? There might be some reason for supposing that the measure was brought forward at the instigation of the leaders of the Reform League. The recent elections showed, however, that several members of that League were debarred from entering Parliament, not by the large amount of the expenses but by the votes of the working men, who had no confidence in such leaders. It was not the election expenses which prevented President Beales, magister artium, being returned for the Tower Hamlets, Mr. Bradlaugh for Northampton, and the gallant Colonel Dickson for the borough of Hackney. Then, again, the object of the Bill could hardly be to prevent what were known as hustings oppositions, for these occurred, even although the candidates had to give security for payment of their share of the expenses. He himself and his hon. Colleague one morning in November last proceeded to the Shire Hall in the city

  569
  of Hereford surrounded by a body of staunch friends. Their better halves were in the gallery, their swords were on the table, and they laboured under the delightful delusion that they were about to be elected without opposition, but, at the last moment, an excellent man of business was proposed against whom it was not his intention to say a single word. The new candidate immediately entered into security for costs—which costs he would have to pay. The returning officer's expenses in Herefordshire amounted to £850, and as there is an election on the average every four years an additional burden of upwards of £200 would be imposed on the already overburdened yeomen. Although the amount was not very large, it was a step in the wrong direction. He was much pleased with the eloquent appeal which the First Minister of the Crown made the other evening for the poor of Ireland, and he only regretted that he (Sir Herbert Croft) could not imitate the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman, while pleading on behalf of the poor of this country, but with all the energy he possessed, with all his heart, he implored hon. Gentlemen to crush this measure, and if it were pressed to a division to vote against it in such numbers, that even the hon. Member for Brighton, with all his perseverance, would shrink from bringing it a fourth time under the consideration of the House.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he hoped it would not be regarded as very presumptuous if he rose to address the House so soon after the "crushing" speech which they had just heard. He should support the Bill: first, because it was based on a principle which asserted the true relations between a Member and his constituents; and, secondly, because it would widen the area of electoral choice, by affording a greater chance of procuring the services of men who, though not possessed of wealth, were yet endowed with all the necessary qualifications for representing the interests of constituencies. Everything which tended to lighten the burden of elections, not only from the shoulders of the candidates but from the constituents should be advocated in that House. Before the Reform Bills of 1832 and 1867, there were nomination boroughs which afforded an avenue to this House for men of ability and high attainments.
  570
  Now that the constituencies had been largely augmented and the area of electoral power had been extended he thought the House should enlarge also the area of the choice of representatives by diminishing the expenses of elections, and thus enabling men of moderate means to enter the House. He did not indulge any Utopian idea as to the working-class representation; but he fully agreed with the opinions of the Prime Minister, and of Earl Russell, that it would be a great advantage to that House, and that it would greatly assist their deliberations if they could have a direct representation of the working men, from whom they could hear directly what were the wants, the feelings, and the objects of the class to which they belonged. He agreed with the statement of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) that the relation of a Member to his constituency was that of one who undertook to perform a great public service. He ought not, therefore, to be burdened with the expense entailed by the necessary legal process by which he was returned. There were expenses in every election which would always fall heavily upon candidates. It is to be regretted that this should be so. But to call upon candidates to pay for the very machinery, so to speak, which the law imposed and required in order to carry out its own provisions, he confessed was an anomaly and a hardship not to be found under any representative system of government with which he was acquainted. Yet that is what now existed here, and what hon. Members who opposed the present Bill sought to perpetuate. In the olden time, and down to a period more recent than the Restoration, Members of the House of Commons were paid their expenses in coming to, remaining in, and returning to their homes. He did not mean to say that he was prepared to advocate a return to that system, but he referred to it in order to how what was originally the relation of a Member towards his constituents, and that in the conception of the law and the constitution it was one of service rendered to them by the Member, and not of service or advantage bestowed upon him. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who opposed the present measure were perpetuating what was the great source and the parent of corruption by cherishing the idea that the can-

  571
  didate who sought to be returned to that House was seeking a great benefit for himself, instead of conferring a benefit upon the public. The consequence was that he was expected not only to bear all the expenses of his election, but hereafter to engage in what he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) considered the most dangerous, because the most insidious, form of corruption. He was expected to become the systematic subsidizer of the borough he represented by contributing largely towards the support of local institutions and other like objects. He thanked the House for the indulgent hearing which they had given him, and would give his cordial support to the measure.
  MR. FIELDENsaid, he was of opinion that, as a Parliamentary election was a matter of national importance, the expenses of it ought, under ordinary circumstances to be borne by the nation. But while he entertained that opinion he was opposed to the Bill before the House, and he should state briefly the grounds on which his objection to it was based. The national taxation was £70,000,000; the local taxation, according to the very able statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon, was £21,000,000. It was said that the amount which would be added by the operation of this Bill to the local taxation of the country would be very insignificant; but it should not be forgotten that that taxation had reached its present large proportions by means of petty additions, and that it was necessary to watch with a jealous eye any further augmentation of the burden, however small. He had been somewhat amused, he must confess, at the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines). They represented that their constituents were most anxious to be taxed for the purposes of this Bill. He knew nothing of Brighton, but he happened to represent the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, in which Leeds was situated. He had not received frequent communications from the freeholders of that borough, but the chief topic of all that he had received was the great pressure upon them of local taxation, with any addition to which they would not, so far as his experience went, be at all satisfied. He, for one, objected to see the expenses named in the Bill taken
  572
  off the shoulders of candidates, and transferred to those of the already heavily-taxed ratepayer, and it would, he maintained, come with a very bad grace from the New Reformed Parliament if, before the questions of national or local taxation—to the diminution of which, as far as possible, so many hon. Members had pledged themselves on the hustings—had been touched, they were to pass a measure for the relief of their own pockets. Entertaining those views, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. ANDERSON, as a representative of the largest constituency in the kingdom, hoped he might be allowed to say a few words on the subject before the House. He contended that the amount of the necessary expenses at elections was much greater as matters at present stood than it would be if the charge had to be borne by the ratepayers. In the borough which he had the honour to represent the claims of the returning officer at the recent election amounted to £1,400, or £350 for each candidate; but if the cost were thrown upon the public the requisite work would have been done for a much smaller sum. But the strongest argument in favour of the Bill was not that which was founded on the diminution of expense. To the great bulk of those whom he addressed the payment of £200 or £300 was, in all probability, a matter of trifling importance; but undoubtedly the necessity for incurring even that expense had a great effect in limiting the field from which constituencies might choose their Members; and if the House were anxious to avoid the charge of desiring to keep Parliamentary honours and political power in the possession of one class—namely, the class of very wealthy men—they must legislate in the direction proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). It should be remembered that in limiting the field from which constituencies might choose their Members, the House thereby tended to limit its own intellectual power.
  MR. ASSHETONagreed in thinking that it would be a great misfortune if it should be laid down as an axiom that the longest purse should have the greatest chance of returning a Member to that House. It would, indeed, be a great misfortune if the number of pounds in a man's pocket should be taken as the

  573
  measure of the amount of brains in his head; and it appeared to him that the question "whether the House should say "Aye" or "No" to this Bill lay in a nutshell. Would the Bill, or would it not, increase the expenses of elections? He held that anything which tended to increase the expenses of elections diminished pro tanto the proper representation of the people in that House, and the reason why he should vote against the second reading of the Bill was that he thought it would have the effect of increasing those expenses. He would tell the House why. Most of them were aware that the sum paid for the returning officer's expenses was small compared with many other expenses which were incurred. But still the returning officer's expenses were those which made the most show to the outer world, and people thought that if they could get these expenses paid for them by the Legislature their election would cost nothing. If the Bill were to pass, one result of its operation would be to induce candidates to stand who had not the remotest chance of being returned, and thus to give rise to contests where, as matters at present stood, none would occur. Believing that that would be a great evil, and would increase instead of diminishing election expenses, he should vote against the second reading.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, that an Act of Parliament had been passed in 1820 with respect to Irish elections, providing that the expenses of returning officers should be borne by the county rate, but that they should be paid, in the first instance, by the sheriff. A second Act provided that those expenses should be very moderate, and the opinion generally prevailed in Ireland, and was often acted upon, that where there was no contest the sheriff could make no charge. It would, he thought, be advisable to introduce into the present Bill a clause embodying that principle, inasmuch as contests in those cases in which there was no chance of success on the one side would thereby be discountenanced.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONobserved that the Act to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M'Mahon) referred had not been found to work well and had been repealed. As for the Bill of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), he looked upon it as a measure to provide additional candidates at elec-
  574
  tions at the expense of the ratepayers who had no wish to be subject to increased charge. If the constituents of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) were so desirous of taking upon themselves a fresh burden, with the view of enabling working men to get into Parliament with greater facility, what, he should like to know, was to prevent them from subscribing to effect that object? They had never done so, however, and what the supporters of the Bill really sought to effect was to obtain compulsory powers to tax persons who did not concur in their views. He hoped the House would not be deceived by the spurious pretence that this was a Bill to increase the area of intellectual ability in the House—for he believed under that disguise it was intended to add to the already overburdened rates of the country.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the measure was a matter of indifference to himself personally, for his constituents had always paid his expenses; but he wished his opponent's expenses also to be paid. The chief objection to the Bill was the increase it would cause in the local taxation. Now, he admitted local taxation was already sufficiently heavy, but that was no reason why they should not endeavour to put the election expenses on a proper principle. Whether the expenses were to be placed on the local rates or on the Imperial funds was a matter for the consideration of the Committee when this Bill went before it. The question involved in the measure was, perhaps, very small, so far as the payment of those expenses was concerned; but then it was very great viewed as a matter of principle. He found from the Returns of the General Election of 1865 that out of the total expenditure on the elections for the United Kingdom, which amounted to £752,746, the sum charged for returning officers was only £47,320, and he felt assured that if the charges were levied as proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, it would be found that they would decrease very considerably. The fact that the expenses of registration were paid out of the rates was, he contended, another argument in favour of the Bill, for there could be no good reason for stopping short at that point and throwing the expenses of the election itself on the candidates.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he did not wish to parade his own personal ex-

  575
  penses before the House, nor had he, like the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Hibbert), any particular desire to save the pockets of his opponents, but he was anxious to have justice done to his constituents, who had no inclination whatever, either upon this or upon any other occasion, for an increase of the county rates. It had been argued by some Gentlemen opposite that the passing of this Bill would facilitate the entrance of working men to this House. He (Colonel Gilpin) did not think that members of the working classes would have a bit the better chance of obtaining seats in Parliament if the Bill were to pass than they had at present, while the expenses of elections would in all probability be increased rather than diminished by its operation. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), he could only say that on more than one occasion he had heard the senior Member for that town boast that his elections for Birmingham had never cost him a farthing, and he had reason to be proud of it. When the hon. Member was as well known and appreciated as his Colleague, no doubt the same thing would happen to him. But what would occur in the interim? Why, the enormous expenses of the returning officer would be thrown upon the ratepayers, many of whom found it difficult to pay the sum already demanded. He (Colonel Gilpin) had not experienced the luxury of a borough election, but he had stood three contested county elections, and the sole expenses of the returning officers had not in all the three elections, he believed, amounted to the enormous cost at one Birmingham election of £2,700.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that having had a large experience in election contests he hoped the House would allow him to state that he did not think the passing of the Bill would have the effect either of enabling a greater number of working men to obtain seats in Parliament, or of breaking the back of that much-enduring animal the ratepayer by the email addition which it would make to the amount of his taxation. He was, however, of opinion that it was important to lay down a rule by which a clear distinction should be drawn between those charges which the law imposed upon candidates and the enormous expenses which they chose to impose upon
  576
  themselves. From what he had heard on the subject from many of his constituents after a long and arduous contest—and his experience in the matter would, he felt convinced, be borne out by that of hon. Gentlemen round him—there existed a very general feeling on the part of large sections of electors of what he might term shame because of the large outlay which men who came forward to discharge to some extent a public duty were obliged to incur. The actual charges which came under the head of the expenses of the returning officer formed but an insignificant item in the long bill which the candidate was called upon to pay. But, comparatively small as those charges were, they would, he believed, be materially reduced if they had to be borne by the ratepayers. As things now stood many charges which were not strictly legal were mixed up with others which were considered to be legal and fell upon the shoulders of the candidate. The cost of erecting a hustings was not, he believed he was correct in saying, a strictly legal charge, and he, for one, should like to see the farce of nominations, with the erection of hustings, altogether done away with. If, however, these things must continue to be the inevitable accompaniments of a General Election, together with the expenses of employing polling clerks, and of furnishing copies of returns, multiplied to an indefinite extent, the cost should, in his opinion, be borne by the ratepayers, who would, of course take very good care that it was cut down. Entertaining those views, he could not refuse to support the second reading of the Bill, but he should be better pleased to see it referred to the Committee which was so soon about to commence its labours. This was only one of a series of questions which would be better considered by the Committee than by this House. Among other modes of diminishing the expenses of elections, he believed that an increased number of polling-places in counties would have a very material effect. It would then be possible to do what could not be done at present—put an end to the enormous expense of carrying voters to the poll. You could not accomplish this object until greater facilities were given for voting than now existed; but, in the meantime, believing that, as a mere question of justice and of right, the

  577
  principle laid down in the Bill was a sound one, he should be prepared to support the second reading.
  MR. FLOYERwished, before the House came to a division, that they should understand what were the points on which they were about to vote. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had suggested that this burden might be thrown upon the general taxation of the country; but he believed he was correct in stating that no such alteration could be introduced into a Bill of this character in Committee, and therefore hon. Members would vote on a false issue if they supported the second reading under this belief. Then it was argued that if the expense were thrown upon the ratepayers, they would reduce the expense. But he did not find in the Bill any provision for the ratepayers having any control over the expenses—all they had to do with them was to pay them. The necessary expenses of the Bill would not be in the least degree under the control of the ratepayers. If that were so it was a totally wrong induction from the premise of the hon. Member for Brighton, when he said his Bill would reduce the expenses of elections. But granting that it were so, might not the principle be carried further than that House would wish? We had heard of appeals to eminent men who had been asked to decide whether this or that candidate should stand for a certain constituency; and recently, in one of our largest boroughs, that question was settled in some secret mode by the electors. No doubt, election expenses might be got rid of in this way, but for his part he abhorred all such occult and unconstitutional practices. Elections ought to be conducted by the constituencies, before whom candidates should come openly, and anything in the nature of hole-and-corner proceedings should be discouraged. He feared that this Bill rather pointed in the direction of practices, the tendency of which was to keep down expenses in an unconstitutional way, and for this and other reasons he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Floyer.)
  VICOUNT BURYsaid, he should op-
  578
  pose the second reading, because he looked upon it as merely nibbling and meddling with a small part of a great question, and because he thought that a private Member should not attempt to deal with a question which within a very short time was to be dealt with by the Government. The Bill was incomplete, for unless you prohibited other than the mere hustings expenses you would be no nearer the object of allowing working men to become Members of Parliament. The measure would tax all municipalities on the contingency that some one or two of them might wish to return such Members. He would like that constituencies should have a free choice in this matter; but the Bill would not secure this result. No one could have observed the enormous expenses which the Election Judges in their recent inquiries had pronounced to be legal, without seeing that this Bill merely touched the skirts of a great question, and that we really had to deal with the larger question so ably referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Walter). He would rather leave the Government to deal with the matter; and, representing a constituency where the municipal rates were very heavy already, he did not wish that one of the first votes of this House should be to impose fresh rates upon them and other constituencies. If constituencies wished to return working men, the way was open to them; they could do so by defraying the expenses of such candidates. For these reasons he should vote against the second reading.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS, being also about to vote against the Bill, wished to give his reasons for doing so. He entirely approved of the principle of the Bill, and thought it was extremely desirable to diminish election expenses; but the expenses dealt with by this Bill formed only about 7 or 8 per cent of the total expenses of candidates, and it was trifling with the subject to throw a burden like this upon taxpayers, who were taxed to the utmost already, without any adequate advantage or result to anybody. There were plenty of means by which the cost of elections might be reduced before throwing this fresh burden upon the local taxes. He could not agree with the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dews-bury (Serjeant Simon), for he felt that

  579
  the honour, the pleasure, and the satisfaction of being in this House were well worth the legitimate expenses of the election.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the statement of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) that he would persevere with his Motion, whatever might be urged against it, had raised a spirit of contention which might otherwise have been avoided. It became extremely difficult to conduct Business in this House when an hon. Member began by declaring that he would take a course of his own, and would not listen to any appeal that might be made to him. The hon. Member for Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) had taken advantage of this to insist upon a final decision against the Bill, and to express a hope that the Government would, be firm—and no doubt they would be so; but what was firmness upon this question? At the beginning of the Session it was stated that the Government would recommend that an inquiry should be prosecuted into the present mode of conducting Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, with a view to consider the possibility of providing any further guarantees for the tranquillity, the purity, and the freedom of such elections; and the House returned an Address to the Speech from the Throne, stating that it would probably proceed with that inquiry. Accordingly notice had been given that to-morrow a Motion would be made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) for the appointment of a Committee. His hon. Friend opposite (Colonel Barttelot), in his view of firmness, proposed that, pending the Notice for a Committee, the Government should at this moment pronounce a decided opinion, Aye or No, upon the three or four propositions in this Bill which must inevitably become part of the inquiry carried on by the Committee. Surely such a course on the part of the Government would be very inconsistent. At all events, he declined to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. Many other proposals had been brought under the notice of the House, all tending to show that this Bill was only part of a large subject. When, however, the Government had announced that, in their opinion, there ought to be inquiry with a view to a change in the law, it was not usual to draw the House into a discussion of the subjects
  580
  embraced in that inquiry, nor was it usual meanwhile to prevent hon. Members from submitting their proposals to the House. On the contrary, the ordinary course was to let every hon. Member lay his proposal before the House in such a shape that it might be referred to the Committee upstairs, who would consider whether it should or should not form part of any general measure. He thought, therefore, that the House might with great propriety allow the Bill to proceed through a stage to-day, and that this would be quite consistent with the course which the Government had advised the House to take. He had no intention to go further, because hon. Members would see that, if the Committee should think it desirable, for example, that the votes should be taken in an entirely new manner, then the expense to be incurred by it was a subject which must of necessity be considered, and an entirely new set of arrangements would have to be made. Again, it had been pointed out that the very foundation of this subject was what ought to be the expenses of the returning officers. On this point the English law was most defective, while in Ireland a most excellent law was in existence. The charges of election officers would, therefore, probably have to be regulated. At present, every hon. Member knew that he was a victim. The returning officer had said to him, "You must send me a check for the modest sum of £230," and if you inquired for particulars, the returning officer probably did not condescend to give any. All these points must be inquired into; and, having sat upon a Committee on this very subject, he knew it was full of practical difficulties which could not be slurred over. In this country the elections were in the hands of the people as the guardians of their own rights and freedom, and not, as in France, in the hands of officials; and, therefore, there was no ground for comparison between our elections and those elsewhere in Europe; but if they wanted a standard of comparison they should look to the other side of the Atlantic where the elections were also in the hands of the people. Gentlemen who complained of the cost of elections might console themselves by the reflection that if they had been candidates in the United States they would have had to spend a great

  581
  deal more. The people in the United States, however, showed their spirit by voluntarily contributing largely towards the election expenses, but there was no law to prevent them from doing the same in this country. That being so, and there being no law to prevent any candidate from saying that he would incur no liability at all in respect of the election, it would not be right to exaggerate the importance of this Bill, nor was it right to support the Bill on the ground that it would promote what was called the direct representation of the working classes. If any hon. Member entertained a deep-seated conviction that the working classes ought to be represented there by members of their own body, he might effect his object by resigning in favour of a working man. But he (Mr. Ayrton) had never encouraged this sentimental feeling, because he knew the difficulties in the way of such a class representation, and believed that he could represent working men quite as well as a member of their own body. Entertaining this feeling, he had no intention of resigning his own seat, but he hoped the House would be consistent, and that the hon. Member opposite would not, in the face of the impending Committee, ask the House precipitately to come to a final conclusion upon the questions contained in this Bill. For his part he thought that the Bill should be read a second time, in order that it might hereafter be properly considered.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it was desirable, before the House came to a decision, to know the position in which it stood. His hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton)—with a rhetoric which would remind the House rather of his position below the Gangway than of his present position on the Treasury Bench—had controverted the opinions of the hon. Member for Sussex (Colonel Barttelot). He asked the House to read the Bill a second time in order that it might hereafter be referred to a Committee. Such a course as this was wholly without precedent. If the House now passed the second reading it would affirm the principle of the Bill, and yet his hon. Friend evidently thought the Bill unsatisfactory and imperfect. In his opinion a Bill read a second time could not, with propriety, be referred to a Committee appointed to consider a general subject, though it
  582
  might be referred to a Committee appointed specially to consider its provisions. However, as he was most desirous that the Committee should inquire into the very root of the whole matter, he should advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Floyer) to withdraw his Amendment for the second reading that day six months, and to move simply to postpone the Bill for such a period as would enable the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett) to bring the Bill again before the House if the Select Committee sanctioned the principle. In that case the Bill would not be negatived but affirmed, and meanwhile no opinion would be pronounced upon it, pending the consideration of the measure by the Committee.
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, he felt some trepidation in consequence of the censure of the noble Lord (Viscount Bury) who accused him of presumption in "nibbling" at a great question. He was consoled, however, by remembering that the noble Lord had nibbled at a great constitutional question, and that his "nibbling" could not be half so unsuccessful as that of the noble Lord. The hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) had said that he pursued an unusual course in declaring that he would persevere with the measure. Now, he denied that it was an unusual course. The Bill was not a new one, and the present occupants of the Treasury Bench had expressed in the clearest terms their opinion respecting it. The hon. Gentleman had just made exactly the same kind of speech as had been made on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli). When he (Mr. Fawcett) had tried to introduce a clause on this subject into the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman, he was asked to withdraw it, because it opened a large subject, because the law was uncertain, and it was a matter for further inquiry. He thought it his duty not to listen to that appeal, and who supported him? Why, the present Prime Minister and his Colleagues. They said it was a plain and simple question, one involving a great principle, and with their support he was twice successful. On that occasion he had persevered to the last, and on this occasion he would likewise persevere through every stage of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question,"
  The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 168: Majority 3.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

  AYES.

  Akroyd, E.

  Fordyce, W. D.

  Amcotts, Col. W. C.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Anderson, G.

  Fortescue, hon. D. F.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Fothergill, R.

  Antrobus, E.

  Gilpin, C.

  Armitstead, G.

  Glyn, G. G.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Baker, R. B. W.

  Graham, W.

  Bass, M. A.

  Gray, Sir J.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Bazley, T.

  Grosvenor, Capt. R. W.

  Beaumont, F.

  Grove, T. F.

  Beaumont, S. A.

  Hadfield, G.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Blake, J. A.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Bowring, E. A.

  Henley, Lord

  Brady, J.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Brewer, Dr.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Holms, J.

  Brinckman, Capt.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Brown, A. H.

  Howard, J.

  Buller, Sir A. W.

  Hughes, T.

  Buxton, C.

  Illingworth, A.

  Callan, P.

  Jardine, R.

  Campbell, H.

  Johnston, A.

  Candlish, J.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Lambert, N. G.

  Carter, Mr. Ald.

  Lea, T.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Lewis, J. D.

  Chadwick, D.

  Loch, G.

  Cholmeley, Capt.

  Locke, J.

  Clay, J.

  Lush, Dr.

  Clifton, Sir R. J.

  Lyttelton, hon. C. G.

  Clive, G.

  M'Combie, W.

  Cowen, J.

  Macfie, R. A.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Mackintosh, E. W.

  Crawford, R. W.

  M'Mahon, P.

  Crossley, Sir F.

  Maitland, Sir A. C. R. G.

  Dalglish, R.

  Melly, G.

  Dalrymple, D.

  Merry, J.

  Dickinson, S. S.

  Miller, J.

  Dilke, C. W.

  Monk, C. J.

  Dixon, G.

  Morgan, G. O.

  Dodds, J.

  Morley, S.

  Downing, M'C.

  Morrison, W.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Mundella, A. J.

  Duff, R. W.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Edwardes, Colonel

  Norwood, C. M.

  Egerton, Capt. hon. F.

  O'Conor, D. M.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Ewing, H. E. C.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Eykyn, R.

  Parker, C. S.

  Fawcett, H.

  Pease, J. W.

  Finnie, W.

  Peel, A. W.

  FitzGerald, right hon. Lord O. A.

  Pelham, Lord

  Pim, J.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Platt, J.

  Fletcher, I.

  Plimsoll, S.

  584

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Stone, W. H.

  Potter, E.

  Strutt, hon. H.

  Potter, T. B.

  Stuart, Colonel C.

  Price, W. E.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Rathbone, W.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Rebow, J. G.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Reed, C.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Richard, H.

  Tracy, hon. C. R. D. H.

  Richards, E. M.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Roden, W. S.

  Villiers, rt.hon. C.P.

  Russell, A. J. E.

  Walter, J.

  Rylands, P.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Wells, W.

  Samuelson, H. B.

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  Sartoris, E. J.

  White, J.

  Seely, C.

  Whitwell, J.

  Shaw, R.

  Williamson, Sir H.

  Shaw, W.

  Wingfield, Sir C.

  Simeon, Sir J.

  Winterbotham, H. S. P.

  Simon, Mr. Serjeant

  Young, A. W.

  Smith, J. B.

  Smith, T. E.

  TELLERS.

  Stapleton, J.

  Baines, E.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  M'Laren, D.

  NOES.

  Adderley. rt. hn. C. B.

  Elcho, Lord

  Allen, Major

  Elliot, G.

  Amphlett, R. P.

  Ennis, J. J.

  Annesley, hon. Col. H.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Arkwright, A. P.

  Feilden, J.

  Assheton, R.

  Fielden, J.

  Ball, J. T.

  Figgins, J.

  Barclay, A. C.

  Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

  Barnett, H.

  French, rt. hon. Col.

  Barrow, W. H.

  Garlies, Lord

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Goldney, G.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Beach, Sir M. H.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Grant, Colonel Hon. J.

  Bective, Earl of

  Graves, S. R.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Greaves, E.

  Bingham, Lord

  Greene, E.

  Bourke, Hon, R.

  Guest, A. E.

  Brand, H. R.

  Gwyn, H.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Hambro, C. T.

  Brise, Colonel R.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Hardy, right hon. G.

  Bruen, H.

  Hardy, J.

  Bury, Viscount

  Hardy, J. S.

  Cameron, D.

  Haviland-Burke, E.

  Cartwright, F.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Cave, right hon. S.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Clive, Colonel H. G. W.

  Henniker-Major, Hon. J. M.

  Clowes, S. W.

  Cole, Hon. H. A.

  Henry, J. S.

  Courtenay, Viscount

  Herbert, H. A.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Hermon, E.

  Croft, Sir H. G. D.

  Hervey, Lord A. H. C.

  Cross, R. A.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Hick, J.

  Damer, Captain D.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Hill, A. S.

  Dawson, R. P.

  Hoare, P. M.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Hood, Captain hon. A. W. A. N.

  Duncombe, hon. Col.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Howes, E.

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Hughes, W. B.

  Edwards, H.

  Hunt, right hn. G. W.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Hutton, J.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Jones, J.

  585

  Kavanagh, A. M.

  Pell, A.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Kennard, Captain

  Percy, Earl

  Knight, F. W.

  Phipps, C. P.

  Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

  Pochin, H. D.

  Laird, J.

  Powell, W.

  Langton, W. H. P. G.

  Read, C. S.

  Legh, W. J.

  Round, J.

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Sandon, Viscount

  Leslie, C. P.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Scott, Lord H. J. M. D,

  Lindsay, hon. Col. C.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Lindsay, Col. R. L.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, H. J.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Seymour, G. H.

  Lowther, J.

  Sidebottom, J.

  Lowther, W.

  Smith, A,

  Manners, Lord G. J.

  Smith, F. C.

  Manners, rt. hon. Ld. J.

  Stanley, hon. W. O.

  Matheson, A

  Sturt, H. G.

  Maxwell, W. H.

  Sykes, C.

  Meller, Colonel

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Meyrick, T.

  Tipping, W.

  Milbank, F. A.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. H.

  Milles, hon. G. W.

  Turner, C.

  Mills, C. H.

  Walpole, hon. F.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Walsh, hon. A.

  Mitford, W. T.

  Welby, W. E.

  Montgomery, Sir G. G.

  Wethered, T. O.

  Morgan, C. O.

  Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

  Morgan, Hon. Major

  Whitmore, H.

  Mowbray, Rt. Hn. J. R.

  Williams W.

  Neville-Grenville, R.

  Willyams, E, W. D.

  Newport, Viscount

  Wilmot, H.

  Noel, Hon. G. J.

  Wise, H. C.

  Northcote, right hon. Sir S. H.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Paget, R. H.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  TELLERS.

  Parker, Major W.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Parry, L. J.

  Floyer, J.

  Patten, rt. hn. Col. W.

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Life Insurance Companies, said, he proposed to extend to Life Insurance Companies the provisions enacted by Parliament last year with respect to Railway Companies and the fuller publication of their accounts.
  MR. KINNAIRDthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the course he had taken, believing that no Bill that could be introduced this Session would confer greater benefit upon a class which the House was bound in every way to protect.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANobserved that any well-considered measure on the subject would be supported by the Life Insurance Companies themselves.
  MR. BARNETTexpressed his regret that the provisions of the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1844 had not been made more use of in similar cases.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Life Insurance Companies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Mr. BAZELY, and Mr. RUSELL GURNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 35.]

GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  LORD ELCHO, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Game Laws in Scotland, said, the Bill he proposed to introduce was one which was brought in during the last Parliament, and referred to a Select Committee upstairs. The Bill came down from that Select Committee in an amended form in the Session of 1867. There were two Bills before the Committee, one of them being the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan), and the other that which had been introduced by himself, and which was accepted as the basis of the Bill framed by the Committee. He had now to ask leave to re-introduce and re-print that Bill. The hon. Member for Linlithgowshire had already obtained leave to bring in a Bill, which, he believed, was practically identical with the one he brought in 1867. He (Lord Elcho) proposed in his Bill to print an Amendment, which would have the effect of bringing the Bill to a certain extent back to the position in which it stood when it went before the Committee, so that the House would be in a position to legislate upon the subject with a full knowledge of what was done by the preceding Parliament in the Session of 1867.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, although he believed it was perfectly true that the Bill, for the introduction of which the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire had moved, was the result of an inquiry which took place before a Select Committee, he thought it was hardly fair to describe it as the Bill of that Committee, seeing that the provisions it contained were only carried in that Committee by a small majority. He did not rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill; but he thought it only fair that he

  587
  should state that the Bill did not represent the views of the whole of the Committee any more than it could be said to have represented the feeling of all who had an interest in the question with which it dealt.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he trusted to the courtesy of the House to be allowed to say a word in explanation of what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite. All that he meant to imply was that it was a measure which had been examined by a Select Committee, and that it was generally concurred in and introduced as the result of the labours of that Committee. No doubt it was quite true that divisions did occur in the Committee; but still the result of those divisions led to the introduction of the Bill. With respect to any difference of opinion, all he could say was that if the measure did not represent the views of his hon. Friend, at all events it represented the views of the majority of the Committee; and he was, therefore, justified in the statement that it was the Bill of the Select Committee, and in that form he asked for leave to introduce it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Game Laws in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Lord ELCHO and Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 36.]

  GENERAL VALUATION, &C. (IRELAND).
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the constitution and management of the department of the general Valuation of Ireland, the cost of the Townland and Tenement Valuation, and all matters connected with the annual revision thereof."—(Colonel French.)

  LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BAZELY, Bill to amend the lands Clauses Consolidation Act, so far as relates to the settlement of the Costs of Arbitrations, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BAZELY, Mr. JACOB BRIGHT, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. BAINES, Mr. DIXON, and Mr. HIBBERT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 34.]
  House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.