Sitting of 4 March 1869

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Bradford, v. Henry William Ripley, esq., void Election; for Bewdley, ordered.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, appointed.
First Report—Committee of Selection [No. 64.].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—SUPPLEMENTARY GRANT—Abyssinia.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Contagious Diseases; (Animals) (No. 2) [38]; Pharmacy Act (1868) Amendment [37].

ARMY—THE WAR OFFICE AND HORSE GUARDS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If it be true that the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief is in the habit of making submissions for appointments in the Army to, and receiving the Commands from, Her Majesty the Queen directly, and not through the responsible Minister the Secretary of State for War?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that as the Question fell, properly speaking, within his Department, he would answer it. The course pursued in the cases referred to by the hon. Member was this—Submissions are prepared in the office of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief; they are sent to the War Office for the approval of the Secretary of State, and having been approved by him they are submitted by the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief for the approval of Her Majesty, and he receives Her Majesty's commands upon them. His hon. Friend was probably aware that this subject was fully considered and reported upon by a very influential Committee of the House, presided over by Sir James Graham, and that Committee recommended that no alteration should be made in the custom.

THE MALT DUTIES.—QUESTION.
MR. M'COMBIEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government intend making any alteration in the Malt Duties this Session, or whether they are prepared to modify them in so far as they may bear injuriously on the agricultural interest?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I decline at this period of the Session to go into the question of the malt tax. It will not be very long before I shall have to make my Financial Statement to the House, and then I can argue the matter at length. Any answer which I might give at present would only do injustice to so large a subject.

GILBERT'S UNIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. MITFORDsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, If the Poor Law Board intend to exercise their powers with respect to the dissolution of Gilbert's Unions during the present year?
MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Poor Law Board to exercise its power as regarded the dissolution of the Gilbert Unions. In several cases the Board was already exercising its powers, and its inspector had just reported on the union in which the hon. Member was probably interested. The new system, could not come into operation before the 25th of March.

CONVEYANCE OF FEVER PATIENTS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN DAWSON-DAMERsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it is the case that three or four patients recently brought to the Fever Hospital from different workhouses were found dead on arrival there, in consequence of having been convoyed in a sitting posture in cabs, instead of being conveyed in proper ambulances; and whether each I parish should not be bound to provide a fever ambulance?
  MB. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, it was unfortunately too true that the three or four patients referred to were found dead on their arrival at the Fever Hospital. Although it could not be said that their having been conveyed in a sitting posture caused the deaths, the medical officers stated that it may have materially contributed to the result, which was, of course, much to be deplored. With regard to the second part of the Question, he stated that parishes were not bound to provide ambulances, and that these patients were conveyed, not in ordinary cabs but in what are called parish cabs.

  627
  The matter was under the consideration of the Poor Law Board, and it was a question whether the Metropolitan Asylum Board should not take the matter in hand and provide proper carriages for the purpose. He added that the patients who had died were not carried a very long distance; it was the sitting posture and not the distance that caused their deaths.

EMIGRATION OF PAUPERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS LLOYDsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he is prepared to take into consideration the propriety of relaxing the rule now in force by which the Poor Law Board refuses its sanction to grants of money from Boards of Guardians in aid of paupers desirous of emigrating to the United States of America, and limits such sanction only to intending emigrants to our British Colonial possessions?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, that the subject was under the consideration of the Board, and he had communicated with the Emigration Commissioners as to the regulations on pauper emigration. He found that one of the restrictions placed upon pauper emigration was that alluded by the hon. Baronet. It was at present illegal for guardians to send paupers to the United States, and the restrictions arose from a remonstrance made in 1838 by the United States Consul on the subject. Whether the United States had the same objection now to the immigration of paupers he could not say.

  NAVY—OFFICE OF LORD HIGH AD MIRAL.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the recent declaration of the Secretary of State for War, that "it would be very unfortunate if the patronage connected, with the Army were transferred from the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief to a political officer," it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to revive the office of Lord High Admiral, and transfer to him the Naval patronage now vested in the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in reference to the answer given on a former evening
  628
  by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, a certain part of which my hon. Friend has put in his Question, I beg to say that I entirely identify myself with the answer given by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I am perfectly ready to reply to the challenge of my hon. Friend. Evidently my hon. Friend has framed a sort of proportion of four terms in his head. He thinks, that as the Secretary of State for War is to the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief so is the First Lord of the Admiralty to the Lord High Admiral. I apprehend, however, that that is not the fact. The Lord High Admiral is a great Officer of State, who, according to the ancient arrangements of the country, was charged, not only with the patronage, but with the whole of the administration of the Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty is simply the first-named member of a Commission to whom is now intrusted the duties of the Lord High Admiral, precisely as the duties of the Lord High Treasurer are intrusted to the Commissioners of the Treasury. I think, therefore, my hon. Friend will have to re-consider this most ingeniously constructed Question. I do not, Sir, propose to revive the office of Lord High Admiral.

ASSESSED RATES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, If he will postpone the Second Reading of the Assessed Bates Bill, now fixed for the 4th March, to give time for the constituencies to express an opinion on its provisions?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, that, in deference to numerously expressed views from various quarters, he would in the meantime postpone the second reading, but that he would set it down for an early day next week.

NAVY—THE COASTGUARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STEWART HARDYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the reductions contemplated in the Coast Guard ashore are to be general throughout the kingdom or confined to particular stations; and, if the latter, whether he would object to name the stations affected by them?
  MR. CHILDERS, in reply, said, that the reduction shown in the Estimates for the year 1869–70 of the coastguardsmen on shore was from 4,850 men to 4,625, that was 225, of whom fifty were civilians and 175 were seamen. The reduction would be made over the whole service, but the places at which those 225 men would be reduced were altogether fifty-six, principally in rivers above custom houses, and 564 men were now employed at them. No reductions were being made in Ireland or the east coast of Scotland. It would be scarcely worth while to print detailed accounts of this description, but he would show the hon. Member the Papers if he would call at the Admiralty.

  ARMY—EXAMINATIONS FOR COMMISSIONS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOT, remarking that the greatest anxiety prevailed among the parents of young men being prepared for examination, asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to reduce the number of Cornets in Cavalry and Ensigns in Infantry Regiments, and to place them on half-pay; and, if so, whether the two usual Examinations of those wishing to obtain Commissions in the Army will take place this year?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, that the introduction of the squadron formation in lieu of the troop formation of the cavalry involved a reduction of four cornets in each of the cavalry regiments; there would also be a reduction of two companies in every infantry battalion returning from the colonies, and the result would be to diminish the number of officers in the two branches of the service. It was not intended, however, to place them upon half-pay, but to absorb them as vacancies occurred. The number of vacancies for candidates for new commissions would, of course, be diminished. It would, however, be necessary to have the first examination in May; but he was not able to say until the supernumeraries had been absorbed when the next examination would be held.

  THE BLEACHWORKS ACTS—QUESTION.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Commissioner ap-
  630
  pointed to inquire into the operation of the Bleachworks and Printworks Acts, which was promised at the end of last I Session, will be laid upon the Table; and, whether he intends to bring in any Hill on the subject during the present Session?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that I the Commissioner appointed to make the inquiry had unfortunately fallen ill immediately on the completion of his inquiry, and had been unwell ever since; he had recovered, however, and was now engaged in making his Report, which would, he hoped, be completed shortly; proposals for legislation would follow as soon as circumstances would permit.

CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been called to the amount of injury inflicted upon live stock from the want of any means of supplying them with food or water when in transit by rail, and to the consequent deterioration of the quality of meat supplied to the public; and, whether he will be prepared to make any regulations upon this subject in the Bill which he is about to introduce for the regulation of the Traffic in Cattle?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the subject was under the consideration of his noble Friend Lord De Grey and himself; the second part of the Question could be best answered later in the evening, when introducing the Bill having reference to cattle disease regulations.

ARMY—MILITIA QUARTERMASTERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR W. E. PRICEsaid, he would beg-to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that Quartermasters of Militia regiments are entitled to no retiring allowance or pension after long service, except such as they may have been entitled, to from service as noncommissioned officers or privates in the regular Army; and, whether he contemplates making any provision for the retirement of Quartermasters of the Militia of the United Kingdom, after certain length of service.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that he was aware of their position, and the subject was at present under consideration, with a view to the point to which the hon. Gentleman had referred.

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

THE ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that, according to the Notice on the Paper, they were about to go into Committee of Supply for a Supplementary Vote of £3,600,000 for the Abyssinian Expedition. Now, if no further sum was to be demanded, Her Majesty's Government owed it to themselves, to that House, and the country to recommend that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the cause of the huge discrepancy which had arisen between the original Estimates and the amount which had been, and would yet be, demanded; and more than that, the Committee should report as to who were responsible for such a monstrous miscalculation. He said "monstrous miscalculation," because, even if no further sum were to be demanded, the amount would be £3,600,000 more than the House was led to believe the expedition could possibly cost. To justify his remarks, although they had the Supplementary Estimate delivered only yesterday, he had taken the pains to revive his recollection of what had passed on the subject of this expedition, and he had communicated to the Secretary of the Treasury and also to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government, his intention to draw the attention of the House to this enormous discrepancy. He found that on the 26th of November, 1867, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, used the following words with reference to the Abyssinian Expedition:—
  "We believe it will be necessary that we should incur an expenditure of £3,500,000.… In case we have to replace the forces which the Indian Government now lend to Her Majesty, there will be an increase in the Estimate of
  632
  £300,000, more or less."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 191–2.]
  He might here state that we now knew that there had been no necessity to replace the forces which the Indian Government had lent to Her Majesty. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "I have seen the most absurd estimates on that head (the expenditure) in the public papers."
  Now, he (Mr. White) was responsible for the reports that had got into some of the papers with reference to the probable expense of the Abyssinian Expedition. He was then led to believe, and he did not hesitate to avow it, that on the scale on which the Indian Government had embarked, if the expedition were to continue to the end of May the expenditure would amount to £7,000,000, and that that estimate was under the mark was proved by the fact that the former expenditure together with the demand to be made that night, would reach the sum of £8,600,000. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say—
  "The whole amount that would be required would be £3,800,000, but the Government would contemplate the possibility of an expenditure, in round numbers, of £4,000,000."—[Ibid.]
  Well, the House was aware that a Resolution was carried on the 29th of November, 1867, that the—
  "Pay of European and Indian troops employed, as also the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government of India, were to be chargeable on the revenues of India."
  And, therefore, any expenditure so incurred would be plus the amount paid by the Indian Government. He also found that in answer to an inquiry from the present Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Otway) the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), then Secretary for War, informed the House that a Treasury officer had been sent out to audit the general expenses. That was on the 2nd of December, 1867—the date was important—and a few days afterwards, when the same inquiry about expenditure was made, and it was alleged by the hon. Member for the King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), on the authority of a distinguished officer who had served in Afghanistan, that if our stay in Abyssinia were protracted beyond April the expenditure would be more nearly £10,000,000 than £4,000,000, no notice was taken of the remark. Then he

  633
  found on February 20, 1868, in answer to Questions from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) and Mr. Darby Griffith, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "I have no reason whatever to believe that the general Estimate I put before the House has been exceeded."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 989.]
  Then they came to the 16th of March, 1868, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire, in answer to Questions from the hon. Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) and the present First Lord of the Admiralty, said—
  "My right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown stated in November last that it was estimated that if the expedition lasted, as was anticipated, to the end of April, the expenditure would amount to £3,500,000, and in certain eventualities it might extend to £4,000,000.… I believe, lip to the time I am speaking, the expenditure in Abyssinia will be covered by the lower of these two amounts."—[Ibid. 1681.]
  On the 3rd of April the House was favoured with an Estimate from the India Office. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) laid on the table an Estimate of the probable expenses of the expedition, and in reply to a question said that the Estimate had been prepared by a competent and trustworthy person. According to the Estimate which was laid on the table of the House, the charges in India and England were put at £5,000,000, and the following note was appended:—
  "That sum is considerably in excess of the amount shown in Mr. Turner's Estimate to the end of April, 1868, after allowing for the additional month's expenditure; but it is stated by Mr. Turner (the officer of the Treasury sent out by the Home Government) that his Estimate has been framed on incomplete data, and that he has preferred to give totals which will doubtless prove to be considerably under the actuals, when brought to account, than otherwise."
  He found, too, that Major General Jameson, auditor, signed the India Office Estimate and wrote, on the 12th of March, 1868—
  "Providing the expedition terminates on the 31st of May, it would not be safe to ask for less than £3,000,000" (£2,000,000 having been already voted, thus making up £5,000,000 in all) "and there are charges which cannot at present be estimated, such, for instance, as the railways, telegraphs, &c. If continued beyond the 31st of May next, it would be safe to estimate a further charge of £600,000 for every month beyond that date,"
  634
  On the 23rd of April, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Financial Statement, said—
  "We estimate the total expenditure for the Abyssinian Expedition, supposing it is successful, and supposing, as we have reason to hope, that it leaves the country by the end of May, at £5,000,000."—[3 Hansard, cxci. 1165.]
  When he reminded the House that on the 13th of April Magdala was taken, and on the 17th of the same month the troops were making preparations to return, he thought he had reason to inquire why there should be such an enormous discrepancy between the original Estimate and the actual disbursement? He had placed the facts before the House, and he would leave them to speak for themselves. He held it to be a disgrace to our country that an official Estimate should be not merely erroneous, but absolutely deceptive, and that such gross misstatements should have been made by persons who were alleged to be quite competent to give correct information to the House. It was not for him to say who was to blame, or on whom the discredit was to fall, whether on the Treasury, the War Office, or the Indian Department. It would, he thought, be expedient to inquire into that matter, and affix the blame on those to whom it justly belonged; for it would detract very much from the administrative prestige of this country when it could be said that, merely to accomplish the object they had in view in sending out the Abyssinian Expedition Great Britain had spent more money than Prussia did in conquering one of the greatest European Powers—Austria.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. White) had said that he wish an inquiry to be made with a view to settle the responsibility of the expenses of the Abyssinian Expedition, and he (Sir George Jenkinson) would suggest that the inquiry should be extended into the causes that led to the commencement of the Abyssinian War, and the mismanagement, if any should be proved, of those who caused the war. In the interest of England, they ought not to attempt to discredit an expedition begun in ignorance of the difficulties with which it might have to contend, and brought, in the eyes of all men, whether at home or abroad, whose opinion was worth anything, to the most auspicious termination. The Government who decided on

  635
  that expedition did so, he believed, with the greatest possible forethought, and the General, under whose command it was placed, conducted it to so successful an issue, almost without any loss of life on their side, that he thought they ought to congratulate themselves on its exceedingly happy result, and, without cavilling at what they had to pay for it, only be thankful that they had not to pay any more.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am not quite sure that the moment at which the hon. Member for Brighton has raised this question is the most convenient one for its discussion. Certainly, I feel myself under a disadvantage, because we have not yet heard, what I suppose we shall hear as soon as we are in Committee, what the account or explanation is of the further sum for which the Government have to ask; and I have no doubt they will be able to state to the House that which we are unable to supply—what are the circumstances which, so far as they are informed of them, have led to this extra expenditure. If we were informed of the nature of the extra expenditure, we should be in a better position to offer, or attempt to offer, some explanation regarding it. However, there is no doubt that the hon. Member for Brighton is perfectly right in calling the attention of the House, at whatever moment he may think most expedient, to the great difference between the Estimate originally formed of the expense of this expedition, and the actual out-turn of which we are unfortunately aware. It is perfectly true that at the beginning, in November, 1867, the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, speaking then as Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House that what was required was an immediate Vote of £2,000,000, and that, probably, if the expedition lasted till about the end of April, a sum of £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 more would be requisite. Now, what was the state of our information at the moment when my right hon. Friend was addressing the House? At that moment, the expedition had not, I think, actually left the shores of India; at all events, we had received no information of its having done so, and it had not yet reached the coast of the Red Sea. A very small pioneer expedition had gone out for the purpose of inquiries, and it was then impossible to estimate
  636
  with any accuracy what the demands of the enterprize or the nature of the country would be beyond the coast from which the troops would have to advance. I believe that the Estimate of £2,000,000, formed with the idea that it would be sufficient to place the force on the coast, was a fair estimate; and, so far as I know, it has not been exceeded. With regard to the remaining portion of the Estimate, it certainly was of a very vague and loose character, based on a general reckoning of the cost of men in the field, assuming that supplies were easily to be obtained, and the country, or the greater part of it, tolerably accessible to troops. What I wish to call the attention of the House to is this—we must not take so much notice of casual Questions asked and answered as best they might be in a casual manner.—What the House has a right jealously to look at is the information that was supplied to it when it was called upon to vote money. Was the House truly informed by the Government of the state of the circumstances in which that request was made, and was it put in possession by the Government of all the information which they then had? That is the first question. Was anything kept back from the House? because, if anything was deliberately kept back, of course a serious charge might be made against the Government. As to whether the Government ought to have had better information, that is a question which we will enter into presently. But as to keeping back information, my right hon. Friend told the House all he had to tell it, on November 26, 1867, when, he said that £2,000,000 would suffice to place the force on the shores of the Red Sea, and that perhaps £2,000,000 more would be needed. All I can say is that in naming that sum he exceeded what the authorities of the India Office, framing the best conjecture they could, led him to expect; and he observed to me afterwards that he had thought it right to put it at a rather higher sum, in order that it might cover all the possible expenditure. When the force landed the state of things was different from that on which we could have calculated. The country through which it had to march was one of the most impracticable and extraordinary that could be conceived. Not only that, but it was barren of supplies naturally, and it so happened

  637
  that in that particular season it was barren in an exceptional degree, owing to the failure of the crops. It also turned out that the supply of water was less than we had any reason to suppose, and the water required for the force had to be got by the necessarily expensive means of condensing engines. That all added to the cost. The great object of the Government in sending out the expedition was this—knowing that we had a great task in hand—knowing that the honour and credit of the country were deeply involved in it—knowing that when we placed the troops there it was our duty to take every precaution for their well-being, we determined to spare no expense in carrying through the expedition at the smallest cost of human life and suffering, and with the utmost possible despatch. We were pressed for time—the difficulties were considerably greater than had been anticipated; but I believe no unnecessary expenditure was incurred or step taken in attaining our great object. At all events, we have the great satisfaction of knowing that the expedition was carried through in a perfectly successful manner, with the smallest possible sacrifice of human life or suffering. No doubt we discovered after a time that the expenditure was running up and was far more than we had been able to calculate; but there was a difficulty in getting correct information as to what the real rate of that expenditure was. And when my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Hunt) came forward to ask what was necessary for the Supply of the year, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) asked me whether we were prepared to state that we could give an Estimate which might be relied upon. I will call the attention of the House to the words in which I answered that Question before the Budget statement was made, in April, 1868. My answer was this—
  "The accounts received from Bombay are, I regret to say, neither so full nor so accurate as I could have wished. They have, however, been placed in the hands of a gentleman of great experience in connection with military expeditions, and he has been engaged in making an Estimate which may be relied upon as much as any Estimate of the kind can be."—[3 Hansard, cxci. 1148.]
  It was also stated in the printed Paper laid on the table at the time to which the hon. Gentleman referred that—
  638
  "The information available here for the preparation of an Estimate of the expenditure on account of this expedition is very insufficient, although repeated applications have been made to the Government of Bombay on the subject. An Estimate has, however, been prepared in this office, which must be regarded as approximate only, from which it appears that the charges in India and England to the end of May, 1868, will probably amount to about £5,000,000."
  From that statement, and the answer which I gave, I think the hon. Gentleman must have been fully cognizant that we were not able to give an Estimate with any degree of accuracy, and that considering the extraordinary circumstances of the expedition and the very imperfect information which we could get, or which the Bombay Government at, the time could collect, it was really impossible for us to give any Estimate that could be absolutely relied upon as to the total expenditure. Nor did we attempt to do so. We stated to the House that the expenditure might be taken at the rate of about £600,000 per month, and we gave the details of that £600,000. I shall be glad to hear whether those details were in any degree inaccurate, or whether the excess of expenditure was not greatly attributable to circumstances which arose after the period up to which our calculation was made. The length I of time occupied in carrying the troops back to India, the expense of transports, and other circumstances, I have reason to believe, much exceeded anything that we had a right to calculate for. In saying this, I am not objecting to inquiry. It may throw light on the costs of a war, and in regard to the cost of wars I think we cannot have too much information for the guidance and warning of the House before we allow ourselves to be placed in a position in which wars become necessary. I hold it to be very desirable that we should have the fullest information as to the nature of the expenditure and all its details; but I entirely repudiate on the part of my Colleagues and myself the charge of placing Estimates before the House which were in any degree consciously inaccurate, or for which we ought in any degree to be blamed. We asked for no money after the date of the 23rd of April, though, of course, soon afterwards we saw that more money would be required. We could not get information enough to enable us to come down to the House with a full and com-

  639
  plete statement, and we thought it better to wait till we could do so. The hon. Member for Brighton has taken up a position which it is quite right a Member of this House should take, and charge with the appearance of laches or faults the Government who had presented Estimates which happened to be greatly exceeded; but I hope he does not impute to us any want of good faith in presenting those Estimates. [Mr. WHITE: No!] When we have heard the explanation of the Government as to the excess of the Estimate we shall be in a better position to offer our opinions on the subject than we are at present. I trust the House will bear in mind that the Expedition was undertaken under very special circumstances. There was very little time that could be spared, for if we had run over another month or so we should have lost a whole season, in which event the expenses would have been enormously augmented. Besides, we were obliged to take precautions against contingencies, which, as it turned out in the result, did not occur. For instance, although we believed that the expedition would terminate before the end of the season, it was possible that it might not, and then the troops would have been left there in a state of great embarrassment, as everything they required had to be sent from a considerable distance. We, therefore, accumulated stores, which would have carried the army over another season if they had been detained there; and no doubt that accumulations of stores and their transport constituted one great cause of additional expense. In various other ways extra precautions were taken which swelled the expense beyond what might, strictly speaking, have been fixed as the limit. I hope we shall now go into Committee and hear any explanation which the Government may be able to give us. When I was at the India Office we were continually urging the Government of Bombay to send us full information, but as they had to obtain information from Calcutta, and from the officers sent to Syria and other parts of the coast of the Mediterranean and elsewhere, it was extremely difficult for them, with the great pressure on their resources necessary for the organization of the expedition, to comply with our demands for Returns and information. Before sitting down I must express my opinion that the Government of Bombay deserve great
  640
  credit for the manner in which they organized the expedition, and that in particular Sir Seymour Fitzgerald is entitled to greater credit than he has obtained for his great exertions and personal labour.

HAMMERSMITH BRIDGE.—THE UNIVERSITY BOAT RACE.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT BURYwished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which he had given him private Notice. He did not know whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been directed to a letter which appeared in The Times a few days ago signed by Mr. Lambton Young, the secretary of the Royal Humane Society. The members of that society had reason to entertain grave apprehensions that the state of Hammersmith Bridge was such as might lead to a fearful accident on the occasion of the forthcoming boat race between the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It might not, perhaps, be generally known that the bridge was built fifty-two years ago, and was intended to be a specimen of lightness and elegance. The Humane Society had reason to believe that the chains of that bridge were not of such a form or description as would guarantee stability and strength, and that, moreover, the iron employed in the construction of the chains had become granulated. Now, hon. Members were aware that any sudden strain on iron was very apt to cause it to snap, whereas it would bear the same weight if spread over it uniformly with perfect security. Everyone who had witnessed the Oxford and Cambridge boat race knew that great numbers of people assembled on Hammersmith Bridge, and when the boats passed under it they swayed from side to side and made the bridge oscillate in a manner frightful to behold. Before the ensuing race, which was fixed for the 17th inst., he thought the Government ought to take some steps in order to ascertain whether the bridge was safe or not. He would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any objection to send an engineer officer or civil engineer to examine and report upon the condition of the bridge; and if it were found to be insecure, whether the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to replace

  641
  the iron rods by others which were perfectly safe. If, however, this were impracticable, he would suggest that policemen should be stationed at the bridge to prevent a very large crowd from going upon it on the day of the race. If immediate action were taken, it was possible that new rods might be placed so as to strengthen the structure and remove cause for apprehension?
  MR. BRUCE: I think my noble Friend is quite justified in bringing this matter forward, in order that precautions may be taken to prevent what would be a great public calamity. I will undertake to communicate immediately with the Board of Trade, who, I believe, have at their disposal an engineer who is competent to make an inquiry; and such inquiry shall be immediately made.
  VISCOUNT BURYhoped the result would be made public.
  MR. BRUCE: It will be made public as soon as the report is received.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION.

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Dodson, I have delayed as long as possible bringing this matter before the Committee because I hoped to be able to accompany it with a more satisfactory explanation than, unhappily, I am at present in a position to make; but as it is necessary that the business should be gone through before Easter, I hope the Committee will accept that circumstance as an excuse for my coming before them so imperfectly prepared to answer the questions which may be reasonably asked of me with regard to the details of this expenditure. I have received no further official information from the Indian Government since the telegram of the 17th of December, and the information—such as it is—that I possess, is compiled from very rough accounts sent home to us by Mr. Turner—the gentleman who was sent out from this country to superintend the expenditure in India. It is necessary, however, that the Indian Government should be re-imbursed some portion, at any rate, of the expenditure without any further delay; and that is
  642
  my excuse for coming to the House more imperfectly provided with information than is desirable. The payments actually made for the expedition to Abyssinia—and in stating this I stand on a sure ground—are as follows:—The War Office has expended £461,000; the Admiralty has expended £1,262,000; the Government of India (according to Mr. Turner's estimate) has expended £7,040,000; and the total expenditure, therefore, adding these sums together, amounts to £8,763,000. Having stated the payments which we have some knowledge of, though I cannot undertake to state that the sum said to have been paid in India is the whole payment—I have no doubt it will amount to as much as that, but I cannot say whether it will not be more—the Committee will, I think, like to have a rough Estimate of the heads of expenditure under which this money will be brought to charge. This Estimate is taken from very rough accounts furnished to us by Mr. Turner from Bombay, and can only be taken as a general approximation. Now, this is what has been furnished to me, and it is the only information I am able to give with a view of satisfying the very reasonable curiosity of the Committee. Staff pay and batta (which does not mean the pay of the soldiers, but the extra pay they received while on foreign soil), £319,000; stores and supplies, £563,000; mules, camels, and forage (not including sea transport), £1,400,000; land transport—namely, the transport in Abyssinia and the railway and transport to and from Magdala, £1,345,000; sea transport, £4,232,000; coals, £.581,000; miscellaneous, £160,000; making a total of £8,600,000. That is the amount, as far as we can ascertain, of the expenditure for the Abyssinian Expedition. Of this sum £5,000,000 has been provided for by a tax of 1d. on income in the year 1867–8, and by an addition of 2d. to the income-tax in 1868–9. It is necessary, therefore, that we should provide a further sum of £3,606,000. My duty is to ask the House to-night to grant the means of paying that sum; but how that sum is to be met is a question which, if I may be permitted to do so, I would rather reserve till I make my Financial Statement. All I ask at present is that we may be enabled to pay the money, which is, of course, greatly needed by the Indian Government, which had made

  643
  such, heavy disbursements on our account. The army and navy expenses we know exactly. They amount altogether to £1,723,000. The rest we know only approximately; but it is not likely to fall short of the sum which I have mentioned. I only hope it will not much exceed it. It is not my business, in making this Motion, to do more than merely state the facts of the case as far as I know them. There will be a deduction from this sum on account of certain savings in the War Department of £157,000, which will reduce the amount to be provided for to £3,606,000, and the Resolution I have to submit to the Committee is one authorizing that expenditure. I have, I think, nothing to add beyond the remark that these accounts are in some respects more meagre than I could have wished, while they are in other respects more full than I anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,600,000, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expenses of the Expedition to Abyssinia, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament for Army and Navy Services."
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) had alluded pointedly to a statement that he (Mr. Hunt) had made to the House in his official capacity, and, therefore, he felt called on to say a few words on the subject. His right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) had fully explained to the House that the Government of the day had placed before the House all the information that they possessed; and for himself he could only say that he had never kept back anything from the House, but gave it all the information he possessed. His right hon. Friend had explained the great difficulty which there was in obtaining reliable Estimates of the expenditure. It was obvious that as the expedition had to be fitted out almost entirely in Bombay, it could not be estimated for in the same way as one sent out from this country. He had also explained the shortness of time that there was for furnishing the expedition caused great difficulty in communicating between this country and India. Last year when they laid the Estimates on the table they asked for
  644
  £3,000,000, they acted on the best information they could then obtain, and the statement that they could not then obtain better information was fully borne out by what had just been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told them that he is even now able to furnish but a mere skeleton account of the expenses incurred. So far from being informed when they proposed the Estimate for £3,000,000 that it would be insufficient, he was, he believed, correct in saying that it was not until the 10th of August that the late Government received any information of an official character from India that led them to suppose that the Estimate would be exceeded. After Parliament had adjourned they were informed by Mr. Turner that, according to the best calculations he could make, the expenditure in India would be £5,350,000; and on the 9th of November last the India Office informed the Treasury that, according to their calculation, the expenditure would amount to £5,134,000; so that the best information in November fell very far short of the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just stated. There was a still more remarkable thing. He found from documents, for access to which he was indebted to the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, that so late as the 8th of December last—that was after the late Government had resigned Office, but before the new Government had been formed—a telegram was received from India stating that the expenditure to that time was estimated at £5,750,000; and nine days later there was another telegram which stated that the expenditure in India would be £7,000,000. Indeed, down to a very late period their information did not show that the expenditure would be anything like the amount now stated. These facts would entirely exonerate the late Government from the suspicion of having kept back facts which ought to have been stated to the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that all the information which he could lay before the House had been furnished by Mr. Turner, a gentleman who had been sent out by the late Government to examine the accounts in India. It was only justice to that gentleman to say, that by the great energy and ability he had displayed, the confidence of the late Government in him was fully justified, and he felt sure that the Chancellor of

  645
  the Exchequer could fully rely upon that gentleman's figures. It was no doubt an appalling sum that they were now called on to vote, and the excess had come upon himself and his Colleagues by surprise. But there was this consolation, that though like Englishmen they had to grumble and pay, this expedition had been a great success; the philanthropic object in view had been fully attained with the sacrifice of hardly any lives on our part. He hoped that this expenditure, vast as it was, would be the means of saving expenditure in future; for the result of the expedition was to show that the arm of this country was long enough to reach the most remote land where English subjects had suffered grievances which required redress. He hoped that this expenditure would prevent great expenditure in little wars, such as in times past they had had in their Eastern dominions; and that, therefore, the money would not have been thrown away. Should such be the result, they might congratulate themselves that the expedition had been undertaken.
  MR. WHITEacquitted the late Government of any intention to deceive the House of Commons. What he complained of was that the Imperial Government should have been so deplorably ill-informed. That was disgraceful to our system of administration. The recklessness, waste, and confusion were almost incredible. Let one instance suffice—They had officers competing with one another in the purchase of mules, and some were sent to places where those artificial productions were not even known. He should be glad to have a Committee to inquire into the whole outlay if the Government thought it expedient. ["Move!"] If, hereafter, he were supported he would move. Even the present Vote did not, he believed, include the whole cost, which would probably prove to be at least £10,000,000.
  MR. DENTexpressed his astonishment at the meagreness of the information which had been laid before the Committee on the subject. Telegraphic messages had been received from Mr. Turner, but they appeared to be accompanied by no details. He should like to know who had had the power of spending the money.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENregretted that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr.
  646
  White) had not taken a more practical course by moving for a Committee of Inquiry. When, on a former occasion, he had estimated the cost of the expedition as likely to be £10,000,000, his statement had been received with derision. The fact was there had boon great mismanagement in many respects in connection with its organization. Officers had, for instance, been sent out to Barcelona to buy mules who knew nothing of Spanish, while others had been despatched on a similar errand to the Levant who could not speak a word of Italian. To show the anxiety of the House to prevent similar mismanagement, at least for the future, he thought that all the circumstances connected with this large expenditure should undergo inquiry. As an Amendment to the Vote, he begged to move—and he believed that the late Government would for their own honour support him—that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into this expenditure.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Amendment was not one which could be moved in Committee of Supply.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any sums would be received in aid of this expenditure by the sale of stores and material which were landed on the coast of Abyssinia in the expectation that the troops might be detained in the country during the summer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the whole expenditure) amounted to £8,763,000. The sum of £157,000 has been received on account of army savings in reduction of the gross amount, which is thus reduced to £8,606,000; and, leaving out the £6,000, we ask for £3,600,000, £5,000,000 having been already paid. I have no information whatever as to the sale of old stores.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN, in consequence of the intimation from the Chairman, would substitute for his Amendment another—that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
  MR. HUNTsaid, he understood that the examined accounts sent home by Mr, Turner, who had proceeded to Bombay for the purpose, amounted to £4.300,000

  647
  of which sum the Indian Government had paid £4,000,000, and that it was not likely that any further accounts would be received until next May. He wished to know whether the Government had any further information?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that the examined accounts, as far as they went at present, amounted to £5,700,000. He could not say exactly when they might expect the remainder.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the Motion for reporting Progress I wish to point out to my hon. Friend (Sir Patrick O'Brien) that I think he can hardly advance by means of that Motion the purpose he has in view. I cannot wonder at the great interest which is shown in this subject; but I do not think my hon. Friend has precisely considered the force of the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for granting this Vote to-night. The question is not one of incurring expenditure with our eyes open. It is a question of paying a debt which we have already incurred. Whether or not the Government of Bombay deserve all the credit given to them by the Gentlemen opposite I am not prepared at this moment to say. I should like to be very much better informed before giving an opinion on that point. But there is no doubt whatever that this expenditure has been incurred in good faith on the part of the Indian Government, under ample authority from the Government of this country, and the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it is not right to keep the Indian Government out of its money for the advances so made. On the other hand, we are now closely approaching Easter. If the Motion for reporting Progress contemplates a considerable delay, we should only fall into the fresh irregularity of throwing this charge upon the expenditure of next year. If, on the contrary, the Motion contemplates a short delay only, we should approach the question in a week or a fortnight under quite as great disadvantages as at present, for we have not the smallest hope of receiving fresh information within any short period. I do not in the slightest degree venture to give any opinion upon the remaining question to which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) have referred, respecting the necessity of examining into this ques-
  648
  tion. That is a totally different matter; but the demand which is reluctantly, though necessarily, made to-night is a demand for money disbursed by those who were acting as our agents, and who are at present out of pocket in respect of these advances. Under these circumstances I hope my hon. Friend will not oppose the grant of this money to-night.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that, on the understanding that the Government would give the fullest information they could in reference to the items composing the Vote, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  So much of Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session as relates to Parliamentary and Municipal Elections read, as followeth:—
  "I recommend that you should inquire into the present modes of conducting Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, and should consider whether it may be possible to provide any further guarantees for their tranquillity, purity, and freedom"
  MR. BRUCE, in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the present mode of conducting Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, in order to provide further guarantees for their tranquillity, purity, and freedom, said, the great extension of the franchise which was made during the last Session of Parliament gave universal satisfaction to the country, and the demand that was made to keep down corrupt practices by a more stringent mode of inquiring into them afforded public testimony to the desire of the House of Commons to grapple with a great evil. But the satisfaction of the country will not be complete unless at an early period Parliament gives evidence of its desire to rid our electoral system of evils the greatness of which has long been acknowledged. For years past Parliament has been struggling in a vain endeavour to give to our elections the dignity that should preside over ceremonies of such

  649
  great importance, to rid ourselves of the taint—which may almost be called a national taint—of corruption in our elections, and above all things to secure to the voter freedom, independence, and the right of bestowing his vote according to his conscience. I will ask the House—I will ask both sides of the House with equal confidence—has the result of our legislation been to secure these objects? Is there, or is there not, reason for that strong and deep-seated dissatisfaction which universally exists upon this subject? From the other side of the House I anticipate the same answer as from this. Everywhere there will be an admission of the evil. The only difference will be as to the remedy which ought to be applied to that evil. The object of the Motion which I have now to make, in accordance with the recommendations in the Speech from the Throne, is that this House should appoint a Select Committee in order to inquire into the best methods of getting rid of these admitted evils. Now, what are these evils? One of the greatest, undoubtedly, is the enormous expenditure at these elections. And here I do not simply speak of that expenditure which has been branded as illegal. For my own part, I consider that the expenditure generally considered legal and legitimate is far more corrupting and far more demoralizing than that which is called by the name of bribery. Direct bribery is confined to comparatively a small number of men, and limited to some portions of the country, there being wide districts that are entirely free from it. It has hardly, if at all, reached Scotland; and we all know that it has not extended into Wales. It is not greatly practised at our county elections, and no inconsiderable number of English boroughs are entirely free from it. It was a kind of hereditary disease in certain localities. The offence of bribery—although in itself a considerable one—is not, so far as my knowledge goes, to be compared in its injurious effects upon our elections with the largeness of the expenditure incurred. A Return moved for last Session, which on the face of it is very imperfect, shows that the admitted expenditure at the General Election of 1865 was no less than £752,000; and I believe that £1,000,000 would be far from defraying the actual expenses. I have no means of compar
  650
  ing the total sum expended in 1865 with that which the election of 1868 cost; but I have some of the Returns for the last election. In North and South Shropshire, the elections cost no less than £20.412. In North Durham, the expenses of one candidate, an hon. Friend of my own, have been returned at £15,302; and, as I observe that in that useful compendium, Dod's Parliamentary Companion, my hon. Friend is in favour of a considerable reduction being made in the public expenditure, I am quite sure I shall have him with me in promoting an inquiry as to whether any measures can be devised for introducing economy into our elections. Other Returns of expenditure are as follows:—South Northamptonshire, £10,257; East Staffordshire, one candidate, £6,546; Bradford, one candidate, £7,000, but according to sworn testimony, the amount was £11,000; Westminster, £10,596; Manchester, £13,596; Sunderland, £8,383; Norwich, £7,000; and a comparatively small place like York, £5,952. The effect of all this expenditure is not only further to demoralize a class already lost to all sense of honesty in these matters, but to reach a far larger and more respectable class. It has further the effect of encouraging useless contests merely for the sake of profit to those who had. better be nameless. It has the effect of introducing a practice which causes to the electors themselves the greatest annoyance and trouble—the employment of paid canvassers. Of all grievances this is perhaps felt to be the most intolerable by the elector. During what I may call the long agony which preceded the General Election of 1868, I often heard, and I am sure nearly every one engaged in a contested election must have heard, complaints from electors upon the subject, how, when they had announced how they were going to give their votes, they were still made the subjects of pressing solicitations; how they were visited by one side or the other every week or every fortnight, and how every sort of influence that could be supposed to affect their votes was brought to bear upon them; and all this was done, not through the voluntary zeal of persons anxious for the success of candidates, but in most cases by persons who wished to justify the payment made to them or to swell its amount. Another evil consequence of

  651
  this excessive expenditure is that men of moderate means, although, perhaps, of great abilities, are kept out of Parliament, and we are in danger of being a Parliament of rich men. However much we may profess a desire to see all classes, and especially the working classes, represented in Parliament, we appear to deny it by permitting the enormous expenditure which even the cheapest election entails. If we are in earnest in acknowledging this evil, I hope we shall be equally in earnest in applying ourselves to devise a remedy. Although bribery is a limited and partial evil, the steps hitherto taken to diminish it have been singularly ineffectual. Act after Act has been passed imposing penalty after penalty, fines have been inflicted upon bribers and bribed. You have had disabilities and disqualifications affixed to the offence, and yet little progress has been made in stopping it. Perhaps under the terror of local inquiry the practice of bribery may have been discontinued for a time, but it has been resumed again, and the Returns show that there has been no practical diminution in the amount of election expenses. It may be said we have adopted the most effectual means we can to check it by localizing inquiry; but I think the House will admit, although local inquiry may occasionally have been efficacious, it has proved to be quite inadequate as a remedy. In the first place, what certainty is there, even where bribery has prevailed, that an inquiry will be instituted? There are many reasons why it may not. One is the great cost of an inquiry; and the deterrent effect of such cost does not appear to have been diminished by making the inquiry local. Not only do the expenses of inquiry appear to be very great, but the rule generally, though not uniformly followed, of making the expenses follow the event, even when there appeared to be bonâ fide reason for prosecuting the petition, will, I think, be a discouragement to those who wish to contest the validity of an election. Then, again, there is the fear that the case made out may be too good, and that the result will be the disfranchising of the constituency. There is no doubt that that fear has operated in more than one case. Another cause of inaction in these cases is the fear that success in unseating the sitting Member would not be followed by any gain to the petitioners
  652
  or the parties they represent. All these causes have operated in preventing prosecutions for bribery when bribery was known to have existed. The same may be said of the sister crime of treating. It is an evil the greatness of which must be well known to all who have had any experience of elections. It demoralizes the lower classes, and it is difficult of proof. See what goes on at every election. Committees and sub-committees are formed, and meet at several public-houses in succession, and every encouragement is given to expenditure, the liability for which it is often found impossible to trace. It may be, perhaps, that the treating overflows from the preceding municipal election; but whatever may be the cause, there exists an evil which is a very wide-spread one, and which the great extension of the suffrage is likely to render still more dangerous. The greatest of the evils connected with elections, and one which most vitally affects the great body of the electors, is that of intimidation. I do not deny that there has been a great improvement within my recollection in this respect. Many persons, a few years ago, would have supposed they were only exercising an ordinary right in compelling tenants to vote on their side, or in using influence in the strongest manner over their workmen. I do not deny that all this has been greatly altered; but still that intimidation exists, and exists very widely, and that its influence was greatly felt at the last election no honest and truthful man will, I think, venture to deny, while in many counties, even where it had been perfectly well ascertained that the opinions of the electors were identical, you might put the letter "L" or the letter "C" against the names of the inhabitants of whole villages when you had ascertained whose property they were. Then comes the question as to what extent the employer influences the employed. Now, the amount of the real opposition of this kind is very great, but, no doubt the extent of it is much exaggerated in the minds of the voters themselves. Many a workman imagines intimidation that was never intended, but his fear is none the less real to himself. A great portion of the electors, too, are seriously desirous of doing their duty, but they feel they have duties as regards their families as well as themselves. They say they

  653
  cannot, for the sake of discharging a political obligation, run the risk of ruining their families and themselves. The consequence is that a very estimable class of men, from want of self-sacrifice, perhaps, withdraw almost entirely from public life and endeavour to strangle in the bud all those manly feelings which would elevate them by cultivating their sense of public responsibility. Again, Sir, it is very easy for those who run no risk to laugh at the fears of tradesmen, but we know what has occurred even at the last election. There are many hon. Members who would be able to state of their own experience that the conscientious performance by a tradesman of his duty as an elector has been followed by the withdrawal of custom he could ill afford to lose. But this sort of interference with the conscience of an elector is, I am bound to say, not confined to the higher classes. I myself have seen pressure brought to bear upon small tradesmen by workpeople themselves, who visit a tradesman and inform him that their custom and the custom of their friends will in future depend upon his supporting a particular man. The evil, therefore, requires to be guarded against upon all sides, and the question for the House to consider is whether any remedy can be found for it. There is one other feature connected with our system of election which I think will be generally condemned; I refer to those scenes of rioting and violence which so frequently characterize a contested election. I know not how the House may regard the matter, but to me nothing is more humiliating than to witness the conduct of the large bodies of men who collect together on days of nomination. There is no inconsiderable number of the humblest of our countrymen who take an earnest and disinterested part in political affairs, and who are willing to make the greatest sacrifice to promote views which they believe to be to the interest of the country; but there is also a large number who look upon an election as an occasion for amusement and wild excitement, and these are the people who come to the front and who make their presence most sensibly felt on the day of nomination and on the day of the declaration of the poll. Well, are these ceremonies a necessary part of our electoral system? Is it necessary there should be a nomination day? Is it
  654
  necessary there should be a declaration of the poll, at which the candidates must appear? Why, at every other election, and we have several besides Parliamentary Elections—at the municipal elections, at the election of Boards of Health and Boards of Guardians—personal nomination has ceased to be the rule; the nomination is by papers, and the declaration of the poll, instead of being made every hour or so, exciting the electors inordinately, is made, not by the returning officer personally, but by advertisement and placards. In one of our colonies, which has supplied itself with great vigour to the perfection of electoral machinery—Australia—the system of personal nomination does not exist; it has been replaced by that of nomination by papers, and the result is a state of tranquillity which, as compared with our own election scenes, I may describe as truly enviable. Well, Sir, the question we have to ask ourselves is, whether Parliament shall confess itself unable to remove these evils? Is the inquiry I ask for so obviously useless, and must it of necessity be so barren in result, that it ought to be refused? On behalf of the people, I am bound to say there is a deep-rooted conviction that there is an effectual remedy for this. Rightly or wrongly—and I am not going to say whether rightly or wrongly—a remarkable unanimity prevails, and has prevailed for many years, throughout the country among a vast majority of the people in favour of a system of secret voting. Over and over again I have heard, the electors express their astonishment that, considering how deep and how general this conviction is, especially on the part of the electors who supported the Liberal candidates, it has not received the sanction of Parliament. Now, I can make that statement as free from any personal motive, perhaps, as any Member in this House. I have sat for the last sixteen years representing an eminently Liberal constituency, where, I believe, every nine out of ten of the electors were in favour of the ballot, and yet, during the sixteen years I have sat in Parliament, I have never voted for or against the ballot. I have not voted for the ballot because I felt the system of open voting had many advantages. I felt that the general moral effect of open voting was to encourage manliness and truth; that the general effect of

  655
  secret voting was to encourage mystery, which in itself is often an evil. Secret voting, I have always felt, might lead to falsehood. I never doubted that the machinery of the ballot would secure a great improvement in the practices at our elections; it would secure tranquillity, would, somewhat diminish bribery, and probably lead to the disappearance of intimidation altogether. On the other hand, my objection to the system aimed at its very root; but I confess that the scenes I witnessed during the last election have made me doubt very much whether, admitting to its fullest extent all that can be said against the system of secret voting, the arguments on the other side are not the weightier. Let me at once meet the chief objection to the ballot which has influenced the votes of most of those who have opposed it in this House; for the evil consequences of secresy have weighed, not only with Gentlemen on the other side of the House, not only with the representatives of the old Whigs, but they have been powerfully urged by many gentlemen whom it would be no offence to describe as advanced Liberals. We know that Mr. Mill has written very powerfully against the ballot. We know that at least two Members whom I may venture to name as advanced Liberals—the Members for Frome and Perthshire, (Mr. Hughes and Mr. Parker)—oppose the system of secret voting as being in itself objectionable. But, admitting what they say, that in every State opinions should be openly expressed, and that public opinion is formed by open expression, and admitting that deceit and falsehood, may be resorted to in order to conceal the vote after it has been given, we must look to the ultimate result, and see what would be the effect of the introduction of the system—whether, on the whole, it would, be good or ill. This conviction has come to me very slowly, but I will undertake to say, that in less than five years after the introduction of the ballot, the practice of pressing a man for his vote, or even of asking him for it, would entirely disappear. It has been often said that if the ballot were introduced at all it should be optional, but it has been demonstrated over and over again, that optional secret voting is no protection at all to the voter. Electors have said to me, "Give me the power of voting as I
  656
  please, secretly or openly." I have always replied, "As long as it is in the power of a man who wishes to influence your vote to say, 'You can vote openly if you please, and unless you do, I shall assume you are voting against me;' and as long as it is in the power of a briber to say to the voter he wishes to bribe, 'I cannot pay you unless you vote openly,' the ballot will be useless. To be efficacious it must be compulsory. The vote must be given in secresy, so as that no man shall know how another man votes." And I say now that, under those circumstances, it will be perfectly idle for anybody to attempt to influence the vote of his neighbour by intimidation. The only effect would be to irritate the elector and secure his opposition, and, as I have already said, before five years were over, the system of personal solicitation and personal canvass would disappear; men would learn to swim without bladders; they would become accustomed to act independently, and would not be afraid to express their opinions openly, and that lofty view of Englishmen which is embodied in the line—
  "Pride in their port, defiance in their eye"—
  instead of being limited to a small number, might be extended to the whole electoral community. If, therefore, to my own satisfaction, and I hope to the satisfaction of others, who, like myself, doubted for a long time as to the propriety of the ballot, I have answered the objection that it was no better than an instrument of deceit and fraud, I feel that the rest of my task will be plain sailing indeed. At elections in Australia personation, so common in America, is not known; and not only is personation unknown, but bribery also has been greatly reduced. Whatever remedy exists against bribery in this country exists equally there, and with superadded guarantees. As for intimidation—that evil which of all others is most felt by the electors of this country—it would, as I have said before, be simply preposterous under the system of the ballot. Now, if it can be demonstrated, as I am informed it can, before a Committee, that all these advantages would arise from secret voting; that the moral evils resulting from it would in a short time be greatly mollified, and at last probably disappear, I have to ask the House to appoint a Select Committee with the object—I avow it openly—of inquiring

  657
  whether a system of secret voting cannot be devised which will bring security, freedom, and independence to the elector. Sir, I anticipate no opposition from either side of the House. I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite who distinguished themselves during the late Sessions by their zeal for electoral reform and for extending the rights of voting to such large classes of their fellow-countrymen, who have themselves introduced a measure for giving greater stringency to inquiries into corrupt practices at elections—I believe that those hon. Gentlemen have as great an interest as we have in the honour and character of this House. Now, the honour and character of this House depend entirety upon the manner in which its Members are elected. It cannot be that men who are elected by the power of money or by intimidation can really be regarded by the people of this country as their true representatives. Among us, no doubt, are men who deservedly enjoy the popular favour, and are freely chosen by the popular franchise; but if it is proved to the satisfaction of candid men that persons are sent to this House, not from any merits of their own or by the free choice of the electors, but by individual influence or the lavish expenditure of money, how can the people give us that confidence which they would give if they really felt that we were the true representatives of the country? It is my anxious desire that we should be the country's true representatives, and that by the improved machinery of our elections we should give to this House a character that it has never yet fully possessed; that we should strengthen our Parliamentary institutions, and especially that great representative body upon whom the labour of legislation and the heaviest portion of the government of the people of this country mainly rests.
  MR. ROBERT TORRENSsaid, he rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce), in his Motion, had coupled municipal with Parliamentary elections, because it was during the former that the corrupt practices of which they all complained were mainly developed and fostered. The machinery of bribery was organized at the municipal elections. He did not wish to detract from the merits of the measure which had been carried through the House last year by the right hon. Gentleman the
  658
  Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). He (Mr. Torrens) considered that that measure was a great improvement in their electoral machinery, and a great step towards the suppression of corrupt practices; still there were many circumstances which were not, and could not, be considered when that measure was before them. By the light which had been thrown upon it by recent inquiries, and by the Reports of the Judges, it was clear that the measure was very defective, and had failed in its great object—that of being deterrent. Petitioners ceased to prosecute further inquiries when once they had succeeded in unseating their opponents; in fact, it was not their interest to do so. A great want had been felt in the absence of a public prosecutor, whose duty it would be to take means for punishing all those who, by corrupt practices, offended against the law. The Act, therefore, required considerable amendment in this respect. In transferring the jurisdiction from Committees of that House to the Judges, a great advantage, no doubt, had been gained, because bribery and corruption were at once stamped as a disgraceful offence, which had not been the case before. As he had just emerged from a petition against Ms return, he was anxious to state the impressions it had made on his mind. These were, first, that the investigation should be made not only into alleged corrupt practices of the winning side, but into the other side also; and, secondly, that it would be well if petitioners instead of merely signing a petition as at present, were compelled to substantiate the allegations on oath. Such an alteration would be a protection to those who, on frivolous pretences, might be subjected to a painful and invidious course of proceeding. He wished to bear his testimony to the successful working of the ballot in Australia. He, like the right hon. Gentleman, had been made a convert to that system. As a Member of the Legislature and Minister of the Government in Australia, he had used every effort in his power to prevent its adoption; but when he saw that system operated as a specific to the evils of which they had complained, and that it was not followed by any of the bad consequences which he had apprehended, he was driven by the force of facts to recant the opinions he had publicly expressed and to acknowledge that he had

  659
  been mistaken. It was the arguments of the late Lord Palmerston and of Mr. Stuart Mill that had previously convinced, or he would say prejudiced, his mind against the ballot. When he found that the facts in working did not correspond with what they had predicted he began to inquire into their arguments. It was often urged against the ballot that the franchise could not be a right, otherwise a man would be entitled to sell his vote. But there was a fallacy in that argument, because the franchise itself might be a right without necessarily implying the right to sell it. It resembled in that respect many incorporeal rights and easements attaching to the possession of land, which did not carry a right to sell. Those who maintained that the franchise was a trust would do well to consider whether it was not better for the public weal and for the good of those for whose benefit that trust was said to be held that the trustee should be placed by the ballot in a position to exercise his privilege freely and according to the best of his judgment, than that he should be subjected, by the system of open voting, to the corrupt arts of the rich, the intimidation of the mob, or the undue influence of his landlord or employer. In the borough with which he was connected he had been made painfully aware of the degree of pressure which was often applied to some of the voters, and he had no hesitation in saying that the adoption of the ballot would be hailed in many parts of the country with as much satisfaction as the extension of the franchise itself had given; for it was vain to offer people a vote unless they were protected against coercion in its conscientious exercise.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, in answer to Her Majesty's gracious Speech the House expressed its readiness—
  "To inquire into the present modes of conducting Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, and to consider whether it may be possible to provide any further guarantee for their tranquillity, purity, and freedom."
  To that pledge—given alike by this side of the House and by the other—we are perfectly prepared to adhere; but it must not be taken that we consent to this being made in any sense a one-sided inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has avowed openly the change, or, at least, the maturing, of his convictions
  660
  during the last sixteen years regarding the ballot, and those convictions have now attained a strength and a permanence which leave no doubt almost as to what effect any evidence which may be obtained on that subject hereafter will have on his mind. In the course, however, of his very able speech I was surprised that, coming as he does from a district which has been disturbed by another kind of intimidation than that to which he alluded, he omitted to notice that kind of intimidation. I refer to the intimidation practised by mobs—a matter which I trust this Committee will take into its serious consideration. That intimidation is exercised not merely at the hustings, but during the polling day. Grievous injury is inflicted on voters by infuriated mobs and property is destroyed for which the sufferer can obtain no redress or compensation because the perpetrators of these outrages cannot be ascertained in many instances, and also because their acts are said not to be felonious. In the county of Monmouth the houses of electors who had voted in a particular way had been picked out with the greatest precision, the furniture they contained destroyed, as I understand, and the houses much wrecked and damaged; but because those outrages are supposed not to have been feloniously committed, no compensation for them can be obtained from the Hundred. I hope, therefore, that care will be taken that the neighbourhoods in which riotous mobs act in that way will be made to suffer, even though their acts may not be felonious. The man who avows his opinions openly will always be exposed to the vengeance of the mob, and, therefore, whether you have secret voting or not, it will be necessary to protect those voters—who will, I believe, always be the vast majority in this country—who are not afraid to avow their opinions. I shall not now enter into the question of the ballot, but will only add that I hope the proposed Committee will be, as far as possible, an impartial one—that it will inquire in an impartial manner into these subjects; and that it will not prove a mere cloak for men who have already changed their minds.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, that I am quite safe if I say that I regard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last as a very fair acceptance of

  661
  the proposal of my right hon. Friend When we come to discuss a general Motion of this kind, which involves every part of the procedure connected with the conduct of an election from beginning to end, it is by no means unnatural that the interest of the House and whatever discussion arises should centre round the ballot, because the ballot has been for more years than many persons recollect a subject of the liveliest interest in connexion with the procedure at elections. But undoubtedly it would be a mistake to suppose that the inquiries of this Committee are intended, so far as we are concerned, to be confined to the matter of secret voting, or that the Government, as a Government, proposes this Committee with any view to a foregone conclusion. The purpose of the Committee is this—My right hon. Friend, in the fairest and most ingenuous manner, stated the change that has taken place in his own mind. So far as the ballot goes, I think that in every Liberal Government which I can recollect—I know not whether it has been the same in Conservative Governments or not—but in every Liberal Government which I can recollect, the ballot has been an open question; and my right hon. Friend has very frankly avowed the change which his own mind has undergone on the subject—a change which has, perhaps, reached, or nearly reached, maturity. So far as the collective view of the Government is concerned, it can hardly be said—and I speak under correction—to go beyond this-—It is quite evident that the very large extension of the franchise which has taken place has altered—in some cases, perhaps, slightly, in many very greatly and even fundamentally—a number of the conditions under which elections are carried on. This, then, appears to us a fair occasion for examining into the whole subject; and, undoubtedly, as respects the exercise of the suffrage with freedom, that has become a matter, if possible, more vital than at any former time, in proportion to the larger number of persons interested in it. Here, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) says, "I hope the Committee will be allowed to inquire into the intimidation by mobs," Most cordially do I hope so, too; for no doubt intimidation must form one main chapter of this inquiry. The Committee, I hope will endeavour to gain evidence on all
  662
  these questions—on questions that bear on intimidation by violence, questions that bear on intimidation in other forms than by violence, questions that bear on treating and drunkenness, questions that bear on excessive expenditure, and questions that bear on bribery; these being the chief evils connected with elections. But we must remember that intimidation has a double form; it may come either from above or from beneath. Possibly the more stealthy and subtle form of it comes from above; but it is equally our duty to detect and take effectual securities—if we can—to prevent the intimidation that comes from beneath. As I apprehend, the purpose and formation of the Committee will have to be carefully watched, but its main function will be to collect facts bearing upon the various questions of procedure connected with elections; and undoubtedly, it will also be within its province to consider what are the most appropriate remedies with a view to the diminution or removal of the evils attendant on them. But I think we have no reason to complain of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the proposal.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the existing state of the law was so defective in respect to riotous proceedings at elections that, even although such proceedings were anticipated, it was almost impossible for the authorities to take steps for providing the requisite protection against them, without incurring expense or loss in their individual capacity. In his opinion the Committee should inquire with respect to the appointment and expenses of special constables, and also as to the power to grant damages for the destruction of property. At present the machinery for that purpose was complex and costly.
  MR. EYKYNsaid, he had heard with the greatest satisfaction the announcement which had been made from the Treasury Bench. He hoped that at the next General Election votes would be recorded by ballot. He was glad that the subject of municipal elections was to be inquired into, for he regarded those elections as a perfect school for corruption.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, it had been pointed out on the other side of the House that election expenses were very heavy in the United States where

  663
  the system of vote by ballot was in force, This showed that the ballot would considerably increase the cost of elections, both as to bribery and other expenses. He trusted that in any future inquiry the questions of the conveyance of voters to the poll, the introduction of voting places, and the extension of polling papers to every parish, would be duly considered.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the present modes of conducting Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, in order to provide further guarantees for their tranquillity, purity, and freedom."—(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
  And, on March 16, Committee nominated as follows:—The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. HUNT, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. VILLIERS, Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE, Mr. BRAND, Mr. CROSS, Mr. WHITBREAD, Mr. RAIKES, Mr. LEATHAM, Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Mr. LOCKE, Mr. HENRY SMITH, The O'CONOR DON, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. DALGLISH, Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Mr. JAMES, and Mr. HOWES:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Seven to be the quorum.
  And, on March 19, Mr. FAWCETT, Mr. EDWARD EGERTON added.

  BEWDLEY WRIT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bewdley, in the room of Sir Richard Atwood Glass, whose Election has been determined to be void."—(Mr. Noel.)
  MR. MUNTZrose to move as an Amendment that the issuing of the Writ be suspended for twelve months. He could satisfactorily prove to the House that there were good reasons for taking such a step. Just before the Dissolution, the old House, in a fit of virtue, passed the Corrupt Practices Act, a very valuable measure, under the provisions of which there had been a trial at Bewdley. Mr. Justice Blackburn, who presided at the trial, stated that corrupt practices had prevailed extensively in the borough of Bewdley, and the result was that Sir Richard Glass, who had been returned as its representative in Parliament, was unseated. Now, if this had been the sole instance of corruption at Bewdley there might have been some reason for allowing a new Writ to be issued; but, in point of fact, it appeared that the normal condition of Bewdley was corruption and treating. In 1848, a Committee of that House unseated Mr.
  664
  Ireland on account of corrupt practices and treating; and that Committee passed the following Resolution, dated the 17th of March, 1848:—
  "That it has been proved before the Committee that the practice prevailed in the borough of Bewdley at the last Election, as well as at that of 1841, of carrying away and treating electors, and that in consequence of this system large bodies of men were employed on both sides for the alleged protection of voters; and that almost every public-house and beer-house in the borough was kept open during a week, and drink given away to a large extent."
  These charges, which were proved in 1841, and again in 1848, were once more substantiated in 1868, and the evidence given before Mr. Justice Blackburn would have been much extended, but for an apprehension that it might lead to the borough being disfranchised. In his opinion, it was clear that this incorrigible little borough did not deserve to have any representative in Parliament for the present. By suspending the Writ for twelve months, the House would assert its own dignity and its determination to preserve the purity of elections, while at the same time the electors of Bewdley would have leisure to reflect on the fact that the franchise was not conferred upon them in order that they might sell it for a glass of beer or a mess of pottage. The unseating of Sir Richard Glass had been no punishment to the borough. On the contrary, the electors were revelling in anticipation of new bribes and more beer. He (Mr. Muntz) had been informed that the respectable inhabitants on both sides were desirous of having the matter brought before the House, and he trusted that his Amendment would be passed as a terror to evil-doers. In conclusion, he moved that the issuing of a New Writ for the borough of Bewdley be suspended for twelve months.
  MR. MUNDELLA, in seconding the Amendment, said, he had been assured by respectable inhabitants of Bewdley that a fair and a free election could not be at present held in that borough, because the large outstanding claims of publicans would exercise great influence in the choice of a Member. The borough did not contain more than 7,000 inhabitants, and he had been assured that from time immemorial it had been notoriously corrupt. Another reason for postponing the issue of the Writ was that they might now hope to have a complete change in

  665
  the mode of conducting elections, and he trusted that the House would not so far stultify itself as to issue the Writ immediately after the able speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Writ for the Borough of Bewdley be suspended for twelve months,"—(Mr. Muntz,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. BREWERsaid, he hoped that, in an aggravated case of this kind, the House would exercise severity; and that it would vindicate its own consistency by suspending the Writ. If it were at once to issue the House would be looked upon out-of-doors as not being so sincere as it might be in its efforts to put down corrupt practices.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I trust, Sir, we shall hear from the Attorney General what the views are which he entertains with respect to the issue of this Writ. I would, moreover, express an earnest hope that whether we decide on issuing or not issuing a Writ in any of the various cases on which the Judges may have reported, our decision will in no degree be influenced by considerations as to what political party is likely to gain the vacant seat, for it is most important to the character of this House, and. to the working of the new system of trying Election Petitions, that such should not be the case. I should wish to remind the House that, after having just issued a new Writ for Bradford, no sufficient reason can be urged why we should not take the same course with respect to Bewdley. Let me, for a moment, call the attention of hon. Members to the very strong Report of the Judge who tried the Bradford Petition with respect to the existence of treating in that borough. I find from that Report that Mr. Baron Martin arrived at the conclusion that, in one of its wards, corrupt practices on the part of the agents of Mr. Ripley prevailed to a great extent, and that upwards of 100 public-houses were open in his interest. The other Member petitioned against—the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education—was no doubt declared by the Judge to have been properly elected, but the evidence, even in his case, went
  666
  to show that the extent to which public-houses were open in the borough was very great. Now, how do matters stand with regard to Bewdley? It appears that a practice prevailed there which we must all condemn—the practice of employing a number of voters as watchers. That practice has been very strongly condemned by the high authority of Mr. Justice Blackburn, and the gentleman who was returned at the head of the poll lost his seat, so that I hope a recurrence of the practice need not be much apprehended. In the last sentence of his Report, I may add, Mr. Justice Blackburn states that there was no reason to believe that bribery extensively prevailed at the late election for Bewdley, and in the face of such a declaration it would not, it appears to me, be in accordance with the usage of Parliament to suspend the Writ for that borough. I trust the House will see the propriety of concurring in this view.
  MR. DIXONsaid, that in the case of Bewdley the Judge had reported that there had been three distinct cases of bribery; that indirect bribery had extensively prevailed by means of the employment of watchers; and that treating was rife in the borough. Now, it was against the latter description of corrupt practice that the House had chiefly to guard, for while bribery appeared to be diminishing in this country, treating seemed to be on the increase. It had not been shown that treating existed in Bradford before the last election. In that case, indeed, he believed it was exceptional, whereas nearly every public-house in Bewdley had, if he was not mistaken, been thrown open during the election, and, moreover, the practice of treating had existed there almost from time immemorial. Indeed, so bad was the state of affairs that some of the more respectable of its inhabitants had expressed to him a wish that the borough should cease to be represented in Parliament. He was of opinion that the very least the House could do under those circumstances was to suspend the issue of the Writ for a year, while he also thought the Government might with great propriety be asked to issue a Commission. If the Writ, at all events, were not suspended the country would have much reason for supposing that the House of Commons was not sincere in its desire to put an end to corruption.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, he once sat for a large borough of 40,000 inhabitants (Yarmouth) which Parliament had disfranchised for corruption; and that, at the time, was regarded as a harsh measure. As Bewdley had sinned more than once, and had been reported against over and over again, he thought that to suspend the issue of the Writ for a year was a very mild punishment indeed.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: I very much agree, Sir, with what fell from the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington), to the effect that nothing can be of greater importance in these cases than that the House should proceed as far as may be judicially and consistently, without regard, or even the appearance of regard, to party interests. It is much more important that the House should do that, than that it should endeavour too anxiously to secure the credit of being sincere in its efforts to put down corruption; for I do not doubt the public will believe the House to be sincere in that respect, if it is consistent in the general tenour of the course which it takes with that object. I was, I must confess, very much impressed by the remark of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), that it would seem somewhat extraordinary to the public out-of-doors, if we were to refuse to issue a Writ for Bewdley immediately after assenting to the issue of a new Writ for Bradford. Although the Reports of the Judges who tried the two cases are not drawn up in exactly the same terms, there is no very serious difference in the substance of the two Reports. Each speaks of extensive treating by the opening of public-houses. At Bewdley, also, the Judge reports the improper employment of men called watchers, but the Report expressly says that the Judge was not of opinion that extensive bribery prevailed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Direct" bribery.] For my part, if I could have agreed in the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Muntz), I should not have agreed to the Motion for the issue of the Writ in the case of Bradford. But the issue of the Writ for Bradford was justified by this consideration, which, in my opinion, should chiefly govern the House in dealing with these cases. Some time ago it was more frequently than it now is the practice of the House of Commons to suspend the issue of
  668
  Writs, when the House had no definite purpose of taking ulterior measures for the punishment of boroughs. It was felt, however, that the assumption by this House of an arbitrary power to keep a constituency out of its share of the representation for some indefinite period, without any intention of resorting to ulterior measures, was dangerous and in some degree unconstitutional; and I have always understood, that it was very much for that reason provided, that when a Committee of this House should report that extensive corruption had prevailed at a particular election, and that there was reason to believe this corruption to be habitual, a Commission should issue to inquire into the fact, in order that if it were judicially established Parliament might found upon the Report future measures for the disfranchisement of the borough. Now the question is whether, in the case of Bewdley or Bradford, the Report of the Judge was a Report of such a nature as, under the Act of Parliament, ought to be made the foundation of a Commission to inquire into the prevalence of corrupt practices. If so, then let the Attorney General, with whom the responsibility rests, move the House to issue such a Commission. Should that be the opinion of the Attorney General, I, for one, should be perfectly prepared to support the Motion; but if, in the exercise of his judgment and upon his responsibility, he is not able to inform the House that the Judge has made such a Report as, according to the spirit of the Act of Parliament and the practice of the House, would warrant the issue of a Commission, then I am not prepared to agree to the re-assumption by the House of the arbitrary power of inflicting punishment upon the constituency at its discretion, for a time limited by itself, without contemplating the kind of judicial inquiry which the law provides, and with no other purpose than that of issuing the Writ at the end of a year or so. Had the hon. Member moved for a Commission he would have been taking a perfectly constitutional course, and would have only had to satisfy the House that the facts were sufficient to justify such a course. I shall wait to hear what is said by the Attorney General, who has, no doubt, looked into the evidence more carefully than I have done. But looking only to the Report of the Judge, it does not seem

  669
  to me to be of such a character as would justify, under the Act of Parliament, the issue of a Commission with a view to the possible disfranchisement of the borough. In short, if there is no case for disfranchisement the House will be taking into its hands a dangerous power, liable to great abuse, and liable to the suspicion, just or unjust, that it was exercised for party purposes.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as he had been directly appealed to from both sides of the House, he would state in a few words the opinion he had formed upon the subject. He had thought it right that the evidence in this case should be laid upon the table, because the Report of the Judge was a special one. Having read that evidence very carefully, together with the judgment of the learned Judge in reviewing the evidence, he was bound to say it appeared to him that the Judge's Report and judgment were entirely in accordance with the evidence. As to the practice of the House, after careful inquiry, he had not been able to discover that a Commission had ever been issued upon a Report of a Committee corresponding to that of the Judge in the Bewdley case. No Commission had issued, except in cases where there was reason to believe that bribery had prevailed to a great extent, and where there was a strong primâ facie case for disfranchisement. Now, the effect of the evidence and the Report here was that there had been no bribery whatever—at least, no direct bribery. The Judge reported that there was a habit of employing watchers, which, although no doubt an objectionable practice, did not, in his opinion, amount to direct bribery. The Judge further reported that there had been extensive treating, but that it was confined to one side; and on the other side there was no treating. These were the facts stated in the Report of the Judge, and it was for the House to say whether, on such a Report, there was a primâ facie case for the disfranchisement of the borough. His opinion was that there was not such a case, and, that being so, there would ordinarily be no Commission. Then came the question—Ought the Writ to be suspended? Now, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), that Writs ought not to be suspended arbitrarily by way of
  670
  punishing a borough. They ought only to be suspended—and in general they had only been—with a view to inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices. He did not, therefore, see his way either to the issue of a Commission or the suspension of the Writ. At the same time, he hoped it would not be supposed that the Government were indifferent to the prevalence of corrupt practices as disclosed in the recent inquiries. On the contrary, he had himself moved for the evidence in those cases, and he should probably oven have to move for the issuing of a Commission in one or two other cases; but he thought there did not exist in that instance sufficient ground for the issuing of a Commission or for suspension of the Writ.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he thought that that was a question which ought to be decided on the broad principle of common sense, and not with a reference to mere legal technicalities. It had been assorted, and it was not denied, that gross bribery and treating had prevailed at the late election at Bewdley; that there was a party in the borough who were anxious for the issuing of the Writ in order that they might again resort to corrupt practices; and that the best and most respectable portion of the inhabitants desired that the Writ should not be issued. Under these circumstances he believed they should best consult the dignity of the House by not issuing the Writ.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped the House would act judicially in this matter. It was a condition precedent to the issue of a Commission that a Committee of the House of Commons should report that bribery had extensively prevailed. This was not like the case of Bridgwater. Here, the Judge had stated that he had no reason to believe that direct bribery had extensively prevailed. If questions of this sort were to be decided by catch votes of this House, and not upon the Reports of the Judges, the effect of those Reports would be materially weakened, and it would be said out-of-doors—though he did not assert that hon. Members were actuated by such feelings—that the House had issued the Writ in the case of Bradford, but would not issue one in that of Bewdley, because there was reason to believe that the result of the Election would be different in the two cases.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the discussion which had taken place had satisfied him more than ever of the expediency of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the mode of conducting Elections. The Motion of to-night had arisen from the want of an appropriate punishment for offences like this. The Government had carefully considered the expediency of issuing a Commission in this case, and, after great hesitation and doubt, had come to the conclusion that, considering the statement of the Judge, that direct bribery had not prevailed at the election; considering, also, that one of the contributory boroughs—Stourport—was absolutely free from bribery or treating, which was confined to one party within the borough, who had thrown open twenty-five or thirty public-houses to the lowest of the population, the case did not seem to be one for a Commission with a view to disfranchisement. He should be glad to supply an omission in his earlier speech by stating that in his opinion some middle course might be taken in cases not so clear and strong as to justify the appointment of a Commission with the view of possible disfranchisement, and that was to throw the whole cost of the petition inquiry upon the borough, so that all its inhabitants should suffer alike, and in that way perhaps a public feeling against corrupt practices might be created. He hoped that suggestion would be considered by the Select Committee. In the mean time it did not appear to him that the middle course proposed to be taken in this case was a just or right one. He could easily understand a great difference of opinion as to whether a Commission should issue or not, but it did not seem to him that the suspension of the issue of a Writ for twelve months was a course consistent with the dignity of the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 65: Majority 63.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bewdley, in the room of Sir Richard Atwood Glass, whose Election has been determined to be void.
  Mr. Collins

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in rising to move that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate, amend, and make perpetual the Acts for preventing the introduction or spreading of Contagious or Infectious Diseases among Cattle and other Animals in Great Britain, said, that he did not intend to detain the Committee long, but as Gentlemen on both sides of the House took an interest in the question, it was desirable that he should state, as briefly as possible, the nature of the Bill. The Government had thought that the time was come when it would be much better to consolidate the Acts relating to contagious diseases among cattle. At present there were seven Acts in operation; indeed, he was not sure that there were not eight, for they had, within the last few days, discovered an Act, passed in 1798, which he thought hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House were scarcely aware of, regarding some diseases in sheep. At any rate, there were seven in force, and of these one passed in 1848 was a permanent Act, and the others were expiring Acts, which had been continued from year to year, and which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu) in the Bill which t he brought forward proposed to continue. In the opinion of the Government it was better there should be only one Act. There was some difficulty among those who took an interest in the question in discovering the scope of the law regarding contagious diseases in animals, and therefore it was proposed to repeal the previous enactments. He stated that circumstance because it was some apology for the length of a Bill which might otherwise create some astonishment in the minds of hon. Members. He would first mention the internal regulations which it was proposed to establish by this Bill, and would at the outset refer to those which related to the Cattle Plague. It was proposed to re-enact almost precisely as they stood the present regulations for stamping out the Cattle Plague, should it unfortunately break out again—for giving the power of declaring certain places infected—for in-

  673
  spection—for preventing the removal of animals, and for compulsory slaughter, and the Bill also contained the same provisions with regard to compensation. The powers now enforced by Order in Council in the case of sheep-pox would be embodied in the Bill, but though they did not take power by Act of Parliament for the compulsory slaughter of sheep, they proposed, regulations for preventing the removal of live sheep or carcases without license in places declared to be infected with sheep-pox. There was another case in which they proceeded to new legislation, and they had not done so without much deliberation. They proposed to take powers to check other diseases than cattle plague and sheep-pox; in fact, they proposed to take power to check lung disease and foot-and-mouth disease—any contagious disease, in short, among sheep, cattle, or horses. They had done this for two reasons. In the first place, the facts elicited by the Government in the course of their inquiries proved that pleuro-pneumonia had been, from first to last, almost as dangerous and destructive as the cattle plague; and, in the second place, they had every reason to believe that the agriculturists generally were much more willing than they were formerly to submit to interference on the part of the Government. He believed that, a year ago, arrangements for this purpose were dropped in the House of Lords chiefly on account of opposition from the agricultural interest; but the Government had been informed by Gentlemen on both sides of the House that that was not the feeling of agriculturists now. They had seen the good results which had so evidently attended the exercise of summary power in the case of the cattle plague, and they were, consequently, willing to submit to something of the same character in reference to other diseases. But, in the case of pleuro-pneumonia, the Government did not propose to take such stringent powers. Upon the declaration by the Inspector that any premises, field, stable, or cowshed was infected by lung disease, that place was declared to be infected, and came under certain rules set forth in the Schedule of the Act, the main purport of which was that diseased animals were not to be moved out of such infected area, except for slaughter, and no animal that had in any way come into contact with infection was to be moved without license, except for slaughter. They proposed to
  674
  make it penal to exhibit infected animals for sale in any market, or to turn them on to an uninclosed common, the same provisions being applicable in the case of scab in sheep, and they proposed to take powers to prevent animals being moved when diseased by road, rail, or steamboat. The definition of contagious diseases as given by the Bill was "the cattle plague, sheep-pox, pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, and scab in sheep," and they took powers to enable the Privy Council to include other diseases in the list if it should be thought necessary to do so, providing however, that the least stringent of the regulations contained in the Bill should be applied in any such cases. The Bill re-enacted the powers at present existing for disinfecting and cleansing pens, sheds, and trucks, and to that category the Bill added steamboats and sailing vessels. These regulations were also to apply to glanders in horses. Another object which they sought to attain was the better provision for animals sent long distances by rail, the destination usually being London. They had received evidence showing that great suffering was undergone by animals so sent by rail—suffering which all humane persons must desire to see relieved, and which, arising as it did from the inadequate supply of food and water, especially in the case of animals brought from Scotland and the north of England, must naturally result in the deterioration of the stock. The Government were pressed by many gentlemen to take compulsory powers to compel the railway companies to provide food and water, but there appeared to be great difficulty in doing so. However, he hoped that the object they desired might be attained without their putting the railways under compulsory powers. The directors of railway companies stated that they did not provide food and water because they had no power to recover the expense from the consignor or consignee, and because they were bound by Act of Parliament to charge certain rates. What the Bill, therefore, proposed was that railway companies should make the charge of supplying the animals a debt upon the consignor or consignee, and that they should have a lien on the animals themselves for the debt. He now came to that part of the Bill which would be looked upon with great interest, not only by agriculturists, but by all those who paid

  675
  any attention to the supply of our large towns, and that was the regulations with regard, to the importation of foreign cattle. They proposed to take the same powers that were now possessed by the Government to prohibit the importation of foreign cattle into any part of the kingdom and from any foreign country. They did not think it possible for the Government to perform their duty and preserve the country from this terrible disease, unless this power was intrusted to them. At present the power of prohibition was vested with the Queen in Council; they proposed to give it to the Privy Council. Many hon. Gentlemen probably would perceive the distinction. When the power was vested in the Queen in Council, it might occasionally take some little time before the power could be put in force. When, however, it was lodged in the Privy Council, the power could be exercised without any delay by two Lords of the Council; and when the House remembered the necessity which frequently existed for immediate action, he believed they would generally approve the change. They also took power to permit the landing of foreign animals from any foreign country in any port or part of any port only on fulfilment of certain conditions; so that they took two powers—first, the power of prohibiting importation from suspected countries; and, secondly, of defining certain countries from time to time from which, under certain conditions, importation might be permitted. Those conditions were defined in the Schedule of the Act, and in that Schedule it was provided that these animals could only be landed at certain defined ports, at certain defined landing-places, and could only travel within certain defined areas within those ports. The cattle could not be removed alive from the limits of the defined area. Powers would be reserved to the Government, through the Privy Council, to, in the first place, mark out certain defined areas at the ports of import, into which areas the animals could be brought on their importation, but out of which no animals, home or foreign, could be taken alive. It would also rest with the Privy Council to settle from time to time what were the places from which cattle were not to be imported except on these conditions. With the exception of those places the importation of cattle would be free. In the Bill facilities would be given to the local authorities to construct
  676
  markets and erect lairs and slaughterhouses, and sheds; and they would have power to take land, to levy tolls, and to borrow money on tolls or rates. No compulsory powers were taken for the construction of markets; but, though no such powers were taken, he had reason to hope that it would not be found that they were wanted either in the metropolis or at any other port. He need hardly say that this subject was one in which the Government would be anxious to receive assistance in respect of details. The question was not one to be regarded as in any way a party question. Certainly he felt his own incompetence for the discharge of the duty which now devolved upon him; but, seeing how very important the subject was, he had given his best attention to it; and both his noble Friend Lord De Grey and himself would be most anxious to receive any assistance from the representatives of agricultural constituencies. As to principles, there were two or three paramount ones. First, the Government thought that the time was come when all persons, and especially persons engaged in agriculture, would be content to put up with a certain amount of interference not otherwise desirable in matters of trade, but rendered necessary for the protection of all classes in the community. Next, as health was the normal condition of cattle as well as of men, the Government hoped that we should not have to look forward to a continued exclusion of foreign cattle. There could be no doubt that the restrictive measures had had a very marked effect on the importation of cattle not only in the metropolis but also in the provinces. Some gentlemen from Hull had furnished him with statistics which showed that, at that port, while the number of oxen, cows, and calves imported in 1865 was 45,864, the number imported in 1868 was only 8,534. Similar results had followed at Newcastle and other ports. There could be no doubt that so great a diminution in the number of cattle imported must have been felt very seriously by consumers. A cordon having been drawn round London, and no cattle having been allowed to be taken outside it alive, perhaps the effect of the restrictions on importation had not been felt in the metropolis so much as elsewhere. He had observed that this was no party question, and he would venture to hope

  677
  that it was one in which interests even would not be supposed to conflict. There might be the interests of growers and importers, but he trusted neither of these would be considered to be opposed to those of the consumers. The interest of the consumer was plain enough—namely, that there should be only so much interference as was necessary to stop disease, and that there should be that interference. Since he had come into Office he had heard a great deal of argument and much strong statement on the subject of the cattle plague. Some persons boasted that it was not an English production—that it had been imported from Holland; and there were those who said that nothing but complete prohibition would secure us against a recurrence of the evil. However the cattle plague had broken out—there could be no doubt that it did rage in various parts of Europe. It was now in the eastern part of Europe; and no Government could think of permitting cattle imported from countries in which the disease existed to be brought in among cattle not infected with the disease. On the other hand, he thought no hon. Gentleman could suppose that we could expect to feed our enormous population without relying to a great extent upon foreign countries. Having thanked the Committee for the attention with which they had heard him, the right hon. Gentleman concluding by moving that the Chairman be directed to move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) on the manner in which he had approached the subject, and expressed the pleasure he felt at hearing that the Government, not regarding the matter as a party one, were willing to receive suggestions from whatever quarter they might be offered. The first part of the Bill, it appeared, merely consolidated the existing Acts, not limiting—if he had understood right—but rather extending the existing powers. But then he could not understand what the right hon. Member meant by saying that, in the second part, he took powers to prohibit importation or to permit the landing on certain conditions. The powers existed already. He thought, therefore, that the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill must be a limitation on the first part, and a limitation on powers now possessed by the Privy Council.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved that, as by the first portion of the Bill the existing Acts would be repealed, it was necessary in the second part to define what the powers of the Privy Council under the Bill would be.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that he apprehended the meaning correctly, and feared that the second part of the Bill would limit the existing powers of the Privy Council. The power which he took to prevent the landing of cattle from infected districts would be found insufficient. In many cases it was impossible for the Privy Council to know that the plague existed, in a particular country till after diseased cattle had been exported from that country, and, perhaps, landed in this. He would give examples—At one time, an enormous number of cattle infected with disease had been landed in this country from Holland a week before the Government received information that the disease had broken out in Holland. The Dutch farmers, knowing that their cattle had become infected, and fearing a general and serious stoppage of the trade, had hurried their cattle down to the water's edge, and telegraphed for steamers, and shipped those cattle over to England. Again, in May, 1867, forty head of cattle, which on their way to this country had passed through a country in which the disease existed, brought the infection with them. Those forty head of cattle were sold in the metropolitan market, and spread over the City and the suburbs. The first the Government heard of the evil effects of that occurrence was from a policeman who came to the office and stated that cattle were disappearing nightly from the sheds of several dairymen. The Privy Council then employed detectives, who found that the disease was abroad in London, and over 200 head of cattle had to be killed, and stringent measures used to prevent it from spreading. Yet these forty beasts, for whom 200 English beasts had to be sacrificed, had come from some foreign country, no one knew whence, and passed the veterinary surgeons in Berlin who gave a certificate of health, and had also been pronounced healthy by the English inspectors, and had been sold in open market. Therefore, he believed that to regard as an effectual safeguard the power to stop importation from countries in which the disease was known to exist was the merest delusion. As to the permission

  679
  to land cattle from other countries, only if they were slaughtered in a separate market, he thought that this power was not large enough. For, in the first place, if this were not to be permanent, he did not think local authorities would be willing to construct markets and erect the necessary buildings. It would be like asking a man to build a house on a three years' lease. Secondly, unless the arrangement were general for all imported cattle, it would not be worth while to construct a separate market. A sufficient amount of tolls to pay the interest upon the capital to be expended would not be collected unless all foreign cattle were obliged to be sent to the separate market. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there had been a diminution in the quantity of meat sent to the great towns in this country; but that was clearly an error on his part, because there had been an increase in the quantity of meat and in the number of cattle slaughtered in the country each year. He asserted, and he was prepared to prove the fact on the second reading of the Bill, that not only had the quantity of meat sent to London increased of late years, but that during the last fourteen years the dead meat trade had increased 72 per cent. Therefore it would not affect the question, even if the quantity of cattle imported had diminished in any slight degree; but he denied that in London or in any of the great towns there had been such decrease. The measure of the right hon. Gentleman appeared upon the first blush to be very good indeed in its first part, but the latter part of it, he was afraid, would not satisfy the agricultural interest. Without unduly praising his own Bill upon this subject, he thought it would be advantageous if the two Bills were to be referred together to a Committee of the Whole House, in order that the best parts of each might be adopted, and a measure framed which would forward the interests not of the agricultural class on the one hand, nor of the commercial class on the other, but those of the whole community.
  MR. HEADLAMdeprecated any discussion of the details of the Bill at its present stage, but expressed an opinion that the measure would be a very serious and important improvement upon the existing system. With regard to the foreign cattle trade, he could not express in too strong terms his opinion of the
  680
  manner in which the existing regulations interfered with that most valuable trade, without producing any very great good to the country, or preventing the importation of disease. The right hon. Gentleman's Bill was divided into three parts, the first providing that cattle should be imported perfectly free from certain countries where disease did not exist, or where it had for so long been absent that there was no danger to be apprehended. No one would object to that portion of the Bill. The second part gave power to the Privy Council to absolutely stop the importation of foreign cattle from places which were dangerous, and no one would grudge the existence of that power, which was an exceedingly desirable one. As to the other part of the Bill, relating to places where suspicion of disease existed, he would offer no opinion until he saw the provisions. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu) seemed to desire that the present system should be made permanent and general, and that obstacles should be thrown in the way of the importation of foreign cattle for ever. He had no chance of agreeing with any one who held such views as that. He urged his right hon. Friend to proceed with his Bill as rapidly as possible, for it was important that there should be no unnecessary delay in passing a really good measure on the subject.
  MR. DENTreferred to the marked absence of Gentlemen representing the agricultural interest from the other side of the House, which was a pretty fair sign that they were not perfectly satisfied with the provisions of the noble Lord's Bill. The Bill of the Government seemed to deal with the subject in a larger and more genial spirit; for, while protecting fairly and honestly the home producer, they did justice to the foreign importer. He objected to the noble Lord's Bill being discussed in Committee with that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. EGERTONsaid, he hoped the House would not discuss a Bill the provisions of which they had not seen. There would be a great desire, he was sure, on both sides of the House to produce a Bill which would be satisfactory and which would have the effect of cheapening the price of meat.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman's Bill would be a liberal measure for the outports, and though it

  681
  might not be entirely satisfactory to his constituents, it met with his strong approval.
  MR. GEORGE GREGORY, as the representative of an important agricultural constituency, hoped the right hon. Gentleman's Bill and the Bill of the noble Lord would be considered together by the same Committee. His opinion was decidedly in favour of slaughtering cattle at the point of debarkation. No one who went to the noble market which had been erected in London could fail to be struck with the great importance of the carcase trade, which was steadily increasing; and it had been found that, with our present facilities of railway communication, it was much cheaper and better to send dead meat instead of living animals into the market. He hoped those things might be taken into consideration, and that we might be protected from disease of this dangerous and malignant nature.
  MR. CHADWICKsaid, that as representing a borough situated in a county which had suffered more than any other from the cattle plague, he rose to express a hope that the prayer of many petitions which he had presented would be taken into consideration, and that while the mistakes or omissions of previous legislation were remedied, the House would seriously consider the great injustice which had been placed on the county of Chester. At the proper stage he should propose that a clause be inserted in the Bill to alter the legislation from which Cheshire had so grievously suffered.
  MR. MACFIEpointed out that the people of Manchester were opposed to the slaughter of cattle at the point of debarkation. Their experience was that those restrictions had seriously injured both the shipping interest and, through the shipping interest, the great consuming interests of the country. The falling off in the import of cattle, including calves, for their use, had been rather more than four-fifths.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would not give any opinion upon the multiplicity of powers contained in the Bill of the Government; but he hoped that among those powers there would be some statutable security to protect the people of this country, as far as possible, from the evil which might come among us, and not leave us as we were before to be worried by the exercise of every power imaginable on the face of the earth, till
  682
  it almost became a question which was the greatest curse—the plague or the powers.
  COLONEL BRISEsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman would not prove satisfactory to the country. He denied that the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) was not supported in his views by the agriculturists of the country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would consent to the request of the noble Lord, and have the two Bills taken together. He believed we were now at the commencement of a great revolution in the meat trade of the country, and dead meat markets were now on a very different scale to what they had ever been before. In Harwich the dead meat trade had increased very considerably of late. By a Return which had been forwarded to him it appeared that, during the four months from September 1868, to the end of January, 1869, 7291 foreign sheep were slaughtered in Harwich, and in the corresponding periods of 1867 and 1868 there was not a single foreign sheep slaughtered at that port. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, had spoken of there being three interests involved in this question—the interest of the consumer, the interest of the agriculturist, and the interest of the importer. He maintained that the interests of the consumer and producer were the same, both requiring protection for their herds from foreign disease. The interest of the importer, however, was distinct, and might be opposed to both the others.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu) had pointed out as one of the difficulties of the Bill that the markets to be provided would not be permanent, but he would find a clause inserted to meet that difficulty. It would be somewhat premature to speak about the arrangements with regard to the future conduct of the Bill; but the Government were anxious to push the Bill on as quickly as the rest of the Public Business would permit. Any differences of opinion as to the importation of foreign: animals would be most easily settled by Amendments to the Bill, which had been so drawn that those questions would be instantly raised by Amendment.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a

  683
  Bill to consolidate, amend, and make perpetual the Acts for preventing the introduction or spreading of Contagious or Infectious Diseases among Cattle and other Animals in Great Britain.
  Resolution reported:—House resumed:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 38.]

PHARMACY ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL.

  RESOLUTION. FIRST READING.
  Act read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, in moving that the Chairman be directed to move the House that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend "The Pharmacy Act, 1868," said the Bill consisted of only one clause. In England medical practitioners, who were generally licensed apothecaries also and veterinary surgeons, were able to take medicines with them and to dispense them, but in Scotland neither of those classes of professional men were able to dispense medicines; for there was no licensing power in Scotland for apothecaries, and many veterinary surgeons were licensed by the Highland Society, but were not veterinaries of Great Britain. It was a matter of serious consequence that this state of things should be altered, for it might happen that a doctor might be attending a patient in the Highlands some twenty miles away from the nearest druggist's shop. This Bill was to make the necessary change in the Act of last year.
  An HON. MEMBERhoped the noble Lord would extend the wording of the Bill, so as to include the case of Scotch practitioners practising in England.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, on the other hand, thought that the Bill had better remain as drafted.
  MR. BREWERsaid, he feared that the action of the Bill would be of a retrogade character.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend "The Pharmacy Act, 1868."
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord ROBERT MONTAGU and Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 37.]
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Parliamentary Proceedings (7).
Committee—Report—Brazilian Slave Trade (14).

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BILL.
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BILL.

  (NO. 7.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving that the Bill be new read the second time, said:—My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remedy some of the evils to which I ventured casually to draw the attention of your Lordships some nights ago. The evils in question are patent and well-known, and neither proof nor description of them will be required by any of your Lordships who have had experience of a late period of the Session in this House. It is notorious that a large part of the business which occupies this House has been brought forward at a late period of the Session, when not only Members of the House, but all who have any work in it, are quite exhausted, when the temperature is wholly unfavourable to any exertion, when a great number of Members of both Houses have left town, and when obviously nothing but the most perfunctory consideration can be given to any subjects submitted to your attention. Now, I do not, as has sometimes been represented, complain of it as though it were an injury inflicted on us by the House of Commons. It is not, indeed, a question of where Bills originate. It may be very right that a large number of Bills should originate in the other House, and we know that a certain class of them must, according to the usage of Parliament, originate there. Moreover, in the case of any Bill brought forward by a Department, the head of which sits in the House of Commons, it is only natural that he should wish to introduce them himself, and to make his own speech in explanation of his own measure, instead of handing over his work to some one else. The amount of business originating here will always, therefore, depend on the precise Offices which are held by the Ministers sitting in this House, and this, I apprehend, is a state of things which no legislation

  589
  can alter. I do not then complain of the House of Commons: what I complain of is that we are not taking steps to remedy an evil which arises out of the very nature of things. We have five months in which to pass a large amount of legislation through the two Houses of Parliament, and those five months are utterly insufficient for the purpose as matters are now managed. It is true that for many centuries the time proved sufficient; but you have twice altered the constitution of the House of Commons, and on both occasions you have largely increased the power of the House, thus drawing within its view a large number of subjects which previously were left to be dealt with by the Executive Government; while you have increased the number of those who are anxious to establish their right to the position which they hold by showing their constituents that they take an active and intelligent part in the conduct of Public Business. The result is that the number of subjects brought before the House of Commons has been constantly increasing, and the desire to speak on those subjects has been increasing at the same time; while the time allotted for disposing of the business of the country has remained unaltered. Some people say it is the pheasants; but I should rather say, less cynically, it is the love of the gentlemen of this country for the festivities and amusements belonging to Christmas which forbids the meeting of Parliament for any real business at an earlier period than February. The conditions of temperature forbid our sitting later than the beginning of August, or, for any useful purpose, than the end of July, and the result is that the time at the disposal of Parliament remains exactly where it was, while the business, from the causes to which I have adverted, has increased in a geometrical ratio, and will increase still further. Under these circumstances I invite your Lordships to consider whether there is any reason in the Constitution or in common sense for allowing this shortness of time to make absolutely futile three-fourths or seven-eighths of the labours of Parliament during any ordinary Session. Owing to a rule of the Constitution—the origin of which nobody can discover, and of which it is impossible to say more than that we find it here—if when August comes your la-
  590
  bours have not advanced beyond a certain point, those labours must be abandoned as far as legislation is concerned. All that you have done goes for nothing. If a Bill has been considered in great detail by a Select Committee, the Committee must sit and go through the details again; if it had to face a powerful opposition, all that opposition must be faced again. All the works, all the debates, all the enormous labour which attends the passing of any change, however small, in the laws which govern us must be gone through again, in order to reach the goal which you had nearly reached when the Prorogation arrived. Now is there in the nature of things any reason for this practice? Does it commend itself to any man's common sense? Do we act in this manner in any other department of life? Supposing you made it a rule to give up writing letters at a certain hour, would you throw all unfinished ones into the fire, or begin next morning at the point where you left off? Is there any body of men, in any kind of business, that adopt what I must call this senseless practice, that whatever you have not finished by a certain time you must begin again next year? I have never heard any reason for such a rule. There is nothing but the bare inert weight of unmeaning custom to justify a principle which wastes so much of the labour and utility of Parliament. By the present Bill, then, I ask your Lordships to take a step to remedy this obstruction—I ask you to recognize the physical fact that there is not sufficient time within five months for the completion of the business which the two Houses have to perform, and to allow either House, under proper precautions, to begin next year at the point where it left off the year before. It has been said that the Prerogative of the Crown would be injuriously affected if the Crown could not terminate all Bills before Parliament by a Prorogation. Against that objection I have guarded by a clause which makes the Assent of the Crown necessary to the resumption of proceedings on a Bill at the point which it had reached at the close of the preceding-Session. It has also been said that either House might feel jealous of the exercise of the power thus given by the other House. I have guarded against that by making the ultimate consent of the other House necessary after such proceedings

  591
  have been resumed and brought to a conclusion. The Bill, therefore, not only guards against any infringement of any part of the Constitution, but against any possible jealousy that the power it gives might excite as between the two Houses. I hold, indeed, that it is a Bill for the relief not of one House, but of both Houses. I have often seen Bills in the House of Commons which had been sent down by your Lordships discussed at the end of the Session by a mere tail, including, if I may be allowed to use the term, the Members of Her Majesty's Government. I remember hearing the present Prime Minister say—he was then in Opposition—that at the end of the Session the Government were able to pass anything, and that is strictly the fact; for the House of Commons, like the House of Lords, is then so exhausted and thin that the Government of the day can force through any measure, being by the attendance of its Members practically master of the decisions of the House. It would surely be a great relief to the House of Commons if, when early in August some Bill came down to them, they could suspend proceedings to the following year, and if in those early days of the Session, when the Members of the House of Commons like your Lordships have little to do, they could resume those proceedings. The truth is that even of the time we have before us we make the most wretched and uneconomical use. Even the House of Commons is open to this reproach—that they crowd all their business into May, June, and July; February, March, and to some extent, April also, not being thoroughly employed. Again and again have I seen night after night wasted in February because business was not ready; whereas they might have been devoted to Bills put aside in the previous Session for want of time. I venture, then, to urge this Bill earnestly on your Lordships' attention, because I hold it to be a remedy for the evil, and because I think it of the first importance that the evil should be remedied, and that this House should be brought into a state of thorough efficiency, without any step being taken that can excite jealousy or ill-will between the two Houses. It appears to me, moreover, that it will tend to remove one great reproach which is cast upon our system of Government. Of late years people have doubted
  592
  whether Parliamentary Government, as at present conducted, is adequate in its vigour and rapidity to the constantly occurring exigencies of such a nation as this, and there is no doubt that the power of delay, or rather the involuntary pressure which drives all parties towards delay, has been excessive of recent years. There is subject after subject calling for the consideration of the Legislature; laws known by every party to require investigation and alteration, which the mere vis inertiœ of Parliament prevents us from undertaking. I do not say that for Bills of the first magnitude—Bills like the Reform Act of 1867, or like that which is now pending in another House—such a power as I propose to give by this Bill is needed, or would be rigidly exercised, for Bills as to which great public excitement exists would probably always be disposed of in a single Session. Nor do I say that for a considerable number of very small Bills, which under any other system of Government would be disposed of by Orders in Council and are matters fairly within the discretion of the several Departments, this power is necessary. There are however a vast number of intermediate Bills—legislation of the second order as I may call it—of which I may take the Bankruptcy Bill as a fair type, which are stopped year after year, and the delays in which are a perfect disgrace and scandal to Parliament. Those Bills do not in general excite any great party opposition, but they are thrust aside and crushed in the hot conflict of parties, and thus fail to come to fruit in legislation precisely for want of some such power as this Bill proposes. I earnestly hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept it, and will help me in carrying it, so that we may make this much needed reform in the practice of our proceedings.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, before entering upon the subject of the Bill proposed by the noble Marquess, who has already earned the gratitude of the House for the earnestness with which he applies himself to everything that can improve the order and value of our proceedings, I may, perhaps, be allowed, to say one or two words to show that I am not totally unworthy to speak

  593
  on the subject itself. Your Lordships will remember that, during the somewhat irregular conversation a few nights ago to which the noble Marquess has alluded, he himself, and other noble Lords opposite were good enough to express in courteous terms their confidence in my endeavours to further the wishes of the House in this respect. My noble Friend on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey)—impatient, probably, of such, unmerited compliments—jumped up and denounced me to the House as the individual princicipally responsible for the mischief and delay which exist. I do not know whether any of your Lordships ever saw an old play in which one actor says to another, "Let me treat you as a friend—come and join the family dinner." The other actor, alarmed, says, "Nay, don't treat me as a friend, for I like good living." Now, I always have a little of that feeling when I get into a political difference with one of my own personal friends. But at the same time I admit I would rather be attacked every day by my noble Friend than lose a jot of that friendship which I value so much. My noble Friend could not, of course, have meant that I was the original cause of a grievance which, as we know, has been complained of for more than sixty-five years; and, indeed, I find, from an analysis made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) that the evil existed to such an extent that the year before I entered this House 132 Bills were passed, of which only twenty-three originated here, 109 in the House of Commons, and, of the 132 Bills, no less than sixty-three, or one-half of the whole number, were submitted to your Lordships in the last six weeks of the Session. But what I understand my noble Friend complained of was this, of my having moved, as the organ of the Government, the suspension of a Standing Order, proposed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, which prevented the second reading of Bills after a certain period of the Session. Now, all I can say in my justification is that every year when that Motion was renewed, I used almost the same words as Lord Aberdeen had made use of on a previous occasion, when he protested against the supposition that any Government could possibly consent to a perfectly strict interpretation of such a Resolution. I do not deny
  594
  that, if we adopt Resolutions, we ought to adhere to them, and that we should therefore be very careful what we adopt; but I cannot think that if a different course had been taken on the occasion in question, it would really have been to the advantage of the House. My noble Friend (Earl Grey) referred to a Bill which he thought at the time, and still thinks, was bad. Now, I will not enter into its merits or demerits, but it was one which it is quite clear he was anxious to destroy by any weapon that came to his hand. Rightly or wrongly, that Bill was desired by a very large portion of the mercantile community, and I am afraid that it would have been thought by the public that there was something like a "strike" on our part if we had refused to apply our minds to legislation at that particular moment, when, whatever you do, a great press of legislation is sure to occur. This would apply to the noble Marquess's warning that if any Government brought up measures at too late a period he should make use of every form of the House to obstruct them. That form of proceeding has been had recourse to before now, very often with success, but never with success in the long run. The House would, at last, revolt against it, and public opinion would be almost sure to think of us, as an eminent divine once said of some people, that "they appeared to take as much pains to be damned as would have worked out the salvation of their souls." If for several evenings we were to devote our attention to obstructing a Bill, people would think that time might as well have been employed in amending either the substance or the form of it. I am glad to find that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has turned his attention to a different mode of dealing with the question. No Bill could have less of a party character than this. A similar Bill was introduced by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) some twenty years ago. It was opposed by Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and the noble Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale); but it was strongly supported by Lord Lansdowne, and was sent down to the House of Commons, where it was supported by Earl Russell. There happened to be a Committee sitting at the time on the despatch of Public Business, composed of my noble Friend then Lord,

  595
  John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Hume, and other gentlemen representing different shades of opinion. They examined three witnesses, one of them being the noble Lord who at that time was Speaker of the House of Commons (Viscount Eversley), and also—although I am almost afraid of mentioning it before the noble Marquess—the "intelligent foreigner;" and, after going through that process, without giving any reason, and apparently without any division, they agreed not to recommend the Bill to the adoption of the House of Commons. The noble Marquess has stated very clearly the reasons which tell in favour of this proposal, and, if he adopts the course which I shall venture to suggest, it will be unnecessary for me to state what appear to me to be some objections to it. It is quite clear that the objections which actuated that Committee are likely to have the same weight now with the House of Commons if we send the measure down to be considered by them in a similar manner, and I would recommend the House to give a second reading to the Bill, after which Her Majesty's Government should pledge themselves to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses with regard to the distribution of business between them. I need not trouble your Lordships with the precedents for appointing a Joint Committee, as a few years ago that course was taken with regard to schemes for railway communication in the metropolis, the precedents I then stated being considered conclusive. We had a preliminary meeting; whether it had the effect of smoothing matters I do not know, but the businesslike way in which the Committee went through what they had in hand was quite remarkable. There was not the slightest feeling of jealousy on the part of Members of either House; the decisions, after a good deal of discussion, were unanimous except on one point, on which a division arose accidentally, apparently on purpose to show that, on the one hand, there was no party spirit, and, on the other, no esprit de corps as regarded the two Houses, and no reference to party—two Peers voting on one side, and two on another, as also an equal number of Commoners—one of each being a Conservative, and the other a Liberal. I should recommend, if such a Joint Com-
  596
  mittee be appointed, that this Bill be referred to it, but not this Bill alone. The noble Earl (Earl Russell), with his great Parliamentary experience, made a suggestion the other night as to the termination of the financial year which might fitly be referred to it, as also a subject which was brought forward at the time of the discussion of the former Bill,—namely, a scheme for preventing the slipslop wording of Acts of Parliament, of which the public and legal authorities have so much right to complain. Her Majesty's Government, partly with a view to economy, but also with a view to efficiency, have already created a Department, at the head of which is a gentleman meriting the confidence both of the late and the present Government—Mr.Thring—so that all Government Bills may go through the same hands and may be accurately and consistently worded. I think that in Committee some suggestion might be made as to the use of such a Department, in connection possibly with officers of both Houses, so as to exercise some little check and give some advice on the phraseology of Bills. There is another point of more importance to which I prefer alluding only in the most indirect way. It is one which certainly would not properly emanate from this House, but I know than many eminent Members of the House of Commons have a very strong feeling that the straining of some of their privileges is of no use whatever in a constitutional point of view, and is inconvenient, not only to the public and to your Lordships, but also to that House. I should hope that in such a Committee some proposition on that subject might be made which would come more gracefully from Members of the other House than from Members of this. This is the course I venture to suggest; and if it is agreeable to your Lordships I shall make it my duty, in communication with the head of the Government in the other House, to move for the appointment of a Committee of the character I have described.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not think the country suffered from the want of sufficient legislation, for, on the whole, he thought it had rather too much than too little. One of the great evils which the country suffered from was the want of proper preparation of the Bills submitted to Parliament. There were very few, properly drawn, which found any

  597
  difficulty in getting through Parliament. He could mention an instance of the value of such preparation. Up to 1845 there had been no general legislation respecting railways; but the railway mania then commencing, and it being evident that a great deal of business would come before Parliament, the Government of the day thought it their duty to bring forward general Bills to be applied to all railways. Accordingly, on the 6th of February—two days after the opening of the Session—the Companies Clauses Bill, the Lands Clauses Bill, and the Railways Clauses Bill for England and Scotland were introduced, each containing from 150 to 160 clauses, and, notwithstanding their voluminous character, they received the Royal Assent on the 8th of May. A few short supplementary Bills on points which they did not touch had since been necessary, but he believed not a single clause in those elaborate Acts had been repealed. This showed how business could be got through when it was properly prepared; but, unfortunately, important Bills were hardly thought of till the Session had actually commenced, when draftsmen were very much employed, and being very imperfectly drawn they required so much consideration and amendment that frequently there was not sufficient time to carry them through. Now, he feared that the operation of the present Bill would rather tend to promote the careless drawing and late introduction of Bills, and he should be glad if both Houses would agree not to give a second reading to Bills containing a given number of clauses unless, with the exception of certain specified Bills, they were introduced during the first month of the Session. Measures ought to be prepared before Parliament met and be introduced early, so that an opinion might be formed upon them, and good legislation would then be facilitated. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had justly said that his proposal would not be applicable to strong party Bills; and he (Lord Redesdale) could conceive nothing more mischievous than that such Bills, failing to pass one Session, should be resumed by the other House the following Session. Something might be said in favour of the plan as regarded a particular class of Bills; but he could not see why—taking the Bankruptcy Bill as an example—the noble Lord on the
  598
  Woolsack should not introduce here a similar Bill to that to be submitted to the Commons, and why their Lordships should not discuss it in detail. They would not improbably get through the measure before it reached Committee in the House of Commons; and being sent down to the Commons it might be taken up there and sent back to this House with Amendments at a later period of the Session. If the Bill had advanced so far in Committee that it was not expedient to send it down to the Commons, all its details would have been considered by their Lordships early in the Session, without waiting for the passage of the Bill through the other House. His plan seemed to him more desirable than resuming the consideration of a Bill which had not been passed in the previous Session. He had a strong constitutional objection too, to the principle of determining the proceedings of Parliament by statute. Everything now proposed could be effected by Standing Orders, which had the advantage of being much more easily altered; and at this very time the House were about to experience the inconvenience of the other course, for there were certain conditions as to Railway Bills imposed by an Act of last Session, some of which the companies might not have entirely fulfilled, the result of which would be that however trivial the omission they would be obliged to reject the Bills; whereas had the conditions been Standing Orders, they might have been dealt with in a more satisfactory way. He hoped, therefore, the Committee, if appointed, would consider the expediency of proceeding by Standing Orders rather than by Act of Parliament. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) proposed that the Assent of the Crown should be necessary to the resumption of Bills; but it would be most unconstitutional to require that assent to proceedings in Parliament before the Bill went to the Sovereign for assent. At the same time it was no doubt just that power should be given to the Crown to stop a Bill by prorogation. If both Houses adopted a rule allowing a Member to move the suspension of the Standing Orders in the case of a Bill which had been introduced at a proper time and had received full discussion in the preceding Session, so as to take it up at the third reading or at the report, the object desired by the noble

  599
  Marquess would be attained, and the only discussion necessary would be on the suspension of the Standing Orders; while this manner of proceeding would be in accordance with the forms and privileges of Parliament. He might remind their Lordships that the Bill of Lord Derby was referred by the Commons to a Committee then sitting, which had been appointed to consider the best mode of promoting the dispatch of Business in that House, who reported that they did not think it advisable to recommend it for adoption by the House. On that Committee were Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Sir George Grey, Sir James Graham, Mr. Hume, Mr. Disraeli, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Henley, Mr. Denison, and other distinguished Members, and at one of their meetings they adopted a recommendation that, in order to facilitate legislation, the House of Commons should not insist on its privileges in respect of any Bill or clause brought down from this House whereby tolls, rates, or duties were authorized, imposed, or regulated, provided such duties were levied by local authorities, or for local purposes, and were not applied to the public service. Unfortunately, however, that Resolution was rescinded at a subsequent sitting. Such a relaxation of the privileges of the House of Commons would have facilitated business, and would not have prejudiced the full jurisdiction justly claimed by that House over the taxation of the country, for local rates come within quite a different category. He should be glad if so reasonable a proposal were again made, but he agreed with the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that it would emanate more gracefully from Members of the House of Commons than from any of their Lordships. Having stated the objections which he entertained to this Bill he should content himself by saying "Not content" to the" second reading.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, my apology for offering any observations to your Lordships after the remarks of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), may, perhaps, be found in the fact that, although my Parliamentary recollection does not go so far back as sixty-five years, the period mentioned by the noble Earl, twenty-one years have elapsed since I introduced a Bill in substance identical, and in most of its provisions similar with the measure, now before the House. I
  600
  regret that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) has encountered from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees the same opposition which I encountered on that occasion; but I trust that, notwithstanding the weight to be attached to the authority of the noble Lord, the House has not altered its opinion in the course of a generation, and that it still regards the evil in question as one deserving of some remedy, and that it will sanction the Bill of my noble Friend. The noble Marquess has pointed out that the increase of Parliamentary Business has greatly aggravated an evil which was at that time felt so keenly. My noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) was himself so convinced of the evil that he himself, a few years ago, came forward with a remedy; and the remedy he proposed was an addition to the Standing Orders, to the effect that this House would not take into consideration any Bills which were sent up from the other House of Parliament after a certain date, except in cases of real urgency. That proposition was one which, had it been adhered to, would, to a certain extent, have diminished the evil. But what occurred? I think in the very Session in which it was agreed to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) moved that a certain Bill brought up late in July was one of urgency, and required to be immediately considered; he moved the suspension of the Standing Order in respect of that measure, and the Order was suspended. My noble Friend the Chairman of Committees has urged that to proceed by Standing Orders with reference to the Business of the House is preferable to legislation, because Standing Orders can be suspended in case of necessity. Now that is the very objection I take to proceeding by Standing Orders. Your Lordships are aware that while at the beginning of the Session you have scarcely any business, towards the close of it, in the month of July, when the House is thin and everybody is going out of town, you are inundated by a flood of Bills sent up from the House of Commons. That evil is admitted on all hands; and it is also admitted that at that period of the Session Her Majesty's Government, whatever party is in power, have practically an absolute control over all the business introduced into this House. If, therefore, a Bill which may have met a well-founded opposition in

  601
  the House of Commons, but has passed that House, should come up to your Lordships in the latter part of July, the Government have every facility for pressing it through the House; but in doing so—in exercising their discretion for that purpose—they inevitably lower the character of this House, expose it to the charge of passing important measures without adequate consideration, and degrade it into a mere registry of the acts of the House of Commons. And this is the case not only with measures in which your Lordships may be reasonably supposed to take a special interest; but it is so often with regard to measures which have no political character at all. The other House may have devoted three or four months to the careful consideration of a measure quite irrespective of party; it comes up to your Lordships towards the end of July; it consists, perhaps, of a great many clauses, some of them of a very important character. But you have no time to consider them. And what is your present alternative? You must either reject them, and so throw on the House of Commons the labour and duty of considering them all over again in the ensuing Session, or of passing them without having subjected them to a careful inquiry and consideration. That difficulty this Bill seeks to avoid; but my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees says that the tendency of the Bill will be to increase hasty legislation. Now, it seems to me that the effect of the Bill would be exactly the reverse. It would prevent hasty legislation, and would relieve us from the alternative of passing a Bill without Amendment and without proper deliberation, or of rejecting it altogether, and so rendering futile the labours of a whole Session in the House of Commons. How my noble Friend can say that a provision which will enable us to take up a Bill at any stage, or to consider it with reference to debates that were begun in another Session—to take it up at a time when we would otherwise have no business at all, and therefore when we are able to give it a careful and deliberate consideration—how he can say that that will encourage hasty legislation I cannot understand. My noble Friend also says that if Bills were proposed before the opening of the Session, and if no elaborate Bills were allowed to be brought in after a certain date, measures would be
  602
  properly considered, and there would be no need of subsequent Amendments. He instanced cases with which he is very conversant, the Companies Clauses and other Acts, which he says were so carefully drawn that they have required no Amendment. With all respect, however, for my noble Friend, I think there is not one of those Bills which has not been repeatedly amended; and, though I do not deny the desirability of Bills being carefully worded, I do not see how you can enforce that provision upon this or the other House, or how you can prevent any individual Member from introducing Bills at any period of the Session. My noble Friend asks why both Houses should not proceed pari passû with a measure—take the Bankruptcy Bill, for instance, which is about to be introduced in the House of Commons. But, however carefully such a Bill may have been drawn, how can you prevent Members either in this or in the other House of Parliament, from moving Amendments, and that clauses involving points of great legal importance and difficulty may be introduced without reference to the other clauses? It is this in fact that leads to so much confusion now, for, when you come to interpret them, lawyers say it is impossible that the House of Commons could have meant the same thing in two clauses of a Bill when they use different language in each; while the fact is, that, practically, they did mean the same thing, only they did not calculate the effect of alterations in one part of the Bill upon other parts. But suppose the same Bill were introduced by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack into this House—can your Lordships imagine a greater hotch-potch than would be produced if we were to be employed amending clauses that were struck out in the Commons, while we struck out a clause that was amended there; and at last the two Bills would be interchanged, and we might have two Bills of 250 clauses each, mutually contradicting each other. Of all devices for increasing the complications of carrying Bills through Parliament, I think my noble Friend's device is one which is the least likely to produce anything but confusion. As to proceeding by Standing Orders rather than by legislation, we see how easily the former are suspended, so that the immovability of the latter, which my noble Friend looks upon as a disadvan-

  603
  tage, I regard as a decided advantage. Standing Orders are suspended at the caprice of the House, and the instance mentioned by my noble Friend of a Resolution being carried one day and rescinded on another, shows the disadvantage of proceeding in that way. I understood the noble Earl opposite, (Earl Granville), in acceding to the second reading of the Bill, to do so on the understanding that it should be referred, with a variety of other subjects, to a Joint Committee of both Houses. If the noble Earl proposes that this Bill be referred to a Committee of the two Houses impartially chosen—as no doubt it would be—and numbering among its members men whose opinion is entitled to authority, and if the Committee be confined to the consideration of the objects of this Bill, the little experience that I have had of such Joint Committees would certainly induce me to place great reliance and credit upon the Resolutions at which they might arrive. But if the noble Earl proposes to refer to that Joint Committee not only the Bill of my noble Friend, but a variety of other matters embracing such topics as the privileges of the House, and the course of proceeding with regard to other departments of business, I fear that my noble Friend the noble Marquess will find the support given him by the noble Earl opposite to be of a very fallacious character, and the probable result will be that his Bill will be swamped, and my noble Friend will get in lieu of it a Standing Order which will be at all times liable to suspension at the caprice of the Minister. While I thus support the principle and the main provisions of the Bill—if I might venture to make a suggestion to the noble Marquess—I would refer to one or two of the provisions of the Bill. I trust I should be the last to bring in question any of the Prerogatives of the Crown, but I own I do not understand what is the object of that provision that the consent of the Crown is to be necessary—not for the introduction, but for the resumption of a Bill at the former stage. The consent of the Crown is not required to be given before the Bill is introduced into the House of Commons; and if the Bill did not require the consent of the Crown on its first introduction, why should that consent be required for its resumption in
  604
  the next Session? and why should the consent of the one House be required to the resumption of a Bill by the other House when it is clear that that consent has been given when the Bill was passed by the House in which it originated? Then my noble Friend proposes that the progress of the Bill should depend on a Motion agreed to in both Houses, that it is expedient that the consideration of the Bill should be resumed. I do not understand the object of that. It is enough to place the Bill at that exact stage of proceeding where it would have been if its consideration had been continued in the former Session. There may be some technical reason for this—I confess I do not see it—that at a certain stage, even in the Session of its introduction, it is competent to discharge the Order for its consideration, and therefore it may be desirable to require the consent of both Houses for its resumption. But I think the Government may be hardly treated by the operation of this provision. We all know that at the close of a Session the Government has the control of the business in this House, and that the passage of Bills is entirely in its hands. Now if this measure passed this might happen—Objections are, perhaps, taken to the Bill, and the Government say that the objections are fair and reasonable, and that they will not, therefore, exercise the power they possess and force the Bill through the House, but that they will consent to its being adjourned for consideration to another Session. I think it would not be treating the Government with good faith if, at the commencement of the following Session, the Opposition in this or the other House of Parliament, when the House is full and the Government have not the same control, were to turn round and say, "We won't allow this Bill to be taken up; we won't take it into consideration again." I think that would be doing an injustice, and would lead the Government to exercise their power of pushing on or opposing the measure at the end of the previous Session of Parliament, if they could not rely upon its being taken into fair and deliberate consideration on the re-assembling of Parliament. There is only one other point. It is not made quite clear in what position the Bill, at the completion of its stages, should be sent back to the House in which it originated. My

  605
  noble Friend does not distinctly say that it should be taken up in the same form as an amended Bill, but I think this should be distinctly understood. I certainly agree that when the Bill is sent down to the House of Commons it should not be necessary to go through the various stages as with a new Bill, but that it should be treated as an amended Bill. But the effect of that would be that, if no Amendments were made in this House, the Commons would be precluded from making any Amendments. Now it would, in my opinion, be highly desirable that on such a Bill going back to the House of Commons, even though this House has made no Amendments, yet the other House should have the opportunity of re-considering its details, and even of moving Amendments, in their own Bill. I think this would be perfectly fair. They may have neglected some details, and it is right they should have the opportunity of correction. But, subject to these observations, I cannot but think that the principle of this Bill is beneficial, and notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, I do not think it will tend to encourage hasty legislation. I think the measure will have the effect of giving both Houses of Parliament a full opportunity of examining the Bills that come before them, and that it will relieve this House from the painful alternative of either absolutely rejecting a Bill or of passing it without examination. I think, too, that it will promote beneficial legislation by supplying to your Lordships' House ample materials for discussion at the commencement of the Session. I am glad to hear that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but I must confess that I heard with some anxiety and alarm of the additional matter which the noble Earl opposite proposes to submit to the consideration of the Committee.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he perfectly remembered the Committee of the House of Commons to which the noble Earl had referred. He could not remember all the arguments that were used, but he remembered that he was in favour of the Bill introduced by the noble Earl as a useful piece of legislation. But there were two Members of that Committee—Sir Robert Peel, whose opinion of course always carried with it great authority,
  606
  and Mr. Goulburn, who was not only highly respected, but who had peculiar knowledge of the usages and proceedings of Parliament, and who was therefore listened to with great respect on all questions of that kind—Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn opposed the Bill, and gave the Committee such arguments against it that it was rejected. He considered the Bill of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) was founded upon that Bill, and that it would materially improve arid facilitate the work of legislation. There was one point in which he certainly agreed with the noble Earl who had just sat down. Supposing a Bill had passed through one House of Parliament, and Amendments were made to it in the other House, when the amended Bill was sent back to the House in which it originated, according to the usages of Parliament no clause could be touched unless Amendments had been made upon that clause. But when, after a year's delay, the Bill had been resumed and sent back to the other House with perhaps considerable alterations, it might perhaps seem to a majority of the other House that further alterations were very desirable. The House, therefore, ought to have the power not only of altering any clauses that had been amended, but of amending their own Bill as originally agreed to. He only desired to make one other remark, and that was in reference to the proposal made by his noble Friend relating to the subjects to be considered by the Joint Committee. If they were told that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or any other Member of the Government, was prepared to submit any proposals to the Committee on those subjects, he should be inclined to give his support to his noble Friend's suggestion; but if, on the contrary, his noble Friend had no proposals on which the Government had agreed to suggest, and if the only object was to fish from the various Members for hints or advice which might be useful in that case, he certainly agreed in the opinion that such a course would involve a great waste of time. His consent, therefore, to that course, or rather his vote, would entirely depend upon his noble Friend informing him whether the Government were prepared to make any proposals which they had agreed to for the consideration of the Committee. He need only say that he should wish to see

  607
  this Bill proceeded with as soon as possible in their Lordships' House, and sent down to the other House of Parliament.
  LORD CAIRNS: I am sure your Lordships are very much indebted to my noble Friend who has proposed this Bill, both for the earnest manner in which he has addressed himself to the task of improving the arrangement of Business in this House, and also for the very practical manner in which he has brought the whole process of our proceedings to the test of his measure. I do not rise to say a word on the principle of the Bill. I entirely concur in it, and in thinking that its adoption would be attended with those great advantages which have been referred to by noble Lords who have spoken much, more effectively on the subject than I am able to do. But I rise to say that I think the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) takes too gloomy a view of the prospects of a Bill of this kind if your Lordships should think fit to pass it and send it down to the other House of Parliament. It is quite true that in 1848 a Bill to improve the arrangement of our proceedings was sent down from this House, and did not receive the approbation of the other House. But what is the history of that measure? That Bill was proposed to your Lordships' House, and having been read a second, time in your Lordships' House, was referred to a Select Committee and carefully considered by that Committee before it was read a third time and sent down to the House of Commons, where a Select Committee on Public Business happened to be at that time sitting. It was referred to that Committee; but I find that the Order of Reference bore date the 11th of August, 1848. I think, when I mention that date, the fact that the Bill did not pass through the other House will not surprise your Lordships. It would have been morally impossible that before the close of the Session it could have received the attention which, no doubt, it otherwise would have received. It reached the Committee; but the Committee did not feel warranted in recommending it to the adoption of the House. Passing from the general merits of the Bill, which I think are very great, I hope my noble Friend will allow me to make one or two suggestions as to matters of detail which have already to some extent been alluded to by some of your
  608
  Lordships. I think if my noble Friend will only consider the point, he will be of opinion that the first qualification he has imposed upon the resumption of proceedings in either House is altogether unnecessary—I mean that of obtaining the consent of the Crown. I quite concur with my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees that we ought to be careful in introducing, if not necessary and proper, the consent of the Crown as a condition preliminary to our legislation. If the Bill be one which requires the consent of the Crown to be signified—that is, if the Bill be one which touches the Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown—then it is, of course, not only necessary that the consent of the Crown should be given in the first instance, but further I think in such a case the consent of the Crown given one year ought not to dispense with the necessity of obtaining it twelve months afterwards when Progress with the Bill is resumed; because it may well be that, in the interim, circumstances may have occurred which would induce the Advisers of the Crown not to recommend that such assent should be given to the measure. Therefore, my Lords, in that case it would be very fair to make the consent of the Crown a necessary condition. The other matter of detail to which I wish to refer is this I quite agree with what fell from the noble Earl who spoke below the Gangway at the other side (Earl Russell) that we should be very careful, not merely for the sake of the House of Commons, but for our own sake, that if a Bill is to be resumed in a second Session, and is to be sent back to the House from which it was passed in the previous Session, that House, although it may not have the right to decide upon the principle of the Bill, which it has already accepted on the second reading, must have the right to amend it in detail, and not merely to deal with those Amendments which may have been made in the other House of Parliament; because it is not only possible, but it is extremely probable, that the lapse of a twelvemonth may have so altered the state of things with reference to the Bill that the House which had originated the measure may desire in many respects to alter it. As regards the progress of the present Bill, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) has recommended that it should be read a second time and then referred to a Joint

  609
  Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. We should, however, be very careful to understand that if this Bill is to be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses it is not to be referred to them with the view of having the details settled for your Lordships' House by a Joint Committee of the two Houses. We must reserve to ourselves the right of settling in a Committee of this House the details of the Bill as one to be adopted by your Lordships' House. It would not be desirable to have that work done by a Joint Committee which might sit in secret. In the next place, we must be very careful to understand what are the subjects with which the Joint Committee is to deal. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) mentioned this a few nights since that he thought an improvement might be effected in the proceedings of the other House if a change were made in the time at which the Estimates are laid upon the table, and in the time at which the Budget is produced. Now, my Lords, I do not believe the other House will allow a Joint Committee of the two Houses to discuss that subject; but, my Lords, further than that, I maintain that questions of that kind are questions for the Executive Government, and not questions for the Houses of Parliament. It is for the Executive Government to say the time at which they will lay the Estimates on the table, and at which they will close the financial year, and make the financial statement that follows upon the close of it. Therefore I think that instead of facilitating the adoption of the principle of this Bill, we should be delaying it by referring points of that kind to the consideration of a Joint Committee. Next, as regards the wording of Acts of Parliament, a Joint Committee of the two Houses might occupy twelve months in discussing this subject. I do not believe that any question would open a wider field of discussion, or would produce greater differences of opinion. The Committee would be asked to deal with the subject of a Minister of Justice, of a department for directing the framing of Bills, and cognate subjects of the kind. Indeed, I cannot conceive any subject on which a greater difference of opinion would be likely to arise. The Executive Government are, after all, the great manufacturers of Bills; and, as we have
  610
  heard, the Government have, on their own responsibility, organized a department for drafting and preparing Bills under Mr. Thring, than whom there is no one more competent. I am glad of that; and I must say that I think it would be delaying any chances of a measure such as the Bill before us if we were to refer to the Joint Committee a consideration of those other subjects. Then the noble Earl suggests that perhaps the House of Commons will waive, or at all events not insist on, their privileges in respect of taxing clauses in Bills not directly connected with the financial arrangements of the country. I should be glad that the House of Commons should do as the noble Earl suggests; but I am sure that the House of Commons is not going to submit that question to a Joint Committee, in which the Members of that House might be outvoted on a matter relating to their own privileges. My Lords, the result is this—that there would be nothing to refer to the Joint Committee but the question of the principle of the present Bill. Now, I must say that I think there is a great deal in what fell from my noble Friend the Chairman of the Committees as to the possibility of this and the other House of Parliament effecting by Standing Orders what is proposed to be done by this Bill; and I will tell you what, in my opinion, the advantages of that course would be. If you pass an Act of Parliament regulating the Business of the two Houses, then, no matter how much one of the two Houses may upon experience find any part of the arrangement to be, and however much it may desire to retreat from that part of the arrangement, it is unable to do so without obtaining the consent of both Houses of Parliament; whereas, if each House proceeds by Standing Orders, then either House, which on experience does not approve of the arrangement, is able to rescind its Standing Orders, and there is an end of the arrangement altogether. As to the objection that there is a temptation to suspend Standing Orders, I would observe that there is a difference in this respect between "restrictive" and "enabling" Standing Orders. There is a temptation to suspend the former; but no such temptation exists in the case of the latter. Therefore, my Lords, the practical question—What shall be done with this Bill?—I venture to be hope will be

  611
  solved in this way. If the noble Earl (Earl Granville), on communicating with his Colleagues, were in a position to say that the Government adopted entirely the principle of this Bill, but that they desired to have a Joint Committee of the two Houses, in order that the Joint Committee might say whether they would assent to the principle, and whether the principle should have effect given to it through the medium of a Bill or the medium of Standing Orders, and if the operations of the Joint Committee should be confined to that purpose, and that only, I think that would be a very good way of dealing with the further progress of the question. But if that is not the view of the noble Earl, then I should say, in reference to such a proposal, that it is very much better for my noble Friend to proceed in Committee of the Whole House with the Bill which he has brought forward.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I approve of the object of the Bill now before the House, because I believe that great advantage would result from the adoption of some system by which Bills might be resumed in a new Session of Parliament at the stage at which they arrived at the end of the previous Session. At the same time I must admit there is great force in the argument used by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) that it is objectionable to attempt, by means of legislation, to interfere with the course of proceeding in either House of Parliament. When this question was the subject of discussion on a former occasion, Lord Truro expressed a strong opinion against the adoption of any proposal to regulate the mode of procedure in either House by legislation. There is also much force in the objection of the noble and learned Lord to send this Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses to be considered with a number of other subjects. I agree with my noble Friend (Earl Russell) that a Committee of this sort, if it is intended to devise some new arrangements to facilitate the transaction of business, is not likely to lead to any useful result. If it is to deal with recommendations to be suggested by Her Majesty's Government the case would of course be altogether altered; still I doubt whether the best way of dealing with such suggestions would be to refer them to a Joint Committee. I do not know how far the House of Com-
  612
  mons would be willing to place the power of regulating their own mode of procedure in the hands of a Joint Committee. At the same time I am convinced that the present mode of procedure might be greatly improved, and stands in great need of being so, and if a Joint Committee be appointed to consider this question I hope they will not content themselves with recommending some such arrangement as that proposed by this Bill, but will look more deeply into the whole question, and consider whether in addition to this some more extensive improvement might not be made in the whole machinery of legislation. No one who has paid attention to the course of Public Business in either House during the last few year's can fail to be sensible of the truth of what has been stated by the noble Marquess, that Parliament has become less and less able to deal satisfactorily with the vast mass of legislation which comes before it. There are a number of subjects of the highest importance which, for sheer want of time, fail to receive the consideration and despatch at the hands of Parliament to which they are entitled. There are notoriously many points in our law which require speedy improvement which are postponed from year to year and from Session to Session because there is not, under existing arrangements, time for their being properly attended to. In my opinion this press of business has become so great an evil that I am persuaded that in some mode or other, whether by means of a Joint Committee, such as is now proposed, or55 by some more deliberate method of inquiry, it is absolutely necessary to re-consider the whole machinery of our legislation; and I am convinced that a great deal may be done by the improvement of that machinery. The noble Lord has said very truly that much depends upon the manner in which Bills are prepared before they are brought before Parliament, and I do not think that our existing arrangements in that respect are at all satisfactory. But I must also submit to your Lordships that after Bills have been brought into Parliament our mode of dealing with them is most defective. They are read a second time and then they go before a Committee of the Whole House. Any one who knows what a difficult task it is to frame an Act of Parliament in such

  613
  a manner that it stall clearly and accurately express the intentions of the Legislature, must see that if a Bill has been ever so carefully drawn up in the first instance, when the wording of the clauses comes to be discussed in a Committee of the Whole House, when Amendments are made in them, and new clauses are introduced, it is impossible that these can be properly considered by so numerous a body, with their bearing on the rest of the Bill and on the existing law. A Committee of the Whole House is not only utterly unfit to deal with the details of a Bill, but, in doing so, wastes much valuable time, and thus stops the work of necessary legislation. I am sure my noble Friend (Lord Russell) must, like myself, have a lively recollection of the many weary hours we sat on the Treasury Bench in the House of Commons in carrying through Committee some of the important measures proposed by Lord Melbourne's Government. In Bills which had been drawn up with the best professional assistance, it was common to hear Members proposing verbal Amendments, to which, at a moment's notice, and without an opportunity of deliberately considering their effect on other clauses of the Bill, it was difficult to perceive the objections, and thus Amendments which afterwards proved highly inconvenient were sometimes made with very little consideration. After we had been toiling from five until nine or ten o'clock in the evening, Gentlemen who had been much more agreeably engaged, and who were ignorant of what had occurred in the early part of the evening, used to come down to the House, take part in the discussion upon the Bills, and propose Amendments which were utterly inconsistent with what had been previously done. I even remember it to have happened that one of our own Colleagues had come down at a late hour and jumped up most gallantly to help us in defending some clause from an injudicious Amendment which had been pressed upon us, but unfortunately he did so upon grounds totally opposed to those upon which we ourselves had taken in his absence. From practical experience, therefore, I believe that a Committee of the Whole House is utterly incompetent to discharge the duties imposed upon it. The result of our present system of legislation is that, when a Bill has become law it is found
  614
  to be so full of inconsistencies and blunders, and so difficult to understand that the time of our Judges and our courts of law is wasted in endeavouring to reconcile one inconsistent clause with another, and to put some rational meaning upon the aw lwe have made. It often happens, too, that while the early clauses in a Bill are discussed at unnecessary length, those in the latter part of a long Bill, which are not brought before the House until it is tired of the subject, are hurried through with scarcely any consideration whatever. In the early period of our Parliamentary history, I believe, the Houses of Parliament never attempted, as they now do, to deal with the technical task of putting an intended new law into words. At that time the substance of a measure was agreed to by the Houses of Parliament, but the manner in which that substance was to be worked out was left to be decided by the Judges. I do not desire to see these matters mixed up with the consideration of the present Bill, but I do hope that in some mode or other Parliament will consider whether it cannot improve its machinery of legislation. It is impossible our Acts of Parliament can be correctly drawn under the present system; but Parliament might depute to other persons what I may call the mechanical and technical task of settling the legal phraseology by which its objects are to be accomplished, without abandoning its proper control over the substance of legislation. Some such reform is urgently wanted to improve and expedite the process of legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One or two of the points suggested by your Lordships in this discussion appear to me of considerable importance apart from the measure itself which has been proposed. I desire, however, to say a few words on two points only. I do hope that if a Joint Committee of the Members of both Houses be constituted in the manner which has been proposed, they will not fail to secure for the future the due framing of Bills which are to become the law of the land. It has been said by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) that it is the business of the Government to see that the Bills which they bring forward are properly drawn and presented in a fit and proper manner. That, no doubt, is so; but my noble and learned Friend cannot forget

  615
  that in the other House of Parliament there are many Members who, whatever the nature of the measure under consideration, think they can improve the wording of the Bill. Bills of magnitude, such as those dealing with the question of bankruptcy, the amendment of the mercantile law, or other measures which affect great classes of the country, are necessarily divided into a great number of clauses; and upon a Bill of perhaps 400 or 500 clauses, I will not say the interference, but the intervention of Members immediately occurs, who fancy that they can improve the wording of each particular section. The consequence is that when these Bills ultimately reach the Judges numberless provisions are so inconsistent with each, other that it becomes a matter of great difficulty to give effect to the intentions of the Legislature, or frequently to discover what the intention really was. Now, if the Joint Committee, the constitution of which had been suggested, could be induced to recommend that the Houses of Parliament should concur in confiding to officers of their joint selection the task and duty of revising Bills with respect merely to their wording—but not as to other matters—before they received the Royal Assent, you will be taking one of the very best steps which has been taken for many years to promote an intelligible system of legislation. And, more than this, by appointing gentlemen of such ability as you ought to command, an easy means will be provided of digesting each Session the different Acts of Parliament which are passed, and of bringing their provisions into accord. Instead of having 160 new statutes passed every year, by applying to them some degree of method and classification, the mass of legislation presented to Parliament might be reduced by one-fourth or one-third of its present amount. After the discussion which the Bill has received I need not detain your Lordships with any general observations; but I must make one remark upon an observation which has fallen from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. He told your Lordships that there is no difficulty in passing a Bill through the Legislature rapidly and promptly, provided it be carefully prepared and properly worded; and he gave, as an illustration, the Lands Clauses,
  616
  the Railway Clauses, and the Companies Clauses Consolidation Acts. My Lords, I am unfortunately old enough to remember the very commencement of those clauses, from the time, I may say, when they were in their cradle. I am not going to inflict their history upon your Lordships; but I will shortly state that these clauses originally came from other Acts, being inserted in every Bill by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who preceded the noble Lord in his Office of Chairman of Committees. They were called "Lord Shaftesbury's Clauses," and were inserted totidem verbis in every Bill, until it was found that, accidentally, differences had grown up in the copies of the clauses which were so inserted, and accordingly, to correct this error and with a view to future uniformity, it became necessary to embody these clauses in two or three general Acts. These clauses consequently had been nursed into existence for fourteen or fifteen years, and after that long minority they undoubtedly took a perfect shape under the care of the noble Chairman of Committees; and owing to the care and promptness which he exhibited, it was not likely that any clauses of a similar kind would experience much difficulty in passing into law. But the case is very different with any general measure of the character to which I have referred. The unfortunate Bankruptcy Bill has been introduced in the House of Commons by the Attorney General of one Government; in the next year it has again been introduced in the House of Commons by the Attorney General of another Government; in the following year it was introduced into this House by one of my noble and learned Friends (Lord Cairns). But I find that, whether introduced into the House of Commons or this House, that Bill has never had the good fortune to be passed into law, owing mainly, I believe, to the numerous clauses which it contains. If, however, we were to adopt the suggestion which has been made, and were to begin the discussion of the measure simultaneously in both Houses, many disagreeable consequences must follow—as, indeed, has been already pointed out. I apprehend that the wish of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Salisbury) is to economize and not to fill up time; but I can hardly conceive anything less likely to economize and utilize our time than

  617
  our embarking on a discussion of the Bill simultaneously with the House of Commons. There are at least five points in the Bill each of such a character that; any material change in one of these must necessitate a change throughout a great many clauses of the Bill. We might come to a conclusion in this House upon one of these leading points which would be opposed to that arrived at in the House of Commons, and the result would be that the labour of one or other of the Houses would be completely thrown away. I can imagine no greater waste of time than that your Lordships should be discussing the points of a Bill. on the assumption that they still remain in it, when perhaps the other House may I have already struck them out. I trust that when this Joint Committee is appointed, it will not be thought unreasonable that one point at least to be brought under their consideration should be the propriety of having the wording of our Bills supervised before they ultimately pass through both Houses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no reason to be otherwise than grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion for the manner in which they have dealt with and discussed the Bill. There are only two points upon which it will be necessary for me to say a few words. In the main I agree with the Amendments which have been suggested by my two noble Friends (the Earl of Derby and Lord Cairns). The precautions with respect to the Prerogative of the Crown and the assent of the other House of Parliament were introduced by me because I was told that jealousies would be created unless I did so. I, therefore, introduced those provisions, not because I liked them, but to disarm opposition to a Bill which I valued; and I shall be very glad to find that the principle of the Bill in its more simple form is likely to be adopted. I also agree with my noble Friend that it would be a very good arrangement, when the Bill goes back to the originating House, that power should exist to amend the Bill right through, and not merely those portions touched by the other House. With regard to a Joint Committee, the experience which we all possess of these inquiries must convince us that it is a dangerous thing to refe any measure you have a value for to a tribunal of the kind. There is such a
  618
  tendency in Committees invariably to wander into all sorts of complex subjects, their efforts are so borne down by the excess of their own zeal, that before their inquiry has come to a conclusion, the facts which occasioned it are well-nigh lost sight of. That is my fear in the present case; but I am quite aware of the great importance of conciliating opinion and disarming objections in the other House of Parliament. If we could induce a certain number of the Members to meet us and dismiss the matter quietly there would be, I think, a great chance that we should induce them to take a favourable view of the principle of this Bill. I can only, therefore, trust—as we are all willing to do—to the good faith of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), that he makes this proposition for the purpose of getting the question settled, and not for the purpose of delay. With that understanding—which I am sure the noble Earl will not hesitate to enter into—I shall be glad to assent to the reference of the Bill to a Joint Committee. Upon the point of form, I do not know how far we are competent to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee, or to anything but a Committee of our own House, though we are at perfect liberty to suspend the Bill until a Joint Committee of both Houses has reported upon it. Probably that would be the most suitable course to adopt. Of course, if I saw that the deliberations of the Committee were being pursued to an extraordinary length, or that there was no sign of their coming to a conclusion, I should in that case seek to have the Bill re called and proceeded with in the ordinary course. But, subject to that observation, I believe the course suggested is a very proper method of dealing with the subject.
  EARL GEANVILLE: I hope there will be no misunderstanding as to the proposition I made. It is entirely for the noble Marquess to consider whether his proposal for a Joint Committee will be likely to facilitate the progress of the Bill or not. There will be no opposition to it from me in this House, but I have been informed by Lord Eversley, who has been obliged to leave the House, that the noble Marquess is under a misconception as to what occurred in the other House. The Bill was carefully considered by the Committee of the other House, but it was thought better to re-

  619
  port simply against it in order to avoid any points of controversy between the two Houses. The Bill was, however, thoroughly discussed in the Committee upon its merits before that Report was agreed to. I suggested a Joint Committee to the noble Marquess, because there has already been a discussion on the despatch of Public Business in this House. It was admitted on both sides that there are evils to be corrected, and I think it would be advantageous if those evils were considered by persons of experience in both Houses. If this Bill were the only matter for consideration, I could hardly ask the House of Commons to propose so great a machinery as a Joint Committee to consider it. I can assure the noble Marquess that in making this proposal, and in serving on the Committee, if I should be appointed, I shall not have the slightest wish to lengthen its deliberations one minute longer than is necessary. I am grateful to my noble Friend (Lord Russell) for the advice he has given me, and if I go into the Committee I shall have some policy of my own as to what is to be done there. If, however, we are to have a Joint Committee, we ought not to lay down any cut-and-dried principles as to the course we shall pursue. That is the only means by which we can arrive at anything like a unanimous conclusion on the different points to be submitted to the Committee.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I think it most desirable to accept the proposal of the noble Earl opposite, and to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses. Upon that Joint Committee persons of weight and influence in both Houses might serve, and facilities would be obtained for passing this measure. On the other hand, there might be danger to the Bill itself if all the various subjects mentioned by my noble Friend opposite—subjects so weighty, so considerable in extent and in numbers—were included in the Reference. The result might be that the Committee might defer reporting until the close of the Session. Supposing that both the Bill and the other important subjects were referred to the Joint Committee, an Instruction might be added that the Committee should, in the first instance, report on the Bill, and then the Joint Committee might determine the consideration of the other matters of the greatest importance. In this way it might be possible to find
  620
  the means of reconciling the views of both sides of the House.
  EARL GRANVILLE: If there is a Joint Committee there must be a general reference of all the subjects to it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would fix the Committee on the Bill for that day week, and he supposed the noble Earl opposite would arrange for the Joint Committee.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would communicate with the noble Marquess on the subject.

BRAZILIAN SLAVE TRADE BILL.
(The Earl of Clarendon.)
BRAZILIAN SLAVE TRADE BILL.

  (NO. 14.) COMMITTEE. REPORT.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the said Bill, read.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that before he asked their Lordships to go into Committee on this Bill he wished to advert to something that had fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) on the occasion of the second reading. It was absolutely necessary to recall the reasons why the former Bill had been passed, because it was framed and agreed to in order to stop the slave trade, and that trade had been stopped accordingly for ten or twelve years. Exception had been taken by the noble and learned Lord to the Bill, in ignorance, apparently, of the fact that it had been drawn by the Law Officers of the late Government last year. It was intended to be introduced by Lord Stanley, but it was first referred to the Law Officers of the late Government, and was approved by them in the exact form in which it now stood, with the exception of one verbal alteration made at the Foreign Office in the Preamble. He regretted the absence of another noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford), who was generally so regular in his Parliamentary attendance that he had not thought it necessary—as he otherwise should have done—to give him notice of his intention of referring to this matter. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) stated he had not been consulted about

  621
  the measure of 1845 before it passed, and that when it was proposed by Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons he had the greatest difficulty in finding arguments in its favour. It was not regular to read the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, but he held in his hand an abstract of the opinion of the Law Officers of that day upon the Bill. That opinion was conclusive in favour of further legislative enactments such as were afterwards embodied in the Bill, and it bore the signatures of Sir John Dodson, Sir William Follett, and Sir Frederick Thesiger. He felt it his duty to draw the attention of their Lordships to this circumstance, not in order to convict the noble and learned Lord of inaccuracy, but because he feared that the effect of the noble and learned Lord's speech, backed as it had been by that of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the Opposition, would be likely to produce a very injurious effect at Rio. He was, of course, far from attributing any such motive to the noble and learned Lord, but his speech might have the effect of encouraging the owners of Brazilian cruizers to suppose that they had claims against the English Government when no such claims could be recognized. If, however, there were any persons in Rio who looked forward to bringing any such claims before Parliament, on the authority of the noble and learned Lord, it would be well for them to know that the noble and learned Lord, when a Law Officer of the Crown, had signed an opinion directly opposite to that which he had expressed on Tuesday on the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not help thinking it would have been better if the noble Earl, intending to refer to what touched so directly the recollection of his noble and learned Friend on a matter which occurred so long ago as 1845, and regarding which there was a difference of opinion, had given notice, so that his noble and learned Friend might have been present to hear what was said and answer any charge that might be preferred. The noble Earl was about to take a course so unusual, and in his experience without precedent, of reading the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown upon the Aberdeen Act. The opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown to their Governments had always been held to be sacred com-
  622
  munications, never to be divulged to the public.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he had only intended to read the substance of the Opinion.
  LORD CAIRNSmust say the noble Earl took rather a peculiar view of what was private and confidential if he considered that he was entitled to communicate the substance of the opinion, provided only that the words of the opinion were not conveyed to the public With one exception, where a protest was made that it should not be drawn into a precedent, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had always been considered sacred and not to be divulged. But what was of more importance, the noble Earl had not thought it right to inform his noble and learned Friend of the charge in respect to his memory which he perfectly well knew he was going to make. The noble Earl had said that he had criticized the Preamble of the Bill. What he had said was—as the right thing was going to be done, it might be invidious to criticize the manner of doing it; but he thought the Preamble should simply state that it was desirable to repeal the Aberdeen Act. He gave that as his opinion, and their Lordships would, of course, take it for what it was worth. The noble Earl said further that the late Government, of which he (Lord Cairns) was a member, had prepared a Bill on the subject, which had been settled by the Law Officers of the Crown; to which he could only reply that, while he was a Member of the Government no such Bill was even under consideration of the Government, and that he had never heard of it until he heard from the noble Earl opposite that he was about to introduce this Bill. He then told the noble Earl he (Lord Cairns) was glad that it was to be introduced. In 1864, in the House of Commons, he had expressed his opinion in regard to the Aberdeen Act in very unqualified terms—he said—
  " As a question of international law it was impossible to look at that Act without feelings of unmitigated amazement. He firmly believed there was not. a country in the world of whose strength we had reason to be afraid against whom we should ever have ventured to direct such a measure."—[3 Hansard, clxxvi. 1642.]
  When the noble Earl said that the observations which fell from him might have a serious effect in Brazil with re-

  623
  ference to claims which might be raised—that effect might have been produced some years ago; but it was quite impossible that any such claims could be raised by any slaver. Whatever right of objection existed on the part of the Brazilian Government to the law as it existed, no right could exist on the part of any Brazilian subject to make any such claim. It would, be absurd. He repeated his opinion that, although Brazil might have been charged with a violation of the treaty, and though we might have had a perfect right to send in reclamations against the way in which they were violating it, we had no right by legislation to authorize our subjects to seize when they found in Brazilian waters or even on the high seas, but more especially in Brazilian waters, Brazilian subjects engaged in the slave trade. No one could feel more strongly than he did the horrors of the trade which Brazil was at that time carrying on, and the great propriety of this country doing everything that could be done to stop that trade; but it was a very serious thing that we should make a precedent which might be used against ourselves by other countries, as we undoubtedly did when we conducted our legislation in violation of the principles of international law—and he feared that might be said of the Aberdeen Act. To that opinion he still adhered.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he greatly regretted that he had not been present the other night when this subject was referred to, but he would not enter into the personal part of the subject. He would simply say that he quite approved of the principle of the measure which had been introduced for the repeal of the Aberdeen Act. There was one point of the utmost importance, and one which should be put on a proper footing, otherwise not only misconception but positive evil might arise. The subject was of the greatest importance, and it would be most unfortunate if it should go out to Brazil that the Parliament of England had made a great mistake and committed an injustice by the Act of 1845, and that this Bill was a reparation of that injustice. Against such an inference and such a statement he most strongly protested. His belief was that Sir Robert Peel and Lord Aberdeen were incapable of acting contrary to justice towards another country. He believed that the opinion given
  624
  by the Law Officers of the Crown was the right opinion. The question of the slave trade, as already stated by his noble Friend, stood on grounds of high morality, which was the foundation of all international law, and in passing the Aberdeen Act Parliament did an act of justice and morality. No injustice was committed by the Act; it had answered all its purposes, and therefore in duty and wisdom it was now time to repeal it. What was really the efficient cause of the cessation of the slave trade in Brazil? The efficient cause was not any change in public opinion in Brazil, but the order which was given to the Admiralty, by the advice of Lord Palmerston, then at the head of the Foreign Office, that Her Majesty's ships of war and cruizers should go into the waters of Brazil and seize any Brazilian vessel engaged in the slave trade. There was no better title to the regard which the memory of Lord Palmerston was always sure to inspire than that which he derived from the acknowledgment that he always looked to the justice as well as to the technicalities of a case. The consequence was, as had been reported by Dr. Livingstone, that in Africa the name of Lord Palmerston was known and celebrated as the name of a man who had put an end to that inhuman and abominable traffic called the slave trade. He was very sorry that there should be any person whatever who should call in question the justice of the Act of 1845, and that the motive of passing a Bill for the purpose of repealing it should in any way be misunderstood. He had himself in the House of Commons opposed the repeal of that Act, and he should have opposed it now if the slave trade of Brazil were not abolished. It was the honour and glory of this country to have suppressed that horrid traffic called the slave trade, and he trusted it would soon be possible to withdraw the African squadron from the station where so much loss of life and hardship had been suffered in order to extinguish it.
  House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without Amendment; and. to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.