Sitting of 11 February 1870

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, appointed; Printing, appointed and nominated; Public Petitions, appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—National Debt Acts.
Ordered—First Heading—Savings Banks [15]; Married Women's Property * [16]; Dissolved Districts and Unions [17]; Railway Construction Facilities Act (1864) Amendment [18].

INDIA—STAFF CORPS OF INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, On what grounds a pecuniary premium is paid out of the taxes of India to subaltern officers of the Royal Army to induce them to enter the staff corps of India, to the exclusion of the sons of old officers of the Indian Army, and others, while numerous gentlemen are prepared to compete for a commission in the military service of India, upon any prescribed standard of agreement, and proceed to India free of cost to the State?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply, Sir, to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, I have to say that he has been misinformed. No pecuniary premium is paid out of the taxes of India to subaltern officers of the Royal army to induce them to enter that portion of the Royal army called the staff corps of India; but when a subaltern officer of not more than four years' service, belonging to a purchase corps, joins the staff corps, he receives, not out of the taxes of India, but from the War Office, the same sum which he would have received if he had sold out. The latter part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question points to a policy entirely at variance with that which has been pursued since the amalgamation of the Royal and Company's armies—that policy being to weld these two armies together, and to allow no one to join the staff corps or specially Indian portion of the Royal army as now constituted, who has not passed some time in, and formed some associations with, a regiment not permanently connected with India.

INDIA—FURLOUGH AND RETIRED PAY OF INDIAN OFFICERS—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, as the dividends upon India Stock hare always been paid upon the sixth of the month on which they become due, and as Consols and Reduced Government Stock are now paid upon the sixth of the months upon which they respectively become due, a day could not be fixed for the payment of furlough and retired pay of Indian Officers, instead of the second Monday of the months which occasionally as in the present month of February, delays the payment until the fourteenth of the month, to the inconvenience of the recipients?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in compliance with the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, for which I have to thank him, the furlough and retired pay of Indian officers will be payable here-after on the 8th day of the month following the month to the last day of which the pay is made up. For instance, the three months' pay to the 31st of January will be issued on the 8th of
February. Payments to agents will be made, as at present, on the two preceding days.

NAVY—CRUISE OF THE CHANNEL AND MEDITERRANEAN SQUADRONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, To state to the House the object of his recent cruise with the Channel and Mediterranean Squadrons; and, if he will have any objection to furnish a Return of the vessels engaged in the said cruise; such Return to include their names, tonnage, number of officers and men, cost of wages, stores, and provisions per month, consumption and cost of fuel per diem, average speed attained per hour under steam or canvas, separately and together; together with the number of days' fuel each vessel is capable of carrying?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I may refer him to the answer I gave on the 27th July last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Derbyshire (Captain
  166
  Egerton), when I stated that it had been for some time the wish of the Admiralty to bring together the Channel and Mediterranean Fleets, and that we proposed, in order to obviate objections which might possibly be made in consequence of the Vice Admirals commanding the two fleets being nearly of the same rank, to join the Mediterranean Fleet at Gibraltar, and that the two fleets should cruise under the Admiralty flag. I may add, as a further reason, that both my gallant colleague Sir Sydney Dacres and myself were anxious to see much that we could not know except by personal observation, especially as to the performances of the ships of more recent construction—the Hercules, the most formidable iron-clad broadside ship in the navy; the Monarch, our most formidable turret-ship; and the Inconstant, the most powerful and swiftest unarmoured frigate. Perhaps I may say that the result has been, in our opinion, very satisfactory; and that, with reference to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I shall lay on the table the Report of the Captain of the Fleet, special Reports as to the ships of new type, a Memorandum by the Controller of the Navy, and a Minute of the Board of Admiralty. These Reports will have tables attached, which, if they do not give the full details asked by my hon. Friend, will give sufficient, I believe, for his purpose.

ARMY—YEOMANRY CAVALRY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Yeomanry Cavalry Force is to be placed on a different footing; if so, by what regulations is it to be governed; and, if reductions are contemplated, whether they will take place at once or as vacancies occur?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, some regulations are in contemplation for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the Yeomanry Corps, and, with the permission of my hon. Friend, I will state them when I introduce the Army Estimates. Some reductions will be made; some will be immediate, and others prospective.

ARMY—CADETS TO WOOLWICH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any change is contemplated with respect to admission of Cadets to Woolwich; if so, whether the new rules will affect detrimentally young men preparing for their examinations on the faith of existing regulations?
  MR. CARDWELL: Yes, Sir, some changes are in contemplation in the rules for the admission of cadets at Woolwich, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission on Military Education. They will not, however, affect candidates for the examination at Midsummer. The only change which will be made at Midsummer will be that the examination will be conducted by the Civil Service Examiners, instead of those who used formerly to examine.

INDIA—PUNJAUB TENANCY ACT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India. Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of the Despatch of the Secretary of State for India to the Governor General of India, and of the Minutes of the Members of Council, on the subject of the Act passed by the Council of the Governor General for making Laws and Regulations in October 1868, called the Punjaub Tenancy Act; also of the Despatches of the First Governor of the Punjaub, and other Papers on the same subject?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that it will give me much pleasure to lay upon the table full information about the Punjaub Tenancy Act, including all or most of the documents which he has mentioned.

ARMY—SERVICE AMMUNITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If the General Order which was issued in September last depriving Soldiers when not on duty of their service ammunition, in order to afford security against military homicides, is in
  168
  force in Ireland; and if not why not; and, if he has any objection to lay before the House any Correspondence that has taken place on the matter?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that when the Order requiring that the service ammunition should be taken from soldiers not on duty, and placed in the regimental magazines was issued, in September, general officers in command of districts were desired to use their discretion, and if they thought that the state of the locality required any exception to be made, they were to forward a representation to that effect to His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief. Lord Strathnairn had reported that it was desirable there should be a suspension of the General Order in Ireland, and that report was approved.

NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE—SITE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will state what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the Site of the intended Courts of Justice, and as to the plan of the Building?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that Mr. Street, the architect of the New Courts of Justice, was now engaged by his directions in drawing up plans for the construction of the courts within the limits of the site prescribed by the Act passed in 1865, also within the limits of the funds which were provided by the Act passed in the same year. It was a very difficult work, and required a great deal of time and attention. He hoped—indeed he had no reason to doubt—that Mr. Street would in the end succeed in fulfilling his instructions; and, assuming that the requisite consents were obtained for proceeding with the work, and that the plans were approved, he saw no reason why the work should not be commenced at an early period. At present, however, they had not arrived at a point at which he could tell his hon. Friend what the plans and arrangements were.
  MR. HEADLAM: Is it a part of the plan that there shall be a communication from the north to the south side of the Strand?
  MR. AYRTON: That is exactly a part of the plan as to which I am not in a

  169
  position to give information. If there should be no funds provided by Parliament for making such communication it cannot be carried out, however desirable it may be; but that, of course, will be considered with all other matters relating to the work.

ARMY—SANDHURST CADETS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the rumour that has appeared, in the public papers, that the giving of commissions without purchase to the successful Cadets at the last half-yearly examination at Sandhurst is indefinitely postponed in consequence of the contemplated reductions in the Army, is true; and, if so, whether he is disposed to take the case of these young men into his especial consideration?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, that the Government thought it right to give commissions to all the young men who had passed the last half-yearly examination at Sandhurst.

POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH INDIA AND THE COLONIES.—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, Whether it is intended by Government to afford facilities for communicating with India and the Colonies by post and telegraph, to cheapen postage, and to increase the speed and accuracy of telegraphic messages; and also, as far as practicable, to give to Her Majesty's subjects at home and in India and the Colonies the advantages conferred on merchants and others engaged in transactions with the people of America; and, if it be so intended, when the desired improvements may be expected to be made?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the circumstances under which the postal communications between this country and India and America were conducted were very widely different. In the case of America there were several lines of communication, and a certain amount of competition existed. It was therefore possible to get the service done for a comparatively moderate payment. In the case of the communication with India there was practically no competition whatever; the whole ser-
170
vice was in the hands of a large company, whose receipts from other sources were not very large, and to whom it was necessary, therefore, to give a very large subsidy, which, considerably exceeded the amount derived from postages, even at the enhanced rates. There were other circumstances which also rendered the two cases very different. In the case of America, a great portion of the correspondence passed between persons belonging to the poorer classes, and there was every reason to hope that a reduction in the rates would be followed by a very considerable increase in the quantity of letters sent. In the case of India, on the other hand, there was no reason whatever to anticipate any large increase in the letters sent would follow from a reduction of the postage rates which existed two years ago, or even from a still lower scale. A great part of the correspondence with India was commercial, and the rates now charged, though high, could not be deemed excessive when the service performed was considered. He could not, therefore, hold out the prospect of any reduction of the postal rates between this country and India and the Colonies served by the Peninsular and Oriental route. As to the part of the hon. Member's Question which related to telegraphic communication, the House was probably aware that the rates for telegraphic messages were fixed by the companies to whom the lines between this country and India belonged, and the Government had no control over those rates nor over the management of the lines. They were, however, in communication with some of the companies, and would do their best to urge them to give the public the advantage of every facility connected with the rapid and accurate transmission of telegraphic messages.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If it be his intention to introduce this Session a Bill to repeal or alter the Ecclesiastical Titles Act?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to propose to Parliament, in the course of the Session, a measure on the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and to propose it with

  171
  a view and with the hope, if possible, of passing it into law during the present Session. But in the actual state of Business, and with the mass of measures announced in the Queen's Speech, he could not feel at all confident that it would be in their power to introduce it before Easter. There would be no use in introducing the Bill until they approached the time when they would have a probable chance of carrying it forward.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.—QUESTION.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What steps Her Majesty's Government have taken or propose to take for the purchase of a site for the enlargement of the National Gallery, for which votes have already been taken; and, whether it is intended to proceed at once with the new building?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he might state that Her Majesty's Government, and their predecessors in Office, had taken the requisite steps to acquire the site which had been provided by the several Acts of Parliament passed for the purpose; and he believed the whole of the land would be obtained before the close of the present financial year. But the Government had not been able to consider fully what steps were to be taken for the purpose of erecting the new building. They had hardly yet arrived at a conclusion on that matter.

NAVY—WHITWORTH GUNS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there is any truth in the report that it is intended to arm any of Her Majesty's ships with Guns manufactured on the Whitworth pattern; and, if so, if he will lay on the Table of the House any Report which has led him to adopt this Gun for further trial?
  MR. CHILDERS, in reply, said, the Admiralty had proposed to the War Department that Sir Joseph Whitworth and Co. should be called upon to tender for the construction of a rifled muzzle-loading gun on his principle and of his metal, for the purpose of competition with a rifled gun constructed on the service principle. Their object in doing so was to decide by experiment which of the competitive principles it would be
  172
  most advisable to adopt for the very large guns which were to be used in the large turret-ships now in course of construction. It had not yet been decided whether Sir Joseph Whitworth's tender should be accepted.

NAVY—THE GUNS OF HER MAJESTY'S SHIP "HERCULES."—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there is any foundation for a report which appeared some weeks ago of the disabling of the heavy guns of Her Majesty's Ship "Hercules?"
MR. CHILDERS: The 10-inch guns in the Hercules are vented in a peculiar manner for the sake of experiment, the upper part being of copper and the lower part of platinum; in five of these guns the platinum tip forming the lower part of the vent, and which projects into the bore, has been broken off by the effects of firing heavy charges; but four of these guns still remain in a serviceable state, and could be fired with perfect safety in case of necessity. The other gun was severely injured on the 14th of December while firing at target practice by a Palliser shell, filled with 10 lb. of powder, bursting prematurely in the bore near the muzzle, and is unserviceable. A flaw also exists in the cascable screw of a sixth gun; but until it has been examined by the Woolwich authorities, it cannot be ascertained whether it is of importance. It has been decided to revent the whole of the 10-inch guns with copper, which can be completed in fourteen days after the ship's arrival at Portsmouth; and a 10-inch gun has already been sent there to replace the one damaged by the Palliser shell.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MORNING SITTINGS, &c.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose, during the present Session, any alteration of the Standing Orders with reference to Morning Sittings, and to the practice of counting out the House, especially on those occasions when the House reassembles at nine o'clock after a Morning Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, our attention has not, up to the present, been given to the subject of Morning Sittings; but I think our opinion generally is that the practice of recent years has been satisfactory, and that it would not be wise to alter the hours at which the House meets on Wednesdays. We have not observed any sufficient reason for taking that step. The usage first introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) of meeting from two to seven on other days when a Morning Sitting is to be held, has been a very decided improvement on the old practice of meeting; from twelve to four, and resuming at six. With respect to the subject of counting out the House, all I can say is that I agree so far with the apparent intention of the hon. Member's Question that I think the matter will require to remain under the vigilant observation of the House and of the Government. The laws of political economy command us all, whether we will or not; and I am told that the facilities provided for exporting Members from the House about the hour of seven, and re-importing them at a later hour, have decidedly enhanced the difficulty of maintaining the necessary quorum within those hours. I can assure the hon. Member that the matter will be kept in view, and that we will not shrink from the necessity of proposing a remedy in case circumstances should appear to call for one.

IRELAND—PARTY PROCESSIONS ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government have caused the promised inquiry to be made into the operation of the Party Processions Act; and, if so, what was the result of the inquiry?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, that the intimation he gave last year was to this effect, that the Government would, during the Recess, carefully look into the matter of party processions in Ireland, and if they thought it requisite to order a special inquiry to be made into it, they would do so. But they had not deemed it necessary to institute an inquiry in that special form, and he should be able to state the intentions of the Government on the subject early in the Session.

TURNPIKE TOLLS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill for continuing the Tax known as Turnpike Tolls in those cases where the original Act empowering the levying such Tax on the public has expired; and, if so, whether such Bill will be introduced at an earlier period of the Session than heretofore?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in reply, said, he was afraid that the system of bringing in these Turnpike Tolls Continuance Acts must be endured for some time longer by his hon. Friend and himself, however liable to objection they might think it, as great injustice would be done in many individual cases if the Acts of trusts in debt were allowed suddenly to expire. As to the period of the Session when the Bill would be introduced, he would give his early attention to the subject, so that those hon. Members who desired to discuss it should be placed at no disadvantage.

LICENCE DUTIES—FARM HORSE LICENCES.—QUESTION.
MR. MILBANKsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been drawn to the letter that appeared in the "Times" addressed to Mr. W. E. Welby, M.P. on the subject of "Farm Horse Licences," and dated 29th January, 1870; and, if so, whether it is proposed by the Government to introduce a measure for exempting Farm Horses from Licence, only when employed in drawing materials for the repair of the parish roads?
MR. WALTERsaid, before answering the last Question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would perhaps permit him to supplement it by another of a similar character—namely, Whether any and what change has been made by the financial measures of last Session in respect to farm horses let out for hire; and also whether a farmer is liable to the payment of the 15 s. duty for allowing a plough-boy to saddle a pony?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I shall commence with the last Question first, because it relates to the pony. I wish my hon. Friend had given me notice of it, for I am not prepared to go into the details of the ques-

175
tion; but with regard to the inquiry of the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Milbank), and also that of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), I have to say that, as far as am aware, the Act of last Session made I no alteration with respect to the exemptions in the case of agricultural horses. But a number of ingenious gentlemen in the country have been exercising their minds in putting all manner of cases, and inquiring what would be the conduct of the Government with respect to those cases. Now, in the case of these Acts by which taxation is imposed there is what may be called a "customary interpretation." They have not been interpreted in a strained manner or like ordinary Acts; but if a number of persons—I am not now speaking of the hon. Member for Yorkshire—insist on putting questions as to whether this thing or that comes under the law—as to whether they will have to pay before they are asked—they will find in the law a strictness which neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the head of the Inland Revenue would like to give it. I would caution all those who do not desire to pay more taxes than they can help that they would act wisely in refraining from this species of interrogation. Such questions can hardly have the effect of mitigating their taxation, while I think they might have the effect of increasing it. The head of the Revenue might be inclined to be a little forbearing even in cases which I could not stand up and say in the face of the House of Commons and the country were within the strict terms of the legal exemption. In reply to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member for Yorkshire, I beg to say that I have no intention of introducing such a measure as he refers to, because to do so would be to introduce an Act to increase the exemptions of persons employing agricultural horses. The words of the Act are "a horse kept for the purposes of agriculture." Putting a lenient construction on those words, a man may be said to keep a horse for the purposes of agriculture though he may sometimes employ it gratuitously for other purposes; but when the horse is let out for hire, if the question be pressed on the Government, I must say that the exemption does not apply. As I am not very strongly impressed with the expediency of exemptions, I cannot
176
say that I have any intention of bringing in a Bill to extend them.

ARMY—THE IRISH MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If the Irish Militia will be called out for training this year; also if he can state what has been the cost of that body since it was last called out for training; and, if not, whether he has any objection to have a Return of that cost made out, and laid upon the Table of the House?
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, in reply, that it was not intended to call out the Irish Militia for training this year. He could not state what the cost of that body had been since it was last called out, but if the hon. Member moved for a Return on the subject there would be no objection to comply with his Motion.

METROPOLIS—THAMES EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN GROSVENORsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Lords of the Treasury concur in so much of the Forty-seventh Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests and Land Revenues, presented to Parliament June 29th, 1869, as recommends building upon property belonging to Her Majesty upon the Thames Embankment, to the extent of 2 acres 2 roods 19 poles, or whether arrangements will be made to deal with this portion of Crown property in the same manner as the remainder of the site acquired by the Metropolitan Board of Works is dealt with in the Thames Embankment Act, by which Act such remainder is set apart in perpetuity for purposes of public recreation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, eleven acres of land below high water-mark, belonging to the Crown, were taken for the purposes of the Embankment. Of those 11 acres the Crown has retained 5½ acres, but it has received no compensation for the remainder. We do concur with the recommendation in the Report of the Commissioners that buildings should be erected on 2½ acres of the 5½ acres, the property of the Crown. I do not think it would be right to lay out in gardens so valuable a plot when it may be de-

  177
  voted to buildings and produce money which may be applied in relief of taxation.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE, 1860.—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, of which he had not given him notice. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman was not now prepared to answer it, he should repeat it on a future occasion. He wanted to know, Whether any Papers having reference to the negotiation for the renewal of the French Treaty had been submitted to the Legislature of France; also, whether any Papers relating to a proposal for a commercial treaty with Austria had been laid before the Reichsrath; and also, whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay any Papers connected with either subject on the Table of the House of Commons?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he presumed the Question of the hon. Member related to Papers supplied from this country?
MR. NEWDEGATE: Papers from the Foreign Office.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not aware that any Papers from this country had been laid before the Corps Legislatif or the Reichsrath. Reports had been conveyed to them of proceedings in France and Austria with respect to the Commercial Treaty; but he was not aware that any Papers had been sent from this country, or that any official intervention of that kind had taken place. If the hon. Gentleman had received specific information which led him to believe that any particular Papers had been laid before the bodies mentioned, and would furnish him with the means of tracing the fact, he would take care to inform himself on the subject.

MOTION FOR SUPPLY.
Order for Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty," read.
Queen's Speech referred.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ELECTIONS—EXPENSES OF RETURNING OFFICERS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the Returning Officer for the Borough of Southwark, as set forth in the Petition of George Odger, a candidate for the said Borough; and to move a Resolution thereon. The House was aware that there were three candidates in the field, and that one of them, Mr. Odger, was a member of the working classes, whose interests, influenced by a laudable ambition, he desired to represent in that House. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) did not wish to impute any unworthy motive to the High Bailiff of Southwark, but he did intend to submit that there were good grounds for the adoption of the Resolution of which he had given notice. On the 3rd of February Mr. Odger called upon the High Bailiff, who was the Returning Officer for the Borough, and deposited with him the sum of £100. The next day Mr. Odger received a letter from the High Bailiff stating that the £100 would be applied towards Mr. Odger's share of the official expenses of the election. The letter went on to say that there was no legal obligation on the High Bailiff to provide accommodation for check clerks, &c, but that in order that such accommodation might be provided he asked Mr. Odger to increase his deposit to £200, the latter being the sum lodged with him by the two other candidates, Colonel Beresford and Sir Sidney Waterlow. Before Mr. Odger's Election agent was aware of this letter, he called on the High Bailiff to obtain the usual documentary information with reference to the polling places and matters of that kind, and also to procure tickets for the admission of Mr. Odger's supporters to the Southwark hustings. The High Bailiff refused the information, and also the tickets; and he intimated that unless the deposit was increased to £200 he would not provide accommodation for Mr. Odger's polling clerks. The law relating to the subject was contained in two statutes. By the Reform Act of 11832, 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 68, the returning officer was bound, at the request; of each candidate, and if not at his request, as far as he should deem it expedient, to provide polling booths for the various polling districts. The 71st section enacted that the expenses should

179
be paid by the candidates in equal proportions, and it prescribed the number of deputy returning officers and polling clerks and their remuneration. By the 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, s. 3, it was declared that a candidate should be held to be any person who had been elected or nominated, or who should declare himself to be a candidate. Therefore, until a person has been elected, nominated, or has declared himself to be a candidate, no liability attached to him in respect of polling places. His first complaint against Mr. Gresham was that, when he made his demand for expenses, Mr. Odger was not a candidate within the meaning of the Act; indeed he could not have been a candidate, the vacancy in the representation not having then occurred. Mr. Odger paid £100, but protested that even this was an excessive amount; and he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) would show that it was. The number of booths to be erected for Southwark was eight. These at the maximum charge under the statute of £25 would amount to £200. The deputy returning officers at these booths received by the same statute £2 2s. each, making £16 16 s., and thirty-eight polling compartments were necessary for the election, involving the employment of thirty-eight clerks at £1 1s., making £39 18 s. for polling clerks. This made a total of £256 14 s., which being divided among three candidates left only £85 11 s. 4d. to be paid by each. But he believed that it would not be necessary to erect eight polling booths, because the High Bailiff might and usually did engage schoolrooms and other places of that kind. As a matter of fact, as he was informed, four had been hired at a charge of from £2 2s. to £4 4s. each; but taking them at £10 a-piece, there was thus a reduction of £60 on the whole, so that the expense to each candidate would be reduced to about £65 or £66, whereas Mr. Odger had already paid £100. The High Bailiff did not allege that Mr. Odger had not paid enough for polling booths, but that he had not paid for the special luxury of providing for the check clerks of the candidates. That objection, however, was mere moonshine, because the space allotted to each polling clerk was large enough to admit of three persons standing behind him, one for each candidate, to see that he took the poll correctly.
180
It was clear that, under the Act, Mr. Odger, until he became a candidate, was not liable for a shilling for providing polling booths; and that, if he went to the poll, he could be sued by due process of law for his share of the necessary expenses incurred; and if he retired the person who proposed him would be liable. In case, therefore, of any excess beyond what Mr. Odger had paid, the Returning Officer was protected by the law, which had made ample provision to boar him harmless. He was not there simply to arraign the conduct of Mr. Gresham, and to vindicate Mr. Odger, but to ask the House to take a larger view of the matter as it affected the freedom of election. If a Returning Officer had it in his power before an election to insist upon payment and to make his own estimate of the probable expenses and to fix it so high that no one but candidates of large means could provide the money, it would follow that the Returning Officer, and not the electors, would practically have it in his power to decide who was a fit and proper person to represent a borough or county. Such a power struck at the root of free election, and it was unwise and unsafe to leave it as it now was. He therefore begged to move his Amendment.
MR. EYKYN, in seconding the Motion, said, it appeared to him that the High Bailiff of Southwark had taken upon himself the responsibility of re-imposing the property qualification, which had been very properly repealed by Parliament. Looking at the matter as a layman, he believed that the High Bailiff had not only acted with harshness, but with utter illegality. On this latter point he hoped to hear the opinion of Her Majesty's Law Advisers. The power vested in Returning Officers was a matter which affected the interests of all who sat in that House.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, all charges and expenses of Returning Officers should be so regulated by Law that the same shall not be at the discretion of the Returning Officer,"—(Mr. Serjeant Simon,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR HENRY HOAREwished to say a few words upon that part of this subject which related to those of the working classes who had aspirations to a seat in that House. It appeared from a Return which had been placed in the hands of hon. Members that morning, that £200 per head was the normal charge; made by the Returning Officers against the metropolitan candidates. In the borough of Chelsea, for instance, where there were four candidates at the last Election, the total charge made by the Returning Officer was £770. He regretted that the Bill of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had not become law, but in default of this it would be a graceful act to pass this Resolution as an instalment of justice and equity to those who desired a seat in that House, but who had not acquired a plethora of wealth. Directly a man became a Member he was asked for subscriptions to everything that could possibly be conceived. He had not only to pay for his seat, but when he had got it he was asked to strip himself of every shilling of his income to forward objects in which other persons took an interest. Though he did not himself desire that Members should be paid for serving their country, still he thought that they ought to be permitted to serve it without being called upon to make such heavy payments. He appealed to hon. Members on the other side of the House to support this Resolution in order to show that they really did take some interest in the working classes.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would support the Resolution on the ground that he thought it of the utmost consequence that the many great obstacles which now existed to working men obtaining seats in that House should be removed. From Papers which had been placed in the hands of Members it would be found that the last Election, inclusive of the expenses of successful and non-successful candidates, cost no less a sum than £1,500,000, so that the House was constituted at a cost of £2,100 per Member. The Paper did not show what proportion of that sum was paid to the Returning Officers, because their accounts had not been added up, but he should think that they would amount to at least one - tenth of the total sum. The expenses of the Returning Officer at Glasgow were £1 per 34 elect-
182
ors, in Belfast per 30, in Birmingham per 24, in Merthyr Tydvil per 19, in Dundee per 15, and in the Royal borough of Windsor the expenses reached the astonishing sum of £1 per 4½ electors. These statistics showed the existence of a great abuse, and he was only sorry that the resolution of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Serjeant Simon) did not go further and declare that the constituencies themselves should pay the expenses of the Returning Officers, in which event the constituencies would take good care that those expenses were greatly reduced.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that it might be convenient, in the course of the few observations he was about to offer to the House, that he should keep distinct that part of the subject which related to the High Bailiff of Southwark from the wider view which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had requested the House to take of the matter. As he understood the law, the High Bailiff had a right, if the candidates thought fit to accept his terms, to enter into a contract with them to afford them all reasonable and necessary accommodation for the election for a certain sum. In the event of the candidates not accepting his offer he was bound by law to provide them with such reasonable and necessary accommodation, and to take his chance of subsequently recovering the expenses he had been put to from the candidates. In the present case he understood that the High Bailiff of Southwark had offered to make a contract with the candidates to provide the necessary election accommodation for £200 per head, that two of the candidates had accepted his offer, while the third was only willing to pay £100, and that thereupon the High Bailiff had said—"I have no power to make you enter into the contract, because whether you enter into it or not is left by the Act of Parliament to your option, but I shall give to those who have entered into the contract more facilities than I shall give you, and I shall decline to give you such reasonable accommodation and facilities as are necessary for putting you upon equal terms with your opponents." That he understood to be the ground taken up by the High Bailiff of the Borough. As he read the law, it was plain that a High Bailiff could not force any candidate to enter into any

183
contract, it being entirely at the option of the candidate to enter into it or not, as he might think fit. The duty cast upon the High Bailiff was to provide the necessary facilities for the accommodation of candidates at elections primarily at his own expense, and he was entitled to recover subsequently a proportionate share of the expenses from each candidate, if he could. It was necessary that he should use the expression "if he could," because, in the famous contest for the city of Westminster, when Sir Francis Burdett was elected without having appeared as a candidate, the Court of King's Bench in the time of Lord Ellenborough held that the High Bailiff could not recover a proportionate share of the expenses from Sir Francis Burdett because he had done no act that placed him in the position of a candidate—he had done nothing but take his seat in the House when elected. It might be very hard upon the High Bailiff that he should have to incur these expenses at his own risk, but such being the law he was bound by it. What the High Bailiff had threatened to do in the present ease—for he hoped that he would be too well advised to persist in such a course of action—was to act in a manner that would amount to misconduct of a public officer in his office, and would expose him to an action by the party aggrieved. The High Bailiff had threatened to give the necessary facilities to those of the candidates who had entered into the contract with him, while he refused them to the one who had not done so, and he apprehended that the High Bailiff had clearly no right to adopt such a course. The facilities of which Mr. Odger was threatened to be deprived, were—first, the accommodation for check clerks; and, secondly, the necessary documentary information to enable him to ascertain at which of the polling booths the electors were to record their votes. Now, in a large place like Southwark, it was of great importance to a candidate to know at which of the polling booths his various supporters were to record their votes, and if he were to be deprived of that information he would be placed at a disadvantage with regard to those who were contesting the seat with him, and therefore the High Bailiff would not be properly discharging his duty as a public officer if
184
he were to withhold it from any of the candidates. Under these circumstances, in the hope that some report of the proceedings in that House might come under the notice of the High Bailiff, he ventured to submit to him for his consideration the well-known doctrine of law, that if a man was guilty of misconduct in a public office, whereby a private person suffered a private wrong, he would be liable to an action for damages, and to recommend him to be well advised before he exposed himself to the certain risk and the possible success of such an action by conduct such as that he had threatened to pursue in the present instance. He could not see that the present law, if fairly acted upon, afforded, as regarded the candidates, any real ground of complaint. He had not seen the Return to which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had alluded, but he believed it showed the most ludicrous disproportion between the fees demanded in different places; and perhaps the fact that large sums were occasionally demanded and paid arose from the amiable state of mind in which candidates usually found themselves just prior to an election; possibly at a sterner moment they would decline to accede to the claims preferred. It might be proper that the discretion of Returning Officers should be revised by Parliament, and, as far as he could presume to express any opinion, it was a matter well worthy the attention of Government. He, however, submitted to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) whether it would not be better to withdraw his Motion for the present. An abstract Resolution often raised expectations it was difficult to satisfy, and the Motion before the House really did not advance the practical amendment of the law, while it seemed to pledge the House to more than was really intended. His hon. and learned Friend might rest satisfied with having drawn attention to his subject; and he would conclude by expressing an opinion that the Returning Officer had not discharged his duty properly if he had given facilities to one candidate which he had not given to another, and that possibly a recurrence of such conduct would be followed by unpleasant consequences.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, presuming that the statement of the Solicitor

185
General amounted to an assurance that the subject would at some future time receive the attention of the Government, he would withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
Motion considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Queen's Speech read.
Resolved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

NATIONAL DEBT ACTS.

  RESOLUTION'S.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the object of the Bill, the foundation of which I am about to lay, by moving some Resolutions, is to carry out to the fullest extent the policy adopted last year of giving greater facilities to the holders of the Public Debt. Last year the Bank of England consented to allow the dividends to be paid without requiring the personal presence of the holders of Stock; the object of the present Act is to increase the number of payments of the dividends on Consolidated Stock, so that, instead of holders drawing their dividends half-yearly, they will draw them quarterly. This will be very agreeable, particularly to the poorer class of stockholders, who would rather receive their money in smaller sums and at more frequent intervals; and I am induced to hope, from correspondence I have had with the Bank, that it will not be attended with great inconvenience or trouble or expense. I do not intend to enlarge upon the advantages of such a system. Of course, the more convenient we can make this Stock to the holder the more popular we render it, the better the price it will fetch, and consequently the better for the public. Another part of the Bill, ancillary to the former part, aims at absorbing the Reduced and New Three per Cents into the Consolidated Stock. These reduced Stocks, although bearing
  186
  precisely the same interest, probably through being a smaller amount—£277,000,000 altogether—stand at a lower price in the market than the Consolidated. A man must give £100 10 s. of this Stock to obtain £100 of Consolidated; and we propose to give the option of exchanging these Stocks for Consolidated on the payment of 5s. percent—that is to say, if a man holds any Reduced or New Stock he may obtain £100 of the Consolidated by paying £100 5s.; in fact, we take one-half of the 10 s., which is the market price, and give the other as a bonus on account of the transaction. The change is perfectly voluntary; but as we propose to make the Consolidated a more marketable and more convenient investment, by allowing the dividends to be paid quarterly, we believe the change will be made. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolutions.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he believed the 5s. which the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed on the transaction was something in the nature of a fine, and would be fatal to the scheme. Few persons would deem the loss of 5s. compensated by the opportunity of receiving their dividends quarterly; besides, many trustees holding the Reduced Stock had no power to make the change. So far as the holders of Consols were concerned the quarterly payment would be a boon; but the public at large would suffer in the first instance, because paying dividends of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 by anticipation would drain the Treasury just as the taxpayer by paying taxes in anticipation would raise the balances in the Exchequer.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no doubt that the quarterly payment would be a boon to the holders of Consols; he, however, agreed with the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) that the proposed charge of 5s. would be fatal to the scheme, and thought it would be better to consolidate the whole funded debt by Parliamentary authority; without option. He also thought that trustees would be unable to exchange unless they were especially empowered; to do so by the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to introduce.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that as the proposal was optional, it was a very innocent one. It would do no harm and not much good. It was a sort of doubt-

  187
  ful matter whether many people were anxious to receive their dividends quarterly; but, as the Governor of the Bank had stated, the facility was hardly worth paying for. He rather thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it was a scheme not of much value to the public at large. But, it being perfectly optional with parties to make the conversion, it could, as he had said, do no harm. It was one of those many experiments which, perhaps, they would now see constantly occurring in financial matters.
  SIR DAVID SALOMONSsaid, he understood from the statement of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it was the intention of the Government in the Bill he was about to lay on the table to provide that the dividends on Consols should be paid quarterly. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes."] Well, then, he did not see why the holders of the New Three per Cents and Reduced should not have the same boon without the payment of 5s. per cent premium. He thought it would be much better to unify the whole debt. He ventured to press on his right hon. Friend what had been urged by the Governor of the Bank (Mr. Crawford) that when entering into large transactions for the advantage of the public he should not hamper himself by taking a narrow view of small details, but offer to the holders of the other Stocks the same advantage he gave to the holders of Consols free of charge.
  THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUERwould only say, in reply to his hon. Friend the hon. Baronet (Sir David Salomons) that at present when £100 and 10 s. of Reduced was required to obtain £100 of Consols, if he allowed the holder of £100 Reduced to obtain the same boon as the holder of Consols, he would be making him a present of 10 s. percent.
  SIR DAVID SALOMONSsaid, that would only be in case the holder sold.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  (1.) Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Acts relating to the National Debt.

  (2.) Resolved, That it is expedient to convert certain perpetual Annuities into certain other perpetual Three per cent. Consolidated Annuities, and to make provision for the payment quarterly of the Dividends on the Consolidated Three per cent. Annuities.

  188

  (3.) Resolved, That the Dividends due and payable at the Bank of Ireland on the 10th day of October in each year shall, in future, be due and payable on the 5th day of October.

  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in moving that the Select Committee to inquire into the present modes of conducting Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, in order to provide further guarantees for their tranquillity, purity, and freedom, be re-appointed, said, he would detain the House with the shortest possible statement. Hon. Members were well aware that the Committee was appointed early in the Session of last year. They met about the beginning of April, and continued to sit during the remainder of the Session. They examined a great number of witnesses and collected a great amount of evidence. That evidence was printed, and was before the House; and it contained a large amount of information, which, in his opinion, would be found of considerable use when they came to legislate on the subject. The Committee, thinking that the time occupied in the examination of witnesses had extended so far that it would not be possible for them to devote sufficient time to the preparation of their Report, agreed to a Resolution recommending the early re-appointment of the Committee, with a view not to the examination of additional witnesses, but solely to consider their Report. In pursuance of that Resolution it was now his duty to move the re-appointment of the Committee, and, presuming that their Resolution to examine no more witnesses would be adhered to, no very long time need elapse before the Committee reported to the House, and it would be perfectly possible during the present Session to legislate on the Report. He, therefore, begged leave to move the re-appointment of the Committee.
  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."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)

  189
  And, on February 15, Committee nominated as follows:—Marquess of HARTINGTON, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. BBIGHT, 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. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, The O'CONOR DON. Mr. GRAVES, Mr. DALGLISEI, Sir MICHAEL HICKS BRACH, Mr. JAMES, Mr. HOWES, Mr. FAWCETT, and Mr. BOURKE:—Seven to be the quorum.

SAVINGS BANK BILL.

  LEAVE FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the House is aware that the Government have now for many years received, the deposits of the savings banks, and have paid interest to the savings banks for their deposits, coming under obligations to restore those deposits in solido when called upon to do so, being allowed to invest those deposits in certain securities in order to enable them to pay the amount of interest. The rate of interest the Government now pay to the savings banks is. £3 5s. per cent, and the object of the measure which I ask leave to introduce is to reduce that rate of interest by 5s., so that it shall henceforth be £3 per cent. The reasons for that are extremely simple, and, I think, extremely cogent. The Government paying this £3 5s. percent interest to the savings bank is very much in the position a banker would occupy who should receive money on deposit and pay to the depositor a rate of interest equal to what he obtained for the discounting of bills. Such a banker would obviously be a loser in the business, because, in addition to having to pay for his whole establishment, he would lose the interest on the amount he was obliged to keep in his till to meet demands, and would have no margin to cover any deficiency on the realization of his engagements. That is honestly the case of the Government. The interest the Government receives does not protect it from having loss by these transactions. The National Debt Commissioners must keep a considerable balance to answer demands, and it is of the nature of the business they carry on with the savings banks that the money comes in when securities are high and they sell out when securities are low. Therefore it is evident there is an element of loss in these transactions. The only thing to counterbalance it is the rate of interest they receive, and that rate of
  190
  interest is not sufficient to counterbalance it. Now, I think it is a perfectly obvious principle that, though it be the undoubted duty of the Government to take care of these funds and allow a reasonable interest on them, it is not right that the general taxpayer should be heavily burdened in order to make good the deficiency actually occasioned. It is quite enough if we take care of the deposits, that we should give absolute security to restore them in full and pay whatever interest we agree upon, without putting our hands into the public purse and spending large sums of money in order to make up the deficiency. There is an element of socialism in this that ought to be excluded. That is no imaginary case, as I may show by reference to a Parliamentary Paper which gives an account of what was due at the closing of the accounts to the savings banks in November, 1868. It appears that on the 20th of November, 1868, the savings banks were entitled to receive from the Commissioners of the National Debt Office £37,177,000; and the securities held by the Commissioners, according to the estimated price on that day had they been realized, would have produced £34,399,000, so that there was a deficiency of £2,778,000. But that by no means exhausts the whole deficiency, for there had been large losses or deficiencies before that. I think the case very simple, but very clear. Though bound to give the savings banks as good interest as we fairly can, we ought not to give such interest as would involve loss to the taxpayer; and, therefore, I hope the House will allow me to introduce this Bill. There are plenty of precedents for the course I now propose. From 1817 to 1828 the savings banks were receiving £4 11 s. 3d. per cent from the Government. From 1828 to 1844 the Government paid the reduced sum of £3 16 s. 0½d. percent. And from 1844 up to the present time Government has only paid at the rate of £3 5s. per cent. I now propose to reduce the interest to £3 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Savings Banks.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Savings Banks, ordered to be brought in by Air. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. STANSFELD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 15.]

DISSOLVED DISTRICTS AND UNIONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. GOSCHEN, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make provision for the proceedings of Boards of Management and Boards of Guardians upon the dissolution of Districts and Unions, or the annexation of Parishes to Unions, said, the Bill was of a technical character, and it was intended by it to supply certain omissions in the Poor Law of 1834, and the Acts amending the same, with regard to what took place when a Union was dissolved. Provision was only made by those Acts for the adjustment of liabilities between the parishes, but with respect to liabilities due to third parties, which would have to be met by the parishes constituting the dissolved Unions, there was no remedy. The Boards of Guardians were dissolved, and there was no one left responsible or who could be sued. The Bill was of an urgent character, inasmuch as the liabilities of several of the Unions that had been dissolved could not be met until the Bill was passed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to make provision for the proceedings of Boards of Management and Boards of Guardians upon the dissolution of Districts and Unions or the annexation of Parishes to Unions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOSCHEN and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 17.]

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES ACT (1864) AMENDMENT BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WHALLEY, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the Amendment of the Railway Construction Facilities Act (1864). said, the object of the Bill was to remove from the Act of 1864 the power which it conferred on certain railway authorities of putting their veto on the action of the Board of Trade in respect to railway projects, even where the landowners and ratepayers assented. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whose absence from the House he deeply lamented, had intimated his assent to his Motion.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he would not oppose the first reading, but the House was not, therefore, to understand that he agreed to the principle of
  192
  the Bill. He (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) might propose a Bill on the same subject, and he proposed that the second reading should be postponed for a fortnight, to enable the House to judge of the Bill he proposed to lay before it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the Amendment of the Railway Construction Facilities Act (18C4), ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHALLEY and Mr. M'MAHON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 18.]

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Property of Married Women, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, Mr. HEADLAM, and Mr. JACOB BRIGHT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 16.]

  PRINTING.
  Select Committee appointed and nominated, "to assist Mr. Speaker in all matters which relate to the Printing executed by Order of this House, and for the purpose of selecting and arranging for Printing, Returns and Papers presented in pursuance of Motions made by Members of this House:"—Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. CARDWELL, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, The O'CONOR DON, Mr. HASTINGS RUSSELL, Mr. HUNT, Mr. STANSFELD, and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH:—Three to be the quorum.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Select Committee appointed and nominated, "to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that such Reports do in all cases set forth the number of signatures to each Petition:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House:"—Mr. CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. BOXHAM-CARTER, Major GAVIN, Mr. HASTINGS RUSSELL, Sir DAVID SALOMONS, Mr. OWEN STANLEY, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. M'LAGAN, Viscount CRICHTON, Mr. DIMSDALE, The O'CONOR DON, Mr. WILLIAM ORMSBY GORE, Mr. HENNIKER-MAJOR, Lord GARLIES, and Mr. GUEST:—Three to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after Six o'clock till Monday next.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was ordered to be printed. (No. 4.)
The House met; and having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate—
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.