Sitting of 15 April 1872

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 12] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Bank Notes* [117].
Ordered—First Reading—Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* [116]; Factories Hours of Labour* [118].
Second Reading—West Indies (Incumbered Estates)* [110]; Party Processions (Ireland) Act Repeal* [112].
Committee—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections [21], and Corrupt Practices [22]—R.P.
Withdrawn—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, Amendment* [98].

EPPING FOREST (No. 1) BILL—(by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was desirous of saying a few words in order to remove a misapprehension which seemed to prevail that there was any conflict between this Bill and the Epping Forest Bill which he had himself introduced, and which stood for second reading that evening. The object of this Bill was to enable the Corporation of London to purchase the manorial and private rights in Epping Forest for the purpose of applying them to public purposes; and he did not suppose that his hon. and gallant Friend opposite the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Colonel Hogg) would oppose the second reading, but would rather desire that it should be referred to the Select Committee upstairs, where only its details could be properly considered and discussed; and the question could be there raised whether the Corporation might not apply its own property to an object much more useful than the festivities
  1254
  in which they at present spent it. There was, moreover, a misapprehension regarding the connection of the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Corporation property. Now, he had no responsibility and no duties relating to the government of the metropolis; but he had invested in his hands the administration of a large amount of Crown lands not only in the metropolis, but throughout Great Britain, and extending as far as China and Japan. His own Bill only redeemed a promise given last Session, so as to fully carry out the policy of the House that Epping Forest should be maintained as an open space.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman and those who had charge of the Bill, that he should offer no objection to the second reading; but the Metropolitan Board of Works would take care to protect the interest of the ratepayers.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

METAGE OF GRAIN (PORT OF LONDON) BILL—(by Order).—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CRAWFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the City of London possessed by prescription, and also by statutory authority, the right of measuring all grain brought into the port of London for sale, and by the present Bill, the Corporation proposed to commute the charge they now made for a charge of one farthing per cwt. By the proceeds of the funds arising from the charges thus enacted under the Bill, the City would have it in their power to put an end to a vexatious controversy which had subsisted between some portion of the grain trade and the City, and, at the same time, to afford ample compensation to the fellowship porters and others having vested interests under the existing state of things. The measure would also provide the Corporation with the power of doing an act of great practical utility to the grain trade, and would enable the City to devote a large sum of money to an object of great public advantage. The Corporation, moreover, were ready to accept the suggestion made to them by the Government that the proposed commuted charge should be limited in point of years. A public meeting had been held in the Corn Exchange of persons

1255
connected with the corn trade, when the subject was fully discussed; and, with the exception of some opposition shown by the millers, not the slightest unwillingness was shown by the trade to accept this Bill, for of late a feeling had been shown that it was of great importance that there should be some public authority in London which should be able to testify to the weight of the different kinds of grain imported. The City proposed to borrow money on the strength of the commutation, and to purchase up the manorial and other rights connected with Epping Forest, and make it a free and open space in all time coming for the inhabitants of the metropolis. The only parties objecting to the proposal were the Metropolitan Board of Works; but, as their authority was necessarily confined within the limits of their own jurisdiction, which did not extend to Epping Forest, he did not think their intervention would be sanctioned by Parliament. There was no new charge proposed on trade; the City came forward and said—"If you will secure to us, on the terms we propose, this commuted charge for a limited term of years, we will apply the money to the purchase of the manorial and other rights of Epping Forest, and preserve it as an open space in all time coming;" and he could not help thinking such an offer on the part of the City was one of great generosity to the public.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. Crawford.)
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEdid not wish to enter into the question of the acquisition of Epping Forest, beyond saying that it appeared to him to be an object that would commend itself favourably to the House, however it was to be accomplished. He could not but regard this ancient right of compulsory metage as, in itself, highly objectionable, being, in fact, a tax on shipping for municipal purposes, the principle of which had often been condemned. He had, however, lately received an important deputation from the grain trade of London, and he was bound to say the wish expressed was that he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but leave them to deal with the Corporation of the City of London in Committee. For his own part, he would rather see the Bill
1256
sent upstairs, subject to the Instruction of which he had given Notice, than that it should be defeated. He had accordingly stated to that deputation that it would be his duty not to resist the second reading, provided only he saw a prospect of putting an end at some reasonably limited period to the tax. That question he would leave to the Committee to decide.
MR. WINGFIELD BAKERsaid, that he practice of metage was sanctioned by no principle, as substituting weighing for metage was no improvement If the Corporation of London wished to be benevolent they should do it at heir own expense, not at that of others, or at the expense of the poor. Besides, he thought the Corporation had sufficient funds at their disposal from other sources to enable them to effect what they wished. It had been stated that the Bill would only be in operation for a short time, and that the tax would eventually be smaller in amount; but that was the way in which all important privileges were infringed upon, and he therefore objected to the Bill, and regretted that the Motion to read the Bill that day six months was withdrawn. Moreover, if the power sought were conceded to the Corporation of London, it would be impossible to refuse similar applications when they were made by the authorities of other ports, and so they would get back to the 1s. duty on corn on proposals equally generous, which when in force—though it only gave £400,000 to Revenue—gave £4,000,000 to the growers and dealers. Sound and good and consistent legislation was a more generous and benevolent act than all the benevolent acts of all the port cities of England could be.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, there might be some weight in the argument of the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Wingfield Baker) if the Bill proposed a new tax; but the fact was the Corporation was in receipt of money for rendering a certain service, and there was a margin of profit, which went into its exchequer. If this Bill did not pass there would be no abolition of the tax, and it would require another Bill to attain that object. This Bill, moreover, was promoted by the Corporation, with the sanction of the Board of Trade, in order to terminate a long-standing series of disagreements, and he therefore

1257
trusted the Amendment would be withdrawn.
COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he understood that the directors of a dock company had refused to admit the officers of the Corporation to the docks because it was an anomaly that they should measure corn which had to be sold by weight. Otherwise the certificates of the officers were highly satisfactory to buyers as well as sellers, and he should, therefore, support the Bill.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEalso supported the Bill, which, he said, proposed to commute an existing tax, and apply the proceeds no longer to the benefit of the Corporation, but to the purpose of preserving open spaces wherever they might be required in London. In that respect the City was following the precedents of the coal and wine duties, to the appropriation of which during more than 200 years the metropolis owed many of its great improvements; and for the preservation of the Forest, he had more confidence in the City of London than in the Chief Commissioner of Works, who had done nothing to prevent encroachments pending the inquiries of the Epping Forest Commission, which had made little progress. During that time the lords of the manor might have encroached, if the Chancery suit of the Corporation had not been interposed to protect the rights of the commoners. Therefore, those who felt interested in the preservation of Epping Forest owed great thanks to the Corporation of London, who were now seeking for powers—first, to buy up manorial rights, and, second, to apply to this public object the surplus of the receipts obtained from measuring corn. The Corporation, therefore, deserved the assistance and support of all who attached importance to the preservation of open spaces.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he must object to the statement that the Government had neglected to protect the interests of the public and that the Corporation had benevolently stepped in. The facts were that last Session the Government invited the House to pass the Bill, which it did, to enable the Government to protect the public rights in Epping Forest and open spaces; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple) wished to extend that Bill into the area of Private Bill Legislation. Had he succeeded, he would
1258
have defeated the Bill; but, on the matter being explained, he was satisfied and withdrew his opposition, an engagement being given that this Session a Bill should be introduced which would embrace the area of Private Bill Legislation. In fulfilment of that pledge a Bill had been introduced, and it stood for a second reading this evening; but the right hon. Gentleman, to show his consistency, had given Notice of his intention to move that it be read a second time that day six months; so that he was doing his best to defeat the Government in that which he said they had failed to do. During the last six years, which embraced a time when the right hon. Gentleman was First Commissioner himself, the Corporation, possessing all the powers they now had, did not take a single step for the purpose of protecting the rights of the public; they moved only after the passing of the Act of last Session, when all the requisite steps had been taken by the Government, and they only moved to embark in litigation, which he would not speak about, because it involved private rights. Moreover, the Bill proposed to levy a new corn tax on the Port of London. ["No, no!"] At present, the Corporation claimed the power to measure all corn that was brought into the Port of London, whether brought from Surrey, or Essex, or from abroad, and nobody could get any corn unless it had been measured by the Corporation, for which they charged a considerable sum. That claim was, however, once resisted by a wealthy dealer, and they abandoned it. Now they had brought in a Bill in which they proposed to abolish the practice of measuring corn and charging for it, and they proposed to levy an absolute tax on corn, whether they did anything or nothing. That, in his judgment, was a new tax, and it was also a corn tax. It was also proposed to set up little custom houses all along the Port of London in order to levy that little tax. What was really now to be considered, however, was the proposal of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade; and whatever course was taken, it was impossible in common justice to ignore the fact that a number of men who thought that they had a kind of freehold office in measuring the grain would be entitled to compensation. Consequently, his right hon. Friend proposed an Instruction to

1259
the Committee, so that the Committee should introduce appropriate clauses to provide compensation for the people who believed they had vested rights, the principle of which had, indeed, been recognized by the House some Sessions ago. He trusted the House would read the Bill a second time, and then refer it to a Select Committee, in order that the matter might be properly investigated, in accordance with the Instruction proposed by his right hon. Friend.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he trusted there would be no division on the Motion for the second reading. With reference to the Instruction, he did not know how the promoters of the Bill regarded it; but he thought the House ought not to accede to it unless it were accepted by the promoters, The Bill had excellent objects in view; the machinery proposed was well adapted to its purpose; and he thought, therefore, it would be unwise to pass an Instruction limiting its application in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. In his opinion, it had better be sent to the Committee in the usual way perfectly unfettered.
MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he believed that eight-tenths of the House did not care how the Forest was preserved, provided it was preserved; and that seven-tenths of the House did not understand the merits of such an intricate question. He therefore hoped that the Bill would be read a second time, and that his right hon. Friend would withdraw his opposition to the Government Bill, and allow both the measures to go before a Select Committee, so that they might have the benefit of an impartial tribunal upon the merits of the rival schemes. He gave in his adhesion to the Commission and the Government Bill, which he considered was the best calculated to preserve the Forest for the use of the public.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) must have been looking rather to the Instruction of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Hardcastle) than to that proposed by the President of the Board of Trade, which dealt with the question of compensation, and wanted the proceeds of the tax after a certain time to be devoted to other objects. The promoters of the Bill would have to make it plain to the Committee that they were thus dealing with the proceeds of the tax;
1260
and they had accepted the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, because it would leave the Committee not only to deal with the time, but to sanction the application of the tax to other purposes than that of compensation.
COLONEL HOGGsaid, that since 1864 the Metropolitan Board of Works had, on various occasions, addressed the Chief Commissioner of Works, and done their best to get Epping Forest preserved as an open space for the people of the metropolis, and they were still prepared to do their duty in that respect, if necessary.
MR. LOCKE, as one of the Commissioners for the preservation of the Forest, said, all they had done was to meet and discuss what they should do. His right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works had promised to introduce into his Bill a clause, to the effect that no further encroachments should be made in Epping Forest if the Commissioners chose to prevent them. He doubted very much, however, whether that measure would pass, for it contained no provision for arriving at a decision as to what the particular rights of persons connected with the Forest amounted to. On the other hand, the Bill now under consideration would, if the City succeeded, decide, among other important questions, what were the rights of the commoners and of the people who had made encroachments in Epping Forest.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the statement that the Commissioners had done nothing did not accurately represent the facts. They had ordered and obtained a survey of the Forest and of all the encroachments, and till this had been accomplished it was impossible to take any useful action.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he must repeat that the Commissioners had only met among themselves; there had been no public sitting.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE moved—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to provide for the abolition of compulsory Metage, whether by weight or measure; and also to provide for the abolition at a time to be fixed by the Committee of any tax or charge imposed or to be imposed on corn or grain imported into London other than charges made for services duly rendered and voluntarily accepted."
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he must altogether object to an Instruction in such a shape, for he thought it both irregular and unusual to impose, with regard to a Private Bill Committee, an absolute condition as to what its decision should be. In the case of a Committee of the Whole House, or of a Select Committee, the House, if it thought fit, might confer power to do a particular thing, if that power did not already exist; but here the power clearly existed already. It was not the practice, and it would not be reasonable, in committing an inquiry to a particular Committee, to tell them to decide in a particular way.
MR. NORWOODhoped there was nothing in the Rules of the House to prevent the Instruction from being acted upon. If he had not understood that the Instruction was accepted by those having charge of the Bill, he should have opposed the second reading.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he concurred in the view of the last speaker, and if the Instruction had not been accepted by the promoters of the Bill he should probably have voted against the second reading. He should be very sorry if the Rules of the House did not allow him to carry his Instruction. Moreover, he understood from the highest authorities that it was quite within the Rules of the House to impose a condition of this kind upon the Committee, especially as it restricted, rather than enlarged, their functions.
MR. CRAWFORD, as one of the Members for the City of London, entirely concurred in the course proposed to be taken by the Government.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEthought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was establishing a dangerous precedent in setting aside at this stage the discretion of the Committee. As, however, his right hon. Friend relied upon authority, he thought the best course would be to adjourn the debate to afford time for precedents to be looked into, and therefore he should move the adjournment of the debate.
SIR GEORGE GREYnever remembered any instance in which a similar Instruction had been given to a Committee. He, however, thought the Instruction would be put in proper form by inserting the words "that the Committee have power to provide."
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it appeared from May's Parliamentary Practice, that according to the Rules of the House an Instruction did not order a Committee to do a certain thing; it merely informed them that they had power to do it. Before the second reading of the Bill was agreed to, he had distinctly objected to the Instruction now proposed.
MR. AYRTONpointed out to the noble Lord that there was a great distinction between the Rules with reference to Public Bills and those with reference to Private Bills. In the case of a Public Bill, an Instruction could only be given to enlarge the powers of the Committee; but in the case of a Private Bill, an Instruction could be given to the Committee, which was in the nature of a condition imposed on the promoters of the Bill by the objectors to it to limit their powers. The Instruction now proposed to be given to this Committee was quite correct in point of form.
MR. BOUVERIEasked, Whether the Government intended to persist in moving the Instruction?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied in the affirmative, understanding that the Motion was in Order.
MR. BOUVERIEwished to have the opinion of Mr. Speaker as to whether it was in accordance with the Rules of the House to instruct a Committee positively that they should do a particular thing?
MR. SPEAKER: It is certainly unusual to give Instructions of this nature to Committees on Private Bills; but if the House thinks fit to give a specific direction in this matter it is quite within its competence, and there is nothing in the proceeding opposed to the Orders of the House. I am bound, however, to say that the proposal to make the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth seems to be out of Order, for this reason—that the Committee would clearly have the power of making such provisions without any such Instruction; and it is irregular to give an Instruction to a Committee to do that which they already have power to do.
Motion agreed to.
Instruction to the Committee to provide for the abolition of Compulsory Metage, whether by weight or measure; and also to provide for the abolition at a time to be fixed by the Committee of any tax or charge imposed or to be imposed on

1263
corn or grain imported into London other than charges made for services duly rendered and voluntarily accepted.

METROPOLIS—ABINGDON STREET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, When it is intended to pull down the unoccupied houses in Abingdon Street, which have been purchased by the Office of Works under the powers of the Act 30 and 31 Vict. c. 40; and, whether it is his intention to carry out the works authorized by that Act for the security of the Houses of Parliament?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was not aware that it was necessary to carry out any works for the security of the Houses of Parliament; but with regard to the first Question, the Treasury had ordered the houses to be pulled down, and that order would shortly be carried out.

EXCHEQUER RECEIPTS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the exceptionally large receipts into the Exchequer from the 1st to the 6th instant—viz. £1,831,957 against £993,147 for the corresponding period of last year—be due to the postponement of the contribution from the revenues of India for Military and other charges, at the suggestion of the Treasury, from the last to the present financial year, and thereby diminished the (otherwise) actual surplus of the year ending the 31st ultimo?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no doubt that the excess for that week was due to the causes assigned by the Question; but it was equally certain that that result had not been obtained in consequence of any suggestion from the Treasury.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—MILITIA STAFF PENSIONS.—QUESTION.
MAJOR WALKERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, under the new organization, any provision will be made for granting pensions to sergeants, drummers, and buglers of the permanent Staff of the Militia, having no Line service, but who have served for periods varying from ten to eighteen years, including, in many instances, long periods of permanent embodiment?
MR. CARDWELLstated that by the present regulations no pension was due to any sergeant on the permanent Staff of the Militia under 20 years' service. The intention was, under the new organization, to employ all the members of the permanent Staff who were fit for employment. He was not prepared to anticipate any question that might arise whether those who had been proved to be unfit, and who would not therefore be employed, would be entitled to anything.

ARMY—THE 9TH LANCERS—SUB-LIEUTENANT TRIBE.—QUESTIONS.
MR. HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has any objection to state to the House the nature of the charge brought by Major Marshall, of the 9th Lancers, at a recent Court of inquiry held at Aldershot, against an Officer who was the first to receive a Commission without purchase in that Regiment; and, whether His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief, has given his decision in the case, and what is the nature of that decision? He wished it to be understood that he put the Question entirely in support of the military authorities.
COLONEL GILPINwished, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, to ask, as this was a matter of purely regimental discipline that had already been decided by His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief, Whether he thinks it convenient that Questions of that sort should be made the subject of inquiry in that House, and whether he does not think such a proceeding is calculated to weaken military authority; and, further, whether it really is the case that the Officer referred to as having been the first Officer appointed without purchase was really the first Officer so appointed, or whether there was not three other Officers in that Regiment who received their Commissions in the same manner before him?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I am certainly of opinion that it would not be desirable for the discipline of the Army that the practice of asking Questions with regard to cases of discipline disposed of by His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief should become general. My impression is that the House generally will concur

1265
in that view; but, as I understand, my hon. Friend (Mr. Holms) has put this Question with no desire to impugn the decision, but rather, as he said, in support of the authorities. He wishes the facts to be stated, and under those circumstances I do not see any reason why I should not state them. The facts are these—A complaint was made by Major Marshall attributing to Sub-Lieutenant Tribe conduct unworthy of his position as an officer, and at the same time a complaint was made on the part of Sub-Lieutenant Tribe against Major Marshall and against the officers of the regiment. These complaints were investigated by a Court of Inquiry, of which Major General Lysons was the President. The proceedings of that Court of Inquiry were reported to His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief; and his decision is, that Sub-Lieutenant Tribe shall return to his duty, and that the commanding officer of the regiment shall be responsible for his being received in a proper manner by the officers of the regiment. As to whether he was the first officer appointed without purchase, it is not quite accurate to say that he was the first, but he was one of the first.
COLONEL ANSON: I beg to give Notice that I shall move for the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, and the decision of His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief.

ARMY—MARRIED SOLDIERS.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the desirability of building dormitories for the children of married soldiers in all new barracks, and of adding the same, as far as practicable, to those barracks now in existence?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, we have not, as yet, completed the provision of separate quarters for married soldiers in the older barracks, for which money is annually voted in the Estimates. In the meantime, the introduction of short service will do much to diminish the necessity for an expenditure which would otherwise have become very considerable.

MASTER AND SERVANT (WAGES) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BROGDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Select Committee on the Master and Servant (Wages) Bill will receive evidence; and, if not, why not?
  MR. BRUCEreplied, that it was the Bill, and not the subject itself which had been referred to the Committee. The Committee was not empowered to take evidence, because, in the opinion of the Government, there was ample information contained in the Reports of Select Committees, and of Commissions by whom the subject had been considered, more especially of the Commission of 1871. To enlarge the inquiry would, in the opinion of the Government, tend to defeat the object of the measure.
  MR. BROGDENsaid, that in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he would on Friday move that it be an Instruction to the Committee to receive evidence.

EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITEasked the President of the Local Government Board, When he will lay before the House the continuation of last Session's "Return of the average rate of weekly earnings of Agricultural Labourers in the Unions of England and Wales?"
MR. STANSFELDsaid, in reply, that he had not, as yet, received the Return mentioned in the Question of the hon. Gentleman.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).
COUNTER CASE AND STATEMENT.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. DISRAELI: I wish, Sir, to ask, When the explanatory letter with regard to the proceedings before the Geneva Tribunal will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he desired, before the Question was answered, to put another, of which he had given private notice to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone). They had no right to inquire the grounds upon which the Government based their hope of bringing this matter to a favourable

  1267
  conclusion, nor did they wish to know the arguments on which the Government intended to rely. What, however, the country desired to know, and had a right to learn, was the exact decision at which the Government had arrived. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was out of Order in employing arguments, and must confine himself to stating facts hearing on the Question which he desired to put.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMthen asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government had presented the Counter Case, subject to the denial on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the Indirect Claims were either within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators, or that they, the Arbitrators, had any power to determine whether the Indirect Claims were within their jurisdiction or not; or, whether the reservation made by Her Majesty's Government was limited to guarding the right to protest against any award made under the head of Indirect Claims, or on account of such Claims?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I may answer the last Question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) by saying that, as I understand it, the reservation of Her Majesty's Government is a reservation of all their rights whatever, and is not limited to any particular points. But the substantive part of my answer to him will be my answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who has asked me when the explanatory letter will be laid upon the Table of the House. By "explanatory letter" I presume he referred to what I call the Statement accompanying the Counter Case. It will be laid, together with the Counter Case, on the Table of the House, formally, to-morrow, although I am afraid that as one of the documents is very bulky, two or three days may elapse before the copies are actually placed in the hands of hon. Members.
  MR. DISRAELI: I thought the expression "explanatory letter" was borrowed accurately from the right hon. Gentleman; however, I am perfectly willing to adopt it in the sense he uses it for the convenience of the moment. But what I wish to know is, whether this Note may not be in the hands of hon. Members without waiting for the Counter Case? It would be extremely
  1268
  convenient to the House—and I believe satisfactory to the country—that we should be in possession of the precise language used in that document.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Note is a very brief document, and I see no reason why it should not be in the hands of hon. Members on Wednesday morning. [Cries of "To-morrow."] I do not quite see how that can be done.
  MR. DISRAELI: Then it is understood the House will be in possession of the Note and the language in which the Counter Case is presented to the Council of Geneva certainly by Wednesday morning?
  MR. GLADSTONEassented.

THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BARCLAYasked the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, From what newspaper he the other night read a paragraph stating that eight persons in Taunton, whose names were mentioned, were members of the International, and were said to have signed the Republican document? As a matter of fact, no such persons existed in Taunton, for that borough was as loyal as ever.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, had the hon. Member given him Notice of the Question, he would have brought the extract with him; but he would endeavour to find it and communicate it to the hon. Gentleman, because he quite agreed in thinking it a matter which should be cleared up. But, as the House knew, he never made a statement except upon well-founded authority. ["Question!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, that Returns be ordered of the number of Houses assessed to House Duty in the year ending on the 5th day of April 1871, in each county and division of a county in England and Wales, distinguishing the number charged as follows:—Under £30; £30 and under £50; £50 and under £100; £100 and under £150; £150 and under £200; and so on, rising progressively £50; and, showing also the total amount received in each county and division of a county (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 384, of Session 1867).
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANErose to Order. A question having been put to him, he wished to know whether he was

  1269
  not entitled to state the authority on which he had made his statement. He read from a printed document extracted from a newspaper, and he should be happy to communicate it to the hon. Gentleman, while, at the same time, he was very happy to hear that the Society had no branch in Taunton.

LICENSING BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. HARDCASTLEinquired, How soon the Government intended to introduce their Licensing Bill?
MR. BRUCE: Sir, the Government are very sensible of the disadvantage at which both the House and the country are placed in dealing with two very important measures now before them without having also before them the propositions of the Government on the matter. At the same time, the state of Business in this House makes it impossible to bring forward this important measure at a very early period. We have, therefore, determined to introduce this measure in the House of Lords, and my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies will give Notice this day that he will to-morrow make a statement on the subject.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL 21.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL—[BILL 22.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
Considered in Committee. [Progress 12 th April.]
(In the Committee.)

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL 21.]

  PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  Clause 3 (Offences in respect of ballot boxes and ballot papers).
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKproposed to omit the 5th sub-section of the clause, which made it penal to take any ballot paper from the polling station without authority. He condemned the punishment of two years' imprisonment enacted in the sub-section as being inordinately severe.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, to leave out the words "Without due authority takes out of the polling station any ballot paper; or."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. CORRANCEsupported the Amendment, and remarked that the liberty of concealing one's vote would be bought too dearly if it carried with it—as it would under this clause—the risk of being imprisoned with hard labour for two years through an act which might be the result of accident, If it were impossible to work the Bill except by pains and penalties, the Committee should not proceed further with it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, for if he had not attempted to guard against the secresy of the Ballot being evaded, he believed he should have been blamed by hon. Members on both sides. That was not only the last of the precautions against the "Tasmanian Dodge," but it had an object which would be admitted to be of considerable importance, for without it, there would be no penalty against any agent, or even against the Returning Officer himself—if such a supposition were allowable—sending out voting papers for the purpose of influencing the election. An agent might get hold of a voting paper, send it out, and thereby the stamp might be imitated, for it was possible that a man might take hold of his voting paper, and afterwards coming to a conclusion that he would not vote, might put it into his pocket and go out. It was very desirable that the voter should not do that, because that voting paper might get into the hands of some person outside. At the same time, care should be taken to prevent an innocent act from being punished as criminal, and he would therefore propose to add to the clause a proviso, to the effect that nothing in that section should render any person liable to any penalty for putting into the ballot box any paper other than that authorized by law, or for taking any ballot paper out of the polling station, unless he did it fraudulently.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILcondemned such penal legislation as this in a Bill intended to encourage people to vote, and believed that these penalties would deter voters from going to the poll at all, and thus increase the apathy already existing among the electoral body.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsuggested that a great deal of time might be saved in the discussion of that Bill if the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the proposal he had repeatedly brought

  1271
  before him both as to the material of a voting card and as to the mode of taking the votes. In the polling room compartments similar to those in the telegraph office of that House should be fitted up opposite to where the Returning Officer sat, and to each voter a card should be issued in which nothing could be concealed or wrapped up. Then they would only want one policeman to see that nobody interfered with the voter in the compartment, and another to see that the voter as he passed along dropped his voting card into the ballot box through a hole like the slit in a letter-box.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply to the hon. Member for Rochester, said, that many hon. Gentlemen had offered him plans, to discuss which might occupy weeks. His hon. Friend's plan was a very good one among others; but it would easily be within his ingenuity, and much more within the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Whitehaven, to propose a great number of Amendments in that plan.
  MR. WESTthought the sentences to be imposed under the 3rd clause were disproportionate to the offences against which they were directed. His experience in the administration of the criminal law led him to believe that the threat of a very severe penalty did not deter so much as the certainty of conviction and punishment. In the case under notice, two years' imprisonment with hard labour would be nothing to an habitual criminal; but it would be excessive in the case of any person committing the offences in question, which were being created offences for the first time by statute, for those persons might naturally be supposed not to be of the habitual class. He should have thought that the penalty of six months' imprisonment would render conviction more probable, and would be effective to deter from the commission of the offence.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the question before the Committee was, whether the provision they were speaking of was to be considered an offence at all. After that was decided, it was open to his hon. and learned Friend to raise the question whether the penalty proposed was too severe.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought that the course of proceeding adopted by the right hon. Gentleman showed an absence of knowledge of human nature.
  1272
  All hon. Members of that House must know the large class of persons who would not pledge themselves to go to the poll, and such persons were not likely to provoke such punishment as was proposed. The first person likely to be punished would be some blundering, honest fellow, while clever, unscrupulous persons might continue to evade the law.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, there were two classes of offences mixed up in this clause, which were of a very different nature—forgery, and marking the papers. That difficulty might be met by leaving out the sub-section.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the Bill bristled with misdemeanours; for it, among others, made it a misdemeanour punishable with two years' imprisonment to take without due authority a paper out of the polling station. He should like to know what the due authority was, for he saw no explanation on the point in the Bill. Two or three lines in the last part of the clause made the attempt to do the same thing a misdemeanour, and when such a heavy penalty was proposed to be inflicted it was desirable that the Committee should be informed what constituted the due authority. He wished also to know what was meant by an attempt to "go out" to which the Bill referred? He desired also to be informed when these charges of offences were to be tried? He thought it was making legislation almost ridiculous to inflict such heavy penalties for offences of such a trifling nature.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he deemed it necessary that some such words as those under consideration should be introduced, and at the end of the clause he would move a proviso, which would remove any ground for apprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. G. BENTINCKprotested against this Star Chamber legislation on the part of a Liberal Government. It seemed that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the character of the people with whom he had to deal. Much had been said about the horrors of corruption and abominations of bribery, but that was all House of Commons' talk. He ventured to say that among the people of this country no moral turpitude was supposed to attach to the practice of bribery. What were they trying to do now? The right hon. Gentleman was trying to create new offences, and

  1273
  invest them with all the odium attaching to forgery and theft. The right hon. Gentleman would never get the people to believe that abstracting a paper out of the ballot box was really a moral offence. There was an old saying that "All was fair in love and war," and that was the feeling that prevailed with respect to electioneering tactics.
  MR. A. EGERTONsaid, it must be remembered that there was no public prosecutor in England, and it would be possible for any man to punish a political enemy in a matter of that kind, and he thought that was a power which ought not to exist in the hands of any man.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had always been ready to assist the right hon. Gentleman; but he was afraid that on this question he could not go along with him. The difficulty in this case might be provided for under another section, and the Solicitor General might improve his knowledge of the Bill by looking at the 6th section. He objected to the creation of these new offences, and afterwards fixing the penalties. He thought the penalties should be discussed in the first instance. He had already handed in an Amendment to strike out the words "with or," which would get rid of hard labour. He hoped some other hon. Member would strike out the words "two years," which would be an advantageous mode of dealing with another part of the sub-section.
  MR. HERMONbelieved the creation of all these new offences would deter many electors from exercising the franchise which had just been conferred upon them. A person going into a telegraph office thought nothing of taking away a blank telegraph form; and many persons would attach no more criminality to the taking away a ballot paper. The penalty attached was out of all proportion to such an offence.
  MR. J. S. HARDYasked, how the public could be made aware of the enormous penalties attached to these new crimes?
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEhad no doubt that honest voters would be found proclaiming aloud how they had exercised the franchise. The Ballot was not necessary for honest people; it was simply to protect the knaves. He was astonished to find Draconian penalties attached to these new offences.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved, that the penalty did not, as the hon. and gallant Baronet imagined, in the slightest degree apply to any voter saying which way he had voted. He was asked how the constituency were to be informed of this law? That was an objection which applied to every penal provision proposed by Parliament. But the apprehension of the hon. Gentleman who put the question would be considerably allayed by the fact that there were 650 hon. Members, and generally two candidates for each seat; so that there would be more than 1,000 individuals whose interest it would be, backed by an array of agents and friends, to inform the constituencies how the vote was to be taken.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 152: Majority 51.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had called the attention of the Committee the other night to a danger which was sometimes found to exist with reference to pillar letter boxes, and which might be extended to ballot boxes—namely, the introduction of explosive or dangerous materials into the ballot box during the poll. That was a point of very considerable importance in his opinion, and the Solicitor General had promised to take the subject into consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman had informed him that the point had occupied his attention, and that he considered the case was met by sub-section 6. What he wished to point out to the Government was this—that under the provisions of the Bill the voter was bound to place his ballot paper in the box; whereas if the presiding officer was to place the paper in the box in the presence of the voter, there would be no necessity for many of the penal enactments contained in the Bill. The point to which he wished to call attention was one which the Postmaster General would appreciate, because it had been found that, in pure mischief, fusees and explosive substances were dropped into private and pillar letter boxes; and, if a ballot box were supposed to contain a large number of votes antagonistic to a party, nothing would be easier than for their voters to fold up such substances with their voting papers. These substances

  1275
  were not bulky, and it would not require a juggler to introduce them into the ballot box. He would suggest that, if the right hon. Gentleman would insert a provision to compel the presiding officer to put the ballot papers into the box, he would effectually prevent that kind of abuse.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwould bear the suggestion in mind, though he did not think there was any danger which this sub-section did not sufficiently guard against. He might, however, explain that Government had framed the clause as it now stood, because they thought that the voter would have more confidence if he put in the paper himself.
  MR. M'MAHONmoved the omission of sub-section 6, which had reference to the gravest offence that could be committed against the secresy of voting. If a party of rioters broke open the ballot box and scattered the voting papers, in order to prevent the result of the voting from being known, the offenders were only liable to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. He maintained that the offence ought to be declared felony and more severely punished. The hon. and learned Member said he did not intend to press his Amendment.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. HERMON, Amendment made, by inserting after "papers" the words "then in use for the purposes of the election."
  MR. WESTmoved an Amendment, to the effect that the offences set forth in the clause should subject the offenders to imprisonment, with hard labour, for the term of six months only, instead of two years. He thought the shorter term would be an adequate punishment for the offences named, and cited the saying of a distinguished person—Sir Francis Burdett—that nobody who had not experienced it could conceive the misery and tedium of three months' imprisonment, even under the most favourable circumstances, for it should be remembered that he had his friends to dine with him in the Marshalsea every day.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, to leave out the words "two years," and insert the words "six months."—(Mr. West.)
  MR. CHARLEYpointed out that six months' imprisonment was not a sufficient
  1276
  punishment for forgery, whereas it was too severe a one for the offences named in sub-sections 3, 4, 5, and 6.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the offences were very badly grouped together. Six months' imprisonment would not be a sufficient punishment for forgery, and, in his opinion, the offence of destroying a ballot box ought to be placed in a clause by itself with a very severe punishment attached. As the matter stood, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. West), as the alterations he had suggested might be introduced on the Report.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that two years' imprisonment was the maximum punishment which could be inflicted under the Bill, and that the Judge who tried each case would be able to apportion the sentence according to the magnitude of the offence. The punishment proposed by the clause was, in his opinion, sufficiently mild. The offence to be dealt with was forgery, which, in the case of a bill of exchange, for instance, was punishable with penal servitude for life; but the Bill simply proposed to render the offence punishable with a maximum of two years' hard labour, or the same penalty as was now awarded to misdemeanour with the addition of the hard labour.
  MR. CORRANCEcomplained that in a penal section like this, there was a great want of precision and an inequality of punishment in respect of different offences. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw the clause, and re-consider the whole matter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that hon. Members forgot that the Judge would have a discretion to apportion the punishment within the limit of two years. This limit had been inserted, because it was desired that the punishment should be accompanied by hard labour, which would not be the case if the period were longer. It was true that one or two of the offences in the section might appear to be trivial; but in that case it would be provided that there must be a fraudulent intent. Hon. Members might be somewhat misled by the use of the word "forgery;" but he believed that he was right in saying that the offence was at common law only a misdemeanour, whilst forgery was by statute a felony.
  MR. HUNTasked, how the offence of forgery was to be proved in connection with a ballot paper which was not to be signed with any man's name?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALexplained that the proper meaning of "to forge" was "to fabricate;" and that word was correctly used in the Bill. If a man initiated a genuine paper, even although there were no signature, he would be guilty of forgery. A man might forge the body of a deed, or part of a bank note, without doing anything with a signature.
  MR. HUNTstill wanted to know how a forgery was to be committed in the case? If there were a ballot paper worded exactly as the genuine paper, would that be a forgery? The words in the section were copied from the University Elections Act, where they were properly used, because in those elections the paper was signed by the voter.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that if a man copied a ballot paper, and put a mark upon it, that would be forgery.
  DR. BALLrecalled the attention of the Committee to the fact that the question was, whether the punishment should be two years or six months; and added that he should support the proposition that it should be six months. In the case of a great number of papers being destroyed or fabricated, each separate paper would, in his opinion, constitute a separate offence, so that such an offender could be adequately punished. A large penalty would, in his opinion, induce juries not to convict; and a mild punishment, with certainty of conviction, would be better than a large punishment accompanied by a difficulty in obtaining a conviction.
  MR. M'MAHONcould not see if they were going to reduce the penalty to six months' imprisonment, why these offences should not be triable by the magistrates in quarter sessions. He believed that two years' imprisonment was by no means too heavy a punishment for forgery and tampering with the ballot box, and he trusted, therefore, that the Government would not give way upon the point.
  MR. MELLYhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not give way upon this question, for some of the offences referred to in the section would be most serious; because half-a-dozen men might, by a preconcerted scheme
  1278
  carefully carried out, vitiate the election, and practically alter the representation of a great constituency for six years.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTobserved, that he had not in the course of the debate on this Bill heard any opinion which amounted to such a condemnation of the measure as the one to which the Committee had just listened. If the Ballot were to introduce those things, would they not be safer with open voting?
  MR. MUNTZthought that these were only imaginary evils. It should be considered that if the penalties were made too severe juries would be reluctant to convict. He was afraid, also, that the fear that some of these offences might be inadvertently committed might keep many ignorant voters from the poll. He should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINobjected that offences of a wholly different character were to be met with the same punishment. He should himself vote for the Amendment, and, so far as the offence of forgery was concerned, he should leave the Government to get out of the mess as best they could.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not object to the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot) had made against the Ballot Bill, and he would candidly admit—though candour was sometimes an unfortunate quality in anyone who had charge of a measure—that there were evils in the measure which they had to weigh against the advantages which they expected to derive from its passing. He had no doubt that the opponents of the Ballot Bill were delighted when they were discussing these penal clauses; but as there was the possibility that the system of the Ballot might give rise to new offences, it was his duty to provide for such things. It seemed on one side to be overlooked that the Judges would exercise a discretion as to punishment; and on the other, those who advocated severity of punishment should bear in mind that public opinion would require a certain amount of education in these matters, and it would be better to err on the safe side, and try first a low penalty, in the hope that it would succeed, and that there would be no necessity for severer resources.
  MR. G. BENTINCKthought that the whole system of vote by Ballot would be looked upon as a good joke, and the

  1279
  man who successfully evaded it would be the hero of the day. From the moment they did away with the possibility of a scrutiny, they would open the door to the most unmitigated corruption. It was perfectly impossible that the new system would survive more than one General Election. The fact was, that the country would not stand the helpless and endless confusion it was sure to create, and the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters would bitterly regret that so much time and trouble had been wasted in adjusting the details of a so-called reform that would turn out so impracticable.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGdid not see the distinction made between the different offences. He considered the stealing of the ballot paper as a greater crime than the mere forging of it. He was in favour of making one year's imprisonment applicable to all the offences created under the Bill.
  MR. GREENEdid not see the necessity of creating six offences merely to do away with the evils of personation. Was it worth while to go on with a Bill which was promising to be so impracticable?
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he did not think his right hon. Friend was formed of such squeezable material as he had proved to be. He, in the first instance, assumed the severity of Draco, and then, on a slight pressure, he gave away entirely—
  "When pleasure begins to grow dull in the East, He orders his wings and is off to the West."
  It was a farce to suppose six months' hard labour would be a sufficient penalty for such offences as these; and as it was evident the right hon. Gentleman wished to compromise, he promised him he would vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that the hon. Member for Waterford had great experience in farces; but he thought he would find six months' hard labour no pastime.
  DR. BALLsaid, he had no doubt six months would be sufficient.
  LORD HENLEYsuggested that the clause should be remodelled. Those guilty of infringing the 1st and 2nd sections, forbidding the forgery of nomination or ballot papers, he recommended should be liable to a penalty not exceeding two years; those guilty of the
  1280
  other minor offences might be punished by imprisonment not exceeding six months.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, it was not the terror to the voter he had so much in view as it was to stamp on his misdeeds the reprobation of that House.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, the Committee had no idea what terrors a penalty of three months created in the minds of possible offenders. There was a man now under sentence of three months' imprisonment for misconduct in the case of a municipal election, who, though of comparatively small means, had appealed to Westminster, and had employed very eminent counsel to defend him.
  Question, "That the words 'two years' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'six months' be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word "six," and inserting the word "twelve,"—(Mr. Downing,)—instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 34: Majority 89.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLmoved that the words at the end of the clause which made the attempt to commit an offence under the Bill equally punishable with the actual commission of the offence should be omitted. He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that was not the proper time to apportion the punishments imposed by the Bill according to the gravity of the offences indicated? As the Bill stood at present, both light and grave offences were subject to the same punishment; and seeing that the measure created 19 new offences, that point was rather an important one. Moreover, it was all very well to say that it was within the discretion of the Judge what to do, but that power was always invidious. It was especially so here, for this was a class of offences in which as little discretion as possible should be left to the Judge. If the words he proposed to leave out were omitted, those attempting to commit an offence created by the Bill would be

  1281
  subject to imprisonment only, without hard labour. Under these circumstances he would move the omission of the words to which he had referred.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, for all the offences enumerated in the clause were offences committed with the same object—that of preventing an honest election. He believed that by the general criminal law the attempt to commit an offence was as punishable as the offence itself; but the reason why these words had been put in was in order that they might operate as a warning.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that if these words were omitted, the offence would be left a misdemeanor, and rendered liable, not to six months' but to two years' imprisonment.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. W. E. FORSTER, the following words were added to the clause:—
  "Provided that nothing in this section shall render any person liable to any penalty for putting into any ballot box any paper other than the ballot paper which he is authorized by law to put in, or without due authority takes out of the polling station any ballot paper unless he does such act fradulently."
  DR. BREWER, having presided annually on several occasions at the taking of ballots, could bear testimony to the fact that there would be no difficulty whatever in detecting any attempt to use a wrong paper.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLasked whether there would be any limitation on the number of persons who would be present when the ballot paper was placed in the ballot box?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, a provision of that nature was contained in the 19th section of the 1st Schedule. That provision was—
  "The returning officer shall appoint a presiding officer to preside at each station, and the officer so appointed shall keep order at his station, shall regulate the number of electors to be admitted at a time, and shall exclude all other persons except the clerks, the agents of the candidates, and the constables on duty."
  MR. CHARLEYgave Notice that on the Report he would move Amendments for dividing into separate classes the offences under this clause, with penalties appropriate to each.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Infringement of Secrecy).
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKmoved to strike out the word "agent." This Bill, which was bristling with penalties, would subject the agent to imprisonment for three months, with lard labour, for communicating before he close of the poll any information as to the name of an elector who had or lad not applied for a ballot paper. Such a proposition was monstrous. If he right hon. Gentleman wished to make the Bill a working measure, he would not encumber it with provisions which were so much opposed to all the ideas of the electors of this country.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERcould not accept the Amendment. The agent was in the polling-booth for the purpose of seeing that the election was fairly conducted, and he should accept that mode of voting and the condition of secrecy which was imposed. The presence of the agent could not be dispensed with, considering he was a necessary check on personation.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSwould have thought that if a man came up to personate a voter, he would be more easily detected by allowing the agent to communicate his name to some one outside. He did not know, however, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was the best for carrying out his object. In his opinion, the best course would be to move to omit the words "the name of any elector who has or has not applied for a ballot paper or voted at that station," thus allowing the agents inside to give all the information they might think necessary to the Returning Officer.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, that there were few cases of personating a man likely to go and vote. The parties personating always went early, and generally personated those who were absent from the town, or were not likely to vote early. He agreed with the provision in the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CAWLEY, while regarding the clause as, to some extent, a necessary accompaniment to the Ballot, remarked that the phrase "without due authority" implied that there was some authority by which information as to particular electors having voted or not, and as to the official mark, might be communicated. In that case, he was utterly in

  1283
  the dark as to what those words, as there used, meant, as there did not appear to be any "due authority" for what was sanctioned by implication. It was quite possible that in boroughs, at least, the Returning Officer would be a man of strong party feeling; and would it be right for him to have power to communicate information? The retention of the words under any circumstances seemed to him fraught with mischief, for the due authority ought to be defined, and in default of that he would move the omission of the words.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that the words were necessary in order to provide for cases where the presiding officer or his subordinate would have to give information on prosecutions for personation, as also information before the close of the poll with regard to the official mark. Any Court or magistrate before whom the question arose would understand that the words signified such authority as was necessary in conducting the election.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONurged that the authority ought to be clearly defined, otherwise a person might, under a mistaken belief that he possessed the authority, give the information prohibited by the clause. He did not see why the Government could not have inserted the words "Returning Officer."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Returning Officer could not be inserted, as it was necessary to guard against his improperly communicating information. It was very unlikely that the clause would require to be enforced against a Returning Officer, but it was necessary to constitute disregard of duty on his part an offence.
  MR. G. BENTINCKasked whether the Returning Officer was to be held the due authority for the disclosure of the information; and, if not, who was?
  MR. M. CHAMBERSwished to know who was the "due authority" mentioned in the Bill who was to empower the officer, clerk, or agent, to violate the secrecy of the vote?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERadmitted that the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman had occurred to himself, and that he had consulted the draughtsman of the Bill on the subject. He could cut the knot at once by inserting words defining "the due authority" to be the presiding officer; but, unfortunately,
  1284
  the clause was aimed against that person, and therefore it would not do to give him power to authorize himself to violate the secrecy of the vote. The truth was that the magistrates would have to decide whether or not such violation of the secrecy of the vote had been made upon reasonable grounds.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsuggested that, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be as well to substitute the words "without just cause" for those standing in the clause.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, those words would not be necessary. There must be communications made with regard to certain persons voting. Suppose it were said to a voter—"Some one else has voted in your name;" or—"You have voted before," the Returning Officer could not be shut out from giving information. The words "without just cause" were very wide. If the words "without due authority" were used, they only allowed such communication as was necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. If they asked—"Who was the person authorized?" the answer would be given by the magistrate or the Judge.
  MR. JAMESthought the words complained of were clear and intelligible, and that they referred to the thing authorized to be done, and not to the person to give authority for doing it.
  DR. BALLsaid, his interpretation of what was intended by the words under discussion was that the High Sheriff or Returning Officer was implied; but he could not regard words which had already received four different interpretations from the last four speakers as being clear and intelligible. Perhaps it would be better to substitute for them words to the effect that the secrecy was only to be violated in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSthought the words "without due authority" did all that was necessary. No tribunal could doubt the meaning of the words. The object of the penalty was to enforce secrecy; the penalty was to prevent an infringement of secrecy; and to operate unless facts were divulged under some authority authorized to allow the divulgence.
  MR. HUNTasked whether, in the case of a person coming into the booth to vote in the name of a person who had

  1285
  already voted, the previous fact was to be divulged?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved, that the draughtsman wanted to say that an authorized communication should not be made. Therefore, if the Act authorized any communication, then that communication was made with due authority. The previous section showed that the words used in the present section did not refer to the presiding officer.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSconceived that the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General did not tally with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman stated that if it were not for the possibility of the presiding officer committing a fault, he should have no objection to substitute "presiding officer" for the words "due authority."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood the words "due authority" to cover the personal authority of anyone having a right to give the information, and also to cover the provisions of the present Bill, as well as the provisions of the law outside of the present Bill. He really believed that they were as intelligible as if the word "improperly" were used.
  MR. CAWLEYthought that the words "due authority" were improper, for they appeared to refer to an authority to be given by some individual who was not named.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON, on the contrary, maintained that the words meant some authority conferred by the present Bill, or by some other Act relating to the subject of elections. He did not see that better words could have been used, and it would be for a Judge to decide what, in accordance with law, was "due authority."
  MR. G. BENTINCKconsidered that the words "without due authority" vested too much power in the Returning Officer. It would be of less importance if the clause referred only to counties—there was no bribery there—it was in boroughs that all the corruption and bribery occurred. ["No, no!"] Wherever bribery had been proved, the proportion was 100 to 1 against boroughs. The words as they stood ought not to be sanctioned, and some distinct definition should be given of the authority holding that unlimited power which might be so prejudicially exercised.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSdirected attention to the penal clauses of the Bill, and, having regard to them, wished to know how these words could be satisfactorily construed? It was the duty of lawyers to point out how litigation might arise, for magistrates called upon summarily to convict parties making disclosures without due authority would find themselves in considerable difficulty in determining what construction should be placed on those words.
  DR. BALLsuggested that in place of the words "without due authority" these words should be inserted, "except for some purpose authorized by law," which would include all purposes made legal by the present Act; while, on the other hand, they would guard against its being supposed that the words were confined to a personal authority only.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the words suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would enable them to settle this disputed point.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  MR. CAWLEYproposed to omit from the clause the words forbidding any officer, clerk, or agent, to communicate "the name of any elector who has or has not applied for a ballot paper or voted" at any station. He did so because, if retained, they would materially assist a person in the commission of the crime of personation. Those voters who were personated were generally men whom it was known could not vote early in the day, or who were sick and unable to vote at all. Now, if such men were personated, the quickest and most certain means of detecting the fraud was to make known to the agents the names of those who had voted, and the agent, on finding a man was supposed to have voted whom he knew had not come to town, would quickly detect the fraud. It was, therefore, advisable that no obstacle should be placed in the way of publishing who had or had not voted. Means would be taken to ascertain who had voted, and it was well the information should be disseminated in an authoritative and trustworthy manner. He accordingly moved the omission of the words he had read.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 23, to leave out the words "the name of any elector who has or has not applied for a ballot paper or voted at that station, or as to."—(Mr. Cawley.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdeclined to accept the Amendment, on the ground that the uncertainty which would prevail as to whether a man had voted or not would very much increase the danger of personating. Men would not be disposed to risk asking for a ballot paper in the name of a man who might already have voted, because detection would in that case be more likely to follow. Besides this, the absence of all information as to how the polling was going on, and how far the constituency was exhausted, would go far to prevent what was known as the "Two o'clock bribery."
  MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, it was important not only to discover when personation took place, but also to ascertain when a bad vote was given. For instance, when he and the hon. Member who now so well represented Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) contested an election there, the hon. Member beat him by one vote. But that vote would not have passed before the scrutiny of a Committee of the House of Commons, because it was given by an inspector of police, who would have been disqualified on that account.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, that no one probably had had more experience of questions of bribery and personation at contested elections than the hon. Gentleman opposite. As the House would agree, any Gentleman who had contested Dartmouth would not be entirely ignorant of matters of the kind. He believed the hon. Member had given Notice of a Petition upon the matter referred to; but having an opportunity of being returned for the rotten borough of Midhurst, he withdrew. But he did not see how that instance would have been influenced in the case of the Ballot if the polling clerk had communicated the fact that the man had voted.
  MR. J. S. HARDYhad desired to make the matter as light as possible for the hon. Member, but now he was obliged to tell him that he had won his election by undue influences. ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMANremarked that the hon. Member, on reflection, would see he had used an expression which should not have been used.
  MR. J. S. HARDYwithdrew the expression.
  Question put, "That the words 'the name' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 111: Majority 74.
  MR. LEATHAM, deeming it equally desirable that the number should be published as the name, moved the insertion of the words "or number on the register of the voter."
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. BALLmoved the omission of the word "officer" in that part of the clause forbidding any officer, clerk, agent, or other person to overlook or interfere with a voter in marking his vote. His objection was, that the clause as it stood precluded the possibility of an uneducated person receiving any assistance whatever in giving his vote. He had no knowledge of English constituencies; but it was necessary, in order to obviate the serious consequences that would attend the absence of such a provision, that the Committee should consider the state of education in Ireland. Since the last Census there had been no analysis of the education of the Irish people; but in the Census of 1861 there were at least two provinces in Ireland in which it was absolutely indispensable that some provision should be made for assisting the voter. In Munster, out of a population of 1,500,000, nearly 800,000 could neither read nor write; and in Connaught, out of 913,000 inhabitants, 574,000 could neither read nor write. There were, moreover, in Connaught 163,275 persons unable to speak a word of English, while there were 400,000 who habitually spoke Irish, English being a sort of foreign language to them. Now, as the voting paper would not be given to the voter until he entered the polling-booth, and as he would be urged to vote instantly, so as to prevent any communication with outsiders, it would be a pure accident where a man unable to read or write, or unacquainted with English, would put his mark. Were he actuated by political motives he should not raise the question, for he believed the overwhelming majority of the uneducated class were supporters of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Indeed, his most enthusiastic supporters were among those persons. If, therefore, they were left unassisted, and happened to vote as they intended, he himself should not lose a vote; while if, from a certain tendency in the Irish nature, they made a mistake, they would blunder

  1289
  into right, for their blunder would take them from the wrong side over to the right one. That, however, was not exactly fair, and he did not see that the Ballot would be infringed by allowing the High Sheriff, Returning Officer, or assessor to assist a man unable to mark his paper, just as was proposed in the case of blindness or physical infirmity. He should be quite willing to say that persons unable to read or write should have no votes, but such a thing ought to be enacted in an open, honest, and direct manner. Some of his patriotic Friends below the gangway—who made themselves heard on a variety of sentimental occasions in defending the rights of Ireland—ought to support him in this matter. He should object to an agent giving the assistance; but it might be given by the presiding authority, who would be bound to secrecy, and in whom everybody would have confidence.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERadmitted the question was one which ought to come before the Committee at some period of the discussion. He could not, however, enter into the right hon. Gentleman's statistics, which he presumed included women and children. [Dr. BALL assented.] The Government believed they had made a provision by which the right hon. Gentleman's compatriots, with their natural shrewdness, would find no difficulty in voting, though unable to read or write. That, however, was not the place at which to raise the question, and unless questions were raised at the proper time then discussions would continue throughout the whole of the Session. He had no hesitation in saying that the word "officer" must obviously be retained, or every presiding officer would be at liberty, without being asked by the voter, to overlook or interfere with him in marking his vote; and hon. Members on his side did not wish the Ballot to be discredited in such a manner, and hon. Members opposite could not wish to pass a measure which would be stultifying itself. Moreover, the 24th rule in the Schedule contained a provision for blindness, and the right hon. Gentleman would probably wish to extend it to persons unable to read or write; nor would such an extension be precluded by the word "officer" in this clause. It would, however, obviously be necessary to restrict such overlooking or interfering to cases where assistance was
  1290
  solicited. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be content with having stated his views with his accustomed clearness and eloquence, and that he would, if dissatisfied with the provision made by the Government, revive the question at the proper time.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he was glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball) had raised the question, for without the provision suggested a large number of persons would be disfranchised, but thought it would be more properly discussed at a future stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKmoved the omission in line 25 of the words "and no person whatsoever," contending that if these words were allowed to remain in the clause the principle would be established that no one should be allowed to assist a person in giving his vote. His own experience of elections for the last 30 years, he said, proved to him that the state of things in England exactly corresponded with that which his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin described as prevailing in Ireland. There were in this country a number of voters who would not go to the poll unless they were accompanied by some one—such as the nervous and infirm; and if the words of which he proposed the omission were not struck out of the clause there would be a wholesale disfranchisement of that class of electors. By such omission the penalty of three months' imprisonment could be confined to the "agents, clerks, and officers" who might reasonably be prohibited from interfering in the matter.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, to leave out the words "and no person whatsoever."—(Mr. Cavendish, Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he could not accept the Amendment. The object of the words was to prevent a voter being influenced by anyone who might wish to interfere with his vote, or to bribe him. If voters were to take persons with them to the polling-place, there would simply be an end of the Bill; for every employer might accompany his employés, and everyone who had influence might accompany those who were dependent upon him.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that supposing two voters were recording their votes at the same time, and if one of them looked over the other while so writing, he was to be liable to three months' imprisonment with hard labour? Was not it mere childish nonsense, that if the Returning Officer saw Hodge looking over Podge while he was writing, Hodge was to go to the treadmill for three months?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had given way half-a-dozen times that evening, and he could not, therefore, see why he should now persevere in a proposal which would have the effect of disfranchising a great number of electors. He (Mr. Bentinck) would take a division on the Amendment, because he strongly felt that, as he had said, hundreds of thousands of ignorant voters could not vote without assistance, and that the proposed penalty of three months' imprisonment with hard labour was quite intolerable.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsuggested that the proposed penalty for the offence should, at least, be more lenient.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 145: Majority 78.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that for one person to "overlook" another while writing in a polling-booth might be ungentlemanly, but was hardly an offence to be visited with three months' imprisonment. He, therefore, proposed to leave out the words "overlook or."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had no objection to omit these words, the object in view being covered by other words in the clause, "or otherwise obtaining information."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he thought it was too much to punish a man with three months' imprisonment for communicating "at any time to any person" information as to the vote of any elector. He proposed, therefore, the omission of the words "at any time," and the substitution of the words "before the poll is closed."
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 30, to leave out the words "at any time," and insert the words "before the poll is closed."—(Mr. Charley.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, for the disclosure of information as to the vote would probably be with a view to intimidation.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 147: Majority 76.
  MR. LEATHAMrose to move, at page 3, line 32, after "voted," the insertion of the words—
  "And no voter shall, after marking his vote on his ballot paper, wilfully display such paper in such manner as to make known to any person the name of the candidate for or against whom whom he has so marked his vote."
  The principle of that Amendment had been so amply discussed on previous occasions that he would best consult the convenience of the Committee by moving the insertion of those words without further comment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 32, after the word "voted," to insert the words "and no voter shall, after marking his vote on his ballot paper, wilfully display such paper in such manner as to make known to any person the name of the candidate for or against whom he has so marked his vote."—(Mr. Leatham.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked whether it was intended by the Amendment to make it a statutory offence for a short-sighted voter to ask a confidential friend whether he had marked his ballot paper rightly?
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that a great number of persons, especially when the new system was first introduced, would be ignorant of the proper mode in which they should mark their ballot papers, and without intending to disclose the secrecy of their vote, they would hold up their papers and ask the Returning Officer, or one of his clerks—"Is this the proper way of voting?" Yet that would render them liable to punishment. Instead of giving their votes freely and independently, such penalties would deter half the electors from voting at all.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTthought they ought to have some explanation why that Amendment, about which he felt considerable difficulty, was not originally included in the Bill. He understood that they were to allow a person to conceal his vote if he desired to do so. He thought that that was a very just and proper object, and that was in the Bill as it stood at first. The Bill also provided very properly for another thing—namely, that persons who interfered with that concealment which the voter desired should be punished. That was the 4th clause as it now stood; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Leatham) proposed to introduce an entirely new thing—namely, to make it a crime on the part of a person openly to declare his vote. That was not in this Bill at present. He understood that it was in some former Bill, but was afterwards omitted. It was a totally distinct thing from what they had yet considered. He was willing to give every protection to the man who wished to conceal his vote; but he was not prepared to say that, under any circumstances, it was a crime for a man to say how he voted, unless he did it with a corrupt intention, and to further some corrupt bargain. If his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, instead of the word "wilfully," would insert the words "with corrupt intent" before "display his vote," he should be satisfied with the Amendment, because that, as being part and parcel of an act of bribery, ought to be punished. They did not object to a man saying—"I vote for Mr. So-and-So," because that might not be true. They proposed to treat his saving that which might be false as venial; but his saying that which was true, was to be made a misdemeanor. Supposing an elector for Bradford not only called out—"Forster for ever!" but showed his paper with Forster upon it, it would be very hard to send that man to prison. Why, they would in that way fill the gaols of the West Riding. That seemed to him to be entirely wrong. He therefore desired to substitute the words "with corrupt intent" for "wilfully," because in a case of bribery the showing of the ballot paper would be part of the evidence of a corrupt transaction. He might be told that his suggestion would not meet a case of intimidation. A person might threaten, if the voter did not show
  1294
  him his paper, to take away his lease or his house, or to turn him out of his employment. How was it now proposed to reach that? Why, by saying to the voter that if he did show his paper he should go to prison. That was not a very comfortable position in which to put the unfortunate voter. If he did not show his paper he would lose his lease or his situation; and if he did show it he would go to prison. What would the man do if placed in that awkward dilemma? Why, he would inevitably be deterred from voting at all. Surely, they did not want to add to the burdens of the unhappy elector who was intimidated, but rather to punish the person who intimidated him; and they ought to make it a misdemeanor for any person to use undue influence to induce another to display his paper. In that case, the act of displaying his paper would be part of the evidence to prove that some other person exercised undue influence towards him. But if the voter was neither corrupted nor intimidated, and merely showed his paper to somebody in a fit of enthusiasm, partly political and partly physical, which sometimes happened at elections, to send the man to prison for three months under those circumstances was a thing to which he could not assent. There seemed to be a growing passion for the creation of misdemeanous. The moment they got hold of something which they did not like, they determined to send everybody to prison who did it. An eminent draughtsman had said to him that they were now manufacturing misdemeanors at the rate of about 500 per annum, and creating more of them in a year than had formerly been created in centuries. There was only one defence against that legislation; and that was, that juries and magistrates were more reasonable than the House of Commons, and declined to take any notice of the misdemeanors they manufactured. Did anybody believe that if any voter without corruption or intimidation went into a polling-booth and said—"Here is my ballot paper," any Judge or jury would be found so tyrannical and absurd as to send him to prison? They had better confine their penal legislation to acts which the moral sense of the country would condemn, for if they carried it further by sweeping provisions of that kind, public opinion would not support them. He begged, therefore,

  1295
  to move the omission from the Amendment of the word "wilfully," in order to substitute "with corrupt intent."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word "wilfully," and inserting the words "with corrupt intent."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that at last they had had a really Liberal speech from the other side of the House. He must congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) on his boldness and courage in having broken through the trammels of the tyrannical attempts which had been made by Her Majesty's Government on the patience and endurance of the House. He used the words advisedly, because he begged the Committee to understand the exact position in which it was placed with respect to this Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham). At the beginning of the evening the Committee spent a very agreeable hour in mitigating and toning down the penalties as they first appeared in the Bill of Her Majesty's Government; but now the hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to reverse the process, and insert penalties in the Bill which it did not at present contain. In what manner had this proposal been supported by Her Majesty's Government? The Committee was told that after all it was no new penalty; that the Bill as introduced last year contained it, and that it dropped out by accident. At another time, however, it was said that it was in consequence of the lateness of the period, and with a view to sending up the measure to "another place," that the penalty was omitted last year; but he begged leave to say that neither in the draught of the Bill of last Session, as originally introduced, nor in the draught of the Bill as it was sent up to the House of Lords, was that penalty contained. In the Bill as introduced last year the penalty was £10. He now proceeded to canvass the other position of Her Majesty's Government, that this provision was given up very reluctantly last year. He had referred to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, when making the announcement last Session that the provision would be withdrawn, and he found that the right hon. Gentleman used these words. On the 27th of July, the right
  1296
  hon. Gentleman, addressing the Speaker, said—
  "We have been very careful in going over the clauses and considering what, with due regard to the object we wish to accomplish in the Bill, can safely be omitted. I feel sure that the House would not desire, notwithstanding the length of our discussions, that we should strike out of the Bill any clauses which in our opinion are necessary in order that the Bill, when it actually becomes law, should be duly carried out…… Nevertheless, we have carefully gone through these clauses to see whether any of them could be safely omitted, and we have come to the conclusion that we can only recommend the omission of one, though that is an important clause. That is the 30th clause, which is one of the penalty clauses, and provides penalties against voters who do not follow the directions given in regard to voting secretly. We have come to the conclusion that as the Committee assented to the 19th sub-section as it then stood—the 18th as it now stands—of the 3rd clause which declares a vote void and not to be counted unless that provision be complied with, we hope that will be a sufficient penalty, and that Ballot may he enacted without any other penalty."—[3 Hansard, ccviii. 314–15.]
  The penalty in that Bill was £10. But though the Bill of this year was introduced without any penalty of the kind, the Government yielded to the first suggestion of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and assented to this preposterous penalty of three months' imprisonment with hard labour in lieu of the penalty of £10, as proposed in the Bill of last year; and they told the Committee that they believed the insertion of this provision essential to successful working of the Ballot Bill. He thought the House were bound to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, said, the noble Lord must have forgotten the other Bill affecting their representation, with which he and his Colleagues had so much to do, or else he would hardly have found fault with the Government for having changed their mind as to a matter of detail, important though it certainly was. Such a reproach ought hardly to have come from the noble Lord, for changes were made by the noble Lord's Colleagues and himself—not between one Session and another, but even within the course of one week, in matters which seemed much more important than this. The Committee, no doubt, had a right to ask for some explanation with respect to the provision, and he would give it. In the Bill brought forward two years ago by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington)

  1297
  this particular provision was contained. In the Bill of last year, included among several provisions on the subject of voting, was the penalty of £10. In looking over the Bill on the 27th of July, with an earnest desire to see what could be struck out, he had more doubt about this particular provision than about any other. The Bill, however, went up to the House of Lords without the provision, and was rejected. In preparing the Bill of this Session he took up the measure that was rejected by the House of Lords; and in which, therefore, there was not this provision. He discovered, however, that it had been overlooked, a few days after the Bill was introduced. But after all the real point was, whether the provision should be included or not, and here he must differ from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), for the Government never intended that there should be a penalty on a man who said how he would vote. What he had always said, and what the Government considered as one of the necessary conditions of a good and really workable Ballot was, that there should be a secret vote, and that the voter should not be able to prove how he had voted. Then came this provision, which would not take effect unless the voter positively proved to an agent how he had voted. He could not accept the substitution of the words "with corrupt intent" for "wilfully," and his hon. Friend himself had acknowledged that they would not meet the case of intimidation.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten one thing which ought to be a maxim in all legislation—namely, that we could not legislate with effect in advance of public opinion. We could not persuade a man that that was a crime which he believed not to be a crime. The act of voting was not the only act at an election, it was only one of a series of acts; and to say that we would send a man to prison for three months, because when he said that he would vote for a particular man he showed that he had voted for him, was monstrous. Of course, if a man acted corruptly it was a different matter, and they might punish such a man as severely as they pleased; but he was sure that no conviction could over be obtained under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the people wanted to have the Ballot, and that being so they must be protected by secret voting, or it would be absolutely useless. He was astonished that hon. Gentlemen could not see the possibility of a corrupt motive in a voter showing his ticket, because if a man sold his vote for £5, he showed his ticket to prove how he had voted. If they did not wish to have secret voting, they had better have no Ballot Bill. It was idle to say they had the Ballot if each voter could show how he had voted.
  MR. PELLthought the proposed penalty of three months' imprisonment was out of all proportion to the crime of showing a ballot paper. What was the penalty for exposing prints which were prejudicial to the morals of society at large? Merely £2. And yet, could there be any comparison between the offence of a man who displayed his ballot paper and gave an honest vote, and an offence against good morals?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONcontended that electors ought not to be exposed to the dangerous ordeal which the hon. Member for Huddersfield proposed. Recently, at a school board election, many of the voters, who could not comprehend the vague ballot papers, felt it necessary to lay them before the Returning Officer, in order to get instruction low to fill them up. What could be more natural? And yet the hon. Member for. Huddersfield proposed that if a similar course should be taken by an elector with regard to ballot papers at an election under this Bill, he should be liable to an imprisonment of three months.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, when this Bill was brought in, the House was told it was essential that the new electors should have a certain protection—that they should be allowed, if they so pleased, to vote secretly. He agreed with that, and voted up to that point. But when it was proposed to go a great deal further than that—when it was proposed to attain secrecy for its own sake, and to enforce that secrecy by a penal clause, then he was obliged to part company with the Bill and vote against it. If this penal clause were added to the many penal clauses of which the House had heard lately, then the electors would have to study the Ballot Bill for a considerable time before an election, in order to discover

  1299
  what they might do, and what they might not do, without being sent to prison with or without hard labour. It had been proposed to treat as crimes things which the people of this country did not, and never would, believe to be crimes. In his opinion, the House ought simply to provide protection to an elector, and leave to his good sense the way in which he should avail himself of that protection; and if they did that, then they would have a really good Ballot Bill; but, on the contrary, if the Bill were bolstered up with penalties for misdemeanors in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield it would be a failure, and should be immediately withdrawn.
  MR. BIRLEYbelieved it to be contrary to the spirit of our Statute-book, and to all sound legislation, to inflict a penalty not upon the intimidator, but upon the man whom he intimidated. He admitted that it was a virtue of this Bill, that it endeavoured to put an end to bribery and intimidation; but it was a vice of the Bill that it introduced great opportunities for fraud, dishonesty, and immorality of all kinds.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsupported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt). He objected to any person being visited with a penalty of three months' imprisonment because he had inadvertently or by accident exhibited his ballot paper. Who was to prove whether he had done so wilfully or not? Supposing he (Sir Henry Hoare) flourished his ticket in a moment of excitement, so as to show how he voted, was he to be imprisoned on the ground that he had done it corruptly?
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTunderstood the view taken by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), but not the course pursued by the Government, if they were correctly represented the other night by the Solicitor General, who said that showing a ballot paper by a voter would be an offence, whether it was marked or not. In that way, it seemed as if they wished to place the innocent and the guilty in the same position; and therefore he regarded the whole measure as a senseless and arbitrary attempt at legislation.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he must object to the use of the word "corruptly" in the Amendment of the hon. and learned
  1300
  Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt), stating that the Corrupt Practices Act had become nugatory, in consequence of the use of that expression in reference to treating, because, although Judges might find that something had been given to influence a voter, they hesitated before deciding that it had been done corruptly. If they proved that a thing had been done corruptly, they proved bribery; and, therefore, in prosecuting for that offence, they must prove bribery or nothing. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) contained the pith of the Ballot.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that when the Bill was before the House last Session he made inquiries with respect to that very point, as to what had been done in America. He found that the experiment which was now so earnestly advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton had been tried and had been repudiated in the United States. Nay, it had been tried in New Brunswick, and failed, and now the whole Dominion of Canada had altogether rejected the Ballot. He repeated, that the attempt to enforce secrecy against the will of the voter was tried in the United States—and particularly in Massachusetts—and then it was formally and deliberately abandoned. Those whom he consulted on the subject sent him The New York Tribune newspaper, and told him that an article which it contained expressed the experience of the United States. He had heard from them again, and they confirmed the statement; when the hon. and learned Member for Taunton spoke of practice, he had given him practice. In the United States these attempts at enforcing secrecy had been made over and over again, and had over and over again failed. The expression in the article to which he referred was this—"The people would not submit to such penalties." Now, why was the House to presume that the people of England were to be expected to submit to penalties for enforcing upon them a restriction which had been over and over again found utterly objectionable, and had been resisted by the people of the United States? The value which the people of the United States attached to the Ballot was this—that any man who desired to do so could conceal his vote; but the moment that the Legislatures of the various States

  1301
  had been induced to go beyond that, the people had found the Ballot intolerable, and had reverted to the former practice. Now that was a matter of experience. They said that the Ballot was not satisfactory in the United States; he told them that the means by which the Committee were now asked to render it satisfactory had been tried, and found to be insufferable in the United States. He did not pretend to be an advocate for the Ballot, but he felt that he was entitled to warn the Committee that the majority were induced by the inexperienced advocates of the Ballot to attempt to enforce upon the people of the country a tyrannical system of coercion to which they could not reasonably be expected to submit. The Bill would be lost, or the Act rendered a dead letter. As an opponent of this Bill himself, he could wish for nothing better than that they should declare that, in the parallel case cited by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, the Judges had been all in fault, because they could not interpret the word "corruptly" in the case of treating as the hon. and learned Member desired. Well, treating was far more exceptional than voting, and he thought they must be conscious that it was impossible not to allow, in the case of all voters, the discretion which the Judges in this country had found necessary to justice, and the Americans had found necessary to their freedom. They were legislating for the sake of those whom they admitted to be a weak minority. They would be rash if they attempted to enforce upon the whole constituencies of England, for the sake of that experiment, a coercion which had been found insufferable by the people of the United States.
  MR. A. EGERTONthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) was open to the same objection that was urged against the proposal now before the Committee. As had been stated, it was impossible in many cases to define the meaning of the word "corrupt," and the same difficulty would arise in the case of the word "wilfully," which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Harcourt) proposed to introduce into the Bill.
  MR. FAWCETTthought the Amendment would, if carried, introduce into the Bill a principle against which all
  1302
  who supported freedom of thought and action ought to protest. Supposing an agent wished to discover whether his bribery or intimidation had been successful, nothing would be more easy than for him and the voter to go into the polling-booth together, for the voter to show his ballot paper, and then for the two of them to swear that the exposure was accidental. Then, again, the question arose, whether the vote was the absolute property of the man who gave it, or whether it was to a certain extent a national trust. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members cried "No, no;" but it would be a new thing for England when a man felt that in voting he simply voted for himself. When a man who regarded his giving his vote as a public and a national act said—"I claim the right to exercise that public and that national act in a public manner; I do not want to give my vote in secret; let those who wish to vote in secret do so,"—he regarded it as an act of tyranny to impose three months' imprisonment upon him. He ventured to say that there were many in that House who would endorse that view. ["No, no!"] He heard cries of "No, no!" proceeding from behind the Treasury bench; but he begged to remind hon. Members who gave utterance to those cries that he had voted for the Ballot when hon. Members who used to sit behind that bench—and even those who sat upon it—were voting against it. He had never voted against the Ballot; but what he meant by the Ballot was, that the man who desired to vote in secret should be able to do so. He ventured to predict that it would be the verdict of every platform in England, that it was contrary to the feeling of Englishmen and to the spirit of the nation that they should treat as a heinous crime the act of a man who sought to discharge a public duty publicly. Parliament might pass laws and impose penalties if they pleased; but those laws and penalties could not be carried into effect against the wishes of the nation, and the instincts of Englishmen would not let them see a man sent to prison for three months because he had done nothing more than claim to discharge a public duty publicly.
  MR. LEATHAMsaid, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had stated that he had voted for the Ballot

  1303
  before hon. Members on the Treasury bench and behind it had done so; but in that case why did he speak against it now? Was it because, like some others, he had turned his back upon his former principles, or was he still a supporter of the Ballot as a permissive and optional measure? But the Ballot, wherever it had been tried in America as a permissive Bill had failed; wherever it had been tried as a secret measure it had been successful. If a measure was to be passed by Parliament, how was it to be carried out in practice except by penalties?
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMwas of opinion that the Ballot had failed in America through an inherent vice of the system rather than through the genius of the American people.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, his explanation of the alleged oversight of the framers of the Bill was, that they did not regard as a vital principle of the Bill a clause which they now professed to regard as vital.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) had said that he had turned his back on his principles. But whatever opinions he entertained it was not his habit to turn his back upon them. He had said nothing that was inconsistent with his former principles; for what he said was, that if a man happened to vote publicly and then exposed his ballot paper, it was a serious thing to expose him to three months' imprisonment.
  Question put, "That the word 'wilfully' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:
  The Tellers being come to the Table, it was stated by Viscount Bury, one of the Tellers, that the Tellers were not agreed as to the number who voted with the Ayes.
  Whereupon the Chairman directed the Committee to proceed to a second Division.
  The Committee accordingly again divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 167: Majority 1.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK (DISTRAINT) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MUNTZ, Bill to protect Railway Rolling Stock from distraint when on hire, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. PIM, and Mr. ANDERSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 116.]

  BANK NOTES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the crossing of Bank Notes.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. BACKHOUSE, Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. ROBERT FOWLER, and Mr. KINNAIRD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 117.]

  FACTORIES HOURS OF LABOUR BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Bill for the further restriction of the hours of labour of Children, Young Persons, and Females in certain Factories, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. PHILIPS, Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Mr. CARTER, Mr. RICHARD SHAW, Mr. HINDE PALMER, and Mr. ARMITSTEAD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 118.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Prison Ministers* (72).
Report—Deans and Canons Resignation* (48–75).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION—SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL—RESOLUTION.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in rising to move the Resolution which I have put on the Notice Paper for the consideration of your Lordships' House, I wish in the first instance, to repeat what on two recent occasions of your Lordships meeting I mentioned—namely, that my reason for proceeding by this method rather than by introducing at once my Bill for the constitution of the Court which I would wish to establish, if your Lordships agree to transmit to another tribunal the appellate jurisdiction of this House, was that I thought it more respectful to your Lordships that a jurisdiction which had long been exercised by this House—though in many instances not without considerable contest, and though it was not introduced originally without considerable contest—should not be abolished by means of a Bill before the whole subject had been submitted for your Lordships' careful consideration. I am aware that in proposing to effect a great change of this kind in a long-established institution, and more especially in the case of an institution connected with the administration of justice, the burden is imposed on me of showing that the institution itself requires a total change, in consequence of defects which have been found to exist in carrying its functions into operation, and also of showing that the change proposed to be made will remedy those defects. Indeed, that is a burden which I apprehend is imposed on everyone who proposes a change in what has been long established. Now, my Lords, as regards the particular change—if I were about to propose that your Lordships should surrender anything which contributed to the useful portion of your Lordships' functions in respect of the administration of justice in this kingdom, or, if I supposed that the result of the transfer of your jurisdiction in respect of appeals would be to weaken the authority of your Lordships' House, I

1229
should hesitate for a long time indeed before I recommended any such proposal to the notice of your Lordships. But, my Lords, I shall be prepared to show—I trust with as much brevity as possible, though the subject is a large one—that, in reality, your Lordships never exercised as a body an appellate jurisdiction without such an amount of contest as has on each successive occasion tended to weaken the authority of this House as a Court of Judicature, and that it is a quarter of a century since, in the case of Mr. O'Connell, your Lordships absolutely declined to exercise such jurisdiction. I shall show also that to many persons of great eminence in the law, the anomalies of the appellate jurisdiction of this House have appeared to be so considerable that they have been induced to declare it to be extremely unsatisfactory. I think it will be found that even in the House itself, at a time when opinion was not yet ripe for any measures of very extensive reform, there was a misgiving on the part of men of great influence with your Lordships, arising from a conviction that the system did not act in such a manner as to give satisfaction and inspire confidence. I may call your Lordships' attention to the fact, that within the last 60 years no fewer than three Committees have been appointed by this House to investigate the subject of its appellate jurisdiction, with the view of seeing what could be done for its reform and improvement. The first of those Committees was appointed in 1811, the next in 1823—both in the time when Lord Eldon occupied the Woolsack—and the third in 1856. In respect of the Members who composed it, the last was a very powerful Committee. But before I refer to any of the recommendations, it may be as well that I should briefly state in what way the appellate jurisdiction of this House attained to full and complete existence. Your Lordships have now—and you have had from a very early period—full jurisdiction in writs of error coming from the Common Law Courts, in respect of conclusions and decisions of these Courts. You have also and have had, but from a very much later period, jurisdiction in cases brought by way of appeal from decisions of the Courts of Equity. Since the Union with Scotland, in which country there is not that division of Law and Equity which exists in England, you have had jurisdiction in respect of both branches; and
1230
since the Union with Ireland you have had jurisdiction in appeals from the Irish Court of Chancery. This jurisdiction in Equity you have possessed for about 200 years;—but not without contests. I do not, however, allude to those contests having existed with the view of throwing the least doubt on your jurisdiction, because the very fact of those contests having existed is strongly confirmatory of the fact that since the period to which I have referred it has been continually exercised. But there are other matters in which your Lordships never have exercised jurisdiction—namely, in appeals from the Colonies, in appeals from the Admiralty, and in appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts. Besides the appellate jurisdiction, your Lordships' House, as a Court, has wide jurisdiction which is not appellate, and with which neither my Resolution nor my Bill proposes to deal. Your Lordships have, of course, jurisdiction respecting your own privileges and all that concerns them. You have a jurisdiction in respect of claims to Peerages, and to successions to Peerages; and you have a criminal jurisdiction if, unfortunately, a criminal charge should be made against any Peer. Your Lordships have full jurisdiction, also, in cases of Impeachment brought by Order of the other House. In such cases this House is a Court in which high crimes and misdemeanours may be tried. To none of these do I intend my Resolution to apply. The Bill which I shall hereafter introduce is confined entirely to the appellate jurisdiction which this House exorcises in respect of Common Law and Equity in England, and of Civil Proceedings in Scotland, and also to the appellate jurisdiction exercised by it in respect of cases arising in Ireland. I have not, however, confined my investigations to those particular objects. There are facts of so much interest in connection with the proceedings of this House in respect of its appellate jurisdiction that I think I ought not to omit to go back a little and mention some of them to your Lordships. In the reign of Charles II. there were violent disputes between the two Houses about the right of Parliamentary judicature, of which an account is given in some detail by Sir Matthew Hale, whose account of it, with Hargrave's Notes, will be found in the Library. The matter has been entered into more fully and more clearly by Lord St. Leonards. Your Lordships'

1231
jurisdiction in writs of error from the Courts of Common Law dates, as I have already mentioned, from a very remote period—anterior to the Great Charter. It dates, indeed, from the beginning of the Norman rule in this country, when the Sovereign was regarded as the fountain and administrator of justice. Petitions from those who sought justice were addressed to the King, who being surrounded by his Council and his great Officers of State, had the power of referring to those around him learned in the law, and disposing of the causes brought before him in accordance with previous decisions and the known laws of the land. When his Parliament was convened, he had the advice and assistance of his Peers; at other times he had around him the great Officers of his Court. These afterwards became Courts of Justice, called sometimes the Aula Regis, at others the Consilium Regis, with officers who corresponded to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, the latter being called the Chief Justiciary. This system of moving tribunals was continued up to the time of the Great Charter; but as the inconvenience of this system had been experienced, the Great Charter provided that there should always be one stationary Court. This was the origin of our existing Court of Common Pleas. In like manner the other Courts branched off into independent Courts. From these Courts the reference was to the House of Peers; and, no doubt, it was in this way that writs of error found their way to your Lordships' House from the Courts of Common Law. It will be found that, from the beginning of the reign of Edward I. down to the reign of Henry IV., the appellate jurisdiction was continuously exercised in the case of writs of error coming from the Courts of Common Law; but after that time there appeared to be a lull, caused by the Wars of the Poses, or for some other reason. The records of the times do not show that any controversy arose as to what was and what was not within the jurisdiction of the Lords; but during the reign of Henry IV. this House repeatedly asserted its sole right to hear and decide on appeals, and it protested against the supposition that any right in respect of appeals was vested in the other House of Parliament. Neither was there any question of the jurisdiction of your Lordships' House sitting as
1232
a Court of Parliament until the reign of James I. In the reign of that Sovereign the Commons began to assert their privileges in a more active manner than they bad done in previous reigns. The way in which they did so was not very satisfactory, nor do I think the action of the Lords was very much more so. A Roman Catholic gentleman, Mr. Edward Floyd, was accused of having used expressions disparaging the Electress Palatine, daughter of the King, and the Commons took upon themselves to try him, and sentenced him to an infamous punishment and to a fine of £1,000. The House of Lords took offence at these proceedings of the Commons, and declared that the proceedings rested with them; they declared all the proceedings of the Commons invalid and inoperative, took proceedings against Mr. Floyd themselves, and inflicted punishments still more disgraceful, and a fine of £5,000. That was the first instance of an attempt on the part of your Lordships to exercise an original jurisdiction in criminal cases. Lord St. Leonards, in his book on this subject, calls attention to a case which shows the difficulty the Lords experienced when endeavouring to assert an original jurisdiction, and also an appellate jurisdiction, respecting cases arising in the Court of Chancery. In the case of two gentlemen named Mathews, there was an application to this House to exercise this double jurisdiction in respect of a claim to land. The Lords came to a singular resolution, directing the Lord Keeper Williams to apply to the King for the appointment of Commissioners to try the case; which resolution showed the doubts entertained by their Lordships in respect of their original jurisdiction and of appelate jurisdiction not arising on writ of error. Bourchier's case, which arose on direct appeal from the same Lord Keeper, is interesting on some what similar grounds. In the time of the Long Parliament matters respecting the jurisdiction of your Lordships went on in a very irregular way. Ultimately, there arose the great case referred to by Hale. One Mr. Skinner complained of the East India Company in regard to an estate which he possessed in one of the East India Islands. He made a singular claim to this House for relief which, if it had been acceded to, would have established your Lordships' authority over every case arising beyond the seas.

1233
These claims on the part of your Lordships' House were not persisted in, and things settled down to this—that your Lordships heard complaints when called upon to do so by writs of error or on appeal from Chancery. Lord St. Leonards cites, without disapprobation, language of Sir Matthew Hale, which is very strong as bearing upon the exercise of judicial functions by Peers who are not lawyers. Hale asks whether it could be supposed that any one came into the world embued with the knowledge of the laws of this kingdom, or could be supposed to be inspired with the knowledge of the law by the acquest or descent of a title of honour. Thus a case was decided in your Lordships' House in opposition to the opinions of all the Judges of the time: it has been said that it was well decided, and perhaps it may have been; but certainly it was not decided in accordance with the law as it existed when the decision was given. It is impossible that the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House could have continued to be exercised for so long a period by the House as a body were it not that the opinions delivered were in reality those of very great lawyers—those opinions were accepted because of the authority of the men from whom they proceeded. Certainly, they did not derive additional weight from being the decisions of your Lordships' House. In the reign of Queen Anne there arose a case which fairly tested the question of the jurisdiction of your Lordships' House. It was a remarkable case, calculated to excite the attention of the other House of Parliament. Proceedings were taken against a sheriff for refusing to record a vote at an election of a Member of Parliament. The case came before this House; but the House of Commons protested against the Lords pronouncing a decision as to who ought and who ought not to vote for a Member of Parliament. There was a difference of opinion among the Judges, one of whom was Chief Justice Holt. The matter was discussed with some warmth in both Houses of Parliament. The question was finally decided by a division of 50 Peers against 16; and 13 Peers of the minority entered a Protest on the Journals of the House against the decision arrived at. All those cases are collected in a Note on Mr. O'Connell's Case in the second volume of the House of Lords' Reports. Before the case of
1234
O'Connell there was one which excited a good deal of interest among the occupants of the Episcopal Bench—the case of the Bishop of London against Fytch. The question was as to whether a general bond of resignation—one which did not specify the particular person in whose favour it was made—was a valid one. The Judges were practically unanimous that the bond was valid. The Bishops took a prominent part in the discussion of that case, and addressed to the House arguments which will be found in Lord St. Leonards' book, and in which they stated that though certain propositions might be good law, they were not founded on philosophy or on divinity. By a majority of 19 to 18 the House decided against the legality of the bond. The last time at which an attempt was made to exercise the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships by the House as a body was on the occasion of the appeal in O'Connell's case. It would have been very dangerous to the reputation and privileges of your Lordships' House as a judicial body if that course had been pursued; for many noble Lords who shewed great eagerness to vote had shewn no readiness to listen to the arguments and were not learned in the law, while others who had listened to the argument had no judicial experience. A remonstrance was addressed to your Lordships against the proposed course, and in the end your Lordships very wisely withdrew from taking part in hearing the appeal, and left the decision entirely to the wisdom and learning of the Law Lords. It is, therefore, idle to talk of the decisions of the House of Lords as the decisions of your Lordships as a body. The decisions have been in reality those of a small Committee of Law Lords. Nevertheless they are called the decisions of the House of Lords; and I will now show the great inconvenience of this fiction—it is not a new one. In consequence of its existence, a course grew up and prevailed for a long time of securing the attendance of three Lords, that being the number necessary to make a House. During the Chancellorship of Lord Eldon this was done, and whether the two Lords who sat with the Lord Chancellor were Law Lords or not, appears to have been regarded as a matter of but little consequence. Of course, the Lord Chancellor was glad to get two other Law Lords, but there was no personal obligation on

1235
the Law Lords to attend. In the next place, there was great uncertainty as to whether there would be a sitting for the hearing of appeals, the Lord Chancellor being required in the Court of Chancery. So unsatisfactory was this state of things, that in 1811 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the mode of exercising the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House, and whether any improvement in the mode ought to be effected. Well, the inquiry produced this result. The Committee found as a matter of fact that the Lord Chancellor was frequently obliged to be absent in consequence of his attendance being needed in the Court of Chancery and elsewhere, and it was also found that some 290 or 300 appeals were in arrear. On these facts, it was suggested by the Committee, that in order to enable the Lord Chancellor to attend in the House of Lords more frequently, an additional Judge in Chancery should be appointed. It was believed that if a Vice Chancellor were appointed, the Lord Chancellor would be enabled to sit in this House for appeals on three days in the week during the Session. This was not very satisfactory. Subsequently the appointment of Deputy Speakers was recommended; but there was no provision for the attendance of other Law Lords. In 1813 a Vice Chancellor was accordingly appointed, and the Lord Chancellor had more time to give to appeals. On looking at the first volume of the Reports for 1813, I find the list of causes heard or set down for hearing, amounted to 240, of which only eight or nine were English—the majority were were Scotch, and a few were Irish. Lord Redesdale sat with Lord Eldon in the majority of the cases, and no Court of two members could have been stronger; but in one-third of the whole number of appeals heard during the Session of that year, Lord Eldon sat alone. I say nothing about the fact of some of the appeals being from his own decisions in the Court of Chancery. I presume that on many occasions, he was assisted by two lay Peers; but, except in one case, there is nothing said about those noble Lords having opened their mouths. The exception is that of a Scotch marriage—a case which seems to have required much investigation. There was a question as to whether the lady had given her consent to the marriage, and a lay Lord is reported to have said that when the gentleman asked the lady
1236
she made a courtesy, and that the lay Lord took to be a consent. It could not be considered a satisfactory state of things when the hearing of appeals, the decisions on which were to be pronounced in the name of the House of Lords, was relegated to a single Judge and two non-assisting lay assistants. In 1823 and 1824—Lord Eldon still having charge of the Seals—matters were not found to be much more satisfactory. An inquiry was instituted, and a Committee recommended the appointment of Deputy Speakers, and also that there should be ballot for Lords to make up a quorum, the penalty for non-attendance to be £50. That was a somewhat singular proposal to make for the purpose of insuring the due administration of justice. I now come to the state of affairs in the time of Lord Lyndhurst. During that time I myself was present on several occasions when Lord Lyndhurst sat on appeals with two lay Lords, who took no part in the discussion, who employed themselves, perhaps, in reading a newspaper, and who seemed to take very little interest in what was going on. Then it happened that the case did not always end in one day, and that the next day there were two lay Lords who were not the same who were present on the preceding day; and on the third day, when the decision was given, two others, who had not been in attendance on either of the previous days. On one occasion it ocurred to me—much to my mortification—to have to accompany a very learned French jurist, who unfortunately understood English, to the House of Lords when an appeal was being heard; and I was obliged to tell him, in answer to a question which he put to me, how matters were really being conducted, although I was in hopes that he would not see through it. Now, to speak of your Lordships' House deriving dignity from a jurisdiction exercised by a Court so constituted seems to me to be a political mistake of a very serious character. So far from such a state of things contributing to the dignity of your Lordships' House, I can, I confess, see nothing more undignified than that one or two noble Lords should be placed in the painful position which I have just described—taking part in judicial proceedings in which they have neither share nor interest, and can have none owing to their entire unacquaintance with the law. I can hardly express my

1237
sense of that position in stronger terms than were used by my noble and learned Friend on my right, in the evidence which he gave before the Committee of 1856, when, in answer to a question which was put to him, as to whether lay Lords being present at the hearing of appeals, and evidently not attending to what was going on, was not a cause of disturbance and distraction, Lord Westbury replied—"We have long since ceased to take any notice at all of the lay Lords, regarding them simply as two lay figures." Things could not go on in this way, although matters had began to mend. The tenure of office of Lord Eldon had been very long; but since his time the changes in the occupants of the Woolsack have been more frequent, and you have in consequence secured the services of a number of learned Lords which you could not have obtained at the period to which I have been referring. Owing to that happy accident, the conduct of business in the hearing of appeals has been somewhat more satisfactory. But it was, nevertheless, in 1856 deemed to be highly expedient to appoint a Committee to inquire what provision was required for securing the more efficient exercise of the functions of this House as a Court of Appellate Jurisdiction. That Committee was very strongly constituted. Among the lay Lords on it were the late Lord Derby, Earl Grey, and the Lord Privy Seal (Earl Stanhope). I cannot go through the whole list, for I have not the names before me—but there were very eminent Peers on the list. Among the law Lords were Lord Brougham, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord St. Leonards, and the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cranworth). Altogether, it was a very strongly constituted Committee. Well, what was the Report of that Committee? They reported that evidence had been given before them which spoke of the tribunal as it was constituted as giving satisfaction, but that the large preponderance of opinion was in favour of decided changes being required in the conduct of its appellate business. They go on to speak of the defects of the tribunal. Among these they enumerate the uncertainty in the attendance of Peers at the hearing of appeals and the misconstruction arising from the presence of lay Peers; and the House, after what I have stated, will not be surprised to hear that this was naturally a subject of complaint on the part of the witnesses,
1238
and that it made a considerable impression on the Committee. They speak also of a second grievance; and this I may observe is involved essentially in the very constitution of the tribunal, which, being constituted as the House of Peers, sits only while the House is sitting. The second grievance is that, as the House usually sits only from February to August, while the ordinary Courts of Law sit from November to August, three months are lost with respect to the hearing of appeals. Your Lordships will further observe—although I do not know that the Report of the Committee refers to the point—that the House sits only four days a-week. The Committee found, besides the inconveniences already referred to, that complaints were made by certain persons in Scotland—though Lord Moncrieff, who was at the time Lord Advocate, did not, I believe, take that view—that the administration of Scotch law had been sometimes unsatisfactory, no Peer having a seat in the House who was acquainted with the system of Scotch judicature, or who had been on the Bench in Scotland. Lastly, came the question of the greater expense created by the present mode of hearing appeals as distinguished from that involved in the hearing of appeals in the Courts below. Such were the main points touched upon in the Report, and I think you will regard it as a very strong Report, coming from men who can scarcely be looked upon as being desirous of change. I now beg leave to call your Lordships' attention to the work of Lord St. Leonards on the Law of Property, from the introductory chapter of which it will be seen that he, in a great degree, concurs in the inexpediency of this House exercising an appellate jurisdiction in the mode in which it has been exercised, and which I have endeavoured to describe. The witnesses examined before the Committee of 1856 were, I may add, numerous, and well acquainted with the subject. My noble and learned Friend to whom I have already referred was, I think, Solicitor General at the time, and he gave very full testimony with respect to the grievances which I have mentioned. He described the way in which a noble Lord would come into the House during he hearing of an appeal, read the newspaper or chat with other noble Lords, and not appear to take any interest in the particular case in hand. The Report

1239
of the Committee, moreover, refers to other matters which may be worthy of your Lordships' attention, although I by no means put them in the fore front of the question. It speaks of the inconvenience arising from the mode of delivering judgment, caused by the circumstance that it is delivered as the judgment of the House of Lords. It points out that it is delivered in the form of a speech very often, and not ex cathedrâ, but standing up; and that in consequence, a noble Lord is occasionally led to become more excited in its delivery than is quite consistent with the tone of judicial eloquence; and that occasionally, finding his way to the Table, he would vigorously emphasise parts of his judgment by slapping the table from time to time. Fault was also found with the absence of forensic attire. But these are points on which I do not now wish to lay any stress, in comparison with the other points which I have mentioned, such as the loss of time, the expense, and, above all, the pretending that the decisions given are the decisions of the House of Lords, instead of being, as they are, sometimes the judgments of one noble and learned Lord, or, at the most, of three or four Law Lords. In the evidence a case is detailed to which, but for its mention there, I should have some delicacy in referring. Vice Chancellor Malins, then Mr. Malins, was examined, and gave strong evidence in favour of the very measure I am about to submit to the consideration of your Lordships—the transfer of the appellate jurisdiction from this House to a bonâ fide Court, and not to a Committee calling itself the House of Lords. He furthermore gave this instance of what occurred in the presence of Lord Brougham, in order to give his Lordship an opportunity of replying to him by question and answer; but he never did so. A case was decided under the Acts for winding up public companies—a case of considerable importance to a large number of persons who had embarked their fortune in an unprofitable adventure, and were called upon in many cases to sacrifice the last penny they had to make good their engagements. It was a case of the first importance with a view to ascertain who was liable, or, in technical language, who were and who were not contributories, and to have the law clearly laid down as to what constituted a contributory, in order to govern—as it would
1240
govern—a vast number of cases thereafter. It so happened that the Master in Chancery, a near relative of Lord Brougham, before whom the case came, had come to a decision on a particular case which involved the liability of a Large number of contributories. His decision was appealed against, and after argument, was overruled by Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce, a Judge of considerable eminence, acuteness, and ability, whose eulogy I am not here to pronounce. The case came here on appeal before Lord Brougham, sitting alone, with the usual two formal adjuncts, the lay figures by his side. He affirmed the decision of his relative, reversing that of the Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce. Afterwards, a case thought to be of a similar character came before the same learned Lord on appeal, with the same adjuncts—he was not Lord Chancellor at the time, but the Lord Chancellor happened to be unwell—and he decided that case in a different way:—the result being that your Lordships were obliged to do that which is of rare occurrence indeed—re-hear the two cases, or otherwise there would have been two inconsistent decisions on the same subject. Suitors, therefore, suffer from a real grievance. I am not saying that Lord Brougham did anything here which he would not have done sitting in Chancery; but, imagine the effect which must be produced on the public mind by this decision affirming the decision of a relative, followed by an apparently contradictory decision in another case. I hesitated much in referring to this case till, on reading once more the Report and evidence, I found that Lord Brougham himself cross-examined Mr. Malins about the case, and asked—
"Are you not aware that Lord Cottenham sent me his written judgment, in which he gave the same opinion as I had arrived at?"
The answer was to this effect—
"Yes; and that made matters a great deal worse, for Lord Cottenham gave that judgment without being present or having heard, a syllable of the argument."
There can be no doubt, therefore, that the present mode of administering the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House is most unsatisfactory. The Committee to which I have referred recommended the appointment of two Deputy Speakers, to receive a salary of £6,000 a-year each; that the House should be authorized to sit for hearing appeals

1241
notwithstanding the Prorogation of Parliament; and that the Court should be so constituted as to include a Scotch Member, well versed in Scotch law, whose assistance should be constantly given in hearing and deciding questions of Scotch law. To that recommendation we owe a very valuable adjunct here, to whose assistance I am constantly indebted in the hearing of appeals. But the Report was not otherwise acted upon.
LORD CHELMSFORD: A Bill was introduced and passed this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then it was defeated in the other.
LORD CHELMSFORD: No; it was dropped.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In either case the argument is strengthened. The House of Commons have acquiesced in your appellate jurisdiction for 200 years, and it cannot now be in any way disputed; but they did not acquiesce in it very willingly originally, and are not now disposed to assist you in extending it, unless for some useful object and for some good reason. The proposal for the payment out of the public purse of additional officers here would be met by some such suggestions as these—"You have a number of learned Lords who receive certain pensions. We do not say that, in return, they are obliged to attend the Court of Appeal, nor do we take upon ourselves to interfere with your arrangements. But while we shall be glad to assist you in constructing a good Court of Appeal, we do not feel called upon to support the state of things which now exists." These were the arguments urged when I attempted to reserve to your Lordships some power over appeals. I have not mentioned one great difficulty in connection with the jurisdiction of your Lordships as a final Court of Appeal. You are a final Court of Appeal in all matters coming from England, Scotland, and Ireland; but you have no jurisdiction whatever in respect of the Colonies. Now, a number of our colonies are regulated by purely English law—in mercantile cases, land cases, cases involving the title to land, and so on, precisely the same law exists there as that which governs us. That being so, it is perfectly possible for the Privy Council to come to a decision upon matters of plain English law directly in conflict with your Lordships' conclusion upon the identical point here. Thus, from the separation into two bodies of the appellate jurisdiction,
1242
you run not an inconsiderable risk of having two conflicting decisions which cannot be set right. I say that practically you do not and never have exercised this jurisdiction since the Bishop of London's Case; you have renounced it. At present, by accident, you are able to form a small Committee of about four, sometimes five Members, to hear cases which this House does not hear at all. The robe of dignity with which you have attempted to invest that Committee has conferred no dignity at all, because you are obliged to confer the same robe of dignity on the lay figures who take part in the sitting without credit either to themselves or the House. Further, you have entangled your working body in the folds of this robe. You have prevented them from sitting for three months in the year, or for more than four days in a week. I have, therefore, endeavoured to find a remedy for the evils complained of; and although I have been complained of for not being more speedy in my proposals, I think, on the contrary, I deserve some credit for not having been over-hasty in attempting to overthrow existing institutions. There was a scheme recommended by some witnesses—among them I believe my noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury), that there should be constituted a Committee of Peers somewhat similar to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who should report to your Lordships' House at large in the same way as the Judicial Committee reports to the Sovereign. That was all very well in appearance; but was there any substance whatever in that scheme? Was there any chance that the House as a body would vote upon such reports, and overturn the decisions of the Law Lords? Another recommendation was, that there should be Peerages for life, in order to secure a greater number of Lords in this House. Earl Russell, I believe, proposed that system; but it did not find favour with your Lordships; at all events, it was not adopted. The question, therefore, is how really to secure a Court of Appeal which shall sit as a Court, which shall be a real and not a sham Court, which shall exercise jurisdiction by its Members sitting, not as a Committee of this House, to whom they are supposed to be responsible, but to whom, in fact, they owe no responsibility whatever; which shall take upon itself the whole responsibility, and sit, as other Courts do, throughout

1243
the whole legal year for the administration of justice. I will now tell your Lordships what I propose in order to provide an effective remedy for the great evils of the present system. I think the objects I have in view may best be carried out by constituting one great Court of Appeal, which should comprise the jurisdiction of the House of Lords and also of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. By that means you would never have the possibility of conflict between the decisions of two co-ordinate Courts of final jurisdiction. I propose that the Court should be formed in two Divisions, but not with such strictness that the Judges of one Division cannot act in the other. The Judges should have the power of migrating from one Division to the other, as their services may be required; the system of Division being simply intended for convenience, and for the discharge of the ordinary business of the Court when circumstances might not require that there should be a meeting of the full Court. My next proposal is that one Division should consist of all Peers who have filled the office of Lord Chancellor, or certain specified high judicial offices either in Great Britain or Ireland. I would also include in this Division all Peers who can be fairly designated as learned Lords—there have been some from time to time in this House—I mean men who have actually practised as barristers for a given number of years. There should likewise be a power to place in this Division all Privy Councillors who are capable of being appointed on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, if it should be thought fit. In the other Division there should be the Members now forming the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and others to be selected. And there would be this important provision for securing attendance—namely, that in each Division there should not be less than three, and not more than five, who shall be paid £6,000 a-year each. Such a provision would, I think, secure the attendance of those who would be bound at all times to attend to the duties of the Court. There is this further provision—that noble Lords who have filled the office of Lord Chancellor should receive a payment for attendance in addition to their pension which should raise their allowance to £6,000 a-year—those who are over 70 years of age would not be expected to attend. The Lord Chancellor would be at the head of the
1244
Court, and I propose that the three Chiefs of the Common Law Courts—the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron—should be members of it. I further propose that a certain number of years' service should be required to entitle the Members of the Court to a pension, but in other respects that they should hold their appointments on the same footing as the Judges of the Common Law Courts hold theirs. By this means we should get rid of the difficulty, and, to a certain extent, I may say, the degradation, of persons attending the highest Court of Appeal, half as volunteers, in matters in which they have not the slightest concern, and in which they do not take the smallest interest. I should now wish to say a few words with respect to the amount of authority, not altogether inconsiderable, with which I have been supported in these views. I very much desired, had it been feasible or possible, from a feeling for which I have been upbraided as being slow, wanting in my duty, and so on, to retain as far as could be the system which at present exists, by means of a report to the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, in the manner I have already described. I found, however, that it was doubtful whether this could be done, and almost everybody I consulted disapproved the idea. My noble and learned Friend has moved for the communications made to me on the subject by the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Lush, and the Master of the Polls. The Lord Chief Justice strongly recommends the formation of a real bonâ fide Court, to consist of Law Lords, of the two Divisional Chiefs of the High Court of Justice, and of four Lord Justices of Appeal, with salaries of £6,000 a-year. The reason I have introduced the clause requiring not less than three and not more than five, who should be paid for attendance, is this—There was considerable difference of opinion on the subject among the witnesses before the Committee of 1856. Several expressed the opinion that three ought always to be the number; many thought three not sufficient, and held that there ought to be five; and others—with whom I am inclined to agree—said that experience would be the best test in matters of this kind. Until experience therefore has decided, I think the best course will be to secure the attendance of five; though I dare say

1245
that other Members of the Court, who may not be under the same obligation to attend, as not receiving salaries, will give their services, especially in important cases; but in minor matters the attendance of three will be sufficient. Another question arose on the evidence before the same Committee as to the mode in which the judgment of the Court should be given. The question was, whether the judgment was to be that of the whole body without saying who joined in the decision, or whether judg-should be given severally by each Judge. There was one important witness, who said that he thought experience would be the best test in this matter also. I reserve the decision on the point for determination by the Court in the manner it shall think most fit. Well, then, the advantages of the system which I now propose are—first, the continuous sitting of the Court from November to February—which will give three months additional in the year; secondly, the sitting for at least five days in the week, instead of four, as now. It is a question whether Saturday may not be devoted to preparing judgments. A further important reform will be effected by giving over to this new Court the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery as it at present exists and of the Exchequer Chamber. That will prevent the great evil of two appeals; for I think it would be of essential service to the suitor to have but one appeal instead of two. It will present a Court of ready access, at a cost considerably less than the suitors have at present to incur. I have made inquiry, and I find that cases of the most ordinary description cannot be lodged before your Lordships' House without an expense of nearly £100. The actual fees of the House are only £23 or £24; but then the preparation of the case is very costly, it being thought necessary to print 80 copies, for no earthly reason that I know, at a cost of some £60 or £70. Now, a tenth of the sum that is now required to lodge the case would be much nearer the mark. Then this Court, which will sit continuously, will take appeals from the Colonies, from Scotland and Ireland, and will decide once for all, thus avoiding all conflicting decisions. Your Lordships are aware that we have several ex-Chancellors among us, and that we have the most valuable assistance of a noble and learned
1246
Lord from Scotland (Lord Colonsay). The Master of the Rolls and another noble and learned Judge are Members of your Lordships' House, but their occupations in their respective Courts have made it impossible for either of them to hear appeals in your Lordships' House during the time I have occupied the position I have the honour to hold. I think your Lordships must feel that it does not add to the strength of your position or to the dignity of the House of Peers, that the highest function which can be assigned to any body whatever of men should be exercised in that seemingly listless and perfunctory manner which has been too often witnessed in your Lordships' House. No decision of the House of Lords for the last 25 years has been a decision of more than five or six of its Members; and hence the country view its decisions with little more reverence than that of a single Judge. I do not wish your Lordships to come to a hasty conclusion with regard to the Resolution I am about to move. The subject is of grave importance, and requires most careful consideration.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that one Imperial Supreme Court of Appeal be established which shall sit continuously for the hearing of all matters now heard by way of Appeal before this House or before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House be transferred to such Supreme Court of Appeal.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, I am very glad my noble and learned Friend does not propose to ask your Lordships to-night to come to any decision upon the very important question which he has brought to our notice. Since, then, my noble and learned Friend does not wish us to express any final opinion at the present moment, it seems to me more convenient, with a view to the discussion hereafter of the Resolution my noble and learned Friend has moved, that I should move the adjournment of the debate. The very large proposition which my noble and learned Friend has made requires most careful and dispassionate consideration. I am glad to hear that my noble and learned Friend does not intend to deal with the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in those matters to which he has referred. I am sure I need not say for myself and every one of your Lordships that the question of appellate jurisdiction is one upon which there should be no personal prejudice on

1247
the part of this House. Speaking for my noble Friends, I may say further, that I think if ever there was a question on which we are bound to make a covenant, as it were, with our own personal inclinations, it is the question of appellate jurisdiction. The establishment of such a tribunal as my noble and learned Friend describes would, no doubt, relieve your Lordships of a burden of no inconsiderable weight. But, having said that much, I must state that I did not altogether follow my noble and learned Friend in the course of his argument. Nothing, as it seems to me, can be more unprofitable than to examine into the early history of the judicial powers of this House, or of the manner in which it became possessed of its appellate jurisdiction. That jurisdiction, be it good or evil, is as completely settled as that of any other Court in the country, and has been exercised for a very long period of time. The noble and learned Lord referred to the Committee of 1856, when the subject of the appellate jurisdiction was considered. I think my noble and learned Friend has hardly done justice to the proceedings of that Committee, considering that such men as Lord Aberdeen, the noble Duke opposite (The Duke of Argyll), Earl Granville, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord St. Leonards, and other statesmen and lawyers of great eminence took part in its labours. But there is one remarkable circumstance connected with that Committee—that they reported unanimously in favour of your Lordships' retaining the jurisdiction in your own hands.
EARL GREYsaid, there were divisions in the Committee on that subject, but they were not recorded on the Minutes.
LORD CAIRNS: I am reading from the Report, and I do not find anything there to suggest that anything has passed in an opposite sense. It is also a remarkable fact that not one of the witnesses examined before the Committee advocated a transfer of that jurisdiction from this House, with the exception of the present Vice Chancellor Malins; and the reason he gave was this—that it was absolutely necessary that the tribunal of appellate jurisdiction should sit for the convenience of suitors during the whole of the legal year. Other reasons urged against the exercise of appellate jurisdiction
1248
by your Lordships' House are—that there are no means of securing the attendance of an adequate quorum of a particular class of Peers, and that it is a jurisdiction which entails great expense. The Committee in their Report, which I hope your Lordships will consider very carefully, did not arrive at any decision on this matter. There is another point to which I wish to draw attention in this matter, and that is that I think we are too much in the habit of regarding this as merely an English question. I venture to say that the interests of England in this matter of the appellate jurisdiction of this House and of the Privy Council are very much less than those of the other parts of the Empire. My noble and learned Friend did not make it clear whether the Court he is desirous of establishing is to be a Court of Final Appeal, or whether he intends that there shall be any intermediate Court of Appeal. But we have not England only to deal with in regard to this matter of appeal—we have also to deal with Scotland and Ireland. If this House had only to deal with appeals from England, three or four weeks would dispose of them. But this House hears also appeals from Scotland and Ireland, and we have got some indication of the opinion of Scotland on the point. The Scotch witnesses examined before the Committee were unanimously in favour of the retention of the appellate jurisdiction of this House. In the Committee of 1856, Lord Aberdeen made an observation which is entitled to great weight. He called attention to the fact that the Act of Union provided that under no circumstances should there be any appeal from the Courts of Scotland to any Court in Westminster Hall. Now, if you create a Court holding its sittings in London, and dealing with cases as our Courts deal with them, will not a feeling arise in Scotland that appeals are brought to a Court which will be looked on as nothing more than one of the Courts of Westminster Hall? Again, with regard to Ireland, there is a provision in the Act of Union that appeals and writs of error shall lie to the House of Lords. Great excitement prevailed in Ireland during last century on this question. It was settled by the Act of Union; but if Irish appeals are brought to what may be termed an English Court considerable discussion, and perhaps dissatisfaction,

1249
may arise. My noble and learned Friend wishes for only one appeal; but is it possible in the case of Scotland, Ireland, and the Colonies, all of which have an intermediate appeal at home, that their cases should be brought from the primary Judges to the proposed Final Court? Considering that 99 appeals never go further than the intermediate Court for every one which comes to the Court of Final Appeal, that is absolutely impracticable. I understand, indeed, that it is proposed to abolish an intermediate appeal in England, but to retain it for Scotland, Ireland, and the Colonies. At present the Colonies, by their very constitution as colonies, have an appeal to the Queen in Council, which is disposed of on the advice of the Judicial Committee, and I believe they are satisfied with that tribunal, which stands extremely high with them. My noble and learned Friend may think it a sham and a form for Her Majesty to pronounce judgment upon the advice of Her Privy Council; but, for myself, I view it as one of much importance as regards India and the Colonies. Our Colonies take pride in the fact that they derive their law, not from an English Court, but from the actual Order of the Sovereign in Council, and to do away with this would destroy one of the links which most closely bind them to us. This, indeed, is a very much larger question than the tone of my noble and learned Friend's speech would indicate when he speaks as if it were quite at our option whether we retain this jurisdiction or not. Are we to pass a Resolution, or a Bill, which assumes as its basis that the jurisdiction of the Privy Council and of Her Majesty in Council is to be abolished, without any consultation with our Colonies and other dependencies, which are not represented in this or in the other House of Parliament, and without their having an opportunity of offering an opinion upon it? That would be one of the strongest measures ever taken in this country. Until I see the Bill I will not say a word on the constitution of the proposed Court. As far as I understand it, my noble and learned Friend proposes to roll up all the legal Peers, with a number of other persons the description of whom was only faintly indicated, and all the Chiefs of all the Courts, into one large Committee. Whether that would be a satisfactory course I will
1250
not now discuss, though I think every objection that could possibly be urged against the working of the present system could be made with much greater weight against such an institution as is proposed to be substituted. In the proposed Court it would be impossible for the head of it to be other than the Lord Chancellor—indeed, I do not suppose my noble and learned Friend would propose any other arrangement. It seems to me, however, that for the Lord Chancellor to sit in such a Court after the jurisdiction of this House is abolished would involve a change, not only in the constitution of this House, but in the office of Lord Chancellor. That might be viewed with satisfaction in some quarters; but it is impossible that such an officer should be changed from year to year. While offering these observations, I can assure my noble and learned Friend that I am anxious to consider every part of his plan, and I trust your Lordships will arrive at a decision which will be satisfactory and beneficial to the country.
LORD WESTBURYsaid, he did not intend to enter on the discussion of so large a question, for it was impossible to express an opinion whether the House ought to part with the judicial authority which it possessed, and probably exercised satisfactorily, until it was known whether the new tribunal was one to which it might conscientiously and with a sense of duty yield up its functions. He had hoped to hear from his noble and learned Friend an explanation of the proposed scheme, for the two things could not be considered separately. He would, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned, and be the Order of the Day in immediate priority to the second reading of the Bill constituting the Supreme Court of Appeal. If his noble and learned Friend would lay his Bill on the Table, the House would be ready to consider it; and if the proposed tribunal were satisfactory as a Court of Appeal for the whole Empire, and entitled to unqualified approval, their Lordships might, as honest men, part with their jurisdiction; but till then they could not do so.
LORD CAIRNSalso thought an adjournment would be convenient. He hoped his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would give the House an assurance that the debate should not be

1251
resumed till the second reading of his Bill, and that sufficient time—say a fortnight—should elapse between the printing of the Bill and the second reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had intended to have the Bill printed, and not to ask for a second reading of it until a result had been arrived at on this Resolution. He doubted whether it would be in Order to adjourn the debate to a day depending on some other day not yet named, and he would propose, after laying the Bill on the Table to-morrow and naming a time for the second reading, to fix the resumption of this debate for the previous day.
LORD WESTBURYsaid, he was anxious to expedite the production of the Bill, and he was not without hope that if it at all answered the promise held out, the House might be able to deliberate upon it and upon this Resolution in time for the Bill to be sent down to the other House and so become law this Session. This, however, depended on the prompt production of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had the same object in view as his noble and learned Friend; and he had already stated that he should submit the Bill to the House to-morrow night. The introduction of the measure in that shape on the present occasion was greatly influenced by something which fell on the first night of the Session from a noble Lord who said he should be glad to see a transfer of jurisdiction made, provided a proper Bill was brought in. They might fix the adjourned debate on the Resolution for a day before they took the second reading of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDpreferred that the adjourned debate on the Resolution should be fixed for the same evening as the second reading of the Bill. He did not see any advantage that would be gained by taking the adjourned debate on one night and the second reading on another.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to assent to this suggestion.
The further debate adjourned sine die.

CLERKS OF THE PEACE—(ENGLAND AND WALES.)

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONmoved an Address for Return of the salaries and
  1252
  emoluments received by Clerks of the Peace in England and Wales, distinguishing between sums paid by the county treasurer and sums received in the shape of fees on an average of three years. The position of these officers was very anomalous. At present there was no uniformity in the mode of remunerating them. In some counties they were paid partly by salaries and partly by fees; in others—and he thought wisely—the whole fee fund had been commuted, and specific salaries were assigned to clerks of the peace. Some difficulty had arisen in more than one county in carrying out such an arrangement where the clerks of the peace were not fully consenting parties to it. The general progress of public feeling had been against the payment of any officials through the medium of fees. A Bill had been brought in this Session to remunerate the Attorney General and the Solicitor General by means of a salary in lieu of fees; and a measure had also been introduced to remunerate clerks of petty sessions in the same mode. In the county with which he was connected that reform had been effected some years ago; they paid all their clerks of petty sessions by salary, and the result of that experiment had been eminently satisfactory both to the county and to those gentlemen themselves. He wished to see some principle of that kind applied also to clerks of the peace; but before any sound basis of legislation could be laid it was necessary to ascertain what their present remuneration was. The only part of his Motion with respect to which he anticipated any difficulty was as regarded a return of the fees. He had heard it argued in Quarter Sessions that it would be unfair to make any alteration in the salaries of clerks of the peace, because the fees were not received actually from sources connected with the county, but from Her Majesty's Treasury. Even in cases where appointments to clerkships of the peace had been very recent indeed, if there was any difficulty in making out a triennial valuation of fees, there could not be any difficulty in arriving at some approximation which would enable them to get at the actual amount of the income. If his Motion were agreed to, he earnestly hoped that the Return would be laid on the Table on an early day.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was no objection to the production of the Return.
  Motion agreed to.

  PRISON MINISTERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Prison Ministers Act, 1863—Was presented by The Duke of CLEVELAND; read 1a. (No. 72.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.