Sitting of 29 February 1872

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Gloucester County (Eastern Division), v. Robert Stayner Holford, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. George Edmund Milnes Monckton, for Nottingham County (Northern Division).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections [21], and Corrupt Practices [22]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Poor Law Loans* [51].

BOARD OF TRADE.—QUESTION.
MR. BIRLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to fill up the office lately held by Sir Louis Mallet, or to merge it in some other Department?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that it was not intended to fill up this office. The main part of the business formerly conducted by the Commercial Secretary of the Board of Trade, consisting of Reports to other Departments of the Government, and especially to the Foreign Office, had greatly fallen off of late years and had become insufficient to occupy the time of such an officer. It was, therefore, proposed to establish a new department at the Foreign Office for that purpose. The effect of that change would be highly advantageous to the public service, because the Foreign Office having necessarily in its hands the conduct and management of all international transactions, whether political or commercial, and being mainly responsible for them, would, for the future, assume more fully that responsibility, and would contain within itself all the knowledge necessary for dealing with international matters of a commercial character.

CORRUPT PRACTICES IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, seeing that the Corrupt Practices Bill introduced by the Government has reference solely to Parliamentary Elections, it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during the present Session for the prevention of Corrupt Practices in Municipal Elections?
MR. GLADSTONE: It is evident, Sir, from the terms of the Question, that my hon. Friend appreciates the reason why the Government has not attempted to combine the two subjects of Parliamentary and Municipal Elections in one Bill—namely, because an entirely different machinery is required; and there is a question to be considered and decided, as to the tribunal before which persons accused of corrupt practices at municipal elections should be tried. We quite concur with those who think that great necessity exists for a Bill dealing with corrupt practices at municipal elections. At the same time, it is not possible for me, at this period of the Session, to indicate the time at which we can bring forward such a measure. It must depend upon the progress of business, though we have every disposition to avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity of dealing with the subject.

INCOME TAX ON IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES.—QUESTION.
MR. KAVANAGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland are justified in refusing to allow deductions for Income Tax on the charges hereafter to be paid to them (under Clause 32 of the Irish Church Act, 1869) for the purpose of extinguishing the rent-charge in fifty-two years, the words of that Clause being
"The annual sum charged by such order shall have priority…and be subject to the same charges, if any, as the rent-charge in lieu of tithes heretofore payable out of the same lands;"
the Income Tax having always hitherto been (since its imposition) one of the charges to which said rent-charge was liable?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Question of the hon. Member is a question of law. I have, therefore, consulted the Attorney General for Ireland, who is distinctly of
1152
opinion that the Commissioners are proceeding according to law in the course they have taken, and in declining to make these deductions. He also observes that the time for raising the question, if it is desired to raise it, would be when the first instalment comes to be paid.

THE PERSIAN MISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. EASTWICKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry out the recommendation of the Diplomatic Committee of 1871, by transferring the control of our relations with Persia to the India Office; or, if not, by adjusting the payments for the Persian Mission more to the advantage of India?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, Lord Granville has given his best consideration to the suggestions of the Committee in regard to the Persian Mission. He cannot, however, concur with the Committee as to placing that Mission under the authority of the Secretary of State for India, nor can he undertake to recommend the Treasury to assent to any arrangement other than that which was deliberately made in the year 1836 for providing the expenditure of the Persian Mission.

INDIA—METRIC SYSTEM.—QUESTION.
MR. CRAWFORDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of an Act passed by the Legislative Council of India, providing for the compulsory introduction of the Metric System of Weights and Measures into the administration of the Railways and Public Departments in India; whether the Railway Companies are parties to and approve of the Act, and whether it has received the sanction of the Chambers of Commerce and other bodies representing public opinion in India; and whether the Secretary of State for India in Council is prepared to allow, or will disallow, the Act in question?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend's first Question, I have to say that there will be no objection to laying on the Table the Act to which I understand him to allude. The information which has reached me is hardly sufficient to enable me to answer my hon. Friend's second Question. In reply

1153
to his third Question, I have to say that the Act is still under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.

RECTORY OF EWELME.—QUESTION.
MR. MOWBRAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Reverend William Wigan Harvey, B.D., of King's College, Cambridge, was, on November 22nd, 1871, after having completed forty-two days of residence within the University of Oxford, admitted by the Vice Chancellor, "ad jus suffragandi" in Convocation; whether the Statutes of the University provide that the admission shall be in express terms to exercise the right of voting in the House of Convocation after the expiration of one hundred and eighty days from the date of admission; whether the Statutes further provide that no one shall exersise the right of voting in the House of Convocation until after the expiration of one hundred and eighty days, to be reckoned from the day when he appeared before the Vice Chancellor; whether Mr. Harvey was, on the 15th December, 1871, presented to the Rectory of Ewelme; whether, under these circumstances, the one hundred and eighty days not having expired, Her Majesty has been advised that Mr. Harvey was, on the 15th December last, such a Member of Convocation of the University of Oxford as Her Majesty was by law entitled to present to Ewelme; also on what day the said Rectory became vacant; and whether Mr. Harvey has as yet been instituted thereto?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not cognizant of the particular dates to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but if anything depends upon them I dare say the information can be had from the officers of the diocese. Some difficulty has been experienced in enabling the Attorney General to answer the reference to the Statutes, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman has not favoured us with any information as to the particular Statutes. However, I will now reply to the Questions as accurately as I can. I believe that Mr. Harvey was admitted by the Vice Chancellor at the date quoted to the jus suffragandi in Convocation of the University of Oxford, and he was so admitted without any qualification whatever on the part of the Vice Chancellor. In the former Question I
1154
was asked whether Mr. Harvey was admitted subject to the condition of not voting for 180 days; but the admission was absolute. As to the second Question, my hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) has not been able to discover the particular statutes which provide that the admission shall be limited by the condition that 180 days shall expire before a vote is given, but he does not believe that to be a material point in the case. The statutes do provide that no one shall exercise the right of voting until after 180 days. There is no doubt about that. Mr. Harvey was presented in December to the Rectory of Ewelme by the Crown, and Her Majesty was advised that at the date of his presentation Mr. Harvey was a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford, and therefore such a member as Her Majesty was entitled to present to the Rectory of Ewelme. The point in which it appears to me that the Questions of the right hon. Gentleman involve—if I may say so—an error, is this: the right hon. Gentleman assumes the possession of the right of suffrage to be the same thing with the immediate qualification to exercise that right. I believe that, according to the law, the right is given in the first instance, subject to the condition of a certain lapse of time before it can be exercised, and the possession of the right, before the lapse of that time, makes a man a member of Convocation. Mr. Harvey has not yet been instituted to the Rectory of Ewelme in consequence of severe illness, the Bishop having on this account allowed additional time within which he may be instituted.
MR. MOWBRAY: I should like to know whether the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that the jus suffragii is the same as the jus suffragandi.
MR. GLADSTONE: I have stated the law as it is given to me by the Attorney General, and probably I should have acted more wisely had I devolved upon him the necessity of answering the Question.

PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, considering that the Bill for the Prevention and Punishment of Criminal Outrages upon Natives of the Islands in the Pacific Ocean has been in

  1155
  the hands of Members only since Monday, he intends to proceed with the Second Reading upon Thursday?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in reply, said, he gathered that it would he convenient to postpone the Bill for the present. He would put it down in the Orders for Monday, on the understanding that it would not be taken then, and that he would meanwhile consider to what day he should postpone it.

  FOREIGN OFFICE—CONDUCT OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MAGNIACasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of the retirement of Sir Louis Mallet from the Board of Trade, any change has been made in the Foreign Office for the future conduct of the Commercial business transacted by that Department?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, on the retirement of Sir Louis Mallet from the Board of Trade certain commercial business of an international character came more completely under the cognizance and direction of the Foreign Office, and with a view to the efficient discharge of those duties the commercial department of the Foreign Office was reconstituted and separated from the consular branch. Lord Granville has placed at its head a gentleman, in his opinion, specially qualified for those duties, Mr. Kennedy, who, after a brilliant University career, has served for upwards of 20 years with zeal and efficiency at the Foreign Office, and who has lately been employed on special service in the Levant, in connection with our consular establishments in that quarter of the world.

NAVY—ADMIRALTY WRITERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the writers employed in the Department of the Accountant General of the Navy, and in certain other Departments, under the Regulations of 15th February 1869, "for the appointment of writers in the several Departments under the Admiralty," which provides that "the pay will be six shillings a-day for six days in the week for the first year, and to rise by threepence a-day for each year's service to a maximum of nine shillings," have not received such increase since August
  1156
  1871, while the writers in the Dock and Victualling Yards have regularly received the advance?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that by an Order issued in 1869 by the Admiralty certain writers were to receive certain salaries. That Order was superseded by one dated August, 1871, which applied to all the departments of the Civil Service, and under that Order in Council was regulated any further advance in pay, and the question was whether the writers in the Dockyard and in the Victualling Yards ought to have received the advance that took place in the other departments under that Order. The attention of the Board of Admiralty was called to the subject about two months ago, and the matter was now under investigation.

  ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended that the home battalion of a Regiment shall be stationed within the district from which it is recruited during the period of its employment on home service; and, whether it is intended that of the two companion battalions of a Regiment one and the same battalion shall be always at home and the other abroad, or whether it is intended that they shall be exchangeable, sometimes the one battalion at home, sometimes the other?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the intention is that the third battalion, or depôt centre, shall be localized. With regard to the other two battalions, they will serve wherever they are required; one being always at home, and the other always abroad. In answer to the second Question, I have to state that the two battalions will be exchangeable.

LOCAL TAXATION.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to bring in any Bill this Session dealing with the subject of local taxation, and with the inequalities of the present system of levying the same, by extending such incidence to other property now exempt, or by any other remedy or alteration of the present mode?
MR. HIBBERT (for Mr. STANSFELD)said, his right hon. Friend proposed to deal with the question of local taxation

1157
and existing exemptions from local rates, but would not deal with the inequalities of the present system of levying local taxation. His right hon. Friend hoped to introduce the Bill in the course of the present Session; but could not state when he would do so, or even whether he would be able to introduce a Bill at all.

NAVY—REPORT OF THE "MEGÆRA." COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. CORRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can say when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Loss of the Megæra, with the Evidence, will be presented to Parliament, and whether it will be in the hands of Members some days before he makes his statement on moving the Navy Estimates?
MR. GOSCHEN: I wrote, Sir, to the Chairman of the Commission, in consequence of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, and Lord Lawrence informs me that the Report will probably be signed on Saturday or Monday. Therefore, I am unable to say how soon it can be printed and be in the hands of Members. Probably it will be in the hands of Members some days before I am able to make my statement upon the Estimates. If not, I propose to leave out from my statement any controverted matters, so that hon. Members may not feel themselves hampered by the absence of that document.

INDIA—THE KOOKA INSURRECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HAVILAND-BURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Deputy-Commissioner Cowan did, as stated in "The Times" of the 5th of February, and after the complete suppression of the Kooka Mutiny, select fifty men out of the number of prisoners to be executed by being blown from guns; whether such fifty men were so executed; whether Mr. Forsyth, the Commissioner at Umballa, caused sixteen other men connected with the same Mutiny to be executed; and, if so, whether there was any court or tribunal for the trial of the said sixty-six men, and what was the finding of such court or tribunal; whether, previously to such executions, any Communications were made
  1158
  by the officers above-named to the then Governor-General of India, and what Reply, if any, was received from his Excellency; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House all Papers or Correspondence relating to the Kooka Mutiny?
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNalso asked, Whether it is the intention of the Government to institute any special inquiry into the circumstances connected with the Kooka insurrection near Loodiana?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: My reply, Sir, to the hon. Gentleman's first Question must be, I deeply regret to say, in the affirmative. My reply to his second Question must be that the number was 49, the fiftieth having been cut down in self-defence by an officer of a native State. My reply to the first part of the third Question must also, I regret to say, be in the affirmative. As to the second part of it, I have not seen the finding of the Court; but I believe that Mr. Forsyth's proceedings, whether justifiable or not—as to which I give no opinion—were not on the face of them irregular. My reply to the fourth Question must be that, previous to the executions, there seems to have been no communications about the executions with the late Viceroy. When, on the 19th of January, he received the intelligence of what had been done, he telegraphed to the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjaub—"Stop any summary execution of Kookas without your express orders." As to the fifth Question, there will be no objection whatever to lay the Papers on the Table when they are complete. At present they are so imperfect as to add little or nothing to what hon. Members know already. In reply to my hon. Friend (Sir David Wedderburn), I have to say that a special inquiry has been instituted on the spot, and the Secretary of State in Council has informed the Government of India that he awaits with anxiety the Report of the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjaub.
  MR. HAVILAND-BURKEsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not told the House whether any court or tribunal had been held for the trial of the 66 men before they were executed.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I thought this might have been inferred from my statement that, so far as I have any information, Mr. Forsyth's proceedings were

  1159
  in proper form and were in no way irregular.
  MR. HAVILAND-BURKEsaid, he was still unable to understand whether there was any trial before the execution of these men?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: My answer related to the proceedings of Mr. Forsyth. So far as we are aware, there was no trial of any sort by Mr. Cowan; he executed without trial.

ARMY—RECRUITING.—QUESTION.
MR. EASTWICKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as the Report of the Inspector General for Recruiting has not yet been circulated, he will postpone the Debate on the Army Estimates from Monday the 4th till Monday the 11th March, and will supply, before that date, a map of the districts in which regiments are to be localized, with the position of the depôts?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting had been circulated that morning. As to the map, the hon. Gentleman would observe that the basis of distribution was not superficial area, but population. It was, therefore, from the schedule rather than from any map that information was to be sought. At the same time he would furnish a map if it were thought necessary. He hoped to be able to go on with the Estimates on Monday, but this would depend on the arrangements made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone).

THANKSGIVING IN THE METROPOLITAN CATHEDRAL—THE DOCKYARDS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any application was received praying that there should be a suspension of business in the Dockyard and other Government establishments at Portsmouth on the late occasion of Thanksgiving; and if he was aware that, in accordance with the recommendation of the mayor, there was a general cessation of business throughout the civil community?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, the only application received by the Admiralty from Portsmouth was sent by the Admiral Superintendent of the Dockyard, asking whether there was any intention to grant a holiday there on
  1160
  Thanksgiving Day. This question was answered in the negative. He was not aware whether the Mayor recommended a cessation of business in the town; nor did he know whether the recommendation was acted on; nor, if there was a cessation from business, whether the workmen in private firms were paid the same as though they worked on; nor whether the business of the town generally was of the same urgent importance as that now being carried on in Her Majesty's Dockyards. He could assure the hon. Baronet that it would have been a very easy and agreeable task for him to say that there should be a holiday in the Dockyard; but he feared he had added one more to the errors of the Government by refusing to sacrifice the public interests to local and individual wishes and convenience.

INDIA—BOMBAY BANK.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary for India, Whether the Second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the failure of the Bombay Bank refers to the past connection of the Government with the Bank, as well as to the future management of Government Banks; and, whether, if this should be the case, he will consent to lay upon the Table all that portion of the Report which relates to the former subject?
MR. GRANT DUFF: There are, Sir, undoubtedly some passages in the Reports to which the hon. Gentleman alludes which refer to the affairs of the old Bank of Bombay; but they are mixed up with other matters, and the whole of the documents are, as I said on Monday, of a strictly confidential character, in the nature of privileged communications made to the Secretary of State by certain persons who, having been employed as Commissioners, and having reported as Commissioners, were consulted in their private capacity as to future policy by the Secretary of State. Hon. Members will see that such documents are not of the kind which the House in its wisdom usually asks a Government to lay upon its Table. Four volumes on the subject of the old Bank of Bombay, including the Report on the affairs of the old Bank of Bombay by those very same persons in their capacity of Commissioners, are already in the hands of hon. Members.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE "ALABAMA." CLAIMS.—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it will be convenient to the House, If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury could give us any further information as to the probable period when we may expect an answer from the Government of the United States to the friendly communication made to it?
MR. GLADSTONE: We have had no information as to the despatch of the document, and I cannot say absolutely when it is likely to start from America.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
In reply to Sir JOHN TRELAWNY,
MR. GLADSTONEstated, that he did not see any probability of this Bill being brought on for a Second Reading upon the 21st of March; but notice of the day when it would be proceeded with would be given to the hon. Member if he should wish to bring forward any Motion on the subject.

THANKSGIVING IN THE METROPOLITAN CATHEDRAL—ACCIDENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CADOGANasked the hon. Member for Truro, Whether, in pursuance of the Instructions stated by the Home Secretary to have been issued by the Metropolitan Board of Works for the inspection of temporary structures raised for Thanksgiving Day, any inspection had been made of the erection near Marlborough House, which had fallen, and been the scene of a serious accident?
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, in reply, that it appeared from the Report of the District Surveyors that, after careful inquiry, they had not found that any structure which had been erected, or was in the course of erection, in the neighbourhood of Marlborough House up to the evening of the 26th of February had fallen; but they stated that a standing-place, set up near the porter's lodge in Marlborough House Yard, and which consisted of loose planks, had been thrown down by the crowd, and was the cause of a serious accident. He desired to add that the District Surveyors performed their difficult task in a most careful way,
  1162
  and, after making inquiry, he had ascertained that no accident occurred to any structure they examined.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.— [BILL 21.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.— [BILL 21.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH moved, that the Corrupt Practices Bill be referred to the same Committee. In the present year the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill had been brought in at an early period, so as to allow ample time for consideration, and as the House had already affirmed the principle of the Bill on two previous occasions, he did not now mean, nor would he during the progress of the measure propose to question that principle, but any Amendments he might offer would refer to points of detail. He wished, however, to know why the Government, in the present Session, separated the Corrupt Practices Bill from the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill. The main portion of the former measure, likely to give rise to discussion, related to personation and to a provision for striking off a vote from the total number recorded for a candidate, if a person were proved to have been bribed to vote for him, and these were matters connected with the proposal to establish the system of secret voting. The Parliamentary Elections Bill introduced a new system of voting, which was admitted to be liable to certain evils, and yet the Government declined to provide in the same Bill the remedies against those evils. It could hardly be argued that delay would be caused by combining these two Bills into one, for if the Government adhered to their declared intention that the two measures were to proceed pari passu, it would be just as easy and as expeditious to consider them together as separately. But besides, by dividing the measure into two, both parts of it were materially injured. During the last three years, whether before the Select Committee, or in the various Bills introduced by the Government, the question of Parliamentary and municipal elections had always been considered as a whole. Yet, now the Government proposed to apply the

  1163
  Ballot to both, but to legislate against corrupt practices only in the former. And this, although no one could deny that municipal elections were at least as liable to corruption as Parliamentary. The towns, indeed, throughout the country might be more thoroughly demoralized in the case of the former than the latter, inasmuch as they occurred more frequently. Why, again, were safeguards against personation to be taken in Parliamentary elections, while in municipal they were allowed to run unchecked? In the Corrupt Practices Bill, also, the mode in which, on a scrutiny, a vote was to be struck off was the subject of certain provisions, and surely similar provisions were equally necessary with reference to municipal elections? There were two other clauses also in the Corrupt Practices Bill which provided that any payments made, except through the agents, should be considered corrupt payments, and that a room should not be employed in a public-house for the purposes of a Parliamentary election. Why, then, he should like to know, was a candidate at municipal elections to be allowed to make what payments he pleased without their being deemed corrupt, and to hire rooms, if he thought fit, in every public-house in every ward in a borough? There could be no doubt, that if no further safeguards were to be introduced municipal elections under the Ballot would be more corrupt than they had hitherto been. If, moreover, such loopholes as those he had referred to were left open, it was clear that the provisions by which it was expected that a check would be placed on corruption and personation at Parliamentary elections would fail to secure that object. Three years back notorious cases had been tried before the Election Judges, in which it had been distinctly proved that boroughs had been corrupted at municipal elections simply for the purpose of rendering the Parliamentary elections safe. The same process might be repeated with the greatest possible ease, and so serious a blot as that would scarcely, he thought, be approved by the House, although it might have escaped the attention of the Government. Many hon. Members who cared only about the Ballot might think it unimportant to provide any safeguards to secure purity and honesty in the exercise of the secret vote; but the House,
  1164
  he hoped, would not concur in that opinion. There were other improvements in our electoral system not less necessary or important, which ought to be considered, and he hoped, therefore, the House would not give its sanction to the timid and half-hearted course which the Government had adopted. For his own part, he maintained that by taking the Bill separately the House would be doing all in its power to prevent corrupt practices at elections from being dealt with for some time to come. It had been admitted that both measures must stand or fall together; and he hoped, under those circumstances, the House would assent to his proposal that they should be fused, and the system of secret voting, if it was to be adopted at all, thus made as far as possible satisfactory.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill and the Corrupt Practices Bill be committed to the same Committee."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

OUTRAGE ON THE QUEEN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE, interupting the debate, said: I rise, Sir, not for the purpose of following the hon. Baronet on the subject of his Motion, but of conveying to the House the substance of a verbal communication which I have just received, through Colonel Hardinge, from Her Majesty. The object of that communication is to prevent the spread of any needless alarm. It is a simple narrative. Her Majesty went out to drive this afternoon, after the Court was held, and came back about half-past 5. She was received with loyal demonstrations by a numerous assembly at the garden entrance of Buckingham Palace. When the gates were opened to allow the Queen to enter, a youth, who is stated, or supposed to be, 18 or 19 years of age, made his way into the garden of the Palace, following the Royal carriage, and when the carriage reached the door of the Palace he presented himself first on the side opposite that on which Her Majesty was, where Lady Churchill sat, who was in attendance, and then, going round to the same side as the Queen sat, pointed a pistol towards Her Majesty. The Queen, who was not in the slightest degree flurried or alarmed, simply withdrew her person within the frame of the

  1165
  carriage; and while this was occurring the attendants dismounted, immediately secured the lad, and took from him the pistol which he held. He had with him also a paper for signature, with places for the names of witnesses. The object of this paper was to obtain from Her Majesty a pledge, as I am told, for the immediate liberation of those who are called Fenian prisoners; but who, in point of fact, the House will remember, are certain persons detained in prison in connection with Fenian offences on account of features in their case which partake of the nature of ordinary crime. The pistol was seized, and is probably now in the course of being examined; but I have received nothing yet in the shape of a written document in reference to the subject, and the House will, therefore, understand that I am giving the best account in my power of the occurrence from a verbal communication. There is no cause whatever for alarm. Indeed, I am told by Colonel Hardinge that not only was the pistol not fired, but that he believes it was not even loaded. The youth himself stated that it was not loaded; and Colonel Hardinge's opinion is that the statement is probably true. Among other signs to the effect that it was not loaded, there was some red cloth projecting from the muzzle of the pistol. I understand the instrument is of a very primitive structure, with an ancient flint lock, and having the barrel screwed on; and the lock was in such a condition that, even had it been loaded, Colonel Hardinge is of opinion that it could not be fired. A circumstance of this character may, however, create great alarm, and whatever relates to her Majesty is a matter of such deep and profound interest, especially to the House of Commons, that I hope the House will forgive me—I know, Sir, I have your forgiveness—if I have thought it desirable to interrupt the business on which we are engaged for the purpose of allaying any apprehensions with regard to the life and safety of Her Majesty which may prevail.
  SIR GEORGE GREY, resuming the debate, observed that the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the safety of Her Majesty must be most satisfactory to the House. It was scarcely possible to suppose, after the demonstrations of enthusiastic loyalty
  1166
  which were displayed on Tuesday last, that any serious attempt could be made on Her Majesty's life, and the statement which had been just made would remove the anxiety which exaggerated rumours of what had occurred were producing, while it also showed that Her Majesty's conduct had been marked by Her usual fortitude.
  With regard to the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) he did not think it would have the effect of uniting the two Bills to which it related in the manner which he proposed. Its only result could be to serve as an indication of the opinion of the House that both Bills should be proceeded with in the course of the present Session. If the hon. Baronet's Motion were carried, the only effect of it would be to enable the Committee to consider one Bill after the other had been disposed of, without the Speaker resuming the Chair; but it would not prevent the first Bill alone being carried through its subsequent stages.
  MR. FAWCETTlooked upon the Motion to refer the two Bills to the same Committee, despite the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey), as being one of great importance. If the Government were prepared to assent to the Motion, there was no occasion for discussion. But no Member of the Government rose after the hon. Member for Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) resumed his seat, and it was to be presumed, therefore, that the Government did not assent. It appeared to him to be evident that that Motion was intended to protect the House and the country against a very grave danger, and if the Motion, or some similar Motion, should not be carried, there would be no security against the happening of an event which he certainly regarded as one that would be a great disaster to the country. It was no use mincing matters on this occasion. No one who considered the present state of political parties, and the present uncertain state of politics in this country, could doubt that it was quite a probable contingency that a General Election might take place in any month, or even any week. Why he thought a General Election might take place was this. He had heard ominous sounds on every side of that House, and a strange event was happen-

  1167
  ing in it. One of the most remarkable events that ever occurred was taking place. The Ballot, after being kicked from side to side in that House, and after being treated at first with contempt and ridicule, and then with a kind of fanatical political idolatry, was now supposed to forebode a great party advantage to each side of the House. Night after night he heard Friends of his sitting near him saying—"Never mind about anything else; never mind about all the measures that are before the House; let us get the Ballot; we shall be masters of the situation and can pursue a bold, nay, even a threatening policy." The Conservatives on the opposite benches believed that they would gain an equally great party advantage. He was talking the other day to one of the most acute electioneerers in this country, identified with the Conservative party, who said he thought the Ballot would make a difference of at least 50 seats to them. Now, he (Mr. Fawcett) would not inquire into the probable effects of the Ballot on party; but, this being the impression which was undoubtedly growing up in the House, he asked what security had they, when the Ballot Bill was passed, that a General Election might not occur—and occur, too, without any additional guarantees being provided for greater purity of election? What he greatly feared was that if the Ballot Bill passed that House in the course of a fortnight or three weeks, then they would be told that there were many important subjects urgently pressing for consideration, and the Government might postpone the Corrupt Practices Bill to the end of the Session. If the Corrupt Practices Bill were so postponed, then he should say the House was unfairly treated by not being allowed time to consider one of the most important measures that could possibly be introduced, and that it was at least of as much if not of more importance that they should consider the Corrupt Practices Bill with due deliberation as that they should so consider a Bill to establish secret voting. If the former measure were put off till the end of the Session, it would not be possible to consider the numerous important Amendments in it standing on the Paper. What, then, would happen? In all probability they would have a Bill hurried through to continue the present Corrupt Practices Act. Could those who
  1168
  had watched the proceedings at the last General Election pretend that the existing law gives adequate security against corrupt practices? Was it not proved that, as far as the prevention of the treating went, it was a farce; and that, as regarded preventing large sums of money being squandered in various corrupt ways, such as for exhibiting boards and the like, it was a ludicrous farce. It had come out before the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Committee that there was no such fruitful source of corruption as that which existed at municipal elections; and after the answer they had received from the Prime Minister that night he must indeed be a confident and foolish man who thought for one moment that unless the House put considerable pressure on the Government there was the smallest chance of anything being done this Session to stop corruption at municipal elections. Then let them look just for a moment at the melancholy, he might say the discreditable, position in which they were landed. They had at last got what he had long expected they would get. They had been drifting on a current the direction of which they could not mistake. They had got a Ballot Bill, pure and simple, with all the best provisions left out of it. The Government had at length practically abandoned the attempt to diminish the expenses of elections; and with the Ballot Bill giving occasion for a greater number of polling-places, they would have secret voting and increased election expenses, but not one single security for diminishing corruption. The Corrupt Practices Bill, in its present shape, was so bald and imperfect, that it was absolutely necessary they should have some pledge that that measure would not be postponed till the end of the Session, and there ought not to be one hour's delay in their considering it. If they wanted an additional proof of its defects they could not have a better one than was presented by the most important Amendments placed on the Table by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. James) and other staunch Friends of the Government, but which had no fair chance of being considered if the Corrupt Practices Bill was postponed. If it was postponed, could they really say to the country—"We have done what we can to check corruption?" Let them look, for example, at the public-house clause of that Bill. It

  1169
  imposed a penalty of £20 on a publican who let his public-house for electioneering purposes; but it inflicted no penalty whatever on the candidate or his agent who hired a public-house. That would simply make bribery on a large scale perfectly safe. It gave impunity to the rich briber, because if he gave £40 for the use of a public-house, the publican could afford to pay £20 as a fine, and would still have another £20 of the money to put in his pocket. Again, as to personation, the agent or the candidate encouraging personation was merely to be deprived of the privilege of sitting in that particular Parliament. But, further, if those measures were passed in their present incomplete form, a wealthy candidate might bribe with impunity against a poor one, because the latter could not pay the enormous expense of elections. ["Question!"] His observations were strictly germane to the question, for it was impossible to consider those two Bills properly unless they were taken together. Was it not a farce to say they were anxious to stop corruption if they encouraged a system which virtually told the poor candidate—"You may have the clearest possible proof that your rich rival has bribed against you; but the expense of a Petition is so enormous that it is absolutely impossible for you to incur it?" An unfortunate opinion seemed to be springing up that when they had got the Ballot they would have reached the goal of representative reform. He admired the institutions of America in some of their aspects as much as any man; but, let anyone calmly and candidly read what he could about the representative institutions of America, and must he not come to the conclusion that that House was producing a perilous policy if it simply passed the Ballot without, at the same time, taking adequate security for I the prevention of corrupt practices? Did they suppose that the Ballot would extirpate bribery? He was only that day reading the work of a very able American writer, who was not a philosophical doctrinaire, but a shrewd New York barrister, and he said—
  "We have the Ballot in America, but political corruption there has become so systematic that we have actually got a technical language to describe it."
  And the writer went on to speak of the dangers of the loathsome and noisome
  1170
  disease called "spoil," of "making a slate," and of "Jerrymandering," all of which abuses existed under the Ballot. These expressions, which were to be found in a book written by a Democrat—a man not opposed to extended suffrage—ought to be regarded as a warning to this country, that it was pursuing a dangerous path, if it thought that secret voting would not lead to some of the worst evils of the representative system. For his own part, he had always been in favour of the Ballot. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might smile at this confession if they chose. All knew the proverbial fanaticism of recent political converts; but he had been in favour of the Ballot for upwards of 20 years, and it was because he had so long entertained a conviction in its favour that he was indisposed to exaggerate its importance. There were other things he cared about quite as much, and there were many things which he cared about a great deal more. He was aware that, in making these remarks, he was expressing unpopular opinions; but that knowledge would not deter him from expressing his view of the matter, which he believed and knew to be the view of thousands, and especially of some hon. Members who would not take part in that debate. While supporting secret voting—and he should never give a vote against it—he thought it was of infinitely greater importance that that House should devote itself as it had never devoted itself before—not with hollow insincerity—but with earnestness and devotion, to doing all in its power to impede corruption and bribery in all their varied forms.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not intend to follow the hon. Member for Brighton in his remarks regarding the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Bill; nor would he enter into the question as to the probability of a dissolution within a week or a month; but he was delighted to learn from his speech that there would be but comparatively little trouble in passing the Ballot Bill this year, because both sides of the House were prepared to compete in carrying it as quickly as possible. He only hoped that the hon. Member would turn out a true prophet. The hon. Member must, however, allow him to say that if the opinions he expressed with regard to that measure had been generally enter-

  1171
  tained throughout the country the question of the Ballot would never have been brought to its present stage, and that if the Ballot had always been supported by its friends, as it had been that night by the hon. Member, the House would not at that moment have been discussing a Ballot Bill. It was quite true that the Ballot Bill, like any other measure, had its advantages and its defects, and that possibly its provisions might not afford a perfect cure for all the evils which had been pointed out; but he could not agree with the hon. Member that if a General Election were to be held under it there would be no security against political corruption. His impression was that it would give very considerable security. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), be begged gratefully to acknowledge the kindness with which he had stated that he did not intend by his Amendment to offer any opposition to the principle of the measure, and that he was going to confine his efforts to making the Bill as perfect a measure as possible. The hon. Member had, however, asked the Government why they had separated these two Bills. The short answer to that question was that from the experience of last year it appeared that the two Bills were of such importance, and involved so much detail, that it would be preferable to bring them separately before the House. In the Bill of last year some provision had been made in reference to corrupt practices in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee, and it was felt that as the subjects of the Ballot and of corrupt practices were each likely to excite considerable attention in that House, it would be unwise to combine these two important matters in one Bill. At the same time he could assure the hon. Gentleman that it was the absolute intention of the Government to do their best to bring the Corrupt Practices Bill under the notice of the House, so that it should this Session be passed into law. This had been evidenced by their having introduced the Bill, and having proposed its second reading at the same time as they had the Ballot Bill. With regard to the actual Motion of the hon. Member, he should be willing to accept it upon the understanding that it would not have the effect of throwing the two Bills into one,
  1172
  but would merely avoid the delay of a second Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair before this Bill was considered in Committee after the Ballot Bill had been disposed of, leaving power to the House to determine whether or not the latter Bill should be reported after its clauses had been passed through Committee.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Privy Council should feel somewhat disappointed at the reception which has been given to his measure by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). The hon. Member has very truly said that below the gangway on the other side of the House there are some very ardent partizans who look on this purely in the light of being a party measure—I speak of the Ballot Bill—and that they anticipate a party triumph upon it, and nothing more. I believe that their consideration of the measure does not go beyond that. Well, now, Sir, I will take this opportunity of stating why, after having given Notice of my intention to oppose this Bill at the present stage, I eventually withdrew my Notice. I did so, because I found that on the Government side of the House those "ardent partizans" were about to drag into a division, in favour of the Ballot, a larger number of Members who have so profited by the discussions of the last Session as to entertain very grave doubts, indeed, with regard to the advisability of this measure. Now, Sir, it is incident to the character of the party opposite that there should be this coercion. When a party is combined merely for party purposes, and for the maintenance of a Ministry, that party containing within itself persons of opinions diametrically opposite upon questions of education, questions of religion, questions of the gravest nature, it is positively certain that the exercise of party authority will be tyrannical, because it is the sole bond that unites the Members of that party. I find, Sir, from private conversations, that Members on the other side of the House have recalled to their recollection the warning given by Lord Palmerston, the substance of which was recognized in the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton. Although he honestly declared—"I have never been in favour of the Ballot, but I have no abjection to a further extension of the

  1173
  suffrage." Now, Lord Palmerston emphatically warned this House that if the Ballot were to be enacted the Legislature would find it impossible afterwards to stop short of the enactment of manhood suffrage. When I say that Lord Palmerston warned the House, I inferred it from his speech, and to me personally, in private conversation he intimated his conviction that it would be impossible to avoid so great a reduction of the franchise, that, to use his own language, it must approach, if it did not reach, manhood suffrage. With the permission of the House, I will read a passage from the remarkable speech in which I find this inference. And let the House remember this—that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has stated deliberately in this House that the reduction of the franchise, as consequent upon the passing of a Ballot Bill, must be only a question of time; and although the right hon. Gentleman afterwards in some degree retracted that assertion, upon what ground was it that he did so? Merely by stating that last Session the Government had so many measures to deal with, that they could not then contemplate a further reduction of the franchise. That, Sir, was in anticipation of the Ballot Bill becoming law last Session. I will now, with the permission of the House, read Lord Palmerston's opinion upon the subject, because, as this debate is purely preliminary, I think it right to call the attention of the House, and the attention of the public, to that which I know Lord Palmerston believed, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has more than half admitted to be the certain consequence of the passing of this Bill. In the year 1864, while opposing Mr. Berkeley's Motion for the Ballot, Lord Palmerston made the following statement:—
  "I object to the Motion, because it is founded on an erroneous assumption. The hon. Member deals with the right of voting as if it were a personal right, which an individual was entitled to exercise free from any responsibility, whereas I contend that the vote is a trust to be exercised on behalf of the community at large."—[3 Hansard, clxxvi. 44.]
  Then comes the pregnant passage—
  "Even if the franchise were ever so extended—even if we had a manhood franchise, if every man arrived at the age of discretion were entitled to vote, it would be only a trust, because there would still be a large portion of the community
  1174
  —women and minors—affected by the laws, by taxation, and so on, whose interests would be committed to those who had votes. Indeed, our legislation is based on the understanding that a vote is a trust, and not a right. If a vote were a purely personal right, would not a voter be entitled to ask on what principle of justice you should punish him for exercising it in the manner which he thinks most for his own individual advantage?"—[Ibid.]
  It is a remarkable fact that the Government have dropped the subject of corrupt practices out of their Ballot Bill; and that I hold to be an admission of the truth of the words I have just quoted as spoken by the late Lord Palmerston. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Brighton—I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman below me has an uneasy feeling about the omission from the Ballot Bill of any proposal for staying corruption, because it has been avowed that the effect of departing from the present system of open voting will change the whole character of the suffrage, and will hereafter treat the vote of the elector as a right—that is, as a property and not as a trust. Lord Palmerston continued—
  "But you attach a penalty to the man who employs that right of voting in a way at variance, as you deem, with the public interest, for bribery or any other such consideration. I say, then, that a vote is a trust, and I maintain that every political trust ought to be exercised subject to the responsibility of public opinion. The whole political framework of civilized nations rests on the principle of trust. The interests of the community are in various degrees, more or less important, committed to a selected few who are charged with duties, in regard to particular things, on behalf of the people at large; and their action in fulfilling that trust ought to be subject to responsibility towards those on whose account they exercise it. But I contend that the Ballot as proposed is intended to withdraw the voter from that responsibility, which the public exercise of the trust confided to him would impose, and in that respect I think it would be a political evil. We have been told about the system in other countries—in America, for instance. But in America, as everybody knows, ballot voting is not secret. It is ticket voting. A man votes for a great number of officers at a time, and he sticks his ticket in his hat, and is proud of the party and the cause he espouses; he does not think of concealing the members, judges, governor, or other officers appointed by public election in the United States for whom he gives his voice. The Ballot, then, I hold, is founded on a mistake in principle, and is at variance with the fundamental assumption on which all our political institutions are based."—[Ibid.]
  Now, Sir, I wish to re-call the attention of the House and of the country to that opinion of Lord Palmerston, and to show

  1175
  them that we are now entering upon a fundamental change in our electoral system which must inevitably entail other changes, and that those other changes must be in the direction of a great lowering of the suffrage. I stated, when this Bill was introduced, that it was idle to expect me to defend the system of county franchises under which only £12 occupiers and 40 s. freeholders vote, if they are to give their votes in secret. Why, Sir, the great bulk of the population resides in the counties beyond the boroughs; and how am I to justify a system, which having been opened on the understanding that each voter votes as a trustee, subject to public responsibility, is suddenly and fundamentally changed in this respect, that the voter is no longer to act as a trustee, but is to be a proprietor disposing of his vote as if it were his own personal property. For that is what it comes to. How am I to justify the restriction of the county franchise to the £12 householders of the county, who, to the bulk of the population, when they look at any of the boroughs, see that every householder is entitled to that which will become under the Ballot a property instead of a trust?—when they see that, in Cricklade for example, and several agricultural boroughs, thousands of householders vote, and are possessed of that which will become a property in their vote, whilst they, the county householders, from no natural or intellectual disqualification attaching to them, are to be treated as serfs and represented by those who, as electors, will render no account to them for the manner in which they discharge their duty. That is a position which I, as a county Member, will not attempt to maintain in the face of my constituents. Make this fundamental change, and you will be unable to stop there; you must, as the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) told you honestly the other day, proceed to establish household suffrage, at least, in the counties. In the opinion of Lord Palmerston, moreover, you cannot stop even there. I asked, then, whether the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) did not seem to be that household suffrage would be enough? No; and Lord Palmerston gave me the same reason that he afterwards gave in the House; that will not be enough, because you have enfranchised whole classes, who
  1176
  vote in respect of other qualifications. No, he told me; I see no stopping place which, on principle, is defensible in justice or in argument; if once you adopt the Ballot, I believe that, ere long, you will reach manhood suffrage. I ask this House, then, and I ask the country to consider carefully and gravely the extent of the consequences which are certain to flow from the adoption of this measure. Sir, it is the misfortune of political assemblies such as this that, having once committed themselves, they cannot easily retract; and I believe that another change which must ensue will be the shortening of the duration of Parliament. When elected by manhood suffrage, we shall be in the position of delegates rather than of representatives, and it will be essential that Parliament should be more frequently dissolved in order that our instructions may be renewed. Hon. Members opposite have treated this as a party question, and have committed themselves to it; and I know that in many cases they repent of the votes that they have given hastily in the first instance, and would now willingly withdraw. I found that if I divided the House on the Motion that you do leave the Chair, I should have been doing the work of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Glyn); that I should have been strengthening his hands in exercising a coercion upon Members of the House—a coercion such as you pretend you will defeat out-of-doors by the measure you propose. It is a fact that in America coercion goes to such an extent—coercion and corruption, under the Ballot—that at this moment the Legislature of New York is engaged in devising means for adopting the principle of proportionate representation in order to relieve the electors of the State of New York from the coercion under which they notoriously suffer—a coercion and a corruption which has astonished the world. Sir, I say that it is lamentable to see the Legislature of England adopting the cast-off clothes of the Americans; taking up this old nostrum of the Ballot alone, without attempting to adapt the franchise to the Ballot, without even contemplating the means of proportionate voting, and those other measures which the Legislature of New York has found to be absolutely necessary for the purpose of saving its credit both in a moral and in a financial sense. Why, if ever

  1177
  there was a party infatuation, it is evinced by the urgency with which this measure is forced upon us. I will not deny that there are sincere advocates of the Ballot. There are, for instance, Gentlemen of very Democratic opinions who are in its favour. Republicanism has found a voice in the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke). Ultramontanism, as is well known, is represented here by the Irish Members; and there is lurking in this House another disposition, not much evinced perhaps, but nevertheless showing itself in the promotion of every measure for centralizing administration, a desire to assimilate the Government of England to the principles of the Government of France under the Empire which has been just broken up. That Empire was a despotism founded on a Democratic basis. The Ultramontanes are sure to promote an approximation to that system, because the experience of the world has shown that it is that under which they are most sure of acquiring the greatest influence over the Government. They work upon ignorance wherever they find it. They propagate superstition which gives them a handle over ignorance; and here is the Legislature of England, having only two Sessions ago proclaimed that there was a deficiency of education among the masses of the people, and expressed the anxiety it feels at the qualified reduction of the franchise under the Act of 1867, on account of the ignorance of the people; here, I say, is the Legislature of England thrusting on a measure which must end in bringing down the suffrage to a still lower grade, down to the very mass of ignorance, an ignorance you will not allow yourselves time to elevate before arming it with a secret franchise. Is this, I ask, common sense? An American gentleman has said of the present Government that they have abundant talent but no practicality, and from the correspondence which I have had with America, I believe that they look on the step which England is now taking, by the adoption of the Ballot, as a step condemned by their own experience, and a proof of dotage on the part of the mother country.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir, whether on the Motion before the House, that the Corrupt Practices Bill be referred to
  1178
  the same Committee, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire is in Order in making these remarks.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman are out of Order.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I thank you, Sir, for that decision. I certainly thought that the present Motion was exactly fitted to the topic of my speech, which is, the effects to be anticipated from the Ballot—the adoption of the Ballot. I have not yet reached the other branch of my subject. It is my belief that your Corrupt Practices Bill will be as futile as your Ballot Bill will be pregnant with evil, and that you ought to wait for the experience of America as to the provision of some means that are compatible with the Ballot, by which you may grapple with corruption. While an officer of the Government was speaking on it the other night, I mean the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse), he said that bribery will always exist. Yes, certainly, under the Ballot, and he fathered this measure as an Irish measure. Sir, it is an Irish Bill. You have no case for it in England; you have no case for it in Scotland. But in Ireland, owing to the misconduct of elections, there is cause for some great change. No wonder that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland fathered the Bill as an Irish measure. It is another instance in which the free and orderly people of England and of Scotland are to be dragged down from their present enjoyment of free institutions, which are adapted to their character, and for the enjoyment of which they are qualified by their conduct, in order to be subjected to institutions fitted only for the miseries of Ireland, which we have never yet been able effectually to eradicate. I say that the Prime Minister spoke truly when he said that he lamented what he conceived to be the necessity for this measure, and that it was a lamentable alternative. I contend that there is no necessity for this measure, except it be the necessity of party? I say that out-of-doors there is no active demand for this measure. I say that, in the constituency which I represent, including Birmingham, the idea of this secret system of election is very much disliked; and that the Liberals themselves are beginning to see that the

  1179
  introduction of this secret system will be the certain forerunner of other Democratic changes. Then we have Her Majesty's Government ready at all times to cast an imputation at the head of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) for the Democratic character of the Reform Act of 1867, and which they declare created the necessity for the Ballot, which is simply untrue. They ought to have learnt from their late Leader that the adoption of the Ballot is in reality an infinitely more Democratic measure than the Reform Bill passed at the instance of the late Government. What consistency is there in such conduct? What respect for the institutions of this country? I remember Earl Russell, then Lord John Russell, once saying that he did not deny that with manhood suffrage, as a consequence of the Ballot, a firm Government might be established here or elsewhere; but then, he added, remember it will be less adapted to the institutions, to the state of society, and to the distribution of property in this country than in the new colonies, whose example you invite us to follow; remember that it will be pregnant with changes here for which there is not scope in the colonies; remember that its revolutionary character in this old country will be ten-fold that which it has been in the colonies. Well, who can deny that? Yet you tender to us but a single example for the adoption of secret voting, and that single example found in one of the youngest colonies of the Empire. I have said that this is an Irish measure. I repeat that it is an Irish measure; and that the necessity for it, or rather I would say the excuse for it, is only to be found in Ireland. I say that the propagation of this measure is a device of the Ultramontane priesthood there, and this I do not say upon my own authority. That priesthood is struggling with the people of Ireland at this moment. It is a well-known fact that the people are attracted by the cause of "Home Rule." The Roman Catholic priesthood and hierarchy have set up as an opposition cry that of "Denominational Education;" and now I will give the House the opinion of a well-informed Irishman as to how matters stand. Mr. Fitzgibbon, who is a Master in Chancery in Ireland, has lately written a pamphlet on the subject of Roman Catholic Priests and
  1180
  the National Schools. It is a very able pamphlet, and in it he touches upon the subjects which are now occupying the mind of Ireland. He says—
  "Three objects now float on the agitated surface of the Irish political sea—denominational schools, Home Rule, and vote by Ballot."
  He then describes the rivalry between Denominational Education as the ecclesiastical nostrum, and Home Rule as expressing a mistaken admiration for freedom on the part of the laity. He says—
  "The priests are navigating the school question, unaided by the laity; the laity conduct Home Rule unaided by the priests; and vote by Ballot is allowed by both these parties to drift on to its destined port upon the current of Ministerial influence and power. The leader of the priests—that is, Cardinal Cullen—is not a desperado, but a cool, far-seeing, and hitherto successful ecclesiastic of the mediaeval type. His policy is to bide his time, to concentrate his own forces on vulnerable points, and to crush his opponents in detail. While he and his subordinates have cautiously abstained from giving help or countenance to the Home Rule sedition, they have equally refrained from every expression, which may hereafter bring upon them the reproach of inconsistency, when (the school question being happily settled) the Home Rule pear will be ripe. In the meantime they look upon the Ballot as an accomplished fact, and although they regard it as a powerful arm or the battles yet to come, some of them, whether ignorantly or craftily, express apprehension of the effects of that measure on the influence which they have, and which they prize, over the minds of the voters. There is no foundation for their ears, if any such fears exist. The Ballot will enable every voter to support whatever candidate he pleases; and, adopting that 'most successful principle' of keeping his secret from brother and from son, so clearly explained by the Rev. J. Ryan, he may amuse his landlord, or his creditor, or his friend, with promises before the election, and with significant assurances after it, and thus escape the resentment of all, except the priest. The priest he cannot escape—if he commits the mortal sin of voting against the right man, he knows that at confession that sin 'will be dragged out of him,' as the sin was dragged out of the bad child when on trial for heaven or for hell, and will not be forgiven. The Ballot, therefore, is a desideratum for the priests. If, with the proper use of the Ballot, after the schools shall have been conceded, the Irish contingent on the field of party strife can be substantially augmented, then will be the time to aid the agitators of that question, and get home the Parliament to the island of saints."
  Now this description, written by a Protestant, by a man of education, by a learned lawyer of experience, tallies so closely with a description of Cardinal Cullen and his policy, which has been written by Mr. L. Whittle, a barrister, who has written upon the subject of

  1181
  education in Ireland, under the title Freedom of Education, What it means, that I have no hesitation in classing among the real promoters of this measure those who look to the extension of Ultramontane power as the chief object of their desires. Hence we see that the Ultramontanists are generally favourable to the passing of this measure. Thanking the House for having permitted me thus to express my unabated dislike and apprehension of this measure, founded upon my conviction of the political consequences which must flow from its adoption, and believing that its adoption will be found to be a re-opening, not a settlement, of the agitation with reference to the system of this country, I shall vote with the hon. Baronet(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) for combining the Corrupt Practices Bill with this Bill; because, like the hon. Member for Brighton, I feel no confidence that, when the party opposite have triumphed as to the Ballot, we may be left in the lurch to seek for those means of correction, futile as I fear those now proposed will prove, against that corruption which has grown up under the Ballot as it now exists in the City of New York.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought that the speeches they had just heard contained matter for grave consideration by the House and the country, because the danger and inexpediency of the Government in pressing forward this secret voting question could not be overstated. He understood, however, the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill to assent in substance to the suggestion to refer both Bills to the same Committee; but he wished to inquire in what sense and to what extent they were to understand the assent as being given. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the House were so disposed both Bills would be proceeded with in the same Committee without first reporting the Ballot Bill to the Speaker; but he understood him also to say that the House would reserve to itself the power to refuse to proceed with the second Bill. Now, "the House" was an abstraction, and he wanted to know whether the Government would undertake that the House should not be moved by the Government to take the step of proceeding with the third reading of the first Bill before the second should have passed through Committee. In
  1182
  assenting to the form of the Motion, would the Government bind themselves to assent also to its spirit, and to carry out what was intended, so that the House should not get rid of the Ballot Bill before they had finally digested into proper shape the provisions of the second Bill, many of which were necessitated by the provisions of the Ballot Bill itself? He was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the second Bill did not relate to the subject of the first Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman say that the Ballot Bill, which would give increased facilities for personation, was not closely connected with the clauses in the second Bill to punish personation? There was a vital connection between these two things, as the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had so clearly explained.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would, with the permission of the House, answer the question, though he thought that he had already made a clear statement. He did not think that they could draw a distinction between the form and the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's Motion. Her Majesty's Government accepted the Motion according to its meaning by the Rules of the House—namely, that it put them in this position, that, without the necessity of having to move the Speaker out of the Chair again, they could, if the House wished, proceed in Committee with the clauses of the Corrupt Practices Bill after disposing of the clauses of the Ballot Bill; but it would be in the power of the House to report the Ballot Bill when they had proceeded through the Ballot clauses. Her Majesty's Government would not give any such undertaking as the noble Lord had asked for. They did not wish to hold themselves bound to either course. Their present opinion was that it would conduce more to the conduct of business in the House to report the Ballot Bill before carrying the Corrupt Practices Bill through Committee. The noble Lord, however was mistaken if he supposed the Government did not wish to press the latter Bill also through the House.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he was quite unable to catch the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and therefore he must leave it to others to elicit some further information as to the course which he meant

  1183
  to take with regard to the two Bills. It appeared to him that the whole of the proceedings with respect to the Ballot Bill had been most unusal, and on the night of the second reading of so exceptional, he might almost say of so ludicrous a character, that he could not but ask leave to advert to one or two subjects which were discussed in the early part of that evening, for as the debate collapsed in the most remarkable manner, no Member in any part of the House had any opportunity of commenting on what had occurred. He had listened with great edification, great amusement, and great interest to the very able speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse). That right hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that the Ballot must be passed because it was the will of the great Liberal party that it should be passed. Well, that was a somewhat dictatorial tone to take, and naturally suggested the inquiry how this great Liberal party—this dictatorial party—was composed; what were the bonds of union which existed between its parts; and how far did it represent the opinion of the people of this country? The great Liberal party appeared to him to be composed of the most discordant elements, and if any proof of that assertion were wanting it was to be found in the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt), who, with his usual energy and ability, had clearly shown that the great Liberal party was anything but united. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that this party governed the country. That might be true. He, for one, thought it a great misfortune that it should be so; but though this great Liberal party governed the country, he ventured to assert that it did not represent it. The great Liberal party was returned to this House by a minority of the people of this country; it was returned by the urban constituencies, who represented he would not say a small, but a decided minority. On what ground then, was the House to be told that they must pass this measure, because the great Liberal party insisted on it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking of the probable fate of the Bill in "another place," expressed a hope that it might receive greater courtesy there than it met with last year.
  1184
  Now, with all due submission to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a great master of language, of law, and he doubted not of the Rules of this House, such language was hardly befitting a Gentleman in his position. It was not a question of courtesy or discourtesy. The Bill was rejected in "another place" in the exercise of a constitutional right, which this House had no right to gainsay. That right was exercised most judiciously on a former occasion, and he trusted that the same judicious mode of dealing with the Bill would be practised again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman touched upon a subject which he had better have left alone. He went out of his way to assert the utter absurdity of consistency of opinion in that House. He said that a man who could not change his opinion had no opinion worth changing. Now, what was the substance of that argument? It was this—that all political consistency, all political honour was a farce, and that every public man was entitled, at any moment he pleased, to change his opinions for any reason that might occur to his mind without any prejudice to him whatever. That was very lax doctrine of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and it came from him at a very unfortunate moment. The House had no reason to believe that many of its Members were sincere in the vote they were about to give on this question, for there was, on the one hand, this fact—that the great majority of those who would vote in favour of the Ballot had voted against it consistently for 20 or 30 years, and the House was now told that it was bound to trust in the sincerity of this conversion. He would only make this remark, which would apply equally to both sides, that, somehow, or other, it always happened, when remarkable conversions occurred, they occurred at a time when non-conversion must mean retirement from office. We were told there was great anxiety for the Ballot. That anxiety was not shown in the counties, it was confined to the boroughs. ["No!"] Well, there were exceptions to all rules; but he would venture to suggest to the hon. Member behind him that the county which he had in his mind was of an exceptional character. The great cry for the Ballot—if there was such a cry—proceeded from the boroughs, and what

  1185
  did they want it for? They wanted it, in plain language—for there was no use in mincing the matter—that they might be able to sell their votes with impunity. They wanted the vote to have a money value, and they wanted to get the money value for the vote. There was this difficulty that would arise under a system of Ballot. In the great majority of the counties the Ballot would be rejected with scorn; the people hated the very idea of it. Their pride was to make their opinions as notorious as possible; and therefore he wanted to know how the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council proposed to deal with a constituency which to a man repudiated any connection with the system of the Ballot? Was it to be penal for a man to disclose how he had voted? Was it to be penal if the whole constituency to a man came to the poll with their colours in their hats? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them how he proposed to deal with such a case as that, which would be of frequent occurrence. He was in favour of both Bills being referred to the same Committee, not because such a course would be effectual in preventing bribery, but because the plain, simple truth would be shown—if the question was honestly dealt with, that no talent, no combination, no Bill that could be devised by the combined sagacity of the House of Commons could ever prevent unlimited bribery under the Ballot. If it was not known how a man had voted, it was simply impossible to bring bribery home to him. The House of Commons might legislate—they might bring in any number of Corrupt Practices Bills, but as long as they could not lay their finger on the man, and say—you voted in such a way, it would be hopeless to try to bring bribery home to him. Hon. Members opposite spoke of the Ballot as being a democratic measure; but, for his own part, he believed it would do much to stifle the free expression of opinion in the case of the great mass of the people. The smaller boroughs would in many cases be sold, like a pair of boots in a shop, while sections of the larger boroughs would be also bought. Under the Bill there would be no power of investigating such transactions, and consequently the independent will of the people of this country in the majority of instances would be placed in the power
  1186
  of the man who had the largest purse. That was the view of the question which he would recommend to the consideration of hon. Members who believed—and, no doubt, honestly believed—that under the Ballot there would be greater freedom for the expression of political opinion. But, be that as it might, if the Prime Minister persisted in passing a Ballot Bill through the House without dealing with bribery, he would be binding the great Liberal party to the admission that they were perfectly indifferent to the amount of corruption which there might be at elections.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he differed from many of the hon. Members with whom he usually acted upon this question, inasmuch as he was a strong advocate for such a change in the law as that proposed. He wished, however, to extract a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill that before its third reading, he would endeavour to advance the Corrupt Practices Bill to a corresponding stage. He did not make that suggestion from a feeling in his mind that there was anything in the nature of secret voting which tended to promote corruption. But he made the suggestion from a recollection of what had occurred on a former occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was the Leader of the House on the Treasury Bench. At that time a Reform Bill was pending, having been proposed by the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was then challenged to propose a measure to remedy or prevent corrupt practices, and accepted the challenge, although there was nothing in the Conservative Reform Bill which could be supposed to tend even in the slightest degree to increase corruption. On the contrary, whilst it extended the suffrage, it was well calculated to put an end to practices that were a disgrace to the country. He (Mr. Powell), however, thought it most desirable, when they were re-constructing their electoral system, that the two proposals before the House should be taken as a whole. He doubted whether his hon. Friend below him (Mr. G. Bentinck) had had much experience in borough elections, because he (Mr. Powell) was fully convinced that there was no such feeling in the minds

  1187
  of the voters generally as that of anxiety to sell their votes. On the contrary, he believed that they wished to exercise the franchise freely, according to their conscience and without intimidation. When, moreover, it was asserted that the counties would reject the Ballot with scorn, he must, from his recent experience in the northern division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, he allowed to say that while many Conservative voters accepted it with considerable reluctance, the preponderance of opinion was in favour of the change proposed by the Government. Allusions had been made to the vile practices connected with the elections in America. But he would remind the House that in many of the States of that great Confederation, although the vote was given by Ballot, nevertheless it was given in an open manner. He had had an opportunity of seeing the progress of the elections when in San Francisco a short time ago. He saw tickets given to the voters, and voting papers given into the hands of the returning officer, and by him placed in a box, which was either wholly glass, or glass with a wooden framework. ["Hear!"] He would respond to that ironical cheer by mentioning that in the State to which he was referring a large amount of corruption prevailed, and a writer in The Overland Monthly, a review of great ability, stated that there was no remedy for the bribery in California, except that of making the voting secret in reality as well as in name. He had had opportunities of conversing with many Americans on this subject, and they all concurred in saying that the bribery which undoubtedly prevailed at their elections did not take place at the poll, but at the preliminary meetings, at which the candidates were chosen, and at which the votes were not given by Ballot, but openly. The subject must, therefore, undergo further investigation before it could be proved that there was any connection, direct or indirect, between secret voting and American bribery. As a spectator from outside of the debates of last year, he must add that, in his opinion, one of the defects of the whole proceeding of the Government with respect to their Ballot Bill was, that they did not appear to be sufficiently alive to the risks and disadvantages to which secret voting was in some respects liable. There was a risk
  1188
  of failure of duty, of negligence, or of something worse, on the part of the Returning Officer. As the Bill passed through the House he hoped that care would be shown to insure that votes should be duly taken and reckoned at the right season, and that no other votes except those which were rightly taken should be counted in.
  VISCOUNT NEWRYsaid, as that was the first time he had had the honour of addressing the House, he hoped he might claim their kind indulgence. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) complain of his inability to understand the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to the Question put to him by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners). That reply appeared to him (Viscount Newry) to be very distinct, and was to the effect that the Government, having the power in their hands, would exercise it whenever the opportunity arose. That power, which rested solely on the large majority they had, they could exercise to the fullest extent when the entire measure of the Ballot or any one of its details was under discussion in that House. He took the right hon. Gentleman's reply to mean that after the Ballot Bill had reached the stage at which all its details had been thoroughly discussed, the Government would, if they thought fit, move that it be reported to Mr. Speaker without waiting for its twin brother, the Corrupt Practices Bill. Now, such a course as that would entirely defeat the object of the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who moved to refer the two measures to the same Committee. They were so much akin that they had been likened to that lusus naturœ the Siamese Twins—a comparison certainly not very flattering; and yet it was impossible to keep them distinct. If the one measure was reported to Mr. Speaker and ultimately became law without the other, which was its necessary complement, being considered pari passû with it, he thought the House would not have been treated fairly, and that the evils which they sought to remove would rather be intensified. He was excessively interested in every one of the details of the Secret Voting Bill. He did not wish it to be supposed for a moment that he had become a convert to the faith professed by those who advocated secret

  1189
  voting, although he revolted as much as every Englishman must do at any man being forced to exercise his franchise against the dictates of his own conscience. But if that measure was to become law, the sooner both sides joined in discussing its provisions and in amending them wherever it was found needful, the sooner it would be sent to "another place," and the more time they would have for discussing other measures which had been in abeyance for a considerable time, and the postponement of which had given rise to more complaints from their constituents than anything else. The interest taken by hon. Gentlemen in a very important debate occurring in "another place" and on a different subject, on the very night fixed for the second reading of the Ballot Bill in this House, would not fully explain why, in the Session of 1872, there were only 164 hon. Members present at the division on that occasion. He did not share the opinion expressed by some Gentlemen that secret voting was the demand of the nation. He did not agree that it was so popular a cry. It was, on the contrary, the demand of the majority of that House, and he ventured to add of the majority of that House only. It was for them, therefore, to look those facts in the face, not, as the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had said, to mince matters, but to look the worst—if they regarded it as the worst, straight in the face. Gentlemen on his (the Opposition) side of the House saw and counted the number of advocates of secret voting arrayed on the opposite benches. They confessed that they were absolutely in the power of that overwhelming majority, and he thought the time had come when they ought not to procrastinate and put off the discussion of the details of that Bill, but, as it was inevitable, to assist in improving it and send it forward at the proper time. But he trusted that the Government would take their endeavours to assist it in a proper spirit, and would not reward them by dividing those two measures, and advancing the one without the other—a course in direct opposition to the wish expressed by so many of them that evening. In conclusion, he begged sincerely to thank the House for the kind indulgence it had extended to him.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was glad to hear the excellent advice
  1190
  just given in the able speech of the noble Lord, that they should not delay their getting into Committee, and proceeding, if possible, with that Bill. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) believed that the large majority of the electors were in favour of the Bill which was intended to prevent the venal minority of voters from selling their votes. But he rose chiefly on account of the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). He was sorry to have heard that hon. Member say that the Government were not thoroughly honest with regard to the question of the Ballot, and that if they passed the Ballot Bill they would throw over the Corrupt Practices Bill. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not think that there was anything in their conduct to warrant such an imputation. He, however, confessed he was no great admirer of any Government. He feared the General Election as much as the hon. Member for Brighton, because there never was a time, as far as he knew, when there was so much money in the country, or so many men anxious to get into that House. He therefore feared that at the next General Election they would see worse scenes of demoralization, corruption, and drunkenness than were witnessed at any previous one, if it were conducted under the old system and on the old lines. He did not defend all the past conduct of the Government on that question, but he thought they were doing what was right now; and the hon. Member for Brighton should remember there was nothing so ill-advised as to abuse repentant sinners. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had stated yesterday that it would have been impossible to deal with Army organization until purchase had been got rid of; and in the same way, it was impossible to attempt political reform until open voting had been got rid of. He honestly objected, however, to deputations calling upon the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) to overload the Bill with numerous reforms which, however desirable they might be in themselves, might well be deferred until secret voting had been secured. His (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) advice was to pass one measure at a time. They had a good Bill in the present measure. Let them adhere to it and pass it, and then all other reforms would follow. He repudiated altogether the notion that the

  1191
  Ballot Bill was a party measure. Indeed, Conservative speakers continually foretold that it would benefit their party, but he should support it even though he believed that it would fill the House with hon. Members holding the opinions of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). With regard to the immediate question before the House, he should have thought it settled after what the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had said, because there could be but little disadvantage in sending the two Bills before the same Committee. All that he desired was, that the Government should push on the measure for secret voting as quickly as possible, and were they to do so, he could promise them the support of many Gentlemen on that side of the House below the gangway in settling this long controversy of 40 years' standing on the grounds of freedom, justice, and good government.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he wished to point out that if the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was agreed to in the sense in which it was understood by the Government, it would not prevent the first Bill from being reported, as soon as its clauses were disposed of, but would simply preclude any discussion on going into Committee on the second Bill. Now, one Bill ought not to be advanced without the other, for the second contained provisions as to the validity of votes on which the very result of the election might depend, and he proposed to raise the question hereafter whether these matters should be raised on petition, or at an earlier stage. The first Bill was really one for the protection of the dishonest man who personated another, and for the disfranchisement of the voter personated. Moreover, the remark of the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that the Ballot was but the beginning of reform, betrayed a feeling that it was applicable only to manhood suffrage, and that no machinery could be devised to prevent personation with a limited suffrage. It has been assumed, especially from the observations last year of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Tipping), that the boroughs were in favour of the Ballot, but this was certainly not the case with his own borough (Salford), a large working-class constituency, for he had twice challenged the electors in pub-
  1192
  lic meeting assembled to evince such a feeling, but without result. It was true that there were persons who would like protection from undue influence on the part of employers and trade unions; but they were sensible that the Ballot would not effect that, and that it would introduce greater evils than those it professed to cure.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, it was absolutely necessary that the Government should introduce clauses into the Corrupt Practices Bill that would prevent corrupt practices at municipal elections. It would otherwise be a very imperfect measure, for at Beverley and in other cases it had been shown that the weapons of corruption at Parliamentary elections were forged at municipal elections. Unless the whole question was dealt with in one Bill the country would be disappointed.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would appeal to the Government to accede to the wish of many hon. Members that the two Bills should leave the Committee simultaneously, it being admitted that the first would be very imperfect unless accompanied in the same Session by the second. If they thought this course inconvenient, they might at least agree that the one Bill should not be read a third time till the other was out of Committee. In default of such a concession, asked for in good faith and with a desire to make legislation as perfect as possible, he should advise the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to move that the two Bills be consolidated into one, and to take the sense of the House upon the proposal.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he had much pleasure in supporting the proposal that the two Bills should be sent to the same Committee, with this mental reservation, that both might go into Committee and never come out again. It would be well for the House to inquire how far the measure deserved to go into Committee. After suffering a damaging criticism last Session, how was it reproduced in this? Although the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had had the whole of the Recess for collecting information with regard to the reception of the Bill, he again brought it forward without stating any new facts affecting the question. He need not have gone far for these new facts, for they cropped up on every hand, not only in this coun-

  1193
  try but in America, to which repeated reference had been made in the course of debate on this measure. Surely after what occurred last year it behoved the right hon. Gentleman to obtain fuller information on the working of the Ballot system. An American newspaper had recently given a very bad account of the working of that system in New York, and The Westminster Review, which was by no means supposed to write in a sense hostile to popular opinions, said there was too much reason to fear that there was no political morality in the colony of Victoria, and that on the part of politicians there was a vulgar scramble for place and pensions. The House would recollect the argument advanced, last Session, by one of the spokesmen on the front benches. The Attorney General for Ireland, warning the House against first principles, contended that the Ballot was not un-English. In the mouth of an Irish Attorney General no doubt that was an irresistible argument. The Attorney General for Ireland did not seem to understand what was meant by English and un-English. The Representatives of England had the courage of their opinions before their constituents, and had always dared to do their duty. That was what he (Mr. Corrance) meant by English. When Mr. Laing, on that side of the House, raised the question of the county representation on the consideration of the second Reform Bill, the First Lord of the Treasury observed, in reply, that he was not going to grudge the gift the hon. Gentleman offered to the counties, and that one of his reasons for so agreeing to the proposal was that a larger representation ought to be given to the counties. Accepting the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, it was clear that hon. Gentleman on that side of the House had no inconsiderable claim. Provided they accepted the basis of numbers, they might furnish a strong argument in favour of the counties by the following statistics:—According to the Census of 1871 the number of the population was—in boroughs, 10,655,930; and in counties, 12,048,178. The number of inhabited houses, with heads of families; in boroughs, 1,812,685; in counties, 2,446,347. The rateable value, taken in the gross, in 1865—boroughs, £39,218,717; counties, £59,695,501. The assessed taxes paid in 1856—boroughs, £803,986; counties,
  1194
  £1,062,564. In 1869, the voters in boroughs, 1,203,170; in counties, 791,916. These figures furnished a conclusive argument, so far as the claims of the counties were concerned. When Mr. Laing brought forward his Motion, it was objected that the county population was an ignorant, uneducated population, and not fit to be trusted with electoral privileges. Since that time, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had introduced an Education Bill, whose main provision was not so much for the educational deficiencies of counties as for those of boroughs. That argument also was disposed of. The conclusion at which he arrived was, that the existing provisions of this Ballot Bill were utterly unsatisfactory, and were calculated to lead to dishonourable compromises. He concurred in the opinion expressed on that side of the House that the measure could not be considered as a final one; but that it must be succeeded by another Bill for the redistribution, not only of the franchise, but also of representation. The general effect of the present Bill would be to throw the representation into the hands of organizations of a dangerous description, who might by that means increase the anarchy of Ireland.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would adhere to the determination he had announced to the House. It was desirable, oven if there were no Ballot Bill before them, that there should be a measure to amend the evils existing under the present system of voting; but he held that this Bill provided for a class of evils altogether separate from those arising from corrupt practices. It would protect honest, but dependent voters, while the Corrupt Practices Bill dealt with men who were dishonest and corrupt. Having been connected with six Parliamentary elections in five years, he was justified in saying that if the Bill passed, the House would receive the thanks of the constituents. The feeling in its favour was universal, and the House would receive the thanks of the nation. The newly-elected Member for the North-west Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell) would have had no chance of being returned, if he had not declared himself to be an adherent of the Ballot. ["No!"] Well, it secured for him an immense amount of popular support.

  1195
  Personally, he would be glad to support the Government throughout the passing of this Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, our present system of conducting Parliamentary elections was far from satisfactory. He was convinced that the Bill, pure and simple, being intended only to secure a good system of taking the votes, would not go to the root of the existing evil; on the contrary, it would intensify the mischief which already existed. The one great defect in our present electoral system might be summed up in one word, "corrupt." If the object was to get rid of corruption, he did not see how corruption could be cured by changing the existing system in such a way that the persons corrupted could not be traced, and the agency by which the corruption was carried out was rendered nebulous and uncertain. The good was doubtful, the evils were palpable, involving a change from openness to underhandedness and dodging. The second Bill of the Government, as far as it laid the are to the root of corruption, met the entire support of Members on his side of the House, who asked that the Government should show equal regard for that Bill. Parliamentary reform in its true sense should be done thoroughly and at once, all the various schemes for preventing corruption being taken together. The Government said they were willing to refer both Bills to the same Committee; but the Ballot Bill was to be reported first. When, then, would the House have the Corrupt Practices Bill from the Committee before the House? Why did the Government press on the one contentious portion of the scheme, instead of going continuously into the other, in which they would find a general support? The Government talked of reporting the Ballot Bill first, before proceeding with the Corrupt Practices Bill; but they had not told the House what they intended to do with regard to the third reading of the Ballot Bill. Did the Government, he asked, promise to go on de die in diem with the two Bills? He demanded a short reply to his question, for nothing but that would carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). Accept that proposition and the House would support the Government in all their attempts at the reform of the machinery of Parliamentary elections.
  1196
  He trusted that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire would take the advice of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), and move that the two Bills be consolidated.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Corrupt Practices Bill was one of no inconsiderable importance, although he must confess that almost everything which one would naturally expect to find in such a Bill was absent in the proposal of the Government, who had admitted that the question had been by no means settled by the Act of 1868, for the Prime Minister had last Session agreed on his (Mr. Lowther's) Motion to the appointment of a Committee to consider the subject. The facility with which petitions were presented for the purpose of obtaining the costs, with a view to their ultimate withdrawal, showed that much yet required to be done beyond what had been effected by the legislation of four years ago. Indeed, nothing in his opinion tended so much to prevent the class of men whom the constituencies throughout the country would desire to represent them from coming forward as the presentation of what he must term fraudulent and vexatious petitions. The Corrupt Practices Bill of the Government, however, instead of dealing with that part of the question, was almost entirely confined, with the exception of the 5th clause, which related to public-houses, to the imposition of penalties for that form of corruption which might be supposed to follow the adoption of the Ballot. That showed that it did not profess to be in every way a comprehensive or satisfactory amendment of the existing law. He hoped, under these circumstances, his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would not be satisfied with a compromise which was merely an attempt to evade the just expectations of the House. He, for one, unless he was distinctly assured that the Ballot Bill would not be reported until the Corrupt Practices Bill bad passed through Committee, would undertake to move that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they should have power to consolidate both into one measure.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKprotested against the assumption of some hon. Gentlemen, that everything connected with municipal corporations was corrupt.

  1197
  He most emphatically denied that there was anything like corruption in London, at all events. He had asked his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), and had been told that he never heard of such a thing; and he had also asked the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), and was told that he also had never heard of such a thing in Birmingham. It must not be assumed that every corporation was corrupt. There were, however, some persons who thought all but themselves were great sinners; but he never heard a man speak of others in that way without his having his doubts as to whether such man was himself sound. He saw no necessity, then, for mixing up corruption with the Ballot. They had nothing to do with one another, and our fellow-countrymen who possessed the franchise had a right to exercise it in the way most conducive to their own comfort without molestation, which could only be done by the adoption of the Ballot.
  MR. SCOURFIELD, in the words of Mr. Burke, said, before he agreed that every man should be allowed to do as he pleased, as had just been suggested, he should like first to know what every man was pleased to do. With regard to the Bill, he thought it was treating it in a very narrow way to consider it as merely affecting the interest of a particular party. He looked at it from the broad point of view of its general effect, and, in coming to an adverse opinion, he had been much influenced by the arguments used on the subject in 1853 by the late Liberal Lord Advocate of Scotland (Mr. Moncreiff) who had then said, with regard to the machinery—
  "That, however able and fair the administrators of the Ballot might be, no one would ever feel that he had been fairly dealt with; every person would suspect his neighbour; and that it would be impossible to convert a knave into an honest man by making it impossible to distinguish between an honest man and a knave."—[See 3 Hansard, cxxviii. 215.]
  That speech he would recommend to the attention of the Members of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think it very desirable that we should have some fruit from the lengthened debate which has taken place on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and after hearing the various suggestions which have been thrown out, I
  1198
  am desirous to state the basis on which we may consent to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in what respects it is impossible to do so. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) charges us with accepting the letter of the Motion and breaking faith with its spirit. How we can be expected to keep faith with the spirit of a Motion which we did not invent, and with which we have nothing to do, I do not know. I object to hon. Gentlemen importing into a Motion something which they did not mean. If the hon. Member wished the two Bills consolidated, it was open to him to say so in his Motion. There is nothing in the forms of the House to prevent it, and I think that nothing could be more ingenuous than the conduct of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) when he said he did not think the Motion objectionable in itself, but that he could not consent to the union of the two Bills. There is in this House a large majority in favour of secret voting, and a considerable minority unfavourable, and those who are unfavourable contend that to pass the Secret Voting Bill would open floodgates through which there would come a fresh deluge of corrupt practices. They are, therefore, perfectly consistent in saying, before you inflict on us that deluge, give us a perfect army of securities against corrupt practices. But, however desirous we may be to consult the wishes of the minority, we must consider the wishes of the majority, who do not admit the proposition that the Ballot, pure and simple, taken by itself, is likely to increase corrupt practices; but contend, on the contrary, that it is likely not perhaps to extinguish, but, at least, to diminish them. It is, therefore, too much to ask them to consent to delay the passage of the Ballot, for the purpose of going over the whole matter contained in the Corrupt Practices Bill, and not only to consider that measure in all its details, but the details of all the Acts referred to in the 6th clause, the whole of the electioneering practices, and corruption of every kind. One objection to that proceeding is, that it will tend to delay measures in respect to which hon. Gentlemen opposite are extremely anxious, such as the Mines Regulation Bill and the Scotch Education Bill, which would undergo most vexatious delays if we imported all the

  1199
  topics which can he brought under discussion beneath the shadow of the Corrupt Practices Bill. I am prepared to admit, in order to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if they can show that there is any portion of the Corrupt Practices Bill which stands in direct relation to the Ballot Bill, there would he a fair case for asking that it should he disposed of simultaneously. If they are not satisfied—and they do not appear to be—with the distinct obligations under which we lie to pass the Corrupt Practices Bill during the present Session, let us look at it and see what part is more directly related to the present Bill; and I am prepared to admit that the 2nd clause, which relates to personation, and the 3rd, which directs the vote to be struck off for bribery, treating, and undue influence, is in direct relation with the Ballot Bill; and we now make this offer—which we think is a fair one, that if it will satisfy hon. Gentlemen we are willing to import those two clauses into the Ballot Bill; but we cannot consent to import into it all the questions relating to the legislation on corrupt practices. If that offer is accepted we shall be very glad; if not, we have no course but that of submitting to the judgment of the House.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, when he first listened to the right hon. Gentleman he was not quite satisfied, because the right hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to be—"there was no connection between the Ballot Bill and the Corrupt Practices Bill, except the general connection resulting from the fact that they both treated of Parliamentary elections; and if they entered into an engagement to pass both Bills, the whole time of the Session would be taken up, to the detriment of the other important measures." It appeared to him (Mr. Disraeli) that, if anything, that was an argument against bringing forward the Ballot Bill. He did not think there was any demand from the country for that measure; and at the close of last Session he had shown by reference to documents that only one-quarter of the Members of that House were pledged to the Ballot. As the right hon. Gentleman proceeded with his remarks the only inference he could gather from them was, that there was no chance of the Corrupt Practices Bill passing this Session. Indeed, that
  1200
  must be the practical result if the other important measures, to some of which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, were to be considered, as all would allow that they must be. It was admitted that personation—one of the greatest evils connected with elections—would be aggravated by the Ballot, because under secret voting it might be practised with little chance of detection; and yet, after all, the only remedies proposed for personation were contained in the Corrupt Practices Bill. At the same time, he thought the offer just made by the right hon. Gentleman was a fair one, which should be considered in a candid spirit, and if matters could be arranged in that way, and the House was in that humour, they might have the opportunity of proceeding with both Bills at the same time. In any case the House ought to be allowed to legislate on the subject of personation simultaneously with the Ballot, and, under all the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. His hon. Friend's interposition that evening, as on all former occasions, had been of an essentially practical nature, and had rendered good service to the House, and he thought both sides might agree with perfect honour and satisfaction to the conditions suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that in moving the Instruction which stood in his name, he was aware he had undertaken a task of much difficulty, especially because a Motion in similar terms, which he had placed upon the Paper last Session, had been treated almost with ridicule by the Prime Minister, and by newspapers writing in his interests. He (Mr. Bentinck) did not press the question last Session, because he desired not to impede the progress of the Ballot Bill, to which he had never raised any undue obstruction. But the proposal contained in his (Mr. Bentinck's) Motion was even more necessary now than last year, because the Prime Minister had been driven to attempt to re-establish his waning power by several acts of an arbitrary nature. He had seized the power of the Crown; he had defied and ignored the other House of

  1201
  Parliament; and he had introduced and partially carried in that House reforms which threatened to extinguish the rights of independent Members. It had been lately said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the House of Commons had nothing to fear in these days either from the action of the Crown or other external force; but he (Mr. Bentinck) maintained that a power had sprung up far more dangerous to the liberties of the House of Commons than the despotism of the Crown was, and he would define that power by a phrase borrowed from the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and would call it "Political Exigency." Political exigency had so ruined the party which sat on the side of the House which he occupied, that it was more than doubful whether they could accept office even if offered to them. Nor were the occupants of the opposite benches in better plight, for owing to the action of "political exigency," they had now, according to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) to "mourn over the broken fortunes of a shattered and disheartened party." He had not better proof of his case than the conduct of this very Ballot measure. How did it come to be a Government question? In 1868 the Prime Minister, through the length and breadth of his Lancashire speeches—and the right hon. Gentleman was never concise—on no one occasion referred to it, and it was not until 1869 that his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland (the Marquess of Hartington) was put forward as a feeler, or, rather buffer, to ascertain whether it would do for the Government to commit themselves in the matter. He must contrast their conduct with his experience in the House—how, year after year, the late Mr. Berkeley formerly brought this subject forward. Then the Prime Minister and his Colleagues would not hear of the Ballot, and he (Mr. Bentinck), if he had the descriptive powers, should wish to paint the dismay of many who now sat on the opposite benches when on one occasion, by some inadvertance on the part of the Government officials, which doubtless the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair would recollect, Mr. Berkeley's Motion was carried. Doubtless the right hon. Gentleman would also recollect how he (Mr. Bentinck) and many others had been implored to seek their Friends,
  1202
  to remain in their places, and even to talk against time, to prevent the calamity of the success of the Ballot. But now, under the baneful influence of "political exigency" the Government had submitted to change their policy, and adopt the cry for secret voting. What remedy was there to meet the evil results of political exigency? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Excheequer would suggest, as the proper course, to leave everything to the guidance of the excellent Government with which he thought the country was blessed, and urged that if they left them alone and ceased to vex them with either Motions or Questions, every political and administrative want would be supplied. But he (Mr. Bentinck) did not think the country at large would agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he (Mr. Bentinck) had also his remedy to propose—namely, the proposition contained in his Motion. He supported his proposition upon two main grounds—first, upon "constitutional principle," and secondly upon "public policy." The House was naturally not fond of quotations from legal text writers, but upon the first point he must ask leave to cite four or five lines of one of the greatest authorities on the subject, the late Sir William Blackstone. Sir William Blackstone lays down the principle in the following words:—
  "In so large a State as ours it is very wisely contrived that the people should do that by their representatives, which it is impracticable to perform in person.… And every Member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming thither is not particular but general; not barely to advantage his constituents, but the common wealth (as appears from the writ of summons), and therefore he is not bound like a deputy of the United Provinces to consult with or to take the advice of his constituents on any particular point, unless he himself thinks it proper or prudent to do so."—[Blackstone, I. 2.]
  The doctrine thus laid down by Blackstone is in entire accordance with the Rules and practice of this House. The exclusion of Strangers, and that the debates were not to be reported, was to ensure that their votes and deliberations should not be influenced by any external pressure. The constitutional principle was, in fact, that the constituents were to elect the best men they could find to sit in the Great Council of the Nation, lot to represent individual opinions, but to advise the Crown for the general good, and hence safeguards were provided to

  1203
  secure an independent action. As regards his argument founded upon public policy, he maintained that the system of Parliamentary pledges was entirely opposed to public policy. These pledges, which were almost unknown before 1832, came into fashion with the Reform Bill of that date; and had converted candidates into speculators in public opinion, and representatives of the Commons into mere delegates of sections of the constituencies. These results were opposed to reason, common sense, and expediency. For Judges and juries, or directors of public companies, to have made up their minds on important questions before hearing the arguments would be deemed monstrous. But was it less absurd for Members of Parliament to come pledged up to the neck on matters which were to be solemnly argued before them? Or what, under such circumstances, was the use of debate, or of the liberty of speech, which the Speaker, on the meeting of every New Parliament, craved from the Crown? In his (Mr. Bentinck's) opinion, men who accepted pledges contrary to their true sentiments were guilty of corruption in its worst form, and deserving of far heavier punishment than the poor freeman who sold his vote for 5s., or the potwalloper who gave his support for a glass of beer. Moreover, these pledges were especially injurious to the working class. Working men, above all others, required honest representatives; or they were liable to have the representation seized by a small energetic section amongst them, or trades unions, and thus defeat the object of Parliamentary institutions. The working men, as a body, therefore, would be benefited by having Members who would exercise an unfettered vote. Attention had lately been called to "Speaker's lists." These, perhaps, might never be heard of again, but a practice, equally noxious, was the pressure brought to bear of late years on Members who showed any independence. Meetings were got up in their boroughs, at which the Members were denounced, and warned that unless they submitted to the iron will of the Treasury Bench, they would have no chance of re-election. There had, perhaps, been a partial re-action against this dictation, but his proposal was the only effectual remedy for it. With regard to precedents, the secret vote was almost
  1204
  universal in foreign Legislatures. He bad recently seen it practised in the Italian Chamber. There existed a power to vote secretly in the Legislative Body of the last French Empire, and the secret vote was absolute in the constitutional Government of France from 1840 to 1845, when it was abolished on the Motion of M. Duvergier de Hauranne, made at the instigation of M. Guizot, who made it on the ground that it interfered with his power of control over the Deputies. He (Mr. Bentinck) made special reference to the policy of M. Guizot on this question, because it tended to illustrate and explain a passage in English history to which he was now about to refer. Vote by Ballot was once actually proposed in the House of Commons. By the Journal, volume iv., page 690, it appeared that on the 10th of October, 1646, the question was propounded whether it should be referred to the Committee lately named to consider of a ballotting-box, and the use of it, and to present their opinions to the House, and the Question being put whether this Question shall be now put—that is, the Previous Question being proposed—the House was divided. The Noes went forth, in numbers 54, and the Yeas 55; Lieutenant General Cromwell and Sir Arthur Hasilrigge being tellers for the Noes, and Sir Philip Stapleton and Sir William Lewis being tellers for the Yeas. The Question being then put whether the reference concerning the ballot-box and the use of it should be made to the Committee, the Yeas were 54, and the Noes 56, Sir Philip Stapleton and Sir William Lewis being again tellers for the Yeas, and Lieutenant General Cromwell and Sir Arthur Hasilrigge being tellers for the Noes, so that the Question passed in the negative. It might appear to hon. Members opposite that the fact of Lieutenant General Cromwell, who was then the Leader of the so-called Liberal party, having voted against Ballot in the House of Commons was a reason why they should do the like; but he (Mr. Bentinck) desired to point out that Lieutenant General Cromwell's conduct ought to have the contrary effect upon them, because at that moment Cromwell was intent upon seizing the supreme power, in the exercise of which he, literally speaking, "out-Heroded Herod." He, therefore, anticipating M. Guizot, and actuated by

  1205
  similar motives, was jealous of the existence of an independent Assembly. Personally, he (Mr. Bentinck) objected to the Ballot, not on political, but on moral grounds. He did not care one straw for its political effect. He had some reason for confidently stating that opinion, because the Ballot had been in operation ever since 1708 in the municipal elections of the constituency he had the honour to represent; and so far as politics were concerned, the system made no perceptible difference. Having gone through the several arguments which had occurred to him, he was prepared to maintain that sooner or later the time would come when the electors of the country would see the necessity of giving a free vote to their Members, so as to avoid the catastrophe shadowed forth by Mr. Edmund Burke, at Bristol, in 1780, whose eloquent words he was sure the House would listen to with pleasure—
  "When the popular Member is narrowed in his ideas, and rendered timid in his proceedings, the service of the Crown will be the sole nursery of statesmen. If the people should fall into the humour of making their servants insignificant, and should choose them on the principles of mere obsequiousness and flexibility, and total vacancy or indifference of opinion in all public matters, then no part of the State will be sound; and it will be in vain to think of saving it."
  The hon. Gentleman then moved the Instruction of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to provide that Votes in Divisions in the House of Commons be taken by Ballot."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTER (amid cries of "Divide")said, he was not surprised after the political jeu d'esprit in which the hon. Member for White haven indulged that the House should be impatient for a division. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman was not serious in his proposition. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I am.] Well, then, he hoped he would not expect him (Mr. Forster) to reply to him in the same jocose manner. The fact was, they were engaged in a matter of too serious a character to allow their attention to be drawn away from it by a consideration of those subjects with which the hon. Gentleman sought to amuse the House.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he was not prepared to submit in silence to the
  1206
  speech they had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that his hon. Friend and Relative had brought forward this matter in a jocose strain. Well, all the more credit to his hon. Friend; but as to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the House could not derive either amusement or instruction from it. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that a serious question was involved. Was the House of Commons afraid, or not, to hear the truth? It came to this—that the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to deal with this question. He (Mr. Bentinck) was an old Member of the House, and a still older member of society, and he would vouch for this fact—and he thought it was time for the House to consider whether they were doing credit to themselves by blinking the question—that more corruption, more bribery, and more intimidation were practised within the walls of that House than in all the constituencies in England put together. If the House, on considering a Bill for the taking of votes of the constituencies by Ballot, was afraid to go into the question whether its own corrupt state did not require the same precaution—[Cries of "Oh," and "Chair!"]
  MR. SPEAKERdecided that the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw what he had just said as to the corruption of the House.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, if he had used an expression that was unParliamentary he begged to withdraw it; but he begged to repeat that there had been habitually practised within the walls of every other House of Commons except the present, as much bribery and corruption as had been practised by all the constituencies put together. He only regretted the House had not the courage to discuss the proposition which his hon. Friend had brought before it.
  Question put, and negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL AND CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Nomination of candidates for Parliamentary elections).
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK moved the postponement of the clause,

1207
until they got to the Schedule. The clause was differently drawn to that in the Bill of last year. He held in his hand a copy of that Bill.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member must strictly confine his remarks to the postponement of the clause. Any general observations he had to make should have been made on the postponement of the Preamble.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to state his reasons for making the Motion, and, in doing so, it was necessary he should refer to the Bill of last year. In this Bill the clause had been divided into two parts—one containing the principle, and the other the schedule containing the details. The clause and schedule should be taken together. He had never before seen such a specimen of Parliamentary draftmanship. Last year all the provisions were to be found in the clause; but now, on page 16, there were 11 paragraphs, all which had relation to this clause. He therefore moved that it be postponed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the reason why the details had been put in the schedule was, that last year it was the general opinion on both sides of the House that there were too many details in the clauses. The principle involved in the new form of nomination about to be introduced was embodied in the clause, and he believed it would be possible to make the change with the clause alone, and without the details in the schedule, which, though not absolutely necessary, were still advisable.
MR. GREGORYsaid, the separation of the details involved much repetition, both in the Bill and in the Amendments. It would have been much better if there had been more of the substance of the Bill contained in the body of the Bill, instead of in the schedule.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he intended to give all the assistance in his power to amend the Bill in order to make it as perfect as possible; but the way in which it was drawn was very inconvenient. In the discussion that took place last year the question of nominations, which was one of principle
1208
and not of detail, was not satisfactorily settled. Were the nominations to be considered private, or were they to take place openly and in the presence of a large number of persons?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member must confine his remarks to showing reasons for the postponement of the clause.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he referred to the point to show that the clause ought to be postponed. As a matter of principle, the 1st clause and the schedule ought to be considered together, and he was simply giving an instance on which to found his argument. Were the nominations to be public or private? Were they to be conducted simply in the presence of the proposers and the seconders of the candidates, in which case there was nothing to prevent a corrupt bargain being made out of the view of the electors; or were they to be made in public, when the electors would have an opportunity of being present? If no other way were open to him, he should raise the question by moving an addition to the clause.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 218: Majority 73.
MR. GOLDNEYrose to move, in Clause 1, line 11, after "writing," to insert "in accordance with the form of nomination paper contained in the Second Schedule of this Act." He said that the power of the Returning Officer with regard to the nomination of candidates was so extensive, that unless the Bill were made more elastic very great injustice would be done, and in many cases the Returning Officer might prevent candidates from being freely and independently nominated. The clause before the Committee provided for the nomination in writing of candidates by two registered electors as proposer and seconder, and by eight other registered electors as assenting to the nomination—the nomination paper to be delivered to the Returning Officer by the candidate, or his proposer and seconder, within a given time. The 8th clause said that the Returning Officer should provide the nomination papers, and, by the first part of Schedule 1, the Returning Officer was to fix the time and place, and was not bound to give more than two hours for the nomination. But it

1209
might so happen that at the very last moment the candidate declined to be nominated and withdrew, and it might not be possible within the time specified for the election, to have a new candidate nominated in the way now proposed. The Amendment which he had put on the Paper was intended to remedy this defect.
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 11, after the first word "writing," to insert the words "in accordance with the form of nomination paper contained in the Second Schedule of this Act, and to the like effect."—(Mr. Goldney.)
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not see that his hon. Friend's fear was justified, or that the Amendment would remove that fear if it were well founded. It was, of course, necessary to provide how nomination papers should be obtained; but it did not follow that the exact words of the form of nomination given in the Act should be adopted, or that the nomination should not be drawn up by the electors themselves. The words proposed would leave the clause very much in the same position as it now was. Before Clause 8 was reached he would carefully consider the question; and if the danger which his hon. Friend pointed out really existed, the proper place to deal with it would be by a subsection in Clause 8.
MR. SCLATER BOOTHsaid, that the clause could not be read without reference to the schedule, and it seemed that a candidate could not be nominated except according to the precise form furnished in the Act. Some guarantee against any abuse of power by the Returning Officer ought to be provided.
MR. GREGORYsaid, the question raised by the Amendment was one of construction, which was doubtful, and might become a matter for judicial decision.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think there was any room for doubt; but if there appeared, to be any on farther careful reading, the defect should be remedied; for he quite admitted it was a matter on which there should be no doubt.
MR. GOLDNEYasked that, as a matter of fairness, the correction should be conceded now; and, to show the want of care with which the Bill had been drawn, he pointed out that the
1210
schedule of the Bill repealed 26 sections, of which 25 were already repealed by another Act of Parliament.
MR. DENISONsaid, there was a provision in the old system which would preclude the apprehended possibility of candidates being proposed, seconded, and elected without the body of electors having had an opportunity of learning anything about them, and it was that he Returning Officer on or before the day of nomination should publish the name and address of each candidate's agent. That clause was unrepealed, and yet it was inconsistent with the 1st clause of this Bill, in which, however, he yet hoped it might be embodied. To require the declaration in writing of he officer to be responsible for election expenses was a safeguard against underhand electioneering proceedings.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member was discussing by anticipation he 3rd schedule. It might be found when the Bill had passed through Committee, that it did not repeal all that all would be necessary to repeal; but the repealing of existing provisions was always the last thing done in the schedules of a Bill.
MR. HUNTsaid, he could not see why the Amendment was not accepted, seeing that the Government agreed with he object of it.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he object of the Amendment was already contained in the Bill, and, if it were not, he words proposed would not effect he object. The 8th section, if any, was the faulty one; but a consideration of that section showed the objection was untenable. He would suggest waiting for the 8th section, and then amending it if it did not do what the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) suggested, which the Government were quite prepared to accept.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the 1st clause dealt exclusively with nomination papers, but the 8th dealt with other arrangements as well.
MR. CAWLEYsaid, the plain and simple way of legislating would be to prescribe a particular form, and not to say that the paper may be in any form.
MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he was of opinion that the words suggested by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) would do no harm, and might dear up an ambiguity.
MR. SPENCER WALPOLEbelieved that the clause would be rather better without the Amendment.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that before he came down to the House he was under the impression that the object of the Amendment was to make the matter more stringent than the Bill as it stood.
MR. COLLINSsuggested that there should be added to the end of the Amendment the words "or to the like effect."
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would agree to the suggestion.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 177: Majority 25.
MR. GREENE MR. GREENE moved that the Chairman report Progress.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister, or the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill, whether the Committee was distinctly to understand that the following was the arrangement which had the sanction of the Government—namely, that they should take two or three clauses out of the Corrupt Practices Bill and introduce them into the Ballot Bill, and that the remainder of the Corrupt Practices Bill should be postponed, as it appeared to him, for an indefinite period, in order that the Mines Regulation Bill and other measures might be proceeded with? If that was the arrangement that had been come to, he was no party to it.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the arrangement proposed by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government was, that when they got towards the end of the clauses of the Ballot Bill, inasmuch as it might be found to be difficult to carry the whole of the clauses of the Corrupt Practices Bill before reporting the Ballot Bill, they should, in that case, transfer to the Ballot Bill the 2nd and 3rd clauses of the Corrupt Practices Bill. There was no statement on the part of his right hon. Friend that the other four clauses and the questions which might arise as to a renewal of the present Act, should be indefinitely postponed. The Government fully intended and expected that the Bill would be passed into law this year.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that in the observations he had made he did not relinquish the hope or expectation of their passing the whole of the Corrupt Practices Bill. The Ministry must recollect that it was in their power not merely to propose the insertion of these two clauses, but all the clauses of the Corrupt Practices Bill.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to state further, in order to prevent any possibility of misunderstanding, that Her Majesty's Government tad accepted the Motion to refer the two Bills to the same Committee, which implied that it was possible that, having gone through the Ballot clauses, they would go through the Corrupt Practices clauses. They had no intention of embodying the Corrupt Practices Bill in the Ballot Bill, and constituting them a Ballot Bill; but they simply undertook that if, when they came to the end of the Ballot clauses, it appeared contrary to the convenience of the House to proceed at once with all the clauses of the Corrupt Practices Bill, they would transfer two of the clauses to the Ballot Bill.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 11th March.
House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriages (Society of Friends)* (29); Public Parks (Ireland) * (30).
Second Reading—Church Discipline Act Amendment * (20), put off.
Committee—Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (15).

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES BILL.—(No. 15.)
(The Lord Cairns.)
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES BILL.—(No. 15.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the said Bill, read.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, before your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill, I must ask you to allow me to say a few words as to the grounds on which I have laid upon the Table certain Amendments to be considered when the House goes into Committee upon the measure itself. My Lords, it might have been more convenient if the few words I have to say had been said on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill; but the noble Earl who had charge of it (the Earl of Shaftesbury) thought fit to press it forward with a haste very unusual in the case of Bills of importance coming before your Lordships, and diocesan engagements deprived me of the opportunity of addressing the House on the second reading. I believe on that occasion the noble Earl gave utterance to the opinion that I was the last man who ought to complain if he did not consent to delay the second reading, because last year I thanked the noble Earl for having given his attention to this subject. Now, I do not myself see any sequence in these two ideas. Again, I thank the noble Earl, as I thanked him before, for having as a layman applied himself to the preparation of a measure intended to remove certain blots in our present ecclesiastical system. I thank him heartily—it is not by way of paying any personal compliment to the noble Earl, or any compliment to the Bill, that I say I am thankful that one of his energy and his standing in the House should bring forward a measure of this kind, rather than that it should have been

  1125
  introduced by one of the right rev. Bench. But the more I thank him, the more I feel I ought to do all in my power to make it worth thanks—to make it worth passing in this and the other House of Parliament; but that because I thanked him I ought to be one of the last men that should wish to make the Bill fit to pass is one of the strangest propositions I ever heard. It was, therefore, that I sought to obtain for the measure the full consideration of those best capable of judging of its details. As I have said, I think the second reading was taken with unusual and undue hurry. It was read a first time on the 13th of this month. No notice was given then of the time when the second reading would be taken. Notice was given only on the 15th that the Bill would be proposed for second reading on the following Monday, there being only one sitting day of your Lordships' House between that and the date of the second reading. I regarded this as very undue haste in the case of a Bill intended to alter the whole of the arrangements in the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England. I was engaged on diocesan business at the time when the second reading was to be taken; but I had communicated with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), who had moved the first reading, asking that, as the week was Easter Week, one in which the Bishops are much engaged with diocesan duty, the second reading might be postponed. From the noble and learned Lord I received a most courteous letter; but the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) declined to accede to my request. When I asked for the postponement, I had not the slightest idea of unnecessary delay; but surely those who are so much interested in the Bill might ask that the second reading should be postponed to a time when, without great personal inconvenience, and without disturbing diocesan arrangements and so causing considerable inconvenience, they might attend and deliver their mind on the subject of its provisions. I trust your Lordships will see that, under such circumstances, I might have made the request I did without endeavouring by means of a subterfuge to delay the passing of the Bill. I had no intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill. My intention was, that before reading the Bill a second
  1126
  time the House should be put in possession of the views of myself and others with whom I have communicated with reference to the measure as it now stands, in order that on going into Committee your Lordships should the better understand the effect of the Amendments of which I have given Notice. I now request the attention of the House to the grounds on which I intend to propose those Amendments; because I think it will be easier to explain them now than to do so when the Bill is under discussion clause by clause. I object, first of all, to the appointment of the one Judge who is to act for the two Provinces of Canterbury and York, and who is to be paid a large salary. I object to this, because it is an innovation on long-established custom. The two Provinces have from the beginning had two separate Courts with a Judge for each. It would be easy to show the advantages which have accrued from this arrangement, while I cannot see any advantages which can result from merging these two offices into one. Again, I object entirely to the whole financial basis which is essential to the working out of the proposed judicial arrangement. In the Bill as originally proposed, the salary of the Judge was set down at £3,000. The figures have since been struck out—I suppose, because this is not the House in which the salary is to be fixed—but a blank has been left for the amount, and no doubt it will be filled up with £3,000. Now, I ask, what is the necessity for a new Judge at a salary of £3,000? None that I can see. After a careful examination, extending over some recent years, I find that, even under existing circumstances, six cases a year would be likely the probable number to come before this Judge with a salary of £3,000. But if you take into account the probability of a settlement of many grave questions hitherto undecided, there seems every likelihood that in future there will not be nearly six trials in the course of a year. I say, therefore, that to create such an office with such a salary is an absolute abuse, considering the work to be done. My Lords, I say further that there is no need for it at all; because at present there is a sufficient emolument attached to the Archbishop of Canterbury's principal judicial office to make it worth the while of one of the Judges

  1127
  to undertake the duties of the Dean of Arches, and the small additional labour which it involves. The salary of the Dean of Arches is provided from the fees of the Mastership of the Faculty in the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, these fees being derived from the issuing of special licences and dispensations. I hold that there is no reason for diminishing, but every reason for keeping up those fees, because they act as a check against applications for special licences in the case of marriage, and for dispensation in other cases. Such licences and dispensations are granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury under an Act of Henry VIII., vesting in him all rights and privileges in those matters which before that time had been exercised by the Pope of Rome. Those rights and privileges have not been taken away by any subsequent Act; but it is very desirable to keep a check on the applications from which those fees are derived. The Dean of Arches is an honourable office, and an emolument of between £700 and £800 a-year will always make it worth the while of the Judge of the Court of Admiralty to undertake the small additional labour involved in the office of Dean of Arches also. I say, therefore, that, so far as the Province of Canterbury is concerned, there is no need of the new office which it is proposed to create by this Bill. I go further, my Lords, and say that I think it is a great advantage that a person who fills such an office as that of the Dean of Arches should also be a Judge in a lay Court. In the first place, because there might be an idea that by sitting exclusively in an Ecclesiastical Court the Judge would have his mind narrowed by the singleness of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; whereas the more constant work in the lay Court tends to keep his judicial faculties alive, and to give broader principles to act upon. With only hearing five causes a year you could hardly expect to keep the reasoning faculties quick and the judicial acumen accurate. I think, therefore, it is a great advantage that the superior Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court should also be a Judge sitting in a lay Court. First, then, I object that the Bill proposes to create an office which is not needed. My second objection is, that it proposes to take away the judicial business from a Court properly qualified
  1128
  to discharge it. My third objection is as to the source from which the £3,000 a-year is to be obtained. It can be obtained only by maintaining marriage licences at their present high rate, or by maintaining other ecclesiastical fees at a rate which is already excessive. I think marriage should be encouraged by a national Church, and not discouraged by large fees. Again, there are other ecclesiastical fees, certain of which are very objectionable. Your Lordships have heard the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) declare that these fees are an abomination and an abuse; but it is an inconsistency to ask Parliament not to abolish those fees at the same time that he proposes it should establish a Court which must be kept up by maintaining them. I object for another reason. There are a good many errors in the wording of this Bill, some of which are rather amusing, but one is particularly so. In the clause of the Bill having direct reference to the appointment of the proposed Judge there is no statement as to who is to make the appointment; but in a subsequent clause he is alluded to as "the Judge appointed by the Crown." This is one of the most curious instances I have ever seen of the accidental letting out by the draughtsman of a fact not stated in direct terms in any part of the Bill. Now, my Lords, I am of opinion that as long as the Church of England is an Established Church, or holds property, the appeal in the end must go to a temporal Court; but the appointment of the Judge whose place the new Judge is to take has always been in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Here the draughtsman had the wit to perceive, and the misfortune to state, that the intention is to transfer the appointment to the Crown. I object to that as uncalled for and as an innovation. Next I object to the introduction of the jury system for trials in ecclesiastical cases. In the first place, it is a wholly novel introduction; in the second place, it has never been desired by the clergy themselves, in whose interests it is supposed to be attempted. This subject was long and carefully considered by the Lower House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury; but they never have desired to introduce the principle of trial by jury. When these jury clauses came before the Select Committee of your Lordships'

  1129
  House they were considered and struck out. Now, however, they make their appearance in this Bill. The jury system will increase the expense of these cases, because no man going before the Court will be able to avoid taking with him a practised advocate to put the case before the jury. If this system be introduced, instead of having men who sift the evidence and come to the Court with the object of assisting the Judge, we shall have men dealing with the evidence as advocates do when they have to lay their case before a jury. It appears to me that this will not prevent cases from coming before the Privy Council, because everyone knows the power of skilful advocates, and that they can always in some way or other reserve questions of fact disguised as questions of law, and so bring the case before a Court of Appeal. Instead, therefore, of shortening the proceedings and diminishing the expense, it will protract the former and increase the latter; but to come to the principle on which the jury system is introduced. It is said that persons of the same profession may be presumed to have a knowledge that will better enable them to judge of the facts, and the principle upon which a foreigner on his trial in this country was allowed to have a jury, the one half of whom were foreigners, has been referred to in support of the jury clauses. It is rather singular that this privilege should be referred to in support when the privilege itself was taken away last year. What you took away from a foreigner last year you now propose to give to the clergy. To say that because a clergyman is on his trial you ought to have a jury of clergymen is fully much the same as saying that no bricklayer ought to be tried for murder except by a jury of bricklayers. I say, as one of the clergy, that we should rather not have any such thing. We should rather not give any ground for the suspicion that we want any advantages for our profession, and therefore we prefer to have laymen to try us. There is another objection, my Lords, and it is that the clergy are the worst men to serve on a jury, because, being exempt by law from serving on juries, they have no practice in that way. The manner in which this Bill is drawn would show that those who framed its provisions are not very well
  1130
  acquainted with ecclesiastical matters, nor with the difficulties which have hitherto presented themselves in ecclesiastical trials. The constant use of the word "may" shows that those persons have not recognized the difficulties which have hitherto arisen in consequence of the use of ambiguous words. And, my Lords, not only is there ambiguity in the terms used, but in the Interpretation Clause words are interpreted which do not occur in the Bill. I suppose they were in it once, but have been allowed to drop out. There is not only a superfluous and misleading nomenclature in the Bill, but there is an interpretation of so great an office as that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. There is an interpretation of "Archbishop" and of "Bishop," and the definitions are in some cases so new and fanciful that I believe if no amendment be made in the Bill, it would be impossible to try a non-beneficed clergyman. There is a definition of a "clerk," which excepts a Bishop and Archbishop. All this is superfluous, and I think noble and learned Lords will agree with me that whatever is superfluous in a legal document or a statute is a nest in which every kind of difficulty settles and breeds. I thank the noble Earl for what he has done; and if your Lordships think you can mould the Bill so as to remove what appear to me to be its evils, I shall be happy to give it my support. I, for one, should rejoice if the noble Earl obtained the credit I think he deserves for having long and earnestly given so much attention to these matters. If the Bill can be amended, I should rather see the noble Earl's name on it than the name of any member of the right rev. Bench; but I cannot in any way compromise the cause of discipline in the National Church in order that we may pay a compliment to the noble Earl. There are several clauses of the Bill which, in my opinion, will require very considerable amendment before the Bill can be regarded as at all satisfactory, or before it can be made a measure that will not contain within itself elements of danger. The scope of my Amendments is to attempt to remove what is objectionable, and to remedy what is deficient in the Bill—my main objections, as I have already stated, being the creation of a new Judgeship, and the introduction of the jury system. I think, my Lords,

  1131
  that the proceedings in these matters ought to be as simple as possible; but instead of that being the case, it appears to me that under this Bill the procedure is unnecessarily embarrassed, and that new expenses are attached to it. In the Bill which I laid on the Table provision is made for raising the case by declaration—a form of which is given in the schedule, and which anyone can fill up. But the proceedings under this Bill must be commenced by petition, and the petition must in every case be signed by a counsel learned in the law. Now, I think that is an unnecessary and expensive form of proceeding. By one of the provisions of the Bill it is proposed to enact that those of the clergy who unhappily may have been condemned in a Criminal Court may be at once condemned by the Ecclesiastical Court on the strength of the judgment pronounced by the Criminal Court. I agree with that entirely. I think it is a well-founded and necessary provision: but then comes a similar provision with respect to clergymen who may have been condemned in a civil proceeding. I object to this. There are grave offences of which a clergyman might stand condemned by the judgment in a civil proceeding, and having regard to the manner in which the prejudices of jurors may be acted upon in civil proceedings, I do not think an Ecclesiastical Court ought to proceed to condemnation merely on the judgment of a lay Court in a civil proceeding, and without giving the accused party an opportunity of having the facts brought before the Ecclesiastical Judge. In regard to the punishment for some offences, I think the moral standard of our ecclesiastical law is very lax. This is owing to the punishments having been provided at a time when an unnatural and un-scriptural prohibition was in force—the time when celibacy was enforced among the clergy. I think to restore a man to a cure of souls in three years after he has been condemned by a superior Court for the commission of acts of adultery is a thing the ecclesiastical law of this country ought not to allow. There are many such evils which require to be removed. I believe, however, that this Bill will increase instead of diminishing some of those evils if it is not amended in Committee, and therefore I hope that it will not be supposed that I wish to oppose the object the noble Earl has in
  1132
  view because I have felt it my duty to give notice of a number of Amendments.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, before we go into Committee, I must say a few words in answer to some of the observations of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester). In the first place, he accuses me of undue haste in bringing on the second reading. It is quite true that Notice of the second reading was not given quite so early as I could have wished; yet I have been told by several right rev. Prelates that the time I selected for the second reading was the most convenient for them. The right rev. Prelate who moved the rejection of the other Bill (the Bishop of Peterborough) paid me the compliment of saying I could not have selected a more convenient day. Therefore, I pair off the accusation of the right rev. Prelate who has just addressed you with the compliment of the right rev. Prelate who spoke the other night. Then the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) complains of my having said he was the last man who ought to object to my bringing on the second reading, because last year he thanked me for having brought in the Bill; but if the right rev. Prelate had referred to a speech of his own made last year he would have found that he then said he was convinced of the necessity of a Bill, but that he felt there would be a difficulty in the way of any of the Episcopal Bench introducing a satisfactory measure, and that therefore he was glad to see the question taken up by a layman. Now as to the objections to the clauses, they can be discussed better in Committee. It is quite true that the jury clauses were struck out by the Select Committee; but I introduced them again at the urgent request of the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of London. For myself, I do not particularly care whether these clauses are retained, and therefore the matter is one which I am prepared to leave between the two right rev. Prelates.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PART I.—Preliminary.
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 postponed.

  PART II.—Reservation of Existing Rights.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Rights of laics to institute suits, &c. reserved).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed to omit the clause.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYasked for an explanation for the proposed omission. If their Lordships struck out the clause they would declare that there was no power on the part of the laity of instituting suits against the clergy.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, his objection to the clause as it stood was that it was ambiguous, unmeaning, and therefore dangerous.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Reservation of existing rights of chancellors, surrogates, and registrars, &c).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved an Amendment providing that these officers might, in lieu of fees, be paid by salaries equal to but not exceeding the amount of fees received by them on an average of three years, and, in addition, payment for such clerks and assistants as may be required for the discharge of the duties of the respective offices.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPwished to know where the salaries were to come from?
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it was only just that those who had been receiving fees should be secured against sudden changes.
  After some conversation,
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 11, 12, and 13 agreed to.
  At this moment—

  OUTRAGE ON THE QUEEN.
  EARL GRANVILLE, who had been summoned from the House, returned and said,—Your Lordships will excuse my interruption of this discussion. I have just been informed that a boy of 18 or 19 ran into the garden of Buckingham Palace as the Queen entered, followed the carriage to the door, which is at a short distance, and presented an old-fashioned pistol within a foot of Her Majesty's head. The Queen bowed her head, and the boy was seized. I am informed that the pistol was not loaded,
  1134
  and it is believed that the object of the boy was to compel Her Majesty by fear to sign a Fenian document which he had in his hand. The Queen showed the greatest courage and composure, and immediately commanded Colonel Hardinge to come down to the Houses of Parliament in order to prevent exaggerated rumours and alarm being spread. I will refrain from entering into any details of which I am not in full possession, and I will further refrain from making any observations on the contrast of this odious although contemptible attempt with the magnificent and unprecedented display of affectionate loyalty on Tuesday.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I cannot allow this statement to be made without expressing my joy at the failure of this miserable attempt, which was clearly of a contemptible character, seeing that, as the noble Earl told us, there does not appear to have been powder and shot in the pistol. At all events, it has had one effect—it has given an additional proof to the country of the courage which has sustained Her Majesty on this as on all other occasions. I cannot but reiterate the feeling of gratification my noble Friend has given utterance to at the magnificent display of loyalty witnessed this week, and the pride we all must feel in the reception Her Majesty met with. It is an enormous satisfaction to set off the magnificent demonstration of such a concourse of people against an event such as that just reported to us.
  Consideration of the Bill in Committee resumed.
  Clause 14 (Surrogates to issue marriage licences subject to the rules and orders).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved that the clause be omitted.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERwas understood to say that he could not accede to the noble Earl's proposal. The noble Earl had proposed clauses which, in his opinion, were entirely wrong, and he had therefore proposed other clauses in substitution, and upon the relative value of the two proposals it would be for the House to decide.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYdesired to say a word or two in reference to the appointment of one Judge for the two Provinces, to whom his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Winchester) ob-

  1135
  jected on the score of expense; but it exceeded even his right rev. Brother's ability to show that the two Judges he recommended would cost less than one. One of the anomalies which this Bill sought to remedy was that which existed in the Province of York, where the appeal from the Judge of the Archbishop of the diocese was to the Judge of the Archbishop of the Province, the two Judges being one and the same man—in other words, the appeal was from the Chancellor of York to the Chancellor of York. Now, it was obvious that in every good system of judicature the Judge of appeal must be other than the Judge of the first instance, and therefore such a change as the Bill proposed was obviously required. In the Province of Canterbury the appeal from the Vicar General, or rather the Commissary of the Diocese, as to the Dean of Arches. In approving of the course proposed, he did not commit himself to the amount of salary to be given; but it should be such as would command the services of an efficient Judge. His right rev. Brother had objected to the financial basis on which the Bill was founded; but every Bill of the kind must rest on such a basis. And what did his right rev. Brother propose to substitute for it? Nothing. As far as he could see, the only difference between his right rev. Brother's view and that of the Bill was as to whether the fees were to be collected as fees, and paid to the Judge, or whether they were to be paid into a general fund out of which the Judge was to receive a fixed salary. Now, the whole tendency of legislation in both Houses of Parliament of late years had been to give a preference to salaries as compared with the unsatisfactory system of remuneration by fees. The number of cases before the Judge of the Arches was very few, and there need be no apprehension that they would increase to any great extent; yet it was important that the Judge should have so much time at his disposal as to ensure that causes would not be put off from month to month. In fact, the Court should sit de die in diem. He saw no objection to the same person acting as Judge of Appeal for both Provinces of Canterbury and York.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he objected to the proposals of the Bill on the ground that they were not sufficiently simple, and he should, therefore,
  1136
  move that after Clause 14 the following clauses be inserted:—
  "The archbishop may, if he think fit, sit in the provincial court as the judge in the place of the official principal thereof: Provided always, that the archbishop shall not sit in the provincial court as the judge thereof during the hearing of any suits of which he the said archbishop may be the promoter, or which are brought against clerks who hold preferment in the patronage of the said archbishop; provided also, that when the archbishop shall sit in the provincial court as judge thereof the official principal of the said court shall sit as the assessor of the said archbishop."
  "The bishop may, if he think fit, sit in the diocesan court as the judge in the place of the official principal thereof: Provided always, that the bishop shall not sit in the diocesan court as the judge thereof during the hearing of any suits of which he the said bishop may be the promoter, or which are brought against clerks who hold preferment in the patronage of the said bishop; provided also, that when the bishop shall sit in the diocesan court as judge thereof the official principal of the said court shall sit as the assessor of the said bishop."
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the point at issue was whether a single Judge should be nominated for the two Provinces. The question was surrounded by very great difficulties; but he admitted the theoretical advantages of having a Judge of that description. It was highly important that the office should be filled by a person learned in and accustomed to the administration of the law, and if the Judge were appointed with the approval of the Queen, he might be safely intrusted with the powers ordinarily given to Judges in Her Majesty's Courts. Next came the question how he was to be paid. Whatever their Lordships might decide, it was pretty certain that the other House would regard their interference as a breach of their privileges; and, if so, it would be useless for their Lordships to pass these clauses. As to the right rev. Prelate's proposal to put the fees into a common fund, out of which the Judge's salary should be paid, he would ask where was the fund to come from, and what certainty was there that that source of payment would be always available? If it were proposed to take the fees for special marriage licences, and to put those fees, and those fees only, into a fund out of which the sum for the Judge's salary should be drawn, he should not have the least objection to the plan; but he must altogether demur to visitation and other fees being devoted to such a purpose.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he was convinced that the nomination of one Judge for both the Arch dioceses would be the most simple and effectual method of meeting the difficulty, though he was quite as ready and anxious as anyone to get rid of the fees now levied. His proposal was that the Provincial Judge should be appointed by the Sign Manual of the Queen, and should have all the powers of the Judges of one of Her Majesty's superior Courts of Law, that the Archbishop sitting with that Judge should have these powers, but the Archbishop sitting alone should not. The proposition of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) was that every Bishop should exercise the full authority of a Judge—a proposition which exceeded any power ever possessed by Bishops in mediaeval times. He could not believe their Lordships would accept this Amendment. The clause against which the Amendment was directed was the clause of the Select Committee. He heartily endorsed it, and took the whole responsibility of it upon himself. He appealed to the two Archbishops, who sat on this Committee, whether any objection had been raised to the clause in the Committee.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the noble Earl was in error when he represented this clause as having the sanction of the whole of the Select Committee. The Committee consisted of 15 Members, and this clause, so far from being adopted unanimously, was not adopted by even a numerical majority of the Committee. The Archbishop of Canterbury had claimed the Archbishop of York as a party to the clause; but the most rev. Primate who presided over the Province of York was no party to it, having deliberately left the room before the division was taken.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, as the Bill was one which affected the internal arrangements of the Church of England it was thought, in the first instance, that if the right rev. Prelates could themselves agree upon a measure which would be effectual to correct existing grievances with reference to the administration of ecclesiastical law in the Ecclesiastical Courts, it would be better to leave it to them to prepare the Bill and present it to the House with the weight which their common consent would give it. But it appeared that this
  1138
  consent was not to be had on the part of that body; and it fell to the noble Earl who had taken so very active a part in this matter to produce a measure of his own, calculated, as he thought, to effect the purpose. A most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) then brought forward a Bill—not professing to do so with the general consent of the right rev. Bench—but a Bill which he thought would be effective and produce the same results as those arrived at by the noble Earl in a somewhat different mode. The House referred both Bills to a Select Committee, which had very patiently considered them. He was not a member of the Committee, and could only judge of the result by what he saw in their Report. The Committee, then, it appeared, had agreed on a Bill in substance such as was brought in by the noble Earl. The Government having considered the Bill did not think it right to oppose the Bill; they thought it should be maturely considered, reserving to themselves, however, the power of saying how the money should be raised for the payment of the Judge. They approved the principle of the Bill—namely, that there should be a single Judge; that he should be nominated as proposed by the Bill, and approved by the Crown; but as to the emoluments to be provided for the Judge, they thought these more properly fell under the cognizance of the other House of Parliament. When they were told, and very truly, as one of the difficulties of the case, that there was scarcely business to occupy a single Judge, it occurred to him that it might be made part of the duty of the Judge appointed to pay some attention to Ecclesiastical Bills passing through Parliament. With regard to the mode of remuneration, he certainly had great objection to paying the Judge from marriage licence fees. He should be extremely sorry to see these fees, which a Commission had unanimously recommended should be reduced from £2 to 5s., relied on for the payment of the Judge. But it was clear that it should be left to the other House to settle the Judge's salary, and the source from which it should be paid.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, it was self-evident that the appointment of a Judge must be followed by his payment; and he must protest against the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord

  1139
  that the Members of the Government in that House might agree to the appointment of a Judge, who if appointed must of course be paid, and that then the Members of the Government in the other House were to decide how the Judge was to be paid, and whence his salary was to be obtained. That was so extraordinary a proposition that he should suggest that the consideration of this question should be adjourned until the Government made up their minds as to how the Judge was to be paid.
  EARL GRANVILLEobserved that the Bill was not a Government Bill, and it had gone through the ordeal of a Committee of their Lordships' House, where this very point was raised. The noble Earl opposite tried to raise objections; but he found himself in a minority of one.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYremarked that the Government, as a rule, affected to have some interest in public questions and matters coming before Parliament; but while prepared to support this Bill, they declined to express an opinion upon its fundamental principle, or to say whether the Judge ought to be paid. Of course, if the Judge was to be paid by salary the other House would have to decide the amount of his salary, and the fund out of which it should be paid. The only proposal before the House was that the Judge should be paid by fees; although that source of income might at any time disappear. Their Lordships would be merely exposing themselves to the ridicule of the public and the House of Commons if they went through the process of creating an elaborate machinery without providing funds by which the officers were to be paid: and they would justly incur ridicule if after ascertaining that there were no such funds they sent the Bill down to the other House for it to find out what their Lordships could not discover. Their conduct would be still more open to comment when they had received what was practically a warning that the Government was merely passing the Bill as a matter of civility, and would shelve it in the other House.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked what Member of the Government had made such a statement?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that was the inference to be drawn from the resolution of the Government not to
  1140
  commit themselves on the main question of the Bill. The Government were scarcely treating the House with sufficient respect, and until they had made up their minds it would be wise not to proceed further with the Bill.
  EARL GREYsaid, it appeared to him when the Government said that they intended to support a Bill deeply affecting the interests of the Church of England, and consequently the interests of the nation, they could not afterwards decline to provide some mode for the payment of the salaries which might be necessary. In his opinion, their Lordships were justified in passing the Bill in the shape proposed on the recommendation of a Select Committee. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) said that there was an objection to the mode of payment by fees, because the fees might fail; but, practically, the fees would continue to be paid until Parliament did away with them; and, if they were done away with, Parliament would then be called on to make some other provision for the object. Either the fees must continue to be collected, or else provision must be made for the payment of these salaries when the Bill entered the Commons. Nothing was more important for the welfare of the Church and of the nation than that the noble Earl should be supported in getting rid of the expensive mode of trying causes in these Ecclesiastical Courts.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, the great object of the measure was to relieve suitors of the large sums of money which were now levied upon them under different denominations in the shape of fees, and which amounted, on the whole, to £72,000 a-year. When the offices fell, their emoluments would fall with them. The object of the Bill was to substitute a staff that would cost £31,800 for a staff that was now costing £71,794, and all would agree that that was a consummation devoutly to be wished for. The fees would continue to be levied until a sufficient number of existing functionaries, secretaries, apparitors, and he knew not what, had died off or were provided for; and the question was how money could be raised to tide over the temporary emergency. It could be done easily unless Government was disposed to consider that an improvement of this kind was to be sacrificed to a miserable economy; but the Government could

  1141
  provide the money required for a time by an Act of Parliament, and £8,000 or £10,000 could be raised by mortgaging the future proceeds of the fund. The latter would be a most degrading course to adopt. It might be found that the appointment of a Judge would relieve the Government in future from an extraordinary mode of supplying vacancies. The proposition that a Bishop should hold the door of a Court, and let no one enter it without his sanction, might have been listened to before the Reformation, but it could not be necessary to discuss it now. If the Government would help them over the stile in the matter of money, in two or three years the difficulty would be removed. The object of the Bill was to relieve the public at large from most oppressive and unjustifiable impositions, and the benefit it would confer on the country would be universally recognized.
  On Question? Whether the said (first) clause be added to the Bill? resolved in the negative.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he would not now propose the clause relating to the Bishops, but would accept the decision at which the House had just arrived as applying to that one also.
  Clause 15 (Compensation to the official principals of Canterbury and York).
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERagain expressed a hope that the House would not assent to the appointment proposed by this Bill. Instead of the measure containing a plan for relieving the people of this country from the payment of enormous fees, it was, in his opinion, a Bill the effect of which would be to continue their payment. It did not constitute two new Judgeships, but employed two which already existed, and who were now sufficiently paid. There was no need for this clause at all.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYwould not insist upon the retention of the clause.
  Clause struck out.

  PART III.—Judges of the Provincial and Diocesan Courts.
  Clause 16 (Jurisdiction of Archbishops).
  The clause provided that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York shall each within his Province
  1142
  be the Chief Judge in his provincial Court in all appeals from the judgments of the diocesan Courts of his Province, and the chief Judge in his diocesan Court.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER moved to leave out the clause.
  On Question, That the said clause stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 48; Not-Contents 10: Majority 38.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Salary to the Judge appointed under this Act).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, looking to the practical working of the clause, said, no one would, he thought, contend that the system of issuing marriage licences was likely to continue, and when it ceased there would be a great deficiency in the amount available for the purposes of the Act. That deficiency would have to be made up out of the funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which were already appropriated to the relief of spiritual destitution. He should therefore oppose the clause.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEpointed out that under Clause 19 the Judge was, if a Member of the Privy Council, to act as a Member of the Judicial Committee except on ecclesiastical appeals, and objected to the salary of such a Judge being provided from ecclesiastical sources.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, there would be sufficient money to pay the whole expenses of the Act independently of the fees received for marriage licences, for there was received a sum of £31,000 per annum over and above those fees. The noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) said these fees were likely to disappear, and he had no doubt the clergy would come to the same conclusion when they observed the tone of the present debate. Further, when the clergy read the speech of his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Winchester) they would hail him as their deliverer from the very moderate scale of fees fixed by the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York; but the result of this would be that the fees would fall into the hands of a large number of irresponsible attorneys, and would be considerably increased.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that visitations and consecrations were not necessarily events requiring the attendance of attorneys, and expressed a hope that the time would speedily come when these services would be rendered gratuitously by the Bishops.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the fees referred to by the noble Marquess did not go to enrich the Bishops, and they were not, in his opinion, too large for the services rendered.
  LORD DYNEVORdid not see why marriage licences should be abolished, but thought it clear that the amount received as fees would speedily suffer a heavy reduction.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYwished it to be understood that the sum paid to the Judges as salary would not be diverted from charitable objects, as £9,000 a-year were now paid to the Chancellors for doing little or nothing. He moved to amend the clause by omitting from it the words which assigned the amount of salary.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, to leave out Clause 23, as amended.—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not-Contents 9: Majority 12.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  PART IV.—Jurisdiction of the Provincial and Diocesan Courts.
  Clauses 24 to 27 agreed to.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following clauses:—
  "When an appeal is made to the provincial court a copy of the shorthand notes or report of the evidence taken in the diocesan court shall be transmitted to the provincial court for its consideration, and no fresh evidence shall be brought in cases of appeal before the provincial court, save by the permission of the official principal of the said court."
  "When an appeal is made to Her Majesty in Council, a copy of the shorthand notes or reports of the evidence taken or placed before the provincial court shall be transmitted to the said Judicial Committee for its consideration, and no fresh evidence shall be brought before the said Judicial Committee save by the permission thereof."
  "A sentence of deprivation and of perpetual suspension may be pronounced upon any clerk in holy orders adjudged to be guilty of adultery or in-
  1144
  continence, any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided always, that nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit the passing of any sentences of deprivation or perpetual suspension upon clerks in holy orders adjudged to be guilty of offences against the laws ecclesiastical which have been heretofore punished by such sentences: Provided also, that no sentence of deprivation or perpetual suspension shall be pronounced in the diocesan or provincial court save by the archbishop or bishop in person, or by some person deputed by the said archbishop or bishop for the purpose, by an instrument under his hand and seal."
  "It shall be lawful for any archbishop in whose provincial court any suit may not have been heard, if he think fit, to give effect within his own province to the sentence pronounced by any diocesan or provincial court if such sentence shall not have been reversed on appeal, and if such sentence shall have been varied on appeal, then to such sentence so varied, and the said sentence shall take effect throughout the province of the said archbishop upon the execution by the said archbishop of an instrument, dated within three calendar months after such sentence shall have been pronounced, or confirmed or varied, as the case may be, such instrument being in the form contained in the Schedule (D.) to this Act; and the said sentence shall from and after the date of the execution of such instrument be as good and effectual in law throughout the province of the said archbishop as if pronounced by the provincial court thereof."
  Clauses agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
  Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  Clause 30 (Appeal to the Queen in Council from the judgment of a Provincial Court) agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Provincial Court may transmit an appeal per saltum to the Judicial Committee).
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERexpressed his opinion that it was objectionable to allow the parties to a suit which had not been heard in the Archbishop's Court to carry it per saltum to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, this could only be done with the consent of both parties.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, that when great doctrinal questions were at issue other persons besides the parties to the suit would be deeply interested in the result. He thought, therefore, that such cases ought, for the sake of the Church, to be heard in the Archbishop's Court.
  LORD CAIRNSthought that, as the suitors had to pay the costs, they ought

  1145
  to be permitted to take the case at once before the Privy Council.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 32 agreed to.

  PART V.—Suits against Clerks.
  Clauses 33, 34, and 35, agreed to.
  Clause 36 postponed.
  Clauses 37, 38, and 39, agreed to, with Amendments.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobjected to proceeding further with the clauses of this Bill at present. Their Lordships were proceeding in total misapprehension of the facts of the case. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), acting, no doubt, in good faith, had led them to believe that this Bill, in its various provisions, had been adopted by the Select Committee. But that was by no means the case. Clause 40 was not in the Bill as it left the Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he could not really say whether this particular clause, in all its parts, passed the Select Committee or not. But he firmly and truly believed all the main clauses—all the clauses of any importance or value, and involving any principle whatever, were now in the Bill as it had come down from the Select Committee. He declared most solemnly he never intended, directly or indirectly, to mislead the House.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, it was due to the House and to himself to state that he never meant to insinuate for a moment that the noble Earl had intentionally misled their Lordships; but by some mistake the Bill, in its present form, was not the Bill which had been sent down from the Select Committee.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, it had been urged that the Bill should be passed because it had been approved by the Select Committee. With all respect for the Committee, composed as it was of many able men, the main duty of the House now was to consider the Bill as it had been brought before their Lordships, and he hoped attention would be concentrated on the clauses as they stood.
  Clauses 40 to 47 agreed to, with Amendments.

  PART VI.—Oaths and Subscriptions, and filing of Ecclesiastical Instruments.
    PART VII.—Mode of application to the Provincial and Diocesan Courts.

      PART VIII.—Proceedings and Judgment by consent.
      PART IX.—Trials of Issues of Fact.
      Clause 62 (Disputed questions of fact to be tried by a jury).
      THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERobjected to the provision, on the ground that it was an inconvenient arrangement, and would add to the expense of the proceedings.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDONsupported the clause, thinking that trial by a jury was by far the most satisfactory mode of settling the question of fact in these cases. A case had occured in his former diocese, in which a clergyman had been accused of immorality by a girl in a union. The clergyman foolishly resigned; but on a careful investigation before the Court of Arches the charge was considered by the Judge to be groundless; yet public opinion still accused the clergyman—whereas if the case had been tried by a jury, the acquittal would have been held to be satisfactory proof of his innocence. The proposal had been objected to on the ground of the increased expense that it would occasion, by the employment of attorneys, counsel, &c., but it was evident that in any case that expense could not be avoided. Moreover, the Bill proposed that in verdicts on points of fact there should be no appeal to a higher Court, thus placing those trials on the same level as those in the ordinary Courts, and by the provision prohibiting appeal in cases of fact the expenses would be considerably diminished.
      LORD CAIRNSthought a jury of any sort a most unfit instrument for trying such cases. The jury gave no reasons for their conclusion; whereas the most satisfactory course was to appoint a competent Judge able to weigh the facts, and require him to state the grounds of his opinion, so that if his decision were appealed from, it could be reviewed more easily.
      Clause struck out.
      Clauses 63 to 70 struck out.

  PART X.—Evidence.
  Clauses 71 to 74 agreed to.

  PART XI.—Judgments.
  Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
  Clause 77 struck out.
  Clauses 78 and 79 agreed to.

  PART XII.—Reservation of Ecclesiastical Records.
  Clause 80 (Bishops' registers more than 20 years old to be transferred to the custody of the Master of the Rolls).
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, this provision would give rise to much inconvenience. The Bishops themselves were the proper custodians of such documents.
  LORD ROMILLYhighly approved the clause, and said it would effect a great improvement in respect of these instruments, which were of great importance, but in some dioceses very greatly neglected. There was no question that the proper course would be to collect such documents in the Record Office, where they could be properly indexed and placed within the reach of the public.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPcontended that the Bishops' registers were imperatively required to be kept on the spot for diocesan purposes, and that the clause would not touch what the Master of the Rolls desired to appropriate—namely, documents other than the Bishops' registers; but even these possessed their principal interest for local inquirers, and should not be swallowed up in the Record Office.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORadvocated the adoption of the clause. These documents were frequently required in proof of titles, and convenience and economy would alike dictate the policy of enabling the solicitor to consult everything he wished to see at one place. As regarded the safety of the documents in their present repositories, two instances had come under his own notice, in one of which a forged will, and in the other a forged certificate of marriage, had been placed among the papers. These forgeries had only incidentally been discovered, and he was astonished to find how many facilities were afforded for the committal of those offences. As far as the safety of those documents was concerned, there was nothing like the Record Office.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the clause under consideration would not effect the object in view, inasmuch as there was nothing in it to entitle the Master of the Rolls to receive other documents than the Bishop's registers.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, the question of expense was worth attention. If the
  1148
  clause were agreed to it would not involve the outlay of a single penny, for the officers in the Rolls Office were quite sufficient and competent to carry on the business. As for local antiquarians, they would infinitely prefer to have all these documents in the Rolls Office.
  THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERvindicated the local registries from the charge that had been made against them. He had had occasion to consult several registries, and in every case he found the documents in perfect order and readily accessible; while the fees paid for inspecting them were most moderate.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYhoped their Lordships would pass the clause, which was essentially necessary for the preservation of these documents. No doubt these documents were better cared for now than they were about 40 years ago; but they still suffered much from dust, damp, fire, and want of ventilation, evils against which abundant protection was afforded at the Record Office.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 81 (Parochial registers upwards of 20 years old to be transferred to the custody of the Master of the Rolls).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYquestioned whether it was worth while to incur the expense the clause involved.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, the expense would be very small, and the effect would be to close the door against the perpetration of a great deal of abuse and fraud.
  After short conversation,
  Clause agreed to.

  PART XIII.—Punishment for Contempt; and Enforcement of the Process of the Provincial and Diocesan Courts.
    PART XIV.—Security for the payment of Costs.

      PART XV.—Rules and Orders.
      Clause 92 (Rules and Orders to be made by the Ecclesiastical Courts Committee of the Privy Council).
      THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER moved the omission of words providing for the impannelling and payment of jurors, on the ground that the jury clauses had been struck out of the Bill.
      THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested the insertion of words in that part of the clause which relates to the "establishing, altering, or regulating the fees to be payable by suitors," in order

      1149
      to prevent the Court to be established, in order to carry out the provisions of the Bill, having the power to increase such fees.
      THE EARL OF LIMERICKobjected generally to the establishment of the Court referred to by the noble Marquess. It would be a step towards the disestablishment of the Church if a Court consisting partly of laymen were to have jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical. The Church, he maintained, ought to be allowed to manage her own affairs, instead of being sacrificed to the State, and he therefore objected strongly to some of the provisions of the present Bill.
      Clause amended, and agreed to.

  PART XVI.—Receipt and Application of Fees and Official Charges.
    PART XVII.—Collection of Fees, Official Charges, &c., by Stamps.

      PART XVIII.—Appointment of Vicar General.
      PART XIX.—Appointment and Qualification of Deputy Judges, Diocesan Chancellors, Registrars, &c.
      PART XX.—Practitioners.
      PART XXI.—Miscellaneous Clauses.
      Considered and agreed to, with Amendments.
      Postponed clauses considered.
      Clause 7 (Rights of laics to institute suits, &c. preserved).
      Clause struck out.
      Clause 10 (Reservation of existing rights of chancellors, surrogates, and registrars, &c.)
      Clause amended by inserting "archdeacon, archidiaconal, or decanal officer."
      Clause further amended by inserting—
      ("to receive, so long as he discharges the duties of his office, the like sum of money by way of salary as he has received in fees on the average of three years immediately before the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, with payment for such clerks and assistants as may be required for the discharge of his official duties: Provided that the salaries or payments to such clerks and assistants shall not exceed what they have received on the average of three years immediately before the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two")
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 36 (Clerk convicted in a temporal Court of crime and immorality).
      Clause struck out.
      Further Amendments made.
      The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday, the 14 th of March next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 28.)
      House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.