Sitting of 17 June 1872

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. William le Poer Trench, for Galway County.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Pawnbrokers, nominated.
Report—Tramways (Metropolis) [No. 252].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Admiralty and War Office Rebuilding * [200]; Victoria Park * [201]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts Amendment * [202].
First Reading—Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) * [198].
Second Reading—Courts of Law (Scotland) Agents * [135]; Review of Justices' Decisions * [190].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * [171].
Committee—Report—Chain Cables and Anchors Act (1871) Suspension * [183]; Fires * [7–199].
Considered as amended—Customs and Inland Revenue [106].
Third Reading—Queen's Bench (Ireland) Procedure * [126], and passed.
Withdrawn—Municipal Corporation Acts Amendment * [24].

REGISTRARS OF DEEDS, &C. (MIDDLESEX).—QUESTION.
MR. CUBITTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Registrars of Deeds for the county of Middlesex have as yet adopted a uniform system of fees, and reduced the fees charged to the scale prescribed by their Act, and if the records are still deposited in a building which is not fireproof; whether he can state the amount of emoluments received by the two surviving Registrars and by the Trea-

1849
sury in the years 1870 and 1871, and whether the fees of the vacant Registrarship are still divided between the two Registrars and the Treasury; if he can inform the House that no steps will he taken by the Lord Chief Justice to fill the vacant Registrarship; and, if Her Majesty's Government, pending the re-introduction of a general measure for the transfer of land, and the consequent abolition of the Middlesex office, contemplate taking any steps to put a stop to the existing abuses in the office as reported by the Royal Commissioners?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he had reason to believe that no alteration had been made in the system of fees for registering deeds in the county of Middlesex since a Question was put on that subject two years ago. The fees were regulated partly by Act of Parliament and partly in accordance with the advice of eminent counsel; and the records were deposited in a building which he believed was not actually fireproof, but for the security of which considerable expense had been incurred. He was informed that in all respects it was as fireproof as the building in which wills were deposited, and that every possible precaution was taken against fire. The emoluments of the Registrars in 1869 were £2,561; in 1870 they were £2,145; and in 1871, £1,911; and they were still divided in the same manner as that which he described when he answered the Question put two years ago. He might state, however, that one of the Registrars had recently died, and that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Suspensory Act which would deal with the matter provisionally, until such time as the whole matter came up for settlement under the Land Transfer Act.

ARMY—MILITIA CAMP, APPLEBY.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether his attention has been called to the arrangements made by the Control Department at the Militia Camp near Appleby; if it is true that the straw for the men's bedding, which was due on the 3rd of June, was not delivered until the 7th instant; that the bread was (for some days especially) of an inferior quality; that the wood supplied for cooking purposes was green and utterly
  1850
  unfit for use; that scales were sent without triangles upon which to hoist them; and that the pumps having failed to furnish an adequate supply of water, a water cart was sent, but no horses being provided or authority given for the receipt of tenders for that purpose until ten days after the arrival of the cart at the Camp, it could not be used, and water had to be brought from a considerable distance, thereby necessitating the employment of men upon fatigue duties when they would otherwise have been engaged at drill; and, who is responsible for these arrangements?
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If his attention has been drawn to the fact that of the three regiments that were camped together, one regiment ran away with a barrel of beer from the stores, and that complete disorder ensued; whether he has heard of a case, where the men being refused beer, they commenced an onslaught on the publican's premises, and broke the whole of the glass in the window with the exception of two panes; and whether it has been reported to him that there were a number of unlicensed houses selling liquor to the soldiers in addition to that provided by the canteens to a considerable extent—to the extent, as he lad been informed, in one instance, of several hundred barrels?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, my attention has not been called to the unsatisfactory nature, as alleged, of the arrangements made by the Control Department at the camp near Appleby, until my hon. Friend placed his Question on the Notice Paper, nor to the details quoted by the hon. Member for Kendal. Since then, however, inquiries lave been made into the matter, and as he result of those inquiries is not, in my opinion, satisfactory, a Court of Inquiry will be appointed to investigate he circumstances and complaints brought forward by the hon. Gentlemen. I shall be prepared to answer my hon. Friend's Question when the result of the Court of Inquiry has been communicated to me, of which I will give them notice.

EDUCATION—THE NEW CODE, 1871— EVENING SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. C. DALRYMPLEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council,

1851
with reference to an answer given by him on the 1st March last, Whether he is now in a position to state what decrease there is in the number of Evening Schools and Scholars inspected during the past owing to the regulations of the New Code?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that he could not state precisely what was the decrease in the number of evening schools and scholars inspected during the past year, owing to the regulations of the New Code, because the year for which the Returns were made did not expire till the 31st of August. But as the night schools were generally held during winter, he might state that the number of the schools had decreased from 2,100 to 1,300, but he could not give any information as to the number of the scholars. He would take that opportunity of stating what were the requirements with regard to night schools. The House would be aware that, under the Revised Code, before the passing of the Education Act, only 40 meetings were required to enable a school to receive the Parliamentary Grant, and each scholar was required to attend 24 times before coming up for examination. It was proposed, in the New Code, to make the number of meetings 80, and the number of attendances 50 for the year; but it was ultimately decided that the number of meetings should be reduced to 60, and the attendances to 40. That arrangement was to have lapsed this year, but Lord Ripon and himself had determined to continue it, believing that a less number of attendances would not give a school a right to receive public money.

WORKSHOP REGULATION ACT (1871).

  QUESTION.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, looking to the fact that in many parts of the country, such as the nailing districts, the Workshop Act is at present a dead letter, owing to the insufficiency of inspection, it is his intention to take any steps to give effect to the Act by adding to the number of Inspectors in such districts, or otherwise?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he could not admit that the Workshop Regulation Act (1871) was a dead letter in many
  1852
  parts of the country, for since the Act was passed last Session there had been a great number of prosecutions instituted under it. In Mr. Baker's district alone no fewer than 70 such prosecutions had been instituted. Great difficulty was experienced owing to the fact that the Act applied to a much more ignorant class than the Factory Acts dealt with, and a knowledge of its provisions had to be brought home to that class. That was being done with the greatest possible speed, and an addition of eight sub-Inspectors had recently been made to the force whose duty it was to carry the Act into operation. He was informed that quite as much progress had been made in carrying out the Act as under the circumstances was possible. It was many years before the Factory Acts could be fully enforced, and therefore the hon. Member should not be surprised at some difficulty having been experienced in bringing the Act into working order, because the difficulty was far greater in dealing with men carrying on the petty trades to which the Workshop Act applied.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS) VICTORIA PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLMSasked the First Commissioner of Works, What steps have been taken since the 11th of March, when this subject was brought under his notice by a question in this House, to have the Bathing Ponds in Victoria Park cleaned out and improved; and, when he expects such work to be completed?
MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that steps had been taken to obtain a supply of fresh water for the bathing ponds in Victoria Park by means of boring, and that the necessary works would be completed in a short time. It was not desirable to empty the lakes during the present warm weather, but when the proper season arrived they would be cleaned out. It was impossible to say how long the latter operation would take.

POLICE SUPERANNUATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EYKYNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention during this Session to deal with the subject of Police

  1853
  Superannuation; and, if he will allow the system of commutation of Pensions to be extended to Annuitants under any proposed alterations he may be pleased to make?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he regretted that he would be unable to introduce a measure on the subject of police superannuation during the present Session; but whenever such a Bill was brought in, full consideration would be given to the suggestion of the hon. Member as to allowing the system of commutation of pensions to be extended to annuitants under any proposed alterations it might be found desirable to make.

CUSTOMS' DEPARTMENT—OUT-DOOR OFFICERS—COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there were not sixty out-door officers of the Customs Department of the Port of London, from fifteen to twenty-seven years' service, who, after special recommendation, are employed to act as examining officers and gaugers for an average period of seven years, yet who are subjected, in respect to half the vacancies occurring in the examining officers' and gaugers' department, to a competitive examination with young officers of five years' service, who have never acted in the same capacity; and, if so, whether an arrangement could not be made by which the competitive examination would be limited to officers of practical experience, and thus prevent young and inexperienced officers from superseding tried men of many years' service?
MR. BAXTER: Sir, the facts stated in the Question of the noble Lord are generally correct, with the exception that the young officers who are allowed to compete must have not less than five years' service; but I think that the arrangement which he suggests would not be so beneficial to the public service as that which at present exists, and which, while it gives sufficient consideration to practical experience, at the same time is a great encouragement to young men of superior intelligence and ability,

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE LEGISLATION THE RESOLUTIONS—QUESTION.
MR. DODSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will
1854
make a statement of the steps which Her Majesty's Government propose to take to give effect to the Resolution of the House of March 22nd in favour of the reform of Private Legislation?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that this subject was under consideration and would not be allowed to drop. He would remind him that the share of responsibility which he had undertaken was mainly to ascertain whether the system of Provisional Orders could be improved and extended. He was engaged in carrying on that inquiry by all means in his power; but it was an inquiry which could not be confined to the Board of Trade, and for that purpose he was in communication with other Departments of the Government, but he was not in a position to tell the right hon. Gentleman positively when he could give him information upon the subject. He might add that there were Resolutions before the House proposed by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. E. S. Powell), which were of an interesting character, and that there was also the question how far the inquiry which had been conducted for so many weeks by the Railway Committee upstairs, which was now coming to a close, might have a bearing on the subject.

CRIMINAL LAW—FREEMASONRY—CASE OF DAVID FARRELL.—QUESTION.
MR. O'REILLYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether on the occasion of an inquest held at Sutton, in he county of Dublin, before Dr. Davys, Coroner, on the body of the boy David Farrell, who was killed at Baldoyle Races, in consequence of falling under the railway carriages, a witness named Strahan gave the following evidence:—
"There was a very large crowd assembled on the platform, and amongst them five or six respectably dressed men, who had formed themselves into a kind of triangular wedge, and were pushing along the crowd, parallel to railway line. Their conduct, he believed, was monstrous, and, as the result of the pushing, he saw people thrown off the platform on to the rails. Almost directly directly afterwards he heard the shout that a boy was killed. He knew one of the men engaged in pushing, but as he was a brother Freemason, he could not reveal his name;"
whether the witness was justified in refusing to reveal the name of the incriminated person on the ground that he

1855
was a "brother Freemason," or whether there is any such legal privilege for Freemasonry; if not, whether the Coroner was right in not requiring the witness to state the name of the person whose improper conduct he stated led to the fatal result?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, reference was made in the Question of the hon. Member to a statement that had been made at the Coroner's Inquest held on the body of a boy named David Farrell, who was killed at Baldoyle Races in consequence of falling under the railway carriages. A witness stated that he knew one of the men engaged in pushing when several persons fell off the platform, but that as he was a brother Freemason he could not reveal his name. In reply to the Question he (Mr. Dowse) had to say that this witness was not justified in refusing to reveal the name of the person on that ground, neither had he ever heard of any such privilege being claimed before. The Coroner had placed himself in communication with the Government, and had pointed out that no evidence had been given incriminating any of the five persons who had been pushing, and to whom the witness Strahan referred, adding that it was on this account he had not thought it necessary to insist upon the witness revealing the name. The Report which had been received from the Constabulary substantially confirmed the Coroner's statement. He might add that the gentleman referred to by Mr. Strahan had written to the papers, giving his name, and admitting that Freemasons had no such exemption as had been claimed for them. The Coroner was not justified in declining to ask the name, and instructions had been given to the Crown Solicitor to see whether there was ground for proceeding farther in the matter, and no doubt, if there was, Mr. Strahan would see cause to state the name of the person he referred to at the inquest.

CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF JOHN RICHARD DYMOND.—QUESTION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in the case of John Richard Dymond, sentenced by the Aberdeen Circuit Court on the 26th April 1872, to penal servitude for five years for a fraud upon the
1856
Scottish Legal Burial Society; and, whether there is any objection to the production of the precognitions taken in the case, for the information of the Royal Commission on Friendly Societies?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, my attention was called some months ago to this case when the proceedings were originally instituted, and the matter was brought to trial in the ordinary Court of Justice, resulting in the conviction of the prisoner upon his own confession. I may say that it is against the rule for the Crown Office to produce the precognitions; but I have taken upon myself to order their production on some occasions where it might be done without detriment to the public service, and would serve some useful purposes. I have desired information in regard to this particular case, and I have to inform the right hon. Baronet that I think the present a suitable occasion for relaxing the ordinary rule, and therefore the precognitions for which he asks will be produced.

INDIA—DRAFTS ON LONDON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can give the House any information with reference to certain alleged purchases by the Bank of Bengal of a large amount of private Bills of Exchange drawn at Calcutta upon London, on account of the Government of India; and of Five-and-a-half Promissory Notes of the Public Debt of India in London under orders of the Bank of Bengal on the same account?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, no full and official account of the transaction alluded to by my hon. Friend has yet reached the Secretary of State in Council, but I know that certain purchases both of bills and of Government securities were made by the Bank of Bengal on behalf of the Government. For such purchases no sufficient authority had been given, but under the circumstances the Government of India did not consider it necessary to cancel them, although it clearly intimated that nothing more must be done in the same direction without explicit sanction. It may be convenient if I add that what has happened will not interfere with the regular drawings of the Secretary of State for India.

NAVY—THE "THALIA" STORESHIP.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. GUESTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Statement in the Public Journals, that the "Thalia" storeship has been selected to convey a large number of Supernumeraries to China, although her scuttles do not admit of being opened when at sea, and that the War Department on a recent occasion refused to recognize her as a vessel fit for the transport of troops, and if there is any foundation for this statement?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, in the first place, the Thalia was not a storeship, but a corvette of six guns, specially constructed to carry a certain number of supernumeraries, she having been designed, like her sister ship the Juno, to take the place of some of the old paddle steamers. The Thalia was a perfectly new ship, and had as yet scarcely done any service. She had not been selected to carry a number of supernumeraries, but to replace her sister ship, the Juno; and there had been no correspondence with the War Office on the subject of conveying supernumeraries. The lower deck of the Thalia was constructed precisely on the same principles as that of an ordinary frigate; her scuttles could be opened in the same weather, and the persons below would have the same amount of comfort or discomfort as the crew of an ordinary frigate.

POST OFFICE—THE TELEGRAPH CLERKS.—QUESTION.
MR. SYNANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the classification of Telegraph Clerks forwarded by the Postmaster General has been approved of by the Treasury; and, if not, whether it is likely to be so; and, when the new classification will be issued by the Treasury?
MR. BAXTERsaid, in reply, that a classification of the telegraph clerks had been forwarded by the Postmaster General to the Treasury, along with a very voluminous Report concerning other branches of the subject. That Report was now under consideration; but, at present, he was not able to announce that any decision had been come to.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. "PROVISIONAL USE."—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the United States have, since the signature of the Treaty of Washington, availed themselves of the provisional use of the privileges granted to them by that Treaty in the Dominion of Canada, Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland; and whether they will continue to do so in the event of the postponement of the Arbitration; and, whether the term "provisional use" does not imply that, in the event of the failure of the Treaty, the provisions of the Treaty with respect to the Fisheries must come to an end?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: As this question bears directly upon the Colonial Department, my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government has requested me to answer it. I shall do so according to the best of my ability. My hon. Friend will really find the answer to the first part of the Question in the Papers which have been presented to Parliament. The Government of the United States applied for the provisional use of the privileges granted to them by the Treaty of Washington in the Dominion of Canada, Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland during the fishing season of 1871—that is, last year. In the exercise of her undoubted right Canada refused to allow that provisional use, and the fishermen of the United States have consequently been, and continue to be, excluded from the Canada fisheries. Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland granted the permission, and Newfoundland has continued to grant it during the present season. With regard to the latter part of the Question—which refers to the meaning and signification of a word in the English language—I should hardly presume to instruct my hon. Friend; but I think he and the House will probably concur with me in the opinion that the words "provisional use" mean a use which is temporary, and contingent on the occurrence of something else. That something else I take to be the legislation necessary to carry out the provisions of the Treaty by the Imperial Parliament and the Colonial Legislatures on the one hand, and the Government of the United States upon the other; and,

1859
if that legislation do not take place, I apprehend that without doubt the provisional use will fall to the ground.

INDIA—MISSION FROM TALIFOO.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State has received any communication from the Government of India respecting a mission which is reported to have been sent from Talifoo; and, whether any arrangements have been made for the reception of such mission?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my right hon. Friend, I have to say that we did receive such a communication, and that the arrangements proper under the circumstances have been made.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) ACT (1864).

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. B. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to bring forward any measure to relieve persons who, acting under an Act of Parliament passed in 1864, which declared "it is expedient to legalize the use of the Metric system of Weights and Measures," make use of the same, but who, according to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, are liable to be prosecuted if such weights and measures are found in their possession; and, whether he intends during the present Session to bring in a general measure for the regulation of weights and measures?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Question was to a certain extent founded upon a misconception of the Act to which it made reference, for, while the Preamble of the Act declared that it was expedient to legalize the use of the metric system of weights and measures, the enacting part only legalized contracts made in metric terms. The Standards Commission had, however, recommended the permissive legalization of the metric system, and he might say that any Bill he might bring in on the subject of weights and measures would endeavour to carry that suggestion into effect. He did not see, however, any prospect of introducing such a Bill during the present year.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—MR. JUSTICE KEOGH'S JUDGMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. P. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary of State for Ireland, When the shorthand writers' notes of the evidence taken at the trial of the Galway Election Petition and of the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh will be in the hands of Members?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that as the subject was one which did not officially come within his control, he had no power whatever over the time when the notes of the evidence taken at the trial of the Galway Election Petition and the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh would be in the hands of Members. He had, however, made inquiry of the printer, and he was informed that the Judgment would probably be printed and ready for distribution on Thursday next; but that the notes of evidence, which were extremely voluminous, might not be ready for three weeks or a month.
MR. O'CONORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the late decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, which introduces into Parliamentary Election Law the principle that a candidate at a contested Election may obtain a seat without having polled a majority of votes in a constituency; whether the introduction of such a principle was not disapproved by the Government and rejected by the House when proposed in a modified form by the hon. Baronet the Member for Reading on the 25th April last; and, what steps the Government are prepared to take to give effect to the wishes of the House, as expressed on that occasion?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my attention has certainly been called, in common with that of most hon. Members of the House, to the late decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland. I am very sensible of the great importance and even the urgent character of some of the considerations involved in that Judgment; but I do not see that any advantage would arise—and I hope my hon. Friend will be inclined to agree with me—from any fragmentary announcement with respect to a matter of so much importance. I think we should approach the question as a whole.
MR. O'CONORasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment lately delivered by Mr. Justice Lawson, in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, in which that learned judge is reported to have stated that the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868 required amendment; if so, whether he still proposes to re-enact and make permanent that Act in a single Clause of the Corrupt Practices Bill, which by its form precludes the possibility of any amendment to it being placed on the Paper?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he had nothing to add to the intimation which had been given the other evening on this subject by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, in answer to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen).

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—OUTRAGES ON MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.—QUESTIONS.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether any and what steps have been taken at the instance of the Lord Chancellor, or the Government of Ireland, in vindication of the dignity of the judicial Bench, on account of the outrages to which it has been subjected in the person of Mr. Justice Keogh for his recent judgment in support of freedom of election?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have had no communication from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Mr. Justice Keogh, or any one connected with the Government of Ireland on the subject, and I apprehend possibly that those who are interested in it will look to the circulation of the Judgment and Evidence in the Galway Petition Case among the Members of this House as the proper time for entering upon the question.
Afterwards—
COLONEL STUART KNOX, in reference to the answer just given by the Prime Minister to the Question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), said he desired to learn, Whether the Government of this country were not interested in the treatment accorded to the Judges in Ireland, and whether they viewed with indifference such conduct as burning them in effigy and otherwise
1862
insulting them? He should be glad to know to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred as "those who are interested in it," and whether an opportunity would be afforded to the House of discussing the matter.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in saying what I did upon the subject, I referred to the natural interest which my right hon. Friend behind me, and other hon. Members, no doubt, take in a subject of so much importance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would scarcely suppose I am to proceed upon the assumption that it is the business of the Cabinet to punish persons who burn Judges in effigy. For such offences I believe the ordinary process of law will be found sufficient.
COLONEL STUART KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct that process of law to be put into force?
MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that has already been done without any directions being necessary, and that the persons who took the liberty of burning a Judge in effigy have been proceeded against according to law.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). PROCEEDINGS AT GENEVA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I wish, Sir, to ask my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, Whether the statement contained in the telegrams from Geneva is correct, that the arguments under the Treaty of Washington have been put in by both Powers before the Court of Arbitration?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I may, perhaps, be allowed to ask another, of which I have given him private Notice. I wish to know, Whether, under the circumstances detailed in Mr. Fish's telegram to General Schenck of June 9, and Earl Granville's reply of June 10, the application for an adjournment of the Geneva Arbitration can with propriety be entertained by the Arbitrators without the assent and under protest of the United States Government? I ask this Question because there is a passage in Mr. Fish's telegram which I think is important, and which seems not to be easily reconciled with the statement made by Earl Granville.

  1863
  Mr. Fish, in his telegram of the 9th of June, says—
  "In my despatch of June 2, I said that, in the opinion of this Government, the Arbitrators have the power to adjourn either on their own motion or on that of either party, and that if the arguments be put in on both sides on 15th and Great Britain moves for an adjournment we will assent."
  Earl Granville, in his letter to General Schenck next day, says—
  "In the meantime, the High Contracting Parties not being in accord as to the subject matter of the reference to arbitration, Her Majesty's Government regret to find themselves unable to deliver the written Argument which their Agent is directed to put in under the Vth Article of the Treaty (although that Argument has been duly prepared, and is in the hands of their Agent), or to take any other step, at the present time, in the intended arbitration."
  It being doubtful whether the United States Government, under the circumstances, will or will not assent, I wish to know whether any motions of this kind can with propriety be made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I will first answer my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Bouverie) with reference to the latest information which we have from Geneva. It is not a correct statement which he has referred to in the newspapers of this morning, that the two Summaries of Argument have been lodged before the Arbitrators, so far as the British Summary is concerned. With respect to the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil), I may say that he is quite right in the reference which he has made to the telegram of Mr. Fish, dated the 9th of June, and also with regard to the reply of Lord Granville of the 10th. That reply does not give textually and verbally the effect of the proceedings at Geneva; but it is perfectly correct with reference to the point to which the noble Lord has referred—namely, the delivery or non-delivery of the written Argument. I have already stated that the written Argument has not been delivered by the British Agent; and I understand the Question of the noble Lord to be this—Whether it would have been possible for us to make a request for an adjournment without the delivery of the written Argument in full view of the declaration of Mr. Fish of the 9th of June, to the effect that the Arbitrators had power to adjourn on their own motion, or on that of either party; and also to the effect that if the Arguments on both sides were
  1864
  put in by the 15th, and Great Britain should move for an adjournment, then the American Government would assent. Undoubtedly, under that declaration of Mr. Fish we had no power whatever to hold the United States Government bound to assent to the motion for adjournment. But although the declaration of Mr. Fish stated that the United States Government would assent to the motion for an adjournment if the Arguments were put in, it did not state the converse—namely, that if the Arguments were not put in, they would not assent to a motion for adjournment. The application for adjournment was made by the British Government, in conformity with the announcement in the Papers in the hands of hon. Members on Saturday. The proceedings of the Arbitrators are secret, and it would not be consistent with our duty or respect to them to refer to that which they have not disclosed; nor, may I add, would it be consistent with duty, or with that sentiment of gratitude which we are all bound to feel towards Gentlemen who have undertaken labours of so important and delicate a character on behalf of the two countries. I may, however, say that we are given to understand that probably, the Arbitrators may again adjourn from their meeting to-day for the period of twenty-four hours.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I rise to ask another Question. The right hon. Gentleman having stated—when the Papers were laid before the House—that the Government would be anxious that the opinion of the House should be expressed in a discussion, I wish to know, Whether the Government propose to lay further Papers on the Table, and to ask the judgment of the House on the Papers submitted to it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend has referred to a declaration which he says I made; but I am not conscious of having made any declaration with reference to the Correspondence. That an opportunity will be given to hon. Members to express any opinion they may entertain is obvious from the presentation of the Papers; but I certainly have not made any such statement on the part of the Government. I do not know that any such statement would be necessary at any time; and, undoubtedly, it would be premature in the present circumstances of the case.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £37,255, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for Law Charges, and for the Salaries, Allowances, and Incidental Expenses, including Prosecutions relating to Coin, in the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in replying to several objections made the other evening against the expense incurred in the Mint prosecutions and against the counsel appointed to prosecute, said, that he must object to the statement made on that occasion, that the men employed were young and inexperienced hands, for, on the contrary, it appeared from a Return which he had had made, that the average standing of the counsel appointed to conduct those prosecutions was over seven years. Out of 60 or 70 members of the Bar appointed there was only one member of less than four years' standing, and in many eases the appointments were given to gentlemen who had been at the Bar 10, 12, or 14 years. According to the statement of the Solicitor to the Treasury, there was now no instance of two counsel being employed except in the case of the County Palatine and the Central Criminal Court. The whole matter had been under the careful consideration of the Government, and his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wheelhouse) was perfectly welcome to see the confidential Report of the Solicitor to the Treasury with respect to it. The recommendations in that document were to the effect that, although it would not be right to take away those appointments from the gentlemen by whom they were at present held, no vacancies should be filled up, and that there should be only one counsel employed for the future. In the case of the Post Office, in which hitherto it had been usual to employ two counsel, he (the Attorney General), in conjunction with the Postmaster General, had agreed that there should henceforward, so far as depended on them, be only one counsel, and that no vacancies should be filled up. The hon. and learned Gen-
1866
tleman opposite (Mr. Wheelhouse) had referred to the scale of fees; but it was, he thought, scarcely worth while that the time of the House of Commons should be taken up in discussing so miserable a matter as the difference between two and three guineas given in that way. Seeing that the average cost of the prosecutions for the Mint was only £12 he could not think that the expenditure was excessive. The whole question of Government prosecutions was, of course, a very serious one. It had been the subject of very elaborate Reports, both on the part of the present and former Solicitors to the Treasury, and was under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as he could judge from the evidence before him, the appointment of regular counsel and the maintenance of a regular staff in the case of the Post Office and the Mint had resulted in making the prosecutions only slightly more expensive than others; while with respect to the number of convictions the results had been very satisfactory, showing that the cases had been very well got up. That being so, it would, in his opinion, be unwise to get rid of the present system.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he still contended that those appointments were given to gentlemen whose standing at the Bar did not entitle them to be placed over the heads of others. He did not complain that they should be given to men after seven or ten years' standing, but that young men of four years' standing, even though they might have a large Assize or Sessions practice, should have conferred on them, to the exclusion of their seniors at the Bar, the privilege of prosecuting briefs of the Mint and the Post Office. The matter involved one of those small economies which it was just as well to look after, and he could see no reason why three guineas should be paid for services the ordinary charge for which was one guinea. It was said that the Mint and Post Office prosecutions were generally successful; but then, seeing that the depositions were taken in the first instance, and then sent up to town, and that they were only proceeded upon when there was a strong case, it was scarcely to be wondered at that the percentage of convictions was large; in all other cases the prosecutions were abandoned. These matters might be miser-

1867
able; but hon. Members who had been returned to look after the interests of their constituents ought to be careful not to pay too much regard to the adage—"De minimis non curat lex."
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if for nothing else, he thought it must be quite clear that the Committee was greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman who first brought this subject forward for extracting the declaration from the Attorney General, that the Government had the subject under their consideration.
MR. WHARTONexpressed a hope that these prosecutions would continue to be conducted by the same able gentlemen who had been in the habit hitherto of conducting them, and that proper fees would be paid for the transaction of the business.
MR. WESTsaid, he was of opinion that the conduct of these prosecutions ought not to be in the hands of the Government, but that they ought rather to fall into the common routine of ordinary prosecutions. The expenses in connection with these prosecutions were very great, and it was for the Government to show that they were more efficiently conducted than other prosecutions throughout the country. He should therefore move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,500, the expenses connected with the prosecutions relating to coin.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £34,755, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for Law Charges, and for the Salaries, Allowances, and Incidental Expenses, including Prosecutions relating to Coin, in the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury."—(Mr. West.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the greater expense of the Mint prosecutions was caused by the fact that they were efficiently conducted, and it was important in the interests of the poorer classes that the Government should have the charge of prosecutions instituted for the purpose of keeping the coin of the Realm pure. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wheelhouse) spoke of a number of cases which were not prosecuted at all. Well, no doubt in those cases, according to the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor to the Treasury had exercised a very wise discretion.
MR. WEST, on the contrary, said, he thought the learned Gentleman had exercised a very unwise discretion in overruling the decisions of the magistrates.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must submit that if those cases had been in the hands of private individuals, the public would have had to pay the expense of prosecuting them in addition to those already charged.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £150,623, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, &c.
MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he had to complain of the capricious manner in which the expenses of prosecutions that had been allowed by the magistrate were cut down by the Treasury, and to express a hope that, unless legislation took place that Session on the whole subject, some clear explanation would be issued, for the guidance of the magistrates, of the principles on which the Treasury acted in the matter. The subject of complaint was the more remarkable, and the more to be regretted, as a scale of fees had been agreed upon by the magistrates, and was understood to have received the assent of the Secretary of State. In reference to that, the magistrates did not dispute the right of the Treasury to revise the fees and costs of prosecutions; deductions, however, should not be made haphazard, but on some understood principle. He knew of an instance in which the whole cost of prosecution had been disallowed, and on the ground that the name of the prisoner was not in the calendar, the reason being that he had been on bail. That was an illustration of the insufficient knowledge that was but too frequently to be observed in the officers of the Treasury, whose duty it was to certify the costs of prosecutions.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN, in confirmation of the remarks of his hon. Friend, said, that the greatest inconvenience was occasioned to the magistrates in the county he represented (Lancashire) by the system of deductions made by the Treasury, so much so that they had been driven to the necessity of communicating with the Treasury on the subject.
MR. BAXTERsaid, it was admitted on all hands that the present practice with regard to the costs of criminal pro-

1869
sections was not only not satisfactory, but had been very generally distasteful all over the country. On Wednesday next the Home Secretary would lay before the House the views of the Government on the subject in the shape of Amendments to the Public Prosecutors Bill; but the Government would not pledge themselves to make any alteration before that discussion decided the fate of the Bill.
MR. HUNTsaid, he thought that the Government were adopting a somewhat unusual course in tacking Amendments on to a Bill that was in the hands of a private Member, who might, if he chose, decline at any moment to proceed with it. It rested with them to say whether that Bill should proceed or not. The Government ought to take charge of the Bill and be responsible for its conduct. At present the right hon. Gentleman merely proposed Amendments to the Bill, which met with considerable opposition in the House.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the Amendments proposed by the Government had been put down on the Paper after full communication with the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill; and he believed that, on the whole, they met with his approbation, and that they would remove many of the objections to the Bill, especially with regard to the amount and uncertainty of charges. There was reasonable ground for hoping, therefore, that the Bill would pass through Committee on Wednesday.
MR. WHARTONsaid, he would suggest that the Vote should be postponed till the Public Prosecutors Bill came before the House, because that measure might be the means of introducing many material Amendments.
MR. BAXTERexplained that if any such Amendments were made the money asked for would not be expended.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £131,799, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
MR. WESTsaid, he was of opinion that the number as well as the salaries
1870
of the officers attendant upon the Lord Chancellor should be reduced. The Lord Chancellor's first secretary received £1,200 per annum, his second secretary £400 per annum, his third secretary £400 per annum, his gentleman of the Chamber £500 per annum, and his purse-bearer £500 per annum. He thought that these officers were unnecessarily numerous, that their salaries were by far too large, and though not familiar with the mysteries of the office, he thought that the Lord Chancellor's secretary should be content with the same amount as that given to the secretary of the Prime Minister, and the more so, seeing that he and his colleagues were constantly being promoted to high and lucrative offices in the State. The Lords Justices' clerks had only £500 a-year, the Premier's two secretaries £600 between them; and the Speaker's £500 a-year. As to the embroideress, the sum was paltry; but if they got rid of her they might get rid of the purse bearer too, although the latter deserved a salary if it were really earned, and if there were any work for him to do. Another curious item in the Estimates, which was increasing year by year, was the travelling expenses of the Masters in Lunacy. They were gentlemen advanced in years, who were much respected, and to ask them to spend £1,200 a-year in travelling was simply inhuman. This was, in any view, a large sum, and ought to be reduced. He would accordingly move the reduction of the Vote by £3,470—namely, £2,400 on the salaries of the Lord Chancellor's officers, £1,000 on the travelling expenses of the Masters in Lunacy, and £70 for the Lord Chancellor's purse.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £128,329, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. West.)
MR. BAXTERsaid, he must confess that, without some explanation, the Committee might fairly demur to passing the Vote. As for the Lord Chancellor's secretary, it must be admitted that important duties devolved upon him, as intimately associated with the highest legal, judicial, and political position. All these salaries had been taken over

1871
by Act of Parliament some years ago, when they were transferred from the Suitor's Court, with the distinct understanding that the gentlemen then holding the offices should hold them for life. It was a principle on which that House was very slow to act to reduce salaries when they were transferred from one fund to another. Power had been taken by section 14 that when certain vacancies occurred the Treasury was to determine whether they should be filled up or whether the salaries were to be continued at their old figure, and that power would be exercised at the earliest possible opportunity. The same thing held good with respect to the travelling expenses of the Masters in Lunacy. As to the embroideress of the Lord Chancellor's purse, Lord Hatherley, on being communicated with some time ago, replied that the purse, being exhibited on State occasions and on the Woolsack at the sittings of the House of Lords, it was necessary that it should have a respectable appearance, adding that the lady employed was upwards of 70 years of age, and that she had received £64 7s. for the work. The Treasury thereupon expressed a desire to be consulted, on her death, before any new arrangement was made.
MR. HUNTsaid, with reference to the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee last year, that the Treasury should obtain the control of the salaries in the Court of Chancery, he had expected from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that the Lord Chancellor, whose consent was necessary, would be likely to co-operate, and that action would be taken to carry out the recommendation. At the beginning of this Session, however, the right hon. Gentleman, when questioned by him (Mr. Hunt), spoke of difficulties which would prevent anything being done at present. Now, difficulties were sure to be raised to the transfer of control from lawyers to the Treasury; and, presuming that they consisted in obtaining the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Colleagues, he would advise Parliament next year, unless the Government initiated legislation in the matter, to make a considerable reduction in the Vote, so as to bring those gentlemen to their senses.
MR. BAXTERsaid, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
1872
had not lost sight of the recommendations of the Select Committee, for the legal officials of the Treasury had been deputed by his right hon. Friend to make a thorough inquiry, and in a few days their Report would be presented, when it would be the duty of the Government to deal with the matter. It was not intended that things should remain as at present.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKthanked the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. West) for breaking fresh ground in the interests of economy, for he (Mr. Lusk) was satisfied that the money paid for law charges was too much. The embroidery of the purse showed how even in small matters things went. He wished to understand the nature of the Petty Bag Office, and he felt convinced that the Masters in Lunacy did not require travelling expenses to the extent of £1,200 a-year each.
MR. HERMONsaid, he hoped there would not, as last year, be a Supplementary Vote of £14,000 on this head. He was glad to find that the 316 persons included in the Vote had mostly reached their maximum salaries, so that the increase could not exceed £5,074 per annum.
MR. BAXTERexplained that the Supplementary Vote of 1871 had been rendered necessary by the changes effected in the dates of payment.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he did not think the officers of the Court of Chancery generally were too highly paid. The registrars had most important duties to perform, and the principal secretary to the Lord Chancellor had no sinecure; but he would admit that some of the other salaries of the secretaries might be reduced. With respect to Masters in Lunacy, he supposed that the charges for their travelling expenses were not made when they were not incurred, and that the charge was not allowed without the production of proper vouchers.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should like to know whether the charge for travelling expenses would be made the subject of inquiry? He did not think it would be fair to sweep away all these offices of ancient date at once.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the 19th section of the Act made it imperative on the House not to alter these salaries and expenses. But the Government were so much struck with the enormity of these

1873
charges that they were now conducting a correspondence on the subject with a view to their reduction.
MR. DICKINSONsaid, whatever might be the fact, he did not think that any Act of Parliament justified an addition to the salaries of the Masters in Lunacy. He, therefore, thought the best course would be to strike off a lump sum from the Estimate until the Government could see their way to some reductions.
MR. WESTsaid, the Secretary of the Treasury was under a misapprehension in supposing that the Committee could not reduce the salary of the secretary to the Lord Chancellor because three years ago that salary was guaranteed to the secretary. The fact was, that the secretary of the Lord Chancellor had been changed many times, and was removable any day. He quite agreed with what had been said with reference to officers for life, and would not press that matter further. In fact, he had limited his proposition to a reduction of the salaries of the officers of the Lord Chancellor. The answer given about the Masters in Lunacy was unsatisfactory. Their scale of charges was probably the same as at the time when a Master in Lunacy travelled with four post horses from London to Carlisle, and returned to London with four post horses; and, surely, the amount charged then was far in excess of their actual travelling expenses now.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. Member intended to take a division on any particular items, or whether it would not be desirable to propose the reduction of a moderate lump sum. He should like to know what the Treasury were disposed to do in that case? Many of the offices which had been referred to were sinecure offices. If they were life appointments they could not be got rid of without compensation on their abolition. If the holders were entitled to their full salary it would be better to let these officials disappear from the Votes, even if they should appear on the pension list.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the charge for the Lord Chancellor's private secretaries was excessive, and hoped his hon. and learned Friend would follow the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), and take the division on the Vote to cut off a lump sum.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he should vote with his hon. and learned Friend whether the division was taken on a lump sum, or on some special item. There were 316 officials employed in the Court of Chancery, and though he knew nothing about the requirements of the Court, he could not for a moment suppose that such an army of retainers would be necessary.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had listened with some surprise to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, who admitted that he knew nothing whatever about the matter, and yet assumed that the 316 officials who were employed could not be wanted. The hon. Member had not the least idea of the nature of the duties they were called upon to perform, and seemed to consider the number employed a sufficient ground for reducing their salaries by a lump sum, but he altogether differed with the hon. Gentleman in that view of the matter. It was said, first, that the Lord Chancellor's secretary held a sinecure; and, secondly, that he was overpaid. But the Committee did not want "the secondly" if the first were true, because any man would be overpaid by receiving any salary for a sinecure office. The fact was, however, the office was no sinecure, and the holder had very important duties to perform. The salary paid to the private secretary of the Prime Minister had been compared with that of the secretary to the Lord Chancellor. But that was a mistake, for the private secretary to the Prime Minister, in addition to that office, held a very important office in the Treasury, and also an office at Court, the duties of both of which he was bound to discharge, and for all of which he was paid. Therefore, if the Committee wanted to know what the country paid to the private secretary of the Prime Minister, they must add up all the sums which that gentleman received, and not take simply his salary of £300 a-year as private secretary. Gentlemen in the House of Commons considered £1,200 a-year for the salary of the Lord Chancellor's secretary as something very extravagant; but the Lord Chancellor could not be a bad judge of the amount required to secure a fit man for the office. A gentleman from the Bar was taken for the office, who was expected to be so highly qualified that it was usual, after a cer-

1875
tain period of service, to appoint him to a judicial position, and he had to assist the Lord Chancellor in judicial and quasi-judicial matters. He did not think the salary in any degree too large, or that a competent man could be obtained for a less sum.
MR. WESTsaid, he would endeavour to meet the wishes of the Committee by taking the Vote on a lump sum. He therefore would move to reduce the Vote by £2,000.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £129,799, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. West.)
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that the suggestion made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) had been misunderstood. What his right hon. Friend had suggested was, that if the Government would undertake to legislate on the whole subject at an early date under the cognizance of the Treasury, it would be better not to divide now. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to give a pledge to that effect; and therefore, although he thought that some alteration should be effected in the Vote, yet as it might cause hardship to some innocent persons, he should not be disposed to vote for the Amendment.
MR. TREVELYANsaid, that although he agreed to a certain extent with some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he yet thought it essential to go to a division. The Vote for the Court of Chancery was the scandal of the Estimates, and it was a scandal which ought to be abated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the case had been put a little too widely, and he must remind the Committee that, with regard to a great many of the salaries in the Court of Chancery, the faith of Parliament was pledged. The whole Vote was not, therefore, available for reduction, and the Committee must judge for itself what salaries were open to its jurisdic-
1876
tion. As far as the Treasury were concerned, he should be happy to give a pledge; but many of the judicial salaries were by statute in the patronage of the Judges, who had the power of resisting effectually any reduction suggested by the Treasury. Therefore, the mere interference of the Treasury would not effect what was desired, and the Committee must consider what effect might be produced on the minds of the Judges by any vote which it might give. If he led the Committee to suppose that the Treasury could reduce those salaries, he should be simply misleading them.
MR. MUNTZsaid, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quite convinced him of the necessity of dividing, because it was evident that the Government were not in a position to pledge themselves on the subject.
MR. HUNTsaid, an inquiry had taken place into the subject of the salaries of the Court of Chancery, and that inquiry would result in a Report. Would the right hon. Gentleman, when that Report was completed, undertake to lay it upon the Table of the House? If so, the House would be in possession of all the information which was at the disposal of the Treasury; and then the House would be very likely to give an expression of opinion which would greatly strengthen the hands of the Treasury.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as he had not seen the Report, he could make no promise on the subject.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 89: Majority 27.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £46,616, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts.
(5.) £29,318, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £324,954, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the County Courts."
MR. WEST, in moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £9,160, on

1877
account of the travelling expenses of the County Court Judges, said, the Government had promised three years ago to look into the subject; but he found that, notwithstanding that promise, the item for these expenses had been increased. The gentlemen who filled the office of County Court Judges were gentlemen of the highest position, receiving £1,500 and £1,800 a-year each, and the amount they received for travelling expenses raised their salaries on an average by more than £200 a-year. On the Whitehaven Circuit, for instance, the Judge, who only sat for 128 days in the year, received £450 a-year for travelling expenses; and on the Salford Circuit the Judge, who had only to go to Bacup, Oldham, Rochdale, and Saddleworth—and only to those places on 45 days in the year—received £500 for travelling expenses, or over £10 a-day; while, as a matter of fact, a first-class return ticket from Salford to Oldham could be purchased for 1s. 6d. Then, again, on the Liverpool Circuit there were two Judges, and they had only to go to Ormskirk and St. Helen's, neither of which places was more than a 25 minutes' railway journey from Liverpool. To those towns they went on 44 days in the year, and yet one of the Judges for his half share of the work received £220 for his 22 days' travelling. Another gentleman sat 79 days; he had not a yard to travel, and yet he was paid £150 for travelling expenses, and that was a recent appointment; whilst the gentleman who had to travel from Brompton to Brentford 15 times only received £50. Another gentleman, who had to make 16 journeys, received from £50 to £60 for travelling expenses. His proposition was to equalize these charges. He would give those who travelled £100 a-year each extra, and those who did not travel would be paid no travelling expenses; and he should, therefore, take the sense of the Committee upon the subject.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £315,794, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the County Courts."—(Mr. West.)
MR. JAMESsaid, he was unable to appreciate the self-sacrificing spirit of the hon. and learned Gentleman who
1878
had brought the subject forward, seeing that he had received so many distinguished marks of favour, that he should now turn his hand against his brethren. He had no doubt it must have grieved the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich to make the Motion, especially as he had told them that he was living on terms of friendship with many of these learned Judges; but it would have been much better if his hon. and learned Friend had made some personal inquiry of those gentlemen before taking taking them en bloc, for the way in which he had treated those gentlemen was scarcely the way one would have thought he would have treated his official brethren. It showed that he probably wished to chasten those he loved, and punish them for their unanimity of feeling with himself. A greater injustice than that the Judges who travelled should all be paid an equal sum could scarcely be conceived. Mr. Ingham, on the White haven Circuit, was paid £450 travelling expenses; he attended 15 Courts, travelled 5,000 miles a-year, and he was occupied 128 days; and yet his hon. and learned Friend proposed that he should have no more allowed than the gentleman who travelled from Brompton to Brentford 15 times a-year. The same objections applied to Liverpool, Manchester, and other places where the Judges did not reside on their circuits. He would contend it was to the advantage of a County Court Circuit that the Judge should not reside on it, because he went to discharge his duties without any political or private bias, or from any particular acquaintances or friendship with those who practised before him. It was, moreover, a most inequitable proposition to put these gentlemen on the footing proposed; for every day heavier and more important duties were being put upon these gentlemen, and it would be false economy to cut down their remuneration. Without they were treated liberally men of ability would not undertake the discharge of the duties.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, that whatever argument might be drawn from the insufficiency of the pay of the County Court Judges, all that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich complained of was that travelling expenses were allowed where they were not incurred. He (Mr. Neville-Grenville) therefore

1879
trusted that the Committee would not allow their attention to be withdrawn from the real proposal before them, but would make progress when they had the opportunity in the way of a reduction of expenditure.
MR. BAXTERsaid, it would be quite out of place for him to enter upon the general question at the present time, seeing that the Vote, as a whole, would have to be reconsidered when the Commission appointed to inquire into matters of this kind made its Report. He thought it would be improper to make a fixed allowance to Judges for their travelling expenses; because if such a course were adopted, some Judges whose travelling expenses were very small would be large gainers by the transaction; whereas others whose circuits were very extensive would be equally large losers. The Committee, moreover, must bear in mind that in that sum was included subsistence allowance when the Judge was away on circuit from his home. Since the pledge given in 1870 there had been a careful investigation into every new case that had come before the Treasury, and the question of travelling expenses had been carefully looked into and placed on a more equitable basis. He found that the arrangement for the travelling expenses in Cumberland was made in 1858, for Liverpool in 1862; and at Manchester the amount was fixed in 1869, and the Government had not gone back and altered what was done so many years ago. In the case of the County Court Judge of Salford, which was the only one of those referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, for which the present Government were responsible, the travelling expenses had been reduced from £500 to £100, a sum that could scarcely be regarded as excessive.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must repeat the question he had put to the Government during the discussion upon the last two Votes—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government considered that County Court Judges had a vested interest in the sum annually allowed them for travelling expenses, or whether those expenses were liable to revision during the time those offices were held by the present Judges?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government did not pretend for
1880
one moment to countenance the assumption that County Court Judges had any vested interest in their travelling expenses; but, at the same time, he could not approve the proposal for giving Judges a fixed sum all round for travelling expenses. All that the Judges and the public had to do in the matter of travelling expenses and maintenance was, that the Judges should be fairly indemnified in those respects.
MR. R. SHAW, in expressing his objection to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, said, that he was informed by Mr. Ingham, the Judge of the Whitehaven County Court, that he had to travel 5,000 miles annually on his circuit, and that every 6d. of the £450 allowed him for his travelling expenses was actually expended for that purpose. The 15 s. a-day allowed Judges for hotel expenses obviously did not cover what they had to pay.
MR. WESTsaid, he was quite satisfied with the result of the discussion and the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had been quite prepared for the personal attacks made upon him, and should persist in his attempt to cut down legal expenses, none of his figures having been controverted. He wished to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it had been shown that sums of £3 and even £10 a-day had been made for these travelling expenses. These charges ought to be exposed, and he therefore thanked the hon. and learned Member on having preferred the interests of the public to those of his own profession. He was prepared to contend that if each County Court Judge received £100 a-year for travelling expenses, that would be ample remuneration.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYcalled attention to the late hour sittings of County Court Judges and Recorders, which he hoped the Lord Chancellor would put a check to. He thought they ought to be restricted from sitting later than 8 o'clock in the evening.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(7.) £68,460, to complete the sum for the Probate and Divorce and Matrimonial Courts.
(8.) £9,938, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court of Registry.
(9.) £3,830, to complete the sum for the Land Registry.
MR. BOWRINGcalled attention to the fact that, whilst the salaries and expenses of this office—which more than any other ought to be self-supporting—amounted to £5,330, its receipts were only £650, and he saw little prospect of any change in this respect. He would ask the Solicitor General if he could hold out any hope of an improvement in the case of this office, from which so much was at one time expected?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was sorry to state that the office had proved a very great failure, and that the salaries were paid for next to nothing; but it would be impossible to abolish the office without giving compensation to the officers to an extent which would be little less than their salaries; and it was hoped that within another year there would be established an effective Land Registry Office, in which their services would become valuable to the public.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £10,117, to complete the sum for the Police Courts (London and Sheerness).
MR. WHEELHOUSEexpressed a hope that something would be done to make these Courts convenient to the suitors. At present their state was disgraceful.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he would make known in the proper quarter the representation of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) £168,234, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he must call the attention of the Home Secretary to the strain which was put on the Registrar of Habitual Criminals. That gentleman, he said, was extremely overworked. He had never had more than one or two days' vacation in a year, and he was now very ill through overwork; and, moreover, he thought the time had come when he might be made a permanent servant of the Crown, instead of being temporary, as at present.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished the Home Secretary would state how the superannuation fund of the metropolitan police was managed. When would the measure which had been promised on the subject be introduced?
1882
They were a class of public servants which should not be forgotten.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he thought it was desirable that the City police and the metropolitan police should receive the same pay; because in consequence of the difference between the pay of the City police and that of the metropolitan police the men were constantly moving from one force to the other.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the Habitual Criminals Registry was established only two years ago as an experiment, and had proved exceedingly useful, and he thought that it would every year become more and more useful. While it was merely an experiment it would not have been judicious to appoint a permanent officer; but he would see whether a more permanent character could now be given to the department. He could bear testimony to the excellent manner in which the Registrar had performed his duties, and was exceedingly sorry to hear that his health had suffered so much from his assiduity; and he would see whether something could not be done to lessen the pressure of the duties. As to the superannuation fund of the metropolitan police, it was in a much more satisfactory condition than that of the City police. He fully admitted the necessity of dealing with the question of superannuation by a Bill; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Lusk) must admit that the Government had introduced a sufficient number of measures. As to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Wheelhouse), he believed the metropolitan police was never more popular than now, if he might judge from the small number of resignations and the large number of applications for admission into that force. He presumed that the difference between the two forces was this—The City was very full in the daytime, but at night it was very much deserted; enormous treasures were collected there, and the portion of the municipal police who were engaged during a part of the night as watchmen was larger than that portion of the metropolitan force who were engaged in similar work. He had nothing to do with the management of the City police; it now worked in perfect harmony with the metropolitan police, and he did not think it was his duty to take any steps towards equalizing the rate of payment of the two forces.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he hoped he was not right in thinking that his right hon. Friend had said it was his intention to place the police of the counties and boroughs generally on the same footing with regard to superannuation as the metropolitan police.
MR. BRUCEexplained that what he had said was—"on a more satisfactory footing than they were at present."
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £289,500, to complete the sum for the County and Borough Police (Great Britain).
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction that there had been some decrease in this Vote, especially in the victualling department, for there was a strong opinion out-of-doors that the diet of convict prisoners was very much better than it ought to be—better than that of the poor or lunatics, for example.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that Colonel Henderson, when at the head of the convict establishments, effected a reduction of £30,000 a-year, and Captain Du Cane also had greatly reduced the expenses. But it should be remembered that our three chief convict establishments—Chatham, Portsmouth, and Portland—more than paid their own expenses through the labour exacted from the men. It would be impossible, however, for men to work unless they were treated tolerably well.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) £336,895, to complete the sum for the Convict Establishments (England and Colonies).
(14.) £252,220, to complete the sum for the County and Borough Prisons, &c.
(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £22,045, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, England."
MR. MITCHELL HENRY, in moving to reduce the Vote by £15,545, said, that the expenditure at the Broadmoor establishment was absolutely excessive, and when compared with that at other similar asylums was positively enormous. Till 1849 criminal lunatics were either sent to prison or to county asylums.
1884
In that year the Irish Government agreed to the establishment of a separate asylum to which persons acquitted of crime on the ground of insanity might be sent. That was the origin of Dundrum Asylum, which had been conducted with the greatest benefit to the country and also with the utmost economy. The whole Vote for it was only £5,573; whereas that for Broadmoor, including repairs, amounted to £32,000. The latter contained 471 patients, at an average cost of £60 each; whereas Dundrum, with 167 patients, figured for only £33 each. In the former the charge for diet was £16 5s. per head; in the latter it was only £13 6s. Broadmoor had 125 male and female attendants, or one to every 3½ lunatics, Dundrum having only 22 attendants, or one to every 7½. The Superintendents of these two asylums were paid respectively £900 and £400 a-year each. The chaplain at Broadmoor had £400, and £18 18 s. for a substitute when he took a holiday, and there was a Roman Catholic chaplain, who received £50; whereas only £100 was allowed for the religious services at Dundrum—a Protestant chaplain at £40, and a Roman Catholic one at £60. There was a steward at Broadmoor with £290, while a similar officer at Dundrum had only £45, and the chief attendants at each received £150 and £40 respectively. At the larger establishment there were four clerks, with salaries amounting to £565; at the smaller there was only one, with a salary of £80. The fact was, that the attendants at Dundrum were disgracefully underpaid. The Report of the Commissioners of Lunacy of October, 1868, clearly showed that Broadmoor was not successful while Dundrum was. The Commissioners pointed out that at the former place there were not those amusements which were suitable to the condition of the patients, and that some were isolated in separate cells for many months together. The Report, in fact, showed that the large expenditure in Broadmoor was one of which the country had no reason to be proud. On the contrary, the asylum at Dundrum was shown to be efficient beyond all precedent in the history of lunatic asylums. Broadmoor, he might add, would never be efficiently conducted so long as it was under its present management—that of the Directors of Convict Prisons, It

1885
ought to be placed under the Lunacy Commissioners, who would visit it unexpectedly and frequently in the year, instead of only once, and whose recommendations should have some authority with the Secretary of State. In England criminal lunatics were treated as prisoners; whereas in Ireland they were treated as patients, and the result was in the latter case efficiency, and in the former the reverse. A considerable improvement, it was but fair to add, had of late, he believed, been made at Broadmoor; but in the last Report of the Commissioners they stated that, although the mortality there was small, the health of the establishment was not satisfactory, chiefly because fever, which had existed there for some years, continued to prevail. He would impress upon the Committee that, if these insane persons were treated as criminals, their affliction would be greatly aggravated. At Broadmoor some of the patients were, until quite recently, kept almost like wild animals, while at Dundrum every endeavour was made to soothe their temper. He was aware that some years ago the Superintendent of Broadmoor Asylum received a fatal injury; but that was an accident to which all persons attending upon the insane were liable. He moved to reduce the Vote for the Lunatic Asylum at Broadmoor by £15,545—namely, from £29,545 to £14,000, being an amount calculated on the same scale as Dundrum.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, England."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
MR. BRUCEsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member had brought this subject forward that night, because when the same statements were made some six weeks ago, without Notice, he was not then prepared to answer them. He would now, as shortly as possible, traverse every statement made by the hon. Gentleman, with the exception of one. He would not deny that the expense at Broadmoor, taken all in all, was greater than at Dundrum; but he broadly denied that the difference was anything like that stated by the hon. Gentleman, and he also specially denied that the
1886
patients at Broadmoor were treated as criminals. The Broadmoor Asylum was constructed in 1860 under the superintendence of Sir Joshua Jebb, and it certainly was not a fortunate construction, for it had ever since been a source of considerable expense, and was only now brought into a good condition. The hon. Gentleman said that the asylum was under the management of the Directors of Convict Prisons, and that the inmates were treated as criminals. The fact was that a special Act of Parliament was passed, placing the asylum under the supervision of persons chosen by the Government. The most active of these managers were Sir William Hayter, who lived close by; Lord Hylton, formerly a distinguished Member of that House; and he might add that he had had the satisfaction of appointing his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) to take part in the conduct of the asylum. Under these circumstances, it could not be credited that the management would be so bad and vile as had just been described to the House. The hon. Gentleman had taken the amount of the Estimate for the present year, and divided it not by the number of persons proposed to be admitted in this year, but by the average number for the last 10 years; for the fact was that the hon. Member stated that Broadmoor Asylum contained 471 patients, and Dundrum 167, and that the cost of the former was £29,545, and of the latter £5,547; whereas the number of patients which it was proposed to receive at Broadmoor during the present year was 563, and at Dundrum 180. Again, in the expense for Broadmoor was included cost for rent, taxes, fuel, light, and furniture, amounting to £1,089, together with the proportionate cost of controlling the expenditure borne by the Office of Works, giving a further sum of £199 15 s. 9d. If similar items for the Dundrum Asylum were taken into the account, the cost of that asylum would be £7,141 15 s. 6d., and that made a considerable difference in the comparative cost of maintaining the inmates. The difference of the annual cost of maintaining a lunatic at Broadmoor and at Dundrum would, therefore, be not £27, but £14 16 s. The Treasury allowance for the maintenance of a Broadmoor patient was £20 a-year, and for a Dundrum patient £13 6s.; but to the latter must be added the produce of

1887
the farm and garden, amounting to £2 9s. The contract price of meat also was less at Dundrum than at Broadmoor. The hon. Gentleman had contrasted the salaries at the two places; but in fixing the salaries the Government had to look at the professional remuneration prevailing at those places. As to the chaplain at Broadmoor, the hon. Gentleman forgot that the chaplain lived entirely among the patients; whereas the chaplain at Dundrum lived at Dublin, or wherever he liked, giving only occasional attendance at Dundrum. Whereas the offices of steward and matron at Broadmoor cost respectively £290 and £175, the same offices only cost £110 and £90 at Dundrum. Then as to the wages of the warders. He found that the wages of those persons had been reduced to the lowest rate for which the services of competent men could be obtained. The hon. Member had brought a charge against the management of Broadmoor that, in spite of a very high rate of payment, they were unable to keep their attendants for any long time. It must be borne in mind with regard to that, that while the Report on Dundrum was drawn up by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, under whose management that prison was, the Report on Broadmoor was made by the Commissioners of Lunacy, who had no official connection with that prison, and who, therefore, had no motive for extenuating any imperfections that might exist; and, under these circumstances, it was not surprising that there should be more criticism in the one case than in the other. In spite, however, of this fact, the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland had attributed the constant change of attendance at Dundrum to the low rate at which the warders at that prison were paid. The truth was, that the picture of the state of affairs at Broadmoor was almost too favourable, and he left it to the hon. Member for Berkshire to verify the vivacity and expression in which the Commissioners of Lunacy had indulged with reference to it. The hon. Gentleman had argued that because the class of persons confined in both these asylums were criminal lunatics, therefore their treatment must be the same in both instances, and that the same difficulties of management must be met with equally in both asylums. There were, however, many important dif-
1888
ferences that distinguished the two cases. In the first place, Broadmoor, large as it was, was unable to receive all our criminal lunatics, a large proportion of whom were, therefore, confined in the county lunatic asylums, the worst cases only being sent to Broadmoor. It was a singular circumstance, and it had been commented on in the last Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, that the most dangerous class of lunatics were not those who were acquitted on the ground of insanity, but those who became insane after they were convicted, and it was principally these latter who were sent to Broadmoor. Thirty or forty of such lunatics had been sent to Broadmoor in the course of last year, while not one single such case had been sent to Dundrum last year, and only one in the year before last. There was thus at Broadmoor a class of lunatics incomparably more dangerous than those at Dundrum, and consequently it was necessary to employ a much greater proportionate number of warders for their care. The larger number of warders at Broadmoor was also partly attributable to the original defects in the building, which rendered it necessary that the number of attendants should be larger than usual. The hon. Member had stated the other day that the health of the criminal lunatics at Broadmoor was wholly unsatisfactory—as bad as it well could be; owing to deficient drainage and the general defective construction of the asylum, the mortality was greater than that in any similar institution in Great Britain. But he (Mr. Bruce) was fortunately in a position to show from statistics he held in his hand that the death-rate at that lunatic asylum was far below the average of such institutions. He begged to call the hon. Member's particular attention to the following figures:—
"The number of deaths to 100 of the daily average numbers resident in each year from 1864 to 1869 inclusive, was in county and borough asylums, 10·85; in registered hospitals, 7·63; in metropolitan licensed houses, 10·97; in provincial licensed houses, 8·27; in naval and military hospitals, 11·02; and in the Criminal Asylum, Broadmoor, 2·96."
Those figures were taken from the Lunacy Commissioners' Report of 1870, and they proved that Broadmoor was far more healthy than Dundrum, where, according to the hon. Member's own statement, the mortality was 3½ per cent per annum. Had the hon. Member ever been to

1889
Broadmoor? It was situate on the summit of a hill of loose sand; it was about the most healthy spot in England, and the only subject for astonishment was why anybody should ever die there at all. The hon. Member said that the Lunacy Commissioners' Report found fault with the treatment of the criminal lunatics confined at Broadmoor. He entirely denied that the language of the Commissioners was such as to allow of such an inference being drawn. Their remark applied merely to a particular class of criminal lunatics; and even on that point their views were completely opposed to those of Dr. Meyer, who lost his life in consequence of injuries inflicted upon him by a lunatic, and who was celebrated for his knowledge and skill in the treatment of lunatics. It was not for him to decide when dectors disagreed, but it was clear from the language of the Commissioners that they referred not to the treatment of criminal lunatics generally at Broadmoor, but to a particular class of them only. In a passage in their very last Report the Commissioners said—
"We have had every evidence at our visit that Dr. Orange is discharging with great ability the very important and anxious duties incident to the superintendence of this asylum."
In fact, through the whole of that Report there was not one single word of censure upon the management of this asylum. In conclusion, from the facts he had stated, he maintained that the expense incurred in the management of Broadmoor was not larger, as compared with Dundrum, than the difference in the cost of labour and provisions and in the class of persons confined in it would fully account for; that the death rate was lower in the former than in the latter; and that the inmates were properly treated in the former. He thought, therefore, he was justified in saying that the charge made by his hon. Friend was greatly exaggerated, and based upon insufficient grounds, and he believed that the House would do well in refusing to reduce the Vote.
DR. LUSHsaid, he must exonerate the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) from having improperly brought forward this subject, he having been misled by the figures contained in Government Papers. On the contrary, he thought the hon. Member deserved great credit for the boldness with which
1890
he had brought this subject under the notice of the Committee. It was clear that the dangerous class of criminals sent to Broadmoor had not in former years been treated with the humanity which was elsewhere shown towards such patients, and which the scientific acumen of the present day proved to be the most effectual treatment; and there could be no doubt that bad sanitary arrangements had at one time produced an exceptional rate of mortality at that establishment. The right hon. Gentleman had shown the necessity for a considerable staff; but the proportion of the staff to the patients appeared excessive. As to the mortality, it was not fair to compare a place with selected lives to pauper asylums like Hanwell. He remembered an asylum containing 300 patients of the same class, which was under his observation, in which during four months there was not a single death. It did not appear on the Estimates that anything was charged for rent; but if there was, the cost of other items would, of course, be reduced. With regard to the expense of the patients, expense ought not to be an object in such a case to a country like our own. The unfortunate persons who were confined at Broadmoor ought to be regarded not so much as prisoners, but as persons afflicted with mental aberration, and as such the most careful attention should be paid to them, and the most elaborate means should be adopted to restore them, if possible, to health. Holding that opinion, he could not support the reduction of the Vote.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it was difficult for anyone not acquainted with lunatic asylums to understand the magnitude of this Vote. The cost of patients at Broadmoor was nearly £1 a week per head, while in county lunatic asylums the average was about 9s. 6d., and at Dundrum it was only 12 s. He might be told that the patients at Broadmoor were of a peculiar class, and no doubt they were; but he was not so certain that they required more attention than a great many of the helpless and troublesome patients who were to be found in general asylums. At Broadmoor there were 563 patients, and at Dundrum only 180, and everybody knew that as the number of patients increased the charge for the staff ought to diminish. In the Irish asylum the proportion of the staff

1891
was 1 to 5½ patients, but at Broadmoor it was 1 to 3½; and the only way in which he could account for the difference was by supposing that the Irish, who had the reputation of being less manageable than the English when sane, became more manageable when insane. In county asylums the proportion of attendants was 1 to every 8 or 10 patients, and it was clear that either the county asylums were not doing what they ought, or else Broadmoor was doing a great deal more than it ought. At the same time, he did not think the hon. Gentleman opposite would be justified in reducing the Vote by one-half; but the matter was one which the Government ought to look carefully into, with a view to seeing whether some reduction could not be made, for at present the expense of the Broadmoor Asylum seemed to be almost profligate.
MR. WALTERsaid, he regretted to hear the expression "profligate" applied by his right hon. Friend to Broadmoor, for, as one of the Visiting Board, he might be supposed to have some little responsibility for its management. His right hon. Friend, who was or had been a visitor with himself of a county asylum, was mistaken in supposing that the attendance required by criminal lunatics was of the same kind as that required for ordinary asylums. Ordinary pauper lunatics were of a more helpless, imbecile class, including many old and many very young persons, and what they chiefly required was good nursing, and a nurse could obviously manage more patients than a warder could manage criminals. The class of lunatics at Broadmoor, on the contrary, required not so much good nursing as strict superintendence. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) had conclusively shown that the hon. Member for Galway was mistaken in supposing there was a material difference—indeed, he doubted whether there was any—between the cost of maintenance at Broadmoor and Dundrum. Including items not taken into account by the hon. Member, it was almost exactly the same. Considering that out of the Vote of £29,545, £11,629 was for victualling, and £9,671 for attendance, there was clearly only a very small margin for reduction. A more serious item than rates and taxes was the cost of fuel and light, which was no less than £2,400, whereas Dundrum was
1892
not credited with sixpence on this head. Be did not know whether among the other facilities possessed by Dundrum was the ability to do without light and fire; but if not there must be some omission in the Estimate, or these necessaries must have been obtained from unknown sources. Any Member comparing the two accounts would remark that at Broadmoor there was a reduction on the current year of £651, while at Dundrum there was an increase, though a very small one. He was not unwilling to see the salaries of the officers of the Dundrum Asylum raised to what might be deemed to be a sufficiently high standard; but there was no margin, in his opinion, for making any reduction in the expenses of Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum. The authorities were at the present time doing all in their power to reduce the expenses of that establishment, and had only recently introduced Australian beef as part of the prisoners' food, thereby effecting a very large saving. Broadmoor, no doubt, was expensive, and always had been; but then it should be remembered it was one of the finest places in England, and, moreover, the prisoners had many miles of beautifully-gravelled paths to walk in, which greatly tended to restore their health. No doubt it was a much more expensive establishment than Dundrum; but Broadmoor had not one item of expenditure that Dundrum had—namely, £16 a-year for the services of a bandmaster. He should likewise be very glad to see such an item in the Vote for Broadmoor, as music, no doubt, tended very much to humanize and amuse the inmates. He would not recommend the House to make any alteration in the amount of expenditure incurred for Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum.
MR. PIMsaid, that the allowances in respect of the patients at Broadmoor were far more liberal than the allowances in respect of the patients at Dundrum, a fact, which he thought was clearly proved by the Estimates, proving that £3 6s. was the amount for clothing an inmate at Dundrum, whilst at Broadmoor £4 5s. was required.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought the Secretary for the Home Department would admit that, though he had traversed, he had not successfully traversed, all the statements he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had made.

1893
What he had said was drawn from actual knowledge of the case, and was without error; and what he wanted to show was, that the asylum at Broadmoor was based on an entirely different and more expensive system than that which had been carried out with so much good effect at Dundrum; and he did not wonder that such was the case when it was remembered that the management of the asylum was carried out under a special Act of Parliament by gentlemen who knew nothing whatever of matters relating to the treatment of lunatics. He would not divide the Committee on his Amendment, but hoped the Home Secretary would investigate what had occurred at Dundrum and what had ensued at Broadmoor.
MR. STACPOOLEhoped that the Royal Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the condition of the Civil servants in Ireland would also inquire into the management of Dundrum Asylum.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that the sum for the lunatics at Broadmoor was most extraordinary and extravagant, as anyone acquainted with lunatic asylums, exceedingly expensive as they were, must know. While it was admitted that it was absolutely necessary that more expense should be incurred for lunatics than other persons, that only showed clearly and conclusively that the charge for these asylums ought to be removed from local to public taxation.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated that all those who had any experience as local authorities in the management of lunatic asylums must be astonished at the enormous expense at which lunatics were taken care of by the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that a conclusive proof of the necessity for removing the charge for lunatics from local to Imperial taxation. He could concur neither in the conclusions nor the premises of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. His inference was quite the opposite—namely, that it was much better that the expenditure should be under the charge of those who had the deepest interest in keeping it low, than in the hands of the Government, whose interest was comparatively remote.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that under the existing law the Home Secretary had the right, which he frequently
1894
exercised, of removing from Broadmoor criminal lunatics whose term of sentence had expired, though they still continued lunatics. Many of those persons were of a dangerous character, and the staff of the county asylums was not adequate to their superintendence and control. The establishment at Broadmoor had ample means of taking care of them, and what he would ask was that, instead of removing dangerous lunatics to the county asylums when their sentence had expired, the Home Secretary should retain them at Broadmoor, and charge the counties with the cost of their maintenance.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had not overlooked that point; but unfortunately the establishment at Broadmoor was not large enough to take in all that wanted admission. It was, therefore, impossible to retain those who ought to be sent away when they were constantly refusing those who ought to be admitted.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £16,850, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, of Miscellaneous Legal Charges in England."
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, that there were 85 Revising Barristers, of whom 84 had sat 797 days, or an average of less than 10 days each man, notwithstanding which 15 assistant Revising Barristers had been appointed at a cost to the country of £2,055 this year, £2,398 last year, and £3,330 the year before. He was told that the Judges had by statute the power to appoint assistant Revising Barristers, and if they did that the House of Commons was bound to pay them. But he had shown that these assistant Revising Barristers were unnecessary, and therefore he begged to reduce the Vote by £2,000, the sum inserted in the Estimates to pay for additional aid.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £14,850, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, of Miscellaneous Legal Charges in England."—(Mr. Neville-Grenville.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was quite true that the Judges had by statute the power of appointing a certain number of assistant Revising Barristers, and the persons so appointed were to be paid by the country. He was not going to deny that in many cases that power of appointment had been exercised in a manner which he should be sorry to stand there to defend, and, therefore, the Government were quite prepared to take by Act of Parliament a control over that power of appointment by the Judges, should Parliament think fit to confer it. But to refuse the Vote would be to interfere with the power which the Judges at present possessed, and if the Committee chose to do that, the Government would be prepared to ask Parliament to pass a Bill on the subject. If Parliament refused to pass such a Bill hereafter the Government would have no alternative but to introduce a Supplementary Estimate.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if the money were not voted, it was unlikely that assistant Revising Barristers would be appointed.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, that as they had a Bill before them for improving the manner in which the registration was made, which would leave the Revising Barristers little or nothing to do, and as they were told that if that Bill were thrown out the Government were prepared to adopt any measure that would reduce the expenses by improving the preliminary stages of the registration, and rendering the Court of the Revising Barrister merely one of appeal, it would be better to wait the result of such legislation before they reduced the Vote.
MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, it was an unsatisfactory thing for a constituency to be handed over to an assistant Revising Barrister. In the constituency which he represented 2,200 voters had been struck off the register through a decision given by one of these temporary assistants.
Question put, and agreed to.
(17.) £53,858 to complete the sum for Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he begged to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that, while in Scotland, where there was a Crown prosecutor, the cost of criminal prosecutions for, say, 3,500,000 people was £71,000, the expenditure in England, if the same system were es-
1896
tablished there, would be at the same rate upwards of £500,000, instead of about £200,000, as at present. He hoped that the Ministers would consider the cost of Crown prosecutors, before they introduced the system proposed by the Bill to be debated next Wednesday.
MR. MUNTZmoved that the Item of £700, "to meet the expenses of Procurators Fiscal about to be appointed," be omitted from the said Vote.
MR. HERMONcomplained that the Government gave no explanation with regard to this Vote.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would remind the House that the principle adopted in Scotland was to pay for the performance of public services by public money. When the accounts of the Procurators Fiscal were beyond a certain sum, their fees were commuted to a salary at a considerable saving to the public Revenue.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he doubted, looking at the Estimate, whether justice was not done in England as satisfactorily as in Scotland, and at a less cost proportionately.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he wished to add that in Scotland the community were released from any expenditure for private prosecutions. The real question was, whether it was expedient on the whole that the expenditure of a prosecution should fall on the individuals who suffered from crime. At all events, it had been the custom for some centuries in Scotland for the State to pay; whereas in England a man who had suffered already by robbery was sometimes obliged to go to great expense to punish the depredators. There was a very great public economy effected in the manner in which these matters were managed in Scotland, and so far as the community was concerned probably no money was better spent than that expended in the department of public prosecution.
MR. WESTsaid, that before Wednesday, when the Public Prosecutors Bill would be brought forward, the Government ought to be prepared with an estimate showing the cost of adopting the system in England.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) £42,121, to complete the sum for Law Courts, Scotland.
(19.) £22,574, to complete the sum for the General Register House, Edinburgh.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation as to what had been done by the Treasury to fulfil the duties imposed upon them by the Act passed some years ago? The total Vote was put down at £30,000, but it appeared that there was some £5,000 or £6,000 a-year received more than was expended, taking it at its lowest amount. That had long been a crying grievance in Scotland, and the people were anxiously looking forward for the time when the transfer of land in Scotland would be relieved from the burden, for it pressed very severely on small transactions in land. The surplus arose, no doubt, before the Act of 1868 was passed, but owing to the changes then made, it was necessary to construct a scale to cover the emoluments of the register in the smallest places in Scotland. In Glasgow, Edinburgh, and other large towns in which there were a large number of transactions, this enabled matters to be dealt with so economically that there was a large surplus; so much so, that people were led to expect that when the whole of the registries were concentrated in Edinburgh, the Government would receive a much larger surplus, and be able to carry on the transactions with such economy that they would be able to reduce the amount of the fees payable throughout Scotland. They had been waiting patiently until the different offices had been absorbed, and the compensations had been awarded to the various officers who held these offices in different parts of Scotland. As he understood, the transactions were all closed, and they were awaiting in anxious expectation to hear from the Treasury what result had been arrived at. It was a duty under the Act specially imposed—and not as a mere power—upon the Treasury to fix the scale of fees for the future. He trusted his right hon. and learned Friend would be able to explain what steps Her Majesty's Government had taken in fulfilment of the just expectation of the people of Scotland, and when he was doing so, to take notice of a very important question which had been raised by those who were watching these transactions in Scotland—namely, the question how far the compensation for the different offices which had been absorbed was to be
1898
thrown upon the fees in future, and how far they were to be paid by the Treasury? Legal opinions on the subject had been taken, and laid before him, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had been consulted, as well as Mr. Anderson, who had given a distinct opinion that it was not in the power of the Treasury to charge in future upon the fees received. It was, they said, undoubtedly a charge upon the Treasury, and it was one on which they were entitled to claim and levy taxes to provide for compensation. He believed that the accumulation received by the Treasury would be more than a hundred times sufficient to pay for the compensation; but whether that were so or not, he held in his hand the highest legal opinion on the subject, and trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would inform Scotch Members what relief Her Majesty's Treasury were prepared to afford in this respect.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not surprised at the question having been asked. His hon. Friend had understated his case. Since 1846 a sum of £145,372 had been paid into the Exchequer from the fees of the Register Office in excess of expenditure. It was obvious that Government had no right to obtain a profit from this source, and a pledge had been given some time ago that the fees should be reduced so as merely to cover the expense of the office. The delay in arriving at a decision had been caused by the necessity of taking advice as to whether the new scale of fees should be fixed so as to provide for the superannuation of the district Registrars of Sasines. The Treasury had concluded not to do so, and they had directed the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland to make out the new scheme accordingly.
Vote agreed to.
(20.) £17,700, to complete the sum for Prisons (Scotland), &c.
(21.) £58,411, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions (Ireland).
(22.) £33,525, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery (Ireland).
(23.) £20,612, to complete the sum for the Superior Courts of Common Law in Ireland.
(24.) £6,350, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Ireland.
(25.) £9,216, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Court, Ireland.
(26.) £8,643, to complete the sum for the Court of Probate in Ireland.
(27.) £1,310, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court of Registry, Ireland.
(28.) £11,240, to complete the sum for the Office for the Registration of Deeds in Ireland.
(29.) £2,227, to complete the sum for the Registration of Judgments, Ireland.
(30.) £75,323, to complete the sum for the Police Courts, Dublin.
(31.) £658,139, to complete the sum for the Constabulary Force, Ireland.
(32.) £32,500, to complete the sum for Government Prisons, &c. Ireland.
(33.) £45,855, to complete the sum for County and Borough Gaols, &c. Ireland.
(34.) £4,073, to complete the sum for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.
(35.) £1,610, to complete the sum for the Four Courts Marshalsea, Dublin.
(36.) £43,920, to complete the sum for Legal Expenses, Ireland.
(37.) £45,568, to complete the sum for Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c. in certain Colonies.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he must express his extreme satisfaction with the general aspect of the Colonial Votes this year, as an evidence that they were carrying out the policy long ago recommended and pursued by parties on both sides of the House. They were getting the colonies gradually to take their share, in common with those at home, in the expenditure necessary for their own affairs, both civil and military. He should like the Under Secretary for the Colonies to explain what progress was being made in that line of policy, as regarded the concentration of government that had been happily inaugurated in the Leeward Islands, inasmuch as practical measures of that character were much more valuable than the vague discussions on abstract colonial questions which were too frequently introduced in that House. It was a fair thesis for a debating club, whether Colonial Representation could be introduced in that House, or a Congress formed of all the Empire, on common concerns. No one wanted more than discussion to disabuse his mind of such vagaries. The scatter-
1900
ing English troops to maintain the British flag in all quarters of the globe, in distrust of British colonial troops, was a sentiment which experience dissipated. But the concentration and self-support of colonial governments was a practical concern of great importance. It had been proposed by Mr. Pope Hennessy that the government of Labuan should be united to that of the Straits. Labuan was now in a flourishing condition, and the reason for uniting that island to the Straits had been clearly pointed out by that Governor who had made it so. Labuan having been formed into a government at the request of a number of English merchants, had been so well presided over by that gentleman that it had, at last, after much failure, paid its own expenses, and the recommendation in question was based on the fact that the colony was too small to furnish adequate materials en permanence for its administration or for the formation of a Legislative Council. It had been said, on the contrary, that if Labuan was a flourishing colony, why not leave it alone? But it appeared to him that the more the people showed that they could manage their own affairs, the more incumbent it was upon this country to see that they should not be needlessly and extravagantly burdened, and that no unnecessary government should be imposed upon them. He believed that if the proposed union should be effected the salary paid to the Governor might be reduced by one-half, which would amply suffice for the local secretary of the Straits Governor. He wished to know whether the Government intended to act upon the recommendation of Mr. Pope Hennessy, the carrying out of which would not only reduce the expenditure of the colony, but greatly improve the efficiency of its government?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that after a careful perusal of Mr. Pope Hennessy's Minute, he had come to the conclusion that there was much that he proposed that might be effected by a judicious arrangement between the two colonies without imposing a union upon them. He did not, however, pledge the Government against this union; but certainly the wishes and interests of the Straits settlements should be consulted in the matter as well as those of Labuan. It might be that as time progressed, and as the circumstances

1901
of the two colonies came to be fully considered, this union might be found to be desirable. But the course which the Government had thought it right to take had been this—Labuan had only lately become a self-supporting colony, and it had hardly yet been sufficiently proved that the self-supporting nature of Labuan would continue to exist. They had therefore thought it desirable that a little time should be afforded in order that the true condition of Labuan might be ascertained, and they had instructed Sir Henry Ord, the Governor of the Straits settlements, to consult with the present Governor of Labuan, and report upon the whole bearing of the question. When the Government had seen that Report they should be able to take a broad and just view of the question, and to decide whether or not a union was desirable. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire had alluded to the increase in the Estimate for the Leeward Islands. The fact was, that for future economy and the better management of these islands it was thought desirable that they should be confederated, and it had been found necessary to make sacrifices at first in order to secure a permanent benefit. One of the items of cost had arisen from the necessity to providing the Governor with a steamer to visit the different islands, and that steamer had cost £13,200. The islanders had also asked that £4,000 or £5,000, the salaries of governors and administrators hitherto, should be voted to them for five years as a grant in aid to enable them to make the necessary arrangements. The Treasury had not pledged themselves to this for five years, but he hoped they would do so, believing that federation would result in economy and good management, and that the charges on the Imperial Revenue would gradually disappear. As to the federation of the Windward Islands, the Government thought it would be well to wait and see the experiment of the federation of the Leeward Islands carried out before they proceeded any further in that direction.
MR. RYLANDSwished to know why a salary of £2,200 was paid for a governor of the Bermudas, seeing that the Bermudas were only a military station? He also wished to know what reason there was for a continuance of the Vote of £2,500 for clergy in North
1902
America, and whether that was an expiring Vote?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that Bermuda was a naval station of great importance to England, and it was not so much for the colony as for ourselves that this salary was paid to the Governor.
MR. R. N. FOWLERwanted to hear some explanation of the reduction of £8,000 in the Vote for Malta, and of £5,158 in the Vote for St. Helena.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, the Vote for clergy in North America was an expiring Vote, diminished £238 by the death of some of the recipients. The charge for Malta of £8,000 last year, which did not now re-appear, was owing to the construction of waterworks from which Imperial interests received benefit, and in respect of which a charge upon Imperial funds was therefore justified. The Vote for St. Helena was in respect of charges—including Governor's salary and mail subsidies—which the local revenues had lately proved quite unable to meet, and which therefore the Treasury had paid, to be repaid according to the directions of the Secretary of State.
Vote agreed to.
(38.) £2,976, to complete the sum for the Orange River Territory and Island of St. Helena.
(39.) £79, to complete the sum for Mixed Commissions, Traffic in Slaves.
(40.) £8,906 to complete the sum for Tonnage Bounties and Bounties on Slaves, &c.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he objected to the system of allowing the Navy to claim bounties. He believed many of the claims were questionable.
MR. BAXTERsaid, the hour was too late to allow of so large a question being discussed. Every claim went before a Court.
Vote agreed to.
(41.) £7,410, to complete the sum for the Emigration Board.
MR. MACFIEurged the propriety of adding some Members of Parliament, colonists, or friends of the working classes to the Board, in order to carry out its original purpose of directing a flow of emigration and utilizing the tracts of land belonging to the Empire.
Vote agreed to.
(42.) £4,500, to complete the sum for the Treasury Chest.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baxter.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  [BILL 106.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEmoved the addition of a clause exempting from the duties on inhabited houses any tenement occupied for the sole purpose of any trade or business, or of any profession, vocation, or calling, when inhabited as to part thereof by a servant or other person employed for the protection or care of such tenement and not being otherwise an inhabited dwelling-house. The clause proposed was in substance identical with one previously approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which had only been rescinded by a majority of 1, upon a division taken quite unexpectedly.
  New Clause (Enactments in Schedule repealed, and in lieu thereof exemption from inhabited house duty of trade and business premises under care of servant only,)—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsupported the clause, which would be a great boon to the City of London.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the duty of the Government to propose taxes, and it was the function of the House to consider the propriety of exemptions. The House, after full debate, had rejected the clause by a majority of 1. He did not propose to go into the merits of the question, but the Government thought it their duty not to press the matter again on the House.
  MR. CRAWFORDsupported the clause, and expressed his surprise at such a decision, and contrasted it with the conduct of the Government in the case of the Accountant General of the
  1904
  Court of Chancery. He hoped the House would show that it did not approve of such inconsistent behaviour.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought that the question required further attention.
  MR. GLADSTONEdefended the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was in such cases very nearly an established rule for the Government to acquiesce in the judgment of the House unless some strong public necessity rendered it imperative to disturb the decision. The decision arrived at the other night was not a surprise, but the spontaneous expression of the opinion of the House. At the same time he must admit that the question was not in a satisfactory position. It required a further investigation, but on a somewhat larger scale. In omitting one anomaly it might have rendered more glaring other anomalies. It would, therefore, be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his careful attention to the subject before he could be called on again to make financial proposals to the House.
  MR. BARNETThoped the House would still adhere to the decision they formerly gave on this subject, and adopt the clause of the hon. Alderman.
  ALDERMAN SIR JAMES LAWRENCEsaid, this question affected not London alone, but also Liverpool, Manchester, and every large town in the kingdom, and it was not fairly submitted to the House when it was previously under discussion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 80: Majority 29.
  MR. MACFIEmoved an Amendment in Clause 4, page 2, line 34, to leave out after "goods," as far as and including "accordingly," in line 37, and insert "absolutely prohibited to be imported," the result of which would be that articles which professed falsely to be of British manufacture would be prohibited from being imported even for exportation. He made that proposal in justice to British manufacturers and as a testimony to the truth.
  MR. MUNDELLAsupported the Amendment.
  MR. BAXTERsaw no objection to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE. REBUILDING BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. AYRTON, Bill for the acquisition of property for the purpose of erecting thereon a new building at Whitehall for the Admiralty and War Office, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 200.]

  VICTORIA PARK BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. AYRTON, Bill to confirm an Agreement for the purchase by the Metropolitan Board of Works of certain land adjoining Victoria Park, and for the appropriation of such land as part of the same Park, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 201.]

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to amend the several Acts relating to the Drainage and Improvement of Lands in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and The Marquess of HARTINGTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 202.]

  PAWNBROKERS BILL.
  Select Committee on the Pawnbrokers Bill nominated:—Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, Sir WILLIAM BAGGE, Mr. CARTER, Mr. ORR EWING, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. RICHARD ARKWRIGHT, Mr. PLIMSOLL, Mr. ARTHUR GUEST, Mr. GRIEVE, Mr. CHARLES HENRY MILLS, and Mr. WHITWELL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  Ordered, That the Report and Evidence laid before Parliament by the Select Committee on Pawnbrokers, in Session 1871, and the Report of Dr. Hancock on the Law of Pawn broking in Ireland, be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870), The Lord O'Hagan added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Board of Trade Inquiries * (155); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2) * (156).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * (116); Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (117–157).
Report—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * (122).
Third Reading—Epping Forest * (150), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

    PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ARBITRATORS.—QUESTION.
    LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, no doubt your Lordships will be glad to hear from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—if he is in a position to give the House such information—Whether there is truth in the report which has appeared in the ordinary channels of information—namely, that the British Agent at Geneva had put in before the Arbitrators the points of arguments in the British Case? If the noble Earl is able to state further what has been the course of proceedings at Geneva to-day, I am sure your Lordships will be glad of any information upon this subject also.
    EARL GRANVILLE: There are so many reports of what has been done at Geneva, and those reports clash so one with another, that I do not know to which report the noble and learned Lord refers. It was decided by the Arbitrators to keep their proceedings private for the present, and therefore—to say nothing of the respect which is due to that high Tribunal—I am sure your Lordships would not wish that I should set such a bad example as to state what I may know privately. In the Papers which I presented to your Lordships' House on Friday your Lordships have the means of seeing the course which we intimated would be taken by us in case the proposals we made to the Government of the United States should fail. I have no objection to state that that course has been taken.
    LORD CAIRNS: I am not sure that the statement of the noble Earl is quite intelligible to your Lordships—certainly
    1800
    it is not to me. In the Papers two courses were suggested hypothetically. One was that the points of our arguments should be put in under protest and with reservations; the other was that they should not be put in at all. Would the noble Earl say which of those two courses has been adopted?
    EARL GRANVILLE: We have not put in the points of argument.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL—(No 117.)
(The Lord President.)
PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL—(No 117.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord President.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he had taken the course of moving that the Committee be deferred for six months, because he believed that the Bill could not be amended so as to become workable. Although he was perfectly satisfied that if their Lordships assented to the passing of the Bill they would deeply regret it; yet as it appeared to be the wish of their Lordships to consider the measure in Committee, he should not press his Amendment to a division.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  EARL GRANVILLEreminded the noble Lord that in the discussion on the second reading it was understood that no opposition would be offered to the progress of the Bill, whatever might be done during its consideration in Committee. He thought it was not in accordance with that understanding to discuss the merits of the Bill on the Motion for going into Committee.
  LORD CAIRNSdesired to make a few remarks before the House went into Committee. The schedules of a Bill were usually considered complimentary to the clauses of the Bill, but in this case one-half of the clauses themselves lad been taken out of the body of the Bill and transferred to the schedules. In the Bill of last year there were 54 clauses; but in the Bill of this year no fewer than 27 clauses were put in the schedules, while just the same number

  1801
  were in the body of the Bill. The usual course was that their Lordships should take the clauses, consider them seriatim, and decide upon their merits; but here there was a clause which enacted that the schedule to this Act, and the notes thereto and directions therein, should be construed and have effect as part of the Act. If this system were persevered in, all the provisions of a statute might be placed in the schedule and a single clause be deemed sufficient for the body of the Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, there was no wish to limit the consideration of the provisions of the Bill. In the Commons every provision of the schedule had been discussed as fully and as keenly as any part of the clauses. He could assure the noble and learned Lord that the Government would offer no objection to their Lordships considering every article in the schedule as they pleased.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Procedure at Elections.
  Clause 1 (Nomination of candidates for Parliamentary Elections).
  LORD CAIRNS LORD CAIRNS moved, in page 2, line 3, after ("candidate") insert—
  "If after the adjournment of an election by the returning officer for the purpose of taking a poll one of the candidates nominated shall die before the poll has been taken, the returning officer shall, upon being satisfied of the fact of such death, countermand notice of the poll, and all the proceedings with reference to the election shall be commenced afresh in all respects as if the writ had been received by the returning officer on the day on which proof was given to him of such death; provided that no fresh nomination shall be necessary in the case of a candidate who stood nominated at the time of the countermand of the poll."
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he did not object to the provision.
  Amendment, with verbal alterations, agreed to.
  LORD COLCHESTER LORD COLCHESTER moved to omit the clause, his object being to leave nominations as they were at present. If nomination days were abolished, the excitement now displayed when candidates were being proposed would be exhibited on less convenient occasions in the course of the canvass or the election, and in a not less objectionable form. He thought that the ancient system to which they
  1802
  had become accustomed ought not to be abolished without sufficient reason for it being shown.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONtook an entirely different view of the importance and value of this clause. In his opinion it was one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill—especially in the way in which it bore upon the moral, orderly, and quiet character of elections. He could well understand attachment to ancient modes of proceding; but on the other hand he must say that it appeared to him that these public nominations had no real bearing upon the result of the election, whilst they gave constant opportunities for disorder of various kinds. The clause also had been passed in the present and previous Session in the other House of Parliament by large majorities. He must also point out that the omission of this clause would necessitate numerous other Amendments in the Bill, which the noble Lord had not even taken notice of.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Poll at Election).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had now to propose the important Amendments of which he had given Notice. He proposed after the word ("candidates") in line 7, page 2, to insert—
  ("Each ballot paper shall have an official mark on the back and a number printed on the face, and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face:
  "Every voter, on application to the presiding officer, shall receive a ballot paper, and the presiding office shall in the presence of the agents of the candidates (if any) enter on the counterfoil of the ballot paper the number of the voter on the register, and shall enter on the copy of the register with which he is supplied a cross or other mark denoting that the voter has received the ballot paper, but not showing the particular ballot paper which he has received:
  "The voter shall place a cross or other mark in the figure of a square printed opposite the name of the candidate or each candidate for whom he votes:
  "The voter having thus marked on the ballot paper the candidate or candidates for whom he votes shall fold the ballot paper so as to show the official mark on its back, and shall exhibit to the presiding officer such mark, and then in the presence of the presiding officer put the ballot paper into the ballot box:
  "At the close of the poll the presiding officer shall in the presence of the agents of the candidates or such of them as may be present seal up the counterfoils of the ballot papers and send them by the earliest practicable post to the clerk of the crown in chancery:

  1803
  "Any ballot paper on which a cross is put opposite to the names of more candidates than the voter is entitled to vote for, and any ballot paper having anything written thereon other than the mark or marks made by the voter, shall be void, and shall not be counted.")
  His Amendments, as their Lordships would perceive, opened the whole question of personation. Personation was deemed by the promoters of the Bill so serious an offence that by the 24th clause it was declared to be a felony, punishable with two years' imprisonment with hard labour. That being so, it seemed to him to be absolutely necessary to provide some machinery by which the vote could be traced—because, without this, the offence could hardly be proved. The Amendment would enable the vote to be traced. When the Marquess of Hartington introduced the Bill of 1870, he said that he desired that the vote should be secret; but yet he thought that there should be power of tracing the vote. Being anxious to avoid all controversy on this point, he (the Duke of Richmond) had taken as his Amendment certain provisions of the Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government in 1870. He should, therefore, await with some curiosity the arguments by which the noble Marquess who had charge of this Bill (the Marquess of Ripon) would oppose those securities which it had been thought necessary to include in a Ballot Bill having on it the name of "the Bight hon. John Bright." The noble Duke then moved the first paragraph.
  An Amendment moved, in Clause 2, page 2, line 7, after ("candidates,") to insert—
  ("Each ballot paper shall have an official mark on the back and a number printed on the back, and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he was not surprised that the noble Duke should have avoided any allusion to the real nature of the Amendment—the Amendment affected a vital portion of the Bill now before them. He admitted that following the vote in order to a scrutiny would not be possible under the Bill as it now stood; but the Amendment would not only provide for following the vote in order to a scrutiny, but it would in effect make the Ballot optional. It would go even farther than
  1804
  this, for it would render secret voting almost impossible. The noble Duke had declared that his Amendments were copied from the provisions contained in the Bill proposed by the Marquess of Hartington, on behalf of the Government, in 1870. But that Bill not only did not render the Ballot optional, as the Amendment did, but it contained most careful provisions against it—it provided that the voter should go into a secret compartment and there vote; and there was a penalty for infringing the secrecy of the vote. The tu quoque argument had no effect whatever upon him, because the Amendment had really nothing whatever to do with the previous Bill. The noble Duke could hardly pretend that this sham Ballot would ever have had the support of Mr. Bright. An optional Ballot meant a system under which any amount of intimidation might be exercised, only in another way and at another stage of proceeding than was the case at present. Now, the object of the secret Ballot was not so much to guard against intimidation from individuals as intimidation from classes, and classes were not amenable to general public opinion, but only to the opinion of those composing their own body: but an optional Ballot left the voter open to all the evils which the Bill was meant to remove. The Amendment, however, rendered secret Ballot impossible. His noble Friend had boasted that he had copied the Bill of Lord Hartington, but in doing so he had made a most important and most significant departure both from that Bill and from the Amendment of Mr. Ward Hunt. He hoped their Lordships would not pass a sham. It would be better for them to reject the Ballot altogether than to inaugurate a system which would be a mere pretence of secrecy, and which would be sure of rejection in the House of Commons.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the noble Marquess, in the mode in which he met the Amendment, had taken a course which might be convenient to himself but which was not the most convenient to their Lordships. He had made a long and interesting speech on the question of a permissive or optional Ballot, but he had sat down without saying one word upon the Amendment proposed. His noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had said that the Motion now before their Lordships was the first of a series

  1805
  of Amendments which, he intended to propose, which, no doubt, would raise that extremely important question—the amount of secrecy which their Lordships would impose on the voters of the United Kingdom, whether they desired secrecy or not. That, however, was not the purpose of this Amendment, which was how to follow and detect personation. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) was utterly wrong in representing his noble Friend as saying that his Amendments were nothing more than restoring the Bill to the position of Lord Hartington's Bill. This Amendment did nothing more than restore that Bill on one important and exceptional point—he had taken certain securities against personation out of the Bill of 1870, and had argued that if they were thought necessary by the Government when they introduced that Bill, the same Government being answerable for the present Bill, the noble Marquess could not very well object to those securities now. He (Lord Cairns) would not follow the noble Marquess into the question of permissive or optional Ballot; but he rose to satisfy their Lordships of the propriety of the Amendment, and to show that without this Amendment the Bill would be the source of the most unmitigated mischief, vice, perjury, and fraud in every district of the country. The Bill provided that personation when discovered should be a felony. Their Lordships were very well aware that there was not a large constituency in the kingdom in which they would not find a great per centage of names of men who were dead or absent, and that as regarded the seaport towns it might happen that a substantial part of the electors might be absent at the time an election came on. With regard to all these dead men, and also with regard to the names of persons who were alive and in health, any person who was disposed to do so might go up to the polling-booth and represent that he was the person described on the register under a particular name, and demand a ballot paper. There was no reason why he should not get it unless he was detected on the spot—an extremely unlikely thing. Having got the ballot paper he must mark it, and put it into the ballot box, and in process of time it was taken out and counted as an absolute vote for the candidate in whose favour it was given. The Bill
  1806
  further provided, indeed, that if the real voter afterwards came forward he might satisfy the Returning Officer that he was the true person on the register and demand a second ballot paper. The ballot paper was then to be given to him and his vote was to be marked upon it; but it was not to be put into the ballot box, but into a separate bundle of tendered votes. When the time came for declaring the result of the election those tendered votes were not to be counted; but on any scrutiny or petition they might be brought in question, and if proved to be votes tendered by the proper persons they were to be received. What, however, became of the vote received meanwhile from the improper person? What became of the false, fraudulent, and vicious vote in the ballot box, and which was counted as a vote for him for whom it was given? Their Lordships would be surprised to hear that the spurious votes were still to be counted as good votes. True, if it could be brought home to the candidate or his agent that a personated or false vote had been given with their privity or connivance a vote might be struck off from the aggregate votes of that candidate for the bad vote so traced home. But in 99 cases out of. 100 they could not prove such privity or connivance, and in many cases neither privity nor connivance might exist; and yet the fraudulent vote remained triumphant, and was counted. Would any Member of the Government stand up and say that that was a pure, proper, and desirable mode of conducting an English election? If the man was absent or dead, and could not come forward, the vicious vote would remain without any counteracting vote. These were the provisions in the present Bill. Now, Lord Hartington's Bill did meet this case, and Lord Hartington himself said that it was necessary to meet this case. That there might be no dispute he would read the enactment in Lord Hartington's Bill. The second provision of the Bill ran as follows:—
  "Each ballot paper shall have a number or letter or other distinguishing mark printed on the back thereof, and have attached thereto a counterfoil with the same number or letter or other distinguishing mark printed on its face."
  Now, the object of that was obvious—it was to identify the counterfoil with the ballot paper. The 10th provision ran as follows:—

  1807
  "Every voter, on application to the presiding officer, shall receive a ballot paper, and the presiding officer shall, in the presence of the agents of the candidate, enter on the counterfoil of the ballot paper the name of the voter and number on the register."
  Since Lord Hartington's Bill the Government in the House of Commons had introduced a further provision that there should be on the back of every ballot paper what was called an official mark, and it was to be a new mark for every election, and to be kept secret and only within the knowledge of the Returning Officer. The noble Duke was only desirous to identify at the proper time the counterfoil with the ballot paper. If the Government, therefore, would not render its fulminations against personation idle and useless, it would accept the Amendment and give a means of detecting personation when committed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble and learned Lord had been very ingenious in finding fault, in the first instance, with the course taken by his noble Friend the Lord President in opposing the Amendment. He (the Lord Chancellor), however, thought that his noble Friend was perfectly justified in the line of argument he had adopted on that occasion. The whole scheme of the noble Duke's Amendments pointed to one end—namely, to reserve to the voter the power of disclosing the mode in which he had voted if he thought fit, and in effect to render the Ballot entirely optional. If the noble Duke succeeded in his object—if they once rendered the Ballot optional—they might as well put an end to the whole Bill. He looked on the noble Duke's Amendment as, in fact, substituting for the present Bill an entirely new measure for that which had come up from the other House. The Bill was one for insuring the power of secret voting; the Amendments would make it a Bill to insure the discovery of a man's vote. If they told the voter that he might, if he thought fit, disclose his vote, they practically told him that he must disclose it whenever pressure was put upon him by any person having the power and the desire to make him discover how he had exercised his franchise. Those who wished for secret voting thought it could only be reasonably secured by nobody knowing how the voter had voted. The effect of the Amendment would be to destroy the protection which the voter would other-
  1808
  wise feel that he had for the secrecy of his vote. The machinery for detecting personation had been omitted because it was found that perfect secrecy could not be maintained in conjunction with it. It was thought best to give up the machinery for detecting personation rather than to give up secrecy, because it was better that a dozen or so of bad votes should be recorded than that tens of thousands should be intimidated or coerced. Provision was made for correcting those bad votes in eases when the election was challenged; because in all cases where bribery or intimidation was proved it would be assumed the vote was recorded in favour of the briber, and it would be struck off accordingly. But what effect would the Amendment have in detecting the offender? How did it punish the false voter? What machinery would it provide for detecting a man who came up to tender a false vote? If the man was known when he came up there might be a remedy. But if there was any advantage in the Amendment, it seemed to him to be purchased at a disproportionate expense. It would be a worse evil in large towns with 12,000 or 14,000 votes, to deprive them of this security because there was a possibility of mistakes in a few cases. Allusion had been made to seaport towns, and the case with which personation could be committed in such places from the number of the absentees. But the absentees would be known to the agents of both candidates, and the non-voters who would act as personators would also be known. Detection would, therefore, in most cases follow upon the vote being tendered. Altogether the mischief would be reduced almost to nothing, and would be of no consequence as compared with the evil of coercion.
  EARL GREYsaid, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had at present done no more than to raise the question as to whether it should be in the power of a properly constituted authority to conduct a scrutiny and identify votes by means of a number on the ballot paper corresponding with a number on a counterfoil. In that proposal he concurred, and he was quite prepared to alter the Bill on the principle that secrecy should be maintained, and should be compulsory, except that a scrutiny should be possible when abuse was sus-

  1809
  pected. He did not agree with the Lord Chancellor that the abuse was infinitessimal. It would be virtually impossible subsequently to prove any misconduct on the part of the Returning Officer, while his conduct would frequently be exposed to suspicion. The proposal now made by the noble Duke was substantially the same as that of Lord Hartington, which the Government accepted two years ago. It was in no way inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and he was utterly at a loss to understand the extraordinary change of opinion on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Could a course adopted by the Cabinet on two previous occasions, after due deliberation, be so utterly wrong, or was it that Her Majesty's Government had determined at all hazards to gratify the extreme portion of their followers?
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he cordially concurred in desiring to repress personation, and thought this could only be done by largely increasing the number of polling places and leaving them open to people acquainted with the neighbourhood and its inhabitants.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETwished to know from the Government whether they would or would not introduce the exact words of Lord Hartington's Bill. If they did he should be satisfied. They were now discussing the question of getting a knowledge of the voter, and he should like to know why the Government deviated from the proposition which they brought forward two years ago.
  EARL GRANVILLEadmitted that the question of the noble Duke was a perfectly fair one. The answer was, that at that time the matter had not been fully argued. Now, however, the case was different, and it was too much to ask the Government, after the case had been argued on both sides, to adhere to a proposal which they did not approve.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the Amendment he proposed was substantially the same as the proposal made in 1870 by Lord Hartington. He had no objection to alter "in the face" to "in the back," and in originally proposing it in the former shape he could assure the noble Marquess opposite that he had no sinister object. The offence of personation was a very serious one,
  1810
  and one which the Government Bill in its present form would, as he believed, do very little to meet.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 162; Not-Contents 91: Majority 71.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Nelson, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Powis, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Radnor, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Romney, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  Rosse, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Russell, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Sandwich, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Sommers, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Bath, M.

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Bristol, M.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Bute, M.

  Hertford, M.

  Tankerville, E.

  Queensberry, M.

  Verulam, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Winchester, M.

  Bangor, V.

  De Vesci, V.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Doneraile, V.

  Airlie, E.

  Gough, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Annesley, E.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Bandon, E.

  Hereford, V.

  Bathurst, E.

  Hill, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hood, V.

  Bradford, E.

  Lifford, V.

  Brownlow, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Cadogan, E.

  Strathallan, V.

  Coventry, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Devon, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Hereford, Bp.

  Abinger, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Boston, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Grey, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Harrington, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Buckhurst, L.

  Cairns, L.

  Home, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Lanesborough, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Morton, E.

  Conyers, L.

  1811

  Delamere, L.

  Overstone, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Digby, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Ravensworth, L.

  Dunsany, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Elphinstone, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Grantley, L.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Headley, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Stratheden, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Lilford, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  O'Neill, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Grafton, D.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]

  Winchester, Bp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Acton, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Annaly, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Auckland, L.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Belper, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Clarendon, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Camoys, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Carew, L.

  Durham, E.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Granville, E.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Churchill, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Morley, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Ebury, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Halifax, V.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Eliot, L.

  Erskine, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Foley, L.

  1812

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Greville, L.

  Penzance, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Poltimore, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Leigh, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Lurgan, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Monson, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthen moved the insertion of the next paragraph, which was, he said, consequent upon the Amendment which had just been carried—
  "Every voter, on application to the presiding officer, shall receive a ballot paper, and the presiding officer shall, in the presence of the agents of the candidates (if any) enter on the counterfoil of the ballot paper the number of the voter on the register, and shall enter on the copy of the register with which he is supplied a cross or other mark denoting that the voter has received the ballot paper, but not showing the particular ballot paper which he has received."
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that, considering the vote which their Lordships had just given, he should offer no opposition to this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to insert the following paragraph:—
  "The voter shall place a cross or other mark in the figure of a square printed opposite the name of a candidate or each candidate for whom he votes. The voter having thus marked on the ballot paper the candidate or candidates for whom he votes, shall fold up the ballot paper so as to show the official mark on its back, and shall exhibit to the presiding officer such mark, and then in the presence of the presiding officer put the ballot paper into the ballot box."
  He thought this was the proper time at which to raise the question of secrecy, although the rules by which it was proposed to secure the secrecy sought by the Bill had been relegated to the schedules at the end. Up to the present moment the Committee had not dealt with the subject of secrecy. It was useless for noble Lords opposite to contend that the Bill before the Committee provided a Ballot of absolute secrecy, because it allowed an illiterate voter to

  1813
  have his voting paper filled up by the presiding officer in the presence of the agents of the candidates. It might be perfectly right that the illiterate voter should have the power of recording his vote in that manner, but by making such a concession they entirely gave up the idea of secrecy. If that were so, why should the great majority of the people of the country, who took a pride in voting openly, be compelled to gratify the whim of a small minority to vote in the manner provided by this Bill? When they came to the latter part of the Bill he would propose, by an Amendment to the schedule, to provide that the voter should, if he thought fit, go into a secret compartment, and there fill up his paper before giving it to the presiding officer; but he held that if the Committee were consistent, they ought to accept the Amendment which he now proposed.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, it was impossible that he could accept the Amendment. No doubt, the real object of the Amendment was to provide an optional Ballot, and he was obliged to the noble Duke for the very fair and candid manner in which he had stated the case. He had very little to add to what he had recently addressed to their Lordships, for he would not detain them by repeating the arguments he had already advanced. He had only to say that, in his judgment, it would have been far wiser to have rejected the Bill upon the second reading than to adopt an Amendment which would have the effect of making the Bill a pure delusion and a sham. The noble Duke had referred to those provisions in a later stage of the Bill by which persons suffering from certain disabilities might adopt a system of voting not altogether secret. He should be quite prepared to consider a proposal to strike out those provisions, in order to make the Bill perfectly consistent with itself; but, of course, there must be, in all human systems, points of difficulty. They could not make blind men, or men who could not read, do the same things as men who could see and read, and such difficulties must be met in the best way possible. But to say, because exceptions were made to meet difficulties—some of them of a physical character—they were therefore to abandon the whole principle of the Bill, seemed to be altogether inconsistent with a reasonable course of legisla-
  1814
  tion. The real question their Lordships had now to consider was, did they or did they not intend effectually and really to give the protection of secrecy to the electors of this country? If they did not, then this Bill had better be rejected; if they did, in his judgment, the only right and reasonable course was to deal with the measure in such a manner as would secure that secrecy, instead of leaving intimidation precisely as it was at present, and merely shifting its point.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the argument which had been pressed upon them with the greatest force in favour of this Bill, was that the country by its silence during two Sessions of discussion, and especially by the result of certain recent elections, had declared its readiness to have the principle of secret voting imported into its legislation. They were told also that this Bill came before them with the strong and earnest sanction of the House of Commons, and that by adopting an Amendment such as that proposed by the noble Duke, by which the Ballot would be rendered optional, they would be sending back a sham to the House of Commons and would disappoint the country. He ventured to take issue on both those propositions. He did not believe that either the real sense of the House of Commons, or, still less, the real sense of the country was that which Ministers desired them to believe. As to the sense of the country, the matter was clear enough. At the very elections on which noble Lords opposite relied so much, and which they (the Opposition) were taunted with not having noticed, the candidates won, not in consequence of their adoption of the Ballot, but because they avowed a preference for the optional rather than the secret Ballot. What stamp had the House of Commons put upon the Bill? They might have a perfectly compulsory or a perfectly optional Ballot; but it was obvious they could have no compromise. The whole strength of the Government, with perfect consistency, had been devoted to making the Bill entirely compulsory. Their Lordships knew how strong the Government was in the House of Commons, and that when the House of Commons voted on a Government proposal other matters beside the mere merits of the question were considered. Yet, in spite of these influences, the House of Commons had taken the whole

  1815
  sting out of the Bill, when they expunged the penalties and gave to illiterate and other persons facilities which were absolutely inconsistent with the principle of secrecy. He maintained that if the House of Commons had been really in earnest in regard to the principle of secrecy, all the penalties would not have been taken out of the Bill; for the House of Commons would not have been content with forbidding things in an Act of Parliament when it shrunk from attaching any penalty to an infraction of the statute. This was, he thought, a very intelligible view for the House of Commons and the country to take. It was very reasonable that they should take the view expressed by the Prime Minister in Yorkshire last year, when he said that everybody ought to have the protection of the Ballot who desired it. For his own part, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) thought the sustaining influence of publicity ought to be given to everybody, whether he desired it or not; but, at the same time, he could quite understood the other view—that publicity should be secured to those who desired it, and secrecy to those who desired that. They had been told by the noble Marquess the President of the Council that under an optional Ballot the voter would be intimidated into making known his vote—that only the point of intimidation would be shifted. This objection, however, was equally applicable to all contrivances which might be adopted for the protection of voters. Even if they passed the Bill in its most stringent form, the agent or customer, or whoever was supposed to intimidate the voter, would still effect his purpose by telling his victim not to go to the poll. For his own part, he disbelieved all this talk about intimidation. It did not exist in his part of the country at all events. But if intimidation existed anywhere, and if there were any of their Lordships who desired to coerce their tenantry, he could only say that, however close they might make the secrecy of the Bill, and however sharp its penalties, he could undertake to know the vote of every tenant on his estate. Nothing would be easier than to keep away from the poll those over whom influence was exercised, and so neutralize their votes. No contrivance could prevent those who had such influence from exercising it if they wished to do so, and the victim chose to
  1816
  submit. But these arguments about intimidation were founded upon a misconception of the existing relations of English society. Englishmen would assert their opinions, and he utterly disbelieved that any body of Englishmen worth mentioning, having real convictions of their own—that was a qualification on which he very much relied—would be, or had been, so base as to sacrifice them to any pressure whatever. But if there were individuals who wished to put pressure on individual voters, no legislative devices could prevent the action of social forces. The system of optional Ballot, so far from being a delusion and a sham or an idle compromise, offered in reality, from the point of view of the advocates of the Ballot themselves, the wisest course they could adopt. Starting from the point at which their Lordships arrived the other evening, when they determined that it was desirable, if possible, to legislate upon this subject, he maintained that they ought to give Englishmen as much liberty as they could. The Bill proposed to introduce a new system, strange to the inhabitants of this country and alien to our political life. Could such a system be introduced suddenly and without notice—not by the desire of the people, but as the result of a Parliamentary intrigue? Could it be expected that the people would yield a hearty allegiance to the mere law if violent restrictive penalties were attached to it? If an attempt were to be made to force them to adopt a system of secret voting, would it not be wiser to lead them up to it quietly, to induce them to examine the machinery at work, to appreciate its value, to have all their difficulties and apprehensions removed by experience—to move towards it, in short, in the gradual and tentative manner in which we had moved towards every change that had proved beneficial and permanent in this country? The people of this country did not like and would not submit to violent and hasty changes. It was the nature of our legislation to lead them towards all reforms gradually, and whenever an attempt had been made to disregard the tradition of the country in this respect, the law had been gradually worn away and pulverized by the steady and passive resistance of the multitude, who were unwilling to accept the sudden application of a novel principle. He believed their Lordships would

  1817
  act wisely in accepting the Amendment, which offered the only chance of a solution of the question, and the rejection of which would leave the question to be settled after violent and acrimonious controversy, when it might now be adjusted temporarily, and ultimately settled in the sense desired by the Government by gradual and cautious legislation.
  EARL COWPERsaid, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had stated that the other House had not manifested any strong wish for compulsory secrecy; but he (Earl Cowper) thought that if the noble Marquess would turn to the debates and divisions which occurred in that House he would find reason to doubt the accuracy of his statement. He thought that if there were one thing which more than another showed the worthlessness of an optional secrecy, it was that no attempt had been made to argue that the Bill would be of any use if it were passed with this Amendment in it. He could understand this Amendment being supported by the opponents of the Ballot and by those who voted against the second reading of the Bill; but if the Amendment were to be accepted the victory gained on the second reading would be no victory at all, and the House would place itself as much in opposition to the wishes of the country as it would have done had it thrown out the Bill on the second reading. For one, if opposed to the Ballot, he would rather have rejected the Bill in a straightforward manner than have proposed to defeat its object by introducing this Amendment.
  EARL GREYsaid, he had supported the last Amendment because it was necessary to insure fairness; but he could not help thinking that this Amendment was not consistent with what was called the principle of the Bill, upon which he hoped their Lordships would not engraft it. It was quite clear that if their Lordships adopted it, it would not be accepted by the other House; and then either their Lordships would be compelled to reverse their decision, or they would be held up to the country as having taken a course which was not straightforward in order to defeat the object of the Bill. On these grounds, he thought it was not desirable to adopt the present Amendment.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that, while he had voted against the measure, which
  1818
  he thought was a most unworthy one, now that their Lordships had accepted the principle of the Bill, he would be no party to an Amendment which would palpably reduce the Bill to an utter unreality. Nothing could be more obvious than that intimidation would be just as easy under this Amendment as it had been hitherto. It would be rather too strong a measure for public opinion to attempt to prevent a man voting at all; but it would be quite practicable to say—"Unless you vote publicly I shall assume that you have voted against me," and the result would be just the same as at present. He therefore hoped the Amendment would be negatived.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEthought there was much to be said in favour of both secret and open voting, but this new proposal for optional secret voting appeared to him to combine the disadvantages of both secret and open voting. He considered that under the optional system of voting intimidation would be even easier than under the existing system. He believed, also, that bribery under the optional system would be much worse than it was at present, and detection more difficult, because a person who desired to receive a bride would be able to prove to the person who offered the bribe that he had voted for a particular person and to conceal his vote from every one else. This assertion of his was not founded upon mere theory but upon experience and upon evidence which was to be found in Parliamentary documents. He was astonished to hear the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) say he had never heard of a case of intimidation, and he could only ask the noble Marquess whether he had ever read the evidence given before the Marquess of Hartington's Committee?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It has never been presented to us.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: It was in their Lordships' library, where he was reading it the other day. That evidence adduced scores of cases of intimidation by landlords in Wales. They heard much the other night about bribery and intimidation being practised in America, but it so happened that the particular States in which those practices prevailed were States in which secrecy was optional. It was optional in the States of New York and South Carolina, which

  1819
  were referred to the other night, but it was compulsory in Massachusetts, which was free from the bribery that existed in the other States. As to France, the evidence showed that the voting, though nominally secret, was in reality not so. There was a great and an unjust pressure placed upon voters. In Australia, with compulsory secrecy, there was no intimidation, and little bribery; and that fact only bore out what one would naturally expect. At all events, where secret voting was optional there was bribery, and where it was compulsory there was no intimidation—he would not say there was absolutely no bribery, because it was impossible to suppress it altogether, but there was very little indeed. The Amendment was quite inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. If they adopted the Amendment it would be said by those who were not friendly to their Lordships' House that their object was to allow intimidation to continue, in order to preserve the influence of the landlords. He hoped their Lordships would not adopt the Amendment, which was entirely at variance with the principle of the Bill.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he altogether denied that this Amendment was an attempt by a side wind, or in an underhand way, to get rid of a Bill which had passed the second reading. Nothing could be fairer and more above-board, both in regard to the second reading and this Amendment, than the course taken on this occasion by his noble Friends. They had given their reasons for not exercising the influence they had to induce their Lordships to reject the Bill on a second reading; but they stated distinctly at the time the character of the Amendments which they would propose in Committee. On the other hand, he denied the right of any noble Lord to define to their Lordships the principle of a Bill after it had been read the second time, when that definition was made with a view to strengthen the opposition to the Amendment. He thought this one of the most important clauses of the Bill. The provision as to open nominations was a very good thing; and the maintaining of the secrecy of the poll until the close was also a very good thing. Indeed, he believed that by the keeping of the poll secret till the close they would get rid of nine-tenths of whatever bribery remained in the country. But
  1820
  so far as any desire in favour of Ballot existed out-of-doors, he believed that among the great body of electors the desire was only for a permissive Ballot; that there should be no imposition of secrecy on any voter who did not wish it; but that every man might, if he wished, record his vote in secrecy. This was the kind of Ballot which the Prime Minister declared it to be his wish in Yorkshire to establish—that secrecy should be provided for those only who desired it. That was the principle on which he supported this Amendment. It was quite consistent with the principle of the Bill and with the feeling out-of-doors in regard to the Bill. He would recommend the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) who spoke about intimidation to read the evidence given before Mr. Justice Keogh, and his decision in the case of the Galway Election Petition. That was a case in which intimidation of the most alarming character had been resorted to; but was it for the purpose of making persons vote? Nothing of the kind. It was known how the persons were going to vote; respectable men—farmers, professional men, clergymen—were met coming into the town to poll; they were mobbed, pelted with stones, and their lives endangered, to prevent them from voting at all. Was there a single word in this Bill to check or cure this gigantic evil—this disgrace to the country? Could that which was done on a large scale towards voters whose opinions were known not to be done on a small scale by the customer as against tradesmen, by trades unions as against a member of the union? Of course it could; and if this Bill passed in its integrity they would be only shifting the point of intimidation from one place to another. On the ground that they had no right to impose on any man secrecy of voting against his will, who desired to record his vote as he had done before, openly—on the ground that they had no right to constrain that man, to crush him into a silent voter, unable to declare the opinion he conscientiously maintained, he should support this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not believe that anyone on his side had attributed to noble Lords opposite an intention by this Amendment to get rid of this Bill by a side-wind. What they said was this—that it would be an in-

  1821
  consistent part if their Lordships, after voting for the second reading, should adopt an Amendment which would substantially defeat the Bill. That was their contention; and for himself he believed that this Bill would become substantially waste paper if this Amendment should pass. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) would lead their Lordships to believe that the Amendment was in accordance with the views of those who out-of-doors were in favour of Ballot. He entertained a very contrary opinion. If there were no feeling in the country in favour of the Ballot, how did it happen that at those elections which had recently been held the successful candidates had expressed their approval of the Ballot?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They were in favour of an optional Ballot—Ballot without the tread-mill clauses.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYmentioned the Oldham election, where Mr. Lyulph Stanley was a candidate.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But Mr. Stanley was the unsuccessful candidate.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: At any rate his experience did not harmonize with that of the noble Marquess as to the feelings of the people on this question, nor was there any concurrence in their experience with regard to intimidation, which the noble Marquess had said was very rare indeed. He (the Earl of Kimberley) feared it was only too rife. Intimidation was not only open—it was often indirect, and if it was only removed by this Bill one step, that might be a very good step in advance. It was perfectly obvious that an optional Ballot was no Ballot at all, and he did not think it would be worth while to pass such a measure into law.
  LORD ROMILLYexpressed his surprise at hearing the noble and learned Lord oppposite (Lord Cairns) say that the people of this country did not wish for the protection of the Ballot. Had he gone through as many contested elections as he himself had done, he would have arrrived at a different conclusion. Electors had over and over again come to him and said that they were sorry to feel obliged to vote for him, and that they would vote against him if they could; while others, again, told him that they desired to vote for him, but must vote against him, and
  1822
  that they wished they had some protection. By secret voting he understood a system by which the voter would not be able to prove how he had voted, but that he should be at full liberty to make any statement he pleased as to how he had voted. He thought it was impossible for any one who really knew the facts seriously to say that the people of this country did not want the protection of the Ballot.
  LORD CAIRNSdenied that he had said that the people of this country did or did not desire the Ballot. What he had said was that he was persuaded that those people in this country who desired the Ballot desired the kind of Ballot which would give the protection of secrecy to those who desired that protection; and that those who desired to vote openly should be allowed to vote openly.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the explanation just made by the noble and learned Lord opposite was perfectly fatal to the Amendment of the noble Duke. That Amendment would be entirely incompatible with giving the protection of secrecy to those who desired that protection.
  On Question whether to insert? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 83; Not-Contents 67: Majority 16.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Harrowby, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Russell, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Verulam, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Bath, M.

  Bute, M.

  Bangor, V.

  Exeter, M.

  De Vesci, V.

  Hertford, M.

  Gough, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Winchester, M.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Hereford, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Hill, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hood, V.

  Bradford, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Coventry, E.

  Strathallan, V.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Denbigh, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Feversham, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Abinger, L.

  Bagot, L.

  1823

  Boston, L.

  Headley, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Buckhurst, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Cairns, L.

  Lilford, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Clinton, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Digby, L.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Egerton, L.

  Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)

  Sondes, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Tredegar, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Grantley, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Churchill, L.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Dunsany, L.

  Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Somerset, D.

  Erskine, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Foley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Ripon, M.

  Greville, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  De La Warr, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)

  Durham, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Granville, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Grey, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Jersey, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Morley, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Powis, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Monson, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Romilly, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Ripon, Bp.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Belper, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Blachford, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Camoys, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Consequential Amendments made.
  LORD COLCHESTER LORD COLCHESTER moved, in page 2, after Clause 2, insert—
  "If any elector signify to the returning officer his desire to vote otherwise than by personal at-
  1824
  tendance, the returning officer shall, not less than three days before the day fixed for election, forward to him a ballot paper together with a ticket containing the voters name and number on the register, and the voter shall secretly mark his vote upon it and place it in a closed cover or packet, and send it together with the ticket under an outer cover to the returning officer who shall place it in the ballot box on the day of election."
  The noble Lord said he proposed this Amendment because he believed the system of personal attendance at the poll was the source of every evil connected with contested elections.
  EARL COWPERopposed the Amendment on the ground that it would give rise to as much bribery and intimidation as at present existed. The proposal was reported against very strongly by the Committee of 1870 on the ground that it would make bribery and intimidation easy, and it had been made twice in the other House, and was each time rejected by considerable majorities. Few dependent voters could resist a landlord, or a £10 note in a private room with a ballot paper to fill up. It would likewise open the door to the distribution of forged papers, which it would be difficult to identify.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhad always thought the arguments in favour of voting papers to be very strong. No doubt they might in some cases lead to mischief; but that mischief, in his mind, would be very slight when compared with the serious injury sometimes inflicted upon electors who had the misfortune to live a long distance from the polling place. Considering that the strength of the Liberals was generally to be found in towns, and that of the Conservatives in the country, he was not surprised at the aversion of the former to such an arrangement as that proposed. As, however, this question had been discussed on several occasions, he should advise his noble Friend not to press it, but rather to turn his attention to the more practical object of increasing the number of polling places.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Offences at Elections.
  Clause 3 (Offences in respect of nomination papers, ballot papers, and ballot boxes.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved in Clause 3, page 3, line 19, after ("punishable") insert—

  1825
  ("Any offence specified in this section shall, if committed by the returning officer or his clerks, be punishable with imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour");
  line 23, leave out
  ("returning officer at such election") and insert ("Secretary of State for the Home Department").
  LORD ROMILLYdeprecated the adoption of the Amendment. In the House of Commons it was complained that the Bill was over weighted with penalties, and on such a charge as that contemplated by the noble Lord, and with such a penalty, it would be found practically impossible to convict.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYobserved that all that the noble Lord opposite proposed to do was to render the punishment heavier in the case of the Returning Officers than in other cases. Hitherto the Government had poured out all their wrath upon the unfortunate elector; but what in his case was a mere crotchet was in the Returning Officer a crime. He trusted that the Amendment would be adopted.
  After some discussion—
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he would undertake to give the Amendments and suggestions consideration before the bringing up the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Infringement of secrecy).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 3, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to ("interfere") in line 32, and insert—
  ("No officer, clerk, or agent in attendance at a polling station shall communicate before the poll is closed to any person any information as to the official mark or.")
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, what Her Majesty's Government desired in reference to this branch of the subject was to prevent the possibility of candidates availing themselves of the votes of corrupt electors. It was well known that in most boroughs there were a certain number of voters who were notoriously corrupt, and who "hung back" in order to sell their votes. If the agents of the candidates were allowed to be within the polling-places and to keep a record of the voters who applied for ballot-papers, the object of the corrupt candidates and voters would be gained. He did not think his noble Friend (the Duke of
  1826
  Richmond) desired that that state of things should arise, and as the Amendment was not necessarily consequential upon the proposals which had been already adopted he must ask the opinion of their Lordships upon it.
  LORD CAIRNSagreed as to the importance of preventing corrupt practices in the conduct of elections; but he thought it perfectly legitimate that the candidates or their agents should be enabled in the course of an election to ascertain who had not voted, in order that their support might be solicited. But the clause contemplated the presence of an agent at a polling station, and it would be idle to prohibit the giving of this information to candidates or their agents, because it could be as easily obtained by persons standing in the streets outside the polling-places as by agents who had access to the interior of the polling booths.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was important that the prohibition should be maintained. The only reason why the knowledge as to who had not voted could be desired, was that intimidation or bribery might be brought to bear upon them. If the agents were informed as to the names of the persons who had voted, they would be able, at critical points in the progress of elections, to "put on the screw" on those who had not.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas absolutely startled by the facility with which Her Majesty's Government took alarm. It now appeared that it was an utterly wrong thing to ask anyone who had not voted to go to the poll. He remembered that in University contests some years ago, the supporters of the different candidates used every argument, and exercised every influence—if he might use the word—to induce the electors to record their votes, and it never occurred to any man that there was anything wrong in that. Now, however, it appeared that in regard to the poorer classes of voters, it was quite wrong to ask any one of them to vote. That was the only ground on which the argument of the noble and learned Lord could be justified. But even if this new political Decalogue were true, this clause would not attain the object he had in view. If a man should at any time drop a single word as to which candidate he had voted for he would be liable to "summary

  1827
  conviction before two justices of the peace and sentenced to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour." The Legislature would have this sword of Damocles hang over the unfortunate man's head for the rest of his life. Why, the very thought of it would drive a man mad, and to obtain relief he would probably rush home at once and divulge the terrible secret at once to his wife or friends so as to get it off his mind. Parliament had no right to inflict this fearful curse on a man who had voted, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would adopt the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the stringency of this clause was greater than he had ever before seen. Not only would the officers, clerks, and attendants, and the persons who supplied the voting papers act under alarm and anxiety, but it would exercise a new form of intimidation over the voters and deter them from voting at all.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 63, Not-Contents 36; Majority 27.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment of Law.
  Clause 5 (Division of boroughs and counties into polling districts.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed an Amendment by which the polling-places to be provided by the authorities should be so assigned as that every elector resident in a county should have a place not more than "two" miles distant from his residence—instead of "four" as provided by the clause. The great object which those who promoted this Bill had in view was to enfranchise the greatest number of individuals, and enable the greatest number of persons throughout the country to exercise their right of voting. The Amendment he proposed had the advantage of giving every voter who wished to exercise his right an opportunity of doing so, by enabling him to walk to the polling-place, and it would thereby do away with one great source of expense and inconvenience attending elections—namely, the conveying the voter to the place of voting. A working man could, under the Amendment, record his vote in his
  1828
  meal time without losing his day's labour. He was at a loss to understand why Scotland was to be excluded from the operation of this part of the Bill, because Scotland required a multiplication of polling-places more than any other part of the United Kingdom. It was only reasonable that a man should be able to record his vote at the least trouble and inconvenience to himself, and on that ground he moved the Amendment.
  Amendment moved, page 4, line 11, leave out ("four"), and insert ("two.")—(The Duke of Richmond).
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the question was a purely practical one; and those who were competent to form an opinion believed that with the increased number which the lesser distance rendered imperative, it would be impossible in many districts to find suitable polling-places and competent and responsible presiding officers. It was believed that these arrangements would often be difficult with the greater distance named by the Bill; and the difficulty would be increased by reducing the distance—particularly in respect to presiding officers, because with optional secrecy for the unhappy voter, it would be more than ever necessary that the officers should be trustworthy persons. It must be borne in mind that the Bill fixed four miles, subject to the discretion of the local authorities to reduce it; but the Amendment would make the shorter distance imperative. Scotland was excluded because it was believed to be absolutely impossible to find the requisite number of presiding officers there even for the greater distance.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he should have supported the Amendment if he had thought it to be a practicable one; but he did not believe it was on account of the difficulty of finding the requisite number of presiding officers.
  LORD CAIRNSquestioned the right of the noble Marquess the President of the Council to assume that optional secrecy would increase the difficulty of multiplying polling-places, and as to the voter being made "unhappy" by giving him the option of voting openly or in secret, he might thank the Government, with whom "unhappy voter" had become a favourite expression. To walk four miles to a polling-place, and four

  1829
  miles back was a serious task, and the difference between doing that and walking two miles there and two miles back was so great, that the question was well worthy of their Lordships' consideration.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he should be obliged to support the Amendment, because he believed the multiplication of polling-places the only effectual remedy against personation, and necessary to the reduction of the evils against which the Bill was directed.
  On Question, That the word ("four") stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49; Not-contents, 68; Majority 19.
  Then the word ("two") inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Use of school and public room for poll).
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to omit the words, "any room in a school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament." This provision affected many persons interested in Church schools, and from the diocese of Manchester alone no fewer than 60 Petitions were presented the other night, on the ground of the interruption of the arrangements of the school and the interference with the proper work of education. That, he might observe, would be especially aggravated by the tumult and distraction of an election. He hoped the Government would withdraw the proposition.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the object of this Amendment was the same as one which he had himself placed on the Paper; but as he feared his went too far and would prevent the use of any room other than a school-room, he should be content to take the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. He could not conceive anything more out of place, or more detrimental to good order, than to allow election proceedings to be held in school-rooms. Besides, as the number of attendances at school entitled managers to receive the Parliamentary Grant, the arrangement might interfere with the money a school was entitled to receive from Government.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHunderstood the provision had been inserted at the instance of the Education Department; but he hoped they would revise the decision they had come to.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHpointed out that schools received grants of public money for the performance of specific duties, and urged that when they had discharged that obligation it was unjust to impose another upon them.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he presented three Petitions in deprecation of this clause from persons in Worcester and Birmingham practically acquainted with the subject. He believed it would be a serious impediment to education, and he hoped the Government would give way on this point.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that the clause was not the invention of the Education Department, as had been suggested, but was proposed last year by a Conservative Member in "another place." He feared that in many places there would be difficulty in finding rooms suitable for the purpose of polling—the choice would often practically lie between the school and the public-house.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that as they were now engaged in the process of reforming public-houses, which when the Licensing Bill of the Government was passed, these houses would be places where nothing that was wrong would occur, and where virtue would be enshrined. It would be a most happy arrangement that purified elections should be carried on in purified public-houses.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that although estimating highly the probable good effects of the licensing measure of the Government, he was afraid that, after it was passed, public-houses would still not be the very best places in which to hold Parliamentary elections.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, this concession would only be graceful on the part of the Government, and he hoped they would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on that question.
  On Question? Amendment agreed to; words struck out; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 agreed to.
  LORD COLCHESTER LORD COLCHESTER moved to insert, after Clause 11, the following:—
  "This Act shall not come into operation with regard to the manner of taking votes in any county or borough where by a poll taken by ballot according to the provisions in Clause 3 the majority of the electors shall decide that votes continue to be given openly as before the passing of

  1831
  this Act: and the returning officer shall cause such poll to be taken not less than one week or not more than four weeks prior to an election, at the requisition of any five registered electors."
  He trusted their Lordships would give a fair consideration to that proposal, and not be led to reject it for the sake of obtaining uniformity of system where the circumstances were the very reverse of uniform.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONopposed the Amendment. It would be very objectionable that different modes of election should prevail in various parts of the country, and he would draw attention to the difficulty which the Returning Officer would have in carrying out the latter part of the Amendment in the absence of precise information as to a forthcoming election.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdistinctly remembered that Sir Robert Collier proposed and Mr. Childers strongly supported a provision exactly like the present one. It had, therefore, found favour among orthodox Liberals.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Miscellaneous.
  Clause 12 (Prohibition of disclosure of vote).
  Clause 13 (Non-compliance with rules).
  Clause 14 (Use of municipal ballot boxes, &c. for Parliamentary Elections,) and vice versâ.
  Clause 15 (Construction of Act).
  —severally agreed, to.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that when last Session he moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground of want of time, he referred to one or two subjects which he thought would require consideration should a Bill of the same nature again come before the Legislature. One of these related to the payment of the expenses of candidates. He greatly regretted in the interest of the working classes that the proposal to throw the expenses of elections on some public fund had been rejected by the House of Commons; but unfortunately it was against privilege to handle such subjects in the House. But there were two other points which he then pointed out as worthy of special attention, upon which he was now about to ask their
  1832
  Lordships' opinion. He had placed two Amendments on the Paper, one proposing that the poll should be kept open until 8 in the evening, the other that the public-houses should be closed on the day of the poll. He urged the adoption of these provisions on this ground, among others—that they had been pressed upon him by a deputation of 40 representatives of the trades of London, and a number of delegates from Lancashire and North Yorkshire. The delegates who had waited upon him differed as to the mode in which opportunity should be given to the working classes to ballot, but they were all unanimous in asking for some special facilities. One of the arguments used by the deputation which had waited on him, was that under the present system the reckless idle fellow would not be indisposed to leave his work regardless of the inconvenience to his fellow-workmen and his master, while the honest workman who shrank from throwing the work upon his fellows would be debarred from voting; so that by closing the poll at 4 many of the best class of workmen were practically disfranchised, and that, under an extended suffrage, was a serious evil. It had been said in answer it would be dark at 8 in the winter time; but the working classes replied they were quite able to take care of themselves, and as for the roughs, they were more than a match for them. The working classes were quite ready to accept the responsibility, if only the opportunity were given to them of recording their vote. In London at municipal elections the polling was always kept open up to 8 o'clock, and he had been assured by men of many years' experience that by far the best men came towards the close of the poll. If his second Amendment, requiring the public-houses to be closed on the polling day, were accepted, there would be no possibility of mischief resulting from the proposal to keep the poll open until 8. The same deputation strongly urged that the public-houses should be closed during the polling hours, alleging that they offered great facilities for bribery when men were half drunk. The working classes were very determined in the matter, and—to use the words of the deputation to which he had referred—they asked their Lordships to grant the boon the Commons had dared to refuse, Great difference of opinion

  1833
  would arise upon the vote given with respect to the question of an optional or a compulsory Ballot, but no difference of opinion existed among the classes most concerned upon the point he now submitted. He had never seen such unanimity, and he was sure that if the Bill were passed without these provisions it would be received with the greatest possible contempt by the people, who would never relax their efforts until they had obtained that which they regarded as essential to their honour and security. The noble Earl concluded by moving the 1st clause.
  Moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following:—
  "At every contested election of a member or members to serve in Parliament for any borough or borough county in England or Wales after the passing of this Act, the polling shall commence at eight of the clock in the forenoon of the day fixed for that purpose by the returning officers, and no poll shall be kept open later than eight of the clock in the afternoon; and so much of the Act five and six William the Fourth, chapter 36, as limits the hours of polling to four of the clock in the afternoon in respect of borough elections is hereby repealed."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, the municipal elections took place at a stated time, but the example would not apply to Parliamentary elections, which might be held at any time of the year.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he regretted the course adopted by the House of Commons with regard to the first of the noble Earl's proposals, and he was ready to admit that there was great force in the argument with which he urged his present proposal. But it must be obvious to their Lordships that a general extension of the polling time until 8 o'clock would not answer. He was anxious to offer every facility to the working classes to record their votes, but nothing would be so bad as to carry on elections in the dark.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYdesired to state the reasons why he should support the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury). He fully concurred with much of what had been said by the noble Earl, but he viewed the Amendment in connection with a larger principle. It was quite true that this Bill would probably put an end to what he might call positive compulsion—that was, that no man should be able to force his dependents to the poll. But he was not
  1834
  quite sure—and this was a very important point, but one which he had not heard hitherto alluded to—whether it would put an end to negative compulsion? It would, he feared, be easy for a large employer of labour, who knew that his workmen differed in opinion from him as to such questions as to the distribution of wealth, or the tenure of land, for instance, by adjusting the hours of labour on the polling day in a particular manner, or by other means, to prevent their voting. He would give an instance which would appeal as forcibly as possible to noble Lords opposite. He would take the case of a Liberal manufacturer having in his employment 400 Conservative working men, and he was sure he could not put the case more strongly. Such a man, by preventing his workmen from voting, might seriously retard the progress of that Conservative reaction which the country was watching with such interest. It was in the hope that the Amendment might to a certain extent remedy the danger of the repression of votes that he should vote for it.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the Amendment, as worded, seemed to leave too much to the discretion of the Returning Officer. He feared such a power as this would lead at times to the suspicion that the hour of closing the poll was appointed to suit the convenience of the side to which the Returning Officer belonged. It had been stated "elsewhere," too, that polling after dark, as would often be the case under this clause in the winter months, would lead to tumult and rioting. Again, there were boroughs as large as counties, and it would not be advisable that voters should have to go a considerable distance after 8 o'clock at night. He quite agreed it was desirable that every restriction should, as far as possible, be removed which tended to prevent the working classes from recording their votes; but, although no doubt the noble Earl's proposal was aimed in that direction, he could not but see that it was attended by difficulties which rendered its adoption in its present shape inadvisable.
  The Earl of HARROWBY, Lord LIFFORD, and Lord DELAMERE offered some observations which were not audible.
  The Question being put, and some of their Lordships declaring themselves

  1835
  Content, and others Not-Content, the Chairman of Committees declared the Not-Contents have it; and whereon
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYchallenged the decision, protesting that he would take the sense of the House even if he had to walk into the lobby alone.
  The Question having been again put; their Lordships divided:—Contents 87; Not-Contents 72: Majority 15.
  Resolved in the Affirmative; Clause added to the Bill.
  LORD CAIRNS: After what has happened, it is absolutely necessary that I should ask your Lordships to report Progress. Her Majesty's Government are clearly ignorant as to the course they ought to take with regard to this Bill. Almost the only Member of the Government who has taken any part in guiding the discussion upon this Bill is the noble Marquess the President of the Council, who, upon the Amendment of the noble Earl, rose in his place and gave us to understand that the Government were opposed to the noble Earl's proposition. Although greatly impressed by the motives of the noble Earl in bringing his proposal forward, yet, feeling the weight of the arguments used by the noble Marquess, I expressed my opinion that it would be unsafe for your Lordships to accede to the Motion in its present form. I do not think there is any one of your Lordships who heard what occurred who was not under the impression that Her Majesty's Government was going to oppose the proposal of the noble Earl. When the Question was put from the Chair I heard a great number of voices on the other side of the House challenge the passing of the clause; yet every Member of Her Majesty's Government, including the President of the Council, went into the lobby with the noble Earl. My Parliamentary experience is not so long as that of many of your Lordships; but I must say that in all my experience in either House of Parliament I never knew a course to be adopted by any Government similar to that which has been adopted on the present occasion. I hope it will be distinctly understood that Her Majesty's Government, having, by their spokesman, sought to induce your Lordships not to accept the proposal of the noble Earl, nevertheless, at the last
  1836
  moment, turned round, and went into the lobby in support of the Amendment they had just opposed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the inference to be drawn from what the noble and learned Lord had just said was, that the proposal of the noble Earl would not have been carried if those who supported it had known that the Government would vote for it. Now, what was the fact? The President of the Council had expressed regret that the House of Commons had not adopted in effect, though not in exact terms, a proposal similar to that of the noble Earl. With that view, he had made a suggestion, which, however, the noble Earl thought fit to reject. The noble and learned Lord laid it down in positive terms, that it was a matter of the greatest importance that every restriction against the labouring classes recording their votes should be removed; and as he (Earl Granville) entirely agreed, he could not vote against the proposal of the noble Earl, considering it contained a principle which would be well worthy of consideration and adoption, in a modified form, when they came to consider the Bill on the Report.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that if the noble Earl was of that opinion, he thought the noble Marquess the President of the Council was not justified in the speech which he had made. So surprised was he (the Duke of Richmond) to see the Members of the Government going into the lobby with the noble Earl that he remarked to a noble Marquess near him that the Government must be voting under some mistake, because the speech made by the President of the Council was directly opposed to the arguments of the noble Earl who had made the proposal. The Motion was that the first of the noble Earl's new clauses be added to the Bill; and the noble Marquess told them that he could not support that Motion. He thought that was a position which the Government might very reasonably take, and therefore he thought that the statement of the noble Marquess represented the views of the Government. He must say that it was extremely inconvenient that on a Bill of this importance, and upon an Amendment of which due Notice had been given, the Government should not have previously taken counsel as to the course that they ought to pursue. If

  1837
  the views of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary were correct—that the proposal should be modified, and that the time ought not to be distinctly fixed at 8 o'clock—then it was for the noble Marquess to make that suggestion, and he should have said to the noble Earl—"If you will withdraw your clause and agree to the terms that I think right, then I will not oppose your proposition, but will endeavour upon the Report to bring forward a Motion that will meet the case." So far from doing that, the noble Marquess distinctly opposed the proposition of the noble Earl. He (the Duke of Richmond) repeated that that was not the way in which a Bill of this importance should be discussed upon a Motion of which Notice had been given. They had a right to hear the opinion of the Government stated; and what he complained of was that the noble Marquess had laid down the course which the Government intended to take without giving them any notice whatever that they were going to vote in the directly opposite manner to that in which they had spoken. They gave no intimation whatever that having spoken one way they would vote another.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am quite sure that nothing could be further from the intention of the noble Duke who has just sat down than to misrepresent in the slightest degree anything said either by myself or any other Member of your Lordships' House; but the noble Duke has somewhat forgotten what I said, or I failed to make clear what I intended to say on this subject. What I said was that I regretted the course which the House of Commons had taken in striking out a clause the object of which was to lengthen the hours of polling, and so afford greater facilities to the working classes in the exercise of the franchise. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) pointed out the peculiar wording of the noble Earl's clause, which provided that the poll "shall not be kept open later than 8 o'clock." That wording seemed to indicate the intention of the noble Earl to be that the poll should not always be kept open till that hour.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: The Amendment has been in print for some days, and perhaps some Member of Her Majesty's Government will state whether when they came into the House they
  1838
  meant to support the noble Earl's Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I cannot give any information as to what we thought yesterday, or at any other time. What I am concerned to do is to explain the course which Her Majesty's Government have taken. Now, I maintain that in assenting to the clause of the noble Earl, we have done what is perfectly consistent with the statement of my noble Friend behind me (the Marquess of Ripon). What he said was that he thought 8 o'clock would be too late an hour at certain times of the year; and the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) said he agreed with my noble Friend that it would at certain times of the year be convenient to keep the poll open to a later hour than at present. The clause we have passed provides that no poll shall be kept open later than 8 o'clock in the afternoon—thus leaving it optional whether the poll should remain open till that hour. I admit that the clause is imperfect and that it will require to be altered on the Report; but still I contend that voting for the clause is perfectly consistent with the view we have taken—namely, that it is desirable that at certain periods of the year the poll shall be kept open till 8 o'clock.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl speaks as if there were no power of amending any clause which has been proposed to the House. Instead of voting for that which he did not approve, the noble Earl might have moved some words to make it such as he did approve. However, I only rise to suggest that in voting against that which their principal spokesman had advocated, Her Majesty's Government were perfectly consistent with themselves, because, in reality, they were voting against that which Mr. Forster voted against in the House of Commons. I believe the right hon. Gentleman voted against having the poll open till 8 o'clock. It is obvious enough, however, that until the division was called the Government never dreamt of voting with my noble Friend; but having had an unfortunate evening, they thought they would take this opportunity of somehow getting a vote in their favour.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess who says we have had an unfortunate evening, and the noble

  1839
  Lords who support him, are evidently disappointed at not having the monopoly of spoiling the Bill. I suppose it is the opinion of the noble Marquess—though it is not ours—that the last Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has had some effect in spoiling the Bill, and if so, of course, he and those who support him will be consistent in continuing the course of action which has been going on the whole evening, and in rendering the whole Bill as unlike the measure which came from the House of Commons as can possibly be conceived. As regards the particular question on which the division was taken, it was one of detail, and my noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) wished to make such a variation in the hours of polling as would give the working men every opportunity of exercising the franchise, and our vote was perfectly in harmony with the speech of the Lord President. There is nothing in the clause to prevent us from bringing up on the Report an Amendment to the effect that a variation in the hours of polling should be made at different periods of the year, but that the polling should never be continued after 8 o'clock.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: This is such a singular instance of consistency on the part of the Government, that I think I ought to draw attention to it. I believe that Her Majesty's Government made in the other House a proposal in regard to this question of keeping open the poll, and that on the proposal being found unacceptable they acted as they did on the present occasion—they spoke one way and voted another.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: During the long time I have been in this House I have known many learned Lords who sat on the Woolsack. But all those noble and learned Lords, whatever their views may have been, have held them with dignity and firmness—with judicial firmness, and with the appearance at all events of judicial moderation. We have heard the noble and learned Lord opposite speak often in this House, and twice in the course of this evening, and I must say he never rises to address your Lordships without showing acrimony and bitterness, and imputing motives to his political opponents.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I must protest against the language used by the noble Marquess. I can only attribute what has fallen from him to the ignorance which is natural in consequence of his having been absent from the House up to a very short time ago. The notion that my noble and learned Friend is wanting either in moderation or dignity is one which I never before heard even whispered by the opponents of Her Majesty's Government. I regret extremely that an imputation should have been cast upon us of any unfairness towards the opposite side of the House; but I cannot help thinking that noble Lords opposite, accustomed as they are to exercise a despotism in this House—["Oh, oh!"]—
  LORD CAIRNS: I rise to Order. The noble Earl has already spoken.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Why, we are in Committee at this very moment, and any noble Lord can make remarks as often as he pleases. ["Oh, oh!"] I repeat that the noble Lords opposite, with the enormous power they wield in this House—["Oh, oh!"]—Am I saying anything which is not true? Noble Lords opposite are so accustomed to have their own way in matters of this sort, that they cannot conceive any course being taken except for us to vote and be beaten on every Amendment they propose. What is there unfair in what we have done? Putting all other questions aside, it comes to this—that if the noble Duke opposite had known more clearly than he seems to have done the line of voting we should take, he would have been able to exercise his influence over Members of his own party in order to prevent them from voting in the way they thought right.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: After the very pointed manner in which the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has just alluded to me, your Lordships will not think it extraordinary if I rise to make a few remarks. The noble Earl has stated that if I had known the manner in which Her Majesty's Government were going to vote, I should have exercised my influence to induce noble Lords on this side of the House to vote in a way contrary to that which they thought right. I have not had the honour of a seat in this House for so long a period as many noble Lords whom I see round me; but I have sat in this House upwards of 10 years, and I think I never

  1841
  before heard in it so personal a remark as that which has just fallen from the noble Earl. My Lords, the noble Earl stated that as we on this side of the House were the majority, I was in the habit of exercising what he is pleased to call a despotism—that is to say, that I have the power and also the inclination to direct the noble Lords whom I now see around me to vote on every occasion in the way I prescribe, and that I am the despot who rules noble Lords on this side of the House. Now, my Lords, let me point to what happened last week. I call as witness the noble Earl opposite who had charge of the Licensing Bill (the Earl of Kimberley). I want to know whether anything like despotism was exercised on this side of the House on any occasion; whether there were not occasions—certainly there was one occasion—when, if I had urged noble Lords on this side to take the course that occurred to my mind, I could not have carried Amendments which noble Lords opposite would have thought hostile and injurious to the Bill? After what happened on that occasion the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has no right to tell me that I exercise a despotism over noble Lords on this side of the House. More than that—he has no right to make personal remarks, and to impute to me motives which, if I held them, would render me unworthy to sit in this House, and to hold the position I have the honour to hold. It is an imputation that I venture to appeal to noble Lords on this side to vote contrary to their views and wishes, because, forsooth, we are anxious to be in a majority on every occasion. I regret that matter of so personal a character has been introduced by the noble Earl, and, feeling so strongly upon it, and that the noble Earl has not a tittle of foundation for the language he has used, I have taken the liberty of making these remarks.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: —I move that the Clerk at the Table do read the Order of the House relating to Asperity of speech.
  The Clerk at the Table accordingly read the 18th Order of the House, as follows:—
  "To prevent Misunderstanding, and for avoiding of offensive Speeches, when Matters are de-
  1842
  bating, either in the House or at Committees, it is for Honour Sake, thought fit, and so ordered, That all personal, sharp, or taxing Speeches be forborn, and whosoever answereth another Man's Speech shall apply his Answer to the Matter without Wrong to the Person: and as nothing offensive is to be spoken, so nothing is to be ill-taken, if the Party that speaks it shall presently make a fair Exposition, or clear Denial of the Words that might bear any ill-construction, and if any offence be given in that Kind, as the House itself will be very sensible thereof, so it will sharply censure the Offender, and give the Party offended a fit Reparation, and a full Satisfaction."
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: The Motion before your Lordships is that the Committee report Progress. I move as an Amendment that the next clause of the Bill be now read.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid, the next Question was that the second clause of which the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had given notice should be inserted in the Bill.
  Moved, after the above inserted clause, to insert the following clause:—
  ("That on any day fixed for polling at any contested election for any borough or borough county in England or Wales after the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any licensed victualler or person licensed to sell beer by retail to be drunk on the premises, or not to be drunk on the premises, or any person licensed or authorised to sell any fermented or distilled liquors in any part of England or Wales, to open or keep open his house in any borough where a polling place is situated for the sale of beer, wine, spirits, or any other fermented or distilled liquors between the hours of eight of the clock in the forenoon of such polling day and eight of the clock of the afternoon of the same day, if the polling shall so long last, except for refreshments to a bonâ fide traveller or a lodger therein.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, the only clause relating to public-houses was contained in the Ballot Bill of last year; but that contained a penalty of £20, so that the clause would require consideration in "another place" before it could be adopted.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had no difficulty in stating what course the Government would pursue. They were of opinion that the clause related to a matter which would be better dealt with by the Corrupt Practices Bill. In order not to mislead the House he might inform their Lordships that the Members of the Government were about to vote against the clause.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 43; Not-Contents 133: Majority 90.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Application of Part of Act to Scotland.
  Clause 16 (Alterations for application of Part I. to Scotland).
  LORD COLONSAY LORD COLONSAY moved to insert words in sub-section 5, providing for the increase of polling-places in certain districts of Scotland.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLopposed the Amendment. The provisions of this part of the Bill were quite inapplicable to Scotland. The sheriffs of counties had complete power satisfactorily to regulate the subject.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 32, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 33 (Short title).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, that the Act should continue in force till the end of the year 1880, said, that if the Act produced all the good results its promoters anticipated, there would be a general concurrence of opinion in favour of its renewal; and the objections of those who entertained grave doubts as to its working would in a considerable degree be modified if it were known that at the expiration of that period the Act would be impartially reviewed and its defects remedied by the aid of enlightened experience. A great deal had been said of the results of the system of secret voting in our Australian Colonies; but he denied the correctness of the analogy, for the circumstances of those colonies were very different from those of this country, and it did not follow that because the Ballot had succeeded in Australia it would therefore succeed in this country. Their Lordships ought, therefore, to pause before committing themselves to its permanent adoption. No doubt Parliament always had the power of revising in one year what it had done in a previous one; but he wished to secure that after a given time, this particular legislation should undergo reconsideration. He was anxious
  1844
  that that system, if Parliament in its wisdom adopted it, should receive a full and fair trial. He did not think that one General Election only would be sufficient to test properly the working of a measure so wholly new as the Ballot; but if, as he proposed, the Bill was continued in operation till the end of 1880, two General Elections at least must necessarily occur in the interval.
  Amendment moved, at page 19, at end of Clause 33, to insert—
  ("and shall continue in force till the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine; and on the said day the Acts in the fourth, fifth, and sixth schedules shall be thereupon revived; provided, that such revival shall not affect any act done, any rights acquired, any liability or penalty incurred, or any proceeding pending under this Act, but such proceeding shall be carried on as if this Act had continued in force.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONthought it highly undesirable to enact that a Bill of that nature and magnitude should be of temporary duration, so that Parliament in a given year would be forced to reconsider it, whether the Business of the country or the then state of public affairs might render such a course convenient or otherwise. It was competent for Parliament at the end of eight years—or in one or two years, if it thought fit—to amend that or any other Bill after it had seen how it worked, or even to repeal it altogether. But to provide that Parliament should take up again in 1880 that question which for the last two years had given rise to such lengthened discussions was a proceeding almost without precedent, and one that might impose on a future Parliament a burden which might be very inconvenient.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, there were several precedents for the Amendment, and even so recently as the Irish Land Act provisions had been inserted which fully justified the present proposal. Moreover, every provision in this Bill was of such a tentative and speculative kind that if ever there was a measure which ought to be limited in its duration in the first instance it was this one. The advocates of the Ballot thought it would have a great effect in checking bribery, intimidation, and similar matters. Other persons thought that an erroneous expectation. Nothing but experience could prove which of those opposite views was

  1845
  correct. They had been told that the state of things in regard to elections in Ireland could hardly be worse than it is. Well, time and experience could alone test that. He (Lord Cairns) was himself of opinion with many others that this Bill would turn out in practice to be a gigantic scheme of disfranchisement—that those voters who could not read and write would be disfranchised, from the great reluctance which such persons felt to come forward and confess their ignorance; while those who could only read and write imperfectly would be disfranchised from the difficulty they would experience in filling up their ballot-papers, and from the nervousness and uncertainty which would always attend their execution of the operations prescribed by the Bill. Nothing but time could show whether the Bill would be popular with the country, and if it were distinctly understood that the whole matter must of necessity be reviewed in the year 1880, people would express themselves upon its working with that in view.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 106; Not-Contents 69: Majority 37.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Rules for Parliamentary Elections.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed an Amendment in sub-section 26, which provides that "the declaration of inability to read" shall be made "before a justice of the peace," and on the production of that declaration have their voting papers filled up by the presiding officer, a provision giving the presiding officer that power on the declaration being made in the first instance before himself. He did not believe it possible that the voters who desired to vote under this provision would be able to find the necessary time to visit the magistrate, even if they knew where to find him. In all probability, too, the demands made upon the magistrate would be beyond his ability to perform, and as working men could only devote certain portions of the day to such work, the magistrate might be called upon just as he was handing a lady down to dinner to attend
  1846
  to these declarations. He proposed the Amendment, because he believed that the proposal contained in the Bill would practically disfranchise a large number of working voters.
  Amendment moved, page 24, lines 25 and 26, to leave out ("produces such declaration as hereinafter mentioned,") and insert ("declares.")—(The Duke of Richmond).
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONopposed the Amendment. He did not believe that any very large number of voters would find it necessary to avail themselves of the provision, nor could he see that it inflicted any hardship upon those who would vote under it.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the object of the Amendment was to enable as many voters as possible to exercise the franchise. On the other hand, according to the noble Marquess, the Government were so enamoured of the principle of secret voting that in order to carry it they would willing run the risk of disfranchising any number of voters, who, if they voted at all, could only vote openly. The declaration was not a declaration of inability to spell, but of inability to read, and he desired to know why the working voter who could not read should be placed in a worse position than a Jew, for whom the presiding officer might fill up a paper on a declaration being made before him that the voter was a Jew and had conscientious objections against writing on a Saturday. The poor elector, moreover, had to make this declaration before a magistrate between the day of nomination and the day of polling. How was that to be done? He was told that at the last election at Manchester 77,857 persons recorded their votes, and he did not believe he was exceeding the fair proportion if he estimated the voters out of that number who could not read at 10,000. He should be glad to know how it could be expected that these 10,000 voters should be able between the day of nomination and the day of polling to find time to go before magistrates for this purpose, or find magistrates sufficiently numerous and disengaged to attend to these declarations. The Bill, too, made no provision for the distributing of these declarations, and did not state where they were to be obtained.

  1847
  In fact, everything was to be done by magic. An honest man could have no object in making a false declaration; but the Government, rather than run the risk of destroying the symmetry of the scheme of secret voting, preferred to make the disfranchisement of a large number of voters certain.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYbelieved that if even 10,000 voters out of the number referred to by the noble and learned Lord opposite were unable to read, it would be too much to assume that they must necessarily avail themselves of this clause; for, as the list of candidates would be numbered, it would be no difficult matter for a voter who could not read to place his cross opposite to the number of the candidate for whom he desired to vote. No doubt, the question was one of considerable difficulty. He thought the best course would be to maintain the clause in its present form, because, if voters were put to some little trouble in order to make their declarations, the probability of the responsibility being shirked and the declarations being lightly or fradulently used would be diminished.
  THE EARL OF POWISreferred to the fact that in a previous clause it had been decided that voters should not be required to go more than two miles to poll. Now, if the present clause was adopted the "illiterate voters" might, in thinly-populated districts, have to go five or 10 miles in order to find a magistrate to take their declaration.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 59; Not-Contents 91: Majority 32.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Words struck out.
  Then the word ("declares") inserted.
  Further Amendments made.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, he had placed Amendments on the Paper to exclude agents from the polling-places to secure greater secrecy, but as the Bill had been amended in a contrary direction he would not press them.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Forms.)
  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of Registration Acts referred to in Part III. of the foregoing Act.)
  FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Acts relating to England.)
  FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Acts relating to Scotland.)
  SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Acts relating to Ireland.)
  Severally agreed to.
  The Report to be received on Friday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 157.)
  House adjourned at half past Twelve o'clock, A. M., till half past Ten o'clock.