Thursday, May 18, 1848.

MINUTES.] NEW WRIT. For Cirencester, v. William Cripps, Esq., deceased.

PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Tohago Relief and Immigration into British Guiana and Trinidad.

2° Borough Elections (No. 2); Incumbered Estates (Ireland).

PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Hodgson, from Carlisle, against the Borough Elections (No. 2) Bill.—By Mr. Cowan, from Members of the Free Synod of Angus and Mearns, respecting Quoad Sacra Churches (Scotland). By Mr. Cobden, from the Wesleyan Methodists of Penistone, West Riding of York, and by other Hon. Members, from a great Number of Places, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Anderson, from the Presbyterian Congregation in Stromness, and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, in Favour of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Alexander Hope, from Maidstone, for Repeal of the Duty on Attosneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Cowan, from the Magistrates and Council of Edinburgh, for Inquiry into the Excise Laws.—By Mr. Moody, from the Parish of Martock (Somerset), in Favour of the Agricultural Tenant Right Bill.—By Mr. Hume, from several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Sir Willoughby Jones, from Cheltenham, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Sir.J. Y. Buller, from several Clegymen of the Deanery of Ippleden, Diocese of Exeter, for Alteration of the Law of Education.—By Captain M'Clintock Bunbury, from Carlingford (Louth), and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Viscount Morpeth, from Louth, for Sanitary Regulations.—By Mr. Grogan, from Copying Clerks of the Rolls Office of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, for Compensation in reference to the Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Eliott Lockhart, from Commissioners of Supply of the County of Lanark, against the Lunatic Asylums (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. William Fagan, from Cork, for Regulation of the Medical Charities (Ireland).—By Viscount Bernard, from Landholders, and Others, of the County of Cork, against the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Collins, from Warwick, for Alteration of the Public Health Bill.—By Captain Fordyce, from Aberdeen, respecting the Suggested Loans for Railways (Scotland).—By Colonel Lindsay, from Wigan (Lancaster), in Favour of the Remedies against the Hundred Bill.—By Colonel Rolleston, from the Parish of Arnold (Nottingham), for Alteration of the Law of Settlement.

On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair to go into Committee on the Public Health Bill,

COLONEL SIBTHORP said, that he had already announced his intention to oppose the present Bill in every stage of its progress. His antipathy to the measure was not in the least abated. How was it possible that Members could come to a right and proper discussion on a Bill containing 150 clauses, when a copy of it had only been delivered to hon. Gentlemen that morning? He would object to the measure on the ground of undue haste; he would object to it on the ground of its centralising character; and be would object to it because he believed that it was a rank Government job. He was one of those independent Members of that House who did not wear a Government livery, and he was not afraid to speak out. The measure would entail a most heavy expenditure on the country, which was wholly unnecessary. The Government

had not stated what was to be the amount of the salaries to the officers whom they proposed to appoint under the provisions of this measure. Now this was a species of information which they ought to have placed before them. He had no doubt that some snug berths would be given to the friends and protegés of the Government. He believed that a Mr. Chadwick was to be appointed to the head of the Commission. Of the conduct of that gentleman he did not approve when he was connected with the Poor Law Commission. But he had heard that he was to be appointed: why not inform the House what was to be the amount of salary he was to receive? He was resolved to oppose every clause of the Bill, and to take the sense of the House upon it. He might be told that this would be giving a factious opposition; but he did not care so long as he considered that he fulfilled his duty. He hated commissions, he hated jobs, and he suspected all Governments. If such a Bill was necessary, why was it not brought forward years ago? Or if it was necessary for one portion of the kingdom, was it not equally so for London and Westminster? It appeared to him that there was an evident disinclination to include either of those cities, and it was their duty to make the first reformation there where it was most wanted. He would move that the House go into Committee upon the Bill that day six months.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL recommended the House to go into Committee at once. It was quite impossible to have any useful discussion upon amendments or alterations unless they were in Committee.

MR. MACKINNON said, the hon. Member for Exeter had said that the noble Lord had adopted the Bill of Mr. Chadwick. Now that was not a fair remark. Mr. Chadwick had been called upon about four years ago, by the Home Secretary of the late Government to make a report upon the health of towns. He produced, accordingly, a very able report upon the sanitary condition of the metropolis, and upon the subject of interment in towns. Mr. Chadwick, therefore, had been brought forward by the late Government; and when the present Government came into office, to whom could they more reasonably go than to Mr. Chadwick? The noble Lord had, throughout the entire discussion, showed the most perfect willingness to adopt suggestions from any one when they were reasonable in their character. He had adopted some suggestions from Mr. Chadwick, in the same manner as he had done those of Mr. Henley. He trusted that they would immediately go into Committee, and that the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln would withdraw his Motion.

MR. DIVETT said, that as the hon. Member for Lymington had charged him with stating very exaggerated facts relative to Mr. Edwin Chadwick, it was necessary for him to restate what he had said, and the grounds on which he had said it. What he had stated was, that the greatest exaggerations had been got up, through the means of Mr. Chadwick, with reference to the Bill, and that the Government were trying, by means of these exaggerations, to obtain powers, with reference to towns, which they ought to exercise with the utmost rigour in respect of the metropolis itself. The hon. Member read a letter from Exeter, giving an account of Mr. Chadwick's exaggerations, stating that the local commissioners had laid out upwards of 100,000 l. on that city; that no town in the kingdom was better drained or ventilated; that a considerable decrease of sickness and deaths had lately taken place; and that, indeed, a season was never remembered in which there had been less disease. It was, in fact (continued the hon. Gentleman), impossible to exaggerate the pains which had been taken to get up a case for interference with the country towns.

MR. URQUHART did not think that Government were economising their time by pressing on this Bill. The measure was concocted in perfect ignorance of the laws with respect to the local administration of England; and the effect would be to give greater power than was apparent to the central board, while all power of appeal from the local boards to magistrates, petty sessions, &c., would be taken away. In looking over and comparing the measure with the Municipal Corporation Bill, he found many defects and omissions. There was no definition in the Bill of inhabitant householder, and no provision for the retirement, in rotation, of the members of the local boards. Again, no provision was made for voting. All such arrangements were left to the board. The expenses of elections of auditors were to be allowed or disallowed by the central board, as they thought proper; while there were no provisions for the appointment of a treasurer by the ratepayers; no power in the hands of the ratepayers for the removal of officers; no right of public meet- ing, or means of protesting against the proceedings of the board; no provision for the continuation of trustees under existing Acts; and no provision for the audit or publishing of accounts. The question was one of centralisation. He was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln had proposed to postpone going into Committee on the Bill to so long a date as that day six months; but were he to alter his proposition of postponement to a delay until this day next month, he (Mr. Urquhart) would cheerfully support it, in order that the Government might have time further to consider the matter. It was said that they who opposed the Bill were frittering away useful time, and sacrificing the health of millions, while they were—to use the word of the noble Lord—"wrangling" here. But the really philanthropic men were those who wished a public health Bill to be passed at once; not a clumsy, encumbered, and almost unintelligible Bill, but a simple and facile one, of universal and instantaneous application—one which should on the one hand grant the municipal bodies those sanitary powers which they needed; and which should on the other hand introduce, and if requisite enforce, laws subjecting those bodies to penalties in the case of their neglecting to put in operation for the improvement of their several districts the powers with which they were invested. He opposed this Bill in the discharge of a solemn duty, commissioned as he was by the whole of his constituency to present every obstacle to its progress. The noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) had stated on a former occasion that he had received a petition in favour of sanitary measures, signed by all the clergy and medical men of Stafford; but he believed that a deputation had waited upon the noble Lord, and had explained what the facts really were. The fact was that there was not a medical man in the town of Stafford who had not either petitioned against this Bill, or signed the requisition for the meeting at which such a petition was adopted; but a petition had been got up in favour of the measure by an apothecary, who was surgeon to an hospital, and who, he had no doubt, expected to be appointed to one of the offices to be created by the Bill. He opposed this Bill as an insult to the corporations of England; and he entreated the noble Lord to leave the regulation of sanitary measures throughout the country in the hands of the local boards.

The House divided on the question, that the word proposed to be left out stand part of the question: — Ayes 219: No 1; Majority 218.

House in Committee.

On Clause 1, describing the extent of the Bill, and excluding London and Westminster from its operation,

MR. CARDWELL suggested to the Government that the great town which he had the honour to represent (Liverpool), possessing, as it did, several local Acts for drainage, sewerage, and water-works, should be treated like London, and exempted from the provisions of the Bill, until a special inquiry had been made into the state of the town, and into the way in which the present sanitary regulations were conducted.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Bill would not be applied without inquiry, or without some direct application of the inhabitants wherever any local Acts existed for sanitary regulations. As to Liverpool, there was no analogy between the circumstances which affected it and those of London and Westminster, because the very complicated arrangements existing in the latter had no parallel in the few local Acts which had been passed for Liverpool. An inquiry into the state of affairs in London was now on foot, and there was a Bill in contemplation applicable to parts of the jurisdiction of London.

COLONEL SIBTHORP said, it was plain enough why London was omitted from the operation of this Bill. The noble Lord at the head of the Government represented it, and he must go along, "jig-jogging," just as his constituents pleased, or there would be a quarrel between them. The city might be full of disease, and deaths might occur every day in consequence of the want of sanitary regulations; but nothing could be done to remedy it till the Commission made their report, and that would only be when the noble Lord wished it. He did not at all regret having divided the House: he had the satisfaction at least of having one honest man with him. But he could tell those hon. Gentlemen who were adverse to the Bill—and many of them were so—he had heard them since he came into the House expressing their dissatisfaction at it—that it would be too late to lock the stable when the steed was stolen—that they should have opposed it at once—and that not having been bold enough to do so, they must settle the matter with their constituents. It was useless to apply to the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) for any alteration in the Bill. He had every confidence in the good intentions of the noble head of the Woods and Forests; but he would not be allowed to stir an inch unless he received the permission of the tutor on his right (Lord John Russell).

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 3 (for the constitution of a "General Board of Health," consisting of the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and of such two other persons as Her Majesty might appoint),

The EARL of LINCOLN said, he had given notice of his intention to move an alteration in this clause. He was not prepared, however, to move it at present, because the Bill was in a totally different position in consequence of the alterations which had been made in it. It was absolutely necessary that some central body should be appointed to carry out the enactments of the Bill, the Government having adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) on a former occasion, and having assimilated the machinery of the Bill to that of the Inclosure Act. The question with respect to the nature of this central body, whether it would be necessary to appoint a new board, or to extend to the operations of this Act the superintendence of some body at present existing, was obviously for the consideration of the House. At present they were not ripe for the consideration of the question, and it appeared to him he would best consult the convenience of the Committee by postponing his Amendment until the report had been presented to the Mouse. He begged to ask the noble Lord, therefore, if it was intended to have three unpaid Commissioners?

MR. NEWDEGATE could not but regret that the Government, in acceding to the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Henley), with respect to the adoption of the machinery of the Inclosure Act, had omitted that clause which was most essential and important—namely, that which made the Commissioners a temporary and not a permanent body. If Government wished to free themselves from the imputation of desiring to extend their patronage, and of putting a finger into everything, let then leave the affairs of each locality to be managed by the inhabitants, and withdraw those Commissioners as soon as they had set the Bill in working order.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, it was the intention of Government to leave the clause in its present state. With respect to the postponement of the noble Lord's Amendment, he certainly believed it was the best course that could be adopted under the circumstances of the case.

R. HUME declared his conviction that the Bill would be useless unless a paid Commissioner were appointed to carry out its provisions. The Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests had quite enough to do already, without managing the affairs of the board. He would propose to appoint a paid Commissioner, with powers equal to those of the other Members of the board, for the others would soon relax in their attention to their duties.

MR. MILES supported the proposition for a paid Commissioner, on the principle that the working of the Bill should be assimilated to that of the In-closure Act.

MR. URQUHART said, he felt it his duty, under all the circumstances, to move that the clause to establish a permanent board be postponed.

MR. HUDSON was of opinion that the board should not be permanent nor central, but that the execution of the provisions of the Act should be left to the local bodies.

VISCOUNT MORPETH said, there would be greater inconvenience in acceding to the proposition than in not complying with it.

The Committee divided on the question that the clause be postponed:—Ayes 45; Noes 145: Majority 100.

CAPTAIN HARRIS moved the omission of the words beginning "together with four other persons," down to "general Board of Health," both inclusive, his object being to place the Board of Health under the exclusive superintendence of the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, instead of combining with him "four such other persons as Her Majesty by warrant under Her sign-manual should be pleased to appoint," as proposed by the clause.

VISCOUNT MORPETH could not assent to the proposed Amendment; for although he should, of course, do all in his power to cary into effect the wishes of the Legislature if it should be pleased to impose on him the exclusive burden of superintending the board, still the multiplicity of functions with which the First Commissioner was at present charged would render it impossible for him to pretend to take on himself fully, duly, and without the assistance of some person regularly attached to the board, to fulfil the duties which would be thus thrown upon him.

MR. NEWDEGATE was still of opinion that the centralising character of the Bill was injurious. By bringing local grievances into one focus, the Government would be falling into the error of a neighbouring country, which, in consequence of having for years centralised everything, ended by centralising discontent.

MR. P. HOWARD would remind the hon. Gentleman, that, by one of the clauses, it was necessary that the operations of the Act should originate with the local authorities, and upwards of one-tenth of the inhabitants. That, however, would be a matter for subsequent consideration. If the operation of the Bill were limited to five years, like the Tithe Act, the Enclosure Act, and the Poor Law Act, little injury could result from cntralisation. In case of the sudden appearance of cholera, or any violent disease, how important was it that some centralising power should exist, if it were only for the purpose of diffusing information, and preventing undue excitement and alarm!

Motion withdrawn.

VISCOUNT MORPETH observed, that the Government were really anxious to collect the sense of the House on the clause, and, as far as was consistent with duty, to act upon it. He admitted that much feel- ing had been expressed against a wholly unpaid board; but he trusted that the Committee would permit the clause to be proceeded with which affirmed the proposition that a Commission should be appointed. They could then proceed to determine what powers ought to be entrusted to the local boards.

MR. URQUHART was of opinion that the Committee ought not to proceed to consider the subsequent provisions of the Bill until they had first determined on the formation of the central board.

MR. HUME said, he should be satisfied to have one paid Commissioner, the head of the Woods and Forests being responsible in that House. The Government must bring in a Bill for the metropolis; it was impossible to do without one. He should like every community to carry on their own improvements; but when they neglected their duty, there should be a central board to point out to them what was necessary to be done.

After some conversation,

LORD J. RUSSELL said, it appeared to him to be the sense of the Committee that one of the Commissioners should be paid. It struck him, however, that there should be the appointing a Commissioner, who, holding office in the Government, and having a seat in the House of Lords, would be able to state the views of the Commission. It would not be right, he thought, that the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and the member of the Commission in the House of Lords, should be merely mouthpieces, or that everything should depend on one paid Commissioner. The other Commissioners must know perfectly well what was going on; and if they could not enter into details, they would not be able to defend or explain the decisions of the Commission. With this explanation, seeing the sense of the Committee, he would suggest that the present clause should stand as it did, with the understanding that when the Committee came to the 6th Clause words should be inserted under which one of the Commissioners would be paid.

COLONEL SIBTHORP said, that as it was then past nine o'clock, and as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had given an assurance that at that hour the Borough Elections Bill should be brought forward, he should move that the Chairman do report progress.

VISCOUNT MORPETH said, that after the opinion of the House had been so au- dibly expressed, after this clause had been under consideration for three hours, and after his noble Friend's announcement of his willingness to comply with the general feeling of the House, he trusted the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln would evince a wish to accommodate by not opposing the passing of this one clause, after which the Chairman might immediately report progress.

COLONEL SIBTHORP said, he placed himself in the hands of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), relying entirely on his adherence to his promise.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, that if the hon. and gallant Member required that the Chairman should report progress he felt bound to consent.

COLONEL SIBTHORP: I do require it.

The House resumed.

Committee to sit again.

SIR J. HANMER rose to move the Second Reading of the Borough Elections Bill (No. 2). He had been impelled by a sense of duty to bring forward this measure, in consequence of the several cases that had recently come before the House of corrupt practices in connexion with borough elections. To some of those cases he had called the attention of the House, as they had arisen. He alluded to the cases of Horsham, Harwich, Derby, and others. It was in consequence of a pledge he had given in reference to the case of Derby that he had brought forward this measure. It was not a wholly new measure, as far as its principle was concerned. He had framed it on such precedents as the records of Parliament afforded. The precedent he had chiefly followed was the course taken by Parliament in the case of Sudbury, in which, however, he had made some alterations strictly analogous to the object. This was a Bill for inquiry. Parliament would not part with any portion of its discretion; the measure was merely one which authorised inquiry when seats were declared vacant through corruption. It was drawn up in accordance with the experience of the House on these matters; and there was therefore little necessity for speaking at any great length upon its provisions. But he had been asked why it was that he stirred in this affair; why it was that he, who had always disliked, and he hoped should ever continue to dislike organic changes, should have undertaken the proposal of such a measure as this? As far as he was concerned, he had no intention to forward such changes; for he thought it was just and right to rest upon great settlements. He believed that it was to a disposition on the part of the people of this country not to disturb great and memorable settlements, that we owed no small portion of our security and prosperity. He had been asked why it was that he, entertaining such opinions, should have at such a time as the present called the attention of the House to imperfections which some said were inevitable and appeared to be inherent in human nature? He begged leave to say that, in 1842, when the noble Lord brought forward that most efficient and excellent Bill, of which he considered this to be absolutely and entirely the supplement (for it conflicted with it in no way whatever), Parliament did not say that the proposal of such a measure was contrary to the understanding entered into at the great settlement when the Reform Bill was passed—Parliament did not then say that the proposal of a measure the better to prevent bribery and corruption at elections, was contrary to the spirit of their previous legislation on Parliamentary Reform. And there was nothing peculiar in circumstances at home, whatever might be the condition of affairs in other parts of the world, to prevent them from considering that it was just and wise to legislate upon the subject. He did not think that Parliament could wisely delay the consideration of this matter. In the preamble of the Bill brought in by the noble Lord in 1842, it was asserted that bribery and corrupt practices at elections had become notorious. Now that was immediately after a contested election of a very peculiar character. There had just been a great party contest, perhaps the most serious that had ever been engaged in by any Member of that House. Upon that occasion two questions were involved, viz., "who shall be Minister?" and "what shall be the policy of the country?" Everything that could stimulate the ambition of men aspiring to legislate for their country was involved in that contest. But at the election which took place in 1847 there were no such stimulating circumstances, there was no such party contest. Indeed, there was no such party contest at all, for parties had disappeared. The country was in a calm and reasonable mood. If there was any party spirit whatever, it rather related to what might be the germ of future combinations than to what was then dis- tinctly formed. One would have supposed that, under such circumstances, there would have been little corruption, especially after the passing of the Bill of 1842, as it had attracted considerable attention. He happened to represent a very widely-scattered constituency, and as he had to employ agents (the locality which he represented extending over fifty miles), he went to the office for the sale of Parliamentary papers, and purchased the last six copies of that Act, and forwarded them to his agents with an intimation that it contained the whole of the instructions with respect to any future Parliamentary election. If hon. Members went into the library of the House and opened any of the Statute-books of 1842, they would find them open at the very place in which that Act was printed; at least, every time he had taken them in his hand, he found that to be the case. It would therefore be seen that that Act did not pass without attracting a great deal of attention in the House, and throughout the country; and one might have supposed that bribery would not thereafter be notorious; that, in fact, a great reformation would be the result. But he was sorry to say, that no knowledge that he possessed would warrant him in coming to that conclusion. He thought, then, that a great necessity existed for taking effective steps to remedy the present corruption. To remedy that, he did not come forward and say, "You must have an extension of the suffrage;" he did not come forward and say, "Unless you make certain constitutional changes, you will never get rid of corruption;" but he did come forward and dwell upon that which was undoubtedly his opinion, that without altering the franchise at all, they might make very considerable reform. Without dwelling upon that, or upon any steps which Parliament might think proper to take, he called upon them to establish, by dint of this Bill, founded upon precedent, a clear and satisfactory mode of progressive improvement. He asked them to inquire, when a just occasion might arise, into the state of Parliamentary constituencies. He asked them not to commit the great practical absurdity of placing the greatest trust which citizens could possess, without the smallest inquiry, in the hands of persons with respect to whom they had had clear proof laid before them that they had made a very bad exercise of it. He asked them to do that which was practised for many ages in this country before the revolution; for it was for a long time the practice of the Crown, and not the Parliament, to inquire into the state of boroughs and their conduct at elections. Some Gentlemen, perhaps, would say, "After all, public opinion has become clearer, more enlightened, and sounder upon this subject: and you may safely trust Parliamentary elections to the influence of that sound public opinion; you will be able to put down corruption without any further legislation." He entertained, and upon good grounds, a directly contrary opinion. He was quite certain, that unless they administered to "the enlightened and respectable inhabitants," of whom some people talked, the stimulus of a new law, and reminded them, by some regular enactment, of the duties which they had to perform, they would not be able to drive away corruption from Parliamentary elections. The people must be assured that there was no possibility of their escaping from certain punishment for corrupt practices, else their corruption would continue in full force. He did not deny that there was in these times a sound and enlightened public opinion. He admitted that there were a great many inhabitants in boroughs who did honestly and sincerely give their votes upon one side or the other, as they thought proper, and according to their views of public duty, and their confidence in public men. But then they would shrug their shoulders and say, "We cannot help ourselves, there is a certain class of voters of whom we cannot get rid; they are ready at any time to turn the election; and their demands must be complied with." Some candidates might, no doubt, be able to escape the net of corruption; but, with regard to the great majority of constituencies, he might assert generally that it was impossible to escape from it. Why, let them only consider the case of Mr. Strutt, of Derby. Did any man suppose that if such a Bill as this had passed before the last election in 1847, the friends of Mr. Strutt would have been compelled to commit the indiscretion which had forfeited his seat? He did not wish to bring before the House the evidence adduced in any particular case; the proper time to do so would be when the Bill had been allowed to go into Committee. But he could not help cursorily noticing a return made for Lincoln. A gentleman who, by dint of great energy and industry, had raised himself to a position which justified his aspiring to represent the city in which he dwelt, was re- turned to the present Parliament as a colleague of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, the Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp). He appeared to him to be a Gentleman in every way qualified to fulfil the important duties which that position devolved upon him. But it appeared upon examination before the Committee appointed to inquire into the validity of his return, that he (Mr. Seeley) was guilty of bribery. His partner in trade was examined, and he frankly stated to the Committee that it was impossible to have been returned otherwise than by bribery and treating; that such was the whole system of election at Lincoln. There was another case, that of Bewdley, which also exhibited in clear colours the present system of bribery and corruption. It appeared that, at the last two elections, bribery and treating were carried on to an enormous extent; bills for thousands and thousands of gallons of ale, at every public-house in the borough, were laid before the Committee. Every public-house was opened; voters were forcibly carried away; and rioting was carried on to a serious extent. The various candidates appeared to have made arrangements previous to the election as to the disposal of armies of navigators, to render them aid in "carrying the day." He could not then imagine how any Member in that House could think of opposing further legislation upon this subject. He was sure it was the interest of every one in that House to pass a measure having a tendency to put down such disgraceful scenes as those to which he had slightly referred. He could safely state that he could produce evidence for the purpose of proving that the return of many of the most honoured names in that House would not have been worth four days' purchase, if inquiry had been made into the conduct at their elections; their compulsory vicarious compliance with the prevailing system of corruption must at once have ejected them from the House had their returns been opposed. It was the personal interest, then, of every man, be his political opinions what they might, to join in putting an end to the present state of things. He would not detain the house further. He asked the House to affirm the principle of this Bill, which rested entirely upon precedent, and which he had brought forward not on any private grounds, but merely from a sense of public duty. Should the House consent to the second reading of the Bill, he should be very happy, in Committee, to give the most careful and respectful attention to any suggestion that might be made for its improvement by any hon. Member.

COLONEL SIBTHORP opposed the Motion. Lincoln cathedral had been attacked in that House the other night, and Lincoln city was to be attacked that night. But one humble representative of that city stood before the House and the country, fearless of whatever charges might be made against him as the representative of the city, and equally fearless of any charge that might be made against that Church. The hon. Member who brought forward this Bill was formerly Member for Hull. Why the hon. Member was so no longer he would not say. The hon. Gentleman had, however, addressed the Hull constituency as a Conservative candidate, promising to protect their vested interests, and never to be backward in giving an explanation of his Parliamentary conduct. The hon. Member never went there again. The hon. Member had also represented Shrewsbury. He had not gone there again, perhaps for the very same cause. He was now the representative of the Flint boroughs; and it was to be hoped that the result would be as satisfactory to his constituents as to the hon. Gentleman himself. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had given way to the hon. Member; why, he (Colonel Sibthorp) knew not, unless it was that the noble Lord's own election proceedings had raised a fellow feeling on his part. The noble Lord had, during his Parliamentary career, represented Tavistock four times, Devonshire, Huntingdonshire, Bandon Bridge and Stroud once each, and the city of London twice, and as it was said, similes similibus gaudent. This similarity perhaps influenced the noble Lord in giving way on this occasion. ["Question!"] The hon. Gentleman who called "Question," was in a similar position himself, and the subject was therefore disagreeable to him. But for his own part he could say—

"Let the galled jade wince, My withers are unwrung."

Under this Bill it was intended to appoint Commissioners, who were, no doubt, as usual, to be paid, and paid very extravagantly; and, as he was reminded by an hon. Friend near him, they were to get travelling expenses in addition. A man who left his business to vote could not get sixpence for expenses without being accused of bribery; while these Commis-

sioners would have their five guineas a day and expenses. They would, no doubt, be appointed at the recommendation of the hon. Member himself. As far as he was concerned, he did not care how soon one of these Commissioners went to any of the respectable firms who held his books, and who acted as his agents, or to any of the labouring men in his neighbourhood; they would find that he never bribed, and never would bribe. He might perhaps receive a visit from one of these gentlemen at his own house; but if he did, he hoped that he would act as any man of British spirit would act, and kick him out. He was never guilty of bribery, but he paid the legal expenses of his elections, and he hoped that the hon. Member could say the same. He wished to know why the Government had not themselves brought forward a measure for checking bribery. He believed, however, that they had come to an understanding with the hon. Member. When a man changed from one side to the other — when a professed Conservative, aye, and a member of the Conservative Club, left his party without any justifiable cause, as far as he Colonel Sibthorp) could see—he could not help suspecting such a man of being not very settled in his opinions and views. He wanted to know what was the necessity for this proposed inquiry? What were the expectations of the hon. Member in bringing forward this measure? He would not say that the hon. Baronet expected a commissionership for himself; bnt did he not expect one for some relative, or friend, or supporter? As he thought it best to take the most direct mode of opposing the progress of so objectionable a measure, he should beg to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, believing as he did, that it was an absurd, ridiculous, and inquisitorial measure, and one that ought never to be allowed to pass through any House of Commons.

MR. R. C. HILDYARD said, he should not have trespassed upon the House if he had not heard the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hanmer) say that he had based this Bill upon a principle recognised by that House. But he thought that the House in these cases did not act without having a special report from the Committee; and he found that, in the case of Sudbury, the Committee had reported that gross and systematic bribery had existed there, and recommended that a Bill should be brought in for the disfranchisement of the borough, and that in the meantime no writ should be issued. That report had been approved by the House; and consequently Sudbury had been, in his opinion, most properly disfranchised. But what had the hon. Member (Sir J. Hanmer) proposed? In the first place, he dealt with five or six boroughs—[An Hon. MEMBER: Nine]—the number was of no importance—not one of which had been recommended by the Committee to be disfranchised. That was a broad distinction between the practice of the House and the principle involved in the Bill of the hon. Member; and there was, moreover, a clause in the Bill which gave it a prospective operation, as to all boroughs in which a Committee should report that corrupt practices existed, whether that report contained a recommendation of disfranchisement or not. If a Committee reported that there was reason to believe that systematic corruption existed in a borough, such a special report would justify the House in investigating the subject, and in punishing those who had been guilty of the practices; and if any corrupt practices were brought home to the sitting Member, that was a ground for vacating his seat. Upon this ground he had voted that the freemen of Yarmouth should be disfranchised; and, on the same principle, the other night he had voted with the minority on the question of the issue of a writ for the borough of Horsham. There was a broad distinction between these cases and the principle which the hon. Member had adopted in his Bill. First, the Committee investigated the charges of corrupt practices brought before it, and decided whether, as in the case of Sudbury, the evidence justified a special report; and, on the other hand, if the evidence was not sufficient, the Legislature might empower Commissioners to investigate the matter themselves. The practical result of this Bill would be, that in every instance where there was a report made to the House that a seat was vacated on account of corrupt practices, the House, deciding judicially, would be bound by the report of a Commissioner sent down to investigate the case; the House delegating to a hired Commissioner the important duty of saying whether or no every borough in the kingdom was to be deprived of the highest right a borough could enjoy. His (Mr. Hildyard's) own conviction was, that there was something more than a detestation of the offence of bribery mixed up with the sympathy exhibited in the House for this Bill. There was a body of Gentlemen maintaining that the small boroughs ought not to have the right of electing Members; and those Gentlemen knew the difficulty of accomplishing their object — they remembered the solemn pledge of the noble Lord, that the Reform Bill was to be a final measure, and they wished to pass a Bill which might one day be abused, for he had known times when political power was most grossly abused, and such times might come again. He thought it would be much better that they should see the laws already possessed carried into execution, instead of being constantly engaged in making new ones. He believed the effect of such a measure as this would be to relieve the Committees of this House, which were at present working well, from the responsibility that now pressed upon them; and that they would be transferring their authority from their own tribunal to a paid Commission, who were to rove from one place to another. These, however, were details; but he opposed the Bill on the principle that the Election Committees were bound, if they saw ground to believe that corruption existed in any given place, to pursue the inquiry to its full extent, and report upon it to the House.

MR. HUDSON objected to the Bill, on the grounds which his hon. and learned Friend had stated. He remembered an inquiry such as this Bill proposed, which took place in a borough with which he was connected. In that case the inquiry lasted seven weeks: the Government paid the expenses on both sides; and after costing the country some 6,000 l. or 7,000 l., a large blue book was produced, but no other result whatever. The hon. Baronet only proposed that the expense of the prosecution should be paid by the Crown; but he was at a loss to understand why the expenses of the defence, falling, as it otherwise would do, for the most part, upon very poor persons, should not be equally defrayed by the Crown. And, after all, was the House itself so pure that it could go honourably into the present inquiry? He knew that various appliances were used towards hon. Members, in order to support the Government, which he considered to be as much acts of corruption as the electors receiving bribes from candidates. When he had the honour of a seat on the other side of the House, he knew that various little appointments were put in his way; but since he sat on this

side of the House none had been offered him. If this Bill were, therefore, to pass, he hoped the Government would give an assurance that, henceforth their patronage would be dispensed without reference to party. Besides, the hon. Member for Montrose had a Bill on the Notice-book that was intended to remedy these defects; and he thought it would be better to suspend this measure till they saw the fate of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. He opposed the measure because he thought it would lead to expense without any practical result; and if it should pass a second reading, he gave notice that he would move in Committee that the expense of the defendants should be paid, as well as the expenses of the prosecutors.

MR. HUME said, if the House gave him fair reason to hope that his Bill would be carried, he should not press the present one, for he was satisfied that his measure would put an end to a large portion of the corruption that now existed. But that was not the question before the House, but rather whether the House would enforce its own standing orders and the laws that had been passed against bribery; and he thought it was unfair to attack the Government for supporting this Bill, because in doing so they only supported the character and dignity of the House.

MR. JOHN STUART called upon the Government to explain why they had abandoned the Horsham Bill, amidst loud and impatient cries of "Divide!" The hon. Gentleman, finding it impossible to proceed, moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. DISRAELI could not exactly agree with the noble Lord. There were explanations to be given before the Bill could be passed, which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Hanmer) seemed to imagine might be passed over; but he could not forget that a Bill had been brought forward with regard to the borough of Horsham, if not by the Prime Minister, at least with his sanction, and that it had been subsequently withdrawn. Surely the House had a right to expect that some explanation would be given why that Bill had been abandoned—why that Bill, occasioned, it was said, by circumstances of a very extraordinary nature, and brought forward by an authority of great consequence, should suddenly, and in a manner so mysterious, be absorbed in the project of law of a Gentleman who had described himself as a "private Member of Parliament," though he (Mr. Disraeli)

was at a loss clearly to understand what that character meant. But when Her Majesty's Ministers did not condescend to enter into the slightest particulars of explanation—and when, upon the first occasion that a single critical observation was offered from a Gentleman so eminently qualified to give his opinion upon such a subject, he was met by the most crude and unmeaning clamour—he had a right to say it was not unreasonable to move the adjournment of the debate. The Bill of the hon. Baronet, if not of a very important character, was at least a very ambitious one; and he did not think it ought to pass sub silentio. He therefore protested against the manner in which the observations of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Stuart) had been received; and he repeated that the House had a right to expect from the Government some explanation of the circumstances under which the Bill relating to the borough of Horsham had been allowed to drop.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, it was very difficult for him to say what were the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded him, wished to have explained. He (Lord J. Russell) thought, that upon former occasions, when the Bill with regard to the borough of Horsham was before the House, repeated explanations had been given of the reasons for deferring the measure. They were so extremely similar now, that he would state again what was the position of that Bill, and the position of the present measure. When the House decided that the writ should be suspended, he was asked by several Members, both among those who agreed with the suspension, and those who did not, to introduce a Bill upon the subject himself. He consented; but afterwards there were other writs, especially Derby, suspended, and special reports made. The hon. Baronet the Member for Flint boroughs undertook to bring in a Bill with regard to Derby and other boroughs, and one of the remedies he proposed was inquiry by a commission. On consideration it appeared to him better that there should be only one mode of inquiry for these cases, instead of two. Having taken a part for five-and-twenty years in inquiries relative to corrupt boroughs, he knew very well that after Committees of the House of Commons, and the House itself, were satisfied that bribery prevailed to a great extent, and that disfranchise- ment ought to follow, the evidence failed to prove a sufficient case of delinquency to satisfy the House of Lords, and the Disfranchising Bill was thrown out. It was evident that the same mode of inquiry was very likely to fail if it was resorted to; and therefore his hon. Friend proposed another mode of inquiry, which had been adopted in the case of Sudbury—an inquiry by Commissioners. When it was adopted in that instance, it was so far successful that both Houses agreed to act upon the evidence produced. Seeing this was the case, he deferred his plan to the inquiry proposed by the hon. Gentleman, which he (Lord J. Russell) considered was the best. There was nothing very mysterious in the matter; and if the House of Commons should think fit to reject this Bill, he should proceed with the one which he had proposed, which he did not consider so good, but from the working of which, notwithstanding, he trusted some useful results would flow. With regard to the impatience of the House: when the hon. and learned Member addressed it, he believed that it arose from the lateness of the hour, the House being anxious to come to a decision. He considered that it was desirable that some decision should be come to, because the writs had been in two or three cases suspended. If the House decided that the principle of this Bill was good, that would be a fair reason for continuing the suspension of the writs; but if the House came to a contrary decision, there would be a good constitutional reason for issuing them. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his opposition.

MR. HENLEY was not surprised at the course taken by his hon. Friend. He must also say, that he considered that the course taken by the Government was hardly fair. It was not a usual thing to establish a sweeping commission to examine into allegations made against eight or nine boroughs, and that without a sufficient amount of evidence before them to justify such a proceeding. The Committees which unseated the Members did not, in any one case, recommend the institution of further proceedings. Taking all these facts into his consideration, he must say, that the hon. Member for Newark was not to be censured for the course he had pursued. He had but claimed his undoubted privilege. Seeing himself clamoured down by the immediate supporters of the Government, the only course left to his hon. Friend was, an adjournment of the debate. He would support the Motion for the adjournment.

The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned: — Ayes 69; Noes 215: Majority 146.

The House also divided on the question that the Bill be now read a second time:—Ayes 198; Noes 85: Majority 113.

Bill read a second time.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved the Second Reading of the Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill, and proposed that the Bill should be now read a second time without discussion, and committed pro formâ. The debate to be taken on the Bill again going into Committee.

The EARL of LINCOLN said, that, owing to the extreme and paramount importance of a measure for facilitating the sale of encumbered estates in Ireland, he was anxious, before the Motion passed, to obtain an assurance from Government, without which they could not proceed with safety, and he was induced to do so from the peculiar position in which the House found itself with regard to the measure. The House could not forget that it was introduced into the other House nearly at the commencement of the Session, and that it had been allowed to fall asleep for several months. He had on more than one occasion pressed the Government with regard to the progress of the Bill, and had received the assurance of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that it would be immediately proceeded with in the other House of Parliament. Little progress was made in it, however, till last week, when, to the surprise of every Member of that House, within three days, it was recommitted, read a third time, and passed, and brought down to that House—thus showing what appeared to be unnecessary delay in the first instance, and precipitate haste in the next. He must say, also, that he thought it a most unusual course with regard to a Bill involving intricate questions of law, and especially of Chancery law, which had been under the consideration of the House of Lords for three or four months—a House where all the eminent law authorities had seats—

that after it had left that House only three or four days, it should now be proposed to be read a second time and committed pro formæ, with the view of introducing alterations into it in order to obviate the strong objections which the Solicitor General entertained to the Bill as it then stood. What he (Lord Lincoln) wanted was an assurance that the Government were prepared with the amendments which they were desirous of inserting in the Bill. His reason for asking that assurance was this. He did not say it with any taunt, but he could not help recollecting that a similar course was taken with the Health of Towns Bill to that which was now proposed with regard to this Bill, the consequence of which had been a delay of six weeks; and though from the early period at which that Bill had been committed pro formæ, the subsequent delay might not operate as an impediment to its passing, he did fear that, if the same course was pursued in this instance, another Session of Parliament would pass without legislation on this subject, or, what was worse, they would have to be contented with crude legislation. He wished, then, to know if the Government were prepared with their Amendment, because, if not, the result might be that the Bill would be hung up for six weeks—that then the Bill would be laid on the table perhaps in an entirely new form, and then they would be told either to proceed immediately with its consideration, or else be compelled to oppose it altogether.

LORD J. RUSSELL begged to say, in answer to the noble Lord, that the Solicitor General had prepared his Amendments; but these having, like the Bill itself, to be submitted to various persons, he had not got them in the exact form in which he might introduce them. He assured the noble Lord, however, that they would be received in a very short time, and then the House would have an opportunity of considering the Bill in its amended shape. He thought the noble Lord must know that this was by no means a simple subject to deal with, and that it was of great importance to make the measure efficient for its purpose, so as to prevent attorneys having an opportunity of vexing those who were in possession of encumbered property.—Bill read a second time.

On the Order of the Day for further proceeding on the question that Mr. Cardwell be added to this Committee,

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that he should withdraw his objection to the insertion of Mr. Cardwell's name.

MR. CARDWELL said, that nothing could have been more courteous than the manner in which the noble Lord had objected to the addition of his name; but he hoped that the noble Lord would also withdraw the observations which he had made respecting the interest which the merchants of Liverpool had in the continuance of the slave trade. The truth was, that no persons were so much interested in the abolition of the slave trade as the merchants connected with the port of Liverpool, as it was the only chance they had of seeing legitimate commerce flourish in Africa.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON regretted that, having stated what he believed to be the fact, he could not unsay what he had previously said. Could the hon. Member for Liverpool deny that from that port were exported a vast quantity of those commodities which were exchanged for slaves on the coast of Africa?

MR. CARDWELL did not mean to deny that exports were made from Liverpool, which, after passing through the hands of merchants in some part or other of the globe, were appropriated to some improper purpose. He must hesitate in allowing his name to be added till the noble Lord should assure him that he meant to convey no imputation.

The EARL of LINCOLN said, the noble Lord had stated that the Members for Liverpool were not competent persons to be appointed Members of this Committee. The noble Lord had been twice an unsuccessful candidate for the representation of Liverpool: had he been successful he could not, on his own principle, have held his present office.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON would remind the noble Lord that in that House there were many unsuccessful candidates. If the noble Lord had been an unsuccessful candidate, it was not in Liverpool, but in his own county. The noble Lord was certainly mistaken in supposing he had been an unsuccessful candidate for Liverpool. Many electors of Liverpool had done him the honour to put him up; but he had declined being a candidate. Had he been elected, he should have felt it his duty to decline sitting for that city in preference to the borough which he now represented.

MR. GLADSTONE had hoped the noble Lord would have been prepared, if not to withdraw, at least to qualify his statement. He was right, in point of fact, that goods which entered into the slave trade did pass through Liverpool. But the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company, or the porters in the docks, might be inculpated on the same principle. Though Liverpool was the medium through which those goods passed, it was scarcely fair that such an imputation should go forth as the noble Lord had apparently sanctioned.

The name of Mr. C ARDWELL was added to the Committee.

The House adjourned about Two o'clock.