said, he rose to oppose the Motion. He did so because he believed the extraordinary powers sought by the company were such as ought not to be granted, and because they were perfectly unprecedented. It was matter for observation that the hon. Gentleman who had the charge of the Bill did not venture to say one word in its favour, although it had been intimated to him that it would be opposed. The principal allegation put forth in support of the Bill was, that the "Old Electric Telegraph Company" possessed a monopoly, and that it was desirable to destroy that monopoly; but he would venture to state that no company had ever encountered greater competition than that company had done for the last two years, and he could also state that no public company had ever given greater satisfaction. It should be remembered that the British Electric Telegraph Company was already in operation and had been competing with the old company, and they were now asking Parliament to assist them in that competition by conferring on them powers which no other company ever possessed. They asked to be invested with powers of entering compulsorily upon any railway or canal in the United Kingdom, in order to lay down telegraphs and apparatus for their own private benefit; and to remove, either permanently or temporarily, as their occasion or convenience might require in respect of their works, all obstructions or impediments which existed, or might exist, in railways or canals, or the lands and premises adjoining, and belonging thereto. This was asking for powers over railways such as no other Electric Telegraph Company enjoyed. He I would not dwell upon the danger to which the public might be exposed in consequence of such an extraordinary interference being allowed with the railways; but he begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to a new principle which was at tempted to be laid down by this Bill. Heretofore it had always been understood, that when one man or one company invaded the premises of another—as in the case of a railway company running a railway through a gentleman's demesne, it was on terms of mutuality that such a proceeding was permitted—the gentleman whoso premises were invaded being known to be entitled to an equitable compensation; but in the present instance there was no such reciprocity. The premises of the; railway company were to be at any moment liable to invasion by the British Electric Telegraph Company, whenever they wanted to lay down their pipes, tubes, and: wires; but no reciprocal advantage was insured to the railway company. If the principle of this Bill were now to receive the sanction of the House, they should eventually have to extend the same principle to Bills for the regulation, not of electric telegraphs only, but also of gas works and water works. What he desired was, that the House would not give to the British Electric Telegraph Company advantages which other companies did not possess. He begged to move that the; Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Motion.

said, he was not astonished that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. L. Ricardo) should object to the Bill, which was opposed to the interests of his own; company; but he was astonished that he I should object to allowing their proposal to go before a Committee of the House. The objections which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. L. Ricardo) had urged were rather those which ought to be adduced before a Select Committee. The real ground of objection to the Bill was, that it interfered with a monopoly. The hon. Gentleman says that the company he has been connected with has been working satisfactorily for two years, and that he does not object to fair competition; well, then, if that be so, let him prove his case in a Committee, and if the powers asked for are so extraordinary that they ought not to be granted, a Committee would curb and restrain them, refusing all that would be injurious to the safe working of railways. It had been said that great pecuniary loss might arise to the public by the House sanctioning these projects; but was it likely that a commercial trading company would incur a great risk, and a heavy expense, by attempting to lay down a line of telegraphic communication on a railway where the demand for its employment would be so little as to preclude the least prospect of a profitable return? While he considered the objections of the hon. Gentleman to the Bill to be wholly unfounded, he begged to remind the House that there existed out of doors a very strong desire to have the Bill at least submitted to a Select Committee, where its merits might be determined on. He hoped the House would adopt the course usually taken, and allow the Bill to be read a second time, that it might be sent to a Committee upstairs.

said, the House seemed to assume that the opponents of the Bill were desirous of retaining a monopoly; now this was not the case; the British Electric Telegraph Company had already got their Bill, they were already established, and the present Bill was only one to amend the former; it, however, sought such arbitrary and enormous powers, that he considered it his duty to oppose it. The principle of this Bill went further than that of any other similar measure. They desire compulsory powers to construct their particular machinery upon any railway they please. Unless, therefore, it was to be understood that all other telegraph companies were to have like powers, he should certainly oppose the Motion for reading the Bill a second time.

would not go into the merits of this Bill, because that was a subject for the Committee. But he would say that there was a strong desire in the great towns of the north of England for some improvement in the present system of conveying intelligence. The merchants and manufacturers complained that the intelligence transmitted by electric agency was very unsatisfactorily performed. He thought that not only the old company, but this company, should receive powers to enable them to do all that they professed. He could assure the House that in the great northern towns there was a most earnest desire that this Bill should go into a Committee. The Bill involved the convenience and interests of all who were engaged in the commercial transactions of the country.

said, that he possessed a list of some of the most respectable manufacturers, merchants, and traders in the country, who were anxious that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, as it had an important bearing upon the best interests of the country.

said, he had not the slightest personal interest to serve in the matter; but he had listened with great alarm to the objections made against the Bill, lest the House, in ignorance of its object, should be induced to throw it out. The promoters of the Bill, besides their own private interests, which were always implied in commercial speculations, sought to confer an immense advantage on the public by asking to be allowed to avail themselves of the facilities which the railways afforded for establishing telegraph lines, by which a general communication might be carried out through all parts of the kingdom. Surely that could not be an objectionable principle. It was said that they sought for compulsory powers; of course they did. Unless they possessed such powers, they would be, as hitherto they had been, entirely at the mercy of the railway body, who, in a majority of cases, had refused to allow the establishing of telegraphic communication on their lines. It was said, again, that the powers now asked were such as would interfere with the private rights of railway companies. Surely that was an objection which came with a very bad grace from the directors of railways, whose very existence depended on the powers they possessed of interfering with private property. But all that he would at present urge was, that the Bill was one of too important a character to justify its being rejected on the second reading.

said, that there already existed telegraphic communications on the principal lines of railway, and he had yet to learn that the employment of a double amount of capital for effecting one and the same object was the readiest means of bringing about a reduction of charges to the public. Was it not well known whenever two companies obtained similar rights over the same district of country, that instead of encountering each other on the competitive principle, they in a short time combined for their mutual protection and advantage? It was, therefore, a mistaken idea that a reduction of charge would be effected by introducing two electric telegraphic companies in the same line of district, instead of one. But he claimed of the House some little consideration on the part of the railway companies. This Bill would introduce a principle hitherto deemed wholly objectionable. It was proposed to confer on the British Electric Telegraph Company a forcible and compulsory power of entering on the property of railway companies for the purpose of carrying out their own objects. Should such a principle be introduced, it would henceforth he impossible for the directors of railways to be responsible for the proper management of the lines under their control, or to undertake to be answerable for the public safety. The principle of public safety was paramount to any other considerations that had yet been urged on the attention of the House, and he hoped it would be of sufficient weight to induce the House to support the Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, he understood the object of the Bill to be to do away with a monopoly. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. L. Ricardo) who moved the Amendment had said that the Bill was based upon a novel principle. He (Mr. Roebuck) admitted it. But the whole thing was itself a novelty. Railways were novelties. Railway companies, represented by his hon. Friend (Mr. Glyn), were creatures of the law. The Legislature had made them, and had given them special powers for certain public purposes. It was not dealing with them as private individuals, or with their property as private property. What was asked by this Bill was, to do away with a monopoly. The first telegraph company, having been incoporated by Act of Parliament, had made certain agreements with the railway companies. Now, if by virtue of those agreements a power was possessed, either by the railway companies, or by the Telegraph Company, at any point of a railway between Lon- don and its terminus, to prevent any other person or company from entering upon it, the consequence might be that all communications from that point to other parts of the country might be entirely cut off. He would state, in the hearing of his hon. Friend (Mr. Glyn), that a railway company had entered into an agreement with the old Electric Telegraph Company, one of the terms of which was that the railway company should not allow any other person to go on their line for the purpose of making telegraphic communications. The consequence was that London was cut off from a large portion of the country by means of that agreement.

I only have to say that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has entirely misconceived me, if he understands me as having said that the London and North-Western Railway Company, and the Electric Telegraph Company, of which I am chairman, have ever entered into any understanding to cut off the telegraphic communication between London and any other place. I never said so.

had never said that the hon. Gentleman had made any such statement. He said that such things might occur; and he was disposed to find fault with the hon. Member rather for concelaing than divulging them. He (Mr. Roebuck) would be quite prepared, supposing this Bill should pass, to give his hon. Friend (Mr. J. L. Ricardo) exactly the same powers for the company of which he was chairman, as the Bill would confer on the British Electric Telegraph Company; but he certainly was not prepared to take the extraordinary step of preventing the second reading of a Private Bill upon such grounds as had now been urged. If the powers sought were considered improper to be given, a Select Committee was the best tribunal to determine that point. By rejecting the Bill on the second reading, they would at the same time perpetuate a monopoly and inflict injustice; but by referring the Bill to a Select Committee, they would act with safety towards the promoters of the measure, while the rights of the public would be protected. It was a well-known fact that the telegraphs in England were not employed to one-tenth the extent they might be; and why? Because they existed under a system of monopoly. He wished to see this country possess the same advantages from electric telegraphs as were enjoyed by their brethren in the United States of America. The everyday transactions of life were there communicated from the northern to the southernmost point of that vast continent. That was a benefit which the people of England did not enjoy. By allowing the Bill to be read a second time they would do no injury to any human being, nor would they infringe upon any private property whatever, for, as he had already said, railways were not private property, but they would be giving the people of this country the chance of enjoying the benefits of the greatest discovery of modern times.

begged to ask the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty whether Captain Penny and the other mercantile officers of the late expedition in search of Sir John Franklin received any and what rewards for their acknowledged services in such expedition? Whether Captain Austin and the officers of that expedition received any and what rewards for their acknowledged services on the same occasion? If it was true that Queen Victoria Channel and the Northern and Northwestern Passages, for the exploration of which Captain Austin's vessels are now fitting out under Sir Edward Belcher, were discovered by Captain Penny and the mercantile marine under his command, when employed on the late expedition? If there is any intention to accept Captain Penny's offers of service, and to employ him and his two vessels again for the purpose of such exploration, or in any other way connected with the new expedition? And if not, why Captain Penny's offers had been declined? He also begged to move for all correspondence on the above subjects not already before Parliament.

said, he could not tell whether the answer he had to give the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfactory. It was, however, decisive and final. With respect to the first question, he had to say that Captain Penny and the other mercantile officers of the expedition had not received any reward for their services in search of Sir Jon Franklin. With respect to the second question, he had to reply that Captain Austin and the naval officers of the expedition had received pro- motion in reward of their services. In reference to the third question respecting the Queen Victoria Channel and the Northern and North-Western Passages, he (Mr. Stafford) considered it was rather a question for scientific and professional men than for that House; but he might say that the North-Western Passage had not been discovered as yet, and that, therefore, Captain Penny and the mercantile marine under his command had not discovered it. Touching the fourth question, he had to say that there was no intention on the part of the Admiralty to accept Captain Penny's offers of service, or to employ him and his two vessels again for the purpose of such exploration, or in any way connected with the new expedition. Why those offers had been declined, it was for the late Government to say; it had been decided by the late Board, for reasons which had been considered sufficient by them, not to employ Captain Penny; and the Admiralty had resolved not to reverse the decision come to by their predecessors in office. As regarded the correspondence alluded to in the last question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Mr. Stafford) was not aware of the existence of any on the subject which had not been already laid before Parliament. If, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman would state what papers he desired, and moved for their production, he (Mr. Stafford) would give the matter his best consideration.

feared that the late Admiralty, and he almost feared the present Board, had forgotten that once upon a time there existed such a man as Mr. James Cook, for they really seemed to fancy that Her Majesty's Royal Navy had a right to monopolise all the discoveries which might be made by skill and enterprise. Eighty or ninety years ago that was not the doctrine of the then Board of Admiralty; and the consequence was, that they found such individuals as "Mr." James Cook—as some of the officers of the Royal Navy now-a-days would have presumed to call him—the master of a collier, who rendered the name of England dignified by the discoveries he had made. He did say that the treatment which Captain Penny had received from different individuals had not been such as would tend to encourage in any, except in officers of Her Majesty's Navy, that zeal for national discovery which was so manifested in the middle of the last century. But this was not only a question of national discovery, or a question of science; it was a question of humanity. He believed that Captain Penny, whether he made the special discovery of the North-Western Passage or not, had penetrated further than any other man; and, therefore, when it seemed to be thought almost a merit in the present and the late Boards of Admiralty that they had given Captain Penny no reward, they would, in his opinion, have done their duty as well, and have met the justice of the case far better, if they had encouraged Captain Penny to continue those discoveries which he had commenced, and which he had prosecuted more satisfactorily than, or at least as satisfactorily as, any other persons employed in the expedition; and it would have redounded to the honour of the late Board of Admiralty if, instead of leaving the services of such a man unrequited, they had rewarded him in a manner in some degree commensurate with the intrepidity, energy, and devotion, which had so signally characterised his conduct. He would venture further to express a hope that Her Majesty's present Board of Admiralty would not lose a day in preparing the expedition upon which their predecessors in office had resolved. It might not he necessary that that expedition should sail on the 10th or the 15th of April; but he would say, that every day that it was delayed after the earliest time at which it could be got ready would be a day lost, not to the cause of discovery, but to the great cause of suffering humanity; and he was sure the House would readily support the Board in urging forward that expedition.

said, that strenuous exertions were being made to bring the new expedition into a state of readiness with all possible despatch.

regretted that his right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir F. Baring) was not in his place that evening to take part in this discussion; and in his absence he (Mr. Parker) did not know that he could give any satisfactory explanation on the subject now under debate. This, however, he could assure the House, that his right hon. Friend had exercised his best discretion in the decision come to relative to the Arctic Expeditions; in order to attain that object which this House and the country at large had so much in view, namely, the recovery, if possible, of Sir John Franklin and his fellow-explorers, or, at any rate, the ascertaining what had been their fate. His (Mr. Parker's) right hon. Friend had taken infinite pains in the matter; he had left nothing undone, for he felt that he would be secure of the support of the House and the approbation of the people at large in any expenditure. To find fault, in the absence of his right hon. Friend, with the course which he had taken, did not seem to him to be quite fair. The choice of officers for such an expedition involved a delicate discretion, and he doubted whether this House was a fit place to discuss the merits of officers. He did not know whether his right hon. Friend, had he been present, would have thought proper to enter into the reasons which had induced the Board to decline to send out Captain Penny; and he (Mr. Parker), holding, as he had done, but a subordinate position in the department, could not be expected to go into those reasons.

wished to call the attention of the Admiralty to the propriety of scattering the ships employed in the next expedition more than had been done in the previous one. Some six or eight vessels appeared to have been almost within hail of each other, so that they had not an opportunity of very extensive survey. Boat expeditions had, it was true, been made over the ice, but the results had been very far from satisfactory. As to Captain Penny, he had read with great minuteness every thing that had come before Parliament on the question, and he did think that the exertions—he might say successful exertions—of Captain Penny had been more prominent, or as prominent, as those of any one employed throughout the whole expedition. It was much to that gentleman's credit that lie did not go to seek promotion, but had joined the expedition, running the same risks as those who went out also from very noble motives, but who hoped thereby to advance themselves.

said, he was prepared to assume his share of the responsibility of not having appointed Captain Penny to the Arctic Expedition. That conclusion had not been come to without due deliberation; it bad not been come to without, in the first place, the consultation of every officer who had visited those regions; and he was of opinion that if Captain Penny had been sent out with the present expedition, it would not have been for the interest of the object in view.

said: With respect to this Bill, Sir, I do not at all intend to make any observations which can have the effect of provoking a debate. I only wish to say that I brought in this Bill as the Minister of the Crown, and in pursuance of a recommendation contained in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne. I do not think that I should be able, as an individual Member of Parliament, to carry a measure of such importance through the House with success. For this reason I do not propose proceeding with the Bill in the course of the present Session; but it is to be understood that, by this determination, I shall not preclude myself from any opportunity of moving (if I should think right to do so) any resolution on the subject of the extension of the suffrage, and the amendment of Parliamentary representation. I beg to move that the second reading of this Bill he postponed until this day three months. With regard to the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, I do not intend to withdraw that measure.

said, he could not but regret the course which the noble Lord had determined to take with respect to the Parliamentary Representation Bill. That measure he had introduced in his capacity of Minister of the Crown, and if the measure was indeed a valuable one, the change in the position of the noble Lord could be no argument in favour of its withdrawal. He (Mr. Hume) confessed that he regarded it as a very defective measure, but it nevertheless was a step in the right direction, and it might have been improved in Committee. He could not understand why the noble Lord should not, by persevering in the measure, have afforded that House an opportunity of recording its opinion on the subject of reform. The country had reason to complain that, after nineteen years' experience of the inadequacy of the Reform Bill, some measure had not been introduced by the noble Lord to remedy the defects of that law, and to enlarge the franchise of the people. The noble Lord ought certainly to have persevered in his Bill, if only to ascertain the true feeling of the House on the subject of reform.

was quite sure that the course proposed by the noble Lord would give universal satisfaction, for never was there a measure proposed which gave such universal dissatisfaction. He was glad to hear, however, that the noble Lord had not abandoned the cause of reform, though he had abandoned the Bill, and he hoped that, when he next brought forward a measure of reform, it would be a better one than the last.

said, he also regretted that the Bill had been withdrawn by the noble Lord, though he thoroughly acquiesced in the opinion that it was a most defective and unsatisfactory measure. The Bill, bad as it was, was not perhaps so hopelessly worthless that it might not, perhaps, have been susceptible of amendment in Committee. It was no new practice to put one Bill in Committee, and to bring out a totally different one. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, of which the noble Lord and his Colleagues were now, perhaps, thoroughly ashamed—at least he hoped so—had come out of Committee with scarcely a vestige of the original Bill being left in it. Why should not the same thing occur in the case of the Parliamentary Representation Bill. It was the noble Lord's own Bill, and he, of course, had a right to do what he liked with it. Why did he not either proceed with it, or withdraw it at once? Why did he propose to postpone it only for three months? The fact was, that the noble Lord had no faith in the measure. He knew that it was utterly valueless, and that, like his own Cabinet, it would fall without awakening a single regret, and without a single hand being stretched out to save it. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not mean to say one word to disturb the repose which, by general understanding, was to be accorded to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who delighted in the designation of the "country party." The members of that party were to be left in perfect tranquillity until Monday, on which day it was to be hoped that they would come down to the House well prepared to receive the compliments of the Session, which no doubt would be bountifully prepared for them, and gracefully tendered. But he would take leave to ask those Members who were not connected with the country party, whether this question of Parliamentary Reform was to stop where it now was The House would recollect what happened last year when the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) brought in a Bill to assimilate the borough and county voters, which was carried by a majority of two to one. On that occasion the noble Lord said, "Don't press this measure, and I will undertake to bring forward next Session a more comprehensive scheme of reform." Upon that-understanding many of the Gentlemen who had voted for the second reading of the hon. Member's Bill turned round and kicked it out; and now here we were. It was true that in Schedule B there was a mass of corruption and abomination which had disgusted everybody, and it was equally true that there were many questions in the Bill which ought to have formed distinct and separate enactments. At that time he reminded the noble Lord that delays were dangerous; but, however, on the understanding that we were to have in the present Session a good Reform Bill, the measure to which he alluded was kicked out, and now, what with that Bill lost, and the present Bill withdrawn, what chance had we of reform from the hands of those who had declared against all reform? Were they to wait until the noble Lord came to office again? Assuredly not. It was not by waiting until a Ministry might find it convenient to introduce a popular measure that the noble Lord had achieved any reputation he possessed as a Parliamentary reformer. Before 1830, the noble Lord was always bringing in Reform Bills in the teeth of Lord Liverpool's Administration; and now he hesitated to pursue a similar course, although there was a party in power who had always been more inveterately hostile to reform than ever Lord Liverpool was. That party hoped to get an accession of Protectionists at the next general election; and was it to be expected that, if they succeeded in that object, the prospects of Parliamentary reform would; be improved by such an event? He believed that nothing would give satisfaction to the country unless the noble Lord introduced the Bill himself.

said, he was not able to congratulate hon. Members on the Opposition benches upon their unanimity, or upon "following their leader." The noble Lord was, in his opinion, quite right in abandoning his Parliamentary Reform Bill, because it did not satisfy any single soul of either party.

said, that, with reference to this Bill, which now stood for Committee, he was quite willing to leave it in the hands of the Government. The Bill had been founded upon the Report of the Commission, who had given great attention to the subject, and he trusted that there would not be any unnecessary delay in the passing of the Bill. There was also another Bill, which had come down from the other House, the object of which was to abolish the office of Secretary to Bankrupt Commissioners, which he hoped would also be passed. Both of those measures he looked upon as highly necessary, and he trusted that the Government would take them up, as also a Bill for abolishing the office of Masters in Chancery.

said, that, with reference to the first of the Bills to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, the Lord Chancellor intended to make a statement that evening, in the other House of Parliament, which he trusted would be satisfactory to the country, as showing that his noble and learned Friend, who was as competent as any person alive, was willing and anxious to undertake a reform in the Court of Chancery; and the noble and learned Lord would, he (Mr. Walpole) understood, intimate his willingness and anxiety to undertake those measures of law reform which the late Government had originated. With regard to the Bill for the abolition of the office of Secretary of Bankrupts, the Government were prepared to take up the Bill. With reference to the Suitors in Chancery Relief Bill, he concurred in the anxiety expressed by his hon. and learned Friend that the Bill should be passed into law; but there was one portion of it—namely, whether suitors in the Court of Chancery should be charged a per centage of fees—to which he had objected when the Bill was before a Select Committee, and with reference to which he should propose an amendment. With this view he would propose that the Committee be postponed for a few days.

moved the Second Reading of the St. Albans Disfranchisement Bill.

said, that the Bill had been brought in by the late Government, in consequence of the Report of a Royal Commission, which had inquired into the system of bribery and corruption in the borough. He hoped the Bill would be persevered in; but having said thus much, he was prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, it was not to be expected that he should allow this Bill to pass its second reading without making an expiring effort to save the borough he represented. However strong might be the prejudice of the House, and however forlorn the hope of success, he should not flinch from his duty to his constituents. The subject of Parliamentary elections was one in which he had never taken any interest till the time when he found himself heralded forth to the public as if he had been the inventor of a system which had existed long before he was born, and would probably prevail long after he had ceased to exist. Though the defence of the system would be quite impossible—for no one in the House detested Parliamentary corruption more than he did, or had greater reason to detest it—yet it was quite a different question whether it was just and proper to execute the sentence of the law in the manner proposed on the borough of St. Albans. He thought he might advance some pleas which would have influence with the House. First, it was customary, when several parties were arraigned under the same charge, and one turned Queen's evidence, that that one should be acquitted, while the others were punished. In the present instance, the borough of St. Albans had turned Queen's evidence, and had placed in possession of the House some very valuable information, which would enable them to pursue corruption with success throughout the kingdom; yet the only borough to be punished was the one which had rendered this important service. Again, when a confession was extorted from any party under a promise of indemnity from punishment, it was unjust, and he believed illegal, to take advantage of that confession as a ground for inflicting punishment. Now the Commissioners had stated in their report that their reception in St. Albans, and the frank and candid manner in which they were furnished with information, contrasted very favourably with the reception which other Commissioners, having a similar object in view, had met with in another borough. The Commissioners attributed this to the stringent powers with which they were invested under the Act, but he attributed it rather to the implicit reliance of the witnesses upon the good faith and honour of Parliament; and it would be a violation of both, if Parliament were now to turn round and use those confessions as a pretext for punishment. It might be said that the indemnity from punishment did not refer to the borough in its corporate capacity, but to the penalties or imprisonment incurred by individuals who were guilty of bribery. But it was usual to construe the words of an Act of Parliament in their plain meaning. The words of the Act appointing the late Commission were, that the party who should answer, to the best of his knowledge, the questions put by the Commissioners, should be indemnified from all forfeitures, punishments, disabilities, and incapacities; and the words of the Act implied that such a person should enjoy every power and privilege that he possessed before. And yet how could such a promise be held to be performed if these parties were to be deprived of the franchise, and their borough exterminated? As he had been held up to public animadversion for corrupt practices, he would assume, for the sake of argument, that there was some foundation for this charge, and that he had had some experience on this subject. He had bought this experience at his own expense, and he intended to make use of it for the benefit of the public. The Bill now before the House was one of three which had been brought forward for the ostensible purpose of putting an end to bribery and corruption; and he could show that the three together would not effect the object. In all reform discussions he had ever heard, either in the House or out of it, he had never heard any allusion made to what he believed was the primary and principal cause of corruption—the extreme severity of the laws against it, whereby they had become inoperative. He could produce evidence of the fact that those laws were inoperative. At the last election for St. Albans, where every one might suppose there were abundant opportunities for carrying out those laws, a bill had been issued, stating the penalties incurred by giving or taking a bribe, and offering to prosecute any case, free of expense, on evidence being supplied—the reward of 1,000l. or 500l. to belong to the party producing the evidence. This bill was signed by a gentleman who, at the time of the election, valued his services at ton guineas a day; and he offered those services gratuitously to any one who, in that rich harvest of corruption, would voluntarily bring forward a single offender. Yet, so inoperative was the law, that while (as it was afterwards proved) many of the electors were eager to sell themselves for 5l. and become slaves, there was not one to be found willing to be bought back again for 500l. and become a free man. Every attempt at improvement, instead of seeking to render the laws easier to be carried into effect, had increased their stringency, and made it impossible to carry them out. During the fifteen months he had been in purgatory, he had made a great many inquiries on the subject—he knew very little of it before—and he found these laws were so excessively strict, and the penalties so tremendous, that it was utterly impossible to carry them into effect, and they consequently defeated the object they had in view. It was impossible to carry out any election consistently with the law. There were voters who came from a distance; and the common rites of hospitality were denied; they must not even have a glass of beer; and if the sitting Member, or any one in his behalf, were proved to have offered them any refreshment, he would be unseated. Were these laws literally carried into effect, many agents would be subject to accumulated penalties of about 150,000l., and to an imprisonment of 300 or 400 years. That was the literal interpretation which anybody not a lawyer would put upon the law. When sheep-stealing was a capital crime, the majority of the offenders were not punished at all, and those who were punished only suffered on the same principle as St. Albans was to suffer now. Before going circuit, the Judges assembled sometimes, and said—"Sheep-stealing has been rather common lately, we had better hang a few prisoners;" and, on account of this determination, men suffered who never expected to be hanged at all. The criminal when condemned became an object of compassion with the benevolent; petitions were frequently presented to the Secretary of State in favour of such criminals; and the disgust of the crime was lost in the horror of the undue severity of the punishment. Owing to this stringency at elections, a custom had become prevalent which had acquired the force of law. There were certain expenses which were illegal, but which, nevertheless, must be paid—not the purest election in the world could be conducted without them—and yet, in the strict letter of the law, they endangered the seat. Consequently it was necessary to employ various agents. The genus "Parliamentary agent" comprised several species. Those who performed what was called the "awkward business" must be cunning, ingenious, and energetic, and must have a contrivance at hand to meet every case. They must be indefatigable, fear nothing but defeat, care for nothing but victory. These agents, while performing the most slippery business behind the candidate's back, must convince him when in his presence that they were the purest persons in the world, and that if a shilling improperly spent could save his election, they would not expend it. They perpetrated the most unblushing wrong in the most daring manner. They had many methods of accomplishing their purpose, of which an example or two might be instructive. A Parliamentary agent of this kind had a room in some part of the town called a committee-room, but which the candidate never heard of. When an elector came he was ushered into the presence of the agent, who would say, "Well, Mr. Smith, how do you do to-day?" at the same time holding up three fingers, to signify he was to have three sovereigns. The elector would perhaps say, if he were dissatisfied with the amount, "I am not very well to-day." The agent then, holding up five fingers, would say, "I am sorry you are not well to-day, Mr. Smith." The elector would then say, "Oh, I am not very ill. It is all right." He would then go and look out of the window, and while he was doing so the agent would put five sovereigns upon the table. The agent would then go and look out of the window in his turn, and the elector would walk to the table, and when the agent turned round the elector was gone, and the sovereigns had vanished. The elector did not see the agent put down the money, and the agent did not see the elector take it up. When a Parliamentary Committee was appointed the agent swore he never gave any money, and the elector swore no one gave him any. No promise had been given or required; the subject of the election had not even been mentioned. The elector went out of the room a free agent, and, without perjury, swore he had not been bribed. When the five hon. Gentlemen who sat upon the Committee heard this, they said, "There has been some clever management here, but there is no evidence." Then a learned gentleman in a wig would stand up and declare it to be a trumped-up case; that there was not a tittle of evidence against his client; and he called upon the Committee to dismiss the petition as frivolous and vexatious. This was only one method in which bribery was carried on. He had heard of fifteen or twenty guineas being given for a canary bird. There is another method which was much more easy to practise without risk of detection—that of employing people for various purposes, and paying them. There were usually a great number of agents, spies, secretaries, and messengers, all retained for five or six weeks preparatory to an election, and paid so much a week. These were put down as legal charges, though if thoroughly sifted, it would be found that almost the only service these people performed was at the hustings or polling booth. Some of the most important thus employed were spies, whose duty it was to be looking about among the people on the other side, and to obtain information as to what was going on; and thus it was that candidates knew of all the "awkward business" going on on the other side, but were kept in ignorance, being surrounded by a halo of their supporters, of what was done on their own. If, too, one of the candidates happened to be the cousin to an editor, or to have any interest with the press, he had an opportunity of putting all this tittle tattle into the newspaper, and thus all the scandal that his spies could get hold of came forth to the public in a very piquant state, while the other party was blackened very much to his surprise. He cautioned any Members who might be opposed by any hon. Gentleman connected with the press to be prepared for a denouement similar to that which had taken place lately at St. Albans. By degrees these agents acquired great influence in the borough, and were almost able to return Members themselves. It did not follow, however, that the agents selected the candidate. The party on whose side he usually acted might make the selection if they pleased, and retain the agent. An agent was like a lawyer in this respect; he did not care for whom he acted, but, once employed by a party in a borough, he set to work with great zeal. It was characteristic of an agent not to be scrupulously accurate in minor pecuniary matters. Somehow or other money adhered to his hands in passing through them; but he was faithful to his party, and, like the Spartan boy, would allow his entrails to be torn out rather than betray the fox. It was felt that disgrace was not in bribing, but in being detected. But an agent might sometimes be caught tripping. He might become too venturesome from long impunity, and might at last find his way into prison. When there his friends would know nothing of him; but yet men did not scruple to visit him privately with a view to furthering their prospects at the next election. A man who had spent 20,000l. in the most unblushing bribery, and was not petitioned against only because his opponent had bribed as much as himself, walked into the House as bold as brass, and inveighed against the corruption of St. Albans. A few words on the working of the present system. When an agent waited on a candidate it was usual to ask a few questions about Corn Laws, Jews, and Catholics, &c., and then his attention was directed to money matters. If applied to by one of the "awkward agents," he would probably, in the first instance, be asked for a certain sum of money to test the borough. This might be 100l., 200l., or 300l., according to the appetite of the agent. The agent, like a fortune-teller, could not tell anything till his hand was crossed with money. He was next asked for 300l., 400l., or 500l. for legal expenses. But this was not all, for there was a further sum to be paid some fourteen days after the Member had taken his seat; and, as to how this money was expended, he was told that he was not to ask any questions. If the candidate said, he would not sanction bribery, and that he liked to have everything above-board, the agent replied that he would have nothing to do with bribery, but that there were two or three persons who divided the borough amongst them, and if they did not get so much money they would not give their influence. He (Mr. Bell) was not an old stager in election tactics, he was not up to the tricks of the trade, and he consequently fell into the trap. The effect on the electors was quite as bad, it was perhaps even worse than the effect on the Members. They looked upon an election like a Christmas coming at an uncertain period. It made them care little for the politics of the candidates. If you ask an elector what party he belongs to, he will probably tell you he goes with the "blues" or the "reds." If you ask him about the Corn Laws, he knows nothing about them, though he will tell you he would rather get a loaf at 6d. than at 1s. The effect on the public mind was equally bad, for when people knew that Members got into that House by these means, it was impossible to respect laws made by such parties. The people must despise the House, and the laws passed by it, and contemn the hypocrisy with which corrupt practices were branded by its Members. Bribery was a disease exactly like the smallpox. It was contagious and communicable from one person to another. Secondly, a person who had suffered badly from the disease was a marked man as long as he lived. Thirdly, the contagion only took effect in cases where susceptibility prevailed. Correct feeling would operate like vaccination to prevent the disease attacking the subject. The cure for bribery was to make people feel that it was disgraceful to give or accept a bribe. The notion was not Utopian. Even in St. Albans, he was informed, there were as many as 200 electors who would not be bribed. No Reform Bill of the kind hitherto introduced would cure the evil. It was proved before the St. Albans Commission that the Reform Bill increased the bribery very much; and if another Bill of the same kind were to be passed, it was impossible to calculate the extent to which corruption might increase. He did not believe that even the ballot would cure the evil, for the "awkward agent" would still contrive to know how much the candidate would stand, and he would bribe the electors conditionally upon the return of the party for whom he acted, paying the money after the election instead of before. The "Man in the Moon," or "the Man in the Helmet," or "the Hole in the Wall," would still continue to act as paymaster, to evade detection. He believed, therefore, that even with the ballot and small constituencies they would have as much bribery as before. There was a great deal of talk about St. Albans bribery, as if other places were not just as bad. The bribery at St. Albans was but a milkscore compared with the bribery which took place in a large constituency in the metropolis, which he would not name. Let them apply the proper cure to these things. Let them not enjoin penalties for bribery which they knew would never be inflicted, but let the penalties be such as would be inflicted in every case of notorious bribery. Let them get rid of the absurdity of a trial by a Committee of five Members of that House, who might be as guilty of bribery themselves as the party whose case they were trying, and let them instead issue a Commission, as in the case of St. Albans, and compel all parties to give evidence. He could bear testimony to the excellent manner in which the St. Albans Commissioners conducted that inquiry, and he respected them as a child respected his father, who corrected him. A mouse was not more helpless before three bull terriers, than a witness was before those learned Commissioners. If one missed him, the next was sure to trip him up, and the third swallowed him. From the manner in which the inquiry was conducted before a Committee of that House, it was almost impossible to get at the truth, for as soon as a witness was about to state something to the point, the gentlemen in big wigs stopped his mouth. No one could be more grateful than he was for the exertions of his learned counsel before the Election Committee; but if he had been a Member of the Committee, he would have voted for unseating himself: for the corruption was so carefully bottled up, that though he saw no evidence, he smelt it, and could guess what was kept back, from what came out. He should use every exertion himself to put down bribery and corruption; but this Bill was not calculated to effect that object, unless other boroughs were put to the same ordeal as St. Albans. The electors of that borough were told that they would not be punished for giving their evidence; and though it was true that no fines had been levied, yet capital punishment was about to be inflicted, and that was worse than a fine. He claimed indulgence, therefore, for his borough. It was in the mud, and he was in the mud with it, but he would never shrink from performing his duty towards it. He would now move that the debate be adjourned; he would not say for three or six months, though that would answer his purpose very well, but simply that it be adjourned, as he expected a petition from some electors of St. Albans, which would throw some further light on the subject.

said, he wished to make a few observations on the original question. In the first place, he could not refrain I from thanking Ministers for taking up this Bill, and should look upon it as an earnest of what they intended to do on the subject. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Bell) had admitted that if he had been on his own Committee he would have voted for unseating himself. After such an admission he thought he had only to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of the Bill. The explanations given by the Commissioners, who had done their duty so admirably at St. Albans, and the information which had been given as to bribery, induced him to hope that the Government would take up the whole question, and not allow St. Albans to remain an individual case. It was said that the bribery at St. Albans was only an example of what took place in some eighty or ninety other boroughs. If that were so, he hoped the House would be consistent, and adopt some means for changing the whole system, for it was the system which corrupted the candidates. If the Government would take up the subject in earnest, he should be happy to support them in any real substantial measure of reform.

thought it was somewhat hard that St. Albans alone should be plucked, when there were other boroughs equally guilty. He hoped the Government would not rest satisfied with the present Bill, but would deal with other corrupt boroughs in a similar way. He had given notice of a Motion for the disfranchisement of Harwich, and he hoped the Government would support his suggestion.

said, that this was a Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Herefordshire (Mr. C. Lewis), and as it appeared to be a useful measure, Government did not oppose it.

said, this Clause, in conjunction with the one that followed, gave power to the Commissioners of the Treasury to make regulations and pay money out of the Consolidated Fund to parties who had established claims in certain cases against the Crown. He thought, however, that these Clauses would prejudice the right which persons had at present of proceeding in a Court of Law against the Treasury or the Crown, in matters to which the Bill referred. It proposed to refer claims to escheated property to Commissioners; but he thought persons ought still to retain the right of bringing such claims before a Court of Law.

apprehended there was nothing in the Bill which would interfere with the rights of persons who had such claims. In the 6th clause it was provided that any person who proved his claim should be paid the amount out of the Consolidated Fund. The Clause would not interfere in any way with his right to bring an action.

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General, that there was nothing in the Bill to affect the legal rights of parties.

said, if the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey) would move a proviso on the bringing up the Report he would give it his consideration.