asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the cause of the detention of the Megæra troop ship at Portsmouth after the time fixed for her sailing for the Mauritius with troops? Whether it was true, that shortly after she sailed she sprang a dangerous leak, which would probably have caused the loss of the ship, had the accident occurred at a greater distance from land? Whether the repairs which the Megæra is now again undergoing at Plymouth are such as will enable the Admiralty to feel confident that she will be in a fit state to convey 400 or 500 of Her Majesty's troops to so distant a part of the world?

I have to state, in reply to the first question of my right hon. Friend, that the cause of the detention of the ship was, that the officer who commanded her had miscalculated the time which would be required in order to clean her up after she had come out of the dockyard. The time occupied in that duty was longer than had been expected, in consequence of the state of the weather, and he had reported that she would have been ready for the embarkation of troops sooner than had actually been the case. When Sir George Seymour inspected her, he found that she was not fit for that service without exposing the troops to unnecessary discomfort, and he therefore thought it advisable to defer the day of her sailing. In answer to the second question of my right hon. Friend, I have to state, that it is not true that the Megæra sprang a leak. It merely turned out that two small screws in the bottom of the ship had not been fixed in their places, and there were consequently two small holes in the bottom of the vessel about seven feet under water. Of course, the water came through them, but it was only in such a small quantity, that with the use of a common hand-bucket she might have gone round the world with perfect safety. In reply to the third question, I beg leave to say, that I have not the slightest doubt that the holes having been caulked, the Megæra is now in a condition to perform the duty assigned to her of going to the Mauritius in a satisfactory manner.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman upon the same subject. He begged leave to ask him, whether a similar accident had not occurred to that very ship upon a former occasion, when she had been employed to take out the first battalion of the Rifle Brigade a second time to the Cape? He had himself received a statement from a relative of one of the officers on board the Megæra, on the occasion to which a reference had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), which gave so totally different a description of the occurrence from that given by the right hon. Gentleman, that he begged leave to read it to the House. He believed he could read it without violating the rules of the House, if he were to move that they should then adjourn; and he would accordingly move that the House do now adjourn. The letter occupied only about ten lines, and, after he should have read it, the House, he thought, would agree with him that he had been justified in so doing. The letter was—"My relative left Portsmouth in the Megæra transport, on Sunday last, and had to return to port on Tuesday; it was as much as ever they could do to keep the water from rising more than three feet in the lower cabin." This did not agree with the "little holes" described by the First Lord of the Admiralty. "She was just out of dock, and is now gone in for large repairs; meantime, 500 men are gone on board a hulk ship—a precious waste of public money from bad management." That was the statement he had received from a relative of one of the officers on board the ship; and he begged leave to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether a similar occurrence to that which had recently taken place had not happened to the same vessel upon a former occasion? With a view to place himself in order, he begged leave, in conclusion, to move the adjournment of the House.

said, that the proceeding adopted by the noble Lord was not strictly in accordance with the practice of the House, and was not, in itself, a very convenient one. The ship in question had undergone considerable repairs at Portsmouth; she was brought from Portsmouth to Plymouth; and he would read to the House the report he had received on the subject of her leakage. [The right hon. Baronet then read the Report, which merely stated that two small screw-holes had been found in the bottom of the vessel, seven feet below water; that she had been since taken into dock; and that as soon as those holes were stopped she would again proceed at once to sea.]

wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet was disposed to make any further inquiry into that matter? From what he had heard he had reason to believe that the water had entered through the bows of the ship, and that she was completely unfit for the service assigned to her.

said, that from the report he had received, it appeared that the leakage had taken place in the hold of the ship, seven feet under water, and not in her bows.

asked the Solicitor General whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to bring forward any measure founded on the Report of the Committee of last Session on the appointment of a Public Prosecutor?

said, that during the short time he had held his present office that subject had been under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and they still continued to give to it that consideration. He could not pledge the Government to any particular course upon the question, which was one, as his hon. and learned Friend was aware, involved in considerable difficulty. At the same time, he should add, that he was not without a hope that some scheme might be devised, if not for literally carrying out the Report of the Committee of last Session, at least for the substantial attainment of the object of the framers of that Report.

said, he wished to be allowed to put a question, of which he had not given notice to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty. The House was perfectly aware that the Government of the United States had made a present of the Resolute Arctic ship to this country. There was a very current report, that since that vessel had been brought back to England she had been ordered to be pulled to pieces. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet if that report was true. He hoped that it was not, and he believed it would be a source of great satisfaction to the people of this country to learn that it was unfounded.

said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not feel offended if he gave him a very short answer. But the fact was, that the shortest answer was, in that case, the most satisfactory. He had simply to state, that the report was not true.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Neapolitan Papers presented to Parliament comprised all the Despatches from Lord Clarendon to the British Mission at Naples between the 19th May, when Her Majesty's Government recommended the Government of the Two Sicilies to grant a general amnesty, and October the 10th, when the British Mission was instructed to leave Naples? Also, at what period and on what conditions Her Majesty's Government intended resuming diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies?

said: In answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that the papers presented to the House do not contain all the despatches sent from the Foreign Office; but they contain all the despatches that bear upon the matters connected with the purpose for which the papers were presented. There are some other despatches which contain instructions with reference to contingencies that never happened, and therefore have no bearing upon the case, but relate to what are now unimportant points. With regard to the second question, perhaps I may without offence be allowed to answer it by putting another question—namely, whether the hon. Gentleman has full powers from the King of Naples in this matter? If his answer should be in the affirmative, I would suggest that his question had better be put to my noble Friend Lord Clarendon in Downing-street, than to me in the House of Commons. I believe that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will feel—or at least the House will feel—that it would he quite improper upon my part to attempt to answer such a question here.

said, he believed his question was one which might fairly be put.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was true that the case of the lorcha Arrow was not the only one in which the authorities of Canton had recently seized or entered upon boats sailing under British colours or furnished with a British register; and, if so, whether he would lay upon the Table of the House any Papers relating to such proceedings? And also, whether he would have any objection to lay before the House any instructions which might have been sent by the Home Government to Sir John Bowring on his appointment as Governor of Hong Kong, or at any subsequent period previous to October last, on the subject of the exclusion of the British authorities and merchants from the city of Canton?

said, I believe, if my noble Friend will refer to the papers which have already been presented to the House, he will find from them that upon two former occasions lorchas had been molested by the Chinese authorities; and those papers also detail the steps taken by Sir John Bowring in consequence of these transactions. With regard to the instructions to which my noble Friend alludes, I have to state that I have no objection to lay them before the House; and I will undertake that they shall be produced.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether it was true, as stated in the newspapers, that Canton had been bombarded by the British authorities with red-hot shot; and, if so, whether the noble Lord had any objection to lay before the House any papers he might have received in reference to that subject?

said, the only foundation for the report to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded is this—The Chinese set fire to some of the hongs, and a number of the Chinese were congregated on the space near those buildings. It became desirable to disperse them in order to prevent any further mischief they might have done, and some shells were thrown into that space for the purpose of driving them off. The space was thereby cleared, but there was no bombardment of the town. [Sir CHARLES WOOD: And no red-hot shot was fired.] The result was that the English admiral still retained his position in the Canton river, but for the present no further steps had been taken.

wished to know whether the noble Lord would have any objection to lay before the House a copy of the colonial ordinance with respect to the registration of vessels?

said, it had been laid on the table yesterday.

seconded the Motion.

said that, being unaware of the exact nature of the provisions f the Bill, he was unwilling, on the part of the Government, to oppose its introduction; but, if he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, the Bill which he sought to introduce was identically the same in its principles and details with that which was rejected by the House in 1855 by a large majority. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that his object was to assimilate the legislation with respect to the fisheries of Ireland to that which regulated the fisheries of England and Scotland; but he (Mr. Horsman) could assure him that the proprietors of the English and Scotch fisheries would be disposed to ask the House to substitute the Irish for the English and Scotch fishery laws. The effect of these annual discussions about the laws relating to the Irish fisheries was very prejudicial to the proprietors of them, and unless the hon. and learned Gentleman could assure him that this was not identically the same as the Bill of 1855 he should be disposed to ask the House to refuse the Motion.

said, that the Bill contained only one section which repealed certain clauses of the Act of the 6 & 7 Vict. and subsequent Acts: and that it related to sea fisheries alone and did not touch inland fisheries.

said, that as no doubt if the measure were introduced, the House would be better able to discuss its details, the Government would not object to its being brought in; but the hon. Gentleman must not expect its future support.

wished to be understood that the present was not a question between salmon proprietors and the public. All that his hon. Friend asked was that the same laws which regulated the salmon fisheries in England and Scotland should regulate those relations in Ireland. It could not be right that there should be one law for the fisheries in Ireland and another for Scotland. He was glad that Government had consented to the introduction of the Bill, as it would then have an opportunity of being fairly discussed.

remarked, that if he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Horsman), his objection to the Bill was that it had been introduced on a previous occasion and had been rejected. He did not quarrel with that principle, and he only wished that the hon. and learned Gentleman would act consistently with his opinion in relation to the obnoxious Judgments Execution Bill, which had been several times before the House and had not passed into law. He trusted, therefore, that when that measure came again before the House they might have the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman against it.

seconded the Motion.

said: My hon. and gallant Friend has repeated to-night the Motion which he made last Session. I felt it to be my duty to resist that Motion, and the House of Commons agreed with me that it would not be advisable to appoint a Committee for such a purpose. I do not see that my hon. and gallant Friend has laid before the House any additional reasons for granting inquiry, and I am therefore relieved from the necessity of troubling them with a repetition of the arguments which I felt necessary to address to them last year. My hon. and gallant Friend altogether misrepresents the state of the case when he says, that every successive Board of Admiralty think everything in the state of the navy to be perfect, and never take the trouble to make amendments. I will venture to say, that for the last fifteen years—I might go back further and say, for the last thirty years—there has been no naval administration which has omitted to take some measure or another for the improvement of the condition of officers and of the men of the navy. Every successive Board has made some step in that direction, and my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me for saying, it is a most unjust accusation which he has made, not only against me, but against the right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords who have preceded me, in alleging that the Admiralty have for years neglected the state of the navy. My conviction is, that the efficiency of the navy in the late war is attributable to the great improvements which have taken place, in various ways, in consequence of those improvements made by successive boards of Admiralty; and I believe that efficiency has been proved and tested in every rank, from the admiral to the common seaman. My hon. and gallant Friend repeats the charge that appointments are influenced by aristocratic and Parliamentary considerations. It is impossible to meet a general accusation of that kind, except by as general a denial. As far as I am concerned, all I can say is, that if he will be so good as to state any one case in which I have been unduly swayed by Parliamentary, family, or aristocratical influence, I will frankly meet it. I deny the truth of the charge, in the most unqualified manner which the courtesy due to my hon. Friend will allow, and I challenge him to name a single instance. My hon. and gallant Friend complains very much of the number of officers unemployed. No doubt it is perfectly true, that in the higher ranks there are more officers than can be employed. It was a subject which occupied the attention of a Commission of military and naval officers in 1840, and of a Committee of this House in 1848; and it was considered desirable that the number of officers on the lists should be considerably diminished. The course of promotions was checked, and the result has been considerably to diminish the number of officers in the higher ranks for whom employment cannot be provided, but this complaint of my hon. and gallant Friend is totally inconsistent with the complaint he generally makes of the want of adequate promotion, because if you considerably reduce the number of the higher ranks, which are obtained by promotion, the inevitable effect must be, that promotions from the lower ranks must be limited; and, if that be so, young and deserving officers are necessarily deprived of the just reward of their services. My hon. and gallant Friend complained last Session, that on the Committee of 1848 there was no naval officer. I pointed out that both branches of the service were impartially treated, and no officer of the army sat on that Committee. I am not quite clear, that officers are the fittest persons to sit upon an inquiry of the kind. But, I remember, that seven years before a Commission was appointed, consisting principally of naval and military officers, for the purpose of investigating this very question, and the recommendations which they made have been carried into execution, and it is of this my hon. Friend complains. The Committee of 1848 recommended that there should be considerable means of retirement provided to relieve the active list of a number of officers who were never likely to be employed, and that recommendation has been acted upon ever since. An Order in Council was passed, that promotions should be made at the rate of one captain for three removed from the list, one commander for three removed, and so on, and this rule has been rigidly adhered to, except where great services have been performed. The result is, that the captains' and commanders' lists, although higher in number than the Committee recommended, are being gradually reduced. It is perfectly true, although my hon. and gallant Friend seems disposed to deny the fact, that a great number of the officers who fill the lower ranks of the service were placed there by the inordinate promotions at the end of the war, and most of them can only be considered as receiving pensions in the shape of half-pay. As many as 1,000 lieutenants were gazetted in one year, and I made a calculation that if every one had been employed, the last would have been eighty-two when sent to sea as commander. I need not say more to show the utter absurdity of supposing that they could all be employed. The naval Members of the Commission which sat in 1840 were Sir George Cockburn, Sir Thomas Hardy, and Sir Charles Adam—men well acquainted with and most devoted to the service. I have only stated what those naval officers asserted. They stated:—

"It would be incorrect to attribute the inactivity of these officers entirely to a voluntary relinquishment of duty on their part, as there is no doubt that very many of them would have been fully prepared to serve if opportunities had been afforded to them; but as we have shown that the proportion of the employed to the unemployed is as small as one to eleven in one class (captains); as one to ten in a second (commanders); and as one to six in the last class (lieutenants), it must be quite obvious that any full-pay employment must have been quite out of the reach of a very large number."

Some of these officers may wear medals, as my hon. Friend says, for gallant actions performed as midshipmen, but to employ them all was impossible. As to the Commission that reported the long list of lieutenants, of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complained, they said:—

"Our examination of the evidence in regard to the rank of 'naval lieutenant' has led to the conviction that a very large number must be considered as having obtained this commission as a provision from the public for services in an inferior station. They did not, of course, obtain lieutenancies exempted from a liability to be recalled to employment, but to many it must have been apparent that this contingency was remote, and they must have viewed the position they obtained as the ultimate station they would hold in the navy. The promotion of more than 1,000 officers to be lieutenants in one year at the close of the last war would in itself furnish a sufficient proof of this."

The convenient mode of rewarding these officers and giving them a pension for life, was to make them lieutenants and to give them the half-pay of their rank, without of course a prospect of employment for the greatest portion of that number. It has been calculated that if all these lieutenants had been employed it would have taken forty years before the list would be exhausted, and those at the bottom of the list would have gone to sea as lieutenants at fifty-five years of age. But it has been proved that where an officer has been so long on shore it is neither for his benefit nor for that of the service that he should be sent to sea. The scheme for the retirement of the admirals has at least worked this beneficial change, that it has diminished the age of those officers who have attained the rank of admiral. It used to be a general complaint that officers were sent to sea of an age that rendered them incompetent to the duties of active service. What was the remedy for that state of things? Why, that a certain number of officers should be placed on the reserved list with the rank and pay of rear-admiral, thereby accelerating the promotion of captains to the rank of admiral. In 1841 the junior admiral had attained the rank of captain thirty-five years before he attained the rank of admiral. The last admiral, appointed two or three days ago, had served twenty-two years, and this is a reduction of thirteen years in the period of his attaining post rank. The second and third vacancy, which will occur, will bring us down to captains who will have attained that rank only twenty years before they attain the rank of admiral. A diminution of several years has thus been effected, and the result is that we have a number of officers on the admirals' list who are more efficient than they were twenty years ago. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the case of the retired commanders who, having held the rank of commanders, retired with the rank of captain, enjoying the half-pay of the captain's rank. Then, again, he must beg leave to refer to the Report of the Commission, who said,—

"With regard to retirement the commanders have some exclusive ground of complaint. They urge that there is no provision in the establishment of Greenwich Hospital for any officers of their rank, and farther that there is no retired list for the seniors of their class similar to the rank of retired rear-admiral, as opened to the captains, or to that of the retired commander, as opened to the lieutenants. For both of these grievances we should consider it expedient that redress should be afforded.

"The advantages of Greenwich Hospital should be opened to commanders, as they are to captains and lieutenants; and we would therefore recommend that four commanders should be added to the establishment of that institution.

"With respect to a rate of retired pay for commanders, we would suggest to your Majesty that the principle adopted in regard to the first 100 lieutenants should be applied to the commanders. These 100 lieutenants have the option of retirement as commanders, with the lowest rate of half-pay of that rank—namely, 8s. 6d. a day. We would recommend that a precisely similar indulgence should be extended to a limited number of the senior commanders; and we should consider that it would be fair to allow 50 of the seniors of that rank the option of receiving the retired rank of captain, with the lowest rate of half-pay allowed to a captain—namely, 10s. 6d. a day.

"It is not in our view to reduce the numbers entitled to the half-pay of 10s. 6d. a day as commanders by the proposed boon. We contemplate the institution of a class of 50 retired captains, with 10s. 6d. a day, to be followed by the same number of commanders—namely, 150 at 10s. a day, as are at present allowed."

These are the recommendations of Sir G. Cockburn, Sir T. Hardy, and Sir C. Adam, and they were immediately carried into effect. Four commanders were added to the establishment of Greenwich Hospital, and fifty commanders retired with the rank of captain, and with the lowest rate of half-pay of a captain. In 1851 my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) doubled the number of retired commanders, and created a reserved list of fifty more; thus trebling the number of retired commanders, with the rank of captain. I thought the commanders would be still more benefited by increasing the number of retirements, arid last year I added 150 to the retired list of commanders, and fifty to the reserved list. I thought it desirable, however, that the fifty should not be added at once, but the result will be that there will be 200 retired naval commanders, instead of fifty, as recommended by the Commission, and there will be 100 permanently on the reserved list of commanders. The expense of the whole will be about £11,000 per annum. My hon. and gallant Friend then comes to the new cadets who have entered the navy. I took the liberty on a previous occasion of stating that the entry of cadets has not been unduly swelled, and that the establishment of mates, midshipmen, and cadets was during the war no less than 600 below the establishment, although the number to be borne in each ship had been reduced. The number of lieutenants is not above that prescribed by the Orders in Council, but at present the complaint is that the ships have plenty of lieutenants, but not enough mates. The number of cadets is considerably short of what is wanted at this moment. It must be remembered that a great number quit the service in one way and another. It is not every boy who takes a fancy to the navy who likes the service after he has seen a little of it. The cadets who entered in 1847 were 196, of whom 83 for one reason or another are no longer in the service. I am, therefore, inclined to think that the entries in the navy have been too much restricted, and certainly if another war were to occur we should have a great deficiency of subordinate officers, without whom it is almost impossible to maintain proper order and discipline. The service cannot, however, be said to be unpopular, as I am fully convinced from the number of applications made to me, which place me in a position of considerable difficulty in deciding upon them. It does not appear to me that my hon. and gallant Friend has shown any ground for the appointment of the Committee for which he asks. The questions relative to the reserved list and the retired list were inquired into by a very competent Commission, which made recommendations, and the same subjects were referred to a Committee of this House, under the presidency of the present Duke of Somerset. The combined system recommended by the Commission and the Committee has since been fully carried out by the successive Boards of Admiralty, and the result has been the gradual diminution of the officers of the higher ranks, though not as yet to the numbers fixed by Orders in Council. I do not think any better course could be adopted for the attainment of the object which my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to effect, and it does not appear to me that his Motion is warranted by any of the grounds he has urged upon the attention of the House.

said, he thought the right hon. Baronet had failed to make out a case against the appointment of a Committee. Although he (Mr. Lindsay) did not believe the present Board of Admiralty were less efficient than their predecessors, and although he knew that the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir C. Wood) had been indefatigable in the discharge of his duties at a period when they were of a very arduous nature, he must say he considered it most objectionable that every change of Administration should involve a change in the Lords of the Admiralty. That system led to such alterations in the plans of the departments as to occasion a large amount of unnecessary expenditure, and he thought this evil would be avoided if there was a permanent head of the Admiralty. He did not see why the Government of the navy should not be assimilated to that of the army; and if the Committee were useless for any other purpose, it could inquire into the policy of assimilating the two modes of administering the service. The Commander in Chief of the army held a permanent office; and, although he was subject to the control of the Secretary of State for War, he was mainly responsible for the efficiency of the military forces. He (Mr. Lindsay) could not imagine why a permanent officer, who might or might not be a member of the naval profession, should not be placed at the head of the Admiralty to control all matters connected with that department. Such an officer might, if the House thought fit, be subject to the control of a First Lord of the Admiralty, or of a Cabinet Minister, in the same manner as the Commander in Chief was under the control of the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) had not explained how it was, that in the midst of the late war little more than one-half the number of naval officers on the active list were actually employed. In July, 1855, there were on the active list twenty-one full admirals, of whom only one was employed; twenty-seven vice-admirals, of whom two were employed; fifty-one rear-admirals, of whom fifteen were employed. The total number of flag officers on the active list was ninety-nine, but only eighteen of them were engaged on active service. The number of captains on the active list at the same time was 399, of whom 139 were employed; commanders, 555, of whom 192 were employed; and lieutenants, 1,132, of whom 883 were employed. He feared that if during a period of war such a large number of unemployed officers remained upon the active list, they might see a similar state of things to that which existed in 1817, soon after the termination of the great continental war, when the House voted 17,000 men for the army, and there were 5,800 officers upon the active list, or one officer to every three men. He did not think the House was doing its duty to the country in paying large sums of money to officers who remained inactive, and such a state of things was calculated to excite great discontent among those officers who were unable to obtain employment afloat. The hon. and gallant mover said, he had a plan to be laid before the Committee. He (Mr. Lindsay) also had a plan, and he should like to see a Committee appointed, in order that these and other proposals might receive consideration.

said, that having last Session entered fully into this question, he did not think it necessary to do so on the present occasion, but he would mention one circumstance which led to great discontent among naval officers, and which produced on their minds an impression that they were not dealt with fairly and justly. That was, that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have power to distribute employment, to confer promotion, and to recommend officers to the Sovereign for distinction. He wished the Board of Admiralty, which was composed principally of naval officers, to be made responsible, together with their political chief, for the distribution of employment, for promotions, and for recommendations to the Sovereign on account of distinguished services. Without making any reflection on the present First Lord or his predecessors—who were, he believed, actuated by the purest motives in the distribution of their patronage—he contended that that patronage was too enormous to be entrusted to one man. It comprised not only the navy itself, but the marines and a large portion of the civil service. An officer who distinguished himself, and was selected for an important command, could not be placed in that command unless two or three officers, probably equally deserving, were deprived of the opportunity of employment, so that the country lost the services of three efficient officers in order to secure the services of one. He did not wish for a Committee, if the House did not think proper to appoint one; but he insisted that the naval officers of the Board of Admiralty ought to be made responsible, together with the First Lord, for the distribution of patronage. Every young officer ought to feel, on entering the service, that he had nothing to depend upon for his advancement but his own efficiency, zeal, perseverance, and courage.

in reply said, that the Orders in Council to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred were, in his opinion, unwise. The right hon. Gentleman set up the decision of 1841 supported by that of 1848; but they ought not in 1857 to be bound by the Report of any Commission of 1841. They should remember, too, that one of the officers upon the Commission of 1841, Sir George Cockburn, left at his death a document stating that the Admiralty was too political. A man sometimes had to die before he was able to speak the truth. The right hon. Gentleman had not accounted satisfactorily for the £11,000 to which he had referred in bringing forward the Motion. He had a mass of letters from officers who had seen forty, fifty, and sixty years' service, detailing their grievances, but he would not read them, and he would now leave the matter in the hands of the House.

said, it was understood last Session that, instead of a Bill for the renewal of the Act to amend the laws relating to bribery, treating, &c., at elections, the whole subject should be referred to a Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act, and to ascertain what improvements in it might be made. He, therefore, moved the appointment of a Select Committee "to inquire into the operation of the Act 17th & 18th Vict. c. 102, in titled 'An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to bribery, treating, and undue influence at Elections of Members of Parliament.'"

was glad the noble Lord had brought forward this question. The Committee which sat a few years ago agreed to a Bill which was admitted on all hands to be the most effective measure for the purpose short of the ballot; nevertheless the measure had proved so very defective, that it was necessary something should be done to prevent the shameful system of bribery and corruption that existed in many places.

also trusted the noble Lord would appoint a Committee that would inquire fairly into the operation of the Act. There was no doubt an impression abroad that the Act was a pompous profession, meant to be inoperative; at least, the great journal of the day, The Times, had so described it. He was, therefore, glad that the noble Lord had submitted the question once more to a Committee; but he hoped its labours would not terminate as fruitlessly as other Committees which had had to investigate the direct operation of our legislative system.