said, he would bog to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session of Parliament, any measure to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Public Monies presented to the House in August, 1857?

said, he took occasion yesterday to state, that as soon as the condition of Public Business permitted, he intended to call the attention of the House generally to the whole subject of the accounts and appropriation of Public Monies, and he would then take an opportunity of explaining what measures it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward.

said, he wished to inquire of the law officers of the Crown, when it is intended to bring in the Bill for the amendment of the Law of Bankruptcy.

said, he had been charged by the Lord Chancellor with the preparation of a Bill for the amendment of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency. The Bill, which he was happy to say was in a very advanced state of preparation, was very extensive, and very complicated in its form and details; but he had little doubt that, by devoting to it all the attention that his other occupations would permit him to do, it would be in a condition to be laid before the House of Lords, where Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce it, by the end of the next week, or at any rate by the beginning of the week following.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary for War, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give any allowance to the Medical Officers and Subalterns of the Militia Regiments which they intend to disembody; whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any change in the relative rank of the Regimental Captains, and of the Adjutants of the Militia Regiments, so as to affect the seniority of the former over the latter, and if so, whether he will explain the reasons for such a change.

said, his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for War had just written to him to request that he would answer the question of the hon. and gallant Member. He had to state, that it was proposed to give to each subaltern of Militia Regiments which were disembodied, an allowance equal to six months pay, and to the Surgeons and Assistant Surgeons an allowance equal to one year's pay, from the day of disembodiment inclusive. The Paymasters would be continued on pay for three months after the disembodiment, and would receive a gratuity equal to three months' pay on rendering their final accounts. The case of Militia Adjutants and Captains had not yet, he believed, been brought under the notice of his right hon. Friend (General Peel).

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Colonies, whether he has received any information contradicting the statement made to the late New Zealand Loan Guarantee Committee, that the idea of accepting £200,000 instead of £500,000 was distinctly negatived by the House of Representatives; and whether it is not, in fact, true, that the case of only obtaining £200,000 was carefully provided for in a formal Resolution?

said, he would, for the sake of convenience, take the second part of the hon. Member's question first. He had to state that he had examined the Minutes of the House of Representatives, and he found that a Resolution was passed, as the hon. Member had stated, providing for the contingency of a loan of only £200,000 being granted. That Resolution bore date the 2nd of July, 1856. In answer to the first part of the question, he begged to observe, that the hon. Gentleman had not quoted with perfect accuracy the witness to whose evidence he referred. The witness said, the question of a loan limited to £200,000 was raised in the Legislature, and was distinctly negatived. The hon. Member, in his question, merely said that the idea had been raised in the House of Representatives, and had there been distinctly negatived. He need not, he apprehended, remind the hon. Gentleman, that under the New Zealand Constitution there were two Houses of Legislature, and it was possible that although Resolutions were carried in the House of Representatives, they might have been negatived in the other House; but at the same time he was bound to say, that he could not find in the records of the Colonial Office any trace of such a proceeding. He found that the Resolution did pass the House of Representatives, but he could not trace what became of it afterwards.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary for War, whether the Royal Commission to take into consideration the Warrant of October, 1854, has yet been appointed: and if so, when they are likely to meet?

said, he must beg to inform his hon. and gallant Friend, that a Royal Commission was appointed, and would meet on the following day for the first time.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee on certain duties levied on ships and other imports within the port of Dublin. He knew the difficulty of attracting the attention of the House to a question of local grievance, especially one of a financial and mercantile character and affecting Ireland; but when he said it vitally affected the prosperity of Dublin, he hoped they would give it as much attention as if it concerned the trade of Manchester, Liverpool, or London. The merchants, the Chamber of Commerce, and the whole community of Dublin, complained of certain imposts which were not only extremely vexatious in their character, but utterly destructive of the little foreign trade Dublin possessed. Indeed, there was no parallel to these dues on any port in the Irish Channel. He would remind the House, that last Session he had introduced the question in a different manner. He then proposed to repeal these duties altogether, and he obtained the support not only of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also of a minority of 173, a very unusual number to support any project of a private member: in this minority were included many Irish Members of all shades of opinion. This, he thought, was a strong testimony to the soundness of the cause he had undertaken. The facts attending the imposition of these duties were as follows. A great many years ago, the merchants of Dublin petitioned the Legislature to assist them in erecting a small pier for the convenience of their ships at the harbour of Kingstown, which was then called Dunleary; and they agreed that certain duties should be levied to liquidate the sum advanced for this pier. In process of time, the pier was extended into a harbour of refuge, and by some extraordinary inadvertence, the duties were continued for the purposes of a work far beyond the means and character of so small an impost, though the merchants of Dublin had no more to do with the harbour than the owners of any other ships that traded in the Channel. He understood, however, that by the Act of Parliament, the sum applied to these works was limited to £60,000. That sum was paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and to that extent these duties were pledged. That sum had been long since paid. He could not find that the payment was continued by any other act; but whether it was or not, formed no part of his case. His case was, that the harbour was intended for all vessels, and therefore the merchants of Dublin ought not exclusively to pay for it; yet, such was the injustice and peculiarity of this impost, that a foreign vessel coming up the river for the port of Dublin, and never entering Kingstown Harbour, paid 4d. per ton on her cargo, while a vessel bound to Liverpool or Glasgow, and driven in there by stress of weather, might stay there as long as she pleased, and was not called on to pay a single farthing; so a cargo of teas coming direct to Dublin from Canton, and never entering Kingstown Harbour, would have to pay 2s. on every chest, while the same vessel, if she had been going to Liverpool, and had run into Kingstown to save herself from certain destruction, would not be called on to pay anything whatever. How was it to be wondered at, that under such a system foreign vessels were driven away from their port? A Commission, which was appointed by Government on the subject, recommended that the duties should be altogether abolished, and acting on that recommendation, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) brought in a Bill to abolish them, but unfortunately he mixed up those dues with the abolition of certain trifling corporation dues that had been levied by prescription, and that in no way affected the trade of the port. The corporation of Dublin instructed their representatives to oppose this measure without compensation; but he had no doubt that if the port dues were abolished, the corporation dues might be extinguished too; at all events, he thought he might promise that, if a Committee were appointed to consider this question, all parties would be bound by the decision. With regard to the port dues, they had been condemned by every Committee and every person that had turned his attention to the subject. The harbours of refuge now in course of erection at Holyhead and Dovor could not be more useful to vessels in distress than the harbour at Kingstown was; and it would be just as fair to support the one harbour by a tax levied on the trade of Wales and the other by a tax on the trade of Kent, as to support Kingstown by a tax on the trade of Dublin. But it might be said, that a certain amount had been advanced on the security of those rates, and that it would therefore be a breach of faith to repeal them. He con- tended, however, that if an improvident bargain had been made, if duties were levied which entirely crushed the foreign trade of the port, Parliament might properly take upon itself to put an end to the existing arrangement; in fact, the principle that any mortgage on those dues prevented their repeal had been abandoned already, for originally they were levied upon the cross-channel trade as well as upon the foreign; but of late years the tax on the large and profitable trade was given up, and it was only continued on the small and unprofitable branch of commerce. It was important also to take into consideration the fact, that of late years the river had been deepened and so much improved that, except in cases of great emergency, vessels had no occasion to run to Kingstown harbour. He would not, however, go into all the arguments of the case, as his Motion was one for simple inquiry; he would be content that there should not be a single Irish Member on the Committee but himself, and he would abide by the decision of the English Members. He had been requested by the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin to bring forward this Motion. He had done it very briefly, and he would now leave the matter in the hands of the House.

seconded the Motion.

said, that although the amount involved was not a large one, the question was not so very simple as it seemed. The hon. Member who brought it forward had not told them a great deal about the effect the dues had upon the foreign trade of Dublin—whether it was increasing or decreasing, or how it was operated upon by the tax. It was not easy for an Englishman thoroughly to understand the whole outs and ins of this question. It was not easy to understand why the merchants of Dublin had agreed to levy dues upon themselves, not for the benefit of their own harbour, but to create the harbour of Dunleary, as the port of Kingstown was then called. The hon. Gentleman said, that ships passing Kingstown, and entering the port of Dublin, were compelled to pay the tax, while ships that entered the harbour of Kingstown, the harbour for whose use this tax was levied, escaped payment altogether. Certainly that arrangement seemed peculiarly Irish, and most assuredly it was not the original arrangement. There was another part of the question which he did not think the hon. Member had made so much of as he might have done. It was, that the question was not only one as to the amount of the tax, but that the mode of levying it was injurious to trade. Of that there could be no doubt. It was levied on a great variety of small articles, and was made up of a number of small payments, and consequently was very troublesome. Conceding all that, there still remained for the consideration of the House an awkward element in the matter—namely, the element of a bargain of money. The hon. Member must not suppose that the sum he referred to was the limit of that bargain. There was a largo sum—about £300,000 of capital and unpaid interest—outstanding on this account on the one hand, and on the other the modest sum of £3,000 a year paid towards the interest of this large sum. The dealings between the corporation of Dublin and the Consolidated Fund had in fact been of a very intricate character, and cognate matters were still going on. At present, the Consolidated Fund paid to the corporation of Dublin a sum nearly equal to the amount for differential duties on foreign ships that went there. In 1852, the amount paid by the Consolidated Fund was £2,200, and it did not appear that it was proposed to give up that payment, so that, in fact, the present demand was wholly one-sided. That, however, was not the whole of the case. There were in Ireland, as well as in England, what were called light dues; and another agreement between the Consolidated Fund and the Irish authorities had been entered into, to the effect that the Ballast Board, by which those lights were originally managed, were to pay a given sum, out of the surplus arising from those lights, to the Consolidated Fund. There was, however, now no such surplus, and he believed the question stood thus:— that while a sum of £20,090 was received in connection with the Irish lights, a sum of £38,000 was expended. Those figures did not, indeed, accurately represent the state of the matter, inasmuch as there were payments for Irish lights received at Liverpool and other places, which did not enter into the calculation. But, upon what ground it could fairly be argued that there was a surplus he could not understand. The question to which the hon. Gentleman had called the notice of the House was one, he might add, which came peculiarly within the province of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Consolidated Fund paid back £2,000 a year on account of foreign differential duties, and received, on the other hand, something like £3,000. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought inquiry was called for, he for his part, would not be unwilling to enter upon it, in order to see whether some arrangement might not be made, by which the Consolidated Fund might not suffer a loss. As far as he was concerned, he did not deny that the duties were levied in a most inconvenient manner; but there was a debt to the Government, and it ought not to be given up, unless the corporation gave a fair equivalent for the dues from which they wished to be released.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down stated that there was no proof that these dues caused any injury to the foreign trade of the port of Dublin; but his hon. Colleague (Mr. Vance) had told the House what was simply the fact—that any foreign ship going to the port of Dublin, though she made no use of the harbour of Kingstown, was liable to these dues; whereas a ship coming from Glasgow, Bristol, Hull, or any other home port, made use of that harbour without paying any dues whatever. There could be no doubt, therefore, that the mode in which the duties were levied was an injury—almost a prohibition—to the foreign trade of Dublin. In no other port did such duties exist; and he would ask whether the Government would venture to act in the same way towards the port of Liverpool? With respect to the Irish lights, a change had taken place within the last three or four years in their management. Previously, the whole of those lights were under the management of the Dublin Ballast Board; and they managed those lights so well, that they set an example of reducing the dues to a scale which the Trinity Hoard, in London, found it necessary to imitate; and if there had been any deficiency within the last few years in the amount received on Irish lights, it must be borne in mind that those lights had been during that time in the management of the Trinity Board in this country, who had appropriated, moreover, a sum of £30,000, which the Ballast Board had in the bank at the time of the chance of management. With regard to the differential duties, that might be a proper question for the consideration of a Committee; but the House must bear in mind that the corporation of Dublin was a distinct body, and the trading community of Dublin—though there were many of them in the corporation—was another; and his colleague (Mr. Vance) appeared now, on behalf of the commercial and shipping interest of Dublin, to show to the House that those dues rendered it almost impossible to carry on a foreign trade in that port. The traders of Dublin appealed to the House to repeal an impost which the House itself admitted to be unjust. They asked the permission of the House to establish, by an inquiry before a Committee, that the maintenance of this impost was ruinous to the trade of the port of Dublin, and that its maintenance should not be continued, because the corporation of Dublin claimed a right to those dues.

said, he could not at all agree with the hon. Member who had just spoken, as to the general view he had taken of the question. It appeared to him that if ever there was a contract between the Consolidated Fund and any other body, it was the contract with respect to these dues. In his view, the arrangement made was one of great advantage to the inhabitants of Dublin, and of very little advantage to the Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund obtained a small amount every year in return for a very considerable claim, which it might have urged with success, and therefore he could not hold out any hope that he would consent to any arrangement which would tend to diminish the amount paid to the Consolidated Fund—an amount much below what they were entitled to receive; on the contrary, he must oppose any attempt to relieve the inhabitants of Dublin from the payment of that amount. But if it was a fact that the manner in which these tolls were levied was injurious to the commerce of the port of Dublin, he was willing to go as far as his right hon. Friend in making any alteration in the way in which the amount was levied, on the understanding that the same amount was paid into the Exchequer. He should not, therefore, oppose the appointment of the Committee; but in assenting to the inquiry, he could not hold out any hope of reducing the amount paid into the Exchequer. If, therefore, the hon. Member should hereafter find him a stern opponent of any proposal to reduce that amount, he must not accuse him of inconsistency.

said, that hav- ing looked carefully through the voluminous Acts of Parliament and papers on these dues, he confessed he did not clearly understand the question, and he doubted whether any Member of the House did. The matter was so complicated that he thought the parties aggrieved were entitled to an inquiry. For his part, he could not discover where the compact between the corporation of Dublin and the Consolidated Fund had been. The hon. Member did not now ask for the abolition of the tax, but only for an inquiry; and although that inquiry was to be granted, it was to be curtailed by the understanding that there would be no relief from the impost unless some equivalent could be found for the Consolidated Fund. It was not the corporation of Dublin, nor the Irish Ballast Board, which had an interest in the question, but the merchants of Dublin, whose trade was damnified, not only by the impost itself, but by the manner in which it was levied. To give an instance of it, be might state that a friend of his own, a merchant in Dublin, had paid on a small cargo of tea as much as £140 duty, which he would not have been called upon to pay had the tea been shipped to Liverpool, Glasgow, or any other port. He should advise the hon. Member for Dublin not to trouble himself with the Committee, if the investigation was to be limited in the manner suggested by the Government.

said, as the question had become somewhat obscured, he would just mention briefly the facts relating to this matter. He would, however, say nothing about the negotiations previous to the Act of Parliament; but in 1815 an Act was passed, constituting certain Commissioners for Dunleary or Kingstown harbour. In the following year another Act was passed, authorizing sums to be paid out of the Irish Exchequer for the improvement of the harbour, and imposing the dues which were now in question. The dues were appropriated in the following manner:— First, interest was to be paid upon the sum advanced from the Irish Exchequer, and then any surplus should be applied to a sinking fund for the reduction of the principal. Under that Act, £218,000 was advanced out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of the harbour, and the payment made upon the corporation of Dublin to the Consolidated Fund in respect of that sum—a payment which it was said pressed so severely on the trade of Dublin —was about £3,000 a year. The result was, that in 1837—tho date of the last account which he had been enabled to get —the arrear of interest due, together with the principal advanced, amounted to £313,000. That arrear had, no doubt, being going on to the present day; and it would be a moderate estimate to put the sum for which the Consolidated Fund had a claim upon these duties at £400,000. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government ought not to give up this sum. The money had been spent and no equivalent had been received by the Government. When he (Mr. Lowe) introduced a Bill for the abolition of all town dues on shipping, he proposed to do away with these particular dues; but, as a matter of exception, he did not see on what grounds Dublin could claim to be exempted from them. But if Dublin made this payment to the Consolidated Fund, there were two other payments which the corporation of Dublin received—first, a sum of £2,000 a year for town dues levied on shipping entering the port, in consideration of which the corporation provided scales and weights and other small matters of accommodation; and, in addition to that, they received out of the Consolidated Fund of this country, which had advanced £218,000 to make their harbour, £2,000 a year as an equivalent for differential dues on foreign shipping; so that the accounts stood thus:—The corporation received from shipping £2,000 a year, and from the Consolidated Fund £2,000 a year, besides the £218,000 they had received out of the Consolidated Fund, for which they paid an interest of £1 per cent. He did not think that was an arrangement which could be in any way altered to the advantage of the public in favour of the port of Dublin. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before assenting to the Committee, would see the necessity of restricting its range of inquiry within more definite and appropriate limits than were indicated by the notice of Motion on the paper.

said, he thought the remarks of his right hon. Friend deserving of serious consideration. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated very distinctly that nothing would induce him to consent to deprive the Consolidated Fund of the income in question, and that the only question which he would entertain was the mode in which an equal amount might be collected. If that was the opinion of the Government it would be trifling with the Committee if they were to appoint it and to permit it to take the larger range of the question started by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. FitzGerald). In fairness to the Committee there ought to be some limitation to its inquiry, otherwise it would lead to no result. The Committee should be directed to confine their investigation to the point whether an equal sum could be levied in any manner which would be less objectionable and oppressive to the city of Dublin than the present dues.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Septennial Act, and to limit the duration of Parliament to three years. He said this question had often been discussed in Parliament, but not for several years past. He had to solicit the indulgence of the House—to which no one who had an onerous duty to discharge had ever appealed in vain—while he endeavoured to bring its merits under their consideration. The question was one of great importance, and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House to support the Motion he was about to make, because he intended to show the House that according to the ancient constitution of this country short Parliaments ought to exist. He would not, however, go into the history of this question further back than for the last five hundred years. It would be enough for him if he showed that up to 1715, when the Act which he sought to repeal passed, there were short Parliaments. The first Act which had reference to the duration of Parliaments was passed in the 4th Edward III, in the year 1330. By that statute it was accorded that a Parliament should be holden once in every year, and oftener if necessary. It appeared that that Act had been pretty well observed, but nevertheless breaches of its provisions occurred in the reign of the same king; and in order that there should he no mistake, by the 36 Edw. III. c. 10, it was enacted that a Parliament should be opened once in every year, as was ordained by the previous statute. Parliaments were accordingly held during the next ten years in exact conformity with the statute and the principle of the enactment with occasional lapses continued in operation till the reign of Henry VIII. Thus it appeared that during the fifty-seven years of the reign of Edward III, there wore thirty-seven Parliaments; in the reign of Richard II. there were twenty-six Parliaments held in twenty-two years; in that of Henry IV. there were ten in fourteen years; in that of Henry V. there were held eleven in nine years; and in the reign of Henry VI. there were held twenty-two Parliaments in thirty-nine years. Then came the reign of Henry VIII., who, as was well known, set all Acts of Parliament at defiance, and only held as many Parliaments as he chose. From that time to the reign of Charles I. Parliaments were held very irregularly, sometimes five or six years intervening between them, and sometimes two. He ought, however, to except the reign of Queen Mary, for it appeared that during the five years she was on the throne she called together five Parliaments. Hitherto the constitution had been that of annual Parliaments, however much infringed, but they now came to a different state of things and a new class of legislation. The 16th of Charles I. was passed, declaring that if after a period of three years the king did not call Parliament together, the people themselves were to have the power of doing so. The 16th of Charles II. repealed this statute, and declared that the power of calling Parliaments together at the end of three years should rest, not with the people, but with the Crown. But the 6th of William and Mary was really the Triennial Act. It was called "An Act for the frequent meeting and calling of Parliament," and it enacted that Parliament should be called once in three years, or rather that three years should not elapse without Parliament being brought together. For the first time they now found the words that no Parliament should last longer than three years. After the passing of the Act of William and Mary it was rigidly adhered to; a Parliament was called, which lasted three years and then dissolved. Passing over the reign of Queen Anne, be came to that of George I., when, unfortunately for the country, there was a change of Government—the Tories were turned out, and the King took into his councils the Whigs of that day. Changes of Government were not effected in those days quietly and without excitement, as was the case now, hut they were attended with rioting, violence, and bloodshed, and it was in the midst of such circumstances that the law was passed which he sought to repeal. In January, 1715, some remarkable words were put into the mouth of the king, who had just come to the throne; for, in a proclamation issued calling Parliament together, the people were directed to elect such persons as would redress their grievances and maintain the Protestant succession. The frightful and enormous expenditure which occurred at that election was made the reason for passing the Act which he now sought to repeal. When the new Parliament met, on the 14th March, 1715, the Whigs, who were in a majority, took care that all should be done which would prevent their opponents getting into power again. The year 1715 was signalized by rebellion in Scotland, and insurrection in the north, and disturbances in various parts of the country, The Earl of Oxford was impeached; the heads of the Earl of Derwentwater and other Peers rolled from the scaffold on Tower Hill. We condemned foreign countries for putting persons to death for their political opinions, but this was done in England in 1715. On the 24th of January, 1715, the king gave his assent to another Bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The king stated to Parliament that the Pretender was in Scotland, which was not, however, true, and in this state of affairs the Septennial Act was introduced. Executions were taking place and the country was in a state of commotion. The Ministry of the day found that Parliament was about to expire, according to the provisions of the Act of William and Mary, at a juncture when the people were irritated by the harshness and cruelty of Government in suppressing the rebellion. That was a state of public feeling which they were unwilling to encounter, and therefore to secure their own immunity, they set about to see how they could best retain the power they had obtained by shedding so much blood, and what did they do? They did not bring a Bill into the House of Commons which was to extend the duration of Parliaments, but it was introduced into the House of Lords, which was then a sealed place, of the proceedings in which no one knew anything, and it was there passed and brought down to the Commons on the 19th of April, 1716. One would have supposed that a Bill of such a character would have received considerable discussion, and a long time would have elapsed before it was passed through its several stages; but having been brought in on the 19th of April, and read a first time on the same night, on the following 26th it was passed and sent back to the House of Lords without any Amendment. That showed the state of the country and the fear and trepidation of the Parliament. Members jumped at the idea of securing their seats for another four years, and they were glad to pass a Bill for that purpose in one week. Although the Bill was only in the House of Commons one week the people got an inkling of it, and sent up petitions against it. One of those petitions came from Abingdon, and it set forth that the most valuable privilege which they enjoyed was their being represented in Parliament, and that though they had a Member who was faithful to his duty, yet if he forgot that duty by the extension of the duration of Parliament to more than three years, they would be unable to make such change in their representation as they thought desirable for a considerable lapse of time, and therefore they objected to any alteration of the duration of Parliament beyond three years. Another petition was from Horsham, and it stated that the Petitioners looked on the Bill as an overturning of the constitution and an infringement of their liberties. A Motion was made to reject this petition, and on a division 157 voted for its rejection and 90 in its favour. The House of Commons therefore would not receive the petitions of the people. The Septennial Act was entitled an Act for enlarging the Continuance of Parliament as arranged by the Act of William and Mary, passed for providing for the frequent calling together of Parlia- ment; and the preamble of the Act alleged three reasons for the change:— that triennial Parliaments entailed grievous expense; that more violent and lasting heats and animosities than had ever been known before had arisen since the Act 6th William and Mary was passed, by which triennial Parliaments were established; and that it was desirable Parliament should continue longer than three years because of the existence of Popish factions, which were dangerous to the Government; that Act was recited in the preamble, which went on to say that it had been proved that the said Act was burdensome by reason of the expenses it caused in the election of Members of Parliament, and by reason of the heat and animosity it created, which were greater than they had been before it passed, and that if the said provisions were continued then, when a restless faction were endeavouring to renew rebellion and promote invasion, the results would be most disadvantageous to the country. None of these allegations would, however, now hold good as reasons why that Act should not be repealed, and we should not go back to the old system of our constitution. It might be said that the expenses of elections were so great that no man ought to go back to his constituents so often as once in three years. But he believed that if an hon. Member was true to his pledges and attentive to his duty to his constituents, he would be elected as long as he chose to seek their suffrages, and that the shorter Parliaments were the less likelihood there would be of men lavishing money to obtain seats for their own personal advantage. If hon. Members had to go back to their constituents every three years there would be less chance of their forgetting the pledges which they gave upon the hustings, and less necessity for reminding their constituents of the manner in which they had discharged their duties. He had been for years a member of a body, the members of which were elected annually, and he found that, presenting himself year after year to his constituents, they knew what he had done almost as well as he could tell them. But Parliamentary constituencies, under the present system, were almost as prone to forget as the Members were themselves, and he doubted very much whether he should remember what he had promised on his election if he were not a metropolitan member, and in daily communication with his constituents. It was the grossest absurdity to allege that the heats and animosities which were occasioned by the change of Government from Tory to Whig were attributable to the Triennial Act, and with regard to the third allegation in the preamble of the Septennial Act—namely, that when a rebellion or invasion threatened, it was imprudent to dissolve Parliament, — that reason did not hold good now. We were not threatened with invasion, though we might have been if the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had continued in office. There was no rebellion in Scotland, and there were no dangerous Popish factions. The succession to the Throne was as secure as it could possibly be; and, although some men might prefer a republican to a monarchical form of Government, he believed that the few of that opinion who were in England were ready to postpone their republicanism out of the love and veneration which they bore towards Her Majesty the Queen of this realm. It might be said that, taking the average since the Septennial Act, Parliaments had really been triennial; but he contended that the average ought not to he taken, and that, omitting the exceptional instances of Parliament being dissolved a very short time after election, in consequence of a change of Ministry or any other cause, ordinary Parliaments had lasted more than five, and in many of them nearly the full seven years. It was said that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton and the noble Lord the Member for London were just now bidding for the leadership of the Liberal party. If it were true, there was a chance for them. He should be very glad—before the discussion was over—to hear each of the noble Lords bidding "Triennial Parliaments," and he was sure that by such a bid they would advance themselves greatly in the favour of the people. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of George I, cap. 38, commonly called the "Septennial Act," and to limit the duration of Parliaments to three years.

seconded the Motion.

Sir, the hon. Gentleman, in making an appeal to the two noble Lords and to this bench with respect to this question, has gone back in his recollections of the history of this country to a very early period, in order to show that, according to all constitutional doctrine, we ought to shorten the duration of Parliament. I think, however, that if the hon. Gentleman had studied our history a little more accurately he would have found that there is nothing in our constitutional practice to sanction that doctrine. He would have found that the first statute to which he referred was one which was not applicable in the least degree to the frequency of elections, but to the frequency of the Session of Parliament. He would have found that the statute of Edward III., providing that Parliaments were to be holden once annually, and oftener, if need be, related entirely to the Session, and not to the choice of Members. The hon. Gentleman went through the history of England during the reigns of Henry IV., Henry V., and Henry VI., in order to show that Parliaments were then frequently held. If he turns again to those reigns he will find no doubt that there was much uncertainty on the subject; that Parliament sat but for short periods, and that they were prorogued, adjourned, and dissolved, according to pleasure. Still, I believe that in many instances though frequently hold they were not frequently chosen. And if, continuing his researches, he passes on to the reign of Henry VIII., a reign which lasted for about thirty-eight years, he will find one Parliament sitting for six years at the least—the Parliament, I mean, which was summoned in 1529, which was prorogued no less than seven times, and which caused the dissolution of the greater monasteries. The instances to which he refers in Queen Mary's reign were not all of them new summonses of Parliament, but one or two were renewed sittings of the same Parliament. If he will refer to the reign of Edward VI., which he passes over, he will find that one Parliament sat for five years, that is to say, it was not dissolved until the end of that period; and on referring to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, he will find a Parliament summoned in 1572 which was not dissolved until 1583, but which, during those eleven years, sat twenty-five times. I might go through the reign of James I., anil even that of Charles I., to show, in answer to the appeal which the hon. Gentleman has made to these benches, that from the first statute he quotes down to the Act passed by the Long Parliament in the reign of Charles I., there is not a single law or instance of usage in the history of this country which will establish the principle that upon constitutional grounds, Parliament ought to be annually elected. The first attempt at limiting the duration of Parliament, in the reign of Charles I., was that made by the Long Parliament, which passed an Act whereby it was provided that Parliament should not exist for a greater length of time than three years. But that Parliament was the very first to break through its own law, and declared itself indissoluble except by its own act. That statute was therefore repealed in the reign of Charles II., and the celebrated Parliament of the Merry Monarch was one of the longest Parliaments that over sat. The second time that an attempt was made to limit the duration of Parliament was on the occasion of the passing of the Triennial Act of 1691, agreed to by both Houses, but which was one of the few instances in which a Bill passed by the two Estates of the realm was not assented to by the Crown. The violation of the constitution, if there has been a violation—or rather, to speak more correctly, the alteration made in the constitution which imposed upon the Crown the necessity of calling together Parliament in the first instance once in three years, and in the second instance once in seven years—was effected, first in the reign of William III., and afterwards in the reign of George I. That, Sir, is the correct historical account of the constitution of the country with reference to the question of the duration of Parliament, and when the hon. Gentleman points to the Septennial Act as a violation of the constitution, because it enabled the Parliament then elected to exist for seven years instead of for three, he forgets that if that Parliament had simply repealed the Triennial Act there was nothing whatever either in the constitution of the country, the common law, or the statutable law of the land, to prevent that Parliament from existing during the whole reign of the King. Constitutionally, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that the appeal he has made to us is not an appeal to support a Motion for Annual or Triennial Parliaments; but if he wishes us to be guided by precedents to be found in the earlier period of our history, it would be an appeal that Parliament should last even longer than seven years. A large por- tion of the hon. Gentleman's speech was directed to the constitutional and historical portion of the question, and therefore I thought it right to correct some of the statements he made in order that we may proceed upon sound premises. The real question, however, which the hon. Gentleman wishes to submit to the House is this, whether the extension of the duration of Parliament from three years to seven in the reign of George I., thus limiting its existence, which otherwise, according to the constitution, would have been unlimited, was, or was not the best measure of time which can be fixed upon for the duration of Parliament. That is really the only question before the House, and no doubt it is open to argument as to whether seven years is or is not the best period at which its duration should be fixed. I think we shall all agree that annual Parliaments, notwithstanding the constitutional reasons which may be alleged in their favour, would be too short, and probably we should equally agree that if Parliament was allowed to remain in existence during the life of the reigning Sovereign, undoubtedly that would be too long. In the former case, you would be driven to such frequency of election that you would have nothing steady or certain about your legislation; and, in the latter case, such an impunity would be given to Members, who would never be held in awe by the necessity of having to meet their constituents for a renewal of their trust, that the most inconvenient consequences might result. The real question, therefore, is, whether that law, which has now been the law of the country for nearly 150 years, is not a wise provision for the limitation of the duration of Parliament. I think, for several reasons, it is a wise provision, and that the period fixed is, on the whole, the best which has yet been devised. The first reason why I uphold it is, that if you have a duration of Parliament for a smaller number of years, great inconvenience would be felt in consequence of the inexperience of the Members, and there would also be a certain want of confidence in the Members themselves, arising from the frequency of their return to their constituencies. The daily business of Parliament, too, is far better transacted when the return of Members is made for a longer period than it would be if this Bill were carried. As the hon. Gentleman has referred to the time when the Triennial Act was in operation, perhaps he will allow me to point out, as it is a question of experience, what was the experience of our ancestors with respect to the limitation of Parliament to three years. I hold in my hand the History of Europe, by the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), from the peace of Utrecht, and in that history he quotes a passage from a speech of Sir Richard Steele, giving an account of the operation of the limitation of the existence of Parliament to three years—

"It made a triennial King, a triennial Minis try, a triennial alliance. We feel this in all occurrences of State; and they who look upon us from abroad, behold with anxiety and doubt the struggle in which we are necessarily engaged from time to time, under this law. Ever since it has been enacted the nation has been in a series of contentions. The first year of a triennial Parliament has been spent in vindictive decisions and animosities concerning the late elections; the second Session has entered into business, but rather with a spirit of contradiction to what the prevailing set of men in former Parliaments had brought to pass, than of a disinterested zeal for the common good. The third Session languished in the pursuit of what little was intended to be done in the second; and the approach of an ensuing election terrified the Members into a servile management according as their respective principals were disposed towards the question before them in the House."

Sir, I believe that to be a just and true description of what took place under the system of triennial Parliaments. You would have again the same inconveniences if you had recourse to the same measure. The first year you would have hon. Members learning their business; in the second you would have them endeavouring to legislate; and in the third you would have them seeking to gain popularity, in order to be in a position to meet their constituents at the end of the year, and ensure their election. Such a state of things must be inimical to cautious, continuous, and well-considered legislation. This House, instead of being the representative of the deliberate judgment and conviction of the sensible and thinking portion of the community, would be the mere reflex of their hasty conclusions, and more probably represent the prejudices and passions of the nation than its reason and its judgment. These are the considerations, stated shortly, which induce me to withhold my concurrence with a plan which would introduce the system of triennial Parliaments. The experiment which has been tried has not been successful, and therefore I think it would be unwise to try it again. Well, then, I ask, has the experiment of septennial Parliaments failed? [An Hon. MEMBER: Yes.] The hon. Gentleman who is bold enough to respond to that question will, perhaps, permit me to recall to his recollection, and contrast what I have just read as the result of the Triennial Act with what has happened in Parliament since the repeal of that enactment. We are speaking of the House of Commons historically; and, I ask, who were the great governors of this country before the passing of the Septennial Act? They sat principally in the House of Lords. I venture to say, that if you go over list after list of great Ministers, you will find that the influence of this House at the time that Act was in operation was as nothing when contrasted with that of the House of Lords. All your great Ministers, your Burleighs, your Buckinghams, your Shaftesburys, your Sunderlands, your Nottinghams, your Godolphins, your Halifaxes, were Members of the House of Lords, and the two most eminent men in our history of that time—Henry St. John and Robert Harley—both found it necessary, when they were honoured with the favour of their Sovereign, to get transferred to the Upper House, because they could carry on the Government of the country better by being in that House than they could do in this. But what has been the state of the House of Commons since the passing of the Septennial Act? From that time down to the present many of the most important statesmen who have presided over the destinies of the country have been Members of this House. I need not refer to the author of that Bill himself—one of the best Ministers of this country that ever lived, whoso love of peace was only equalled by his love of constitutional freedom as established by the Revolution—I mean Sir Robert Walpole. If you trace your history from that period, what are the nest names you find? Those of Mr. Pelham, of Mr. Grenville, of Lord North, and—greater than all, and greater than that of almost any Minister that ever elevated the honour and dignity of this country—you find the name of the first Mr. Pitt. You may then take the short administration of the Marquess of Rockingham and the Earl of Shelburne, and you find them succeeded in the next period of your history by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox. When those two men were carried away in the same year—when they were gathered into the sacred vaults of the neighbouring Abbey—

"Where—taming thought to human pride—

"The mighty chiefs sleep side by side,"

They were followed by that good man for whom, perhaps, I may be briefly allowed to offer a passing tribute of little less than filial affection, the commoner, Mr. Percival; and, after him, with the exception of the Duke of Wellington, Earl Grey, Lord Melbourne, and the present Prime Minister —some of whom were raised to distinction by their early struggles in the House, and the last of whom is admitted to be an ex-exception to every rule — I ask whether the names to which the historian and posterity will hereafter refer, as the greatest of this age, will not be the commoner Mr. Canning, the commoner Shit. Peel, and perhaps I might add—if it were not like offering flattery to statesmen happily still among us—the commoner Lord John Russell and the commoner Lord Palmerston? But it is not only that the influence of this House has been raised by the Septennial Act. I contend that nobody can trace our history without perceiving that every branch of legislation has gone on improving from that time to this. I do not attribute all that improvement to the Septennial Act alone; but I do attribute a great deal of the dignity, the power, the ability, and the authority which this House has exercised since that period to the measure which the hon. Gentleman advises us now to repeal. I will not detain the House longer; but, since you have found that the legislation of your country has improved under the Septennial Act; since that Act has maintained this House in harmony with the House of Lords, which it is doubtful whether a Triennial Act would be able to accomplish; since it has added to the ability, the authority, and the dignity of the Executive Government, while it has upheld the freedom and independence of the House of Commons, I trust that you will pause long and anxiously before you revert to a measure which has failed, as a substitute for a system which all experience tells us has admirably fulfilled the objects for which it was intended.

(who was almost inaudible) said, that he was surprised the right hon. Gentleman had referred to one of the most corrupt Ministers who had ever ruled in this country, Sir R. Walpole, and to the apostate Pitt; and that he had made no reference whatever to one of the greatest measures in history, the Reform Bill, He contended that many of the advantages which had been enumerated by the right hon. Gentleman had been owing to that measure.

seconded the Motion for the purpose of showing that the companies charged with the construction of railways in India were ready and willing to submit themselves to any inquiry it might please the House to proscribe. He reminded the House that he had intended himself by notice, given at the close of the last Session of Parliament, to bring the matter before the House; but as the hon. Member had given notice of his Motion, and he had found on communicating with him that their views were in many respects identical, he thought it better to content himself with supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member founded his Motion on the delay which it was supposed had taken place in the construction of these railways. The delay charged might have proceeded from two causes— one over which no one could exercise any control, the state of the country—the other from default, either on the part of the companies or the Government. Now it was not till 1830 that the first great railway was opened in this country, whilst it was not till 1833 that the royal assent was given for the construction of the London and Birmingham Railway; and the Bills for the construction of the Brighton and South-Eastern lines passed in 1836 and 1837. Shortly afterwards the subject of railways in India attracted the notice of Mr. Stephenson, now Sir Macdonald Stephenson, and another gentleman, Mr. John Chapman, who went to India to investigate the question and to make the necessary surveys. Sir Macdonald Stephenson returned from India in 1844, and forthwith published a well-considered and digested scheme. He formed an association, the East Indian Railway Company, and in 1845 the chairman of that association placed himself, for the first time, in communication with the Directors of the East India Company, who on the 7th of May framed a minute, in which they laid down the views they entertained on the subject. They stated that they could not agree to railways being constructed in India until they had received the report of an engineer whom they proposed to send out. Accordingly, in the same year, Mr. Simms went out for this purpose. On his return, the Directors of the Company lost no time in digesting, considering, and submitting to the Board of Control a proposal for the introduction of a railway system into India. It was to that Board, and not to the last India Company, that, in this as in many other instances, the whole blame was attributable for the delay in the progress of railways in India. The proposal of the Government was, that two large sections of railways should he made in Bengal, one in the Upper and one in the Lower Provinces; that £5,000,000 sterling should he laid out upon them; and that 4 per cent per annum should he guaranteed to companies who would undertake this project upon the principle of a lease of the line for ninety-nine years. The Board of Control overruled this proposal, and called upon the Court of Directors to propose a guarantee of 4 per cent for fifteen years. Now, it was one of the terms upon which the railway companies undertook these large functions and responsibilities that they should he secured a certain adequate annual return for the risk they ran in embarking their property in an enterprise so remote from this country, and so far beyond the immediate control of any governing body here. These companies, therefore, were obliged to decline the proposal made to them. Subsequently, interviews took place between the directors and the companies, in which the matter was discussed, and the result was, that a dividend of 5 per cent was asked for, and was eventually accorded for twenty-five years. The Court of Directors, in a communication which was highly creditable to them, had informed the Board of Control that the more they considered the subject the more they were convinced that it was incumbent upon the Government of India to adopt measures to insure the early construction of one or more experimental lines in the Bengal Presidency; hut they stated at; the same time that unless more favourable terms were offered to the railway company the great object in view would fail in accomplishment. So it proved to be. In the same year certain terms were agreed upon. It was understood that the railway company should be empowered to construct a portion of a line in Bengal, and in order to give a substantial character to the company, they were required to pay into the treasury of the East India Company the sum of £100,000 in three months. Everything seemed to be progressing satisfactorily; Mr. Stephenson, with an adequate staff of officers, was again despatched to India, when the great commercial crisis occurred in August. The result of course was, that great difficulty was experienced in getting the money within the specified time, and the arrangement fell to the ground. Nevertheless a proposal was made to the Court of Directors that the time should be extended for a further period of three or four months; but, although a Bill was presented to Parliament in the beginning of the following year, in order to secure to the railway company those immunities without which a public company could not be expected to carry on business, the negotiation with the Court of Directors terminated unsuccessfully by reason of the continuance of the difficulties in the commercial world, in consequence of the revolution in France. Those engaged in the negotiation, however, were not discouraged, but again had an interview with the Court of Directors, the result being the completion of an agreement for the employment of £1,000,000 in the construction of an experimental line in Bengal. Differences again arose with respect to the terms of the contract which had been entered into, and after some further correspondence, including an abortive attempt to enter into an agreement with the Great Indian Peninsula Company, the Board of Control, in 1848, yielding to a strong pressure from without, and after having received an influential deputation from Manchester on the subject, placed itself in communication with the gentlemen engaged in the formation of railway companies, and ultimately consented to the terms which now formed the basis upon which the Indian railways were managed. The principle was acknowledged that the railways should be constructed by private individuals, and not by the Government departments; that the Government should find the land, and that in consideration of that, as well as the pecuniary advantages to be conceded to the railway companies, they should be subjected to the supervision of the Government in respect to the selection of route, the mode of construction, and the practical working of the lines. The question of dividend was settled in this way — the Court of Directors declined to guarantee a dividend upon the capital funds of the railway companies, but undertook to pay a certain annual interest upon a fixed sum, and gave the shareholders the power at any time, or whenever the annual payments might be insufficient to secure to the shareholders that return which they were entitled to expect, of throwing the railways upon the hands of the Government. Another condition was, that the Government should be represented in the railway Boards by an ex officio director, and it was entirely owing to the judgment, temper, and discretion evinced by Sir James Melvill that anything like success had attended the labours of the railway directors. No sooner, however, had that eminently practical man taken his seat at the railway Board than a difficulty arose which he believed had been the cause of nine-tenths of all the embarrassments which had since occurred. It was understood at first that Sir James would act as a plenipotentiary, empowered to consent on behalf of the Government to all the measures proposed by the Boards; but it was soon ascertained that he was bound to report the proceedings of the Boards to the Court of Directors, and to take the opinion of the latter upon them. The House could hardly be aware to what an extent the jealous feeling of the Board of Control influenced it in its proceedings towards the company over which he had the honour to preside. He held in his hand a return showing the number of the Board meetings of the Company since the date of its first sitting, and he found from that document that, while it met once a week the record of its proceedings had in each instance to be submitted to the Court of Directors, and that it could act upon no Resolution which it might come to until it had received the concurrence of the East India House. He found also that the time which elapsed before that concurrence was signified, and before the Board, therefore, could take any steps in accordance with its own decision, generally embraced a period of six weeks. That, he must contend, was a monstrous state of things, and one which ought not to be permitted to exist in the case of a body charged with such important business. He might add that the railway company could not communicate with its own agents in India without the sanction of the Court of Directors. For this sanction they hrd often to wait four or five months, and the result was that a considerable delay in the management of the affairs was occasioned. It was only lately, indeed, that the company had been placed in a position to purchase a single item of railway materials for the construction of its railways without the authority of the Court of Directors signified in writing. In India the state of affairs was, he regretted to have to state, almost equally open to objection. Those gentlemen who were charged in that country with the approval of all the acts of the railway officers, however, he felt bound to say, prevented to some extent the confusion which the system under which they acted was calculated to create, by the conciliatory manner in which their duties were discharged; but the amount of obstruction caused by the mode in which the servants and engineers of the railway were fettered by the necessity of perpetual reference to the Government officers, was hardly to be credited. It was only that very day that he had received a letter from Mr. Turnbull, the chief engineer of the company — a gentleman of great experience in his profession, to the company's agent at Calcutta, in which the writer described as most lamentable, the situation in which he was placed. He stated that he had not the power to appoint a man to do any work under him, even at a salary of £2 a month, without making a formal representation to the constituted authorities of the grounds upon which his services were required and obtaining their assent. On one occasion—so far is the system carried—some of the railway engineers who were staying at a place during the construction of the works, required the construction of a bungalow, little better than a hovel, for their shelter, but before this could be done a reference had to be made to the East India Company's consulting and controlling engineer at Calcutta, who would not grant the permission until he had been furnished with full information as to the reason it was required, and the probable cost of the erection of all similar erections required over a line 300 miles in length. Again, the agent of the Company at Calcutta, being in need of timber, and happening to be thrown in the way of merchants with whom he was anxious to contract far its purchase, sent in a requisition to the Government officers upon the subject; but inasmuch as they required, before they gave their assent to the proposal, to know the special use for which the timber was intended, its quality, and various other particulars with respect to it, the opportunity for a satisfactory arrangement for its supply at the proper moment was lost. With respect to the question of the diversion of a line of railway to which the hon. Gentleman had referred as another cause of the delay which had occurred— he did not mean to say that the Valley of the Ganges would not eventually be the best course for the Government, the country, and the company. But he believed that if the original plan had been carried out we should have been able to send our troops by railway to Mirzapore at the time of the mutiny. The present line was one most difficult of construction, for it was carried over the alluvial soil of the Ganges, along a range of hills, from which in the rainy season torrents flowed down over a constant succession of watercourses and rivers which required the construction of an immense number of bridges, one of which was three times as long as London Bridge, having thirty-two arches of 50 feet span each. And yet, under all these disadvantages, the East India Railway Company, over which he presided, carried on its operations with a vigour and celerity that would bear comparison with those of railway companies more fortunately situated. As a proof of this he would ask the House to compare what had been effected in India with what had taken place in the case of the North-Western line. The Act of Parliament for the construction of that line had been passed in 1833, but four years had elapsed before it had been finally opened for traffic; while in the case of the East India Railway Company, it was not until the month of August, 1851, that their line was determined upon, and not till March, 1852, that they had obtained possession of the whole of the land which they required; yet not quite three years had elapsed before they had opened for traffic a line of railway 122 miles in length perfectly equal, according to the Report of Mr. Rendell, the son of the eminent engineer, who had lately inspected it, in point of structure and durability to any railway in this country. In dealing with the subject the House must not lose sight of the fact that the difficulty of obtaining the requisite materials in India. In England we could get labour, iron, timber, lime, or anything else, whenever and wherever they were wanted. In India, if they were required, you might have to send 500 miles for them. And yet, notwithstanding this difficulty, in addition to those to which he had already alluded, the railway companies had in active construction, at the time of the outbreak of the mutiny, no fewer than 1103 miles of railway. Let hon. Members think of the magnitude of the work represented by that fact, and they would be very far from coming to the conclusion that the companies had been remiss. The East Indian Railway Company had constructed 123 miles, besides a further portion of similar length leading to the Upper Provinces, from Allahabad in the direction of Cawnpore, which had already been found most valuable for the conveyance of troops and munitions of war whilst forty-five miles more were ready for opening in the Lower Provinces. It must be remembered that every locomotive and every piece of iron had to be sent from this country. During the last five or six years the railway company with which he was connected had sent out 122 locomotives and 220,000 tons of railway materials. That enormous amount of freight had been sent out at a less cost for conveyance than would have been charged for sending the same articles from Manchester to London. If any delay had occurred, the fault was not attributable to the railway companies, who would have progressed more rapidly in their operations had they not been hampered by the ridiculous regulations of the Government. If Sir James Melvill was authorised to act on behalf of the Government, and greater freedom of action were given to the railway engineers, the works would proceed at a much greater rate of speed. At present an engineer in India requiring certain articles had to make a requisition, which passed through five or six Departments before it was sanctioned, and the same course had been followed in this country until within a month or two, when the East India Company had the good sense to adopt a more simple and reasonable plan. He thought he had shown that the system under which railways in India were now managed was susceptible of great improvement, and the consequences of any delay which might arise from continuing the present absurd arrangements must be visited upon those who permitted it, and not upon the railway companies.

was not surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), should have brought this subject before the House if he believed, as no doubt he did, that the construction of Indian railroads had been obstructed by the Government. The question was of great importance to the interests of the people of India as regarded the development of their resources and industry, and of great consequence to the Government in a political and military point of view. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion, that if the great trunk line from Calcutta to Lahore had been finished when the late outbreak occurred many of our disasters might have been avoided. Even the knowledge that the Government could in a few days transport troops from one end of India to the other would have prevented many of those outrages on the part of the Sepoys, which were encouraged by the hope of impunity. Therefore it was the interest of the Government to have the Indian railways completed as soon as possible, and if his hon. Friend could show that, cither through mismanagement or neglect, obstructions had been thrown in the way of these works, the censure which his Resolution implied would be deserved; but he thought he should be able to show the House that there was no real ground of complaint against the late or present Government, and that the delays which had occurred were inherent in the vicious system which had prevailed. He would not enter into the early history of the mismanagement either at the Court of Directors or the Board of Control with regard to the proposals for these lines between 1836 and 1842. He saw no advantage which would result from such a discussion. It would have been better if the Indian Government had adopted the French system of constructing the permanent ways and then leasing them out to companies, and if those ways had been made upon the cheap American instead of upon the expensive English system, which was hardly adapted to a poor country in which such immense distances had to be traversed. Had that system been adopted, the railroads would have been constructed in one-third the time, and at one-third their present cost. However, these were questions which it was now unnecessary to discuss. The first railroad was sanctioned in 1851, and the system under which that and all subsequent ones were undertaken was this: — There was no agreement with the Government as to the length of time which should be occupied in the construction of the line. The spirit of the agreement was simply that the railway company should forthwith commence and diligently proceed with the construction of the line, should open portions of it when completed, and that if they made default in the execution of the works, the East India Company should have possession as a remedy. The extent of railroads under- taken to be constructed was immense. The Great Indian Railway was to be 1,400 miles long, the East Bengal 130, the Madras 740, the Great Indian Peninsular 1,280, the Scinde and Punjab 350, and the Bombay and Baroda 330; making altogether 4,230 miles. The amount of capital to be raised was estimated at £28,000,000, but he believed that the amount actually required would be much larger. Upon the whole of this sum the East India Company had guaranteed interest at the rate of 5 per cent, which made it necessary that they should exercise that active supervision of which both the hon. Members who had addressed the House had so much complained. The fact was, that the parties interested in the amount expended upon the construction of these lines were not the railway companies who would receive interest at the rate of 5 per cent upon all the money they spent; but the East India Company, which guaranteed that rate of interest. In addition to this, however, there was a provision, in virtue of which, if the lines turned out very bad concerns, the companies might turn them over to the Government and claim an indemnification for all that they had expended upon them. Now, it would readily be understood that this supervision on the part of the Government would of necessity frequently bring the officials of the railways and the East India Company into collision; but he did not see how, under the circumstances, this state of things could be altered. He would illustrate his proposition. Suppose, for instance, an engineer went out to India at a salary of £2,000 a year, made his surveys and commenced the lines. As soon as he found that his services were essential to the company he might write home to say that unless his salary were increased by £500 or £1,000 a year he would throw up his employment. The Company would then come to the Government and say that they must consent to this increase or the works would be stopped. If the Government objected to the proposal, they would be brought into collision with the company; and if they agreed to it, a great job would be perpetrated, because the man had agreed to go out for £2,000 a year and had no right to any more. This was a sample of cases which were constantly occurring, and which rendered necessary the active supervision of the Government. Notwithstanding all these difficulties, and the defects of the system, however, the progress of Indian railways had been astonishing. He was surprised that, under all the circumstances they should have got on so well. Of the Great Indian railroad 170 miles were open, and a great portion of the remainder of the line was in a forward state. Unfortunately there had been a difficulty in obtaining bricks, and this had led to a great delay in the completion of the works. The railway company led the Court of Directors to believe that the portion of the line between Burdwan and Rajmahal would be opened in 1858, but on the 25th of September, 1857, a letter was received from the secretary announcing that, owing to the want of bricks, that part of the line could not be opened for six years. That the House might form some idea of the magnitude of the works to be performed, he would state that one bridge contained fifty-five arches of 150 feet span, and would cost £300,000. He believed that was one of the bridges, the construction of which was interrupted by the failure of the supply of bricks; and, in consequence, the engineers had to change their plans, and send to this country for iron girders. In spite of all this, 170 miles of that railroad bad been opened. Then, of the Madras line eighty-five miles were open, although the land was only obtained in 1853; fifteen miles more would be opened on the 1st of May; 200 miles, it was thought, would be opened in 1859, and 400 would probably be completed in 1860. That was nearly as fast as English railroads were constructed, in spite of all the difficulties incident to the construction of railways in India. His hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell) had complained of the great delay which had taken place with respect to the portion of the line from Bombay to Baroda. The reason of that delay was this. When a scheme was submitted to the Government, they were obliged to send that scheme over to the Government of India, who had a department for the very purpose, of which Colonel Baker, a very distinguished officer, was at the head, for their opinion upon the subject. The Company, in this instance, wanted the Government to decide before they received a report upon the scheme from India. Of course the Government could not do that, and hence there was some delay. Of course all those railroads had to be sanctioned in India, and he could not doubt that some delay had unavoidably taken place in procuring that sanction in consequence of the vast increase of the business which devolved on the local Government. He really did not see that any great advantage would be derived by submitting all these questions to a Committee. The matters which had occurred at an early period could not be made the subject of inquiry now with any profit, nor was it likely that the mistakes made between 1836 and 1846 would be repeated, while at the present moment the Government was proceeding in this work as rapidly as the difficulties which environed it would permit. Under existing circumstances it would be impossible to give up the present system of supervision exorcised by the Government, though he hoped it might be relaxed to some extent, if possible; and as this Motion would virtually imply censure on the past conduct of the Government, which he did not think was deserved, he regretted to say he could not consent to it.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell) had done a great service both to the railway interest and the public in bringing forward this Motion, for undoubtedly there were many errors, if not grievances, in the manner in which the Government had conducted itself towards the railway companies. Unquestionably the contract which the railway companies entered into with the Government had been one of great embarrassment to both parties; and he might be permitted to say that, when the Government reserved to itself the absolute power of controlling those companies, it could not have been intended by the Government, and certainly was not expected by the companies, that that control should be exercised in the manner it had been by a daily interference in all their proceedings in detail. The hon. Secretary to the Board of Control (Mr. Bail-lie) had adverted to the circumstance of the companies being liable to forfeit their undertakings in the event of their failing to complete them. That was so, but it ought to have been stated at the same time that in that event the Government was liable to repay to them all the money they had expended without any deduction. That might be said to be a reason why the Government was entitled to a still larger degree of supervision. It was, however, melancholy to think that when civil engineers of great knowledge were sent out to India and gave the people there the benefit of their experience, and when they were aided by the counsel of men of the highest eminence in this country they should be subjected to the, control of some younger military engineer in India whose profes- sional education had been of the most limited kind. It was certainly not desirable to encourage such a state of things as that. The hon. Member (Mr. Liddell) only proposed an inquiry into the delay in the construction of railways. That delay had been caused by the system of complication, doubt, and hesitation which the Court of Directors and the whole Government of India had generally displayed in the whole conduct of their affairs. Plans of railways had been sent from England to India for consideration, and they had been sent from one Presidency to another, and kept in one instance by a Governor General for a year before any decision was come to upon them, and years had passed away in some cases before the Government determined what lines should be constructed. He did not, however, think that at present there was any great cause for complaint. Several lines had been sanctioned which would employ capital and labour to a sufficient amount for several years, while for his part he would now rather call on the Government not to proceed with too much rapidity in the construction of lines lest the labour market should become disturbed and they commenced works which they might not be able to complete without interruption. The hon. Secretary appeared to think it would have been desirable from the first to place the construction of railways in India in the hands of the Government. He (Mr. Ayrton) had no doubt, if the Government had undertaken the work, there would not have been at this moment 100 miles of railway constructed or even in the course of construction. The Government had signally failed in almost every undertaking in which they had been engaged, and the delays which had taken place were known to every one. As a specimen of the mode in which the Government carried on public undertakings, he might state that in 1849 he spoks to the secretary of the Governor General in India with reference to a project for the construction of an electric telegraph, when he was told not to trouble himself about the matter, as it would be undertaken by the Government. Now, though the wires might have been put up and the telegraph in working order in twelve months from that time, it was several years before the work was accomplished. That was only one sample of their mode of doing business. Again, the hon. Gentleman said that it was the duty of the Government to encourage cheap railways. Now, he must say that this question of cheap railways had been thoroughly discussed by scientific men, and he believed that the conclusion to which they had come was, that the Indian railways were conducted precisely upon that medium system which was neither extravagant in its first cost, nor yet so cheap and undurable as to swallow up the whole of the profits in repairs. The American railways, to which the hon. Secretary had alluded, were constructed under entirely different circumstances; for instance, timber was abundant in America, while in India timber had to some extent been imported from this country for sleepers. He believed, however, that that was in a great measure owing to the Government mismanagement of the forests in India. The hon. Secretary also seemed to think that the railway companies had no interest in this question, because the Government had given them a certain guarantee for their returns. That was a new view of the question to him, who when in India had devoted so much time and attention to promote the introduction of railways that he had been laughed at for wasting time in attempting to compel the Government to do their duty. True it was the shareholders were guaranteed, and the Government were bound to repay them the cost of construction. But did the hon. Gentleman forget that the shareholders were also entitled to half the surplus profits, and, when the Government charges were paid off, to the whole? The hon. Gentleman shook his head as if there would never be any profits on the Indian lines. But the Bombay line, according to the last half-year's report, had realized a net profit of 5 per cent on the average cost of construction of the line now open, and week by week that profit was increasing. When the lines were carried out to their full extent, if they were not too much interfered with by Government, he believed they would realize profits enough to repay the Government, and to leave besides a substantial advantage to the shareholder. He thanked the hon. Member for Northumberland for having brought this subject before the House; but he would recommend him not to press his Motion, as he did not think it could, under present circumstances, be attended with any practical utility. They would not have these delays much longer. The present system must soon come to an end; and if the new Government of India did not discharge their duty better than the present had done theirs, the House would know how to bring them to a sense of their duty. They could not censure any one connected with the Indian Government. The Government of India was a myth—to search out by whom any act was done was like playing at hunt-the-slipper— there was no getting at it, and anybody who attempted to follow it would find himself "in wandering mazes lost." He would be sent from Leadenhall Street to Cannon Row, from Cannon Row to Calcutta, from Calcutta to Bombay, back again to Leadenhall Street and Cannon Row, till his time and his patience were both exhausted. But, as the present Government of India could not last long, it would be better if the hon. Member for Northumberland would wait to see the course taken under a new and improved system of Indian Government.

said, it was an old proverb that "threatened men live long." The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) told them that the East India Company was to be slain on an early day; but, that body corporate must be something very vivacious since it required two Bills and a series of Resolutions to deprive it of life. He had some hopes, therefore, that it might yet survive, and that his own existence might still be protracted. He could not help observing that the condition of the House that night afforded a very instructive commentary on the amount of attention which affairs of importance connected with India might be expected to receive at the hands of Parliament under the new system which they were promised. There had been three discussions in the course of the evening—one about the port of Dublin—another upon a question to which nobody in the House attached any real importance, connected with the duration of Parliament—a mere flash in the pan—and yet there were 300 Members present to hear these debates. The third question was one of vital importance to India, and yet the House was on the point of being counted out; for when an hon. Member moved that the House be counted there were not twenty Members present. This was the system which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets desired to see established for the Government of India. Why, he had sometimes addressed more Directors of the East India Company, when the number of Directors was twenty-four, than there had been Members in the House of Commons that night during a great part of the debate. He wished to express to the hon. Member for Northumberland his sense of the fair and candid manner in which he had brought forward this subject; and to thank the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) for having relieved him from the disagreeable duty of apportioning the degree of blame that lay upon the Court of Directors and the Board of Control. He would only say on that point that he had no wish to shift from his own shoulders any degree of blame that belonged to him. The hon. Secretary of the Board of Control spoke of the vicious system of railways in India, and said that the East Indian Government ought to have constructed them themselves. That opinion was scouted by another hon. Gentleman, who thought that the Government had neither the money nor the means of constructing railways in India, But it would have been just as easy for the Government to borrow the money, as to raise it upon their guarantee. He admitted that the question was one upon which much might be said on both sides; but, in his opinion, the present system was the better of the two. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who had never a word to say that was not in disparagement of the East India Company, said that all the operations of the Company had been failures, and that they had never succeeded in any great industrial work. But had the hon. and learned Gentleman never heard of the Delhi Canal, which extended irrigation over a tract of country 900 miles in length; and, was, the greatest work of the kind ever constructed in the world? The hon. and learned Gentleman's next illustration was singularly unfortunate, for he alluded to the electric telegraph as having been a failure. The energy of the Marquess of Dalhousie was admitted and respected by all; but in no single instance had it been more marvellously displayed than in the support he gave to Sir W. O'Shaughnessy in the erection of the electric telegraph. The Court of Directors also deserved some credit in this matter. The Marquess of Dalhousie sent home a proposal for a scheme of electric telegraphs connecting all the Presidencies and great stations of India. The Court of Directors sent an answer by the next mail approving the scheme, and made immediate preparations for sending out the materials. Such despatch was used that 3,000 miles of electric telegraph were constructed in India within the year. The result might be found described in the eloquent and graphic letter of The Times own correspondent, which appeared in The Times of that morning. By means of the system of electric telegraph inaugurated by the Marquess of Dalhousie, and carried out by Sir W. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Russell said in his letter that no sooner had a General made his march than the electric telegraph followed him step by step, and was erected at his very tent door. The House might judge of the accuracy and justice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's charges against the Company by this instance. The hon. Secretary to the Board of Control complained that the East India Company had not adopted the American system of railways, which he said would have been much cheaper. But the hon. Gentleman was wrong in stating that that system would have been cheaper. The American lines cost, upon an average, £9,000 a mile, while the Indian railways were constructed for £8,000. The price of the land for the construction of the 2,500 miles of railway in India was calculated at £1,000,000, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government paid a fair price for it; for he assured him that land could not he got in India, any more than in England, for nothing. As to the superintendence of the home and the Indian Governments over the railways, he would frankly admit that the superintendence from home had been the cause of great delay—delay which he would have been very glad to prevent if he could. He was ready—nay, he was anxious — to have that whole question probed by a Committee, and he had no doubt that the Court of Directors would come clear out of the investigation. With regard to the engineers employed, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution spoke of them as mere military men; and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) sneered at them as young gentlemen who were only concerned in the construction of bastions. But he was satisfied that no men would speak slightingly of the engineers of the East India Company who knew either them or their works. He believed there was not a finer or an abler body of men in the world than the engineers of the three Presidencies. It might be interesting to state that that great work to which he had already al- luded—the Ganges Canal—was constructed, not even by an engineer, but by an artillery officer, though he too had been educated at the Military College of Addiscombe. He might also mention, as a further instance of their ability, that great building, the Mint at Calcutta, the finest work of that description in the world. So high was the reputation of General Forbes, by whom it was constructed, that when the Government at home were contemplating alterations in the Mint of this country, they applied for the advice and assistance of General Forbes, and leave of absence was given to that officer, enabling him to come to England for this special purpose. It was therefore a mistake to speak of the engineer officers of India as mere military engineers, for they had much more employment, in point of fact, in a civil than in a military capacity. The hon. Gentleman who had brought the Motion forward had referred to the obstruction which the authorities in India threw in the way of the engineers. That was perhaps true of Madras, where the officers of the Government and the engineers seemed to be perpetually thwarting each other; but it was hardly true of the other Presidencies. In the latter he believed that, both on the part of the Governments and their officers, there had been the utmost desire to give the fullest assistance and co-operation to the East Indian railway companies. It was, however, essential that a due supervision should be exercised over their proceedings; for, let the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets say what he might, the interest of the Government was stronger than that of the shareholders. It was true that the railway shareholders had a contingent remainder in all profits above 5 per cent, and he trusted they would receive a return for their investment in this shape. The Government, however, had given their guarantee, and was responsible for the expenditure, and, with very few exceptions, he believed their superintendence had been exercised in a fair and liberal spirit. It was said that they might fully trust the railway engineers; but the railway engineers in India wore not a whit more responsible than the railway engineers in England, and no one doubted that lines in England might have been much more cheaply constructed. Instructions were sent out last year earnestly enjoining on the authorities the utmost co-operation with the railway officers consistent with a watchful and jealous supervision while the works were in progress, but leaving the whole management to thorn when the lines were opened. He again thanked the hon. Member for having brought forward the Motion, which he entirely approved, as he was desirous that the utmost light possible should be thrown on the subject.

replied. As regarded the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) he wished to observe that he bad not attributed delay to the railway companies, but solely to the Government. The hon. Secretary to the Board of Control said the delay in the case of the Bombay and Baroda line arose from the necessity of sending out to India for the sanction of the Government there. Now, it so happened that the sanction of the Indian Government was obtained in November, 1854, while the assent of the home Government was not given until November, 1857. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the present system was a vicious one, and that was a sufficient justification of the Motion. He did not wish the inquiry to be retrospective or to censure any one; but it should be remembered that only 300 miles were open, and that 3,000 miles of additional railway had been already sanctioned. Attaching, as he did, great importance to inquiry, he should take the sense of the House on the Motion.

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to promote and regulate Reformatory Schools for Juvenile Offenders in Ireland. His object was to secure for Ireland the benefits of that Reformatory School system which had been already established in England and Scotland with great advantage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) when Chief Secretary for Ireland, had brought in a Bill for the introduction of these schools into Ireland, but bad subsequently, for some cause or other, withdrawn it. The subject had excited great attention in Ireland, and there was a great desire to obtain the benefit of similar measures with those which bad been passed for Scotland, and he could cite, as an instance of the necessity of such a Bill, that large sums had been subscribed in the county of Cork for the purposes of a reformatory institution, but those endeavours were nugatory without the assistance of the Legislature. The main object of the Bill was that all juvenile offenders, under sixteen years of age, convicted of any offence requiring or justifying imprisonment, before a Judge of assize, a court of quarter sessions, or a divisional justice of the peace in Dublin, might be sent to a reformatory school, the managers of which had qualified it under the provisions of het Bill. The English Bill gave the power of sending the child to a school to two justices; whereas he proposed that it should in Ireland be possessed by one. The House might differ from him on that point, but that was no reason for refusing to allow him to introduce the Bill. Careful provision was made that no child should be sent to a school which was not under the exclusive management of persons of the same religious persuasion as the parents or guardians; and he had thus guarded against these institutions being used as instruments of proselytism. As regarded the machinery of the Bill, he proposed that it should be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant, through the medium of the Inspector General of Prisons, or of some other person specially appointed for that purpose, to subject reformatory schools to the most rigorous inspection, and that a certificate of such inspection should be a condition precedent to their enjoyment of the benefits and privileges of the Act. With respect to schools which had obtained the approval of the Government, he proposed to empower grand juries in the case of counties, and town councils in the case of towns, to raise money in aid of voluntary contributions by means of an assessment on the rates of the county or borough. In this respect he was following the procedent of the Middlesex Industrial Schools Act. He proposed also to confer on grand juries and town councils, power to contract with the managers of reformatory schools for the maintenance of children; and he further proposed to give the Treasury the power which they possessed under the English Act, of allowing a certain sum, not exceeding 5s. a week, towards the expense of maintenance. The Bill provided also, in exactly the same manner that the English Act did, for the recovery of the sums spent in the maintenance of juvenile offenders from such of their parents as were in a condition to afford it. There was another provision, which was not contained in the English Act, namely, a provision for enabling the managers of a reformatory institution to place a child before the period of discharge had arrived, out at service, if any person was willing to take him—an arrangement which had worked very well in connection with the Mountjoy Convict School in Dublin. The Bill had been submitted for the approval of several eminent authorities, among others of Mr. Hill, the recorder of Birmingham. There might be some points of difference with regard to the details of the Bill; but they must be all agreed as to the object, and he did not think, therefore, the House could reject the Motion. He would therefore conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to promote and regulate Reformatory Schools for juvenile offenders in Ireland.

said, it was not the intention of the Government to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill. On the contrary, he thought the subject was worthy of the most careful consideration; and he could assure his hon. and learned Friend that the Government would give it that consideration in the most impartial manner. His hon. and learned Friend would admit, however, that the question was surrounded with many difficulties. As he understood the proposal, it was intended to apply solely to children under seventeen years of age, who had been convicted at assizes and quarter sessions, and by the magistrates of the city of Dublin. Now, he could not state exactly the number of children under that age who had been convicted before the magistrates of Dublin; but the number convicted at assizes and quarter sessions was very small indeed. By a Return which he held in his hand, he found that in the year 1857 there were convicted at assizes and quarter sessions in Ireland, of males and females, felons and misdemeanants, altogether only fifty-nine children. This fact showed that the evil which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to deal with was hardly of sufficient gravity to justify a special Act of Parliament, though he was sure the House would be always too glad to consider any measure that had for its object the arrest of juvenile delinquency.

said, that the hon. and learned Member who had moved the introduction of the Bill had alluded to the benefits which had been derived from the establishment of Reformatory Schools in this country. He (Mr. Palk) was not prepared to agree with him in that respect. The question was open to very great discussion, and he was yet to be convinced that the system which had been adopted here was attended with success. If it had not succeeded in England, there was still more reason to doubt its success in Ireland. The establishment necessary to render a reformatory school effective must be upon an extensive scale, and he would remind the House that in England they had thrown upon the counties the expense of lunatic asylums, gaols, and police, and that the county rate was now become one of the great sources of taxation in the country. He would throw it out as a suggestion for the hon. Gentleman, therefore, whether in Ireland, which was almost a greater agricultural country than England, those counties which were purely agricultural could possibly support the expense of Reformatories, which, whether for the maintenance of a greater or lesser number of children, must necessarily be very expensive. It would be worthy of consideration whether it would not be better to wait and see what were the effects of the reformatory movement in England, so far as it had been carried, before the hon. and learned Gentleman took steps for burdening his own country with the cost of that of which he (Mr. Palk) must say he doubted the success—namely, reformatory establishments conducted upon the same principles as those in England. Any measure that had for its object to reduce crime, whether expensive or not, was, of course, entitled to the considera- tion of every humane person; but he much doubted, and always had doubted in his own county, whether the system of Reformatory Institutions was the best adapted for stemming the current of crime; and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman might more hopefully turn his attention to the measure which was passed last year for the establishment of Industrial Schools, which he was inclined to think would eventually prove a more real success than the other.

explained, that he did not propose to make the taxation for the support of Reformatories compulsory, but to leave the matter optional with the grand juries and common councils whether they would tax their constituents for the maintenance of those institutions or not.

seconded the Motion.

said that, when the Act at present in operation was before the House, it contained a clause similar to that which the hon. Gentleman proposed to embody in this Bill, but after the opinion of the House had been taken upon it, it was withdrawn. If the hon. Gentleman were of opinion, however, that the experience of the Act in regard to boroughs justified him in now proposing its extension to the counties, there could be no objection to the introduction of His Bill.

Sir, before the hon. Gentleman, who has charge of this Bill, proposes that we should go into Committee upon it, I wish to call the attention of the House to the very great difficulties in which this matter stands. [Mr. ROE-BUCK: Hear, hear!] The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who cheers that observation, took part in the debate on a previous stage of the Bill, and I believe he concurs in the opinion then expressed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if we dealt with the question at all we must do so judicially, and upon principles of strict equity. My right hon. Friend pointed out that in two respects the Bill does not deal with the question in a spirit of equity. First, it includes in one mass the innocent with the guilty. And among the innocent there are, I believe, 100 who were admitted as freemen subsequently to the inquiry by the Commissioners. The other point in which it is defective and unjust as drawn is, that it disfranchises the bribed, but not the briber. As we are now sitting in a judicial character, I wish to point out all the difficulties surrounding the question, in order that we may judicially determine what is to be done with a Bill so framed. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion said justly, and I believe the sentiment received the concurrence of the House, that in these two respects the Bill ought to be rectified, if we wished to deal equitably between man and man; and he suggested that on going into Committee an instruction should be moved to the effect that the briber, as well as the bribed, should come under the operation of the Bill. He also suggested —very wisely, I think—that when you go into Committee you will have to consider whether you will disfranchise en masse the whole of the freemen, the innocent and the guilty, or make a distinction between them. My object, therefore, in rising before my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Clive) moves that we should go into Committee is to offer such suggestions as may enable us to deal with the difficulties of the question. Had he made that Motion before I rose I should not have been at liberty to move an instruction to the Committee. I mention this as an apology for intercepting his Motion. We have first to bring before us all the facts of the case, in order that we may deal fairly with it, and I believe we cannot do so unless we adopt the Motion, which I venture to propose in these words:—

"That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision therein for the disfranchisement of voters who were guilty of corrupt practices by giving money or other valuable consideration to purchase, or for the purpose of purchasing, votes."

I do not wish to disguise from the House that if they do go into Committee, the question will still be surrounded with numerous difficulties, but by agreeing to this instruction you will make those difficulties less than they are now. There are, I believe, only two courses which you can properly take—that of withdrawing the Bill because it is inequitably framed, or that of agreeing to the instruction which I have suggested. By rejecting the Motion for going into Committee you would get rid of some embarrassment, but I fear that that course would lead the country to believe that you refuse to deal with these corrupt practices when they arc brought to your notice. The difficulties to be dealt with in the consideration of this Bill in Committee are these. The Bill, as it stands, will disfranchise all the freemen, amounting to between 500 and 600. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has examined the evidence, and has caused lists to be prepared of the names of those who were found by the Commissioners to be guilty of giving, and of those who were found to be guilty of receiving bribes, and the result shows that 150 of the freemen were found guilty. The Bill therefore would disfranchise some 400 who were not found guilty. I do not at all dispute the fairness of the proposition contained in the Amendments of which the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) has given notice — namely, that such of the voters as have received certificates from the Commissioners should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, but the adoption of his Amendment would have the singular effect of letting free every voter found to be guilty with the exception of two, while it would punish by disfranchisement those who are innocent. The certificates of the Commissioners exempted the voters to whom they were given from all the penalties and disabilities to which their evidence might subject them. I need hardly dwell any longer on that part of the case, except to say that I think we should arrive with very great reluctance at any such conclusion. But if you were to proceed in Committee with this Bill as it is drawn, and without the instruction which I propose, you would not only disfranchise all the innocent and let free all who received bribes, but you would let free all the bribers also. Such legislation would be so discreditable to this House that I cannot believe the measure would ever be suffered to come out of the Committee in that shape. I may be allowed to point out the different modes in which we have dealt with subjects of this description on previous occasions. The statute under which the Commissioners proceeded is an Act of the 15th and 16th of Victoria, devised for the more effectual prevention of corrupt practices at the election of Members of Parliament; and it empowers the Crown to appoint certain Commissioners to inquire into the corruption alleged to have existed in any borough, and report the result to the Queen and the Legislature. Several constituencies have been dealt with either under this general Act or under special Acts framed on the same principle. The House has declared in two instances — namely, Sudbury and St. Albans — that where the bribery has been proved "extensive and systematic," and to have pervaded the whole borough, you should disfranchise the constituency on the ground of corruption. That course is in my opinion an intelligible one. Supposing, then, you were to regard these cases as precedents, the question would arise whether the corruption in Galway was systematic and general. Now, since the greater part of the voters,—namely some 500 of the £10 householders and between 300 and 400 of the freemen—are not proved to be venal, I think it would be a startling proceeding to treat Galway like Sudbury and St. Albans, by disfranchising it altogether. In the case of the borough of Yarmouth you adopted a different rule. Certain freemen there were shown to have been guilty of bribery, and the House disfranchised the whole of that class of votes, although the greater portion of their body were not proved to be corrupt. This Bill is evidently framed upon the precedent of the borough of Yarmouth; and therefore I would ask whether the House is prepared to say, when a considerable number, though not the majority of any class of voters has been proved to be venal, that the whole of that class shall be entirely disfranchised. Remember, if you are prepared to say this with regard to the free-men you must also say it with regard to the £10 householders. Now, I am inclined to think that such a mode of proceeding would not be just; and I should be unwilling to see it followed as a precedent, for I do not believe it would be supported either by the good sense or the good feeling of the country. A third mode of proceeding was attempted, but only attempted, to be adopted, on the suggestion of the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, when Attorney General. Sir Alexander Cockburn then had before him the cages of Canterbury, Kingston-upon-Hull, Barnstaple, and Cambridge, and in a most able statement he recommended this House not to follow either the precedent of Sudbury and St. Albans, because the bribery was not general in the four boroughs in question; or the precedent of Yarmouth, because, with his legal knowledge and judicial mind, he must have seen that such a course would not be just, but that you should deal with those who had been found guilty, and with those only. A long debate occurred on that occasion, and I was one of those who thought such a proceeding inequitable. I think so still. When you have given an assurance of indemnity to certain voters, provided they furnish the Crown and Parliament with evidence as to the corrupt state of a borough which, except for the indemnifying clause, would criminate them-selves, you might be acting within the strict terms of the statute in proceeding to disfranchise such voters, but you would not be keeping the promise made to their feelings and their belief. So stoutly was this view maintained that although Sir Alexander Cockburn had obtained leave to introduce his Bills, he was obliged to withdraw them, and they were never afterwards persevered with. The House, then, will bear in mind the two or three precedents which it has already sot. Which of them it should follow in the present instance I hardly know. You cannot well follow that of Sudbury and St. Albans, because the bribery was not "general and systematic." You may, indeed, follow that of Yarmouth, but then you will be confounding the first principles of right and wrong by mixing up the innocent and the guilty. Should you, on the other hand, prefer the course attempted to be pursued by Sir Alexander Cockburn, you will have to consider in Committee the point on which I believe the question will ultimately turn,—namely, whether the indemnity clause extends beyond an indemnity from penal consequences inflicted by a court of law, or, in other words, whether it extends to the ex post facto legislation which Parliament may in its wisdom think fit to adopt. I have endeavoured, after much anxious deliberation, to state as clearly and succinctly as I could the difficulties which have occurred to my mind on this subject, and I am constrained to say —although perhaps it may not be deemed satisfactory that I should not have been able to arrive at a more certain and decided conclusion—that there are only two courses which I believe we can properly take. The one is to refuse to go into Committee on this Bill; the other, to adopt the instruction which I shall move pro forma, in order that we may consider the stop suggested on a former occasion. Having discussed that instruction, you should then postpone the fuller consideration of the whole case with a view to its being equitably dealt with when in Committee. Whichever of these two courses may be thought best by the House, I should like to hear the opinions of others before expressing myself more positively than I have done. Whatever we do, let us in a matter of this nature proceed judicially, without appearing in the least degree to countenance those corrupt practices which we all wish to put down with a strong hand and a firm resolution, as long as it can be done equitably. At the same time injustice will be perpetrated by your proceeding precipitately or indiscriminately; and, rely upon it, if you do injustice in your endeavours to put down a corruption you will not carry with you the support of public opinion, but in the end and by such a course you will probably defeat the laudable object which you have so much at heart.

said, he had already adopted one of the courses suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and had given notice in the course of the evening that he would move, as an Amendment to the Order of the Day, that the Bill be committed that day six months. It was inconsistent with the honour of the House that the measure should be suffered to proceed further. After the expression of opiniod elicited at a previous stage, he had expected that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Clive) and the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland (Lord Lovaine), who had charge of the Bill, would have abandoned it. There was nothing in the corruption which had taken place at the Galway elections that would justify so extreme a proposal as that embodied in the Bill. If the noble Lord (Lord Lovaine) was determined to punish past transactions, let him turn his attention to his own county; let him look to the borough of Liverpool, where, out of 3,600 freemen, 2,600 were on one occasion proved to have received bribes, not of the paltry amount of £1 or £2, but of the amount of from £10 to £40 or £50. 600 received sums from £10 to £20; 460 from £20 to £30; 209 from £30 to £40; and 25 from £40 to £50. He had expected that the Government would not have been disposed to countenance any proposition so unjust as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The occasion of this Bill was the Report of the Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into the practices alleged to have taken place in Galway. The Commission stayed there fourteen days; every facility was afforded to them, and eleven days were spent in minute inquiry; upwards of 400 witnesses were examined. What was the result of their Report? That, though at the election in 1852 corrupt practices existed, yet after the most rigid scrutiny, they were forced to admit that there were no corrupt practices at the election in 1847. The late Attorney General endeavoured to do away with the effect of that statement, by saying that in 1847 there was no contest; but it did not follow that bribery might not exist where there was no contest; money was expended as frequently to prevent a contest as to secure a seat. It was further stated, that the disfranchisement of the freemen would not materially reduce the constituency, because many of the 668 freemen were the occupiers of houses which gave them the requisite qualification, but they preferred registering themselves as freemen. That, however, was not the case, because the Returns showed that a very large number of the houses were occupied by females, by minors, by persons who did not pay the rates, and others. And the Report admitted that not more than forty could possibly register as occupiers. The qualification in Galway was purely an industrial one — practice of a trade and residence—admission by special favour was abolished by the Reform Act. Previous to the Irish Municipal Act the Mayor adjudicated on the claims of those seeking to be placed on the freeman's roll, this duty was now performed by an officer appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and after he had affirmed their claim they went before the assistant barrister to he registered, the same as the occupiers of houses. It could be proved, moreover, by reference to the Returns, that as a rule the freemen did not vote for reward, of which no proof could be stronger than the fact that Mr. Flaherty, who did not spend one halfpenny, had a larger number of freemen voting for him on one occasion than any other candidate. With all the facilities afforded to the Commissioners they could only make out a list of thirty-two persons who had in 1852 received money, and 179 in 1856. He contended, then, that considering all the circumstances of the case, it would be most unjust to disfranchise all the freemen of Galway for the offence of a few, many of whom considered that they were only being remunerated for the labour they had performed, and this, too, at a time when so many propositions were submitted to Parliament for extending the franchise. By the Act of the 15 & 16 Vict, the House pledged itself to every person who might have been engaged in any corrupt practices at elections, and made disclosures of them as a witness before a Commission, that he should be exempt from all punishment, disabilities, and incapacities; and would any one venture to say that it was no punishment to deprive a man of his vote? To say that the indemnity granted by the Commissioners only extended to protection from certain acts touching bribery would be to make the pledge of the State a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. No hon. Gentleman in that House would ride off on a quibble like that, and he trusted that the House would not collectively, because a Corporation was supposed to have no conscience, pass such an unjust Bill as the present.

said, the House had now two courses before it, either of which they might adopt. The one was to get rid of the Bill altogether; the other, to adopt the instruction moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole). The speech of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to him, however, to be founded on the fallacy which had run through the entire discussion on this Bill. That fallacy was, that they could not act lest they should punish the innocent with the guilty. It was said they ought not to disfranchise the innocent because they were innocent, and they were not to punish the guilty because, although they were proved to he guilty, their offence had been condoned by the evidence they gave. It should be remembered, however, that out of about 550 freemen, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that 150 were guilty. [Mr. WALPOLE: I was wrong; I should have said 250.] Well, that was nearly one-half of the whole number; and if, under these circumstances, the House did not adopt some such Bill as that under consideration, it might as well put the Act for inquiring into corrupt practices behind the fire. Previously to the passing of the Reform Act any persons might be admitted as voters for Gal way at the will of the Mayor and Corporation; and there was a tradition, though he would not vouch for its truth, that a whole regiment of soldiers, numbering some 700 men, had carried a particular election. After the passing of the Reform Act the Corporation fell back upon the Act of 4 Geo. I. c. 15, and no precautions were taken with regard to the admission of freemen. One of the witnesses, Mr. Michael Morris, a barrister and Recorder of Gal way, stated that up to 1832 the freemen were admitted by the Corporation at pleasure, without birth or service; and that afterwards they proceeded under the Act of George I., which had not previously been enforced. Mr. Morris said—

"The new practice then degenerated into the system which I think was never contemplated by the Legislature, and voters are or may be admitted by their popularity; and this state of things arises, or may arise—that, as to an unpopular man who voted on the unpopular side at the last election, if it fall to the gallery to decide, they will decide against the right of admission."

Then came the report in which the Commissioners stated that out of 550 electors who voted at the last election 250 had been actually bribed, and they also expressed their belief that since 1852 the grossest bribery has been practised in the borough. The Commissioners stated that, notwithstanding the difficulties of the inquiry, it had been proved that 250 of the registered freemen had given their votes, either in 1852 or 1857, for a corrupt inducement, a number which did not, however, in their opinion, by any means include all those who had been corruptly influenced. The Home Secretary wished to draw a distinction between the general body of voters and those against whom bribery had been proved; but he (Mr. dive) believed that if the freemen wore disfranchised, the more respectable portion of them would obtain the franchise in another way. When the Bill for the disfranchisement of St. Albans was before the other House of Parliament, the Earl of Derby evidently thought that no distinction could be drawn, and said that in all cases of such a description some guiltless individuals must suffer for the sins of those who had been open to corruption. Some hon. Gentlemen had seemed to suppose that the recommendations of the Committee were prompted by sinister motives, but he could assure the House that they had only sought to discharge a very disagreeable duty to the best of their ability, and that they had endeavoured to follow the precedents set in the cases of Yarmouth, Sudbury, and St. Albans. He might add, that he had received a letter from Mr. Patrick Blake, who was a candidate for Galway at the last election, denying that he had stated that "the bank of Ireland would not stand Galway," and, considering the high character of Mr. Blake, he (Mr. Clive) was sure that statement would have its full weight. He must, however, observe that Mr. Blake said over and over again that he declined to remain a candidate on account of the expense of a contest for Galway, which was saying much the same thing in other words. He was sure the House would not deal with the question in any vindictive spirit, and he would leave it in their hands.

said that, with respect to the accusation of the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon, he only took the course in the Committee which he thought best. He for one would be no party, under any circumstances, to the punishment of men who had given their evidence under the guarantee of an Act which had promised them protection from legal proceedings if they came forward and made a full disclosure of their conduct as voters at the election. He thought, however, that as the matter must either be passed over entirely, the whole town be disfranchised, or only the class of persons who were proved to be corrupt dealt with, the best course was to accept the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Clive) on this Bill and disfranchise the freemen; and he should therefore support it.

said, that it appeared to him that if the House adopted the instruction to the Committee proposed by the right hon. Gentleman it would be impossible to proceed with this Bill; for then it would be, not a measure of policy, involving a general disfranchisement, but a Bill of Pains and Penalties against individuals who were protected by a solemn guarantee. When the Act passed under which the inquiry in this case was conducted, it was considered desirable to obtain evidence in the best way possible, in order to proceed against persons guilty of corrupt practices. A clause was therefore inserted by which protection was given to those who gave information by the promise of exemption from all penalty if they got the certificate of the Commissioners under the Act. This provision held out inducements to persons in Galway to give information, and on that inducement they acted; and it was on their evidence alone, given under this guarantee, that it was proposed to disfranchise those very persons. He was by no means favourable to the freemen of Galway, on the contrary, he wished to see their franchise abolished; but he wished it done in a proper manner, and by a future Reform Bill, but not by disfranchising particular individuals. By adopting the instructions to the Committee, the House would he keeping the pledge given to the persons in question to the ear, but breaking it to the sense, and rather than that should be the case, he would prefer the third course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, that of not proceeding with the Bill.

said, that of all the surprising things he had seen in that House, the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Cork was the most surprising, indeed it was so extraordinary that the only way to get rid of it would be by giving up the Bill altogether. It was a proposition to let the guilty parties go free, and to punish the innocent. Dr. Brown, who knew all about the state of things in Galway, and through whose hands the money passed, was obliged to admit in his evidence that numbers of the freemen would not accept bribes, and yet there was a proposition to disfranchise those who resisted Sir Thomas Burke and Lord Clanricarde, and the magistrates and deputy Lieutenants, and let them go free who had taken bribes. He would maintain that the Bill was unfair and unjust, because it only punished the victims and did not punish those who caused the corruption. According to some of the evidence there was to be no bribery or treating at the election, and the purses of Mr. O'Flaherty and Lord Dunkellin were to be spared; but when Colonel French came into the field, money was given to the freemen, and you had no right to turn on the wretched starving victims of bribery and say that they were to be punished. He held in his hand a petition from 340 freemen of Galway, who declared that they never had received or would receive a bribe; and would the House confound them with the guilty? All the great men of the place were guilty of bribery, and yet they were allowed to go free; and that being so, this was an unjust Bill, and ought to be got rid of. If he voted for it, it would be only on condition that the names of the magistrates and Lord Lieutenant, who had bribed the voters, were also inserted in it. Under all the circumstances he thought the best plan was to get rid of the measure and wait for the Reform Bill which they were to have early next year, and which he expected with the more confidence, inasmuch as the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) seemed the other night to stand godfather to the Ministry on this subject, and to vouch for their intentions.

said, that the question before the House was one of great importance, and would, he hoped, be treated in a judicial spirit. The address of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), was inconsistent with itself, because if they agreed to the instruction he proposed, they would imply that no indemnity had been offered to the witnesses. It was therefore evident that the House had only two courses before it. They must either go into Committee on the Bill, or accept the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) and reject it altogether. He did not think they could make it an instruction to the Committee to include certain names in the Bill, for that would make it a Bill of Pains and Penalties, nor did he think that they could include in it the names of those who were not voters for Galway. If the House rejected this Bill, on the other hand, they would be placed in this position, that having passed special Acts for disfranchising particular boroughs, as the result of the reports of Commissions of inquiry, and having then passed a general Act for the purpose of procuring the disclosure of acts of bribery, they would hold that that very Act had tied their hands, and prevented them from passing any further disfranchising Acts, however extensive and systematic the bribery might be shown to be. These so called freemen were freemen of a peculiar class. They were freemen of a non-existent corporation. They were admitted without right or privilege, and merely for the purpose of being placed on the electorial list. Since 1832 they had been distinguished for their corruption. Out of 540 freemen in the borough there wore cases of bribery proved against 250, and the Commissioners reported that they had reason to believe that further cases existed. Indeed, it appeared from the evidence of one person, that he had lost a list of bribed voters, including 35 names. That was the case they had to deal with; and if the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) was good for anything, it was that their hands were tied by the Act of indemnity. Suppose that act did not exist. Could the House doubt in such a case, that if the borough was to be dealt with at all, it could only be by disfranchising the freemen as a class? No doubt, some innocent persons might be thus disqualified as freemen, yet nearly all of them would he eligible for registry as rated occupiers, although they had hitherto preferred the freeman franchise. The number of innocent freemen, therefore, who would be injured by this Bill would be very small indeed. Well, then, did the alleged statutable indemnity protect these persons? The Great Yarmouth case was relied upon as a precedent. In that case a Committee having reported that great corruption had existed amongst the freemen, a Bill was carried by a large majority disfranchising the freemen as a class, although it had been contended by Mr. Stafford that only those proved to have been bribed should be disfranchised. St. Albans and Sudbury had been disfranchised, although similar indemnities had been given in those particular cases, which were afterwards given in general terms by the Act of 1854. In a case which had occurred since that Act, the Bill for disfranchising a borough was withdrawn, not because of the general language of the Act, hut on account of certain placards distributed by the Commissioners of inquiry. If the true construction of the Act was not that the indemnity merely extended to the penal consequences of their acts as individuals, for what purposes were these Commissions issued? He believed, therefore, that no valid reason had been given why they should not proceed with the Bill.

said, that before he proceeded to put the question, he desired to state why it was that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department properly took precedence of that of the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon—although that hon. and gallant Member had given notice of his Motion in the early part of the evening. An instruction to a Committee was not in the nature of an Amendment, and properly preceded the question that the Speaker do leave the chair; and if the instruction upon the present occasion should either be accepted or rejected by the House, the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon would equally have an opportunity of making his Motion upon the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair. But if the other course were pursued, and the hon. and gallant Member's Motion wore rejected, there would be no opportunity afforded to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department to move his instruction to the Committee.

I regret I cannot concur in the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department has submitted to the notice of the House. I shall, upon the contrary, feel it to be my duty to support the simple Motion of my hon. Friend who has brought in the Bill. There are, I admit, some difficulties in the case with which we are called upon to deal; but, upon the whole, I cannot help thinking that the natural and proper course to pursue is to proceed with the measure to disfranchise a class of voters among whom extensive corruption has been proved to have taken place. I am of opinion that we should he setting a very bad example, and adopting a course calculated to produce a very bad effect upon the public mind, if this Bill were to be withdrawn, and no proceedings taken, notwithstanding that a Committee and a Commission have been appointed to inquire into the subject with which the measure proposes to deal. I cannot perceive the force of the argument that the disfranchisement of a class of freemen is a punishment which is precluded by the indemnity which may have been extended to them. I think that indemnity can fairly and properly be regarded only as a security against any punishment which might attach to them as a consequence of a legal prosecution founded upon the evidence which they may have given. Indeed, I am of opinion that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman tends directly to a violation of the indemnity of which so much has been said, because it aims at an individual selection on account of conduct in respect to which this evidence has been adduced, whereas the Motion of my hon. Friend, which, founded upon the suggestion of a Commission, amounts to a legislative dealing with a whole class, cannot with justice he construed as any violation of that indemnity. If, indeed, we are precluded by this promised indemnity from taking proceedings to purify a borough in which great corruption has been proved to have prevailed, all our inquiries might as well have never been instituted. You cannot get at the fact of corruption without obtaining the evidence of those who are parties to it, while you cannot procure that evidence without promising to indemnify them against the consequences of their conduct. If, then, having granted them that indemnity, you thereby preclude yourselves from taking any steps to purify the constituency, you had better forego an inquiry which can have no prospective effect. Entertaining the opinions which I do upon the subject, I cannot, I repeat, support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department.

said, he trusted the House would recollect the circumstances that had occurred when the Bill came on for a first reading. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), addressing the Government, asked if they were about to punish the men who took the bribes, and let the bribers go free. The House seemed to think that it would be unjust to adopt such a course, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had consequently brought forward his Resolution in order to effect the punishment of those who gave the money as well as those who took it. In the noble Lord's (Viscount Palmerston) anxiety to purify the borough of Galway, he would disfranchise the whole of the freemen, the effect of which might perhaps be to confer political influence on the men who gave the bribes. Having been called on by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) to examine the lists, that they might discriminate as well as they could between the guilty and the innocent, he went through them, and he found that though a great number of the freemen, 200 out of 660, had received bribe?, the remainder, although strongly tempted, had the extraordinary virtue to refuse the bribes. While admitting the force of the argument that the Act, under which these proceedings were taken, was passed in order that they might receive evidence on which to legislate, he could not understand the principle on which they were to disfranchise a whole town and were yet to be precluded from disfranchising a few individuals. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) and the Government were anxious to discriminate between the innocent and the guilty, and he regretted that in the schedule now before the House there were, amongst the bribers, not to be found two names which he thought it would be the duty of the House to deal with on a future and perhaps more fitting occasion.

moved the adjournment of the House.

remarked that there was an old saying to the effect that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, but that it seemed the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton desired to eat those different birds with different sauces. Upon the one side, in the case of Galway, were the bribed—the poor, the many, and the unfortunate. They were to be punished wholesale under the operation of the Bill which the noble Lord had announced it to be his intention to support. Upon the other side there were a set of men by whom those poor people had been bribed. In their behalf, a sense of justice came over the noble Lord, and he was ready to come forward and to say, "Do you not recollect we have given those men indemnity?" That indemnity ought to be extended to the poor bribed; but, exclaimed the noble Lord, "We punish them wholesale; and to punish wholesale is no punishment at all." He should wish to know what was the meaning of a principle such as that? Why, it was as plain as the sun at noon day, when there was no cloud. The fact was that the poor, the many, and the unfortunate were to be disfranchised for the purpose of placing the borough in the hands of the bribers. Now, to take that course would be to commit an act of injustice, not only against the parties concerned, but against the county itself. By a solemn Act the Legislature had given these parties indemnity, not simply from punishment, but from disability, and he should like to know what was the meaning of the word "disability" if it was not to take away from a man the right of voting for a representative in Parliament. The proper way to deal with the subject was to treat it as a whole, and not piecemeal. It had been suggested facetiously that the House should wait for the Bill of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, but what was meant facetiously might really be very true. The right course was to prevent, not to punish. They ought to wait for a Reform Bill, and not, under the pretence of purity, to commit an act of signal injustice. He was quite convinced that if the House were to pass this Bill it would be committing an injustice under the guise of purity—under the pretence of sanctity they would be thorough-going sinners. They had promised indemnity by Act of Parliament, and persuaded the poor people of Galway to give evidence—they had given them a certificate against consequences, and now those people were to be told that this Bill did not punish, therefore an injustice might be perpetrated by it.

observed, that he wished to remind the House that when St. Albans was disfranchised Mr. Bell was permitted to remain a Member of Parliament.

said, he should take the sense of the House on the Amendment of which he had given notice, and would therefore move as an Amendment, that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day six months.

said, that, although he had voted against the instruction proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he thought it would be a bad example not to go on with the Bill, and, therefore, he could not support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.

said, he hoped that at that hour (one o'clock) the Committee would think it right to adjourn the further consideration of the Bill to some future day. He moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again on Friday.

suggested, that it was desirable to consider whether the House ought not to call witnesses to the bar before proceeding further with the Bill.

said, the Bill before the Committee proposed to disfranchise the freemen of Galway as a class, but, as the House had just agreed that it should be an instruction to the Committee to distinguish the innocent from the guilty, it would be desirable that the Committee should have the names before them of those whom it was proposed to disfranchise.

said, the Attorney General for Ireland had instituted an examination into the case, and had prepared a schedule of the bribers and the bribed. He (Mr. Walpole) should like to make a further distinction—namely, a distinction between those of the bribed voters who had received certificates from the Commissioners, and those who had not; and it was with that view that he asked to have the Committee postponed.

said, there was one gentleman who had acted for a party who had not gone to the poll. He hoped that that gentleman would not be included in the disfranchisement.

said, he saw no reason why those who had given bribes should not be placed in the same category as the unfortunate persons who had taken them.

said, he wished to ask the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair as to the course that he proposed to take. He wanted to raise the question as to whether they were to take the evidence in the blue book as sufficient, or whether they were to have the witnesses examined at the bar of the House. He wished to know whether it was proper for him to make that Motion to the House?

replied, the Motion should be made in the House.

said, he hoped the Members of the late Government would not try to upset the decision of the House by a side wind.

said, he wished to enter into an explanation in reference to a statement affecting him which had been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty on a previous night. It was supposed that in 1850 or 1851, when he (Sir F. Baring) was at the head of the Admiralty, an order was passed extremely injurious, as was alleged, to the public service, in that it directed the preparation of the Estimates for the dockyards to be transferred from the office of the Accountant General to that of the Surveyor of the Navy (Sir J. Graham), contrary to the practice with regard to other branches of the service. He held the Order in question in his hand, and he felt it due to himself to state that it was dated, not in 1850, but on the 30th of October, 1848— a time when he was not in office at the Admiralty. The Order did not apply to the Surveyor's Department only, but extended to all the other departments of the Admiralty. It was made on the recommendation of Sir J. Briggs by Lord Auckland when he was at the Admiralty, and it was in operation under the Duke of Northumberland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), when they were at the Admiralty, as well as under himself.

said, the right hon. Gentleman became very angry, and assailed him in a tone that was not usual in that House the other evening, because he (Sir J. Pakington) had simply said the form of a particular Vote was capable of improvement, and because he had not given notice of his intention to make that statement. From what then passed, he naturally thought that the right hon. Gentleman had originated the form of the Vote; but it now appeared that the change was made, not by him, but by Lord Auckland. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had no cause of complaint, and had no more reason to expect that he should have given him notice of his intention to refer to the matter than had the Duke of Northumberland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax.