said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has received a memorial from the Warrant Officers of the Devonport Division, seeking an improvement in their position as officers in the Royal Navy, and whether their case has been taken into consideration by the Admiralty Board.

stated, in reply, that a memorial had been received by the Admiralty from the Warrant Officers of the Devonport Division, seeking an improvement in their position as officers of the Royal Navy. He regretted to say that many of their demands were such as could not be complied with, but there were some of them which appeared to the Board to deserve serious consideration.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the ages of the candidates for admission into the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich will be published in the next Report?

said, that the ages of the candidates for admission into the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich would be published in the next Report.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the disputes concerning the respective rights of Great Britain and America in the Straits of San Juan de Fuca, under the Ashburton Treaty, have been adjusted; also, whether any correspondence has passed between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States on the case of the fugitive slave Anderson, as affected by the provisions of the same treaty.

said, he would also beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what measures have been taken, or are in contemplation, to protect British interests in Mexico.

As to the last of the Questions which have been addressed to me, I have to say that it is very difficult to give proper instructions for the protection of British interests in Mexico, owing to the position of the two parties struggling for Supreme power in that State. Each of the parties into which the State is divided seems to have thought that the best means of providing sufficient funds to carry on the war is by plundering foreigners, and accordingly the eases of robbery have been very frequent. There was one instance where a very large sum of money was seized, and when our consul went to claim the restoration of the money he received 400,000 dollars. A dispute, however, arose as to whether the money was intended solely in payment of the claims of British owners, or whether a portion of it did not belong to the subjects of other nations; and the Judge of the district through which the money was passing decided that the whole amount should be sequesterated for the time, in order that inquiries might be made. When we were informed of the recent most shameful robbery that was committed in the city of Mexico itself, by General Miramon and others connected with the Government of the Republic, Her Majesty's Government gave immediate orders that the restoration of the sums carried off should be demanded, and that redress and satisfaction should be obtained; but the hon. Gentleman will see that there is great difficulty in applying any measures of force. Reprisals against property in Vera Cruz or the cargoes in ships would have been directed not against General Miramon, but against the very persons who were endeavouring to overturn his power; and, of course, to carry on war upon the Government of Mexico was a measure of an extreme nature which we had not in contemplation. Very soon after we received the intelligence we sent orders to Mr. Mathew immediately to communicate with President Juarez, and to intimate that we should be prepared to recognize his Government if he would acknowledge that the Government was responsible for the losses inflicted by the different parties upon British owners. But long before that despatch arrived at its destination the Government of General Miramon had been overthrown, and the power had fallen into the hands of President Juarez, who derived his title from the Constitution under which Comonfort was President of the Republic. When the latter left Mexico, and the whole of his party were driven out of the State, Juarez became President, as the proper substitute in that office. We have now applied to President Juarez for an acknowledgment of the responsibility of the State of Mexico for the injuries inflicted on the persons and properties of foreigners, and we have reason to believe that he will comply with the application. It is to be hoped that the civil war which has so long desolated Mexico will now cease. The greater part of the country is already in the possession of what is called the Constitutional party, and if order be established in Mexico there is every reason to believe that that Republic, with its great sources, will again flourish, and that the claims which have been so long neglected will, at last, be satisfied. Our agent at Vera Cruz, who always acted with great merit and success, has obtained the payment from the Customs of 40 per cent, and an additional 10 per cent has been added for the purpose of paying the bondholders. I trust that for the future we shall have better accounts to give of Mexico. As to the other Questions which have been put to me—the dispute as to the Straits of San Juan de Fuca did not arise under the Ashburton but under the Oregon Treaty, and it has not yet been adjusted. There was an agreement for the temporary occupation, under which each party obtained possession of a portion of the island of San Juan de Fuca. The proposition which has been made by Her Majesty's Government has been received by the American Government in so fair a spirit that I trust they will accede to it; but they have naturally been so much occupied with the unfortunate dissensions that have arisen among the States that they have not yet given an answer to our proposal. As soon as we receive their response, however, I will take care to inform the House of the proposition that has been made, and the manner in which it has been accepted. No communication has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States on the case of the fugitive slave Anderson, beyond the original demand on the part of the States.

In calling upon the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock, I wish to explain to the House how it has occurred that the Question appears now in the Paper, upon the Table of the House, in a somewhat different form from that in which it appeared in the Notice Paper delivered to the Members this morning. The hon. Baronet, yesterday, in giving notice of the Question publicly, used the words, "The inability of the witness to affirm her belief in a future state of rewards and punishments." But, in the printed notice the words were, "The inability of the witness to affirm her belief in certain speculative propositions." It was by my direction that these words have been changed, as they appeared to me not to be becoming words so applied; and the words which were used by the hon. Baronet in his public notice have been restored. At the same time I had a confident belief that the hon. Baronet did not mean anything disrespectful to the House; and I am happy to be confirmed in that opinion by the statement of the hon. Baronet himself, and by his ready acceptance of the change which I have made.

Sir, I can assure you that I never had the slightest idea of being guilty of any disrespect to the House. The woman had been asked several questions, and I thought that I was putting the Question in the most comprehensive way, in the written notice, by writing that she was not able "to affirm her belief in certain speculative propositions." I thought that was the milder way in which to put the Question; and that was my sole reason for writing down those words. It is perfectly true that I did publicly stale to the House the question in the other form. I now take the opportunity of asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as a matter that involves the proper administration of justice, Whether he has been informed of a recent decision in the County Court at Rochdale by the Judge, Mr. C. Temple, who is alleged to have non-suited a plaintiff on account of the inability of the witness to affirm her belief in God or in a future state of rewards and punishments; and whether, on the assumption that the Judge ruled properly, the Government will deem it necessary to amend the law applicable to similar cases?

Sir, in consequence of the notice given by the hon. Baronet, I have to-day communicated with the County Court Judge who tried the case to which reference was made. I find it was the case of Maden versus Catenach. It was an action brought by a daughter against her mother for the value of a pianoforte. The only witness for the plaintiff was herself, and, upon her appearing in the witness-box, the attorney for the defendant put to her the question whether she "believed in a God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments." She answered both those questions in the negative; and, thereupon, the Judge ruled that she was not a competent witness, that her evidence could not be received, and, consequently, the plaintiff was non-suited. Since that time there has been, I believe, a motion made for a new trial in the cause, of which I have before me a newspaper report, from which it appears that the motion was refused. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that report. Those are the facts, so far as they have come to my knowledge; and the hon. Baronet is aware whether they have been correctly stated. I will take the liberty, if the House will permit me, of reading a statement of the law upon the subject, which I find in Starkie's work upon Evidence—a well-known standard work upon the subject. He says:—

"Before a witness takes an oath, he may be asked whether he believes in the existence of a God, in the obligation of an oath, and in a future state of rewards and punishments; and if he does be may be admitted to give evidence—and it seems that he ought to be admitted if he believes in the existence of a God who is the rewarder or punisher in this world, although he does not believe in a future state. But it is not sufficient that he believes himself to be bound to speak the truth merely from a regard to character or the interests of society, or fear of punishment by the temporal law."

This is a clear statement of the rule of law upon the subject. Now, the law is not at all narrow or intolerant with respect to the administration of an oath, for it permits any oath which is binding, according to the religious belief of the witness, to be administered. So that a Mahomedan, a Hindoo, or a Chinese may be sworn according to the ceremonies which are binding on his conscience. The existence of some religious belief is invariably presumed; and the only instance in which an oath is dispensed with is in the case of members of the Society of Friends, who, by a special Act of Parliament, are allowed to make a declaration which implies religious belief in place of an oath. That, Sir, being the state of the law, I can only say, in answer to the second Question of the hon. Baronet, that it is not my intention to ask the House for leave to bring in a Bill to make any alteration in the law.

moved that this House at its rising do adjourn till two o'clock, to-morrow, being Ash-Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, as the matter to which I have called attention is one of great gravity, I think the House ought not to adjourn until it has given redress in a matter of this sort. I think it my duty, before I hear this Motion put, to state that I do not think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman satisfactory. He has stated the facts and appealed to me as to whether or not his description of the facts was accurate. It is not accurate. He has stated that it was a suit by Mrs. Maden against her mother for a pianoforte. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: By her husband.] Of course I withdraw. As the right hon. Baronet's statement reached my ears this evening, I thought he said it was by Mrs. Maden herself. As he has stated now that it was by her husband, I accept his correction. The suit was brought by Mr. Samuel Maden against Mr. Catenach for £6 3s., the value of a piano alleged to be detained. I thought the right hon. Gentleman's statement raised an impression against Mrs. Maden, that she was suing her own mother for a pianoforte. That seemed not a fair way of putting the case, and I do not think that this House ought to adjourn even till two o'clock to-morrow, while we are in the position of denying justice. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh when they hear that the plaintiff was non-suited, because the witness was held to be incapable of stating what was true. I was very much struck with the general laugh on the other side, as if that were any ground for denying justice. I was quite surprised that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House should act in a manner so disrespectful to the great cause of justice, to the British people of all sorts of opinions. Are we not to give justice to persons of all opinions? I will ask the hon. Gentlemen this question. Suppose when they are going home to-night one of them were attacked by any body, or ill-treated in any manner, and had his property plundered; and suppose another person observed what took place, and he happened to be of certain religious opinions, how would that hon. Gentleman like it if that person were forbidden to give evidence in his favour?—or suppose it was a matter involving life or involving reputation, or social position, and the only witness was a person who was disqualified from giving evidence, on account of absence of religious belief? Hon. Gentlemen laugh a great deal too easily. They may depend upon it that it is a much more serious matter than they suppose. In the North of England there are a great many persons who would be disqualified from giving evidence on this ground. It is all very well to varnish over the facts and say that a thing is not so when it is so. I am not sure that there are not persons in the Church of England who would not have some difficulty in answering some of the questions which were put to Mrs. Maden. This is much too serious a matter to be passed over in this way, and I think the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary would act in a manner more becoming his situation, as the great guardian of justice in the administration of law in this country, if he undertook to bring in a measure to enable persons of all or no religious opinions to give evidence, upon stating that they intend to be bound by what they say, and that they regard it as a conscientious duty to fulfil that which they have promised. It does not at all follow that witnesses should be of particular or no religious opinions. I say it without the slightest disrespect to those opinions. On the contrary, I should wish as much as any one in this House, that we should support those opinions in every way in our power.

Sir, I entirely agree with the address of my hon. Friend. I think it is a monstrous proposition that a title to justice is to be made conditional upon the profession of religious belief. I have always understood that the great principle of religious liberty was the boast of this country, and that a man is not to be questioned as to his having or not having any religious opinions, that no such conditions are to be imposed upon him, and that a profession of faith is not to be required from him—that his religious belief rests entirely between himself and his Maker. I confess I heard with great regret the declaration made by the Home Secretary. I think it is a crying injustice that because a man honestly states his belief or non-belief, no matter what it is, that upon that ground he is to be denied justice by those whose duty it is to administer the law. I put in my solemn protest against such a doctrine, and I do not believe that the cheers I beard from the opposite side of the House will be at all reciprocated by public opinion out-of-doors.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the payment of the expenses of conveying Voters to the Poll in boroughs, said that, as no great measure of Reform now stopped the way, it might be a convenient time to pass a few small ones; and he had a small measure of Reform which he believed to be a very useful and important one. Several of his hon. Friends had other small measures, and the Government had their own small measure to transfer certain seats to large constituencies; and it might be that this mode of dealing with the subject might lead to the best solution of the great Reform question. He was one of those who really desired that the Reform Bill of last Session should pass, and knowing that there was a combination to talk it out, he determined to give it a silent support. He regretted that the measure should have been withdrawn; but it was impossible not to see that that was the act rather of the House than of the Government. The Ministry had no choice, and, therefore, it was unfair to blame them. It was true that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs overthrew the Government of Lord Derby upon the question of Reform; but it should be borne in mind that the noble Lord then announced in substance the measure which he would introduce, and upon his accession to office he introduced the very measure which he had promised. That a number of Gentlemen who had supported him on the division by which Lord Derby's Government was overthrown should afterwards turn round and do all they could to thwart, obstruct, and defeat the measure which the noble Lord had then promised, was a course for which no statesman could have been prepared. They all knew how that measure was received. The failure of the Reform Bill of last year was due not to any shortcoming of the Government; it was damaged by the admirers of Reform in the abstract; but who, nevertheless, felt it their duty to expose and dwell on the faults of that particular Bill. Some Gentlemen, who had objected to Lord Derby's Bill as too complicated, complained of Lord John Russell's as too simple; while others exaggerated its proportions for the purpose of creating alarm. Everybody was for Reform in general and nobody for that particular measure. He appealed to the House whether every speech tending to damage it was not received with uproarious applause, while every speech delivered in its favour—of which he believed there were but two—fell coldly on the ear of the House. It seemed to him that, without a greater pressure of public opinion than had last Session been brought to bear, the House would not pass a comprehensive measure of Reform, and in the present Session he confessed that he did not see any stronger manifestation of public sentiment in its favour than was exhibited in the last. If, therefore, the noble Lord had introduced a similar measure, he did not see any reason to suppose that it would receive more cordial support, or encounter less opposition. There would have been a repetition of the same dreary debates and interminable speeches, resulting in the delay and obstruction of all business of a practical character; and, therefore, he thought the noble Lord was not to blame for not having introduced some similar measure on the present reassembling of the House. Some Gentlemen, he knew, were of opinion that the noble Lord ought to have brought in the Bill, and, if it was not supported, that he ought then to have appealed to the country. But the fact was, that the Reform question would not have afforded a favourable subject for such an appeal. It would be a mistake to suppose that the public were indifferent to Reform; a deep-seated conviction prevailed among all reasonable men that our electoral system required amendment, that the franchise was too narrow, and that the representation was unequally distributed. But this opinion had not yet risen to the surface, and as it was always the subject uppermost in the public mind by which elections were influenced, the last thing which a Reformer ought to desire at this moment was a dissolution of Parliament. The country was in an attitude of expectation, looking for what Garibaldi would do next, where a European war would break out, and where it would end; it was, moreover, perplexed between the pacific assurances and the iron-plated frigates of the Emperor of the French, and it was engaged in forming Volunteer corps. But this diversion of the public mind from the question of Reform was, he believed, but temporary; at some future time it would be forced on the occupants of the Treasury benches, whoever they might be; and when the mind of the country was made up, and not before, a Reform Bill would be carried. He did not believe, with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), that a repetition of the scenes which preceded the passing of the first Reform Bill would take place, for the House now was more sensible to popular influences. All that was required to insure the adoption of such a measure, and to carry it over the bar of the House of Lords, was a steady breeze in its favour. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London had set sail three times in the Reform ship, and each time had been becalmed; his crew had struck work, and some had even attempted to reverse the engines, and the noble Lord had been obliged to return into port. He was, therefore, quite justified in refusing to start again without a steady breeze and a willing crew. He (Mr. Collier) was unable to give his support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White), because it implied a censure on the noble Lord, whose whole career, from youth to age, had been one continued testimony of his earnestness in the cause of Reform. The House had already addressed the Crown four times in favour of Reform, and nothing had come of it; and with the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Brighton, he believed he had framed his Motion in such a manner as to secure for it the least possible amount of support. There could be no greater mistake than to suppose that the forty-six. Gentlemen who went with the hon. Gentleman into the lobby were the only Reformers in the House. Many Liberal Members who did not wish to be misunderstood by their constituents had left without voting; and he himself had thought it better to take the responsibility of voting against the Amendment. But though he would not consent to censure the Government for not introducing a Reform Bill, there was no reason why independent Members should not deal with the question themselves; and he, for one, would be prepared to support every measure with that object which was brought in by his Friends, though, perhaps, he ought slightly to qualify that declaration. He himself was now asking for leave to bring a special measure calculated to remove what he considered a special grievance. As the law at present stood, it was illegal to give a voter money to pay his own travelling expenses, but it was perfectly allowable to pay them for him—a distinction between money and money's worth which was totally frivolous, and could not be maintained even logically. The Bill which he brought in in 1859 for the purpose of rendering illegal the conveyance of electors to the poll, whether in boroughs or in counties, was defeated by a dissolution; but some of its provisions were borrowed in Lord Derby' Reform Bill. Last year, when he brought forward a similar measure, it was referred to a Committee on Corrupt Practices, who reported in favour of the plan, as far as boroughs were concerned, but opposed its application to counties. Although he believed that the same principle ought to be applied to both, his desire was to avoid opposition; and in the present instance he, therefore, confined the operation of his Bill to boroughs. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had apprized him of his intention to introduce a measure founded on the recommendations of the Committee, in which it was probable that the object he desired to accomplish would be included. But, as the measure was of a comprehensive character, he confessed that he was afraid of the result, and the right hon. Gentleman would not consider him guilty of discourtesy when be said that he preferred his own measure on account of its simplicity. It was important to pass it speedily, in order that if a dissolution took place in the course of the Session — an event which was not impossible—the Act might be in operation; in which case certain Gentlemen, especially those representing metropolitan constituencies, would find its provisions beneficial. Since the conveyance of voters had been legalized, a notion had sprung up that it was altogether un-English and unconstitutional to walk to the poll, and the candidate who would not hire cabs was regarded as a mean-spirited wretch, unfit to sit in Parliament. The hon. and learned Member concluded by asking leave to introduce a Bill which would repeal the property qualification which was now virtually imposed, and which was inconsistent with the legislation enabling a poor man to sit in Parliament.

thought the hon. Member, if he were satisfied with the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, ought to have left this question in their hands. It would be discourteous to offer any formal opposition to the introduction of the Bill, and he should not therefore meet the Motion with a negative; but at any future stage he should certainly do so. There was no difference in principle between the conveyance of voters in boroughs and in counties, and he begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that there were some boroughs three times the size of some counties or Parliamentary divisions of counties. The borough he had the honour to represent (Maldon) extended for seven miles, and that of Aylesbury, he was informed, was three times the size of the county. He would not oppose the Motion for leave, but be gave notice that if this Bill were carried with regard to boroughs, he should move that the principle be extended to counties as well.

said, be did not intend to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) into the general subject of Reform. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to consider the Bill which he asked leave to introduce a small Reform Bill; but, according to the manner in which the word "Reform" was generally understood in that House, a Bill which merely related to the conduct of elections—to the manner in which votes were to be taken—was not a measure of Parliamentary Reform. It was his (Sir George Lewis's) intention, within a short period, to ask the House for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the present law relating to corrupt practices at elections; but if he imagined that such a measure would be open to all the objections which might at the present time be taken to a general measure of Reform, he certainly should not press it on the attention of hon. Members. He wished to remind the House that they already had a comprehensive enactment on the subject of corrupt practices at elections; and that a Select Committee was last Session appointed to consider its provisions. That Committee having carefully considered the subject, had offered a number of recommendations; and he hoped to be able to introduce at an early day a Bill framed on the recommendations of that Committee; and one part of it would deal with the subject to which his lion, and learned Friend's Bill was directed. Indeed, he believed they had taken their respective plans from the same source— the recommendations of the Committee of last Session. He should not, therefore, enter into the question of travelling expenses when the Motion before the House was merely for leave to introduce the Bill; but in answer to the observations of an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peacocke), that nothing could be more inconsistent than to allow payment of these expenses in counties, and to prohibit such payment in boroughs, he (Sir George Lewis) would observe that counties were in general much larger than boroughs. In the next place, no one was qualified to vote in a borough who was not resident within seven miles of the borough in which the vote was to be recorded, while a person might have a vote for a county and yet reside in any other part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there were reasons for those payments in the case of counties which did not exist in the case of boroughs. Whether they were sufficient to induce the House to make the proposed distinction, was a question which had yet to come under discussion. If the House were willing to deal in this fragmentary form with the question of the conditions under which Parliamentary elections were to be carried on, he had no objection to make to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend.

said, he did not think it would be sufficient to make the payment of travelling expenses merely illegal; it should also be made penal, and treated as an act of bribery, which should vacate the seat. Otherwise the practice would still be continued. The Committee which sat on the Huddersfield case decided that it was illegal to make a positive payment to the voter for his travelling expenses, but they did not deprive of his seat the Member who had made such payment, and consequently the penalty was entirely inoperative, since no candidate for a seat in this House would care one straw for being pronounced illegal—the only thing he cared about, was the forfeiture of his seat.

said, the Home Secretary had described the Bill as a fragment: he (Mr. Scully) should characterise it rather as the fragment of a fragment of a Bill. There was no reason in the world why the provisions of the Bill should not be extended to counties. It was a rather serious thing to have to contest a county in which 2,000 or 3,000 voters expected to be conveyed to the poll at the expense perhaps of £1 a head. If voters would not come to the poll of their own accord they did not deserve to have the franchise.

wished to guard himself against being supposed to concur in the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth, and if the hon. Member for Maldon had moved a negative he would have voted with him. His experience of Cambridge had led him to conclude that the payment did not lead to any illegal expenditure in the borough. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Bill of Lord Derby's Government contained a similar proposition. That was true; but it should be remembered that in that Bill the proposal was accompanied by another, affording a new mode of voting — namely, by voting papers. The measure of Lord Derby's Government would have led to a great increase in the franchise; but some of the Bills brought in by hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House would practically result in its restriction.

said, that when Alexander died his lieutenants struggled for his Empire. A somewhat similar struggle appeared to be going on among the lieutenants of the noble Lord, for the Bill which had been supposed to be in his charge. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth said, that his measure was a first 3mall modicum of Reform. Now, that seemed to place the question of Reform in an awkward position. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the proposal could not be called a measure of Reform, because it was one to carry out an existing franchise rather than to confer a new one. However, he thought the Bill useful in its way, and it should have his support. He thought, nevertheless, that as the Government had taken upon themselves the task of dealing with the question of Parliamentary Reform, the introduction of Reform Bills by private Members of that House only relieved the Government from the responsiblity which they had undertaken. None had been more severe on Lord Derby's Government in reference to their dealings with Reform than the Members of the present Government. In 1859, when Lord Derby's Government was in office, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London said Lord Derby was pledged to bring in a Reform Bill and ought to do so. The noble Lord now at the head of the Government twitted the Derby Government with having taken office with all its engagements — a sporting phrase which Lord Derby would well understand. He told them they were bound to go on with a Reform Bill, and went so far as to say that the Government of Lord Derby "could not resign and should not resign," but should proceed with a measure of Reform. He would apply the same principle to the present Government, and say that the proper course was to leave the responsibility of introducing a measure with them, seeing that they also took office and received the support of the Liberal party under a solemn engagement to take up the question of Reform. No doubt the Government would rejoice at seeing small measures of Reform brought in by private Members, as it shifted the responsibility from their own shoulders—a responsibility which they incurred when they removed the Government of Lord Derby from office. What had they now before the House? A Motion for one kind of Reform, and no doubt a very proper measure. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Digby Seymour), had given notice of a Bill for a £6 franchise, and the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), had a Resolution on the paper for a £6 borough franchise. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King), had a notice for a £10 franchise in counties. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had a species of bit by bit Reform Bill, by which he intended to give the vacant seats of St. Albans and Sudbury to two other places. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Massey), bad likewise a Motion to appropriate one of the vacant seats; and the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield), sought to give representation to Chelsea and Kensington. These might be all very proper Bills, but their introduction only had the effect of relieving the Government from the responsibility that rested upon them, and they referred to reforms which the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had both said ought to be introduced by the Government of the country. There was a very extraordinary Motion of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Warner); it was to refer the whole question of Reform to a Select Committee. To send the question of the representation of the people of England to a Select Committee. Had the hon. Member for Norwich thought for a moment what would take place before that Committee? Who were the parties whose business it would be to be present? There would be the advocates of universal suffrage, ballot-men, old freemen, and all persons struggling for an extension of the suffrage, to whatever extent. And who would be the witnesses? They would be so numerous, and the proceedings would be necessarily so prolonged that long before the end of the Session the Committee would become wonderfully select, and but few would remain to take part in the inquiry. Among the witnesses would be all the advocates and all the opponents of Reform who chose to attend. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be there to tell them that close boroughs were, the salvation of the country; while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. M.Gibson) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) would be called to say that close boroughs were the disgrace and degradation of our political system. In short, they would have before that Committee everything that was contradictory, not to say absurd. Such was the position in which the great question of Reform stood. He did not wish to blame the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary for withdrawing his Bill of last Session. On the hustings the noble Lord said he would introduce a Reform Bill and submit it to the criticism of the House of Commons. The Bill was introduced, criticism was bestowed upon it, and under that criticism the Bill withered. But the Government were not on that account absolved from the responsibility of introducing another Bill. They were responsible to the country for not having done so; and he repeated that it would be better and more politic to leave them under that responsibility.

rose to deny that the forty-six Members who had divided in favour of the Amendment to the Address had any wish to take the question of Reform off the shoulders of the Government. But they thought that the absence of all reference to Reform in the Royal Speech made it imperative on the Liberal Members to take some steps towards the vindication of their principles. They felt that they had been deserted by their leaders, and they thought it their duty to redeem the pledges they had made on the hustings by thus declaring their sentiments. With the same view, he (Mr. Seymour) felt himself bound to give notice of the Motion which he had put on the paper, in order to give the House an opportunity of considering the important question of the franchise. He agreed with the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) in thinking that the duty of introducing that question belonged to the Ministers of the Crown; but if they failed in their duty the House was bound to take measures to maintain its own position. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London had a great deal to answer for, and could urge no reasonable excuse for his conduct. There were no peculiar circumstances connected with the present Session such as occurred in the last to prevent a Reform Bill being introduced, and the calm which prevailed was peculiarly favourable to the consideration of such a measure. The noble Lord had told them last Session that a time of peace was a fitting time to carry a Reform Bill, and contrasted the period of the riots of Nottingham with the peacefulness and loyalty of the present time, which he thought gave a good opportunity of introducing his measure. They all remembered the lines of Canning in the Anti-Jacobin—

"Now these and more, a phrenzied choir,

Sweep with bold hands confusion's lyre;

While mad'ning crowds around them storm

For one great Radical Reform."

The very contrast of the present to those times indicated that now was a fitting opportunity for dealing with a measure of Reform, and after having been six times announced in Royal Speeches, and after a Parliamentary history of fifteen years, he could not help thinking that it was time this important question was disposed of. He had put a notice for a Bill on the paper, but, the hon. Member for Leeds having given notice of a Motion on the same evening, he had thought it right to give way to one holding so high a position in the country and possessing so much more experience than himself.

said, he wished to correct a mistake made by an hon. Member in a former debate with respect to his Motion of last Session.

said, it was out of order to refer to a former debate unless on a matter of personal explanation.

bowed to the ruling of the Chair. It had, however, been said that he had been acting in concert with the Government when he came forward to postpone the Reform Bill last Session. Now, upon his honour, as a gentleman and a Member of that House, he had no communication, direct or indirect, with the noble Lord at the head of the Government before opposing that Bill. Nor had he any communication either with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or any other Member of the Cabinet. He might be asked why he took it upon himself, not being in office, to throw out the Reform Bill last Session. He had done so for these reasons. He happened to be Chairman of a Committee which sat for two or three Sessions to inquire into the best mode of settling disputes between masters and operatives. This inquiry gave him an opportunity of knowing; the feelings of the middle and lower classes on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. He found that the middle classes were apprehensive of a farther extension of the franchise, fearing that their power would be swamped by the lower classes; while the working men, who it was said would be enfranchised by the £6 franchise, were totally indifferent about the matter. He, therefore, thought it right to oppose and to annihilate the Bill, and the attitude both of the middle and lower classes since the withdrawal of the Bill had convinced him that he had come to a sound conclusion. If the noble Lord had brought in a Bill this year, he would have acted in an injudicious and imprudent manner in going against the feelings of the middle classes and the perfect apathy of the lower classes.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to establish County Financial Boards for the assessing of County Rates and for the administration of County Expenditure in England and Wales. He did not apprehend that there would be any opposition to the measure, and he proposed that it should be read a second time on an early day, in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee.

said, that this was a subject which was not at all new to the House, having been introduced several years ago by a right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. Gibson). To the plan which was then proposed he thought it his duty to offer a very strong opposition. He begged to assure the hon. Baronet that he was as willing as the hon. Baronet could himself be to join in any fair and just extension of the representative principle which could reasonably be desired by ratepayers with respect to county rates and expenditure; but he asked the House to consider whether, in legislating hastily on this question, they would not run the risk of losing the substance while grasping at the shadow, and render the system under which the county rates were managed really less popular than at present? This was not the proper moment to enter into the question, but it was a matter which gravely affected the interests of the counties, and ought to be well considered. He hoped, therefore, that not only the right hon. Baronet, but the Home Secretary, would give the matter their earnest attention, and that ample time would be afforded the House before the Bill came on for second reading.

said, the House was aware that this subject had been discussed for many successive years; and, on one, occasion the entire subject was referred to a Select Committee, where it underwent considerable investigation. He was not aware—and the office he held gave him an opportunity of hearing of any dissatisfaction —that any increased demand had arisen of late years for the application of the representative system, either wholly or in part, to the administration of the county funds. There were certain counties in which the present system did not give entire satisfaction; but, in general, very little if any complaint existed. The magistrates were always interested in the land of their respective counties, and appeared to be always disposed to provide for the economical administration of the county funds. He was not averse to the introduction of the Bill, or that it should receive the consideration of the House; but with regard to referring it to a Select Committee he begged to say one word. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee it must be mainly for the consideration of clauses, and without the power of calling witnesses. Now, after the full examination which the subject had already received, he did not see the advantage of discussing the clauses upstairs. If, however, the hon. Gentleman desired to examine witnesses his better course would be not to bring in a measure, but to move for a Select Committee of Inquiry.

moved for a Return of every Member of this House holding any Civil, Military, Naval, Diplomatic, or other Place, Office, or Pension to which he had been nominated or appointed by the Crown, Government, Ministers, or Chiefs of Departments; stating the date of his nomination or appointment, and the emoluments he received, and whether the same be temporary, permanent, or progressive, arranged under the heads in the schedule.

thought it his duty to oppose the Motion. The hon. Member had not stated any ground why he desired that the Return, which was of an unusual character, should be made. There was this objection—that the information sought for by the hon. Member was already accessible, and that he proposed to incur unnecessary trouble and expense in preparing and printing it. With regard to all civil and political offices held by Members, the salaries were voted by the House, and could be seen by any one who would refer to the Estimates. With respect to the military officers their pay could be easily ascertained. Their salaries stood on a different footing from the salaries of civil servants as, in most cases, they had been the subject of purchase. He could not see any advantage that would arise from laying on the table a Return of the pay received by military officers in that House. The same remark applied to naval officers; and so, with respect to diplomatic servants, their pay could be known by reference to the Finance Accounts. Under these circumstances he could not see any advantage in having this Return presented to the House. It appeared only to be wanted in order to save trouble to the hon. Gentleman, who, instead of referring to the different sources of information, desired that the clerks in the public offices should make out the Return for him. The information required could he obtained from other sources, and, moreover, formed no subject for a Return by the House of Commons. He, therefore, did not feel justified in assenting to the Motion.

in moving for the Return, had thought it wholly unnecessary to enter into any argument in support of it. But after the ingenious objections which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis), he must say that he thought nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the reasons which he gave for not granting the Return. The right hon. Gentleman alleged that he (Mr. White) had made this Motion to save himself trouble. He (Mr. White) begged to assure him that his (Mr. White's) constant attendance there should show him that he did not begrudge any amount of trouble when he believed it to be for the advantage of his constituents, or in discharge of his public duties. And, most assuredly, he should not shrink from taking any trouble if he thought he could get the information which he now desired to obtain for the House. When the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) told him that the information which he wished to obtain was already published, and could be extracted from papers which had been laid on the table of the House, he said that which, if correct—which it was not—would apply to almost every return that Members ever asked for. If a Member wanted to know how much silk had been imported, or what was the amount of duty levied on hops, he could find it, no doubt, in the usual returns as to the trade of the country. But, yet, the return was granted* immediately by Government; and when he (Mr. White) asked for information for his own gratification, if the right hon. Gentleman liked, as to the offices, places, and emoluments held and derived by Members of that House, he thought it was only courteous that it should be granted to him. He would not be guilty of uttering so heretical a thing as to say that the votes of Members of the House were influenced by their connections with Government, although there were people outside who contended that the effect of being in the Government was, that a Member must falsify his political antecedents, and that when once a man was enmeshed in the toils of office he became totally oblivious or forgetful of all former principles. With regard to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) as to the salaries of naval and military Members of that House, he believed that if the amount of the stipend derived from their offices was known, the nation would be shocked at the injustice done to them by the small payment they received. And he would further add that, looking to the scale of expenditure in modern times, everybody would say that the Ministers of the Crown were not overpaid. In fact, the men who did the work of the country were much underpaid. But there was a class of people whose names appeared on the civil estimates, and perhaps, some of them were Members of that House—who neither did any work, nor were entitled to receive that which they were paid, It would, therefore, give satisfaction to himself and the country if he could obtain a Return of the nature of that for which he begged to move. If he had inadequately expressed himself in support of his Motion, it was because he had not anticipated any opposition to it. He should most certainly press it to a division, if he went out with his seconder alone.

said, that if the House divided on the Motion, he should vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Still, he hardly thought it prudent for the Government to refuse this return. A short time ago, the hon. Member for Birmingham accused all on that (the Opposition) side of the House of receiving more from the taxes than they paid. The charge was ridiculous, but nevertheless, it was believed by some of the simple admirers before whom the hon. Member spoke, and therefore it was desirable that every opportunity should be afforded for the public mind to be rendered clear on this point. If the Return were granted, it would be seen that, besides officers in the army and navy, and persons holding political offices—all of whom the hon. Gentleman admitted to be underpaid —there was scarcely any Member in that House receiving anything from the public.

supported the Motion. He thought the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) had expressed quite enough to induce them to order the Return. The only difference between himself and the noble Lord was, that while he (Mr. Hadfield) should consistently vote for the Return, the noble Lord would throw discredit on the speech he had just delivered by inconsistently voting against it.

hoped that the arguments of the noble Lord would have weight with the Government, and that the noble Lord would not himself discredit so capital a speech as that which he had made by going into the lobby against the Return. He (Mr. Bass) most cordially hoped that it would be obtained.

said, that the hon. Member for Birmingham, in alluding to the receipt of public money by certain persons, referred not to Members of that House alone, but to their friends, relations, and followers; and the intense violence of the contests for the possession of the Ministerial benches arose from the knowledge that they were contentions for the division, not only of political power, but of the enormous patronage at the disposal of the occupants of the Treasury benches. Seeing how the present Government was constituted, he was not surprised at the determined resistance offered to the production of this Return; for the Treasury benches were wholly occupied by the most exclusive clique that ever ruled the destinies of this country. He was surprised that the Home Secretary should refuse a plain statement of facts, from which the country might learn how the taxes, raised from the hard-working classes, were divided among the possessors of places and their followers. Both sides of the House resisted any attempt to reform the institutions of the country, because it was felt that as soon as the franchise should be largely extended an end would be put to abuses and to the wasteful manner in which the people's money was squandered.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Church Rates. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill in its essentials was the counterpart of his Bill of last Session, but in some minor respects it would be found calculated to carry out more comprehensively the object in view. He should best explain the measure by passing its provisions in review. In the first place it was proposed to remove the difficulties which were supposed to exist with regard to permissable objects, by defining the objects for which church rates might be lawfully levied. It then proposed to remove a grievance which was much complained of by Churchmen who were compelled to pay rates, not only for their own district churches, but for the parish churches. One clause of the Bill therefore proposed to give district churches the power of rating themselves. Another clause was directed to the assimilation of the law of church rate and the law of poor rate, so as to give greater facilities for the assessment of small sums leviable upon small tenements. Another clause would have the effect of removing the jurisdiction in disputed matters of church rates from the Ecclesiastical Courts, but without affecting the authority of the Ordinary or his officers in the visitation of churches and the direction of the necessary repairs. The most important provision of the Bill, and the one that was most likely to provoke discussion, was that by which it was proposed to deal with the scruples of those who had objections to church rates upon principle. In approaching the consideration of that part of the Bill, he begged the House to understand that he did so with two distinct propositions in view. The first was that the National Church of England was to be maintained in all its prerogatives; and the second, that as the great principles of religious liberty were the accepted rule of Government in this country, the conscientious feelings of certain portions of the community should be viewed in a liberal spirit. It was, therefore, proposed that any person might by a simple declaration emancipate himself from the payment of church rates in respect of a particular property, whether he were the landlord or tenant of that property. He would only ask those member who supported church rates, to consider the claims of Nonconformists in a candid and liberal spirit, and he would ask those who opposed church rates, to remember that the Church of England, as the Church of the nation, had also her rights, which she was bound to vindicate and maintain.

seconded the Motion.

thought the hon. Member could hardly expect the House to agree to the Bill which he asked leave to bring in. He (Mr. Hadfield) should not, however, oppose its introduction. The declaration required by it was one which would not be made. Last year they successfully resisted a clause in the Census Bill, to compel by force of law Nonconformists to declare their religious sentiments; and such a declaration would never be exacted to escape a few pence or shillings under a church rate. Any consequences would be suffered by thousands sooner than make it. Did the hon. Gentleman suppose that those terms would be accepted? They might call it a concession, but such a concession would never be accepted. A declaration from year to year would, in fact, be even more distasteful to the majority of Dissenters than the rate itself. And in return for what would they be called upon to make the declaration? At present there were 4,000 churches not entitled by law to levy church rates; yet the Bill proposed to grant them power to make a rate. But this Bill would, in every case where the rates were rejected, give facilities for renewing them. One-third of the population of the country, or more, were at this moment freed from the rates altogether. This Bill would give facilities for collecting them in those districts. It would bring 4,000 churches under the rate which now had no rate, and it would give facilities for obtaining a rate which did not now exist, and never ought to exist. And for the small advantage of being permitted to sign a declaration once a year they were to concede those immense advantages to the Church of England. He should like to know whether even upon this small concession the party opposite were unanimous (" Hear!") He was very doubtful of it. He understood that they were very much disunited, and that some would concede no principle whatever. It was said two or three years ago, by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the rate produced about £260,000 a year; but the expenses of collecting the rate were considerable. He did not think the net amount exceeded £200,000 a year, and yet all this immense excitement in the country was to be kept up in order to give this pittance to the richest Church in the world. His own opinion respecting this rate was, that it was not the money that they cared for, it was fur the superiority—the supremacy—the prestige—which the Church of England claimed over the rest of the community. Now, he would call attention to the state of the country, and appeal to hon. Gentlemen whether it was a fitting time to agitate this question, or to resist any longer the concession that was demanded? They had been challenged by his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, last year, to take the new census on the same principle that it had been taken last time; but the fact was known that at the last census the majority of attendances in places of worship was greater in the ease of Nonconformists by more than 300,000 than in the case of the Church of England. The people of Scotland did not belong to the Episcopal Established Church, and the great majority of the people of Ireland were not members of that Church. In fact, upon an estimate which had been carefully taken, it appeared that there were in the United Kingdom at least 5,000,000 of population more out of the pale of the Church than within it. But even if the Dissenters were in a minority in the United Kingdom, was it proper to keep up the excitement which existed in regard to this subject? It could only be done in defiance of what he should consider true Christian principles and of sound policy. He thought the present Bill was a one-sided concession, and he felt confident it would never pass into law.

thought this Bill was an honourable attempt to settle a question which had much agitated the country. No doubt it would be opposed on that account by sectarian fanaticism on the one hand, and by Tory bigotry on the other. A great portion of the moderate Dissenters would, he believed, readily accept the olive branch held out to them by his hon. Friend, were they not prevented by those who called themselves their champions in and out of this House. When the Conservatives were in office, a Bill embodying the principle that Dissenters should be relieved from the payment of church rates was proposed by a member of the Cabinet; and, therefore, it would now ill become the Conservatives to resist a proposition of this kind. Was Nusquam tuta fides to be their motto? Did the Conservatives intend to have two sets of principles—one set to act upon whilst they occupied the Government side of the House, and the other whilst they sat on the Opposition benches? If so, their conduct would be open to the same reproach as that which they so frequently imputed to the Members occupying the opposite benches, and they would lose character in the eyes of the country. Why should the advocates of church rates abolition attempt, for the sake of relieving the Dissenters in a few towns, to upset the ecclesiastical system in the thousands of rural parishes where the people were satisfied with the present system? Great objection had been made to the proposed declaration of dissent required from Dissenters as the means of relieving them from liability to the payment of church rates; but, if all the practical difference which remained between us was reduced to a paper document, it was making a mountain of a molehill to describe that declaration as a great grievance.