said, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The object of the measure was to turn the old burial-ground into glebe land for the rector, which would lead to the desecration of the graves and the conversion of the open space into a mass of buildings. There was a very strong feeling in the parish of St. Pancras that the Bill would materially interfere with the vested rights of a number of persons, and the Bill contained no clause to give them compensation. The parishioners of St. Pancras likewise contended that the Bill was opposed to the policy of the Metropolis Local Management Act, which discouraged the grant in any one parish of such rights as were sought to be obtained under it.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that it was impossible to contend that the rector would acquire, under the provisions of the Bill, any power of dealing with the consecrated portion of the ground; except, indeed, of keeping it in repair. All parties would remain in precisely the same position under the Bill as under the existing law, the only difference being that instead of being paid by the churchwardens their claim would be upon the rector of St. Giles's. It was only in respect of the portion of the ground appropriated to building purposes that a beneficial occupation could be enjoyed. Having been connected with the administration of the Burial Acts, he had an opportunity of observing the extreme hardships inflicted upon the parochial clergy, and especially the clergy of the Metropolis, by the operation of those Acts. While other parties came clamouring to that House for compensation and obtained it, the clergy of the Metropolis had submitted in dignified silence to a most serious loss. The effect of the Bill would be, that an income of about £200 a year would be derived from a small portion of the ground which had never been consecrated or used as a graveyard. Out of that income, however, he would be liable to make compensation to the parish of St. Pancras, and to keep the consecrated portion of the ground in repair. The rector would then have an income of about £150 a year. It was a just and equitable Bill, and he should vote for the second reading.

said, he should oppose the second reading of the Bill. He would beg to remind his hon. Friend who had just sat down that the present rector of St. Giles was appointed in 1857, subse- quent to the passing of the Burial Act, and he therefore accepted his benefice with its disabilities, and consequently, as an individual, could not claim to be indemnified. There was no clause in the Bill that would compel the rector to maintain the burial-ground simply as a burial-ground. He contended that the rector ought not to be allowed to increase his income in the manner proposed by this Bill, which would enable him and his successors, if they thought fit, to cut up the whole of the ground for building purposes. If the Bill were carried, it would be impossible for those who had vested rights in the graves to prove them.

said, he should support the Bill, which conferred no power which could lead to the desecration of the burial-ground.

said, he should oppose the Bill, because it contained no provision to prevent building upon the consecrated ground.

said, he believed that the 12th clause was sufficient for that purpose; but he would promise, on the part of the promoters, to consent to the insertion of any further restriction which might be deemed necessary.

Sir, I beg to give notice that on Tuesday, the 11th of March, I shall move the following Resolution:—

"That this House will on a future day resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the best mode of distributing the Parliamentary Grants for Education now administered by the Privy Council."

It will be for the convenience of the House that I should state that, in case that Motion shall be assented to, I shall move in Committee certain Resolutions with reference to parts of the Revised Code.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can confirm the reports which have recently appeared regarding Gold Discoveries in British Columbia, and if be will lay upon the table any recent information regarding that Colony and its Gold Fields; whether it is the intention of Government to establish a regular Postal Communication with British Columbia; and that any recent information regarding the Australian Gold Fields be laid upon the table?

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman, before he answered the question just put to him, Whether any reports or despatches have been received from the Governor of Canada or the Governor of British Columbia with reference to the establishment of telegraphic communication or communication by water and railway between the north-west corner of Lake Superior and New Westminster, on the Fraser River?

said, that the part of the first question relating to postal communication would be answered by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With reference to the gold discoveries in British Columbia, a Paper would shortly be laid upon the table which would give the latest information received from the Governor on the subject. It would fully confirm, but not add much to what was contained in the excellent accounts that had appeared in the columns of The Times. The Governor had assured the Home Government that the almost fabulous accounts of the richness of the gold fields and of the Cariboo discoveries were not exaggerations. The only difficulty arose from the remoteness of the mines from the mouth of the Fraser, and the consequent expense of the transport. The Governor, however, was applying all such colonial funds as he had at his disposal for such a purpose to improving the means of communication and bringing the necessaries of life within reach of the miners. With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Freeland) no communication had been received from the Governor of Canada or the Governor of British Columbia since the despatch of Governor Douglas, which would be found in the British Columbia Blue-book for 1860. With respect to Australia, Her Majesty's Government had lately received an interesting Report from Governor Barkly, giving an account of an inspection which he had made of the gold fields, and reporting that although from temporary causes there had been a certain diminution in the yield of gold in Victoria last year as compared with former years, yet he believed that the gold mines in that Colony would not only be as prolific, but as permanent a source of industry as our iron and copper mines.

said, that as regarded the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Caird) as to whether it was the intention of the Government to establish a general postal communication with British Columbia, by which he presumed the hon. Gentleman meant a postal communication by steam between San Francisco and British Columbia, he did not think that any sufficient reason had been shown why there should be a direct charge on the Estimates of this country for a service of that kind, but he was glad to say that such communication seemed to have been established, provisionally, at all events, by the colonists themselves. A letter of the 10th of January, received by a mercantile house in this country, had been communicated to the Postmaster General. In that letter it was stated that Messrs. Holiday and Flint, of San Francisco, had made an agreement with the two Colonies for six months for a fortnightly mail communication, at a charge of £10,000 for the six months, each Colony to pay £5,000.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If he will lay upon the table of the House a copy of all Correspondence between the Treasury, the Office of Works and Buildings, and the Office of Woods, in reference to the Report of the Thames Embankment Commissioners, and any Bill to be founded or introduced on such Report.

said, he was not prepared to produce this correspondence, which was a departmental one, concerning a Bill which was not on the table of the House. He did not think that its production would be of any public utility, while it would add to the Parliamentary printing account, which in general amounted to £24,000 per annum.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland consulted by Her Majesty's Government as to issuing the pending Commission with reference to the Courts of that Country; did he decline to be named on that Commission; and was there any objection to produce the Official Correspondence?

said, that the Commission had been appointed in consequence of an Address from the House of Lords. He presumed that his hon. and learned Friend wished to know whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had been consulted about its composition. On that point he had been consulted. A correspondence on the subject had taken place between the Lord Chancellor of England and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, but it was not of an official character. With regard to the second part of his hon. and learned Friend's question, he had to reply that it was at first proposed that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland should be one of the Commissioners; but on further consideration of the matter it was thought better to follow the rule that had been acted on in England, and not have the Lord Chancellor on the Commission, as it might become his duty to revise its proceedings and advise the Crown thereon.

said, he would now beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been directed to the case of Mercer v. Mercer, in the Dublin papers of the 10th instant, which report the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as having expressed his judicial opinion to the effect that "There was, no doubt, a considerable arrear of business in the Taxing Offices of the Court, owing to Master Tandy's death, and he might say that it was not any fault of his that the office was not filled up." Is it intended to fill up that office, and when; and there is any objection to produce the official correspondence between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or the head of the Taxing Department there, and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in London?

said, his attention had not been called to the case alluded to. But the delay in the appointment of a Taxing Master was attributable to the Treasury, who thought it their duty to ascertain whether, in consequence of the decrease of business in the Irish Court, the duty could not be performed by two Taxing Masters instead of three, and whether the appointment should not be considered of a temporary rather than of a permanent character. The Lord Chancellor having advised the appointment to be made permanently, it was not the intention of the Treasury to delay any longer the appointment. They, however, reserved to themselves the right, whenever the next vacancy arose, of inquiring into the whole subject and the number of Taxing Masters required for the proper discharge of the duties. He was quite ready to produce the correspondence in question if the hon. and learned Gentleman moved for it.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to introduce a Bill this Session upon the subject of Bastardy in Ireland?

said, it was intended to introduce a Bill on the subject during the present Session.

said, that he rose to move for a New Writ for the election! of two members for the city of Gloucester. In submitting the case of this ancient city to the attention of the House, he could not but express his opinion that the conduct adopted by the House towards the constituency and great mercantile community of Gloucester had been both unjust and unconstitutional. He was not about to offer any defence, extenuation, nor even apology, for the malversation of the franchise which had so disgraced Gloucester; but he begged to call the attention of the House to a fact of which it must be perfectly aware, that the plague-spot prevailed not only within the walls of Gloucester, but within the walls of some forty or fifty other places. Up to that moment the House had viewed such matters with stolid indifference. Attempts had, indeed, been made to deal with the evil, but they had all ended in one miserable Bill which had been a miserable failure. Owing to circumstances that might be explained, but for which no apology could be offered, Gloucester now stood in a very unenviable position, but it was one which the House could no longer ignore. The House had said, "Our dignity is hurt—our virtue is insulted—and we must find a remedy." What was that remedy or nostrum? It was to punish the innocent, and let the guilty go free. Such had been the result of the Royal Commission. He should have to trouble the House with a short narrative of what took place at the two elections which had brought down upon Gloucester the indignation of the House. An election took place in the year 1857, at which there were three candidates—Sir Robert Carden, Mr. Price, and Sir Maurice Berkeley. The agents of these gentlemen agreed that no unconstitutional means should be resorted to, and none but legal expenses incurred. The day of polling arrived, but while the agents of Mr. Price and Sir Maurice Berkeley kept their pledge, the agent of Sir Robert Carden bought him into the borough. This naturally caused great exasperation among the constituency, because a pledge had been given and broken. A petition was presented against the return, and the matter was referred in the usual manner to a Select Committee. A number of the working classes came before the Committee, and swore that bribery had been committed by Sir Robert Carden's agents, while a number of tradesmen and others of the class above the working classes swore directly to the contrary. It was a case of fustian-jacket against broad-cloth, and broad-cloth won the day. The petition against the return had, indeed, a narrow escape of being declared frivolous and vexatious. He must then make a small leap in his narrative, and go to the Royal Commission. When that Commission sat, it was proved beyond doubt that the working men who had been examined before a Committee of the House of Commons had told the truth, and that the class above them had sworn that which was false. The result of the election petition was well calculated to exasperate the partisans of the defeated petition. Unfortunately, in 1859, another election came off. The Liberal party then met, and said, "We will win this election." They used every sort of bribery that was to be used, they committed every illegal act that was possible, and they sent back Sir Robert Carden to London, defeated at his own weapons. The House of Com- mons then instituted a Royal Commission, which sat under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Nothing could be more admirable than the manner in which the Commissioners, who were able and intelligent men, prosecuted the inquiry. They carried out to the fullest extent the intentions with which the Commission was granted. Against that Commission he had not a word to say. So far as it was a judicial Court of Inquiry, it was constitutional and proper. But the Commissioners had under the Act a kind of sacerdotal function. They set up a confessional, and they addressed all the rascality of the town, saying, "Come unto us all you political sinners; confess what you can of yourselves, cast dirt at your neighbours and friends, and we will give you absolution." The men thus invited, naturally afraid of the sting of the law, rushed to that confessional as to a sanctuary, unburdened their souls, and disclosed the iniquity of others. When they had made a clean breast of it, the Commissioners said, "You are now safe. We will grant you an indemnity. Return to your virtuous homes, and pax vobiscum!" He must trouble the House with some of the facts from the budget collected by the Commissioners. The population of Gloucester was 35,000. The electoral district contained 17,000 persons. The electoral body consisted of 1,600. The Commissioners inquired into the transactions of the two elections of 1857 and 1859. They found that at the election of 1857 there were twenty-two persons who had received bribes, while the Select Committee which sat on the petition found that not a single soul had been bribed at that election. The Commissioners found that sixteen persons, eight of whom were included in the twenty-two who had offered bribes, had been guilty of treating. They found that in 1859 a very different state of things prevailed. Seventy-one persons, inclusive of seventeen of the offenders of 1857, had offered bribes; 250 persons, including a considerable number of the offenders of 1857, had received them; and forty-four, nearly the whole of whom were included in the previous schedules, had been guilty of treating. The Commissioners also found that many of the electors had been employed as messengers and doorkeepers. Under the head of bribery they found that there had been 365 corrupt persons in the two elections out of 1,600 electors. He would assume, although he believed the estimate was ex- cessive, that there were 400 persons in Gloucester who, at these two elections, had been guilty of some malversation of the franchise. In that case there were 1,200 electors who had gone through the test of that fiery ordeal the Commission, and who had come out of it, and Stood before them enamelled as honest men. Few bodies of electors have had such an ordeal to go through, and yet they let the 400 dishonest men go, while they withheld their rights from those 1,200 proved electors. And where was this done? In the county of Gloucester of all places in the world. And yet in the very same county were the boroughs of Cirencester and Tewkesbury, which had no enviable reputation. The number of electors on the registry for these two boroughs was 800, the number that went to the poll thanks to intimidation and other causes did not amount to 600, and yet they allowed those 600 doubtful electors to return four Members to Parliament while they refused to allow 1,200 proved, honest men to return two. Was there any justice in that? But did the evil stop there? Not only were those 1,200 honest electors deprived of the franchise, but also the commercial community of Gloucester —bankers, merchants, shipowners, men residing at a port, the second on that great estuary the Severn, into which vessels entered from 200 up to 1,200 tons. And what was the trade of that place? It was very considerable both with the Baltic and with our North American possessions in timber and in grain, and yet they refused to Gloucester her political agents —those men who had the guardianship of her interests, who were the medium of communication with the Government as well as her organs in that House. Would any hon. Gentleman underrate the importance of Members of Parliament to a great commercial or great manufacturing community? It was scarcely possible to overrate their importance. He did not allude only to those hon. Members who displayed their eloquence in that House, but to those men who looked after the local interests of their constituents, who cared for their manufactures, and were what was called excellent local Members. Nor was he without authority upon that point. One of the greatest authorities that had ever come into that House stated what those duties were in such a manner as would make any hon. Member who was inclined to treat the matter lightly, think seriously of what consequence those duties were to a constituency. It was at the election for Bristol in 1780 that Mr. Burke described what those duties were. A gentleman of great mercantile eminence stood for Bristol; he was a man of large fortune, he belonged to all the institutions of the city, and exercised a generous hospitality. That man, of course, was an awkward customer. Now, how did Mr. Burke recommend himself to his constituents, and how did he meet the claims of such a man? Was it by referring to his great powers of oratory, to his eloquence, to the superb manner in which he treated national and political questions. Nothing of the sort. He kept that out of sight, but these were the words in which he described the claims which he considered he had for re-election—

"My canvass was not on the Change nor in county meetings, nor in the clubs of this city; it was in the House of Commons; it was at the Custom-house; it was at the Council; it was at the Treasury; it was at the Admiralty. I canvassed you through your affairs, and not your persons. I was not only your representative as a body; I was the agent, the solicitor of individuals. I ran about wherever your affairs could call me; and, in acting for you, I often appeared rather as a shipbroker than as a Member of Parliament. There was nothing too laborious or too low for me to undertake. The meanness of the business was raised by the dignity of the object. If some lesser matters have slipped through my fingers, it was because I filled my hands too full, and in my eagerness to serve you, took in more than my hands could grasp. Am I to be 'How d'ye doed' out of my seat by this gentleman?"

He thought he had properly estimated the value of a Member of Parliament, of which they had deprived Gloucester. It was true that Gloucester was perfectly well known to their Chancellors of the Exchequer, whoever they might be. Gloucester was of value to the Budget, but where were the agents of Gloucester to run in and out of the Treasury, the Board of Trade, and the Admiralty"? Gloucester was deprived of them for no other cause than the sins of 400 persons. And now he would ask what was their authority, what their precedent for that? He could find but one, and of that precedent he thought they ought to be ashamed. He found that the writs for the city and for the county of Gloucester were withheld by the Rump Parliament, in 1648—the year before the decapitation of Charles I. Well, at that time five Members for the county—the House would remember that at that time counties had more Members than at the present moment—and two for the city were refused seats in that House. Now, there was no charge, at that time, against either the city or the county of malversation of franchise; it was a whim of the Rump Parliament, whose eccentricities the House was well aware went to a great length, to say nothing of their passing a Bill to expel the Lords from the Upper House. But did the county or the city of Gloucester sit easy under that infliction? They did not; they held meetings; they issued strong remonstrances; they said, "You have no right to inflict upon us taxation without representation;" and they went further and said, "Unless you reinstate our members, we will no longer pay taxes, nor will we obey the laws which you make." The document which embodied these views was so short and so much in point that he would quote it. Hon. Members who were curious to see the original might find it in the British Museum —

"That after great sufferings and trials, the vast expense of treasure and blood for our rights and liberties and privileges of Parliament, such persons in whom we have already lodged our trusts, and who have sufficiently manifested their endeavours to perform the same—namely, Nathaniel Stephens, Esq., Sir John Seymour, Edward Stephens, Esq., John Stephens, Esq., and the Right Hon. Thomas Lord Fairfax—have been since December, 1648, and still are denied the freedom of sitting and voting in Parliament. The restoration of which Members we desire with all freedom to their former capacity, and declare that we shall not otherwise consent to pay tax or other impositions, or hold ourselves bound by any law to be made without the restitution of these our representatives, with a supply of all vacancies by a free election according to the fundamental laws and constitutions of this nation, it being the undoubted birthright of all the freeborn people of England that no tax or other imposition be exacted from them but by their consents had by their representatives in a full and free Parliament."

Shortly after this remonstrance, writs were issued for the city of Gloucester and the county of Gloucester, and the following Members returned—for the city, W. Lenthal, Esq., and Alderman Pmy; for the county, Judge Hole, George Berkeley, Christopher Guise, Sylvanus Wood, and John Howe. Upon these grounds, he begged to prefer the petition to the House that they would grant a restoration of rights to Gloucester. With a confident hope that his proposition would not meet with any opposition, he would conclude by moving —

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of two citizens to serve in this present Parliament for the city of Gloucester, in the room of Philip William Price and Charles James Monk, Esquires, whose election has been determined to be void."

said, that it was not the intention of the Government to offer any opposition to the Motion, or to that other Motion of which notice had been given by an hon. and Gallant Member opposite (Major Edwards) for the issue of a writ for Wakefield; but lie must, at the same time, express his dissent from the opinion of the hon. Member, who had that evening advocated the claims of the constituency of Gloucester, that that city had been unjustly treated by the House. He did not think the House would feel that such was the case, having heard the terms—terms which we should be sorry to repeat—in which his hon. Friend had characterized the conduct of a large number of the voters. He could not admit that there was a sharp line of demarcation between the 400 electors whom the hon. Member allowed to be corrupt, and the 1,200 electors asserted to be perfectly pure. He believed that where corruption was found to prevail to a great extent—and the advocate for the borough admitted the corruption of one-fourth of the constituency—such a state of things would never be found to exist if the respectable portion of the constituency not only abstained from offering or receiving bribes themselves, but did their utmost to oppose all bribery and corruption on the part of others, and endeavoured by their own exertions to stop those evils. He was anxious to state, also, that the course which the Government were prepared to take upon the present occasion was not dictated by the opinion that these two boroughs had been adequately punished for the general corruption proved to prevail in them at the election of 1859. He believed, that if it was the determination of Parliament to place an effectual check on bribery, the strict rule hitherto acted on with regard to disfranchisement must be relaxed, and that, where general corruption was found to exist, disfranchisement ought to be had recourse to oftener than it has been, and the elective franchise transferred to some more fit body. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the elective franchise was highly to be valued, and no doubt it was convenient for a thriving city like Gloucester to be represented; but, whatever its interests might be, the trust reposed in a constituency might be justly forfeited by abuse. On the other hand, there might be cases where a large num- ber of the electors were not implicated in corruption, and in respect to which case the House would not think fit to proceed to the extreme course of disfranchisement, but would adopt some less punishment to mark their sense of the improper practices of a considerable portion of the voters. That was a point that came under the consideration of the Committee on the Corrupt Practices Amendment Act, and that Committee reported the following as one of their resolutions:—

"That if, after the presentation of a report to Parliament by a commission of inquiry into corrupt practices at an election for any county, city, or borough, that extensive bribery has prevailed in such place, the House of Commons shall resolve that no writ ought to be issued for an election of a Member or Members for such place for a period of five years, no writ shall be issued for an election of a Member or Members for such place till the expiration of five years from the date of such resolution; provided that such provision shall not be held in any way to affect the right of Parliament either altogether to disfranchise such place, or to alter, suspend, or take away the right of voting of all or any of the electors therein."

That Resolution was intended to apply to places in which corruption so extensive did not prevail as to justify the extreme remedy of disfranchisement, but in respect to which it was nevertheless desirable that the writs should be suspended for a time, not merely by a Resolution of the House, but under the authority of the Legislature, in order to allow a considerable change to take place in the constituency. A provision, founded upon that Resolution, would be inserted in the Bill which he hoped to introduce shortly to amend the Corrupt Practices Act. But dealing with the case before them, he at once admitted that he adhered to the opinion he had before expressed in that House, that there were serious objections to the suspension of a writ for a protracted period by the single authority of that House, and without reference to any proposed or pending legislative measure. With respect to the two boroughs to which it was proposed to issue writs, peculiar cirumstances existed at the time when the reports of the Commissioners were laid on the table, which prevented any Bill being proposed; and after the period which had now elapsed, the seats having been vacant since 1859, he did not think that the House would—and he was not sure that it ought to be induced either to proceed by disfranchisement Bills, or by applying to them retrospectively an enactment such as he had just explained. Under these circumstances, the Government did not feel it their duty any further to oppose the issue of these writs; but he trusted that it would be the determination of the House in all future cases not to allow constituencies among whom corrupt practices exist to escape without a much severer measure of punishment than had been applied in the present instance, and that Parliament would be prepared to proceed either by absolute disfranchisement or by a suspension of the writ for a time sufficiently long not only to mark the disapproval of the Legislature, but also to allow a considerable change to take place in the constituency.

The Government cannot take any other course in this matter than that which the right hon. Gentleman intends to pursue. The suspension of a writ by one branch of the Legislature is an arbitrary and unconstitutional proceeding, and one to which recourse ought not to be had unless under exceptional circumstances, and with a clear conception of what is to be the policy of the House under the circumstances. Let me recall to the memory of the House what has taken place with regard to the borough we are now considering, and with regard to the borough of Wakefield. In 1859 Parliamentary Committees of inquiry reported against the returns for both Gloucester and Wakefield, and a Motion was made for the suspension of the writs. As the Motion was made in contemplation of Royal Commissions of inquiry into the circumstances which took place at the elections, the object of the suspension was obvious, and the Motion was entirely proper. When the year 1860 arrived, and the then Secretary of State laid upon the table of the House the Report of those two Royal Commissions, he stated it was the intention of the Government that no Motion should be made for a new writ for either of the boroughs without a week's notice. Shortly afterwards, another Member of the Government—the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and who now fills the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department—gave the House some clearer conception of the policy the Government intended to recommend; and it was this—that a notice of one week should be given in order that the Government should have an opportunity of recommending to the House, that the writ should be suspended for not less than five, nor more than ten years: and the House, with that policy before them, consented to the suspension of the writs for Gloucester and Wakefield. Yet the whole of the Session of 1860, which was a Session of unusual duration, passed away, no steps were taken to legislate on the subject of the suspension of writs, and the suspension for these two writs has been continuously arbitrary and unconstitutional. The suspension was at the end of the Session still existing, without any remedy being applied to the circumstances. Well, what took place in 1861? An hon. Gentleman brought the question before the House, and Motions were made for issuing the writs, certainly in one case, and I believe in both. What happened then? The Government opposed the issuing of the writs, and said that the Corrupt Practices Bill, which was then about to be introduced, would give an opportunity by which the evil might be met and a proper punishment for the offence awarded. Nevertheless, the Government of 1861 themselves declined to introduce into this measure the provision which was required in the case of the two boroughs; but they said it was open to any hon. Member to make a proposition which would involve the suspension for five or ten years. Neither the Government nor any Member of the House, however, made such a proposition, and the consequence was that another year passed, and this arbitrary and unconstitutional suspension of the writs still remains, and the question is still involved in the unsatisfactory circumstances to which I have adverted. Now, I do not clearly understand that a distinct engagement has this evening been entered into on the part of the Government, that if the writs under discussion are issued, they will be prepared to introduce a measure to meet, if necessary, any circumstances of a similar character which may in future arise. For my own part, I am strongly of opinion that it is most expedient to lay down some precise and definite rules by which the House may be guided on these questions of the suspension of writs. There are, I think, two cases in which writs may properly and legitimately be suspended. They may, for instance, be suspended in the case in which a Committee of this House—an Election Committee—has adversely reported against the returns of a particular borough, and when, acting upon that report, the issue of a Royal Commission is in contemplation. It is desirable that the suspension should under these circumstances take place in order to afford the Commission an opportunity of in- vestigating those details which it is necessary to ascertain. I am also of opinion that after a Royal Commission has reported adversely to a borough, the issue of a writ for that borough may constitutionally and properly be suspended if Parliament is prepared to legislate in the matter. If, however, Parliament should not be prepared to do so, the suspension of the writ is an arbitrary proceeding, and, as the result of the determination of only one branch of the Legislature, clearly unconstitutional. The evils to which such a suspension gives rise, irrespective of those to which I have already referred, are not inconsiderable. The Legislature in suspending a writ seeks, I take it for granted, to pursue a remedial rather than a retributive course; but, as hon. Members are well aware, corrupt practices are more prevalent during the excitement of an election than in times of ordinary tranquillity, and what, I should like to know, has been the result in the cases of Gloucester and Wakefield since the writs for those towns have been suspended? Why, their state has been one of chronic electioneering; so that the House of Commons, by the course it has taken, has actually encouraged and stimulated that mood of the public mind which is most favourable to that very corruption which it is the desire of the House to put down. Therefore, I think we ought to come to some clear understanding upon the course to be adopted in future with regard to this matter. When a Committee reports that a Royal Commission ought to be issued, no one can doubt on either side that the writ ought to be suspended; but if a Royal commission investigates the matter, and generally reports against the borough, the writ ought not to be suspended unless the House is prepared to fulfil the duty which, in my opinion, is imperative upon it—that is, to legislate upon the subject; and although I cannot conceive any opposition to the issuing of this writ now, which really, perhaps, ought to have been issued before, I still hope, if unhappily similar instances are brought before the House, that those who lead the House will certainly not advise as they have hitherto advised on this matter, but will be prepared to assent either to the issuing of the writ, or suspend it with a view of providing a remedy for the evils of which complaint was made.

said, that when a Resolution similar to that under discussion had been proposed last Session he had opposed it; nor could he help thinking that the circumstances of the case completely justified that course. He at the some time, however, quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in the opinion that it would not have been quite constitutional to negative that Resolution, had he not believed that further action would be taken, and that it was the intention of Parliament to deal with the question finally and specifically. The tenor of the discussion which had taken place on the subject last Session was, indeed, if he was not mistaken, calculated to lead to the supposition that it would be so dealt with. He was not, he might add, one of those who entertained the opinion, that if that supposition had been acted upon, such a proceeding could be fairly held to be open to objections which were urged against ex post facto legislation, inasmuch, as, although the; offences against which the Act of Parliament was levelled might have been committed before it passed into a law, still it was no doubt competent for the Legislature to prevent the exercise of the electoral privilege in cases in which it had; been so greatly abused as in the instances of Gloucester and Wakefield. It was, he also thought, a mistake to suppose that it was confounding the innocent with the guilty to visit with punishment for bribery and corruption the whole of the electors of a borough, because, unless Parliament were satisfied that all grades and all parties took part in the commission of those offences, they would not be likely to inflict the punishment at all, while, when they clearly ascertained that such was the case, they would be proceeding simply in accordance with a well-known principle of our law—which made, in many instances, a whole hundred responsible for the acts of one or more of its Members—in including a whole borough within the scope of any penalty the House might deem it right to impose. If, therefore, the Government had introduced a Bill visiting Wakefield and Gloucester with punishment for their past delinquencies, he should have no hesitation in saying that they would be doing a purely constitutional act. The matter, however, now assumed a different form. The last Session and the portion which had expired of the present had been allowed to pass away without the introduction of any such measure as he had indicated, and he, under these circumstances, felt bound to concur with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the opinion that it was not a constitutional practice, or a convenient precedent, to establish, to suspend writs from time to time, in the hope that something might by possibility be done on the subject. No promise having in the instance under discussion been made on the part of the Government, that they were prepared to legislate in order to meet the requirements of the case, and the opportunity for doing so having been allowed to pass away, he, for one, could scarcely hope that the majority of hon. Members would sanction what would be an extraordinary stretch of power—the suspension of the writ any longer. He, at all events, was not prepared to negative the Resolution. He must, however, express a hope that the discussions which had taken place would not be barren of good results in the cases of Wakefield and Gloucester, and that they would yet take a respectable rank among the boroughs of England. He hoped, also, that hon. Members would bear in mind that those towns simply furnished types of cases which might be expected to occur again and again—which were, indeed, the more likely to occur in the future, owing to the fact that Parliament seemed disposed to deal with them so lightly. It was expedient, therefore, that the Government should deal with the subject vigorously and expeditiously, and that any measure which they might introduce should affect not only those constituents who might have been found guilty on the Report of a Royal Commission of receiving bribes, but also those persons by whom bribes were given and offered. He was thoroughly convinced, that if there were any probability of the law being put in force against persons offering bribes, the number of persons so offending would be much smaller. At all events, if that course were adopted, bribes would be offered much more carefully than at present. He would recommend that when a Committee reported to the House the names of persons offering bribes, the Bill should provide that those names should be handed over to the Attorney General and to the Law Officers of the Crown to decide whether a case could not be made out to justify a prosecution.

said, he agreed with his right hon. Friend and with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was not expedient to leave questions of the kind to be dealt with according to the mere caprice of the House of Commons. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) had very nearly approached the true remedy of the evil, when he hinted that the seats should in every case be taken away from corrupt constituencies and transferred to others; but he did not agree with him that the number of electors in any particular case was any reason why a different course should be resorted to.

said, he had referred to cases where there were a large number of electors who were not compromised by the corrupt practices complained of.

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had himself said there could not be extensive corruption without the entire community being implicated in it; and therefore the distinction he had drawn between a large number of voters and a large number of innocent voters was perfectly immaterial. But he (Mr. Bentinck) could not help pointing out that Parliament had dealt with small boroughs in a way that it would not venture to adopt towards large ones. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Berkeley) said, the conduct of the house towards Gloucester had been both unjust and unconstitutional. He (Mr. Bentinck) entirely agreed with that; for he believed, that if the House had acted towards Gloucester in a just and constitutional manner, it would have disfranchised it long ago. The House ought to be extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his extreme candour; for he had told them that a large liberal constituency in which he was interested had resorted to every possible illegal act. He stated, it was true, that there were 1,200 electors who were perfectly honest, nay, he said they were perfectly "enamelled." Now, the House knew that enamel was often used to conceal imperfections, and he was afraid that such had been the case at Gloucester. He stated, also, that forty other borough constituencies were quite as bad as Gloucester. That was a very sweeping statement, but one which he believed was fully justified, as, if they searched the archives of the House, they would find that a much larger number than forty had been convicted of bribery within the last few years. He only hoped the hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the facts he had stated the next time he rose in his place eloquently to advocate the lowering of the borough franchise.

said, he wished to be informed whether there was any law or usage of Parliament which would justify the Government in acceding to the Motion that Session any more than during the preceding. Whatever was the limit to the power of the House in that respect, he hoped they would exercise it to the utmost in the case of guilty Gloucester. If the hon. Member for Bristol could have proved that the guilt of 1859, as exposed before the Royal Commissioners, was unprecedented, or had occurred under circumstances of peculiar temptation, or if he could have shown that it was limited to one party or to one class of electors, then there might have been some reason for saying that Parliament ought not to punish the whole constituency of Gloucester for the offence of a few. It appeared, however, from the Report of the Commissioners, that from time immemorial the practice of bribery to a gross extent had prevailed at Gloucester. To such an extent, indeed, had it prevailed that in 1852, when the three candidates agreed to try the experiment of an election without bribery, the electors stigmatized the resolution as a conspiracy to rob them of their rights, and to get their votes for nothing. Although the Commissioners had no authority to inquire into the circumstances of any election prior to that of 1857, they ascertained that as early as 1816 one gentleman expended upwards of £20,000 to procure his return; that two years afterwards another spent £16,000; and that at every subsequent election bribery had been practised upon an extensive scale, sometimes openly and sometimes secretly, but always controlling the return of Members. Such a constituency deserved to be disfranchised, and that punishment would be inflicted if the House was really sincere, and the Government was honestly seeking to put down bribery and corruption. The hon. Member for Bristol had understated the number of electors who were bribed at the last election. The persons whose names were mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners amounted to 28 per cent of the whole available constituency, and the list included men of all parties and all classes, from an alderman of the borough down to the humblest freeman. Under these circumstances he thought it was unworthy of the Government to consent to the issue of a writ upon that occasion.

said, it was his pleasing duty to move that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Wakefield, in the room of William Henry Leatham, Esq., whose election has been determined void. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not fear that he was about to inflict on the House along speech, because, from the manner in which the subject had been conceded by the Government, he considered it hardly necessary at all to go into the matter. [Cries of "Move, Move," "Agreed, Agreed."] He did, however, think when he came into that House, notwithstanding the report he had heard out of doors, that it would be utterly impossible that the Government could any longer withhold the writ for Wakefield. On previous occasions when he had the honour of submitting the motion to the House, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had urged as a pretext for its refusal, that the Home Secretary had then a Bill before Parliament dealing with bribery and corruption at elections. When he considered that the borough of Wakefield was made a Parliamentary borough by the Reform Act of 1832, and had never had a previous charge of the kind brought against it, he did think it a hard case that because a small fraction of the constituency should have been guilty of bribery, the entire electoral body, of more than 1,000, should have virtually suffered disfranchisement during a period of three years; and not they alone, but also the whole population of 23,000, included within the electoral boundary of that important town, now constituted the capital of the southern division of the West Riding, and which was annually extending as one of the great centres of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. ["Move, Move."] He would not trouble the House by saying more, but he really, in common fairness, expected he would have been allowed to answer certain allegations that had come from the other side of the House, notwithstanding the reluctant and tardy concession of the Government in withholding all further opposition to the issue of that writ, for which he fought so hard in vain last Session. He begged to move the issue of the writ.

seconded the motion.

(who spoke amid much interruption) was understood to insist that the course pursued in the examination of the witnesses at the inquiry was a straining of our constitutional law.

Sir, I rise to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Registration of Births and Deaths in Ireland. This is a subject which is acknowledged to be of very great importance to Ireland. It is admitted that the registration of births and deaths would be of extreme advantage in the promotion of both the moral and material interests of that country. In fact, in a general point of view the advantages of a system of registration cannot be denied; and all I, on the part of the Government, want the House to do now, is to give Ireland that measure of justice which has already been meted out to England and Scotland. England, as the House is aware, was dealt with in this matter by the Registration Bill of 1836, and Scotland by the Registration Bill of 1854. The greatest possible inconvenience results from the present state of things in Ireland, which is, I believe, the only civilized country in Europe where there is no system of registration. Property has become alienated for want of a proper and careful registration. All parties and religious sects in Ireland are thoroughly agreed as to the necessity of it. The Protestants of the North are not less anxious for it than the Roman Catholics, who have been the greatest sufferers from the want of an efficient registration. The Registrar General, Mr. Donnelly, has informed me that he knows of numerous cases of Irishmen who have died in America and the colonies leaving property, but their poor relations in Ireland, although the undoubted heirs, have been unable to recover the property from the absence of the means of proving their connection with the deceased. This matter has been several times considered by the House, and also by a Select Committee. The noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), when Secretary for Ireland, introduced a Bill on the subject. In 1861 my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) the Chancellor of the Duchy, also introduced a measure though different from that of the noble Lord (Lord Naas). Both Bills were referred to a Select Committee, and certain resolutions were passed which rendered it impossible in the course of last year to proceed with them. The subject, as I have already stated, has been long before the Irish public. I was looking over some correspondence the other day in reference to it, and I observed that Sir William Somerville, when Secretary for Ireland in 1847 and 1852, was urged to introduce a Bill. Again in 1855, although he was not then a Member of the Government, he was urged to bring in some measure on the subject; but he said there were so many difficulties in the way, he must decline to meddle with the question. I believe those difficulties have now in a great measure been removed. We have arrived at a period when we can fairly and honestly legislate on the matter for the benefit of Ireland; and I believe if the House will accede to the motion with which I shall conclude, the Bill to be introduced will meet the approval of Irish Members. To show the great inconvenience that arises from the present state of things, I will read a letter written as far hack as 1850, by the clerk of the Dublin Presbytery, to the Registrar General, Mr. Donnelly, in which he says—

"Prior to 1861 the registry of birth and baptism was not attended to, and thousands of baptisms could not now be found."

Then, there is another letter addressed to the Registrar General, which still more forcibly points out the necessity to the people of Ireland of such a measure as that I now propose. The writer, dating from Boyle, July, 1853, says—

"A brother of mine having died intestate, his life was insured for a large sum of money; but, from the difficulty of obtaining the necessary certificate to satisfy the just requirements of the insurance office as to identity, it was most vexatious, protracted, and expensive. Year after year the public suffer very much for the want of a proper and safe mode of registry of births and deaths."

Here is another letter, from a minister at Coleraine, dated 1853, also addressed to the Registrar General—

"I take the liberty of addressing you relative to some general measure of registration of births and deaths. The importance of such a measure in a social and moral point of view can scarcely be overrated. The official and accredited records of parishes and congregations of the various sections of the Protestant Church in Ireland are meagre, incorrect, and incomplete. Among the Roman Catholic population, constituting the great majority, the defect is still greater, as there is no specific ecclesiastic law requiring a priest to preserve a record."

Observe what would be the immediate effect of the introduction of a measure such as I now propose on the well-being and morality of the country. First of all, parties would be able to prove their respective ages, and by proof of their pedigree to establish their title to property. At present parties dying abroad, in the colonies, or India, often die intestate. The usual course is to advertise for the heir; but, from the extreme difficulty of ascertaining who the heir is, there are numberless cases of the entire loss of the property which ought fairly to come to the poor relatives. By this Bill I hope that state of things will be remedied. I have said that Ireland is unhappily, I believe, almost the only country in Europe which is debarred the advantage of civil registration of births and deaths. The other day I read an able article in a foreign review in which allusion was made to Ireland in reference to this subject. The increase of population was spoken of, but without carrying with it that prosperity which should be proportionate. The prejudice which so long existed in Ireland in regard to registration is happily passing away. All classes are agreed to promote such a measure without reference to politics or religious differences. I will now, with the permission of the House, very briefly explain the principal provisions of the measure I seek to introduce. But, first, I may state that I have submitted the Bill I propose to introduce to the criticism of the Registrar General for England (Mr. Graham), and I am happy to say that he has written me a letter, in which he says—

"I have given my best attention to the accompanying Bill, and I have made in it several alterations which I think essential. I hope you may succeed in what for several years each succeeding Secretary for Ireland has failed to accomplish, and this measure, as prepared by you, will, I think, be found to answer admirably."

The principal features of the Bill are these:—We make the present Registrar General of Marriages in Ireland the Registrar General of Births and Deaths. His salary, at present £800, will be raised to £1,000; and we propose to give him a central office in Dublin, where he will direct the whole subject of births, deaths, and marriages. Abstracts of the registers will be laid on the table annually, and searches will be allowed to the public free of expense—of course, subject to certain restrictions. But then comes the great question which has so long agitated the public mind as regards the districts and who should be the registrars. Practically, the question who shall be the registrars has been the great stumbling block. I have given the subject my anxious attention. There are six different modes in which the object may be accomplished. First of all, there is the proposal of registration by medical officers, then that by postmasters, then that by ecclesiastics, then that by persons nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, next that by persons appointed by the boards of guardians, and, lastly, that by the constabulary. To devolve this duty upon the postmasters, would, I think, be absurd; to devolve it upon persons selected by the Lord Lieutenant would be to place too much power in the hands of one officer in Dublin; that such a civil matter should be entirely intrusted to ecclesiastics would clearly be distasteful to the public; while, again, if the registrars were chosen by the boards of guardians, they would have to be nominated by the majority, and the minority would then always be at issue with the person elected. Consequently, I have resolved these six schemes into two, for it appears to me that only two of them are applicable to the circumstances of Ireland. The one of these is registration by medical officers, the other by the constabulary. The noble Lord the Member for Cocker-mouth recommended the constabulary for the discharge of this function, while my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy recommended the relieving officers—that is to say, he followed the system in force in England under the Poor Law. I have carefully considered this subject. The great thing is to have the work done most efficiently, and at the same time most economically. Now, the advantages of using the constabulary as registrars of births and deaths in preference to the medical officers of unions will be seen from the following facts. The number of constabulary districts in Ireland is 1,570, giving an average area of twenty square miles to each; the number of dispensary districts, on the other hand, is 716, with an average area of about forty square miles. So that the registering constables will have districts less than one-half the size of those of the medical officers. Again, the average number of families to be visited by each registering constable will be 719, while the number to be visited by each dispensary officer will be 1,577. The average number of births and deaths to be registered by each constable will be 200, and by each medical officer 438. The average yearly remuneration which I propose to give to each constable is £5, whereas the amount which each medical officer would receive, calculated at the rate of 6d. as his fee upon each entry, would be £10 19s. Now £10 19s. a year or about 7d. per day, is hardly enough to induce a medical man of education and position to inform himself of and register every birth and death occurring in a district covering on an average forty square miles. His daily avocations take him away from home for a great part of his time, and he would be obliged to have a deputy. Why, it is a well-known fact that the Poor Law Commissioners have stated that they think the 1s. fee which a medical officer receives for each case of vaccination is hardly sufficient to induce him to do the duty efficiently. If that sum is not enough for a congenial duty, how can we expect him for 6d, to attend to a matter scarcely within the immediate scope of his profession? And if the person wishing to have the registration effected were required to go to the registrar's house for that purpose, the system would operate very oppressively in Ireland. In fact, it would not work well unless the officer went to the house of the family where the birth or death had occurred. Again, a matter of the first importance is how you can best preserve the registers from injury? No doubt they would be more secure against fire or other accidents if placed in the custody of the officers of constabulary than if kept in the private residences of medical men, who are often absent, and cannot prevent the risks arising from the carelessness of others. Moreover, the constabulary are now and have for a series of years been employed in the collection of agricultural statistics, and have acted for three decennial periods as census enumerators. They are distributed over 1,570 different localities, they know almost every family, and hardly a birth or a death could happen in any house that would escape their notice. Indeed, the constabulary in Ireland is, I think, the most remarkably efficient force that exists in the United Kingdom. It is cheaper than any other force, and I know it is very popular. It has done immense service to the country, and I believe it would be a boon to the men to receive an additional £5 a year each for undertaking the registry—a duty which, I have no doubt, they would perform admirably, and with every consideration and delicacy towards the persons with whom they might be brought into contact. I have had a return made out to show the comparative cost of pay and clothing for the rural police in Great Britain and for the Irish constabulary respectively. It is as follows:—

"Strength of the rural police of Great Britain, 13,437; cost, £788,800. Strength of the Irish constabulary, 12,124; cost, £430,084. Annual cost per man in Great Britain, £58 14s. Id.; in Ireland, £35 9s. 6d. The London metropolitan police (6,047 men, pay and clothing, £354,821), cost on an average per man £58 13s. 6d.; the Dublin police (1,082 men, pay and clothing £53,419), average per man £49 7s. 5d."

These facts, I think, prove that, of the various schemes proposed, the plan of employing the constabulary as superintendent registrars and registrars is the one most likely to be satisfactory and beneficial to Ireland. I may mention that we propose to require, as is done in Scotland, that the medical attendant of the deceased person shall transmit his certificate within seven days from the death. I should also observe that there is nothing in the Bill which will in any way interfere with the register of baptisms and burials as now by law established, or with the right of the officiating ministers to receive the fees now usually paid them upon baptisms and burials. The next question is, what will be the cost of this scheme? Because in Ireland we do not like to be burdened where we may avoid it. I have therefore prepared a statement, giving a comparison between the three respective plans of my noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth, of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Duchy, and that which I am now describing to the House; and I am happy to say that the plan which I am proposing is not only the most efficient, but has the immense advantage of being extremely economical. I propose that the superintendent registrars should receive 2d. for every entry in certified copies of registers of births and deaths, and that every registrar should receive 6d. for every entry of birth or death. It is calculated that in Ireland there are about 200,000 births and 133,000 deaths annually. Reckoning these at 6d. for each entry, you have a total sum of £8,325, which, divided among 1,500 constables acting as registrars, gives about £5 11s. to each, or 4d. per day. The fee of 2d. on each entry would yield a total sum of £2,775 more. The proposal of my right hon. Friend was, that the medical officer acting as registrar should receive 1s., whereas I give the constabulary registrar 6d. My right hon. Friend proposed to obtain that 1s. from the poor rates—that is to say, one-half would have fallen upon the landlord and the other half upon the occupier. I propose to put upon the county cess—which I believe presses only upon the occupier—the whole 6d., or exactly the same amount as the moiety which my right hon. Friend's plan would have thrown upon the occupier. The comparative cost of the three schemes, then, stands thus:—The total annual charge under the plan of the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth would have been £17,525; that under the plan of my right hon. Friend, £16,650; whereas the scheme which I have the honour to propose will cost the country only £11,099. Thanking the House for the kindness with which they have listened to my observations, I have now only to ask them to allow this Bill to be laid upon the table; and I am quite sure that if they should agree to this measure, it will tend to the moral and social improvement of the country, will remove the endless difficulties which have existed for many years past, and will be an act of justice to Ireland, doing nothing more than to place her on the same footing in this matter as England and Scotland now stand in virtue of recent legislation.

said, that, as a Member of the Select Committee to which the question had been referred, he could not but express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not paid more attention to the evidence given before that Committee, and to the Report which dealt specifically with the Registration of Marriages. The conclusion at which they arrived was precisely the reverse of that embodied in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced. They had condemned the employment of the constabulary, and they expressed a hope that an inefficient system would not be established merely because it might be more economical than another system. There was one disadvantage attending the Chief Secretary's proposal, which he was not surprised the right hon. Gentleman did not perceive—it was that he was throwing the government of Ireland into the hands of the constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman had shown an inclination of that kind already; he had given new powers and inconsistent duties to the constabulary. Such proceedings were not at all to the taste of the Irish people, and perhaps some of the unpopularity which the right hon. Gentleman I unfortunately gained in the course of his recent tour was owing to the circumstance of his having been accompanied by the head of the Irish constabulary. In Ireland that body was vulgarly known by the name of "Peelers;" and it was not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman wished to emulate the proceedings of his distinguished father, by making as much of them as possible. But the constabulary in Ireland had to do many things which were distasteful to the people: their legitimate duties they performed well; their novel and supplementary duties very badly. For this they could not be blamed. It was the fault of the Government. If, then, the right hon. Gentleman were to intrust this new and most important duty—a duty, too, of imperial interest—to a body of men who were already unpopular and overloaded with a variety of other business, he would find it most inefficiently discharged. He could not but think that medical officers—educated men, acquainted with the duties to be discharged—were preferable to officers who would have to be taught their functions before they could ever attempt to fulfil them. Another objection which he felt to the measure was, that it did not embrace the registration of marriages as well as of births and deaths. In this respect, also, he preferred the measure of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

said, he was also a Member of the Committee which had passed resolutions on this subject. According to his recollection, the Committee had made no report of the kind stated by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy). He could only attribute the statement of the hon. Member to the fact that he hail but rarely attended the Committee, and knew but little of its proceedings. The argument of the hon. Member, therefore, went for nothing, as it was founded upon error. For himself, he felt bound to say that the statement made by the right hon. Baronet appeared, upon the whole, most satisfactory, and he considered important reasons had been given why the police might be safely employed in carrying out the work of registration of births and deaths, and why they would do it efficiently. There was no reason to fear that it would entail any unpopularity upon them. He was in Ireland when the police were employed in taking the Census, and was able to bear favourable testimony to the manner in which they had performed that duty, although at first it was feared that they might be objectionable agents. The right hon. Baronet had also proved satisfactorily that registration could be much more inexpensively conducted by the police than by any other system, and that was an important circumstance. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the distances to be traversed would render it impossible for the medical officers satisfactorily to attend to the registry without neglecting their other duties, while the clergy were fully occupied in their more important work. He was therefore, upon the whole, satisfied with the proposed measure, and thought it might be made, with some few Amendments, extremely useful and beneficial to Ireland.

said, he approved of the period of the Session and of the evening on which the Bill was introduced, but in other respects he saw little to recommend it. The hon. Member for the King's County had been corrected as to the Report of the Committee. Perhaps he (Mr. Vincent Scully) should also be set right as to his impression on the subject. But as he had moved for the Select Committee, and presided at its sittings, which, he regretted to say, were not very frequently attended by the bon. Member (Mr. Hennessy), he might be permitted to say he understood the conclusion of the Committee to be that marriages ought to be registered through the clergy of the respective denominations; but as to births and deaths, the Committee were unable to make any satisfactory report, and the matter was adjourned for further consideration. In his view, the constabulary were the worst body that could be selected for the purpose. He did not wonder that the right hon. Baronet should feel an hereditary attachment to the "Peelers" of Ireland, but he thought that any one who would take the trouble to read the evidence given before the Committee, especially that of Mr. H. Brownrigg, would come to the conclusion that that body should not be allowed to register the births. Any one could register the deaths. The main difficulty the Committee had to deal with was how best to get a proper registration of births, and especially of the illegitimate births, of which there were from 20,000 to 30,000 in the course of the year. He thought that to intrust the inquiry into that subject to a number of perhaps juvenile policemen would be neither conducive to the peace of families, nor to the good of the men themselves. At least, he thought the proposal would be revolting to the House, as it was to his own feelings. He would infinitely prefer in place of the present Bill the measure introduced by the late Secretary for Ireland, who proposed that this registration should be effected through the Boards of Guardians. His own opinion was, however, that the best persons you could employ to register the births and deaths were those who now married and baptized—namely, the clergy of the different denominations.

said, he could not but compliment the right hon. Baronet upon the very clear and distinct explanation he had given of the provisions of the Bill; but, at the same time, he must express the great disappointment he had felt upon finding that it dealt with births and deaths only, and not with marriages. A large proportion of the time of the Committee last year was occupied in considering how the registration of marriages should be effected, and there could be no question about the desirability of introducing a system which should include these three classes. With regard to the machinery for registering births and deaths, the choice seemed to lie between the constabulary and the medical men. But he did not think the latter plan would work, as the medical men were already too much engaged in duties of a far more important character—attending the sick poor. He thought no more convenient mode could be adopted than that suggested by the Bill, but it was open to constitutional objections of a serious character. If power was given to the police to enter every house for the purpose of making the necessary inquiries, it was impossible to prevent their becoming acquainted with other matters than the mere subject-matter of their inquiries; and as they were always the principal agents in the detection and witnesses in the prevention of crime, the knowledge they obtained under the cover of the law would frequently be used by them in the evidence they gave, and that alone would not only lessen the value of their evidence, but render them still more unpopular than they were at present. He therefore hoped the scheme would be reconsidered. The proposal to pay for the labour so performed out of the county cess or the poor rate was one that should be well considered, for it would tend to make the Poor Law very unpopular. A similar objection, though not perhaps so strongly, would apply to the use of the county cess for such a purpose. They were already overcharged; and the best fund, in his opinion, upon which to throw the charge would be the Consolidated Fund.

said, he also wished to compliment the right hon. Gentleman for the lucid statement in which he had introduced the Bill. He would also congratulate the House, and especially the Irish Members, that from the period of the Session at which the Bill had been introduced, they had a prospect of obtaining some useful legislation on a question of much importance. He accepted the measure as an instalment, and though he would have liked to see the registration of marriages included in it, he was not dissapointed that the right hon. Baronet had not attempted hastily to deal with so difficult a subject. He thought the clergymen of all denominations should have been intrusted with the work of registration rather than the police; but that was a detail into which he would not then enter.

said, he thought that Ireland would never be put on an equality with England in this matter until it had a measure for the registration of marriages, as well of births and deaths. No measure would be satisfactory that did not include such a registration. There were difficulties in the way of a registration of marriages, but they might be got over by cordial cooperation with the clergy. The late Sir Robert Peel had generally three courses before him. The right hon. Gentleman had six, and he must say that of the six he had chosen the worst. He did not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not desire to select the best, but, unfortunately, he adopted the worst. Nothing could be more objectionable or more offensive to the people of Ireland, and especially to the poorer classes, than to employ the constabulary for working the measure. He did not think there was any use in persevering with a measure of that kind. The proper parties to register births and deaths were the clergy of all denominations. Next to them the medical officers were the hest, and it appeared to him to be a gross act of injustice to that excellent and ill paid class of men to pass them over on that occasion. In effect the selection of the police in preference to them amounted to a censure upon them. He did not believe the measure as it stood would be at all acceptable to the people of Ireland.

said, be also was of opinion that the measure should he accompanied by a registration of marriages. As regarded the succession to property, a registration of births and deaths without a registration of marriages would be useless. The only other use of a registration of births and deaths was as a means of numbering the people and collecting statistics. But if that was the object in view, the expense should not be thrown on the county cess, but on the Consolidated Fund. The police of Ireland were, be admitted, ill paid, but their pay should be increased in some other way than by employing them in registering births and deaths in Ireland. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Bill, and to introduce a Bill for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages.

said, that the police of Ireland had now little to do, and he thought they might usefully be employed in the way proposed by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, He did not think the employment of the constabulary would be so objectionable to the people of Ireland. He would not pledge himself to support all the details of the Bill; but he could not withhold from the right hon. Baronet the expression of his thanks for the early attention he had given to Irish legislation.

, in reply, said, he could assure hon. Members that he did not intend to cast any slight upon the medical officers. His opinion simply was, that they could not discharge the duties so efficiently and so economically as the police. Indeed, from the immense area they had to go over, he doubted if the medical officers could do the work at all. As to the Irish constabulary, he was not wedded, personally, to the institution; but he believed it had done a great deal of good to the country. It had discharged its duties with great ability, and with very advantageous results. As to the charge thrown on the county cess, it was proposed that 6d. should be paid out of it for each entry of birth, or death, and 2d. to the Superintendent Registrar's office; but this payment of 2d. would come out of the Consolidated Fund. The charge on the county cess, though it bore entirely on the occupiers, would not entail any greater burden on the cesspayer than if the charge had been made on the poor rate, which was divided between the landlord and tenant. By the poor rate scheme the charge would have been 1s., so divided; and the present plan left only the charge of 6d. on the tenant. He had hoped to have been able to introduce a Bill for the Registration of Marriages with the present measure; but he believed the Government had now arrived at a successful conclusion on the subject, and he trusted during this Session to propose a Bill that would secure the entire assent and approval of the clergy of all denominations in Ireland. The subject could be better dealt with by separate Bills.

said, he rose to move an Address for Returns relative to the number of vessels that had, during the past six months, broken, or attempted to break the blockade of the Southern ports of America. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would see the propriety of laying those Returns on the table. Unless they were produced, it would be impossible to discuss fully many questions likely to arise in the present unfortunate position of affairs in America. The production of the Returns would go a long way towards enabling them to form an accurate opinion on such questions as the efficiency or non-efficiency of the blockade of the Southern ports, and whether the Government had endeavoured to carry out that policy of neutrality to which it was pledged both by Her Majesty's Proclamation and its own declarations. It was an imperative duty of the Government to furnish the most reliable evidence on all these points. It had been frequently stated that the blockade was ineffective, and that therefore an English fleet ought to be despatched to break it; and an hon. Member had given notice of Jus intention to move a Resolution declaring that the blockade was merely a paper one. Of course to force the blockade meant war with America, and consequently, if such a Resolution were to pass, it would be tantamount to a declaration of war. But he believed that the House was not now in a position to discuss that question, or to adopt such a Resolution; and therefore he asked from the Government the fullest information. As far as the House and the country were informed, there seemed to be no justification for calling the blockade a paper one. On the contrary, the distress which had been occasioned in Lancashire and in Lyons by the dearth of cotton seemed to show that the blockade was most effective. If it were true that the planters, acting under the orders of Mr. Jefferson Davis's Government, refused to sell, in the expectation of forcing the Government of this country to come to the assistance of the Southern States, he hoped no person in that House would consider himself bound to support a policy so selfish, and that the wrath of distressed operatives and sympathizing protectionists would not be directed against the Federal Government. No doubt numbers of vessels had run the blockade, but he submitted that the inference from that was, not that the blockade ought no longer to be recognised, but that the American Government had been unable to accomplish an impossibility—namely, the hermetically Beating of 3,000 miles of coast. The Returns for which he asked referred exclusively to British vessels, and that chiefly for this reason, that according to the statements which had appeared in the newspapers, especially in The Times, it was only British vessels which had run the blockade. No doubt the enterprise of British sailors was to be applauded, but it ought not to be permitted that a spirit emanating from purely selfish motives should set at defiance the policy of neutrality to which Her Majesty's Government had pledged the country. It was notorious that many persons in this country were anxious that the Southern States should be recognised, and imagined that if they could show that the blockade had not been altogether perfect, they could obtain such recognition; but he maintained that the Government could not, without a forfeiture of their consistency and dignity, listen to persons who, having set at defiance the Queen's Proclamation, and run the blockade with vessels laden with munitions of war, adduced this fact as a proof that the blockade was ineffective, and asked the Government to recognise the Southern States, to force the blockade, and, if need were, to declare war against the United States. In the year 1848 measures were adopted to prevent a vessel fitted out for the assistance of the Sicilian Parliament from reaching its destination; but although the attention of the Government had been most publicly called to the fact that vessels were loading in English ports with munitions of war for the Southern States, no steps had been taken to prevent them accomplishing their voyages. An allusion, in a recent letter of Earl Russell's, to what had occurred at the port of Nassau, confirmed a report that vessels notoriously destined for the Southern States, and laden with articles contraband of war, had been permitted by the authorities to enter that port, to refit, and to receive supplies of coal and other necessaries; but if that had occurred, while at the same time vessels belonging to the United States had been refused the necessary supplies, surely the authorities at Nassau deserved some more direct censure than that contained in the letter of the noble Earl. He hoped that the Government would give these papers, and, by doing so, would show their anxiety to afford the fullest possible information, and to maintain friendly relations with the great republic of America. The hon. Member concluded by moving—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of British Vessels, with the names, as far as can be ascertained, of their Captains and Owners respectively, that have succeeded, within the past six months, in running the Blockade of the Southern Ports of America:

"Similar Return as to the British Vessels that have been captured or destroyed in the attempt to break the Blockade:

"And, Return of the number and description of British Vessels, if any, that have put into the Port of Nassau, N. P., and other Colonial Ports, laden with articles contraband of war, and with supplies for the Confederate States, and that have been permitted to refit and supply themselves with stores by the authorities in those places, in contravention of the Queen's Proclamation, and of the neutrality which it is the expressed desire of Her Majesty's Government to uphold."

said, he regretted he was unable to give the papers asked for by the hon. Member. He did not think it at all desirable to enter into a discussion of the subject of the blockade that evening, seeing that notice of a Motion had been given which would bring the whole matter fully before the House in a few days. He regretted the Motion had been made, when on the next day, or Tuesday at the latest, the whole of the papers on the blockade would be laid upon the table of the House. He must decline to give this particular return, however, for two reasons. The first was, the Government had not the information asked for; and the second, if they had, they would not feel justified in giving it; for it was hardly to be expected that the Government would lay on the table a list of wrong-doers who had broken the blockade, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman would be the last person to wish them to do so. All the information the Government could give would be given in the papers which would be laid on the table immediately. He trusted his reply would be satisfactory to the hon. Member.

Sir, I think it desirable that a few words should be said to correct a total misapprehension of a matter of law into which the hon. Gentleman opposite (The O'Donoghue) has fallen. He implies, by the terms of his notice of Motion, and has more distinctly stated in his speech, that all masters of British merchant vessels who may have run the blockade with articles contraband of war on board have been guilty of illegal acts, in violation of Her Majesty's Proclamation, which the Government of this country, having their intention called to them, ought to have interfered to prevent, but had not done so. He has also suggested that the authorities of the port of Nassau were subject to serious blame for having permitted ships under similar circumstances to call at that port and to take in supplies, and to have the benefit of calling and remaining there when they had on board articles contraband of war, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that Her Majesty's Proclamation had made it illegal for them to have on board, and which, therefore, they could not be permitted to carry without a violation of neutrality. In all these respects the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood the effect of the Proclamation and the law. This country is governed by law, and except as far as Her Majesty's Government have powers by law to control the action of private British subjects, whether masters of ships or others, of course they are perfectly powerless in the matter. The only law which enables Her Majesty's Government to interfere in such cases is the Act commonly called the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the whole nature and scope of that Act is sufficiently and shortly set out in the title. It is—

"An Act to prevent the enlisting and engagement of Her Majesty's subjects to serve in foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping in Her Majesty's dominions vessels for warlike purposes without Her Majesty's licence."

That Act does not touch in any way whatever private merchant vessels, which may carry cargoes, contraband or not contraband, between this country or any of the dominions of Her Majesty and any port in a belligerent country, whether under blockade or not, and the Government of this country, and the Governments of our colonial possessions, have no power whatever to interfere with private vessels under such circumstances. It is perfectly true, that in the Queen's Proclamation there is a general warning at the end, addressed to all the Queen's subjects, that they are not, either in violation of their duty to the Queen as subjects of a neutral Sovereign, or in violation and contravention of the law of nations, to do various things, one of which is carrying articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war, according to law or the modern usages of nations, for the use or service of either of the contending parties. That warning is addressed to them to apprise them, that if they do these things, they will have to undergo the penal consequences by the statute or by the law of nations in that behalf imposed or denounced. In those cases in which the statute is silent the Government are powerless, and the law of nations comes in. The law of nations exposes such persons to have their ships seized and their goods taken and subjected to confiscation, and it further deprives them of the right to look to the Government of their own country for any protection. And this principle of non-interference in things which the law does not enable the Government to deal with, so far from being a violation of the duty of neutrality—which the Government are sincerely anxious to comply with—is in accordance with all the principles which have been laid down by jurists, and more especially by the great jurists of the United States of America. In order that the hon. Gentleman may understand exactly how the case stands, I may be permitted to read a short passage from one of the works of these writers. Wheaton, who, as everybody knows, has written one of the most valuable treatises on the subject that were ever composed, says—

"It is not the practice of nations to undertake to prohibit their own subjects, by previous laws, from trafficking in articles contraband of war. Such trade is carried on at the risk of those engaged in it, under the liabilities and penalties prescribed by the law of nations, or particular treaties."

Wheaton then goes on to justify the conduct of the United States for not interfering to prevent the supply of arms to Texas, then at war with Mexico, and says—

"The Government was not bound to prevent it, and could not have prevented it without a Manifest departure from the principle of neutrality, and is in no way answerable for the consequences."

in his hardly less admirable work says—

"It is a general understanding that the Powers at war may seize and confiscate all contraband goods, without any complaint on the part of the neutral merchant, and without any imputation of a breach of neutrality in the neutral Sovereign himself. It was contended, on the part of the French nation in 1796, that neutral Governments were bound to restrain their subjects from selling or exporting articles contraband of war to the belligerent Powers. But it was successfully shown, on the part of the United States, that neutrals may lawfully sell at home to a belligerent purchaser, or carry, themselves, to the belligerent Powers contraband articles, subject to the right of seizure in transitu. This right has since been explicitly declared by the judicial authorities of this country. The right of the neutral to transport, and of the hostile Power to seize, are conflicting rights, and neither party can charge the other with a criminal act."

I think, therefore, the House will see very clearly that the Government at home and the colonial authorities at Nassau have taken the only course which it was possible to take consistently with the law of the land—which they were bound in any case to follow—or with the rules established by the law of nations as recognised by the United States themselves.

said, he should be sorry to press for the return in opposition to the wishes of the Government. It was evident, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken, and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, were not quite of one mind. In opposition to the law, as stated by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had alleged, as one reason The Solicitor General for refusing the return, that it would, in fact, be a list of guilty criminals.

said, he hoped that if any British vessels had, as a matter of fact, been destroyed or captured while endeavouring to break the blockade a statement of the circumstances would be given to the House.

was understood to state that some particulars of the nature referred to would be included in the papers promised by the Government.