said, he wished to take that occasion to protest against the Bill passing into law in the shape of a private measure, conferring, as it professed to do, such arbitrary and extensive powers on the Thames Conservancy Board. It proposed to interfere with the trade of the river from the Nore to Staines, and to tax certain parties who carried on business on the banks of the river. He thought a measure of that kind ought to be public and not private, and he would therefore move that it be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Motion. The House had the other evening given a check to private legislation by rejecting two measures of a similar nature, and he hoped they would follow the same course on that occasion. The Bill proposed to levy a tax on the inhabitants, and that ought not to be done by such a measure introduced in a private manner. The President of the Board of Trade, or the Government, ought to undertake the supervision of such a Bill, and not leave it in the hands of two private Members.

said, he should support the second reading. The Bill was not a taxing one, but simply for the purpose of enabling the conservators of the Thames to alter the licence tax charged on each journey a boat plied or travelled on the Thames to a tax on the passengers. The Bill was further to enable the conservators to take care of the health of the inhabitants of the metropolis, by preventing bargemen and others emptying filthy matter into the river, and he hoped the house would send it before a Select Committee.

contended that the Bill ought to be proceeded with, as anything which Captain Birchell and the other conservators of the Thames proposed to do was worthy of the consideration of the House. He thought the Bill was anything but objectionable in principle, and that if enacted into a law, it would tend to prevent the pollution of the river.

observed, that he should oppose the second reading, on the ground that the conduct of the conservators was extremely arbritrary and unconstitutional.

said, he had given great attention to the provisions of the measure, and to the arguments advanced both for and against it, and he had come to the conclusion that it ought to be rejected. His opinion was, that the whole matter of the Thames conservancy, which affected the greatest commercial interests of the City of London, ought to be referred to a Select Committee for a full and rigid inquiry. He entreated hon. Members to lend their assistance in throwing out the Bill.

said, he was inclined to think that some inquiry was needed into the manner in which the Conservancy Board had discharged their duties; but that was no reason why the House should not give them the powers which they said were essential to the discharge of their functions. He recommended that the Bill should be read a second time.

said, his objection to the Bill was, that it sought to disturb the compromise which was come to in the year 1857, and referred to matters which ought to be dealt with by a public measure. It proposed to remove the Lord Mayor from the presidency of the Board, and to substitute a paid chairman.

said, he should vote against the Bill on similar grounds.

said, he thought the Chairman of Committees had placed the House in some difficulty. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think an inquiry absolutely necessary, and at the same time said that the Bill had nothing to do with the conduct of the Board. Now he (Mr. Henley) thought it had everything to do with the Board, inasmuch as it proposed to give it more powers—he believed more taxing powers. He thought that the inquiry should precede, not follow, the granting of those powers. That appeared to him to be the wiser course.

said, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the intention of Government to institute any inquiry into the nature of the various Railway projects which propose to intersect the Metropolis, or to subject to any control the architectural character and construction of Bridges crossing the River Thames, or the streets and roads which are interfered with?

in reply said, that some of the great railways which brought travellers into the heart of the metropolis had been carried out at a sacrifice of appearance, and to the great disfigurement of several of our principal thoroughfares. The approach to London Bridge, which used to be handsome, was now intercepted by a huge mass of iron winding above the heads of persons on the level of the roadway, and obscuring St. Saviour's Church. The same disregard of beauty was seen in the bridges recently erected, and especially Lambeth Bridge, which, though doubtless very economical and convenient, was, in his (Mr. Cowper's) opinion, constructed in a manner unnecessarily plain, rude, and ugly. As regarded inquiries by the Government, he would beg to refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Board of Trade, which had been laid on the table of the House. The questions relating to the architectural character and construction of metropolitan works could not be in better hands than in those of the hon. Gentleman himself, whose eminence in his profession, and position as President of the Institute of British Architects, would give great weight to any suggestions which he might make. He also thought it very likely that Members representing the metropolis would be prepared with some proposal on the subject.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If a detailed survey and examination of the Phoenix Park, Dublin, has been made by the Commissioners of Public Works; if any Report as to the condition of the Park has been made by them; and if he will lay such Report upon the table of the House?

, in reply, said, a Report of the nature referred to by the hon. Member had been received from the Board of; Works, and various improvements and new works, such as draining and replanting the Park, had been suggested. Those suggestions had been adopted, and provision for part of the necessary outlay would be made in the Estimates. There was no objection to lay the Report on the table, but the Estimates would contain all the necessary information.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is at liberty to state the intentions of the Government in reference to the Spirit Duties, and whether any alteration in their amount is contemplated?

said, the subject to which the hon. Member had alluded was of such importance both to the revenue and to the trade that last year he had departed from the usual practice, by stating the course he intended to adopt with regard to the Spirit Duties at a period when the financial arrangements for the year were not yet under consideration. For the same reasons he was quite willing to reply to the question just put. Her Majesty's Government decidedly did not intend to propose any change in the Spirit Duties now payable by law.

I rise, Sir, to propose to the Committee Resolutions for the purpose of providing, in the words of the Message, "an establishment for the Prince and Princess of Wales suitable to the rank and dignity of their station." In doing so I would remind the House of the happiness which we enjoy by living under a constitutional Monarchy. The people of this country not only are now more than at any former period sensible by positive experience of' the blessings which that form of Government confers, but they have also an opportunity of appreciating its value by contrasting it with events which are passing in other parts of the world. We see in the East some of the evils which are incident to arbitrary sway. We witness in the West the widespread misery and desolation which are sometimes created by democratic and Republican institutions. We enjoy a happy medium between the extremes of these two forms of Government. Our institutions not only confer happiness and tranquillity upon the people of these realms, but enable them to enjoy the most perfect freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, and of action, unawed and uncontrolled either by the edicts of despotic authority, or by the Lynch law of an ungovernable mob. Well, Sir, I trust that the people of this nation will long continue to enjoy those advantages, and that their hearts will be turned to the Almighty Dispenser of events with thankfulness—with reverential thankfulness for the lot which has thus been assigned them, and I am persuaded that their bosoms will be full of the most affectionate attachment towards that Sovereign and family under whose mild and beneficent sway, humanly speaking, those blessings have been conferred. Sir, there are occasions in the course of human affairs in which events that are matters of joy and rejoicing produce pleasure that begins and ends with the occasion on which it arises; but there are other occasions where joyful events link and connect the present with the future—when the happiness which mankind enjoys at the moment is an earnest and a security for happiness in the future. Such an occasion is the present, when the Heir Apparent to the Crown is going to contract a marriage which will, I trust, not only be productive of domestic happiness to the family in the midst of which it is to be celebrated, but holds out to this country a prospect of a long line of succeeding Sovereigns, who by virtue of transmitted qualities and of the recollection of the conduct of those who went before them, will imitate the virtues of the stock from which they spring, and will contribute as much as the present family do to the happiness, the welfare, and the dignity of the country over which they rule. Sir, the people of this country have always been disposed readily to give whatever may be necessary to maintain the due dignity which is essential to our monarchical institutions, and I am persuaded that upon the present occasion the proposal which it will be my duty to make will be acceded to with readiness and pleasure by this House, and will be sanctioned by the country. In considering, Sir, that which it may be fitting upon the present occasion to grant to the Crown for the establishment of the Prince and Princess of Wales, it is right to look back a little, and see what has been, done upon similar occasions in times gone by. Now, if hon. Gentlemen will look to the speech of Mr. Pitt, when in 1795 he proposed an establishment for the then Prince and Princess of Wales, they will see he stated that the Prince of Wales in 1745, and the Prince of Wales, at an earlier period, in 1715, had each of them a net income of £100,000 a year, in one case in addition to the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. It is not quite clear, from the words made use of, whether in both cases that income was in addition to the £100,000. I rather infer that it was. Now, every- body is aware what a great change has taken place in the value of money since either of those remote periods, and how little a sum of the same nominal amount represents in the present day the command of things which it did either in 1745 or 1715. Coming down to a later period, in 1795, when Mr. Pitt proposed and the House assented to an establishment for the then Prince and Princess of Wales, the arrangement was not a simple one, because it was complicated by another for the payment of the large debts at that time due by his Royal Highness the then Prince of Wales. But the total amount of allowance which was granted, including that portion which was set aside for the liquidation of the Prince's debts, was £138,000, charged partly upon the Civil List, and partly upon the Consolidated Fund; and although for a certain number of years the appropriation of a large portion of the amount to the payment of debts reduced the available income of the then Prince of Wales to something, I believe, between £60,000 and £70,000, yet I apprehend that about the year 1806, the debts having been liquidated, the Prince of Wales entered into the receipt of the £138,000. Now, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, nor is it the desire of Her Majesty, that the present appropriation by Parliament should be founded upon what was then proposed for the Prince of Wales. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is in the enjoyment of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall; and to the honour of Her Majesty and of the late Prince Consort be it said that whereas in former reigns it was understood, and the practice was, that during the minority of the Prince of Wales the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall were added to the available income of the Crown, in the present reign those revenues have been carefully and studiously set apart to accumulate for the benefit of the Prince of Wales till he came of age. The funds thus accumulated are very considerable—part of them have been invested in the purchase of a landed estate in the county of Norfolk, which cost, I believe, about £220,000, the nominal rental being £7,000 a year —but it may be that there will be deductions, as hon. Gentlemen will well understand, and there may not be more than £5,000 available income. Part of the accumulations must be set aside for the outfit of the Prince of Wales and to form an establishment, and part also will be required for the purpose of building upon the Norfolk estate a mansion more suitable than the present one to the dignity and station of its new occupants. Making these deductions, the details of which I will not trouble the House to go into, the probable income of the Duchy of Cornwall, together with the income arising from the investment I have mentioned, and from the remaining accumulations, may he taken in round numbers at about £60,000 a year. Well, we think that a sum of £100,000 a year would not be disproportionate to those expenses which must fall upon a person in the exalted position of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and I shall therefore have to propose to the House to grant £40,000 a year out of the Consolidated Fund for the establishment of the Prince of Wales. Such of those whom I am now addressing, and who, fortunately for them, are not in the single and bachelor state, well know that there are expenses which the Princess of Wales must incur, and which require that she should have a separate and sufficient income; and by the treaty of marriage recently concluded between Her Majesty and the King of Denmark the allowance undertaken to be secured to Her Royal Highness was £10,000 a year for her own separate use. The grant, therefore, which I shall to-night have to ask the Committee to assent to will be one of £50,000 a year; namely, £40,000 for the aggregate establishment, and £10,000 for the separate use of the Princess. I should explain that up to the time when the Duchy of Cornwall was managed under the Commission at which the late Prince Consort presided, it was, in former times, the custom of the Duchy to grant long leases, or life leases, at a reduced rent on payment of heavy fines, and these fines formed a material element in the annual income of the Duke of Cornwall. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is quite sensible that this is not a proper mode of management, and is willing that an Act should be passed restraining him from granting such leases in future, and directing that the Duchy property should be managed in the usual way in which property is generally managed, not allowing the occupier in possession to take advantage of fines on renewals in granting leases, to the detri- ment of those who may follow him. I am told by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) that such an Act is in actual preparation, and will be without delay submitted to the consideration of the House. Hon. Members will naturally be desirous of becoming acquainted with more ample information than it would be proper for me to detail on the present occasion respecting the condition of the Duchy and the state of its present revenues and prospects. On this subject there is a Report—a very accurate account in detail—which I shall have to lay on the table this evening, and which will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow or on the following day. That Report will give the fullest information with respect to all those details of the Duchy which hon. Members may wish to know. There is now only one point which I have to add to what I have already stated. There, of course, must be provision made for a jointure to be given to the Princess of Wales in the event of the Princess surviving her husband. In the case of the Princess of Wales, the wife of George IV., the jointure was fixed at £50,000. We do not propose that in the present instance it should be to so high an amount. We think that £30,000 a year will be a sufficient amount; and therefore, though the allowance to the late Princess of Wales, during the joint lives of herself and her husband, was less than the amount stipulated for the present Princess, yet, putting one thing against the other, though the present allowance is greater, and I think not greater than it ought to be, the jointure will nevertheless be reduced to the amount I have named. I am not aware that I have anything to add to what I have already stated, and I now move the first Resolution.

said, he considered the proposition of the noble Lord to be moderate and reasonable, except that the information as to the Duchy of Cornwall on which the Vote was founded was not on the table of the House. They were placed in considerable difficulty in dealing with the matter, because the whole question turned upon the condition of the finances of the Duchy of Cornwall. A promise had been made the other night that the fullest information would be given; but, in the absence of that information, they were called upon to agree to a Resolution. It appeared that £700,000 or more had been received from the Duchy in the course of the minority and that during the last twelve years £460,000 had been received as net revenue. He did not object to the allowance of £100,000 a year—that was a fair and reasonable charge, but, he repeated, the Committee was not in a position to form a judgment as to the charge to be made upon the Consolidated Fund until they had seen the accounts. He did not quite agree in the historical account given by the noble Viscount, because he did not believe that Frederick Prince of Wales, in 1737, had £100,000. He believed that the allowance on that occasion was £50,000 a year, and that it was not till some years had elapsed, and His Royal Highness had a family grown up, that he had £100,000 a year.

said, he was not disposed to object to the proposition; but he trusted, that in addition to the Report promised by the noble Lord, there would be laid before the House a full account of the accumulation of funds effected during the minority.

said, he thought that the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall could, by good management, have been made to yield the whole of the required £100,000, without coming on the Consolidated Fund for £40,000. The Committee ought to remember that £16,000 a year- had been regularly paid over to the Prince during his minority. Besides which, the nation had voted £20,000 for Marlborough House, £6,000 for stables attached to the house, £17,000 for the Duchy of Cornwall Office, an allowance even for making him a Knight of the Garter, and for the trip to Canada. In fact, there had been a variety of charges during the minority of his Royal Highness, which made the expenses incurred on his behalf by the country not less during that period than £20,000 a year, and there was still an over plus of between £600,000 and £700,000; and he therefore hoped that the Committee would pause before they determined on the proposed addition to his Royal Highness's income out of the Consolidated Fund. With that large sum available, and with the rising revenues of the Duchy, which could not be set down at less than between £40,000 and £50,000 a year, of which £16,000 was paid over regularly from the Consolidated Fund, and therefore without any expense to the Duchy, there ought to be a sufficient income. He was glad to hear that a Bill was to be introduced relating to the Duchy, because the necessity for it was shown by the fact that the expenses of management were about 20 per cent of the income, and that fact showed how expensive it was to provide for the Princes of the Royal family by landed estates. With regard to the dowry of the Princess of Wales, he thought it ought to be charged on the revenues of the Duchy, instead of on the Consolidated Fund. The revenues of the Duchy were so peculiar that he believed, on the death of a Prince of Wales, they would not go to a son, supposing he had one, but would revert to the Crown. It was quite clear that an additional revenue of £60,000 a year to the Sovereign would be altogether waste; and therefore he hoped the Government would consider whether it was not wise and just that the dower of the Princess of Wales should be settled on the revenues of the Duchy. ["Oh, oh!"] He wished to mention one or two other points. Was the Sandringham estate, which had been purchased out of the surplus accumulations of the revenues of the Duchy, to be regarded as the private property of the Prince of Wales, or was it to be settled in such a way that it should hereafter form, part of the public estate? He was endeavouring to point out incidents connected with the settlement, so as to prevent the public being unfairly charged with expenditure which ought not to fall upon them. He reserved to himself the privilege of making some suggestions in future.

Sir, I was in hopes that the Resolution before us might have been passed unanimously and without debate. But, as it has led to some unexpected, and I must say unnecessary, discussion, I think it my duty to express what I believe is the feeling on this side of the House, and, as I can hardly doubt, of the House generally. We are of opinion that the proposition made by Her Majesty's Government is a temperate and, as we presume, well-considered proposition. We trust that it will be adequate—no one can say that it is excessive. What has struck me as not very reasonable in the observations of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken is that they have brought forward the good management of the Duchy of Cornwall as a reason why we should not assent to this proposal. It appears to me that we ought to be thankful for the successful administration of the Duchy, and not make it an argument for reduction in the Vote proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers. It is very possible that the Duchy may be even better managed in the future than it has been in the past. It is very probable that the rents and revenues of the Duchy may with time increase in the same manner as the rents of almost every other estate throughout the land. But I do not believe the country is disposed to grudge to His Ro5'al Highness the advantage of such increase. It is not at all impossible, with all his prudence and discretion, His Royal Highness may find the means of applying to a good use any increase that may occur. I hope the Committee will allow the Vote to pass, if not without a dissentient voice, at least without a dissentient Vote. If there are any points of detail in regard to the management of the Duchy on which any hon. Gentleman wishes to be informed and to offer his opinion, an opportunity will be afforded to him during the stages of the Bill which will be introduced to carry this Resolution into effect.

Sir, I wish to say on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that we admit the perfect fairness of the claim of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) and others to reserve their own private judgment on the proposition which has been so favourably received by the Committee generally until they have had an opportunity of examining carefully the Report of the Council on the Duchy which my noble Friend is tonight to lay on the table. I fully concur in the spirit of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). I think it is very desirable that the Committee should, as I do not doubt it will in the result, give a cheerful and undivided assent to this proposal. In order to prevent misunderstanding, it is necessary, however, that I should say a word or two of explanation on one or two points of detail. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham has impeached the accuracy of my noble Friend's history, and said that Frederick Prince of Wales did not obtain the allowance of £100,000 per annum from the Civil List until a later period than the year named by my noble Friend. The noble Lord named 1745, and it does so happen that his history was in a very minute point open to im- peachment, for instead of Frederick Prince of Wales obtaining that allowance later than that year, he obtained it earlier—it was granted in 1743. However, I am more anxious to advert to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith). My hon. Friend holds that the jointure of the Princess of Wales ought to be charged upon the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. That might be a point of moment for consideration were we in circumstances in which, while we had a Prince of Wales and a Duke of Cornwall, there was a likelihood of our being without one to follow; but looking to the state of the Royal Family, no such contingency is, happily, to be apprehended; and I conceive, that so long as you have a Prince of Wales and a Duke of Cornwall to provide for, it is immaterial to the public purse whether the jointure is taken out of the revenues of the Duchy in the first instance, which would leave so much more to be provided from the Consolidated Fund, or whether the more simple, and, I am bound to add, the usual course, is taken, and the jointure charged on the Consolidated Fund. It would be well for the Committee to understand that, of course, the moderate sum which has been named by my noble Friend as the jointure for the Princess of Wales, will be a jointure for her own establishment. It is obvious it is not a jointure out of which it would be possible for any Princess of Wales to defray the very considerable expenses which may be connected with the education of children, and which would form a very legitimate subject of reference to this House. My hon Friend the Member for Truro was not entirely just in the observations he made with regard to the charges which, as he said, the Consolidated Fund had already had to bear on account of the Prince of Wales. It is quite true that we paid a large sum of money on account of Marlborough House. We had, however, value received. We had had the use of it for important public purposes, which would otherwise have cost a considerable sum of money during a number of years. We had taken great liberties with it; we had, in homely phrase, pulled it to pieces; and the sum the House voted was intended simply for the purpose of replacing Marlborough House in as good a condition as we had received it. Therefore, we are not in position to say that that sum was voted to the Prince of Wales. The Vote for the tour in Canada and the United States has been mentioned, but the House will recollect the grounds on which the sum was voted. It was not voted in aid of the personal expenses of the Prince of Wales, but for the purpose of curtailing the expenditure which was undertaken by the Prince of Wales, while a minor, on behalf of her Majesty, and for purposes strictly political; and I may venture to say, whether we regard the journey in Canada or in the United States, and the reception the Prince there met with, it was money well laid out, and it forms no part whatever of the question the Committee has to consider on the proposition of my noble Friend. One other point, with still less justice, was referred to. It was said that the Prince of Wales receives £16,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund. No doubt he does; but what is the History of it. It is a composition in lieu of revenues of which the Prince of Wales would otherwise have been in receipt as the Duke of Cornwall. There were certain tin duties which were deemed inconvenient and oppressive; his right to them was as unquestionable as if they constituted a landed estate. It was thought expedient for the public interest, with a view to the extension of commerce, and especially with a view to the benefit of that part of the country which my hon. Friend represents, that those duties should be abolished; and the Prince of Wales receive compensation, exactly as any other proprietor would have received it. If so, it is perfectly obvious a consideration of that kind cannot possible enter into this discussion, because, to the full extent— nay, possibly to a greater extent, if that arrangement had not been made—he would have been receiving money on account of the tin duties to which he was entitled as the Duke of Cornwall. I am desirous of obviating the misapprehension that would prevail if it were supposed that that was a Vote in addition to the charge on the Consolidated Fund, whereas there is no foundation in fact for such a supposition.

said, he was surprised at the ignorance which prevailed on the Treasury bench with respect to some of the most important facts connected with the Duchy of Cornwall. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, seemed not to know what would become of the revenues of the Duchy on the death of the Prince of Wales. He recollected on a former occasion, when a settlement was made on the Princess Royal, assuring the Prime Minister that, according to the peculiar tenure of the Duchy, on the death of the eldest son of the Sovereign, the property would revert to the Crown. On that occasion it was maintained that he was wrong, but it afterwards turned out that he was right, though no one in the House was aware of the fact he had stated except himself and his hon. Friend (Mr. Augustus Smith). But the point to which he wished to call attention was a passage in a celebrated speech delivered by Burke on economical Reform. Towards the end of that speech Burke proposed that the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster should be sold, and the proceeds handed over to the public exchequer. His object, no doubt, was to make the Crown dependent solely upon votes of Parliament for any sums of money it might require. The proposal of Mr. Burke might be carried out with advantage. There was plenty of room for improvement in the management of the Duchy property, which was spread over about ten or eleven counties. If the property were judiciously sold, the sales taking place at the right time, very large sums would be secured, and it would not be necessary for those who were in office, backed by those who expected to be in, to come forward with a proposal which would not be approved by the public out of doors. [Cries of No, no!] There was a time when the Conservatives were bold enough to propose the reduction of a grant of this sort, and he was sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite were so ready to acquiesce in the present proposal, not allowing the public feeling to have any weight with them. He joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon another point— namely, that the duties formerly payable on tin in Cornwall could fairly be regarded as the property of the Duchy. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in office when those duties were abolished, he would doubtless have said, "I am a Free-trader; I do not like duties on commodities; the tin duties in Cornwall ought to be abolished, because they are part of a bad system;" and, if consistent in his principles, he would have refused to give a charge of £16,000 upon the Consolidated Fund in lieu of them. But the right hon. Gentlemen now twitted Cornishmen as if they alone had benefited by the abolition of the tin duties, forgetting his own doctrine that such taxes were paid by the consumers as well as by the producers. It was not his intention, however, to throw an apple of discord into the Committee on that occasion, and therefore he would not further oppose the Resolutions proposed by the noble Lord the First Minister, but he could not help expressing his regret that more attention had not been paid to the feelings and wishes of the public out of doors.

said, that in former times there was a very onerous local tax which crushed the tinners of Cornwall, but upon their application to Parliament a compromise was made, by which the £16,000 was charged on the Consolidated Fund, and while Cornwall was relieved, the public generally were also benefited. Such being the case, he very much regretted that any Cornishman should have spoken against an arrangement for which the county felt deeply grateful.

observed that his hon. Friend was somewhat unreasonable in complaining that the advice of Mr. Burke had not been taken. If that advice had been acted on in 1778, and the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster sold, Parliament would now have been called upon to provide the full amount of revenue which by common consent was necessary to maintain the dignity and station of the Prince of Wales. What was the case with respect to the Duchy of Cornwall? In the days of Burke the whole of the revenue was eaten up by those fastened upon the Duchy. He had been informed by a noble Lord, who had taken an active part in the management of the Duchy, that when the Council commenced their labours at the beginning of the present reign the net rental was no more than £12,000 a year, and that the expenses of management amounted to something like the same sum. By dint of good management, which formed another item in the debt of gratitude due to the memory of the Prince Consort, the income of the Duchy had been raised to £50,000 per annum, while the cost of management did not exceed between £7,000 and £8,000. That, he thought, was a sufficient reason why they ought to be glad that the advice of Mr. Burke was not followed by the Government of the day. But he had risen mainly to say that he totally disagreed with the statement made by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny), that the public would grudge the Vote before the Committee. His impression was, on the contrary, that they would feel a sensation of agreeable surprise at the moderation of the proposal made by the Government. From what he had heard in conversation, he believed that the general opinion out of doors was that a much larger proposition would have been submitted to the House. The public, too, would rejoice at the intimation, voluntarily given, that for the future the income of the Duchy was not to be anticipated by grants of leases for life. If that power had been retained, the managers of the Duchy would have had the means of raising a very large sum of money, ultimately at the expense of the country, and he was persuaded that the announcement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give great satisfaction to the public at large.

said, he wished to ask if the accumulations were to be regarded as the private property of the Prince, or whether they were to be treated as the property of the Duchy.

stated that the accumulations having been made out of income which was legally the property of the Duchy of Cornwall, were of course to be regarded as belonging to the Prince of Wales, but their amount had been taken into view by the Government in considering the Vote before the Committee.

said, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He was induced to do so from the consideration that it was not a measure calculated to present a specimen of an electoral law worthy of the country. He was perfectly well aware that he might subject himself to certain taunts from his right hon. Friend below him, that he could not see any perfection in any measure except that particular measure which he had often brought before the attention of this House; but he could assure his right hon. Friend, that if he would produce any measure that should be effective in putting down the corruption of the electoral system, whatever that measure might be, he would throw aside all his preconceived opinions, and lend him his warmest cooperation. Now, the Bill (for he supposed it was in the form of a Bill) had been an Act of Parliament ever since the Earl of Aberdeen's administration. At that time there was an election, which was so corrupt that the Earl of Aberdeen expressed the opinion that our electoral system was such that nobody could well be enamoured of it. So flagrant were the acts committed during that election, which was a fierce contest between the parties on each side of this House, that it was thought necessary to do something, or to pretend to do something, to abate the evil. A Committee of that House was formed, consisting of a great many lawyers, and on their recommendation the Government of the day formed this Act of Parliament. Since that time it had been our electoral law. It had been tried; it had been weighed in the balance and found wanting; it was now found not only perfectly useless, but it was literally the laughingstock of every attorney's clerk. This Bill was now in the hands of his right hon. Friend. The objections he had to it might be concisely stated. In the first place, he objected to its principle, which was to punish the elector, and not the candidate. It was in every way to protect the candidate, and to such an extent was that carried that with common care and attention any candidate's seat, do what he might, except personally or through one agent, was perfectly safe. Now, in the first place, her Majesty's Government thought proper to alter the law of agency, and by it nowadays the candidate was ordered to name his agent or agents, by whose acts he must stand or fall. To illustrate his meaning, he would suppose that Brown was named the agent. That being so, all that Brown would have to do would be to keep his hands clean and to take care that through him directly the candidate was drawn into no illegal proceeding. Meantime, however, Jones and Robinson, not being agents in the sense laid down in the Bill, might do as they pleased, and the candidate would not be held responsible for their acts. When the measure containing a provision which so operated had first been proposed, an analysis of it, to which were affixed the initials of the late Mr. James Coppock—than whom no man was better versed in election law —appeared in The Times newspaper, and his expression in relation to the clause was, "When the House of Commons passes it, the country will know what to believe;" while the journal in which the analysis was published summed up its estimate of the Bill with the words, "It is evident this is one of those pompous professions which are meant to be inoperative." Nothing could, in his opinion, be more just than that view, and what, he would ask, was the sugar-plum which induced the House of Commons to swallow so noxious a dose? It was the curtailment of the election expenses, the doing away with bands and other causes of outlay, in lieu of which the candidate might, by good management, indulge in illegal expenditure at discretion without running any risk. Such was the way in which the Bill dealt with the question of agency, but how did it provide against corruption generally and intimidation? Everybody knew that one of the most effectual modes of corruption was treating, and that the most successful mode of treating was the giving breakfasts to the electors on the morning of the day on which the poll was to take place. A stranger, for example, in company with some person well known in the locality, went into the house of a licensed victualler—he was speaking on the evidence of facts which had come within his own knowledge—in the town in which the election was to be held, and said to him, "I want forty breakfasts at seven o'clock on the election morning." The innkeeper, pulling off his hat, replied, "Certainly, Sir; the breakfasts shall be provided." The breakfasts were provided; they were duly eaten by a corresponding number of electors at the appointed hour, who went to the poll early, and thus opened the proceedings with an éclat which had its effect throughout the day; while if those breakfasts were not given to them, they would get breakfast at their own homes, would probably continue at work during the first half of the day, and then go to the poll after dinner. But the men who were breakfasted had another advantage. Their employers in the factory or the shipyards, or the overlookers, told them, "There is an election to-morrow," and they were excused the whole day; but their wages were paid. Now, was that bribery, or was it not? And they did not interfere with it by the Bill. Thus they went on, blindly satisfying themselves with ineffective legislation, and imagining that everybody else was satisfied. So much, then, for the law of agency and the way in which they abandoned corruption to take care of itself. Let them look now at what they had done with intimidation—a subject on which there was no division of opinion that it was the great evil of our electoral system. He knew that hon. Gentlemen who did not think proper to go with much minuteness into the question considered intimidation a part of the due influence of property. He was unable to consider it in that light, but rather as connected with the undue influence of property. Well, what did they propose to do on that subject by the Bill? They had proposed a wretched clause by which they said they would fine any individual who should affect with loss a man for giving his vote. Thus, if they took their custom away from the butcher, or baker, or turned a tenant out of his house, the aggrieved party might recover a penalty; but the recovery of the penalty was dependent upon the specific offence of the customer or the landlord making the giving of the vote the reason why he so acted. Could anything be more ridiculous? To show, indeed, how easily the provision could be evaded, it was sufficient to refer to what occurred after the late election for East Kent, when a landlord gave a tenant notice to quit, but added, "Take notice that it is not because you voted against my wishes at the election." That was, indeed, a state of things upon which, as was said by the late Sir Robert Peel and Lord Macaulay, they could not legislate. They could not legislate against a man for discharging or getting rid of his tradesman or of his tenant; and if they attempted to do it, they would be guilty of injustice. The Bill, then, would do nothing with regard to intimidation; and he thought, as the Government were pleased to reject the measure which he particularly advocated, and which he believed would be effective, they were bound to give the country a Bill that would at least palliate the evils of the present system. The last clause, by which the auditor was done away with, might be beneficial, but the Bill was so rotten and so had that he had thought it necessary to call it to the attention of the House. It was not his intention, however, to ask for a division upon his Motion, but he had done his duty in bringing it forward, and he told the Government that under cover of this Act of Parliament at the next election, whenever that election should come, the richest party would win.

complained that the Bill repealed parts of several Acts of Parliament, leaving only one or two sections or half sections in force, and suggested that it would be desirable in Committee so to alter the clauses as to repeal the entire Acts, and re-enact in the Bill those provisions which it was thought desirable to retain in force, and thus consolidate the Law into one general statute.

expressed his approval of the Bill generally. The auditorship, so called, had been a farce, and he was glad that it was abolished. He considered, however, that the provision that paid agents should not vote at elections was too stringent, and would produce greater evils than arose from the existing system. As it was necessary in contested elections to poll as many votes as possible, each candidate would have either to bring his attorneys, messengers, and doorkeepers from some other town, or to employ the relations only of voters, themselves having no votes, or else to give notice to all his agents that he would not pay them, and leave it to be understood that if elected he would exert his patronage to obtain places for them.

said, he could not but venture to think that the annual discussion upon bribery and intimidation was neither more nor less than an annual farce. It was very much like the annual discussions which took place upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol in reference to the ballot. The fact was, it led to no good result. The difficulty arose from the fact that neither in or out of the House was there any feeling that the act of bribery involved any moral culpability. That was the secret of the whole thing. The speeches on these occasions were very much like platform speeches, which in almost all cases had no meaning in them. The hon. Member for Bristol's great objection seemed to be that the candidate would escape detection and punishment, but the electors would not. And he said that it was perfectly impossible for the House to put an end to bribery and intimidation. The noble Lord the Member for Northampton gave the House to understand that in a contested election where matters were run hard everything was fair. After such expressions of opinion from two Liberal Members, was he overstating the case in maintaining that legislation such as the present was altogether a farce? It appeared to him that there was another view of the subject, which was always omitted upon these occasions. It was an old principle that charity ought to begin at home. Now, without entering upon a discussion whether that was a sound moral principle or not, he would ask the House to let justice begin at home? And how had the House proceeded in this matter? It appeared that a person keeping a post-office, with a wretched salary of £4 a year, was not allowed to vote, from a belief that some imaginary temptations to corruption were thereby guarded against. What must be the feeling of those men when they saw noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen in receipt of as many thousands as they had pounds giving votes in direct opposition to their public pledges? Was that justice? Was it a fair way of dealing with the people of this country? The whole proceeding was monstrous. A messenger rendered services for the remuneration which he received, and yet he, too, was to he precluded from voting, though gentlemen in the enjoyment of large pensions, and whose services it would be hard to define, were freely allowed to sit in that House and vote. A stronger case than any he had previously mentioned was afforded by the "testimonials" which hon. Members were allowed to receive. The gifts dignified by that name were neither more nor less than money paid for the price of a particular vote, and the Member receiving them was unmistakably bound to continue to vote in the same spirit. As long as such a system was upheld, they were bound in consistency to allow voters to receive every shilling they possibly could for their vote.

said, he rose to express his regret, that while he could not support the Motion of which the hon. Member for Bristol had given notice, he could only give the second reading of the Bill a qualified support. He did not desire the Bill to be rejected, because (the measure being a continuation Bill) the country would thereby he deprived of some useful provisions which it contained. The Bill was, however, defective both in form and substance, and contained some clauses which were unnecessarily harsh, and to which he decidedly objected. The Bill was decidedly inferior to the measure introduced last Session by the right hon. Gentleman. That was to some extent a Consolidation Act, and as such very desirable, but the Bill before the House would merely add one more to the sixty or seventy Acts of Parliament to he found in the statute-book professing to regulate the election of Members of Parliament. That was a great evil in itself. If it were for the benefit of all classes that the law on the subject should be well defined and easily ascertained, it must be especially so in the case of Acts regulating the exercise of the franchise by great masses of the people. Now, however, if an elector wished to learn the obligations imposed upon him by the Legislature, he was bound to commence with the reign of Edward I., and to continue his examination of the statute-book down, and in-including the various Acts passed in the present reign. The right hon. Gentleman doubtless hoped, by avoiding the question of consolidation in the present Bill, to escape the innumerable Amendments which clustered round the measure of last year. But that was not a mode in which the Government or the House ought to legislate on topics so deeply affecting the people. It was rather a mockery of legislation, and he therefore hoped the present was merely intended to operate as a temporary arrangement, until the advisers of the Government had time to frame a Consolidation Act. There were also grave omissions from the Bill. It legislated at the wrong end, for, containing as it did very stringent provisions with regard to offending electors and constituencies, it failed to touch the root of the evil. If constituencies were corrupt, who corrupted them? If electors were bribed, who found the money? The candidates in truth; and among those candidates some, of course, were returned to that House. Before the Committee which sat on this subject two years ago several suggestions and propositions for meeting that difficulty were made, but the right hon. Gentleman had not adopted any of these; he contented himself with proposing what had hitherto been found inoperative in practice. But his objections were not limited to the omissions from the Bill. To one proposition introduced into the Bill he decidedly objected, representing as he did a constituency which had suffered by anticipation from the effect of such a clause. It would be in the recollection of the House that after the last general election commissions of inquiry appointed to examine into corrupt practices at Wakefield and Gloucester reported that at Gloucester, with a population of 17,000 and a constituency of 1,700, there were between 300 and 400 corrupt electors; and that at Wakefield, with 950 electors, there were 250 corrupt voters. The House on that occasion adopted a course which, speaking with the greatest humility, he ventured to think was unconstitutional. Of its own mere motion, without intending or professing to legislate, it took on itself to suspend the issue of the writs in both those boroughs, thereby confounding the corrupt with the incorrupt and punishing the innocent with the guilty. After an interval of two years the House, as indiscriminate in its mercy as in its severity, allowed the writs to issue once more, without restriction or legislation, although it knew the name of every person guilty of corruption in either place. It was contrary to every principle of justice to disfranchise the guilty and the innocent alike. There was not the least necessity for it. The commissions upon the Gloucester and Bristol elections were to all intents and purposes judicial inquiries; they were presided over by men of a great deal of judicial experience, and were armed by statute with great powers. They were, in fact, actual trials of the guilt of the persons who were brought before them; and if the Commissioners reported that certain persons were guilty of corrupt practices, and certain others were not, what justice could there be in disfranchising the whole constituency; and thus involving the innocent in the punishment of the guilty? The Commissioners reported that at Gloucester there were a number of gentlemen who had for many years associated themselves together for the express purpose of insuring purity of election, and that they had been sometimes successful, as for instance in 1852, when they brought about a perfectly pure and free election. But because those gentlemen had not always succeeded, and because in a large constituency a comparatively small number of persons were corrupt, those gentlemen who had so greatly exerted themselves to secure purity of election would, nevertheless, be disfranchised by the Bill. That was a grave matter, and he ventured to say that a Bill with such a clause in it would prove inoperative, for the reason that all would be desirous of evading the law. He believed that a more futile measure had never been presented to the House of Commons. The fact was, they were taking too much trouble with the subject, and were seeking by a complex machinery to do that which might be done by a very simple process, which was to excise from the register and disfranchise inexorably not only every one who took, but every one who gave a bribe. With the view of providing for such a course of proceeding, he would propose Amendments in Committee.

said, he thought that much might be done to mitigate bribery, and that every one's experience would satisfy him that the expenses of elections were a great deal heavier before the Corrupt Practices Act than they had been since. Sums were formerly spent on elections to which recent times afforded no parallel. Absolute extirpation, of the evil it was impossible to effect, but they ought not to rest under the reproach of not attempting to do what they could. The House would act imprudently if it would not give a second reading to the Bill, and its defects might be amended in Committee. There was this check upon bribery, that every one who practised it extensively fined himself. In many cases candidates had gone down to boroughs with the bonâ fde intention of paying no money unduly, arid yet they were made responsible by persons over whom they had no control. It was therefore found necessary to provide a check for this practice. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Powell), that the proper remedy for bribery was disfranchisement. On the other hand, the House ought not to confound the innocent with the guilty, for if any severe penal enactments were attempted, the Bill would fail. He trusted that the Bill would be read a second time.

said, that having much considered the subject, and having heard a great deal of evidence on corrupt practices, he was convinced that the clauses of the Bill would have a very valuable effect in repressing corrupt practices. He did not agree with those who objected to the second clause, which was designed to stop up a very extensive source of corruption—namely, the employment in the business of the election of a number of persons whose services were required only for the purpose of securing their votes. The second clause was, in his opinion, the most valuable in the Bill. The tenth clause was also valuable, for nothing could be more futile than a pretence on the part of the Legislature to discourage bribery and intimidation, and yet to employ a machinery so cumbrous that in not more than one case in a hundred could the law be carried out. He did not concur with the hon. Member for Gloucester that there was injustice in suspending the writs of places guilty of corrupt practices. It was an ancient and equitable principle to hold a community infected by any crime responsible, and that, it was well known, was done in the ease of the hundreds. Thus it would be the interest of the leaders of parties to prevent corruption becoming extensive and systematic. He was of opinion that the Bill had some very valuable provisions, and that the House would do well to read it a second time.

said, he thought the Bill was not likely to be valuable to any but the Government; who, having lost the name of reformers by abandoning reform, were desirous of doing something to win the name back again. There were many forms of bribery which the measure in no way touched. He would explain a very common form of bribery, by reference to an actual occurrence. When a Gentleman now representing a county in that House had stood for it, all persons, except one gentleman, had thought he had no chance of being returned. That one person said that the hon. Gentleman would be returned, and stated the majority by which he would gain the election. He was returned by a majority within two of the number named. Upon the individual who prophesied the result being asked how he had been able to predict it so accurately, he said that he held the maxim that politics had nothing whatsoever to do with an election; and he merely considered in which way it would be for the interest of persons to vote; that attorneys gave as many mortgages as possible to the surrounding farmers. It was then the interest of the candidate to retain the attorney for the sake of those over whom he had a hold. The attorney received his daily fee, and accompanied the candidate. If the voter was recalcitrant, the attorney said he was in want of money, and must call in the mortgage; and as a renewal of the mortgage would put the farmer to a great expense, the attorney was sure to be bought off by a promise of the vote. This sort of influence was not touched by the Bill. There were many other modes of bribery not touched by the measure. He would, for example, refer to the influence of Lords Lieutenant of counties. A person had been elected as captain in a volunteer corps, and had applied to the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Kent, the present Lord Chamberlain of the Household, to give him the nomination. The Lord Lieutenant, he had been informed, refused, observing that the person in question was a mere costermonger, for he had twice been chairman of the election committee of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Chatham. This person afterwards he-came High Constable of Chatham, and gave a grand dinner to a noble Lord, an eminent Minister of that House, who was brother-in-law to the Lord Lieutenant. After which, the commission so much sought by the person in question was very soon granted. Then, again, a Minister might barter his patronage for votes, and squander the interests of the country in order to benefit a faction. If the Minister were of a cool and cautious temperament, a significant gesture, or a whisper over the shoulder, might be quite sufficient to obtain the desired object; or the Minister might be of a more jovial turn of mind—might love hilarity and good cheer, and become most liberal with his patronage when his cheek was flushed with wine, and his heart was warmed by unwonted fire, and his tongue loosed with unaccustomed eloquence. He would mention a fact that had occurred on October 29, at Chatham. As it concerned the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, he had given him notice of his intention to refer to it. The noble Lord went down to Chatham when every one thought a general election was impending, and took with him his brother-in-law, Mr. Otway. Mr. Otway had been rejected by Tynemouth, Stafford, and Chatham, and was again likely to become a candidate for Chatham. At the public dinner the noble Lord made a speech. The noble Lord commenced by apologizing for his appearing there at all; representing, as he did, "another part of the county, the different constituencies of which were like families, somewhat jealous of each other;" for he had not yet visited his own constituency, when he went to Chatham to canvass for Otway. He then went on to say, he might be asked why he had come to Chatham. Now, that was a pertinent question. But the noble Lord himself had answered the query by saying "he went in obedience to superior orders; he had heard a voice saying, 'Paget, you are wanted at Chatham.' " Now, that voice could be no other than that of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government; no one would have ventured to make such large promises as the noble Lord made, without the noble Viscount's authority. The noble Secretary of the Admiralty, however, went on to tell his hearers that "Chatham was about to become one of the most important naval stations in the kingdom." Now, that was a proposition involving probably the expenditure of millions, and of course met with "loud cheers" from the electors of Chatham. The noble Secretary then told them that Chatham was "about to possess the most magnificent arsenal that England, or, in fact, all the world, had ever possessed;" that "the basin accommodation of Chatham would surpass the whole of the boasted basin accommodation of France put together." This was, no doubt, a very good way of conciliating the electors of Chatham, but was not calculated to win the favour of the taxpayers of England. It was for the House to say whether these great works were to be constructed, and those large sums expended. It was not for the noble Secretary to make promises in our name, which we were only to ratify and fulfil. The House was not to be let into the secret of its future conduct by a speech of a Secretary to an after-dinner audience in a dockyard; as if the House were unworthy to be more than that Minister's instrument. But the noble Secretary went somewhat further than that, by telling his audience, the electors of Chatham, that they had no fear of France, for that England "was never in a better position to enter into war nor with a navy in a more efficient state." That speech was certainly not complimentary to the French; nay, it was insulting to them. Although, indeed, the braggadocio may have been in reality directed, not to the conquest of France, but to the corruption of Chatham. Or if it were said in excuse that this speech was merely an after-dinner indiscretion, then it was another instance of what was so common last year—namely, "ministerial mudlarking." After those lugubrious civilities had passed at Chatham, the noble Lord returned to London with his brother-in-law by a special train. Now he (Lord Robert Montagu) should like to know how that train was paid for? Perhaps that transaction was quietly managed by a draw upon the civil contingencies? or, seeing that it was after dinner and wine, was it paid by a vote in excess? He mentioned those facts for the purpose of showing one way by which a Minister might bribe the electors without being restrained by the proposed Bill. Some just remarks had been made, in regard to intimidation. He gathered from the public prints that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty was accused of having intimidated some of the electors of Totnes into voting for the man of his choice. He had been informed that the noble Duke had issued a threat to turn the electors out of their holdings and deprive them of their cowsheds. He also saw in the leading journal an extract from a local paper stating that "Mr. J. Fender had placed the magnificent sum of £1,000 at the disposal of a committee in order to be applied to the general welfare of the inhabitants of Totnes." But that "the gift had not been promulgated because the election was going on," but the writer of the paragraph said "he saw no reason why it should any longer be kept a secret." Such were the acts of Liberal Members. It was only the name of "Reformers" which' screened them from the ire of the people. He put it to the House to say whether the Bill would, in the least, restrain bribery and corruption from being practised in the three or four modes he had pointed not; and whether the sole object of the Government in bringing it forward was not to recover for themselves an empty reputation as Reformers? For any other end he thought the Bill would be wholly inoperative.

said, he should support the second reading, he-cause he believed the Bill would effect an important amendment of the law, while he thought that its rejection would have the effect of throwing the whole law in respect to bribery into confusion.

said, no person was more opposed to bribery than himself. He would, therefore, cordially support the second reading of the Bill. There was, however, one clause very comprehensive indeed, inasmuch as it took within its provisions every agent, attorney, poll-clerk, messenger, and other person employed at elections. It should, however, be recollected that there were many persons employed at elections who were not interested for either of the candidates. It ought to be carefully considered whether those parties, however neutral, ought to he included in the general charge. He totally disagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Powell) as to the operation of the 11th clause. He thought that that clause conveyed a wholesome warning to constituents against bribery. But there was another class of persons who sinned in a different way. He was concerned some years ago in the investigation of a serious riot, arising from the circumstance that voters had been prevented going to poll in consequence of the crowds of non-electors that assembled round the doors of public-houses, which were kept open during the whole time in close proximity to the polling-places. He thought much mischief might be prevented by requiring those public places to be kept closed during the days of nomination and voting.

As the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) has waived his objection to the second reading of the Bill, it will only be necessary for me to advert to some of the objections made to particular clauses. I readily admit that the Bill will not put a complete and effectual stop to all corrupt practices at elections. I am not presumptuous enough to suppose that I could frame a measure which would achieve that result. As long as human nature remains as it is, as long as there are objects of ambition to be sought after, and persona willing to accept bribes, it will be impossible for any law entirely to prevent corruption. All that can be done is to render bribery as difficult as possible, the detection of bribery as easy as possible, and the punishment of offenders as certain as possible. The noble Lord opposite, who professes to be conversant with all the arts of bribery and corruption, practised in county elections, said he would undertake to evade the Bill in fifty different ways. That may be quite possible; but although we cannot do everything by legislation, that is no reason why we should not attempt to do anything. I do not claim credit for any originality in this measure. It is based on the Resolutions of the Committee of the House which considered and reported upon the Acts in operation some three years ago. A complaint has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Powell) that the Bill is directed rather against electors than candidates; but in that respect it has followed the recommendations of the Committee, and I think he has not drawn the distinction between those recommendations and proposals that were made and rejected. An hon. Member made a proposal in the Committee, to require a declaration from Candidates, but it was not pressed to a vote. With respect to the clause disqualifying agents, I have to observe that it was contained in a former Act, and evidence was given before the Committee that its omission from the last Act has led to a great deal of bribery. Since the Bill has been printed I have received letters testifying to the importance of the clause, and stating that large numbers of electors have been employed in some places as messengers or in some such capacity to influence their votes. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) has complained that we have disfranchised country postmasters who may not receive more than £4 a year from the State, while leaving in possession of their votes persons in receipt of fixed incomes from the public revenue. I do not propose any change in the law with regard to the holders of post-offices. Their exclusion is part of the existing law which was in force in the last century, which prohibits all persons engaged in the collection of public revenue from voting for Members of Parliament. It is obvious, on the other hand, that retired officers and others in receipt of fixed incomes not held at the pleasure of the Crown may be quite as independent as any other persons in the country. There is no analogy between them and those employed in the collection of revenue. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Mr. Serjeant Pigott) as to the clause which provides a new mode of dealing with the reports of Commissions of Inquiry, when those Commissions report that extensive bribery has prevailed in certain constituencies. I also agree with the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Powell) that the course pursued by the House as to the writs for Wakefield and Gloucester was open to objection. For this House, without the authority of law, to continue the suspension of writs for any considerable period, is a course which I think should not be encouraged. What is now proposed is that the House should be empowered by law to suspend writs for a limited period in cases where corruption, though not universal, is general and extensive. I believe such a provision, if enacted, would create a general desire in a borough to prevent bribery and corruption, and would induce persons of influence, instead of looking on such practices with indifference, to exert themselves to put down all illegal practices. Some proof of this is efforded by the fact that no complaint of bribery or corruption has been made with regard to the last elections for Gloucester and Wakefield. The hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) said, that in amending any Act we should take the opportunity to consolidate the whole law on the subject. An attempt of that kind was made last Session; but, as has been already said, a number of Amendments clustered round every clause, and I believe it would be found impossible within any reasonable time to pass such a measure through the House. I have, therefore, thought it better to make this Bill more moderate in its pretensions, embodying in it the main provisions recommended by the Select Committee, I am glad to find that the Motion for the second reading meets with the general assent of the House, and I trust that when we go into Committee the Amendments will be discussed with an earnest desire to make the law as effective as possible.

said, he had not objected to the officers on half-pay having votes; but what he said was, that so long as Members of that House, receiving large salaries and pensions, had votes in that House, it was a hard measure to prevent a post-office employé in. a country town from exercising his right of voting.

said, he had consistently opposed the Bills which had been introduced on the subject, as he did not believe that the House was honest in its desire to put down bribery. If it were, it would punish, not the offending electors, but those who bribed them.

maintained that all illegal payments should be made bribery, and punished accordingly. He announced his intention to propose some Amendments in Committee.