said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Government will suspend the operation of Part I. of the Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, relating to the slaughtering of animals, and compensation for the same after the 10th of May?

said, in reply, that these clauses, as originally enacted, were to remain in force only till the 15th of April, but they were continued by Order in Council till the 10th of May. The Privy Council had not yet been called on to consider the question of their continuance beyond that period; but, from the communications which had reached him from different parts of the country, where great advantage had resulted from the operation of these clauses—in fact the diminution of the cattle plague was attributed very much to their operation—he thought an Order in Council would be passed to continue the operation of these clauses beyond the 10th of May.

, Chairman of the Reigate Election Committee, rose to move for a Commission to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at the last election for Totnes. The Election Committee which had recently sat for the purposes of inquiring into the allegation of the petition presented against the returns for that borough, had found that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in that borough at the last election. The Act under which they came to that finding was passed in 1852, and enabled Commissioners to be appointed on a joint Address of the two Houses of Parliament to the Crown. In case the Election Committee reported either that extensive corruption had prevailed, or that there was reason to believe that extensive corruption had prevailed, a Commission might, under the Act, be moved for to inquire into those practices. The House was aware that this Act had been put in operation by past Parliaments, and he believed four or five Commissions had been issued under it. He proposed very briefly to state to the House why it was that the Committee came to that finding in the case of the borough of Totnes; and he might begin by stating that in making this Motion he believed he expressed the unanimous opinion and desire of his colleagues as well as his own opinion. The case was rather a remarkable one. Totnes was a small borough, according to the Census of 1861 the population being only 4,000; since then, it had, according to calculation, been rather reduced, and was now between 3,000 and 4,000. The electors on the register were short of 400; the exact number was, he believed, 395. Petitions were presented after the last general election against both the Gentlemen who were then returned, and the Committee appointed to inquire into the matter of that petition found that one of the Members had been guilty of a breach of the Act against corrupt practices, having made an offer of employment to one of the voters, with the view of influencing his vole; and they had therefore no alternative but to report him guilty of a breach of the Act and declare his election void. They also declared the other guilty of bribery and unseated him. The evidence which satisfied the Committee that they had reason to believe corrupt practices extensively prevailed at Totnes was not direct evidence brought before them to prove a general system of bribery; in fact, the cases of bribery brought by petition against the sitting Members were few originally, and substantially failed of proof. They were, strictly speaking, offers of bribery to voters who did not vote for the sitting Members, or the voters when produced swore they did not take bribes, though they had stated on other occasions they did. Therefore the evidence was not of a very complete or conclusive character. But a very curious and he believed almost unpredecented thing occurred in the Committee. A witness was produced for the purpose of contradicting one of the previous witnesses, and to prove that he had said he had had offers of money. That witness was named Screech; and on his cross-examination it appeared that he had been largely engaged by the opposite party in corrupting voters at Totnes. He appealed to the Chairman whether he was bound to answer the questions put to him. The Chairman told him he was bound to answer, because by a recent wholesome change of the law, a witness was not at liberty to screen himself from answering questions, the Committee having the power to give him a certificate which would exonerate him from any penalty. Screech had therefore to make a clean breast of it, and he told the Committee that he had been engaged on previous elections for the Liberal party, and at the last election for the Conservative party, to go about the borough offering to bribe, and bribing the electors. He admitted that he had applied to forty, and he believed that he had bribed twelve or fourteen. The reason he gave for not being more successful—and there was no reason to doubt his statement —was that those to whom he applied told him they had done better on the other side. He (Mr. Bouverie) thought the Committee—certainly he himself—had a sort of impression from the tenour of the evidence that there was a general system of corruption, and they were informed that the market price of votes in Totnes, which was quoted quite like a share-list on the Stock Exchange, was higher at the last election than it had ever been before. Screech was asked whether on previous elections, when he was employed by the Liberal side, money had been going to any amount? Oh yes, he said, the amount was fearful; but it was never so largo as at the last election He was given to understand that the market price of a vote at Totnes during the last election was something like £200. He was bound to say from the way in which this evidence was given, Screech's evidence appeared to be generally truthful. The witness was produced on the petitioners' side; and the opposing counsel, while seeking to discredit his testimony, had of course no interest in proving the general prevalence of corruption; the main facts were consequently elicited by questions from the Committee, who, having got upon the scent, felt it their duty to follow it up; but, as the House must be aware, they had but feeble means of getting out the whole truth. They had also before them a man named Harris, who was the witness that proved that Mr. Pender, the late sitting Member, had offered him a situation if he would not take an active part against him; and on this evidence, in tact, the Committee unseated the sitting Member. He was what would be generally called a respectable man in appearance and occupation, and though an attempt was made in cross-examination to throw doubt on his veracity, the Committee believed him to be a credible witness. This witness Harris said he had known Totnes from his youth, and he expressed his belief that there were not fifty electors in the borough who were not influenced, directly or indirectly, by money considerations. Harris calculated that there were seventy-five electors of Conservative and fifty of Liberal politics who wore accessible to direct bribes. This was Harris' estimate of the political virtue and morality of Totnes; and the Committee unanimously arrived at the conclusion that there was strong reason to believe that bribery had extensively prevailed in the borough at the last election. The House would remember that by an Act more recent than that under which these Commissioners were appointed, an Election Committee was prevented from giving the go-by to the question, but was bound to report whether or not there was reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. The Totnes Committee, with the evidence before them, could come to no other finding; and having come to that finding the natural and necessary conclusion, as the law stood, was that a Commission should be sent down to inquire into the existence of this corruption, and endeavour to get at the whole facts. He knew it was said that the Commissions that had been issued in previous Parliaments, though they gave rise to exciting discussions in that House, had led to no legislation in regard to corrupt boroughs, and were practically useless for any purpose except that of putting a certain amount of money into the pockets of the learned Gentlemen who carried on the investigation. He (Mr. Bouverie) was not, however, quite of that opinion, and at any rate, while the law existed in its present shape, he thought the House was bound to act upon it and appoint a Commission. Moreover, the first step to the remedy of a great evil was to ascertain the extent of that evil, and there was no effective method of probing this sore of corruption except a Commission of Inquiry. Having, therefore, stated briefly the grounds on which the Committee felt compelled to come to the conclusion that there was reason to believe that bribery had extensively prevailed at the last election for Totnes, it seemed to him that the proper step to take was to appoint a Commission. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—

"That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying for the appointment of Henry Bullar, Montague Bere, and Charles E. Coleridge, Esqs., as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices at Totnes."

seconded the Motion.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion of his right hon. Friend, but he could not refrain from expressing a doubt whether such an inquiry would be attended with any practical result. In the course of the eleven years during which he had had the honour of a seat in that House he recollected at least three Commissions of a similar nature— namely, those of Gloucester, 'Wakefield, and Berwick-on-Tweed, in all which instances the Commissioners reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. Each of those inquiries cost £1,700 or £1,800, but none of them had been followed by any legislation. He would venture to submit that they had really quite sufficient evidence before them as to the existence of electoral corruption, not only in Totnes, but in Great Yarmouth, in Reigate, and various other places. It was not into the existence of the evil that they needed to inquire, but into the remedy. He was sure hon. Gentlemen would bear him out when he said that there was no part of our constitutional system of which we ought to be so thoroughly ashamed, and which intelligent foreigners, whether from the Continent or from the other side of the Atlantic, were so apt to put their finger upon, as the continued existence of these constituencies, which, as they all knew right well, could be bought and sold in the market. Apart altogether from the question of re-distribution of seats, it appeared to him that it was competent for Gentlemen on both sides of the House, without regard to their political opinions, to try and do something to put an end to a state of things so discreditable to the country. Her Majesty's Government, if he was not mistaken, had made some promise on the subject; but if they were not prepared to legislate upon it, he knew no one in whose hands it would be safer or more likely to be carried to a satisfactory conclusion than the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It appeared to him that whenever Committees of that House had over and over again reported that corrupt practices prevailed in certain boroughs, those boroughs should by virtue of such Reports cease to return Members to that House. He felt satisfied that some self-acting law like that would do a great deal more to put down bribery than all the Commissions that had been or might be issued. It was perfectly obvious, too, that the law with respect to prosecutions for bribery should be changed, for at present, except in very rare cases, a man might give or take a bribe with perfect impunity. The true remedy, he thought, would be to render it imperative upon Her Majesty's Attorney General to prosecute every such offender, and instead of incapacitating a candidate who had been guilty of bribery from sitting in one Parliament, he would disqualify him for life. He had made these observations because he had often heard the remark made that the House was not in earnest in dealing with this subject, and that it always threw its shield over corrupt practices. He thought, therefore, that it was necessary for the sake of their own reputation, as well as for the public good, that they should set themselves seriously to legislate in such a manner that not only the constituencies but that individuals guilty of corrupt practices should be punished.

said, he believed the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) would have the support of that side of the House in taking measures for the suppression of an evil which, as the right hon. Gentleman justly remarked, disgraced this country in the eyes of the world. Therefore, he did not rise to offer the least opposition to this Motion, which he should be glad to see carried further. There were now so many technicalities to be encountered before the Committee that it was almost impossible to obtain any satisfactory and rational verdict at all, and it was quite necessary that more stringent measures should be adopted. By the Act of 1852 it was required, before anything could be done, that proof should be given before the Committee that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. They knew that before these Bribery Committees the real state of the case was very frequently con- cealed—for instance, at Helston it was said that both candidates were tarred with the same brush; and when one was ejected the other could not claim the seat. The Committee was satisfied with a single case of bribery sufficient to void the election, and the remainder of the case was con-coaled, and an Australian millionaire was sent down by the Liberal party and matters would probably be made still worse. These things were done with the assent of the leaders of the House. He should like to know what they were going to do with Nottingham? The first thing that the candidate there did was to put £.3,000 into the hands of his solicitor, and to ask no questions; and it did not require much knowledge of the world to know in what manner that money would be spent. As many as 666 messengers were required in that borough; and yet in the face of these facts the small boroughs were continually being said to be particularly corrupt. Nottingham was not to be disfranchised, but a candidate who was connected with the Government in a remarkable manner was to be sent down to profit by the system. The fact was that the Committees of the House were not proper tribunals to take cognizance of these matters. For instance, the Chairman of the Committee was generally a layman, and barristers appeared before him and frequently raised difficult questions of law which he was incompetent to decide, and it was a matter of chance which way the decision went. ["Oh, oh !"] It was quite natural that hon. Gentlemen opposite who were such excessive purists should deprecate any discussion of this kind. The Chairman of a Committee must also necessarily be more or less a partizan of one side or the other; and a man of delicate feelings, believing that he was liable to be biassed on one side, would be unconsciously induced to bear hard upon the opposite side. They ought to get Gentlemen of great impartiality to occupy such a position, and they knew that at all events there were among the Members of the House thirty-three who were strictly impartial in their politics, and from among those the Chairman of Committees should be selected. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to reserve all their wrath for particular instances of bribery, and let other cases pass by without observation. For his own part, he believed that it would be better to send out a Commission at once to investigate cases of this kind on the spot, without resorting to the expen- sive machinery of a Committee. The expenses of bringing a petition frequently operated as a denial of justice, especially as witnesses often for the sake of their expenses up to London stated things on the spot as facts which they could prove in evidence which they denied when before a Committee.

protested against the charges of corruption which the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Darby Griffith) had brought against a gentleman of high honour, who had utterly repudiated the charge that he had been guilty of corruption in any form. He was not justified in using such phrases as that both the candidates for Helston were "tarred with the same brush." It would be better if the hon. Gentleman were to speak less, and to be more careful when he did speak.

trusted that if the Commission were appointed it would meet forthwith, and would come to an early decision upon the question laid before it.

was glad to find that the hon. Member for Devizes had met with one perfectly pure borough. He rose for the purpose of complaining that the borough he represented (Beverley) had been mentioned on several occasions as being included in the category of corrupt boroughs. Hon. Members would find by referring to a Report which had not long been issued that during the thirty-four years that had elapsed since the passing of the Reform Bill in 1832, only three petitions had been presented to that House against the borough of Beverley, and of those three two had failed, and in the third the then most Liberal Member of that House had been unseated. He thought it was a very hard case that a certain number of boroughs should be constantly paraded before the House as frightful examples of corruption, when, in fact, they were not more guilty than the others. In many instances petitions were presented against sitting Members for special purposes—he did not say that in all cases there was conspiracy; but it was well known that individuals might bring forward petitions for the purpose of extorting money from Members, and that at the last moment such petitions might be withdrawn. In the event of the law upon this subject being altered he trusted that the possibility he had referred to would not be lost sight of, and that measures would be taken that would put a stop to such practices. It was exceedingly unpleasant to hon. Members to be kept in a state of suspense for five or six months as to the nature of the evidence to be given against them, and to be taunted during that period with representing a corrupt borough. In conclusion, he begged again to vindicate the character of the borough he represented from the charges that were habitually made against it.

objected to the appointment of Commissions, as he believed, while they were most expensive, they were practically useless for the purpose for which they were intended. There was already sufficient evidence to prove that extensive bribery had prevailed at the recent election for Totnes. Why had not the Attorney General power to prosecute in cases of corruption as palpable as those proved to have occurred at that election? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Beverley (Colonel Edwards) stated that petitions were often withdrawn at the last moment. Now, in one instance which had come to his knowledge a candidate was perfectly prepared to show that the sitting Member had been guilty of corruption; but he had been compelled to withdraw his petition.

asked to whom the hon. Gentleman alluded.

declined to answer the question. The gentleman to whom he had referred had been compelled to withdraw his petition against the sitting Member, in obedience to the request of 100 of his own supporters. ["Name, name!"] He believed that the House would accept his statement on his vouching to its truth. He did not see that the issuing of the Commission in this instance could result in any good; but he trusted that the necessity for issuing so many Commissions after one general election would have the effect of attracting attention and showing the importance of action being taken in the matter.

thought that it was quite right that in the case of a borough in which an Election Committee had reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, the House should exercise the power placed in its hands, and adopt the course now proposed in order to ascertain whether the opinion of the Committee was well founded; and to take ulterior measures if it should be found that corrupt practices had exten- sively prevailed. He agreed that the proceeding involved delay, but he thought it would be too stringent a course to disfranchise a borough on the Report of an Election Committee.

desired to explain. His proposal was that a borough should be disfranchised on the Report of an Election Committee, where it had previously been I made the subject of similar Reports.

But the Report of one Committee as to the last election adds no weight to the opinions of a previous Committee. The question was as to the best means of ascertaining the fact of bribery. But where a Committee reported that there was extensive bribery, and a Commission reported to the same effect, he thought they ought to be less slow in dealing with the delinquent borough. He believed that disfranchisement in such a ease would greatly tend to check corruption.

explained to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Kendall) that the statement he had made with regard to the defeated candidate for the borough of Helston was made upon report only. He was, however perfectly willing to accept the disclaimer and would retract with pleasure any imputations which he had made.

, Chairman of the Great Yarmouth Election Committee, rose to propose for that borough a similar Commission to that to which the House had agreed in the case of Totnes. The borough of Great Yarmouth differed in many respects from the borough of Totnes; but, although the former, instead of being a small, was a populous and rapidly increasing borough, the same atmosphere of corruption appeared to prevail in both. A Commission, however, for Great Yarmouth was emphatically necessary, because, as he should be able to show the House, corruption had prevailed in the borough ever since the passing of the Reform Bill. There had been repeated inquiries into the elections at, Great Yarmouth, and the House had even disfranchised a certain portion of the electors of the borough—the freemen—but had failed to effect any improvement. The population of Great Yarmouth, according to the Census of 1861, was 34,810; and in 1866 it was computed at 36,959. In 1835 there were 643 £10 occupiers and 1,042 freemen; and in 1866 there were 1,640 £10 occupiers. By the recent Electoral Returns they learnt that of these voters 324 belonged to the working class, and the person by whom that estimate had been furnished had appended a note, which was not only curious in itself, but was peculiar to the return for Great Yarmouth. That note was as follows:—

"With reference to the number of the working classes on the register it is stated that a great many persons who came within that description occupy houses at and above £10 rental, whose wives let their houses or apartments to visitors in the summer months, living in some portion of the house, or managing to keep a room or closet to themselves, so as to keep on the register and possess the franchise, which in Yarmouth is considered of some importance."

Abundant evidence had been adduced before the Committee in the course of the inquiry to show that in Great Yarmouth the franchise was rightly enough regarded as a matter of importance, for four cases of bribery were proved against the sitting Members, and seven against the defeated candidates, all of the latter seven voters, however, having either received or been offered money to vote for the sitting Members. He did not purpose calling the attention of the House to the evidence taken before the Committee, because that evidence was already in the hands of Members, but he would refer for a moment or two to matters connected with former elections for this borough. The history of corruption in Great Yarmouth dated, indeed, as far back as the Reform Bill. In 1835 a Select Committee was appointed to examine into a petition presented complaining that the sum of two guineas per head had after the election of 1834 been paid to many of the voters. That Committee reported that up to the passing of the Reform Act it was the invariable practice, or nearly so, to pay two guineas to each voter who applied for it on each side of the question, without reference to the success of the candidates. The invariability and impartiality of the payment was alleged to have divested it of the character of bribery. That payment was discontinued in 183. Still that election—the first after the Reform Bill— cost the successful candidates between £5,000 and £6,000. In 1834 the election cost the non-successful candidates £3,300, and the successful candidates £5,620. £1,200 was paid to the voters for the successful candidates, above £900 to 450 freemen, and £300 to £10 householders. Considerable drunkenness and excitement prevailed. 6,000 half-crown and 2,000 five-shilling tickets were printed for the successful party. The next petition was presented in 1848, when Lord Arthur Lennox and Mr. Coope were unseated for bribery by their agents. On that occasion thirteen persons were proved to have received £3 each, and the Committee reported that gross, systematic, and extensive bribery prevailed at the last and at the previous election for Great Yarmouth among the freemen of that borough. The Committee expressed to the House their unanimous opinion that the freemen should be disfranchised, and that no writ should be issued until legislative measures should have been taken for the purpose of such disfranchisement. In accordance with the recommendation of that Committee the freemen were disfranchised; but little was done by that means towards checking corruption. In 1857 Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens and Mr. Watkin were unseated for bribery by their agents, and on that occasion four persons were shown to have been bribed with sums of £3, £5, £6, and £10. In 1860 Sir Edmund Lacon and Sir Henry Stracey were declared duly elected. It was proved to the Committee appointed to examine concerning that election that four persons were bribed with £13 and £15 and that one Spilling endeavoured to bribe one Crane by offer of a sovereign. He could well understand that any attempt to bribe a voter of this borough with a sovereign must be futile, because the price of Yarmouth bloaters appeared to have increased of late years something after the increase which had taken place lately in the price of oysters in London. Before the passing of the Reform Bill the price was two guineas a head. In 1832, as soon as the Reform Bill had passed, they rose to the value of £3 each. In 1852 they reached the value of £10 each. In 1860 the price ranged from £13 to £16, and in the last year, at the election, their value was something between £15 and £30 a head. In the late election, moreover, a new feature had been developed, for there were two gentlemen who stated before the Committee that they did not regard it as in- consistent with their political morality to receive bribes from both sides, and in fact, one of them had received £15 from each side, and the other £10 from one side and £15 from the other. It also appeared that a practice prevailed in the borough of getting 10s. commission for obtaining these sums of £10 or £20 as bribes for voters; and the whole of the facts detailed before the Committee led to the conclusion that gross corruption had prevailed during the election. But the question might be raised as to whether a Commission would produce a more satisfactory result than a Committee; and to that he would reply that the Committee had been prevented from obtaining the evidence of several witnesses who could have supplied important information; and the Committee had, therefore, been unable to go fully into the case. A Commission, however, being on the spot, would be able to take much evidence which the Committee could not obtain, and he felt sure that the Commissioners would be able to lay before the House a much more complete picture of the state of things prevailing in the borough than it was possible the Committee could.

, Chairman of the Reigate Election Committee, in rising to move for a Royal Commission to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at the last Election for the borough of Reigate, presented a petition from the inhabitants of the borough urging the necessity for such an inquiry. The petition was signed by 140 inhabitants, including the high bailiff, the mayor, the vicar, every clergyman resident in the neighbourhood, and by the chairmen of both candidates. The fact that these last-mentioned signatures were attached to the petition, in company with the signatures of a large number of the most respectable people of the borough, showed that very corrupt practices must have prevailed there, and that the more respectable among the inhabitants felt strongly aggrieved at the fact. Among the fourteen cases of bribery brought before the Committee, seven were clearly proved. They found that very many promises had been given, and that many of the electors seemed to look upon their vote as so much marketable property—in fact, it seemed to be almost a part of the political creed of a great number of the electors that they ought not to vote unless they had received a promise of some pecuniary consideration, But although the Committee were generally impressed with the corrupt state of the borough, it was impossible for them to report fully upon that point, as it was the desire of the parties who came before them rather to make out specific charges against their political opponent than to blacken the borough. The consequence was, that their conclusions must be come to rather from inference than from absolute proved facts. It was proved before the Committee that a witness named Allen Edwards stated that one Joyce, a sub-agent of the then sitting Member, had offered him £5"to vote for Gower." He promised to do so; but because he did not receive the promised £5 he voted for Mr. Richardson, a gentleman who, it appeared, had no idea of standing for the borough, as he had either proposed or seconded Mr. Monson as a candidate. It was fair to presume that eleven other persons who voted for Mr. Richardson did so from similar motives. A man named Johnson stated that Joyce had said to him, with reference to a voter named Pitt, "I did think he was square, but he wanted buy- ing the same as the others; he wanted a fiver I had promised him, and more if I could get it." From this and other evidence, the Committee came to the conclusion that "a fiver" was the price of a Reigate vote. That sum had, it appeared, been promised right and left, but in many cases nothing had been paid. The electors looked upon the bribe as so much a matter of course that one voter who was not paid had actually brought an action against the agent who promised him for the recovery of the £5 as a debt. When the case came on in the County Court, forty other voters cherishing a similar grievance were present in court, fully resolved to follow his example if he wore successful, but of course he was not. Other evidence was forthcoming touching the number of promises made. A person appeared in Reigate after the election calling himself Mr. Naylor. It: turned out subsequently that was not his name, but that he was a publican of Shore-ditch. He announced on his arrival in Reigate that he was the representative of Mr. Gower, and that he had come to settle with all those who had been promised money for their votes. A number of the "promised" voters fell into the trap, and although he diligently recorded their names, he gave them no satisfaction, and soon afterwards some one else called upon them and took down their statements in writing. Indications were given in the evidence produced before the Committee of corrupt practices having prevailed at previous elections. It was not competent for the Committee to inquire into these matters; but a Royal Commission would be able to do so, and that was one reason which led him to urge its appointment. He was not now giving the House the names of those witnesses who were reported as having been absolutely bribed. A voter named George Jupp, canvassed by Mr. Green, admitted that he had received £10 for voting for Mr. Gower. The evidence taken before the Committee was as follows:—

"And there, outside the Committee-room, did you see Mr. Green?—Yes. Hid he say to you anything about voting?—Yes; he said to me, "Are you coming upon our side again? You seem backward in coming forward.'I said, 'I do not know.' He said, 'Did I not behave well to you before?' I said,'Yes' 'Well,' he said,' I will do the same to you again.' That was an answer. What did he give to you before?—I cannot exactly say what it was; it was about £10. He gave you about £10 before?—Yes. Was that for voting before?—And canvassing a little. I infer from what you say that you had voted for Mr. Gower upon former occasions?—Yes. Had you canvassed for him upon a former occasion?—All that I did was to take one circular."

There was also the case of the voter named Balchin, which was a peculiar one. This man admitted that he had received £5 in the first instance from the opponents of the sitting Members, and that he subsequently received £2 15s. from the agents of those Members, so that he obtained bribes from both sides. He said that he had been employed to look after voters; but it was very evident that he required a good deal of looking after himself—for the whole night previous to the election he was held in confinement, and kept in a state of drunkenness. During the night, whether he desired to go back to his former love or not, it was impossible to say; but when he made a search for his boots he was not able to find them. The next day he was taken in a cart to the polling-booth. He stated that he knew for whom he voted; but the Committee were unable to determine whether he was really aware for whom he was recording his vote. The cases he had mentioned clearly proved that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last election. On the whole, there could be no doubt that if ever there was a case clearly made out for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry on account of bribery and corrupt practices it was that of the borough of Reigate.

said, that the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down forcibly showed how necessary it was that the course pointed out by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Baxter) should be adopted—namely, that the agent guilty of the act of bribery should be rendered liable to be prosecuted for the offence. In the present case it was clearly shown that Mr. Gower was innocent of the bribery which had been proved, and from his knowledge of that gentleman he was convinced that he would do all in his power to check corrupt practices. Over zealous supporters would be restrained from resorting to illegal act3 if they knew that the Attorney General would, as a matter of course, prosecute every person who was proved to be guilty of, bribery. That was the only way of effectually checking such proceedings.

, as a member of the Reigate Election Committee, said, that he did not think it was possible to conceive a worse case than that of Reigate. In the borough there was no political feeling whatever; it was entirely in the hands of the Liberals; and the consequence was that the electors, to a large extent, only looked out for the man who would pay them the most money for their votes. There was, in fact, hardly a man in the place who had not been bribed.

asked the House what they would do after these inquiries had taken place? What practical step was expected to result from the inquiries to be made by the Commission? Pour Commissions of Inquiry had already been moved for — he did not know how many more were to follow—but about £8,000 at least must be expended upon them. In his opinion not the slightest profitable result would follow those investigations. When the Corrupt Practices Bill was before the House he placed an Amendment upon the table to the effect that all Members, on being sworn, should deliver an account in writing of their expenses, and declare that those expenses were all that were incurred by them, or that they had paid, or intended to pay by themselves or their agents. That Amendment, however, was not accepted by the House; and that fact went a long way to prove that the House was not thoroughly honest in their intention to put down corruption. He hoped that the Government, for the protection of the public purse, would ask themselves, before they went further into these Commissions, what benefits would result from them.

concurred in the opinion that in order effectually to check bribery and corruption at elections, it would be necessary to instruct the Attorney General to prosecute all persons guilty of such illegal proceedings. He wished to point out to the House, however, that cases might arise, and frequently did arise in which bribery was practised, without either the candidate or his agents having had anything to do with it; and then constituencies got a bad name. He had risen to make these remarks because an impression seemed to him to prevail in the House that the course pursued by the Wakefield Committee was that of undue leniency. Now, only two cases of bribery were proved before the Committee, and they were not in the smallest degree attributable to the candidate, his committee, or his agents. In another case money was offered by a person who, in vulgar parlance, would be called a sporting man; he had entered into very largo bets on the result of the election petition, and he spent a great deal of money on his own account, in order that he might win them. In every other case where money was offered it was refused. He had taken the opportunity of vindicating the character of Wakefield, which he must say he thought had been very un- fairly aspersed. All the evidence that could be obtained was laid before the Committee, and it clearly proved that the last election for Wakefield was an extremely pure election.

, as a Member of the Wakefield Election Committee, corrobarated the statement of the hon, Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory). It was utterly impossible to connect the sitting Member or his committee with any of the cases of bribery and corruption which were proved to have occurred. It was not proved that bribery had been offered or committed by any agents of the sitting Member or by any of his committee.

said, it appeared that these Commissions did some good, because at the last election for Wakefield, it had not been shown that there was any bribery committed by the sitting Member for that borough or his agents. He wished to set his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton) right as to the law upon the subject. His hon. Friend suggested that instructions ought to be given to the Attorney General to prosecute in all cases reported to the House. Now, that was the law at present, [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: That is after a Commission.] He read it in the alternative.—either a Committee or Commission. They disfranchised Sudbury without the Report of a Commission, and St. Alban's after one. The general Act was passed for the appointment of Commissions where extensive bribery was supposed to have been practised, with the view of Parliament dealing with it afterwards. He hoped that when it could be proved that any of these boroughs had been guilty of bribery, that the House would be prepared to disfranchise them.

said, that if his right hon. Friend looked at the latter part of the clause, he would see that it contemplated the case of a Commission after the Report of a Select Committee; but he admitted the clause was not well worded, because the words were "such. Report with the evidence taken before the Committee, shall be laid before the Attorney General." He apprehended the Home Secretary would cause the evidence to be laid before the Attorney General, and he would be bound to prosecute unless he in his judgment thought that evidence to be insufficient. It by no means followed that there must be a Commission; for he had not the least doubt that, in any case where an Election Committee reported that bribery and treating had prevailed, it would be competent for that House, without a Commission, on their own Motion, to direct the Attorney General to prosecute, or to lay papers before him with a view of his prosecuting, and that on the Resolution of the House.

said, he must protest, with all due deference to the Chairman of the Wakefield Election Committee, against the statement that no bribery had been committed, because it had not been proved that the bribery was by the agents of the sitting Member. How was the Committee to know that the bribery had not been committed by some person who had been secretly commissioned to do so.

said, he had listened with great attention to all that had been stated with regard to these delinquent boroughs, and it appeared to him that the only and best remedy against bribery was the ballot. He believed they might as well try to keep sparrows out of a field by stone walls, as to prevent bribery by fencing it round without the ballot.

, in moving to introduce a Bill to amend the law in England and Wales with reference to the Assessment of Mines to the relief of the Poor, said, that as he understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had no objection to its introduction, he should reserve any observations he had to make upon it until the second reading.

said, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman should, at this time more especially, when the mining interest was in such a depressed state, bring in such a Bill. It should be remembered that three Bills, which had been brought in before with the same object, had failed, because the opinion of the House was that this description of property was of too speculative a nature to be rated. He should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman on the whole question of rating, but he was at a loss to know why the mining interest alone any more than timber, young plantations, and even shipping, should be the object of the hon. Member's attack. He should feel it to be his duty, representing, as he did, the mining interest, to oppose the further progress of the Bill at every stage.

, Chairman of the Lancaster Election Committee, said, that after the discussion that had taken place that evening with reference to the other reputed boroughs, he thought it was unnecessary for him to take up the time of the House by entering in detail into the circumstances connected with the last election for the borough of Lancaster. The Committee had unanimously reported that they had reason to believe that bribery extensively prevailed at the last election for Lancaster. He might, however, further add that it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that bribery was practised there in an open, and unblushing and systematic manner. And it was admitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the unsuccessful candidate was unable to claim his seat because his agents could not come out of the proceedings with clean hands. It was admitted as fact that there was as much bribery practised on one side as on the other.

, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to extend the jurisdiction, alter and amend the procedure and practice, and regulate the establishment of the Court of Admiralty, Ireland, said, that as he understood there would be no opposition to the introduction of the Bill, he would merely content himself by saying that its object was to unite the business of the Irish Court of Admiralty with that of the Irish Court of Probate.

remarked that there could not be a better Judge for the discharge of such responsible duties than the present Judge of the Irish Court of Probate. The only question was whether the learned Judge would like to have this jurisdiction transferred to him.

desired to know what was to be done with the present Judge of the Admiralty Court—whether he was to discharge other duties, or whether he was to be superannuated.

said, it was proposed to allow the present Judge of the Admiralty Court to retire upon his full salary.

objected to the two Courts of Admiralty and Probate being united. The jurisdiction of the Irish Court of Admiralty might be extended beneficially, and it should be placed upon the same footing as that of England. He wished to know whether the proctors of the Irish Court of Admiralty would receive compensation in the event of that Court being thrown open to the profession generally.

said, that what was required in the Court of Admiralty was prompt decision. He thought that a remedy ought to be provided for the existing evils, of which complaint was so justly made.

thought that the Government had acted wisely in dealing with this question, but did not approve the course adopted in ignoring some of the most material recommendations of the Commission by whom this matter had been considered. He was in favour of reforming the practice and procedure and extending the jurisdiction of the Court, and continuing it as a separate and independent Court, as recommended by the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission. He did not recommend the superannuation of the present painstaking Judge but should there be an intention on the part of the Government to superannuate that Judge, he then said it would be a more politic course to carry out that intention, and appoint a new Judge to preside over a Court whose business would be certain to be very much increased by the assimilation of its practice with that of the English Court of Admiralty, than to hand it over to the eminent Judge of the Probate Court who had sufficient business of his own to occupy his time.

said, that the Judge of the Probate Court would be able to discharge the additional duty.

concurred in the opinion that the recommendations of a Commission ought, as a rule, to be accepted. He did not purpose dis- cussing the details of a Bill not before the House, but he trusted that the Government would be prepared at the right time to show that the Commissioners had made a great mistake, and that they were not entitled to the confidence of the House.