said, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Mr. William Henry Leatham is the same Mr. Leatham who was found personally guilty of bribery by on Election Committee of this House after the General Election of 1859, and ordered by this House to be prosecuted by Mr. Attorney General; whether Mr. Philip Vanderbyl, who is stated in the Great Yarmouth Commission Report to have entered into a corrupt agreement with a Mr. Brogden that, in the event of his being returned, he would repay the said Mr. Brogden one-half the money advanced by him for the purposes of bribery; whether Mr. E. W. Watkin, who is mentioned in the Report of the Great Yarmouth Commission and is included in the list, Schedule D, of persons having given bribes at the Election in that Borough in 1839: and, whether Mr. Alfred Seymour, who is mentioned in the Report of the Totnes Commission as having been privy and assenting to the corrupt practices that prevailed at that Election, are Members of this House, and, if justices of the peace, it is the intention of the Govern- ment to remove them from the several Commissions to which they belong?

Sir, the Questions put to me by my hon. Friend are Questions which it is no doubt very difficult to answer; because in the annals of jurisprudence there is, it appears to me, no circumstance more startling than the frequent instances of mistaken identity. I think therefore, Sir, that any individual occupying at the present day so responsible a position as that which I have the honour to hold, ought to be extremely cautious in giving an opinion on matters with regard to which such mistakes might occur. There is certainly a startling similarity in the names which have been quoted by my hon. Friend, and those which are habitually used by some Members of this House. But then if, on the other hand, I were to judge of the accuracy of the views on this point, which he seems to entertain by the general tone of expression and conduct of the gentlemen to whom I suppose he refers, I should say, looking at the unquestioned purity of their motives, the highly liberal tone which they always adopt, and the readiness which they invariably show in condemning anything like Tory corruption, there is primâ facie evidence that they cannot really be the same persons. I regard it to be my duty, as Leader of the House, to give all the information I can to its Members, and to suggest to them on all occasions the most practical means of securing the object they wish to attain. I would, then, suggest to my hon. Friend that a Select Committee might furnish a better mode of ascertaining the truth in this instance, than any information which I have it in my power to supply.

Sir, I rely upon the good feeling of the House and its love of fair play on both sides, to allow me to read a letter I addressed to the Lord Chancellor this morning, and which as I furnished a copy to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer I had hoped he would have read, and so saved me the trouble of making any explanation to the House. I perfectly agree with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bagge), that a man who would either give a bribe himself or wilfully and knowingly suffer a bribe to be given on his behalf, was not worthy to hold Her Majesty's Commission. The moment I saw the notice it struck me that the most honourable and manly course for me to pursue—and allow me to say that in following an honourable or manly course it is not necessary for me to take lessons in propriety from hon. Gentlemen opposite—was to immediately address the Lord Chancellor, and I accordingly wrote to his Lordship as follows:—

"House of Commons, March 19, 1867.

"My Lord,—I respectfully apply to your Lordship to order a full inquiry into my personal conduct as impugned in the Report of the Great Yarmouth Commissioners. I entertain the opinion that any man who would himself give a bribe, and knowingly or wilfully would enable, or would knowingly countenance bribery and corruption, commits a serious offence, and the fact that persons in high places may have been led into such an offence would not justify my honour or con, science did I feel myself fairly open to accusation. When the Commissioners first assembled, I think in August last, I volunteered to give evidence, but I regret to say that I was not called till October. I was my own voluntary accuser of an imprudence and indiscretion which I would rather exaggerate than excuse, and the blame of which I will not seek to lay at the door of others who might have protected me. In volunteering evidence, I felt it my duty in the public interest to assist the labours of the Commissioners, however far truth might compel me to inculpate myself; and I shall never regret the step I took, although it has enabled a more unjust and ungenerous report, which I challenge as contrary and in excess of the evidence as regards myself. The moment the Report was printed I drew up a notice for a further and a searching inquiry, but under the advice of friends, both in and out of the House, I postponed giving it. The discussion as to one of your Lordship's recent appointments has led to various notices en revanche, and although I might paas them by as factious and unworthy, I am impressed with the gravity of the question which lies behind; and therefore, in now respectfully applying to your Lordship, I beg to say that I shall refrain from acting as a magistrate until I learn your Lordship's decision.—I have the honour to remain, &c."

I think, Sir, the introduction of my name into this Question was totally uncalled for, The hon. Member for West Norfolk must be sufficiently well acquainted with the constitution of the House to know that I am a Member. With regard to the second part of the Question, as I am not in the Commission of the Peace I have nothing to do with it, and I cannot see what was the use of introducing my name into the Question. I think it is pretty well known that there must have been some peculiar motive which has induced the hon. Gentleman to put this Question upon the Paper.

rose to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, a further reduction of the Duty on Fire Insurances would have a tendency to bring within the protection of Insurance a large amount, of the present uninsured property of the Country, and that a further reduction of the Duty should therefore be made at the earliest opportunity."

He said: There was nothing contained in this Resolution that was new to the House. The House had on more than one occasion given its assent to Resolutions having for their object the reduction of the duty on fire insurance. In the course of the various discussions which had taken place on this subject in former years, the House had stated its opinion to be that if a considerable reduction in this duty were to be immediately effected great results to the revenue might be expected; and it had, under every circumstance, and notwithstanding the arguments used by those who opposed a reduction of the duty, affirmed the proposition that it was of consequence to the country that this duty should not remain at its present amount. He did not think that the House would require any apology from him for bringing this question before it at this time; as the only chance which he, or any independent Member of that House, had of obtaining a reduction of any particular duty was to submit for the consideration of the House, prior to the introduction of the general financial scheme of the Government, a Resolution of the nature he proposed. After the ample discussion the question had undergone in previous years, he should not think it necessary to repeat the figures and arguments which he had more that once submitted to the House. The House had invariably come to the conclusion that the duty was excessive, and could not on fiscal grounds be maintained; that it ought to be materially reduced, and that the reduction ought to be direct and immediate. He should then confine himself to a very brief statement of the arguments on which he and those who agreed with him generally relied for a reduction of the duty on fire insurance. He had the misfortune at the time to which he referred to come into conflict with the right hon. Gentleman who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), and who had large financial plans of his own for the amelioration of the burdens on the people of this country. Therefore no arguments that he (Mr. Sheridan) used could induce the right hon. Gentleman to look at a subsidiary question like this before he had accomplished his own great designs. But at length, yielding to the pressure of the House, the right hon. Gentleman consented to consider this question, and he proposed a reduction of a qualified character upon stock-in-trade. The objectors to the tax had invariably objected to the peculiar unfairness which characterized the levying of the duty. But having consented to a reduction to ls. 6d. on stock-in-trade, the right hon. Gentleman was induced, by a further Resolution of this House, to extend the reduction generally to all descriptions of property, and now the duty on all descriptions of insurable property stood at ls. 6d. per cent. It was entirely an experiment on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The persons who advocated the reduction had invariably urged that the duty should not be more than ls., many said 6d. was sufficient, and some indeed proposed 1d. The reduction to ls. 6d. was a great reduction, but it had brought about an increase in the amount insured of £145,000,000. If from that amount was deducted the increase which might naturally be expected from the increase of wealth in the country, some definite conclusion would be arrived at, The Report of the Inland Revenue showed there was an increase of £65,000,000 more than was to be expected under former circumstances. But it could not be expected that this small increase would satisfy the advocates of a reduction, for they held the belief that unless the reduction was made of a wide and sweeping character, no perceptible influence would be exercised on the revenue. Therefore, he maintained that the 1s. 6d. was an experiment rather than adopted in obedience to the wishes of this House. The country was still anxious for further reduction. The House had only to refer to the petitions presented to this House to satisfy themselves that such was the case. During some two or three years nearly 1,000 petitions were presented. There were 300 this Session alone. They were not the petitions of ordinary persons, who signed without distinctly understanding their nature; but the petitions of Town Councillors, merchants, magistrates, persons in official position, and generally taxpayers. No less than 466 petitions had been presented within the last two years from Chambers of Commerce and Town Councils under their corporate seal. Also from Insurance Companies and Agents. They all favoured the t object he had in view, and they favoured it mostly on this ground: that it was unlike any other tax in our fiscal system—it exhibited unfairness in a most unequivocal manner. It taxed one man and let off another. All other duties—on sugar, tea, tobacco, spirits—were different; in this instance the prudent and saving man was taxed, while the imprudent escaped. It was not a tax upon property, but upon a principle of action, upon the doctrine of insurance. Unlike other taxes, too, its effect was to weaken itself; because it taxed the man who desired to take care of property which was valuable, not only to himself, but to the country. If uninsured property was destroyed by fire the loser was often unable to pay either Imperial taxes or local rates, and might, indeed, sink from a thriving tradesman into a miserable pauper. The object of the Legislature should rather be to give a man a bonus to insure than levy a tax upon him for so doing. It should rather tax the man who did not insure. Property insured was of the greatest possible value—of as much value to the country almost as to the owner. It was a security for numberless taxes, for Government taxes, for metropolitan and other improvement rates, for poor rates, and other local burdens. It was so much realized wealth. There was no nation in Europe which imposed a tax of this kind like England. It was a tax upon an idea, a sentiment, an intention, an unfulfilled resolution, upon a desire to provide one's self against a terrible social calamity. It would be far better to tax the amount insured than the small deposits. Those deposits, in some cases, had been paid for over fifty years, and yet not the smallest result been gained; therefore he contended it was unjust to tax them. The tax upon insurance was a tax upon an idea, it was a tax upon a mere expectation that if property were insured against fire, something would be obtained for the money expended on insurance. But if no fire took place nothing would be obtained by the insurer. Mr. Newmarch said it would be just as sensible to tax a person who deposited, say, 1s. 6d. at a time in a money box to provide against a rainy day, as to tax a person who deposited money in an insurance office to provide against fire. It would be just as sensible to tax the inclination of a testator to leave a legacy as to impose a tax on insurers against fire. And if the Government must tax ideas, it would be better to tax vice rather than virtue. But it could never be contended that it was necessary for the support of the Government to put taxes upon prudence. This tax had been condemned by all writers on political economy, by the Insurance Companies and their agents, by public opinion, and by the press. He proposed nothing to alarm the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He merely said it was expedient a further reduction of duty should take place. He proposed to reduce the duty from 1s. 6d. to 1s. during the next year, commencing at the June quarter, and in the following year again to reduce 6d., leaving the duty a sixpenny duty. By the Report of the Commisioners of Inland Revenue it appeared that four quarters' receipts of the duty at 1s. 6d., up to September, 1866, had amounted to £989,673. If they took this as a basis of calculation, and assumed that subsequent receipts would be on the same scale, the calculation would stand thus:—A reduction to 1s. from the 25th of June 1867, would give: One quarter at present rate, from March to June, at 1s. 6d., £247,000; three quarters, from June to March, 1868, at 1s., £495,000. The natural increase was now £50,000; with reduced duty the increase would be £100,000. The receipts for the year ending March 1868, would be £842,000; that would entail a loss the first year of (in round numbers) £147,000. In the second year the first quarter would again be at the 1s. rate—namely, one quarter, from March to June 1868, at 1s., would produce £190,000; three quarters, from June to March 1869, at 6d., £285,000. Assume the increase to be from this reduction £100,000 more than the present increase at the unreduced rate, that would give £150,000; making the receipts for the year ending March 1869, £625,000. The loss in the two years would amount to £511,000. And it might be fairly estimated that the revenue would continue at that rate to increase steadily, until a larger amount than at present received was produced. He proposed to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, merely suggesting to him the propriety of reducing this tax from 1s. 6d. to 1s. per cent on the sum assured from the June quarter, and from 1s. to 6d. in the following year. Such a reduction would not only satisfy those who petitioned the House, but would gratify the general wishes of the country, whilst a great boon would be conferred upon—nay, simple justice would be done to—the insuring public.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had acted most consistently in bringing this question before the House, and he had done great good on former occasions by bringing it forward. He regretted, however, that the hon. Gentleman had brought the matter forward on this occasion; because, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, a Committee had recently been appointed to inquire into the whole of the system pursued by insurance companies, and as to the best means of securing property from fire. The property in the metropolis was worth £900,000,000. Only about one-third of that was insured. The insurance companies were the only parties who protected property in the metropolis. That cost them £25,000 a year. If the owners of the uninsured property could be induced to insure it, the insurance companies would then be able to expend £75,000 a year in protecting the property of the metropolis. He thought the Government ought to protect the property of the country against fire, as the French Government protected property in France. The French Government protected not only the property but the lives of the people against fire. Last year he believed there were 1,200 or 1,300 fires in the metropolis, attended with great loss of life! Therefore this was an important Imperial question, which materially affected the Government, and which must be carefully investigated by the Committee on Fires. They might as well put a tax on fenders and fireguards as upon insurances against fire. The insurance rate was so high that he had known cases in which it was found that the destruction of property by fire caused less outlay than the insurance of it would have cost. He spoke of farm buildings in his own county. The small amount of property insured in this country proved at once that there was something wrong in this tax. He thought the tax ought to be abolished altogether. Whatever it produced to the revenue, he thought it was a vicious tax. It would be as just to tax the arms by which a man defended his life, as to tax insurance against fire. The loss of life by fire in the metropolis and in many large towns was lamentable; and he thought the Government, as in great cities abroad, ought to be the parties to whom the people should look for protection against fire instead of actually making a profit out of insurance. This question had always been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman with great ability, and he had always supported him. Still, he could not but think that it was not opportune so soon after the appointment of the Committee on Fires to have brought it forward now, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not ask the House to divide.

said, he was not only opposed to the duty on fire insurance, but also to the duty on marine insurance. He would venture to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, not because the subject required investigation, but because it had been so often investigated. He thought the obnoxious nature of this tax had been fully acknowledged by public men on both sides of the House, and the House itself had repeatedly expressed a wish for its abolition. The total abolition of the tax was a mere question of time. It was due, however, to the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that at this moment the proposal should not be forced upon him. He could not doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was exceedingly desirous of meeting every fair claim, and of redressing every grievance that might be brought tinder his notice. Not long since the right hon. Gentleman had yielded to the representations of Irish Members in reference to the extension of time for the repayment of loans to Irish railways; and no doubt in the matter of the tax on insurance he would be equally ready to listen to the views that might be pressed upon him.

Sir, my hon. Friend who has just sat down has made an appeal to the hon. Member for Dudley to withdraw his Motion, and has founded that appeal upon the conviction he entertains that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make provisions for complying with the wish which the hon. Member says this House has repeatedly expressed that the tax upon insurance shall not continue. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is accurate in his declaration that the House has more than once expressed a desire for a reduction of this tax. I do not think such an opinion has been expressed since the reduction of the tax to 1s. 6d. I shall be glad if the hon. Member for Dudley withdraws his Motion; and the opinion that I shall express in reference to the tax is not one which ought to deter him from that course. I would object to any Motion the effect of which would be to fetter the discretion of the House in forming its impartial judgment when the revenue and Estimates are before us, as to whether we have any means of granting remissions, and if so, what those remissions should be. Both in office and out of office I have uniformly contended for that principle. It is a very disagreeable office which the Finance Minister has to perform, in interfering with the very natural, reasonable, and often very legitimate desires of hon. Gentlemen with regard to particular taxes. That Minister has to hear many representations of grievances, those who come to him caring only for their own particular grievances; and, as happened at the doors of Westminster Hall on Monday morning, those who came to hear the Minister tried to outrun each other, and none of them cared what became of those who were left behind. I do not wish that the repeal of this tax should depend upon the energy or activity of the Members who are the advocates of such repeals; but that it should depend in part upon the judgment of the Government, who must take the initiative, and supremely upon the judgment of the House. To make it satisfactory to the country it is in general necessary, though there may be cases of exception under extraordinary circumstances, that that judgment should be formed by the House when it has the opportunity of considering at once and comprehensively the whole state of the finances, and of balancing one claim against another. Upon that ground I hope that the House will not accede to the Motion. In any case, I feel it my duty to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the discharge of a disagreeable duty, from which I understand he does not intend to shrink. The principal error—if he will forgive the for using the term respecting one who has so deeply studied the question—into which I think the hon. Member for Dudley has fallen, is, that if the tax were reduced the revenue would be recovered through the augmentation in the number of insurances. That, I contend, is an entire delusion. The reduction of taxes on articles of consumption affecting the masses of the people enormously widens the field of consumption; and we know from experience that those reductions—great as they have been—result in a positive increase of revenue even on the article itself. The Customs revenue of the pre- sent year—after the vast operations performed on it—will be almost larger than in former years. But this is not true with respect to taxes upon property. I know no case in which loss caused by the reduction of taxes upon property has been recovered. Let us not, therefore, entertain expectations that cannot be realized, but look to the case as it stands. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has distinctly shown to us two things: first of all, that this is a tax upon property; and secondly, that it is a bad tax upon property. Still, in the present relative position of the taxes upon property and upon labour, it is a serious matter to abandon taxes upon property without obtaining compensation from other taxes upon property. I own, and I will even urge, that the tax upon insurance demands, upon the first convenient opportunity, the consideration of the Government; and that the object of that consideration should be, in the first place, to reduce that tax itself to a point so low that it cannot be a sensible restraint upon insurance. We might, perhaps, meet the objection to relieving property from taxation while taxes press so heavily upon labour which has so much higher claims to reduction by finding another means of taxing property in lieu of it—means that would be equal instead of unequal. It should not be a tax upon the virtue of prudence, but should be entirely independent of it, leaving that virtue to operate thoroughly in its own field. We should leave the whole community to insure their buildings, and everything requiring to be insured, I will not say without a tax, because our condition requires us to tax those transactions of trade and industry that are the life and vigour of the community. I would not, therefore, propose a total exemption, for that would strike at the root of the whole system of taxes, with which we cannot dispense; but we might go down to something so near the nature of a nominal rate as to make insurance easy, but couple with it the condition that we ought not to make that the opportunity for relieving property, the taxes upon which at this moment are anything but extravagant, and which have been lightened by the reduction of the income tax. Leaving property to bear its burdens, we should accede when possible to the reduction of the tax to a low point, analogous to some of the small taxes which are so low that they do not interfere with the transactions to which they relate, I strongly support the Go- vernment in refusing to give a pledge that will fetter the future discretion of the House, while I hope that in a proper manner, and in conjunction with other collateral arrangements, the existence of this tax, with the evils it produces, will receive the early attention of those competent to deal with it.

said, he should support the Motion, the adoption of which he thought would induce a larger number of persons whose property was now uninsured to provide against losses which would result from fire. He did not see that there was any difficulty in the way of the Government giving a pledge that at as early a period as possible the tax would be reduced. He considered the tax immoral, injurious, and intolerable, and could not long rest on its present footing.

said, he should support the Motion. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) had to contend with the usual obstacle which beset private Members when pleading for the remission or reduction of a duty—the inconvenience which the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being would be sure to insist would result from choosing so inopportune a time for the proposal. But for the perseverance of the hon. Member for Dudley, there would have been no reduction of the duty. He was right in enforcing the consideration of the subject again on the House; because, from the reduction having been insufficient, the question had not had a fair trial. The effect of the tax at the present time was that a vast amount of property was uninsured; the owners being deterred from insuring by the excessive tax they would have to pay for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had stated that he had never known a case in which the reduction of a tax upon property had been followed by recovery; but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the case of the income tax. When a high rate prevailed there was a great amount of evasion of the tax; but when the rate was lowered a greater amount in proportion was received.

Sir, I do not intend to enter into the merits of the question, and I must reserve my opinion upon it until flu proper time arrives; but I must ask tin House to support me in resisting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that it is extremely incon- venient, and I think disadvantageous to the public service, that upon the eve of a statement of the general condition of the finances of the country, and the consequences of that condition, the House should be called upon to pledge itself to a Resolution of this kind, which must not only be a source of great embarrassment to the Minister, but also to the House. The House has had experience of the in convenience of Resolutions of this general character—as, for example, that in regard to the income tax; and I trust the House, recollecting that, will not sanction further a course which every one connected with the finances has found to be inconvenient. The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of placing before the House his views upon the matter. It is a question which he completely understands, and always expounds with great ability; and if, after mature consideration, the House should agree with him, it will be due to the information which he has placed before them, and which may influence their judgment. But what I ask the House to do is, that they should keep themselves perfectly free as to the course which they may see fit to sanction when they are in complete possession of the financial condition of the country. It is said that the House may, by waiting for the financial statement, lose the opportunity of expressing its opinion on what should be the financial policy of the Government. That, however, hardly applies to existing circumstances. When the statement is placed before the House it will have sufficient power to control any course which it may think fit to suggest. Such course will depend upon the wisdom and expediency of the recommendations which I may offer. I trust therefore the hon. Gentleman will not press his Resolution to a division. As I do not wish to give any opinion upon the merits of the question which has been brought before us, I must, if the hon. Gentleman does not yield to the requests of his friends and supporters, move the Previous Question.

said, he could quite understand the argument which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the House. It was the usual argument which was addressed by Gentlemen placed in his position who did not like the House to make any suggestions to them as regarded the disposal of their surplus finance. He quite differed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that there was anything in this Resolution which could be construed into an embarrassment. The Resolution was nothing more than the expression of an opinion that a further reduction of the fire insurance duty would be very desirable. There could be nothing in such a Resolution which would dictate to the right hon. Gentleman. He had to congratulate the House upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who had to-night frankly admitted for the first time that this was a tax which could not be defended on any sound principle, and which ought not to be maintained if there could be any mode devised by which it could be reasonably got rid of. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley), in a speech at Kings Lynn made on the 20th of October, said the worst tax beyond exception which we had was that on fire insurance; that it discouraged prudence and encouraged gambling. Fortified by such an opinion as this, and believing that there was nothing whatever in the Resolution which had to do with the position of hon. Members on either side of the House, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon the Resolution which he had moved.

Sir, I rise to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to Turnpike, Trusts. In attempting to legislate upon this question, I know that I am undertaking a task which is not unattended with difficulty—there are so many conflicting interests to satisfy, so many different opinions to reconcile, that no man could hope to frame a measure which would not necessarily be subject to much criticism and munch opposition. Moreover, this is a subject which would more fitly be dealt with by the Government of the day than by a private Member; and it is not until I had ascertained by inquiry from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) that there was but little probability of his dealing with it during the present Session, that I ventured to give that notice for which I now bespeak the kind indulgence of the House. And, perhaps, it will be well to clear the way at the outset by the remark, which will be easily understood by those who are conversant with the subject, that the Bill which I shall have the honour to propose will in no way affect the interests either of Ireland, or of Scotland, or of South Wales. Ireland, indeed, is a step in advance of England in this matter; since the year 1857 her tolls have been abolished, and the repairs of her roads borne by the rates of counties and baronies. Scotland has a system of valuation of her own, differing from that of England; and if any alteration in her road laws is required, it may safely be left to her own representatives, who have always shown themselves so competent to manage Scotch legislation. And as to South Wales having courted legislation by a series of popular protests against turnpike tolls, which are known by the name of the Rebecca riots, South Wales has been since the year 1844 under a Consolidation Act, by which the extinction of her debt was provided for by an advance out of the Consolidated Fund, repayable by Terminable Annuities of thirty years. It is therefore with England and North Wales alone that I have to do. I have to show that the present system is a bad system, and further, that the alterations which I propose may be adopted to the advantage of the public without being attended with such hardship or injustice to localities as would, in any material degree, neutralize or counterbalance such advantage. Now, Sir, that the present system is a bad system is an opinion which, rightly or wrongly, has been entertained by Parliament for the last thirty years, so far as Parliament has expressed any opinion upon the subject. I can hardly sum up the objections better than in the words of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1836. They say—

"The great proportion of the witnesses appear nearly unanimous in their testimony that the system of exacting toll from the public for the use of the roads is vexatious and expensive in the collection, by the number of collectors and tollgates kept up, and from a combination occasionally found amongst the lessees of such toll-gates in the vicinity of large towns, by which, in some instances, time fair equivalent in rent is not obtained by the trustees." "Where great towns are not found, the chief burden of the toll seems to fall upon the landholder and the inhabitants of the neighbourhood; and whilst they are paying more in tolls than they would probably pay in some other manner if the system were altered, they find their property in houses and land deteriorated in value from the impediments to a free intercourse of commodities arising from tolls."

This Committee was of opinion that "the abolition of tolls throughout the Kingdom would be beneficial to the community," and this opinion was fully endorsed by the Committee which sat in 1864, under the Chairmanship of the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (whose name is with my own on the back of the present Bill), and which summed up its opinion upon the point in these words—

"Tolls appear to your Committee to be un equal in pressure, costly in collection, inconvenient to the public, and injurious as causing a serious impediment to intercourse and traffic."

Now, Sir, if I took these words for my text it would be easy for me to found upon them a somewhat lengthy argument. But it will probably be more convenient to the House that I should assume, for the moment, that the opinion of these Committees, adverse to the present system, is a correct opinion; that I should endeavour to state, as clearly as I can, the present condition of the question, the alterations which I propose, and the advantages which I believe would be derived from those alterations. The House will, of course, be aware that the great majority of turnpike trusts have their origin in local Acts passed within the last century, limited at first for a term of years, and subsequently renewed by Parliament from time to time. In the year 1850, when the system was in a state of great confusion, an Act was passed which enabled the Home Secretary, on receiving from the trustees of any trust notification of the consent of two-thirds of the mortgagees, to issue a provisional order, reducing the rate of interest and extinguishing arrears. This has been done in the case of upwards of 160 trusts; but there are many cases which, the consent of the mortgagees not having been either asked or obtained, will not come within the power of the Home Secretary until their Acts expire. You may, in fact, divide the turnpike trusts of England and North Wales into two divisions—1, those whose local Acts have not expired, or have been renewed; 2, these whose local Acts, having expired, are continued by the Animal Continuance Act. And, again, there is another important division which may be made—namely, trusts in debt and trusts out of debt. Now, Sir, the arrangement of the Annual Continuance Act is to my mind not a very satisfactory part of the duties of the Home Office. There is no definite principle clearly laid down to guide the decision as to which Acts shall be continued and which shall be inserted in the schedule of the Act to expire on the 1st November in the then next year. The consequence is that one Home Secretary, taking a different view from another, and acting upon a different principle, the operation of the law is uncertain, and therefore unequal and unfair. When I had the honour of succeeding Mr. Baring, the present Lord Northbrook, as Under Secretary at the Home Office last year, I found that this subject was one which had been intrusted to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth, and I succeeded to the charge. To this and to every other question with which he had to deal Mr. Baring brought that acuteness of intellect and careful attention which I venture to say constituted him a valuable public servant. He had sat upon the Select Committee of 1864, and, acting in the spirit of the Report of that Committee, had turned his attention particularly to the cases of those trusts which, being out of debt, were annually continued. Early in February last year a circular was sent from the Home Office to all trusts which were out of debt, asking in each case full particulars of the circumstances of the trust, and whether there were any special reasons for its continuance. It fell to my lot to receive and consider the answers returned to these circulars. Now, Sir, the number of trusts, according to the last statement of turnpike income and expenditure in possession of the House—that for the year ending 31st December, 1864—had been 1,055 at that period. In the schedule prepared by Mr. Baring in 1865, eighteen trusts had been marked for abolition, freeing from tolls 476 miles of road. This left 1,037 trusts, of which 534 were under the operation of the Annual Continuance Act, and 114 of this number were trusts out of debt, to which the Home Office Circulars applied. Having obtained the consent of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Department to the principle upon which I proposed to act, I carefully considered each case, and finally inserted in the schedule for abolition 83 out of the 114. Out of 420 trusts in debt, I found special circumstances which enabled me to place in the schedule upwards of forty more, so that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had maintained last year's schedule in its integrity, the 1st of next November would have seen the termination of about 130 trusts, freeing from tolls some 3,000 miles of road, and only leaving in existence thirty-one trusts out of debt, which number might shortly have been further reduced. From information reaching me from different parts of the country, I am induced to believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has materially diminished this schedule. I do not presume to blame him—he may be right and I may have been wrong—the utmost I should be inclined to say of him is, that I fear that in listening to the representations of trustees and of persons fearing an increase of rates in their parishes, he has evinced a tender-heartedness, admirable in an individual, but sometimes inconvenient in the management of a great public Department. I will not weary the House with individual instances which have come to my knowledge, but I will quote one as a sample of the whole. I take the case of the Devizes trust. This trust is twenty-seven miles in length. In 1865 its debt was reduced from £700 to 2500. The property of the trust was carefully valued at £595, sufficient of itself to have extinguished the debt, and responsible people in Devizes were ready to guarantee the trustees indemnity for any loss to be sustained by the removal of the toll-gates. The trust was inserted in the schedule of 1865; but, at the instance of the hon. Member for Devizes, it was re-inserted in the Continuance Act of that year. Having most fully considered the case, I again placed it in last year's schedule, and I believe all parties would have acquiesced in such an arrangement. Now, if the trustees had come to Parliament for a new Bill, those who desired the abolition of the trust would have had an opportunity of being heard against the Bill, and I venture to say the Bill could not have been obtained. But, instead of this being the case, I understand that the Home Secretary, listening to representations from I know not whom, has again inserted this trust in the Continuance Act. Now, Sir, I instance the case of this trust, because I venture to say that there are no arguments to be advanced in favour of its continuance further than those general arguments of persons who are the advocates of the present system and who dread the increase of rates, so that if the right hon. Gentleman has spared this trust, there is no reason why he should not equally spare the great majority of those which were scheduled last year. Again, I say that I do not presume to blame the right hon. Gentleman for acting upon a different principle from those who preceded him. I am only pointing out the uncertain operation of the law; and in justification of my own course, I will merely refer to the concluding words of the Report of the Committee of 1864, where, after referring to the case of trusts out of debt, they proceed to say—

"Your Committee suggest that such trusts should be excluded from the operation of the Continuance Act, and be obliged to come to Parliament for a renewal of their Acts."

But, Sir, if the Home Secretary had maintained last year's schedule in its integrity, there would have still remained the necessity for legislation. And, no doubt, it would be most desirable, if it were possible, that we should deal simultaneously with all turnpike trusts. But before I state to the House the proposals which I shall venture to make in this direction, it is necessary that I should say a few words upon the state of the income and expenditure of these trusts. I find that the income of turnpike trusts from all sources amounted in the year ending the 31st December, 1864, to £1,037,000. The expenditure in the same year was £1,017,000, of which £147,000 had been employed in paying off debt, and £120,000 in paying the interest of debt. Now, Sir, I put plainly before the House one of the immense evils of the present system of this expenditure, to meet which the public has to endure this inconvenient tax. The amount which goes in collection and management is variously estimated at from 30 to 50 per cent on the revenue. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but from all the information I have been able to obtain, I believe I may safely estimate this expense at an average throughout the country of 40 per cent. You have the salaries of clerks, treasurers, and surveyors. You have the cost of maintaining, lighting, and repairing toll-gates, and keeping a staff of collectors. You have legal charges and the great periodical expense of renewals, and you have also, in the many cases in which tolls are let, that which it is impossible to estimate accurately, and which is beyond this estimate—namely, the profit of the lessee. He must have a profit, and that profit must come out of the pocket of the public. Then, Sir, I say that on the grounds of public economy alone, if I went no further, the turnpike trust system stands condemned. But apart from the expense of collection and management, the House must not suppose that the remaining expenditure is devoted to, and is sufficient for, the neces- sary repairs of roads and the payment of debt. The conditions and circumstances of trusts vary greatly. Some trusts, no doubt, are annually paying off some portion—often a very small portion—of their debt. Some, without hope of doing this, have their income absorbed in the payment of establishment charges and interest of debt, whilst the repairs of their roads are even now borne by the parishes. Some trusts, I am afraid, keep up a nominal debt for the sake of obtaining a place in the Continuance Act; and a considerable number, although in debt, actually spend in improvements money which ought to go towards the liquidation of that debt. The House will be surprised to learn that out of 187 trusts, which employed a portion of their income in improvements in the year 1864, no less than 151 were actually in debt at the time of so doing, and of this number eighty trusts, or more than half, paid off not 1d. of principal debt during the year. No doubt, the application of a general principle to these trusts is not an easy task. The complications and varieties of the system, whilst they render its alteration desirable, infinitely increase the difficulty of effecting that alteration by any uniform and simultaneous act of legislation. But, Sir, supposing that we agreex2014;as I hope the House will agree—that alteration is necessary, there are two great difficulties which always stare us in the face—first, the alleged hardship of throwing upon individual parishes the repairs of roads which were originally constructed for through traffic, and not for local traffic; and secondly, the debt. With permission of the House, I will deal with the debt first. I find that the turnpike debt in England and North Wales amounted in the year 1837, in round numbers, to £7,000,000. In 1860, it, was £4,688,000, and in 1864, the total amount of debt was about £4,500,000. But for floating debt, balances due to treasurers, and a large sum of unpaid interest which cannot be fairly called debt, and would infallibly be extinguished by the orders of the Secretary of State, as the Acts expired, I strike off at once £500,000, and I take the actual amount of bonded debt in the year 1864 to have been about £4,000,000. As the Returns of income and expenditure for 1865 and 1866 are not, and cannot yet be, in our possession, I am unable to state the precise amount of the debt at the close of last year; but as I find that the average annual amount of debt paid off during the six years ending the 31st December, 1864, was about £135,000, I shall not be far wrong if I estimate the debt on the 31st December, 1866, to have been about £3,700,000; and as the marketable value of the debt, upon an average throughout the country, certainly does not exceed 70 per cent, I take the actual marketable value to be from £2,500,000 to £2,600,000 at the present time. Now, what is the condition of the mortgagees and bondholders? I speak the more feelingly, but also the more freely, as being myself one of that honourable fraternity. I am sure that this House would always wish to deal tenderly with persons who had invested their money upon anything like the faith of Parliamentary security. But what is our position? Some of us, no doubt, have advanced our money because we thought it a good investment, and had faith in the continuance of the system. Many of us, or our fathers before us, advanced money in order that our own estates and neighbourhoods might be improved by the making of good roads, and from such roads we have received a very considerable benefit. But all, wisely or unwisely, invested their money in that which they knew clearly at the time to be in law a terminable security—all have had fair warning for the last thirty years of the spirit in which Parliament was likely to regard this question, and I say that we should do wrong if by our legislation we attempted to give an increased or fictitious I value to a debt which in very many instances is of exceedingly small value. You might almost as well propose to compensate those who have invested their money in coaches and roadside inns, the value of whose property has been so much deteriorated by the introduction of railroads. Besides, Sir, we are bound to consider what would be the position of the bondholders, and what their prospect of payment, if we were not to legislate at all upon the subject. Comparatively few of them could ever hope to receive any considerable portion of their principal; as the Acts expire, their trusts would come under the control of the Secretary of State, their interest would inevitably be reduced, their arrears of interest extinguished, and their fate would be uncertain at best. I ant always most unwilling to trouble the House with derails and statistics; but, as this is one of the main difficulties of the question, I have taken infinite pains to analyse closely the condition of these trusts, so that the House and the country might have clearly before them the varying, different, and uncertain value of this debt with which we have to deal. I find that in 2 counties the average rate of interest is 5 per cent. In 10 counties it is 4, but less than 5. In 25 counties 3 per cent up to 3½ per cent, and in 9 counties it is less than 3 per cent. This exhausts the 46 counties of England and North Wales. I find that out of 873 trusts which were in debt in the year 1864, only 431 paid off any portion, and some a very small portion, of the principal of their debt during that year; 442 paid off no principal at all. Of these 873 trusts, representing £4,000,000 of bonded debt, I find that 316 trusts, representing £1,616,000, paid 3 per cent, or less than 3 per cent interest; of which 143 trusts, representing £768,000, paid 2 per cent, and less than 2 per cent; of the remaining trusts, representing something less than £2,400,000, as many as 229, representing upwards of £900,000, paid 5 per cent; and, at first sight, this would, of course, appear to be good property. But when you look closely into their condition, you will find that only 67 of these trusts, representing £260,000 (and this includes a Middlesex trust representing adebt of above £57,000), paid off any principal either in 1863 or 1864; the remaining 162, representing debt of £650,000, paid off, and were likely to pay off, no principal whatever. Their high interest, therefore, affords little criterion of their real marketable value, and when their trusts expire it would at once be reduced by order of the Secretary of State. The question seriously arises whether, if the present system is admitted to be inconvenient and vexatious, Parliament will for ever maintain that system in order to secure the interest of their money to persons who have invested that money in a terminable security, and can never hope to receive their principal. It is very well to deal tenderly with individuals; but, after all, it is justice to the public which should guide our legislation. And now, Sir, I come to the second difficulty—namely, the hardship to individual parishes if the repairs of the turnpike roads within them were to fall upon them. Sir, it was the opinion of the Committee of 1861 that, to obviate this hardship, there should be an extension of the area of rating. But that Committee, whilst unanimous in this recommendation, failed to agree upon any specific area. For my own part, I do not scruple to say that I think the best and simplest solution of the question would be to make the Highway Act of 1862 compulsory, and to put the repairs of all roads, highway and turnpike, upon the district fund of the highway district to which they belong. The whole district benefits by good roads, and, to my mind, the system of parochial management of roads is the system of a bygone age. Sir, when the Highway Act of 1862 was passed, I was strongly of opinion that the proper course to pursue was to make the new highway districts coterminous with the union districts, with a power of subdivision where necessary. You had a staff of officers already at work—you had a place of meeting ready to your hand—you had a combination to which parishes had become accustomed—and I believe this course would have increased the popularity as well as the efficiency of the measure. But the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) was of a different opinion; Parliament decided otherwise, and we have to deal with things as they are. I know that the proposal to make the Highway Act compulsory under existing circumstances would create touch opposition. I scarcely venture to propose it upon my own responsibility; but if the Government should give their sanction, and if I perceived an indication of the opinion of the House in this direction, I should be perfectly ready to engraft it upon the Bill, which I think it would simplify and render more efficacious. I may mention that the Highway Act, according to the Return of 1865, was then in force in 35 counties, or parts of counties, in England, and one in Wales, comprising upwards of 300 districts, and a very large mileage of road. Sir, I do propose that, wherever the Highway Act is in force, the repairs of these roads should be placed upon the common fund of each district. And where the Highway Act is not in force, if it is right that the parishes should any longer escape their common law liability to repair the roads within them, I do not think it ought to be by means of the wasteful and inconvenient system of turnpike tolls. Let us look the matter fairly in the face. The evidence taken before your Select Committee goes to prove that, in the vast majority of cases, the through traffic upon these roads has sunk into comparative insignificance since the introduction and multiplication of railroads. These roads now practically ex- ist for the purposes of local traffic, and those who pay the tolls are the same persons as those who pay the rates—namely, the owners and occupiers of the district. Then, if I have shown you that the expense of turnpike toll collection and management is enormous, is it worth while to continue this expense for the sake of the very small benefit which is derived from through traffic, that is to say, from the payment of tolls by persons who are strangers and not ratepayers in the parishes? Is it worth while to keep up, side by side in the same locality, a double set of officials—a double expense for practically the same object, and an irresponsible instead of a representative management? For bear in mind, that as soon as you shift this burden from the tolls to the rates, you apply the principle of representation following taxation, and you give to the parishes a power and an interest in the control of expenditure which they do not now possess. But, Sir, it is frequently urged, as an argument in favour of the present system, that those who use the roads should pay for them. I respectfully submit that this is a result which is not obtained under the system of toll-gates. I say nothing of the fact that all those who walk equally use the roads and pay nothing; but a very large percentage of the riding and driving public constantly evade tolls by means of lanes and byways, and whilst the expenses of parishes which have to repair such lanes and byways is thereby increased, you cannot, by possibility, place your toll-gates in such a position as to render the incidence of this tax just and equal. Besides, if the argument is worth anything, that those who use the roads should pay for their maintenance, it is equally applicable to the case of highways; and yet every person who rides or drives is using highways, to the repairs of which he contributes nothing, the very moment that he passes the boundary of the parish in which he happens to live and to be rated. It must also be borne in mind that the existence of a good road must, more or less, benefit a parish and improve the value of its property. In many instances, too, these turnpike roads were originally highways, and in all such cases the parishes would only be reverting to that common law liability from which they have for many years been relieved at the expense of the public. But, Sir, it is said that great injustice will arise in the case of roads in the vicinity of large towns—of coal-mines, of ironworks, and of manufac- turing establishments, whose heavy traffic will tear up the roads which country parishes will have to repair. It must not, however, be forgotten that the very existence of such places is of enormous advantage to the neighbouring parishes—supplying their local wants, employing their surplus labour, and immensely improving the value of their property. In many instances, too, the increase of railway accommodation has removed or lessened the heavy traffic complained of; and, acknowledging as I do that there may be some cases of hardship, where through traffic from town to town really exists, or from other particular circumstances, I propose to give power to the justices in quarter sessions to grant contributions from the county rate in aid of the rates of any parish or parishes which shall appear to them to be unduly enhanced by the operation of this Act. Sir, I have prepared a summary of the Bill which I propose to introduce, and perhaps it will be a convenient course that I should now read it to the House. First, I propose that all trusts out of debt, excepting those which are scheduled to expire on the 1st November in the present year, shall expire on the 1st November, 1868. I propose that, where the Highway Act is in force, the repairs of the roads within the district, and the debt, where debt exists, shall be charged upon the district fund, with power given to maintain toll-gates daring the continuance of the trust, the proceeds being firstly applicable to the expenses of such gates, and the liquidation of debt as hereinafter provided. Where the Highway Act is not in force, I propose that the repairs shall be borne by the parishes, as is the case under the existing law, according to the mileage of road in each parish, with power to justices in quarter sessions to contribute from the county rate in aid of the rates of any parish which shall appear to them to be unduly enhanced by the operation of this Act. Then, with respect to the termination of trusts now in debt. The trustees of trusts whose Acts have expired, and of other trusts when their Acts expire, shall endeavour at once to make an arrangement with the creditors of the trust, and communicate the result to the Home Secretary on or before the 1st March, 1868, in the first case, and in other cases, on or before the 1st March in the year following the expiration of the trust—notice of the proposed arrangement to be advertised in at least one newspaper circulating in the district, prior to the transmission to the Secretary of State. This is to give the local authorities and the public an opportunity of objecting if they please. If such arrangement is approved by the Secretary of State, he shall forthwith, but not before the 31st March (so as to give time to any objecting party to represent his objections to the Secretary of State), issue an order confirming the same, fixing a date for the termination of the trust, authorizing the continuance of toll-gates upon the conditions stated above, in cases where an annual sum is to be paid to the creditors, and stating such sum, or, otherwise, stating the sum agreed upon to be paid in full discharge of the principal of the debt. In cases where the Highway Act is not in force, the order is to apportion the debt among the parishes of the trust according to the rateable value of each parish, and the income of the tolls in like proportion. Where no arrangement is announced to the Secretary of State on or before the 1st of March, he is to ascertain the marketable value of the debt, and to issue an order as above, naming an annual sum to be paid to the creditors during the existence of the trust. In all cases the basis of any such sum shall be the average surplus revenue which, during the three years ending December 31st, 1866, shall have been annually applicable to the payment of interest and principal of debt. Upon the issue of any such order of the Secretary of State, the duties and powers of the trustees are at once to terminate, and the trusts and trust property to be transferred to the local authorities. "Local authorities" I interpret to mean highway districts, where such exist, Local improvement Boards, and parish vestries in other places. No order shall extend the duration of any trust beyond the term of ten years from the 1st November, 1868, and those trusts whose Acts extend beyond such term are not to be extended beyond the limit of their present Acts. Then I give power to local authorities to borrow money to pay off debts; or if the debt can be extinguished by voluntary subscriptions or sale of property, prior to the date named for the expiration of the trusts, to obtain a certificate of the fact from the Secretary of State, and to remove toll-bars. The only other clause with which I need trouble the House is that which relates to compensation of officers. Last year I received at the Home Office a large deputation upon this subject, and, after much consideration, I agreed to insert in the Continuance Act a clause giving power to trustees who, upon the termination of their trust, should have balances in their hand, to compensate at their discretion any clerks or surveyors whose offices were about to be abolished, provided that such officers should have served for ten consecutive years before the expiration of the trust, and that the amount of compensation should in no case exceed the amount of three or four (I forget the exact figure) years' salary. When the right hon. Gentleman came to the Home Office, he declined to adopt this clause, which he had not sufficiently considered. But when the Bill was before the House, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) moved my clause in Committee, and, after some discussion, it was carried by the unanimous vote of the House. It was, however, lost in the other House; and I now propose to introduce it in this I Bill, giving to the trustees, with consent of the Secretary of State, power to compensate, in the same manner, and under the same conditions. I hope the House will see clearly the principle upon which I desire to act, I wish at first to court an amicable arrangement of the debt at once between trustees and mortgagees, and I bring in the Secretary of State to see that the public is not wronged in any such arrangement. Failing such arrangement, I bring him in as the arbiter between the two parties. Under the present law he has this power practically at his option when the trusts expire, and I desire to enforce and expedite his action. Of course, the details of the measure, if I am allowed to introduce it, will be better understood when the Bill is printed. The first great advantage which I anticipate is the reduction in all cases, and the abolition in many, of the enormous expense of collection and management. Then, by dispensing with the necessity of an annual Continuance Act, we shall get rid of the element of uncertainty, and persons interested in trusts will know for certain the date at which the trust will positively expire. I have fixed the date beyond which trusts may not be continued at ten years from the 1st of November, 1868, but in most cases I hope a much shorter time will be sufficient. I may state for the information of the House, that, setting aside a few trusts which may have been renewed during the last two or three years, there are 311 trusts, limited as to time, whose Acts have not yet expired, and of these all but twenty-one will have expired before November 1st, 1878. So that any inconvenience to localities from the circumstance of one trust being abolished whilst an adjoining one remains, will decrease year by year, and in a dozen years' time will be almost entirely at an end. I will not detain the House with allusions to other schemes which have been proposed for dealing with this question. There are great objections made to the proposal to charge these burdens upon the county rates, and I do not think that Parliament would sanction an attack upon the Consolidated Fund. If Parliament should agree to this Bill I believe it would be found to work well. If I have not sufficiently dwelt upon the disadvantages of the present system, it has been from a sincere desire not to weary the House with matter which any Member may collect for himself from the Reports of our Select Committees. The Committee of 1836 condemned the present system. The Committee of 1864 confirmed that condemnation, and dimly shadowed forth some portions of a future arrangement. I venture to go one step further, and to propose a definite plan. If the Government and the House should think it best to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, it will not be for me to raise any objection. I have endeavoured to state my views to the House clearly and intelligibly, and if I have presumed too much in dealing with this subject as a private Member, I can assure the House that my sole motive has been to promote, so far as I might be able, such a settlement of the question as may tend to the public advantage. He moved for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, it was exceedingly difficult to determine fairly how roads should be repaired. It must be either by rate or by tolls, and rates were most popular, because it was always most agreeable to put your hands into the pockets of others. No doubt, the principle of tolls was that every person should pay for that which he had, and in that view tolls were more just than rates. If a system of tolls could be devised for London, it would be more just than throwing the burden of the maintenance of the roads on the inhabitants; but practical reasons prevented it. Where difficulties could be obviated, tolls were in many cases preferable. In the district with which he was connected the system worked with great satisfaction. The tolls could be collected every seven miles, and persons did not feel that they paid more than they ought to pay. The hon. Gentleman had approached this subject much more effectually than the Committee. He objected to a Committee condemning a system while they dimly shadowed forth a remedy. There were some difficulties connected with the plan recommended. For instance, it would be a troublesome office for the quarter sessions to decide the amount of subventions from the county rate to be applied to a particular parish. Again, there would be objections to the continuance of tolls to pay off debts and the yearly gate expenses, and not for the maintenance of the roads which for the time would fall on the parishes. He had some experience of the "Rebecca" riots in Wales, one of the causes of which was the levying of tolls for debts, and not for the repair of the roads; and such an arrangement would be very difficult to manage with satisfaction. The system adopted in Wales, which did not, however, involve the total abolition of tolls, worked extremely well, and he should be glad to see it extended. No doubt all payments were excessively disagreeable. It was a very serious matter to impose a rate of 4d. in the pound in many parishes, as they might know, for if they attempted to impose 1d. or 2d. on the income tax, such a proposition would endanger the Government. The problem was in some way to provide that the persons who used the roads should pay more than those who did not use them. In the Isle of Man there were no gates, and the roads were maintained by a tax on wheels; but such a solution of the problem might not be feasible in this country.

said, the hon. Gentleman had earned the gratitude of the House by the way in which he had attempted to grapple with the subject. Nothing could be worse than the present state of the law, under which turnpikes were yearly dying out, and grievous burdens were being inflicted on some parishes, for, although much through traffic had been diverted by railways, there remained a vast amount of traffic between country towns. In the county of Norfolk there was only one highway district, and the ratepayers were endeavouring at the next sessions to extricate their necks from the ropes cast around them. He objected to permissive Bills, believing that what was good ought to be enforced on the country. He would go so far as to say that all the roads in a district should be made chargeable to a common fund, just as the poor were chargeable to the common fund of a union.

said, he joined in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this measure, which showed that he understood the subject, and had mastered its details, though he was inclined to think that he rather underrated the difficulty of the task which he had undertaken. He believed that when they got into Committee upon the Bill there would be raised many objections which it would be very difficult to meet. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was a member of the Committee of 1864, and he found the difficulties of the question to be very much greater than he had anticipated, and that was the reason why, whilst the Committee condemned the present system, they found it impossible to arrive at a decision as to what should be the remedy. Permissive legislation was objectionable as casting odium on those by whom it was carried out. He thought that it would be extremely objectionable to keep up the tolls at the same time that the cost of repairing the roads was cast upon the parish. He also thought that it would be found impracticable for the quarter sessions to grant rates in aid to particular parishes. He looked forward with great interest to know what were the precise provisions of the Bill, and should be sincerely glad if the matter could be successfully dealt with.

said, he thought that any one who had taken an interest in the subject must have heard with great satisfaction the ability with which it had been handled by the hon. Gentleman, who must be prepared to meet with considerable opposition. This was a mere question between supporting the roads by rates or by tolls. He agreed that in large towns the toll system was unjust, and was only approved of by the man who lived on the lucky side of the gate. Every man who lived on the right side a toll-bar was glad that it should continue; but the man who unhappily lived on the wrong side had to pay not only for himself, but also for his friend on the other side. The inequality of the incidence of the present system could not be defended. It was a very proper desire that those who used the roads should pay for them; but the fact of the case was, those did not pay for the roads who used them. An immense number used roads without paying for them, and those who did pay for them paid for them twice over. He regretted that no measure for the re- form of roads in Scotland had been brought in by Government, because the system under which the roads were managed in that country was altogether effete and obsolete, the expenses of management and of collection amounting to between 25 to 30 per cent of the gross receipts. The system adopted in the Isle of Man of levying a rate upon wheels was equally unfair with that now in force in England. It should not be forgotten in discussing this question that pedestrians were interested equally with the owners of vehicles in the proper repair of the roads; and therefore it was not fair to throw the whole burden of the expense incurred in keeping the roads in a good condition upon the latter. It would be found on grappling with the roads debt that it was much less than was generally supposed, since a large portion of it brought no benefit to the creditors. Those who were interested in road reform would wish success to the hon. Member's measure.

said, that before the hon. Gentleman could expect to obtain the support of the Gentlemen of the different counties, He must suggest some method by which a portion of the expenses of repairing the roads might be borne by some common fund. The occupation roads might be repaired by the different parishes, and the expense of repairing the main roads between large towns and other parts of the country might be thrown upon some general fund.

said, he wished to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Sandwich for the lucid manner in which he had introduced this subject to the notice of the House. The question for decision was whether the expense of repairing the roads was to be met by rates or by tolls. When it was decided that tolls were to be done away with, and that the expense of repairs was to be met by a rate, the question would arise over what area that rate was to be extended. The three modes of raising the rate which had been suggested—namely, by a county rate, by a highway district rate, and by a parochial rate, had been distinctly condemned by the Committee of 1864, who suggested that the trusts might be watched and gradually got rid of from time to time as the debts upon them were extinguished. In his opinion this question could never be properly grappled with until the Permissive Bill for the highway districts was turned into a compulsory Act, and the charge of the turnpike roads, as well as of the highways, was thrown upon the highway districts. If that object could be accomplished, the question might be brought to a speedy and satisfactory termination. As to the trusts which had debts still unpaid, he feared that if his hon. Friend endeavoured to cast upon the parishes the burden of their debts, as well as the maintenance of the roads, he would hardly be able to pass his Bill. He did not quite understand the proposal as to a subvention from the county rate, yet that was a matter which would require great consideration, as it would involve the transfer of a burden from one place to another, which was not a proper mode of dealing with such a question. It was said that these burdens should be thrown upon the parishes; but many rural parishes did not benefit by roads which ran through them nearly so much as the people of adjoining towns. He had no wish to discuss the Bill at the present moment; but he thought that a discussion upon the second reading of the Bill would be useful. He hoped that when the Bill again came on for discussion, those Members who took a great interest in this subject would be able to devise some means by which the trusts might be gradually got rid of. The hon. Member had stated it to be his intention to propose, after the second reading of the Bill, that it should be referred to a Select Committee. On behalf of the Government, he had no hesitation in giving his sanction to such a proposal, as he believed great good would result from its being carried into effect.

said, he had been consulted by the hon. Gentleman when the Bill was being prepared, and he desired to say a few words upon the points that had arisen in the course of the discussion. It was, of course, difficult to explain all the details of the measure at this stage of the proceedings; but he believed that when the Bill was in the hands of hon. Members it would be admitted that it grappled successfully with the difficulties of the case. The proposal was not to throw the debt of trusts on parishes which had to maintain the roads, but to provide that if parishes undertook a debt equal to that now distributed among the creditors, they might assume the trust and be repaid out of the produce of the tolls. He justified the county contributions, because there were many roads which formed the communication between remote parts of the county and large towns, but were now of little use to the parishes through which they passed. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely misapprehended the proposal with reference to dealing with any existing debt. Of course it would be idle to throw a debt upon a parish, and at the same time to make that parish bear the expense of maintaining the roads. But it was an injustice to compel those who maintained their own roads to pay turnpike tolls. The struggles that often took place in that House for the maintenance of trusts where a debt of a few hundred pounds existed, were not for the benefit of the public, but were fostered by professional people for their own benefit. In the metropolis all the turnpikes had ban got rid of; but it was a great injustice that persons residing in the country were at liberty to drive into the metropolis at the expense of the inhabitants who maintained the roads, whereas Londoners driving into the country were at once beset with turnpikes, and had to pay tolls in order that the roads might be kept up in all the surrounding districts. Indeed, the number of roads maintained by the ratepayers was now so great that the continuance of turnpikes at all was an injustice. The present system had gone on a great deal too long, and ought to be altogether abolished; and he thought the present measure would meet a great variety of circumstances, and would, though not immediately, bring about the total abolition of turnpikes. It was not sought to effect that end at once and violently, but to deal with each particular case as it arose in a quiet and temperate manner.

said: I will not repay the House for the kind indulgence with which they have heard me to-night by detaining them with any lengthy reply. There are only three observations to which I desire to allude. My hon. Friend the Member for Haverford-west (Mr. Scourfield) has mentioned the difficulty there will be in asking the quarter sessions to adjudicate as to the granting aid to parishes from the county rate. I am quite aware of it. But the whole question is surrounded with difficulties; and, to be quite frank with the House, I hope and expect that one result of calling the attention of the quarter sessions to this matter will be the adoption of the Highway Act in many places where it has not hitherto been adopted, and the demonstration to parishes that by adopting this Act the area of their rating will be extended, will, I hope, render the adoption of the Highway Act more popular than it now is with some of the agricultural ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) says that the Select Committee of 1864 negatived the parochial rate. I had forgotten the fact for a moment; but let me remind him that the present law throws the repairs of those roads upon the parochial rates when the trusts expire; so that now, unless they obtain, at great expense, a new Act of Parliament, it is practically only by the arbitrary power of the Secretary of State that the trust is maintained and the roads kept from the parochial rates. This is a great responsibility upon the Secretary of State, from which I wish to relieve him. But I wish the House to note carefully one expression which fell from my right hon. Friend. He said that he feared "we should never deal satisfactorily with the subject until the Highway Act was made compulsory." Well, Sir, I rejoice to hear the opinion of my right hon. Friend, and when we go to our Select Committee I hope that he, or those who are authorized to speak for him on that Committee, will make a proposition in accordance with that opinion. Upon that and every other point I shall be most ready to receive and adopt suggestions for the improvement of the Bill, and I trust out of that Committee we may produce a useful and satisfactory measure.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision for the enlargement of the National Gallery. He said, that under the arrangement sanctioned by Parliament last year, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) hoped he should be able to purchase by private contract the property to which this measure referred—namely, Archbishop Tenison's school and the parochial schools of St. Martin. Difficulties, however, had arisen, and it was necessary to pass the Bill awarding compensation to the owners, which he now moved for leave to introduce.

said, he rose for the purpose of asking for leave to introduce a Bill for the better regulation of public-houses, refreshment-houses, and beer-houses.

It is necessary that a proposition for a Bill of this nature should be first brought forward in a Committee of the Whole House.

said, he would move an Amendment that the House go into Committee that day six months.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman could not do so. The Amendment should have been proposed before the Question was put from the Chair.

I was listening as attentively as I could, and I was not aware that you put the Question. I should like to have an opportunity of moving my Amendment, and I think I ought to have it.

said, that if there had been any misunderstanding, and if the Motion was to be opposed, the better course would be that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) should make his statement, and that the Question should be put again.

said, that in consequence of the objection which had just been made in so unusual a manner to the granting leave to introduce this Bill, he would meet the case as it stood. On that day week, when he was about to make a Motion similar to that which he had now placed on the paper, he was met by an intimation from the Speaker that it was doubtful whether the subject was one which a private Member was competent to deal with. On the intimation being made he immediately withdrew that Motion, and having since had the benefit of advice from the Speaker he had been encouraged to proceed with the present Motion, which he had learnt was not contrary to the rules or the practice of the House. Looking at the frequent discussions on the subject which had taken place in that House and the great interest which attached to the question out of doors, he thought it might be taken for granted that a very deep conviction existed that the time had arrived when a better system of licensing ought to be established. He knew no question more important than that to which he was about to draw the attention of the House, both as regarded the magnitude of the trades involved and its indirect bearing on the social and moral welfare of the great masses of our population. He was sure that, notwithstanding the objection taken on the very threshold of the inquiry by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), any proposal which would lead to a thorough discussion of this great subject would be received with satisfaction by the House. It was not his intention to enter on the present occasion into any lengthened explanation of the main features of the Bill, because that could be much more conveniently done on the second reading. Its main features would be found to be in harmony with the recommendations of the Committee of 1854, and with the provisions of the Bill which some two years ago was introduced into that House at the request of the licensed victuallers of Liverpool. The present Bill was not a private Bill It recommended uniformity of licence; that it should be in the power of the justices alone to grant such; that all applicants must be of good character; and that all such applicants should have a right to receive a licence, subject, however, to a veto on the part of the owners or occupiers of the houses in the neighbourhood of the applicant; that there should be a minimum of Excise duty, with a minimum sating qualification, but subject to a reduction in the duty if the house were closed on Sundays that there should be a limitation with respect to the hours of opening, with power to the local authorities in the different boroughs to make still further restrictions, There were also certain saving clauses in the Bill with regard to existing privileges. He would not say that this Bill was all that could be desired in dealing with an important and a complicated question; but it was an effort as far as it went; and he hoped the House would allow it to go into Committee and be there considered. It had been framed by the magistrates and the corporation, and was sup- ported by the inhabitants of Liverpool. If the House permitted the Bill to be introduced, it was his intention to fix the second reading for a distant day, so as to enable his Colleague (Mr. Horsfall) to resume the conduct of the Bill, and to give the House a full opportunity for its examination. He now moved that the Speaker leave the Chair.

said, that his object was to learn the intentions and views of the Government on this question. It was a large one, and affected many interests which had grown up and been fostered by Acts of Parliament. It was also a question which largely affected the public morality. There was a class of persons called teetotallers, who supported permissive Bills in order to put down the sale of intoxicating liquors. But the Bill of the hon. Member was advocated by a different class, for it went to establish a free trade in liquors. The wisdom of Parliament had always made a distinction between the sale of commodities that were harmless and those that were not so. A bale of cotton might be passed from hand to hand without danger, and no restrictions were placed on its sale. But it was different with gunpowder. And so with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors, which affected the public morality. Parliament had interfered for centuries, and under this interference or sanction of Parliament there had grown up large interests which this Bill went directly to affect. No private Member ought to be permitted to do this. The Government ought to take up the question, and tell the House what they intended to do. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) whether the Government, who must know what was the object of the Bill, were prepared to support it. If they were not he would withdraw his opposition; if they were, he would go to a division. He believed the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Stanley) was prepared to support this Bill. ["No!"] He was glad to hear that. He had thought from some part of the noble Lord's remarks, as chairman of quarter sessions, that he was in favour of free trade in intoxicating liquors. For himself, he was entirely opposed to it. He was also opposed to the permissive Bill of the teetotallers; but he was prepared to support a judicious intermediate action between these two extremes. He wished, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would explain to the House what course he intended to take in this matter, and for that purpose he moved that the House go into Committee that day six months.

said, that at any rate he thought the House ought to go into Committee to allow the hon. Member to introduce his Bill. Their present system of licensing consisted of two parts, each inconsistent with the other, and neither satisfactory. He would not say what was the right system to be adopted, but this he knew—that the country was greatly dissatisfied and disgusted with the present system. Our restraints had broken down, and if we intended to diminish drunkenness we must adopt some other means of doing so. Therefore he thought they were bound to go into Committee and consider the present proposal. It deserved so much of support if it were only for the way in which it proposed to deal with the liquor traffic on Sundays. At present every one who took out a licence was bound to keep open all the seven days of the week. He thought it would be a great improvement if the parties had the option of only taking out a licence, with a proportionate reduction for six days. It had been tried with the cabs, and found to work advantageously, and he saw no reason why it should not be equally beneficial in the case of public-houses.

said, that a short time ago he put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether he had the licensing system under his consideration, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had. He was not aware the hon. Member (Mr. Graves) had intended to bring this Bill before the House. A friend of his (Mr. Lawson), the late Member for Carlisle, had also brought the question before the House a few years ago, tending to show the dissatisfaction with the present system. There were great anomalies in the present licensing system. It was a great hardship on licensed victuallers to have to apply year after year for a renewal of their licenses to benches of magistrates differently constituted. It sometimes occurred that a man applied in vain year after year for a license, but ultimately obtained it on the same grounds as those which he had originally urged. The magistrates in one town proceeded on a different system from that acted on by the magistrates in another town. Thus, the Liverpool magistrates thought it their duty to grant licenses to all persons who applied for them, provided that the applicants were fitted to keep a licensed house; but the magistrates of Manchester exercised a discretion as to the number of licenses. The amount of drunkenness in Liverpool, with a population very nearly the same in number, though of a different character, was nearly double that in Manchester. He thought it would be useful to have his hon. Friend's Bill discussed; but he hoped the Government would bring in a general measure.

Sir, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) having made such a direct appeal to me on this subject, I will give the House the reason why we think we ought to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) to go into Committee. It is a matter of courtesy to allow a Member to introduce his Bill. It is the usual, though not the invariable rule of the House that any Member who wishes may introduce a Bill and lay it upon the table of the House. That is a very convenient practice, for it gives a Member an opportunity for explanation at a further stage; it allows him to introduce the question he wishes to bring before the House in the most convenient form for discussion. Thai being so, my hon. Friend asks us to go into a Committee of the Whole House on a most important subject. The object of going into Committee is that leave may be given him to introduce a Bill for the better regulation of licenses, for the sale of wine, spirits, and beer. I mentioned the other day, as the hon. Member for Durham county (Mr. Pease) has just reminded the House, that proposals relating to this question have come before me from various sources, which it was my duty to consider. It will be for the general advantage if the same questions are brought before the House. I may state that I have formed an opinion on the subject, and when the proper time comes I shall be prepared to give my opinion. I have made up my mind as to the kind of measure that ought to be introduced; but I am not prepared to introduce it till I have consulted with my Colleagues, and till I see that the state of the public business will allow me to make progress with it, Still, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) wishes to go into Committee of the Whole House on an important. measure, I think the House is bound to afford him an opportunity.

said, he hoped the House would not refuse to give the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) an opportunity of bringing in his Bill, though he should oppose some of its provisions, The licensing system was in a very unsatisfactory state; and there was no place in which that was felt more than in Liverpool. Last year the persons responsible for the maintenance of the peace and morality of the town felt themselves constrained to attempt to deal with the evils by which they were confronted, by means of a private Bill. The majority of the House of Commons, of whom he had been one, would not allow such a precedent to be established. But now that the measure again made its appearance in an unobjectionable form, and that the Bill no longer embodied the expression merely of the opinions of the people of Liverpool, great cause for complaint would exist if it were hastily rejected. He quite agreed that the question was one which the present or former Governments ought to have taken up. The right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary (Mr. Walpole) had proved in time past his desire to meet this question. He believed that the expression of opinion throughout the country necessary to carry a Government measure upon the subject would be much encouraged, by taking a preliminary discussion upon the Bill now proposed.

said, that having attained his object he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that the rate of licences would be higher in Liverpool; but he could not say what would be the effect of the Bill with regard to other places.

said, it would not be competent for the hon. Member for Liverpool to fix by his Bill the rate to be paid for licences without the consent of the Government.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to authorize the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings to acquire lands for the purpose of the new Palace at Westminster, and to construct an Embankment on the North shore of the River Thames, in the parish of St. John the Evangelist, Westminster. He said, that for the last few years a continual nuisance and danger had been experienced from the state of the premises near the Victoria Tower. It had been strongly recommended by the Commission of 1863 that the premises should be purchased by the Government, and that the embankment of the Thames should be carried along their site. He might mention that no later than last summer an attempt had been made to blow up that portion of the palace, and that, as lately an the 19th January last, a gas engine had exploded in the straw yard abutting on the Victoria Tower. These buildings would be pulled down, and on the western extremity of the land so acquired it was proposed to erect a handsome range of houses, and the money which would be derived from the sale of that portion of the ground was expected to largely compensate for the cost of purchasing the property. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would not object to the introduction of the Bill.

said, he wished to inquire what number of houses were included in the Bill; and whether any estimate had been made of the money required for their purchase?

said, that if the hon. and gallant Colonel would look at the Estimates he would find a full account of the proposed expenditure. The sum total was £175,000, of which £30,000 would be proposed during the present year.

said, that the Bill would provide a protection against what might be a national calamity. Some time ago he had visited the premises, and within twenty yards of the Palace he saw a coal yard, at the foot of which were two barges loading gas tar. In an adjoining yard there were 200 or 300 tons of straw, between which and the gas tar a man was smoking. A spark from his pipe might have caused a conflagration, which if the wind had been in a certain direction would have reached the Palace.

said, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for the removal of Mr. Churchward from the Commission of the Peace for the Borough of Dover. He had no special connection either with Dover or the county of Kent, nor had he any ill-feeling towards the person whose conduct he impugned, and until a communication was made to him a week ago, he had no knowledge of that gentleman. In the communication which he received from Dover he was told that the people of Dover felt themselves injured and insulted—he used their phrase without endorsing it—by what they termed "an atrocious job," which had placed on the bench of magistrates at Dover a person whose political misdoings had been recorded again and again in the votes of the House, and were enshrined in the deliberate and solemn Report of a Commission. He felt it his duty to look into these assertions, and to search the records of the House where the facts were to be found. Having done so, he thought it his duty to address a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, but did not place the question on the paper without some misgivings and doubts. He said to himself, "Is it conceivable, if the facts are as stated, that any Government would recommend Her Majesty to nominate any such person to the commission of the peace?" He fancied that he might find some commixture, some confusion of names and dates, and be thrown over at last. He thought that if any Government could not have ventured on such a course of proceeding, the present Government would have been the last to do so—that a Government which occupied so peculiar a position in relation to the majority of the House would have been the last Government to deprive themselves of all the characteristics which were supposed to be inherent in what was vulgarly known as a new broom. Was it conceivable, he thought, that Her Majesty's Government, the head of the great Tory party in this country—that party which within one year had refused even to entertain a Reform Bill unless in its four corners there were stringent and effective clauses against bribery and corruption—that party which at the beginning of the Session had before it the Reports of four Commissions relating to certain boroughs which they now proposed wholly to disfranchise, innocent and guilty together—was it conceivable that such a Government could have made such a recommendation? Under those circumstances, could it be conceived that Her Majesty's Government actually recommended Her Majesty to place on the commission of peace at Dover a gentleman who had been reported by a Committee as guilty of bribery? When he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the question he put to him on a previous occasion he did so with fear and trembling, for he thought he might find himself, to use a familiar phrase, "thrown on his back." He believed, and he said it with all sincerity, that there was not a man on either side of the House who would have felt more pain and disgust than the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to be obliged to give the answer he was compelled to give, which amounted to an admission that Mr. Churchward was the man against whom these heavy charges had been substantiated before the tribunal he had mentioned. The only qualification to that admission was an appeal ad misericordiam with regard to the Report of the Committee of 1853. The right hon. Gentleman stated that his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, until he saw his (Mr. Taylor's) Motion on the paper, was unaware that there was any stain whatever on the political reputation of Mr. Churchward. He (Mr. Taylor) must say that the Colleagues of the noble and learned Lord had behaved with great unkindness, if not unfairness, to him, because it could not be doubted that many of them were but too well aware of the facts of the case. They all knew that—

"Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise;"

but this bliss was a stolen pleasure which was not permissible in the case of men who discharged high political functions and duties, and who, in discharging them, were bound to exercise certain responsibilities. Among them was the responsibility of not being unaware of that which was sufficiently well known to all the world besides, It happened, with some singularity, that there was a case absolutely parallel with the one before the House, All the circumstances were the same, the same Lord Chancellor and the same Home Secretary being concerned in it, and the only thing which was not the same was that the right hon. Gentleman opposite on that occasion—in 1858—said his noble Friend would instantly proceed to undo the mischief that had been done. The case was that of two persons who had been appointed to the commission of the peace in Canterbury, and who had previously, as in this case, been reported by the Commissioners as having been guilty of bribery, A complaint was made by the hon. and learned Member for South wark (Mr. Locke), and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) then said—

"His noble Friend (the Lord Chancellor) was not in the least degree aware that the names of either of those persons were in the schedule of the Commissioners' Report to which reference had been made. The moment the case was brought to his Attention, he caused inquiry to be made, and finding that the parties were the same, he instantly sent down to Canterbury to say that he should require both those gentlemen to resign."—[3 Hansard, cl. 264.]

He (Mr. Taylor) asserted as a fact—if he were mistaken he should be open to correction—that in September last there was a proposal to place this Mr. Churchward upon the county bench of magistrates in Kent. When that was known a special meeting of the Wingham division of magistrates was called, and largely attended by gentlemen principally belonging to the Tory party, and they sent up an official protest to the lord-lieutenant of the county against that nomination. The result was that no more was heard of that matter. The next time Mr. Churchward turned up he was in the borough of Dover, and it was said that the noble Lord had received recommendations with regard to him which he was bound to entertain. He (Mr. Taylor) wished to know whether they were the usual recommendations from the mayor, aldermen, and common council of the borough? Having asked his question of the right hon. Gentleman, and received the answer he did, he was bound to take this further step by putting this Motion on the paper. He was also bound to look more closely into the whole transaction to see if there was any defence, palliation, excuse, or diminution of the apparent enormity of the act committed, and he was bound to confess that the more he looked into it the worse it appeared; and it seemed to him that no apology could be offered for it. The Home Secretary, in answering his question with reference to the Report of the Committee of 1853, said it was not quite fair to call what was done simple bribery, because no money was given, but only situations promised. But was that a less evil or crime than the giving of money? In his opinion the offence was multiplied threefold, for it was permanent instead of temporary, and indefinite in extent instead of being defined and limited. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not read a certain paragraph in the Report, which showed that Mr. Churchward, by his own admission, had not only obtained twenty appointments, but had sent thirty or forty men into the dockyard, of whom twenty-five were accepted. That possibly explained why the dockyards always rose before them in such unfavourable colours; why everything there cost so much, and why so many of the ills and abuses mentioned by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) were occurring, It that was the way the dockyards were managed they were not honest yards, where a fair day's work was done for a fair day's wages. They were sinks for used up infamy and hospitals for decayed scoundrels. In 1859 the Committee of Mail Contracts made a Report, in which the following passage occurred:—

"While most anxious for the fulfilment of all engagements entered into in good faith between the Government and individuals, the Committee submits for the consideration of the House whether Mr. Churchward, in having resorted to corrupt expedients, affecting injuriously the character of the representation of the people in Parliament has not rendered it impossible for the House of Commons, with due regard to its honour and dignity, to vote the sums of money necessary to fulfil the agreement to extend his contract from the 20th of June, 1803, to the 20th of April, 1870."

That was something much more than a mere formal record placed in the Report that somebody had been guilty of bribery. It stated, in point of fact, that so atrocious and enormous were the political misdeeds which had been committed, that they justified the Committee in recommending the House to absolutely quash and violate the contract with Mr. Churchward, which was ultimately done. That Committee was composed of an equal number of Gentlemen from each side of the House, and the resolutions condemning Mr. Churchward were passed by large majorities, showing that so patent and so strong was the evil proved, that it utterly overrode all those conventional biases which honestly enough would sometimes lead gentlemen of similar opinions to band themselves together on one side or the other. That decision had been three times arraigned in the House, and three times the claims of Mr. Churchward had been decided against, certainly not by very large majorities, as the majorities had been 45 once, then 8, and then 14. But their debates on those occasions were not got up with any idea of whitewashing the character of Mr. Churchward. The question had been simply whether the arrangement with Mr. Churchward was an economical one for the country. So that even if the majorities had gone the other way, and the House had chosen to resuscitate the contract, it would not by its vote have redeemed the character of Mr. Churchward. He would now read a few words spoken in one of those debates by Mr. Cobden, the Chairman of the Committee, whose judgment he had last quoted, and who summed up the case in that concise and masterly manner which was characteristic of him. Mr. Cobden said—

"Some people argue that we cannot legally refuse to pay the money. Well, then, I would not pay it in any way but a legal way. I quite join with hon. Gentlemen in that view. If they think that Mr. Churchward has a legal claim, let him establish that claim; and for my part I would vote money to enable him to establish his claim—to pay all the legal expenses of a trial—rather than I would agree to grant the money for this contract after the Report of the Committee. What will the public say out of doors? Really, we ought to affect a virtue if we have it not. A Committee of this House reports that a person goes to a public office wanting to bribe a Lord of the Admiralty to assist in bestowing a contract by the most corrupt means. And what is the sort of bribe that is offered? Why, it is the very kind of bribery that ought to be most repugnant to this House. On the one hand, we have before us, as the House of Commons, a case in which an attempt is made upon the virtue of a public functionary, whom we are here especially to superintend and watch; and, on the other hand, the bribe offered us is an attempt to dispose, by corrupt means, of the votes of constituents, in whose purity and independence I should think that we, as the House of Commons, ought to be most deeply interested."—[3 Hansard, clxx. 1896.]

This was the case, and he (Mr. Taylor) would leave it now without further comment; comment could add nothing to it; and the reckless exaggeration of a partisan, of which, he was sure, he had not been guilty, would not make the case stronger. There were differences of opinion with regard to the moral sin of bribery and corruption; some thinking that illicit political influence had become really a time-hallowed part of our constitution, while others thought that, however devious and unclean might be the paths by which Members for certain constituencies found their way into Parliament, still, when they reached this House they should be recognised and welcomed as honourable and independent gentlemen, really interested equally with themselves in the good of the country. And, as regarded the constituencies, some might think that when once they went through the ordeal of temptation and a certain fall, they were much the same as other constituencies. He would not discuss those points. But there was one point upon which he thought there would have been no difference of opinion on either side of the house, and that was that however little it might matter comparatively how they formed the House wherein their laws were made, no stain should touch, no blot of suspicion should lie upon those who administered those laws. He had thought it was the boast of this country that whatever might be our political peccadilloes, at any rate the purity of the ermine, the independence and honour of the magisterial bench, could never be impeached. We were in the habit of criticising severely, and perhaps not altogether unjustly, the system in America of electing their Judges for a term of years, and of asking how, under such a system, they could hope to have Judges free from political bias, acting without fear or favour, and beyond all suspicion. Now, he should say that the language which they often heard upon that subject received, in the present case, but a very sorry illustration. There they had a person whose political character was not equivocal, whose political misdeeds had been enshrined in the Report of a Committee, while that Report had itself been endorsed again and again by majorities of that House—they had such a person recommended by the Government to Her Majesty for the commission of the peace—for an office in which he would have to judge without fear, favour, or partiality, and even without the suspicion of being subject to any such influences, the various causes which might come before him, and in which the interests of different classes must be involved. It would be a deliberate poisoning of the fountain of justice at its very source.

said, he would not trespass at any length on the time of the House; but he felt sure he should receive its indulgence when he rose, as he then did, to defend the character of a person who had suffered a very grievous persecution, and whom he believed to be an upright and honourable man. He thought he should be neither doing his duty as one of the Members for Dover, nor doing justice to a gentleman whom he had no hesitation in saying in that House he was proud to number among his constituents, if he did not state that he looked upon the attack which had been made upon that gentleman by the hon. Member for Leicester as not only wanton and cowardly, but—

Sir, I rise to order. The word "cowardly," Sir, is quite unknown in this House.

The hon. and gallant Member will, no doubt, withdraw that word.

said, he should be sorry if he had said anything which was contrary to the Rules of the House; but he was about to express his reason for his opinion. He must say that He looked upon that attack as unjustifiable. The House would remember that when he had appealed to the Hon. Member in the name of justice to postpone that Motion for a few days only, until certain right hon. Gentlemen could be present who were intimately acquainted with the whole of the facts of the case, and able to bear testimony upon it, the hon. Member refused to accede to so reasonable an appeal. He could not, therefore, compliment the hon. Gentleman on his idea of justice; neither could he share with him the belief that it was right, or proper, or just, to sacrifice the character of an individual to gain a momentary party triumph. The hon. Member had spoken of the decision which was come to by the Committee of 1853, but he had slurred over the second Report of that Committee. He had hardly noticed the fact that the second Report was a complete answer to the first. The hon. Gentleman was as well aware as he was that Mr. Churchward himself had in vain petitioned that House to be heard at its Bar, and examined by counsel. He was also aware that for the last eight years Mr. Churchward had been trying to bring his case before a court of justice, and had always been thwarted by the Government of the day. In 1865 he brought an action in the Court of Queen's Bench, upon the main question, and how was he met? By a demurrer in law, and therefore he was again unable to vindicate his character. The persecution which Mr. Churchward had met with had no precedent in political history. Political spite, he might say, instigated the proceedings of 1859; and political spite, coupled with personal animosity, instigated the proceedings of 1867. The hon. Member for Leicester had told them that he had been asked by the town of Dover to bring that matter forward, and wished them to suppose that Mr. Churchward's appointment had given offence to the whole of that town. [Mr. TAYLOR: Not to the whole town, but to individuals in it.] To prove that Mr. Churchward was held in high esteem in Dover he would read to the House an address to that gentleman, which had been signed by all the leading men of the town in the short space of three hours. The address said—

"We, the undersigned inhabitants of Dover, beg to express to you our deep regret at the attack that was made upon you on Friday last in the House of Commons in connection with your recent appointment as a magistrate of the borough. We venture to express our sense of the high estimation in which during your long residence among us you have been so deservedly held by a large majority of the inhabitants, and also of your fitness in ever, to fill the office of a magistrate; and we would desire to express to you our heartfelt wish that you may long be spared to assist in administering justice among us, and promoting and measures tending to the advancement and prosperity of our town."

Well, how did that matter originate? Was it brought forward by a leading Liberal? He could state that a Liberal of distinction and high honour was asked to bring it forward, and he distinctly refused to have anything to do with it. That proceeding had been instigated by a man who was formerly one of Mr. Churchward's servants, who was discharged for some reason into which he need not enter, and who was now actuated by spite towards his old employer. He knew that a gentleman high in station and character, a Member of that House, connected with Dover, and who was known to be an enemy of Mr. Churchward, had declined to make himself the dirty tool and cat's-paw of the hon. Member for Leicester. If the hon. Member was bursting with a desire to expose all political corruption and vice, he need not have gone to Dover to get a case. He need not have gone back fifteen or even eight years, but only about eight weeks, and he would have found sitting on the Benches opposite, almost by his very side, men who had been proved guilty before Committees of that House of conduct ten times as bad as that of Mr. Churchward. Now what, he would ask, were the accusations which were brought against Mr. Churchward? They were two. One of them related to events which had occurred as far back as 1852; the other to some proceedings which had taken place in 1859. In 1853 a Committee of that House had assembled to inquire into the question whether Mr. Mare had been duly elected for Plymouth in the preceding year, and he admitted that when they first met they had arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Churchward had bribed certain individuals at that election by offering them employment. The first Resolution, however, to which that same Committee had come on re-assembling was—

"That a general belief prevailed at Plymouth, both previous to and at the election of burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of Plymouth in 1852, that it was not illegal for a candidate, or his agents, to obtain, or promise to obtain, situations or employment for electors who had previously pledged their votes."

That Resolution entirely removed from Mr. Churchward the odium which the Committee would seem to have cast upon him by their first decision. It should also be remembered that the proceedings connected with the Plymouth election extended over a period of four months, that a Conservative Government was then in power, and he would, under those circumstances, put it to the common sense of the House whether it was not to be expected that the followers of that party were more likely to receive any appointments which were vacant than those who happened to profess Liberal opinions. He would ask the House whether, having taken into account the Resolution which he had just read, Mr. Churchward, after the lapse of fifteen years, was deserving of the special condemnation of his conduct which the hon. Gentleman opposite invited it to pronounce. There was another gentleman, named Mennie, whose name had been brought prominently forward in connection with the election for Plymouth, who had afterwards been made a magistrate. His appointment to that position had been challenged in that House or in the House of Lords; but it was resolved, after the decision arrived at by the Committee, clearing the character of the Conservative agents, that the appointment ought to be allowed to stand. After those transactions, in 1854, a Liberal Government, of which Earl Russell was a member, entered with Mr. Churchward into a contract for the conveyance of the mails between Dover and the Continent, which was renewed by the same Government in 1855. They must, therefore, have supposed that there was no serious reflection on his character. Beyond that, Mr. Churchward had been allowed, unchallenged, to raise a Volunteer Corps in Dover, in which he held a commission. Now, when the House was sitting in judgment upon him, he thought he might without offence ask whether there were any within its walls who, when engaged in the turmoil of a General Election, might not have committed offences as grave as those with which that gentleman was charged. He would say to hon. Members, "let him among us who can put his hand upon his heart and declare that he is without sin cast the first stone." He came next to the year 1859, in which year two Committees sat—the one to inquire whether Admiral Leake and Mr. Nicol had been duly elected Members for Dover, the other to investigate the circumstances connected with the renewal of the mail contract. As to the Election Committee, its Chairman told Mr. Churchward, at the Conclusion of its proceedings, in the open Committee-room, that nothing had transpired in the course of the inquiry which in the slightest degree affected his honour or character. He admitted, however, that the second Committee, which he had just mentioned, had come to the decision that Mr. Churchward had resorted to corrupt expedients. It must at the same time be borne in mind that this was a decision which had been challenged, as being entirely contrary to evidence, and with respect to which many distinguished Members of that and the other House of Parliament as well as of the bar entertained the opinion that on the evidence before them the Committee should have arrived at a different conclusion. It was a decision that had been arrived at altogether upon the evidence of three individuals, and from a conversation ulna lasted only five minutes. He had always understood that in dealing with evidence it was customary when two persons said one thing and a third something different, to believe the statement of the two rather than that of the single individual. On the occasion in question, however, the Committee felt themselves justified in ignoring the testimony of two gentlemen, and taking instead that of one. The three gentlemen who were in the room in which the conversation to which he was alluding took place were Captain Carnegie, Mr. Churchward, and Mr. Herbert Murray, and he would, in the first place, read to the House the evidence of Captain Carnegie, who said—

"Mr. Churchward spoke to me on the subject of the pending election fur Dover—he made an allusion to his anxiety to obtain the renewal of his contract. Mr. Churchward spoke most freely and openly to me upon the subject the contract. I thought it the most imprudent and incautious speech that ever came from a man's mouth, and it made so great an impression upon me that I recollect every word of it. He led me to the belief that this contract was to be renewed. That was the impression left upon my mind."

The following was Mr. Churchward's account of the same conversation:—

"In the course of his interview with Captain Carnegie the word contract was never mentioned. The word contract was never used, and my recollection of the circumstance is perfect."

Mr. Murray said—

"I do not think the contract was ever mentioned. I am quite quite sure that nothing passed between Mr. Churchward and Captain Carnegie about the contract. I am under the impression that Captain Carnegie is confusing some conversation with him with the one between Mr. Churchward himself and Captain Carnegie. I am quite sure that Mr. Churchward never said those words to Captain Carnegie in my presence."

Now, it was on that evidence, and that alone, that the words "corrupt expedients were employed. Mr. Murray further stated, that "the extension of his contract was not the price of Mr. Churchward's support to the Government at Dover." Sir John Pakington said that "he had no knowledge of the means by which the Dover election was to be carried." Sir Stafford Northcote said that political motives had no effect in the granting of the contract." Mr. Corry said that "as far as the Admiralty were concerned, the question was determined by their recommendation to the Treasury on the 24th of February," which was before the alleged statement took place, thus affording a strong presumption that Mr. Churchward could not have used the language attributed to him. Captain Carnegie, moreover, admitted that—

"Mr. Murray could not have forwarded Mr. Churchward's views at the Admiralty, as before his interviews the question had been disposed of by that Department."

Captain Carnegie added, that it was no discredit to a Government contractor to vote for a Government candidate; and Sir Stafford Northcote further said that he had sent for Mr. Churchward, that that gentleman did not apply to him, and that with him mainly rested the responsibility of granting the contract, which was practically settled before the elections came on. Under all those circumstances, he confidently appealed to the House to say whether the charge contained in the Report of the Committee was not simply implied rather than proved, as would seem to be shown by the fact that upon a confessedly partisan division their decision was ratified only by a very small majority. To show what were the views which were entertained on the point by those men who had the best means of judging of the merits of the case, he would read to the House the letters of a right hon. Gentleman and a noble Lord, who now occupied seats on the Treasury Bench. The first letter was as follows:—

said, that at an early period of the evening he addressed a question to the hon. Member for Leicester for the purpose of ascertaining whether the hon, Member would include in his Motion all magistrates in a position similar to Mr. Churchward, and the hon. Member asked whether the question was put seriously. Now, he thought that the discussion, as far as it had gone, showed that there was a great deal of seriousness in the matter. He would not detain the House long, for, after the able address of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dover (Major Dickson), he did not think that much was required to be said in favour of Mr. Churchward. As he understood the hon. Member for Leicester to say that Mr. Churchward or any person found to have committed bribery was not fit to be magistrate, he thought that the hon. Member would have done better if he had dealt with the case more generally, and had not selected merely one isolated instance. In cases of this kind, and especially in Mr. Churchward's case, there had been exhibited a great deal of party feeling; and though he did not suppose that the hon. Member for Leicester was actuated by party motives, yet the hon. Member would have done well had he made his Motion more comprehensive. It was well known that there were many magistrates in the position, in this respect, of Mr. Churchward, and as, of course, there was no party feeling or political animosity in the present Motion, as the pure and proper administration of justice was the only object in view, it was clear that the wider the scope of the Motion the more effective it must be. He was of opinion that all personalities should be avoided, and therefore he would mention no case involving the name of any Gentleman in that House; but every one conversant with the political history of this country knew that not only Committees of that House, but tribunals more strictly judicial, such as Royal Commissions, had found that there were many instances of gentlemen who had dealt in election matters in the same manner as Mr. Churchward was charged with acting. He, consequently, proposed to move, by way of Amendment, to omit all the words in the Motion after the word "of," and to add the following words:—

"All persons in the Commission of the Peace in any County, City, or Borough who have been found, either by Committees of this house or by Royal Commissions guilty of, or privy or assenting to, corrupt practices in Parliamentary Elections,"

Sir, the purpose of the Amendment is, I suppose, to get additional words tacked to the Motion with the view of enabling hon. Members to vole against the Motion in its original form. I did not gather from the speech of the hon. Mover of the Amendment whether that was his intention, and I shall be glad to know whether the additional words are proposed with that view. If so, I think it is the duty of the Government to state, for the guidance of the House, their opinion on a question of a very grave and important nature, and the importance of which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) at all appreciates. I heard his answer to-night to a question put to him from his own side of the House relating to two Members of this House. I did not hear, but I became acquainted in the usual way with the answer he gave on a former occasion to a somewhat similar question. I own I can sympathize with the right hon. Gentleman up to a certain point, inasmuch as I think that class of questions is one of extreme delicacy and difficulty; but I do not sympathize with his practice in attempting to get rid of these subjects as if they were matters that could be treated with great levity. With regard to the Amendment, it appears to me that the subject embraced by it is a very serious and grave one. I am far from saying that much of the matter comprised in it may not deserve the consideration of this House, and I think that, as the circumstances referred to arise out of recent Reports of Commissions, it would have been proper for the Executive Government to state their opinion for the guidance of the House in respect to the course to be taken, The Amendment is not necessarily in propriety or justice entitled to be annexed to the original Motion. This Amendment lays down the principle, if I understand it aright, that whenever a Select Committee of this House or a Royal Commission has found that any person was guilty of corrupt practices such person shall be included within the scope of the Motion, and Her Majesty shall be prayed to remove him from the commission of the peace. That is a very great extension of the original Motion, and an extension nut only as to the persons, but as to the principle. I fully admit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be perfectly justified in challenging my hon. Friend to accede to an addition to his Motion with regard to all persons who stand in the same position as Mr. Churchward; but that is not the issue which he has raised. Here I may remark that I was totally ig- norant of anything that had happened as to the case of Mr. Churchward since the last debate in this House, until I heard of the question put by my hon. Friend, and I am exceedingly sorry that anything should have occurred which should render it necessary to recur to a matter that cannot be associated with agreeable recollections for any of us. Mr. Churchward does not stand simply in the position of a gentleman against whom a Select Committee of this House, or any tribunal extraneous to this House, has formed a certain judgment. The broad and palpable difference is this, that the judgment of the Committee has been adopted in the first instance by the Executive Government, and in the second instance by the House itself. It is not therefore upon the decision of a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, but upon the vote and judgment of the House itself that my hon. Friend, as I apprehend, takes his stand. The distinction is broad and clear between that sort of preliminary finding, which the decision of the Committee of 1859 would have been had nothing followed, and the finding we have now before us, when that decision was challenged, and after full debate was affirmed by a majority in this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Dickson) in his very able speech has cited, as though they were independent witnesses, the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India (Sir Stafford Northcote) who was concerned in these transactions—although, by the direct assertion of the Committee, innocently concerned, and everybody who knows him must be convinced that he could not be otherwise concerned—and of a noble Lord (Lord John Manners) who was one of the minority in the Committee. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also goes back to the evidence, and thinks his account of that evidence is sufficient to induce the House to overlook, and to condemn, as partial and prejudiced, the judgment of that Committee. That judgment, however, is a formidable document. I must call the attention of the House to two paragraphs in it, and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman read a letter written by the noble Lord ascribing the judgment to political malevolence—

No, I did not.

I think I heard the words.

It was the gloss which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put upon the noble Lord's letter.

I am glad to hear it is so; but I confess I should have thought that was the natural construction of the words. If, however, that was not the noble Lord's intention, so much the better. Well, in the Committee these questions were asked by Mr. Crawford—I confess I am very sorry to be obliged to read this, but after what has been said with regard to the judgment of the Committee I am compelled to do so—

"Did you vote at the previous election for Dover? Mr. Churchward: Yes.

"For whom did you vote? For the Secretary to the Admiralty, Mr. Bernal Osborne.

"Then you voted for the Gentleman with the long tongue?' Yes, I voted for the Gentleman with the long tongue; I voted for Mr. Osborne.

"Did you vote for him from political considerations? No; not at all. I distinctly stated that I did not support him on political considerations, but because I thought that as he was the Secretary to the Admiralty, and as there was a chance of the harbour being turned over to the Admiralty, and that they were likely to buy it, I thought that Mr. Bernal Osborne could serve the interests of Dover and also my interests better than any one else."

That was the view taken with regard to the exercise of the franchise, and he made the announcement with satisfaction. With what face, I ask, are we to set ourselves to take measures for the prevention of bribery if such disposal of a vote, the exercise of a public trust, with a view to private benefit, is allowed to pass without censure? I now come to paragraph No. 6, which contained the words, "having resorted to corrupt expedients." An Amendment was moved by a Gentleman, always to be named with honour for his strict political integrity and his jealous guardianship of public interest, the late Sir Henry Willoughby, for leaving out those words and substituting for them "endeavoured to exercise an undue influence, as appears from his conversation with Captain Carnegie," The Committee divided, and a minority of 6 voted for the Amendment, and a majority of 8 against it, the majority including the late Lord Northbrook, then Sir Francis Baring, a man than whom a more perfect example of purity and impartiality in his public conduct with respect to any question of this class never occupied a place in this House. The paragraph was then put to the vote as it stands, being in the following terms:—

"While most anxious for the fulfilment of all engagements entered into in good faith between the Government and individuals, the Committee submits for the consideration of the House whether Mr. Churchward, in having resorted to corrupt expedients affecting injuriously the character of the representation of the people in Parliament, has not rendered it impossible for the House of Commons, with due regard to its honour and dignity, to vote the sums of money necessary to fulfil the agreement to extend his contrast from the 20th of June, 1863, to the 26th of April, 1870."

That paragraph, containing the full breadth of the censure which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has impugned, was carried by a majority of 9 to 4, and in the majority was Sir Henry Willoughby, though that distinguished gentleman was on the same political side as Mr. Churchward. The Committee's Report came under the consideration of Lord Palmerston's Government, and they had to consider whether, with that Report before them, they would take upon themselves the responsibility of proposing this money. They determined that they would not assume any such responsibility. The question, however, was raised in this House by those who represented the views of the four dissenting members of the Committee. In the month of March, 1860, Captain Leicester Vernon challenged the Report of the Committee, and made a Motion to this effect—

"That this House, having considered the Report and the evidence presented by the Select Committee on Packet and Telegraph Contracts, it of opinion that the contract entered into ought to be fulfilled."

It was impossible to raise the issue more distinctly between the Committee and Mr. Churchward than was then done. That Motion was the subject of a long, animated, and searching debate, the result being that when the House divided 117 persons supported it, and 162 adopted the Report of the Committee by giving a negative to the Motion. There was afterwards a series of proceedings year after year with which the House need not be troubled, and never, except on a single occasion, was a vote of this House passed for money for the Dover contract without certainly in the most invidious manner including the name of Mr. Churchward, in order to oust him from any monies stipulated in the contract made by him and condemned by the Committee. Once that mode of proceeding was questioned by a Motion to alter the form of the vote—the question of the Report of the Committee was never directly raised—and upon that occasion the Motion was rejected, I admit by a very small majority. But the Report of the Committee, when directly brought to issue, was, as I have shown, made its own by this House; this House, therefore, is as responsible for that Report as if we had all been members of the Committee, and that is the foundation of the relation between the House of Commons and Mr. Churchward. Now, I think it was most unfortunate, I think it was not consistent with a due respect to this House, that the Lord Chancellor, the head of the legal profession, should, under these circumstances, and at the very time, or immediately after the very period when the House had been renewing its Vote of Censure against Mr. Churchward, have appointed that gentleman to the magistracy. And here I may say that, in one respect, I am glad that a question was put from the opposite side of the House to-night, whatever the motive in putting it might be, because it gave to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) an opportunity of making a declaration which I cannot but think does him the highest honour. He had called for inquiry, but of course he might know there would be difficulties in the way, and consequently he had voluntarily abjured all assumption of the dignity and power of the magistracy until he should be acquitted if the charge brought against him. I do not dwell on the charge made against Mr. Churchward in 1853, because I am not cognizant of the circumstances of the Report of that year, further than that I find, on referring to it, that the conduct pursued had been of a very extraordinary character, since it seems that something like forty or forty-five Government employments had been procured by Mr. Churchward for the purpose of distributing them among the electors of Plymouth. Now, under these circumstances, what are we to do? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department told us the, other night that the Lord Chancellor made this appointment in ignorance of what had taken place between this House and Mr. Churchward. Sir, I must say, if that be so, the Lord Chancellor has the utmost reason to complain of those gentlemen, however respectable, who recommended him to appoint Mr. Church ward to the magistracy in ignorance of facts grave and serious, But, if the Lord Chancellor acted in ignorance, it was his ditty upon the discovery of the facts to undo what he had done before. It is no answer to the House to say that he was ignorant of the circumstances. I must confess when I heard that this debate was ac- tually to take place I did hope that we should have had either from some Member of the Government who had communicated with Mr. Churchward, or from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Dickson), some declaration which would have relieved us from the painful issue raised between the dignity and duty of this House to support its own authoritative judgments and the character of Mr. Churchward. Had Mr. Churchward authorized anybody on his behalf to whisper one syllable of regret for the conduct which drew upon him the censure of the Committee, and after that Report the judgment of this House and the loss of the contract, which, no doubt, must have been attended with more or less loss of commercial profit in itself legitimate, I feel confident—though I have not had any communication with him on that point—my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester would have withdrawn his Motion. I, for one, would not have supported it had any such communication been made. Does Mr. Churchward regret the conduct which brought down upon him the Reports of 1853 and of 1859 and the judgments of this House; or are we to be told, as has been fairly stated or implied in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that this judgment of the House and of its Committees were acts performed in the spirit of political partisanship? Well, then, that is to be the reason why Mr. Churchward is to remain a magistrate. Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see the fatal error that he commits when he himself raises the issue between the character of this House and the character of Mr. Churchward, because if Mr. Churchward is to remain a magistrate it is because the judgment of the Committee and of this House were governed by the spirit of political partisanship. That, therefore, is the admission we are called upon to make. Well, then, if that be the issue I accept it, but I accept it with regret. The smallest intimation on the part of Mr. Churchward, which, forbearing to accuse this House, would have expressed regret for the conduct in question might, I think, have induced the House to acquiesce, though not without some difficulty. But even in the choice between difficulties the House, I am sure, would have acquiesced; because it is irksome, it is odious, it is invidious, to have to go back upon questions of this kind which one might have hoped had been long closed. But as we are now distinctly told by the hon. and gallant Gen- tleman who appears here as the advocate and champion of Mr. Churchward that we must retrace our steps and must negative the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester because our judgments were founded on political partisanship—[Major DICKSON: I asked to postpone the Motion.] That is not the question at all; no Motion of that kind has been made, for an Amendment of another description is before the House. All I can say is if a Motion had been made to postpone the decision on the ground that there was some hope of an apology from Mr. Churchward, I, for one, would be prepared to recommend it. Or if some other Gentleman, authorized to speak for Mr. Churchward, will give us that satisfaction which the hon. and gallant Member has declined—has more than declined—to give, because he brings the majority of this House into court and condemns us—if that satisfaction is given, I, for one, shall feel that my duty is performed, and I shall gladly retire from this arena. But if it be not given, whatever pain I may feel, I see no option left me but to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester, who has undertaken the discharge of a most painful duty.

Sir, there are many points connected with this question upon which it is impossible that should remain silent. I stand here, however, at some disadvantage, because I have just returned from my election in the country. I was not aware of what was coming before the House, and I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to-night to enter upon the general question; but as my name has been prominently brought forward in more than one of the speeches made to-night, and as I am now addressing a House of Commons, many Members of which are not familiar with what took place in the last House, I feel it my duty to say a few words with respect to the exact circumstances of the transactions of 1839, as well as I can recall them at this moment. I would premise that I know very little of what took place in 1853, and that I am not aware of the circumstances under which Mr. Churchward has now been appointed to the magistracy of Dover. It appears to be the feeling of the House, and a very natural feeling it is, that the circumstances which attended the making and the cancelling of the contract entered into by the Government of 1859 require the grave consideration of this House. As I was one of the parties that led to the appointment of the Committee, I may state the general character of the transaction, and why I feel that Mr. Churchward received an injury on the part of the house of Commons. I believed then, and I have always felt, that he was treated in a manner that gave him legitimate cause of complaint. Laying aside all questions of his general fitness for appointment to the magistracy, it was due to him that those who were in any way connected with the transaction of 1859 should endeavour to mark their sense that he was an injured man. That is the feeling with which I rose, and I feel it the more strongly because it was the pleasure of the Committee of 1859 to pronounce a verdict in which I on one side and Mr. Churchward on the other might be said to have been put on our trial, and the result was that they acquitted me and condemned him. Under these circumstances I was placed in a position which I felt to be most painful, because I always considered that if there had been condemnation of both, or an acquittal of both, little could have been said; but when the Committee chose to single him out for condemnation and pronounce an acquittal on me, they came to a verdict which I have repeatedly said I could not accede to—a verdict which, so long as I ant able to stand up, I shall say was an unjust verdict. I am sorry, Sir, that I have not had time to refer carefully to the proceedings of the Committee; but I remember, generally, what the circumstances were. They were these: Mr. Churchward—I am telling an old story to many Gentlemen, but there are other, who were not Members of the last Parliament—Mr. Churchward was a contractor with the Government. His contract had several years to run. Mr. Churchward came to the government of Lord Derby in 1859, when I was Secretary of the Treasury, and he asked a renewal of that contract some years before it expired. He gave as a reason that he was prepared to enlarge the service and build new vessels or something equivalent. His application was referred in due course to the Admiralty, and the Board of Admiralty reported in favour of his proposal. It was sent to the Postmaster General, who reported against the extension of the contract. The matter then came to the Treasury, and a Report was made by the permanent Under Secretary or some other officer of the Treasury. I forget on which side he reported. It then came to me at a time when an election was just about to take place. The important point, however, was this:—that the Board of Admiralty had reported in its favour before there was any prospect of an election. It came to me just at the moment the election was about to take place. In consequence of Mr. Churchward being likely to take an active part in the Dover election I put aside the papers, not intending to take them up again till the election was over. But I was afterwards induced to take them up by these considerations I do not think I had any communication with Mr. Churchward; but my attention being brought to the subject. I sent for Mr. Churchward and suggested to him that he should modify his proposal. He said he would not do so. He added something about a contract with the French Government, and that there were special reasons for taking up the subject at that moment. I said there was a difficulty in dealing with it just when an election was about, to take place. Mr. Churchward said it was a very hard ease that it should be put off; he had made the proposal to the Government several months ago; it had been hung up in a public office, and was now to be put off because of an election which had, in fact, nothing to do with it. I thought he was right, and I thought I should be acting as a coward if I put it off. Accordingly, I considered it on its merits; I thought he had a good case for the renewal of his contract; I agreed to renew it, and it was renewed. These circumstances were brought forward; a Committee of the House was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case; and before that Committee there was brought out what I certainly never heard of, that a conversation had taken place between Mr. Churchward and Captain Carnegie, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, who was afterwards a candidate for Dover. It appears that in this conversation he, in the first instance, promised Captain Carnegie his support, and after he had so promised he made allusion to his contract and asked him to do what he could for him. But no communication was ever made by Captain Carnegie on the subject. The Admiralty had reported in its favour, and took no further step in the matter. Well, under these circumstances, when the matter came to be inquired into before the Committee, they came to the conclusion by a majority to the effect reported to the House; but when it is said that the Committee came to their decision by a large majority, and that the Com- mittee was composed of Members taken equally from both sides of the House, I must say that, although the Members were taken equally from both sides of the House, yet there were two taken from this side who were in a very peculiar position, I was one, and Mr. Corry—I mention his name as he is not at present a Member of this House—who was then Secretary to the Admiralty, was the other. We were both placed on the Committee; but, although we took part in the examination of witnesses, we felt that being Members of the Government that made the contract, and Members of the Departments concerned in it, it would not be consistent with decency if we took part in the decision of the Committee, and the Members of this side were in a considerable minority, because two of them felt themselves to be in that critical kind of position. It is perfectly true that Sir Henry Willoughby, who sat on our side, voted on that occasion with the majority; but in the decision before, the majority consisted exclusively of Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I do not say the case was not one in which there might be difference of opinion. I am not endeavouring to charge the Committee of 1859 with having acted with a partisan spirit, but what I am anxious to say is this—that, looking carefully into the matter, and inquiring into what the conduct of Mr. Churchward was, I found it utterly impossible to come to the conclusion that he had recourse to corrupt expedients to obtain the contract on any grounds which did not fix on the Government that renewed it the imputation that they were parties to that corrupt contract. It was absurd to make a charge of corrupt expedients when he made no application, direct or indirect, to the Department which had the whole management of the business in its hands. I therefore say that the verdict was an inconsistent and perfectly futile judgment. If the opinion of the Committee was that there was anything corrupt in that contract, it was the duty of the Committee to report against those who granted it as well as against him who applied for it. Well, when they came to the conclusion that nothing implicated the officers of the Admiralty or Treasury in anything corrupt, I thought it was scarcely consistent that they should have fastened on Mr. Churchward the charge of having recourse to corrupt expedients. Having said this much I come back to the point that we have been in these relations with Mr. Churchward—that we have felt he has had a grievous stigma inflicted upon him, and been subjected to heavy pecuniary loss, while we have been, I suppose I may say, honourably acquitted. That has been a very painful reflection to me and to others who hold the same opinion; and the more that whenever Mr. Churchward endeavoured to bring forward his case to have it fairly and impartially investigated he has always been refused the opportunity. He applied to be heard before the Dover Election Committee, where he might have been examined on oath; but he was told there was no reason for hearing him. He has more than once brought actions in Courts of Law; but he has been met by demurrer, on the technical ground that it was a matter alleged to affect the prerogative or public policy. He tried to refer the matter to arbitration—to Sir John Coleridge and several other gentlemen of high standing; but he has never been allowed that opportunity. The position, therefore, of Mr. Churchward, in the opinion of those cognizant of the proceedings of 1859, is one extremely painful—and which it is quite unfair that he should be placed in. I always myself said that I could not accept with any satisfaction the decision to which the Committee of 1859 arrived, which acquitted me while Mr. Churchward was found guilty. I am not at all aware as to how far he is fitted to be appointed a magistrate, but I shall certainly, as far as I can by my vote to-night, support the credit and reputation of a man who I think has been very unjustly treated.

Sir, I feel personally thankful to the right hon. Member who has just concluded his speech for not giving us a history of the events of 1853. I did think his friend, Mr. Churchward, might have applied to him the same epithet that he applied to me—that of being "long-tongued,"—with his digest of a blue book, which he has been pouting like invidious poison into our ears. I should not, upon this occasion, have displayed the length of that peccant member which has given me such unenviable notoriety, had I not been somewhat unnecessarily dragged into the debate. I never voted upon the Committee, as I thought had I done so I should have exposed myself to have my motives impugned, for there is probably no Gentleman in this House who knows more of Mr. Churchward than I do, and probably no Gentleman in this House rejoices less than I do in his acquaintance. But I cannot for that reason sit still upon this occasion. I abstain from giving my opinion upon the subject under discussion. I merely rise for one purpose. I think it has been rather insinuated by the hon. and gallant Officer (Major Dickson), who rejoices in the friendship of Mr. Churchward, that this Motion—and I stand corrected if I am wrong—had been brought to me to bring forward. I ask that hon. and gallant Officer, does he intend to fasten that upon me? I ask him this because, if he does intend to fasten that upon me, I tell him that—he is labouring under a very great mistake. Sir, that Motion was brought to me in the lobby of this House. [Major DICKSON: That is all I said.] Yes; but you afterwards said that I had got a tool to hold it. [Major DICKSON dissented.] I am glad to hear it. I wish the House to understand my position. Something was brought to me, but I said, "No; you can't touch pitch without being defiled. I will have nothing to do with Mr. Churchward. You may get somebody else to do the work I will not take any part in it." I said, "I will take no part in the debate"—have been forced to get up now by the insinuations of the hon. and gallant Officer—"and what is more, when the subject is brought forward I will give no vote." I have never voted against Mr. Churchward. I felt that I was not in a position to do so. I hope the House will give me credit for that, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Officer will give me credit for it. As to my having endeavoured to get anybody to bring this Motion forward, had I wanted to bring it forward, I should have brought it forward on my own responsibility. But I go further. I believe that the Lord High Chancellor of England has been most grossly and improperly calumniated in this matter. I believe that he is totally incapable of giving a commission of the peace to a man who he thought was an improper one to hold it. Having gone so far, I will say nothing about the occurrence of the year 1859, or of the "martyred Churchward" of the Treasury Bench; but this I will say, that if the Government have instructed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), who we all know is the soul of honour, to get up in his place—as I recommend him to do, and if he does it I will ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion—and say, "Mr. Churchward will retire quietly into the society of those friends who value his ac- quaintance in private life"—I merely throw this out as a suggestion—I think that it will make everybody comfortable. I shall give no vote in this instance, and I only rose in consequence of the insinuations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I hope that the hon. and gallant Officer is satisfied, and I hope Mr. Churchward will be satisfied.

said, he had been accused of being too loud on the hustings in his demand that corruption should be brought to punishment; but he held one great maxim of English policy to be that a man should not be punished two or three times for the same offence, and that such punishment should not be inflicted before the offender had been heard in his own defence. The real question before the House was this—would the House of Commons, upon various reports of what had occurred fourteeen years ago, stigmatise a man for life, and punish him with the severest punishment that it was within their power to inflict? The House had already punished Mr. Churchward very seriously. He had no acquaintance with Mr. Churchward, and never had any conversation with him, and, except from what he had heard respecting him in that House, he knew nothing about that gentleman. But he thought that, whatever right the House might have to act upon the Report of one of its Committees, appointed to investigate a question affecting one of its own Members, they had no right to pronounce judicially upon the conduct of any man who had not been heard in his own defence, He understood from the speeches of two hon. Members that Mr. Churchward hail challenged inquiry into the facts alleged against him, and that his application had been refused on some technical objection. He thought this was a good reason why the Motion of the hon. Gentleman asking the House to stigmatize Mr. Churchward without his being heard in his own defence should be rejected.

Sir, it is most painful for those who have to charge such a duty to rise in support of a Motion of this kind; but I cannot at all agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that this Motion is a proceeding in pœna against Mr. Churchward. What is the occasion of the Motion? It is that Mr. Churchward has been selected recently and for the first time as a fit person to be appointed one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the borough of Dover. Therefore the step which has occasioned this Motion has not been taken by the hon. Gentleman who makes this Motion, but by the Government that made the appointment. I say "by the Government" deliberately; because I feel sure that had the matter rested solely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, for whom I entertain the utmost personal regard and respect, and had all the facts of the case been brought before him, he would not have thought this a desirable appointment. But we are told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) that we are to take a much broader view of the matter, and that Her Majesty's Government fully and entirely accept the responsibility of the appointment of Mr. Churchward upon the footing of its being a proper mode of redressing an act of injustice which has been committed by this House. I must say that that view appears to me to be a most extraordinary one, and that this step on the part of Her Majesty's Government opens up still more serious questions for our consideration than that which appeared to be raised by the Motion before the House. Are the judgments of this House never to be authoritative—are they never to be settled? Is every Ministry who succeed another Ministry at all times to be entitled to disregard the repeated judgments of the House—judgments which have even passed into the form of Acts of Parliament—Session after Session? I thought that the divisions of even our Committees, if we believed that they had discharged their duties honestly and fairly, were always entitled to our support. But this is not merely a case where only the judgment of a Committee is involved. The Committee which decided this case was one constituted of as honourable gentlemen as ever sat on such an inquiry. They were Sir Francis Baring (Lord Northbrook), Sir Henry Willoughby, Mr. Scholefield, and others, all of whom concurred in passing this Report. Therefore, I say that it is a very serious thing for the House, which had trusted entirely to this Report, upon the authority of those hon. Members, to be asked to sanction the proceeding of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, and to treat as a nullity the finding of that Committee upon this important subject. The finding of that Committee has been followed up by three consecutive Resolutions of this House, and on those Resolutions no less than four Acts of Parliament have been founded; and yet after that we are told by the present Government that they conceive it to be their duty to mark by some honour to Mr. Churchward their sense of the injustice which the decision of the House has done him. In that case I say that at least the House ought to require very strong and clear proof before they admit that any injustice has been done in this matter. Having more than once considered the evidence laid before the Committee, I differ from those who say that injustice has been done, and I shall be much deceived if that be not the opinion of the majority of those whom I am addressing. In the first place, let me call the attention of the House to this transaction, the evidence upon which, without trenching on the region of oral statement, mainly consists of written documents. I put aside the fact that Mr. Churchward had been subjected to the adverse Report of a Committee, on account of electioneering prosecuted with political zeal. Mr. Churchward obtained the contract, and under Lord Aberdeen's Government he applied for an extension of his contract without success. The correspondence ceases in 1857, a new Government comes in, he renews his application to them in January, 1859, and, of course, everybody who recollects the particulars of that Government acknowledge that even at that time the possibility of a general election was a thing which might be present to men's minds. The Board of Admiralty, not the First Lord, conceived that the investigation of the application on its merits belonged to the Treasury, and forwarded the application to the Treasury, with a "favourable recommendation," which, given by the Board of Admiralty, meant nothing whatever, as the Board did not profess to be judges of the question of renewing the contract, and did not profess to investigate the matter on its merits. The First Lord said he knew nothing about it; and therefore the reference to the Board of Admiralty of the 23rd of February was a matter of trifling importance. What was done? The Treasury, no doubt, discharged its duty in referring the matter to the Post Office; and on the 10th of January the Postmaster General reported strongly against the application for the renewal of the contract. Mr. Stephenson, of the Treasury, confirmed the Postmaster General; Mr. Hamilton, of the Treasury, differed from them. Before anything more was done, came the defeat of the then Government on the then Reform Bill, and it is remarkable that these questions always coincide with Reform Bills. Of course, everybody at that time knew that a dissolution was impending; and it actually took place on the 19th of April. Now the plot thickens. I have said before, and say again, I am ready to acquit the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote) of doing anything unworthy of his position; therefore, I protest against the fallacies into which his excessive generosity leads him, when he says, "If yon condemn Mr. Churchward you must condemn me." I say there is no ground for any such conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman might have had, and I dare say had, reasons before him which might satisfy other men as well as himself. He was therefore totally free from the imputation of any improper motive. What he eventually did was right; but the evidence is irresistible, and it convinced the Committee that, as regards Mr. Churchward, electioneering was mixed up with the matter, and that the two things went on together. On the 4th of April Mr. Churchward writes a very urgent letter to Mr. Hamilton, of the Treasury, in which he says—

"No compensation whatever could be offered me equivalent to the extension of my contract that I have prayed for. The extension is the pivot on which every department of my business turns. With the extension I have hopes of the ultimate success of my enterprize."

And so on, urging the case in the strongest possible manner. The next day, as it appears from the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote), Mr. Murray, Private Secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty, writes to Captain Carnegie a letter, in which he says—

"My dear Carnegie,—Sir William Jolliffe is very anxious to see you this evening at the Committee-room, at 6, Victoria Street. They say they must get you to stand either for Dover or Devonport, both of which must be fought by Admiralty men. I am inclined to think you would have the best chance at Devonport. I don't like Dover much. The enthusiasts think they can turn out Russell. I told them they might turn out Osborne, but had no chance with Russell; and, in fact, I believe the latter would pull through the former. I will send for Churchward and ask him what the chances are; but I think, as a friend, you will have to stand for one of these two places."

While on the 4th of April Mr. Churchward is writing and pressing his claims for the extension of the contract, on the 5th of April Mr. Murray is communicating with Mr. Churchward with a view to what is going on at Dover. That is not all. There is a letter written clearly about that time, though the date is not given. It is given on the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, and I ask particular attention to its terms. The right hon. Baronet is asked—

"Had you any other pressure put upon you except that which Sir William Jolliffe brought to bear to induce you to expedite this business just at the critical time of the election?"

My right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) said that Sir William Jolliffe, who occupied an important and responsible position in that Government, urged the business to be expedited.

No! just the contrary. Sir William Jolliffe said—

"This is a matter not to be brought forward during an election. There is an election coming on. You had better, therefore, deal with it before, or put it off until after, the election."

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and I accept that statement. To the question I have read my right hon. Friend replied—

"There was another person who mentioned the matter, not to me, but to Mr. Hamilton, about the same time or, as nearly as possible, at the same time Mr. Hamilton received from Mr. Whitmore a letter, which has been already mentioned as having been written by Mr. Herbert Murray to Mr. Whitmore at the Treasury. I do not remember the exact terms, but it was to this effect, We are anxious to expedite Mr. Churchward's matter, and we want him to go down to Dover to canvass.'"

The question is whether we are to stigmatize the Committee as having come to an unwarrantable verdict. It is to be recollected that Captain Carnegie, after personal communication with Mr. Churchward as well as with Mr. Murray, believed that there was substantially an understanding or bargain for Mr. Churchward's vote and interest. Mr. Churchward distinctly denies that, but Captain Carnegie says—

"Mr. Churchward spoke to me on the subject of the pending election for Dover, and, having volunteered his support and promised me his assistance in general terms, he made an allusion to his anxiety to obtain the renewal of his contract, and he said that they were anxious to deter signing the renewal of his contract until after the election was over; but he felt that that would be too hard upon him, and that he would rather prefer voting for Mr. Bernal Osborne and for myself, inasmuch as he would then have a friend in power, whoever was in office. He also added that he thought they wanted him to return two Government Members for Dover, and if they did so he should be obliged to comply with it."

Afterwards Mr. Carnegie says he distinctly understood the effect of this communication to be that Mr. Churchward, if his wishes as to the contract were gratified, would help to return two Government Members for Dover; otherwise his feelings and his own interest in possible events would be to divide his vote and interest, and give half of it to Mr. Bernal Osborne. Was that not evidence which the Committee were entitled to believe, concurring, as it does, with the documents and facts I have mentioned? The Treasury Minute approving the contract was signed on the 15th of April. Is it possible, in this state of things, for the House to say it is in a situation to treat Mr. Churchward as an injured man, injured by this House? But the picture would not be complete without Mr. Churchward's portraiture of himself. Mr. Churchward denies he entered into such a bargain; he denies that such a conversation with Captain Carnegie took place. It was for the Committee to judge to whom they could give most credit, and of materials for their judgment there were some by no means of slight importance in the answers given by Mr. Churchward himself to several questions put to him. In answer to the question, "Did you vote for him (Mr. Osborne) from political considerations?" he said—

"No, not at all. I distinctly stated that I did not support him on political considerations, but because I thought that, as he was the secretary of the Admiralty, and there was a chance of the harbour being turned over to the Admiralty, and that they were likely to buy it, Mr. Bernal Osborne could serve the interest of Dover, and also my interest, better than anyone else."

This is the account of this gentleman himself, giving the grounds on which he disposed of his political influence. But if these were the grounds, according to his own account, why Mr. Churchward gave his vote and used his influence, is it not probable that Captain Carnegie's account of what had previously taken place was the correct one? The question is, which of these accounts is the correct one? Did Mr. Churchward use his political influence in accordance with the interests of Dover and of himself, or upon purely political and independent grounds? Then, to proceed to the Question No. 1,075—

"With regard to the vote you gave at Dover, you gave it entirely on personal grounds, as concerned yourself, and without reference to the contract?—On personal grounds, certainly, but it did enter into my consideration at the time that, inasmuch as I had received at the hands of the Government an extension of my contract, it would be unbecoming in me to oppose the Government."

Therefore it singularly enough happened that this consideration did actuate the vote which he gave. So that although he denied that he had told Captain Carnegie that it was to be so, singularly enough the event occurred, and according to his own showing a sense of gratitude directed the vote which he gave. Gratitude for what? For the extension of this contract. Then what was his answer to Question 1,879?—

"Having heard the evidence (of Captain Carnegie and Mr. Murray), do you adhere to the version you gave to the Committee the other day?—I repeat that at that interview, in the presence of Mr. Murray, not one word was mentioned respecting the contract, or my anxiety to obtain the signing of the contract. I should not have dreamt of doing so imprudent a thing."

The House will judge whether the Committee should have thought that was consistent with the statement of Captain Carnegie. Then came this question—

"What number of votes have you in connection with your establishment?—I think there are about fifty-two belonging to my establishment who have votes.

"Did they all vote right?—I think they did. I do not think I had one traitor."

I have no inclination to detain the House; but I cannot help saying that, after the evidence which was adduced, the Committee were most fully justified in the conclusion at which they arrived as far as Mr. Churchward was concerned. If the House does not wish to give countenance to the mixing up the obtaining of Government contracts with electioneering for the Government, the House will not by its vote to-night depart from the principles on which it has already acted, or express its approbation of the selection of this gentleman to fill the office of a justice of the peace, especially of a justice of the peace for that very borough of Dover.

said, he was at all times most unwilling to obtrude himself on the notice of the House; but there were occasions on which silence might be construed as a want of moral courage, and the present was, in his opinion, one of those occasions. As one of the Members for Dover, he thought it was his duty to say a few words respecting the Motion under discussion; because he feared a great act of injustice would be perpetrated on the Government and on Mr. Churchward if that Motion were allowed to pass. It was cruel in the extreme to attack an individual in the way in which Mr. Churchward had been attacked that evening without any adequate cause. The present attack did not emanate from Dover, nor from the county of Kent, nor from any locality connected with Mr. Churchward or his doings. There were hon. Gentlemen round about him, representatives of the county of Kent, who, if there had been any impropriety in this appointment, would have been ready to point it out to the House. But the attack proceeded from that cold and bitter locality the North of England, and was supported by the hon. Gentleman who once represented Dover, but who now hailed from another place, he having owed his displacement in Dover to the influence of Mr. Churchward, his legitimate and proper influence in that borough. What were the charges brought against the Government and against Mr. Churchward? First, that in 1853 a Committee which sat to inquire into the election for Plymouth found that Mr. Churchward had been guilty of bribery, in the sense of having offered a place to an individual who had voted. The Committee sat a second time, to determine whether further proceedings should be taken or not, and the first Resolution they adopted was to the effect that it was the prevailing opinion in Plymouth at that time that after a man had promised his vote the promise of a place was not an infraction of the law. What was the second Resolution of the Committee? It was that the circumstances of the case did not call for further proceedings. Then there were the proceedings of the Committee of 1859. In 1859 a Committee of that House found that Mr. Churchward had been guilty of resorting to corrupt expedients affecting injuriously the character of the representatives of the people in circumstances affecting a contract for the mail packet service. The question in dispute was one involving moral character, and if such a question were put to the House there could be no doubt of the result. Now, what were the numbers on the two divisions? On the first, 162 to 117; and on the second, 176 to 168. Those numbers clearly proved that the house was not voting simply and solely on a question of moral character or conduct. It was plain that it was a party question, and that parties being then nearly equally divided, the divisions were very close ones. Mr. Churchward, however, did not submit quietly to the judgment of the House, but instituted legal proceedings for the purpose of proving the validity of the contract. The then Attorney General, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), opposed those proceedings; but, instead of pleading that the contract was corrupt, and consequently invalid, he raised a demurrer to the effect that on the terms of the contract there was no mutual obligation. Unfortunately for Mr. Churchward it was a unilateral contract. Mr. Churchward was bound to carry the mails if required, but the Government was not bound to employ him. Such, at least, was the decision of the Courts of Law. But it should be borne in mind that Mr. Churchward had to fight the Government, which was so ably represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond, and what chance had he under those circumstances? Hon. Members had noticed that evening the spirit displayed by the late Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman put into the Acts of Parliament a clause such as had never before been introduced into any Act, and that clause excluded Mr. Churchward from the benefit of contracts made with the Government. Such a proceeding was, in his judgment, unconstitutional. The evidence of corruption in regard to the contract was simply that Mr. Churchward, being in a room with two gentlemen of unimpeachable character, made use of a particular expression. Mr. Churchward ought to have been entitled to show that his contract was good, notwithstanding that the House of Commons might have been affronted by a conversation that had taken place, in which it was supposed that Mr. Churchward said he could influence votes at Dover. If so, that might be the act of a simple man, but not of a corrupt man. The use of such words tended to show that there was no corruption, for people did not talk corruptly if they thought and acted corruptly. It was idle to contend that light words spoken in casual conversation were to have any relevance as regards the contract being corrupt. Indeed, it was immaterial whether those words were used or not. It was proved at the time that the contract was necessary, that the Government were rightly to extend the period of the contract, and that it was right that Mr. Churchward should come to the Government and ask them to extend it. Mr. Churchward was able to obtain a more rapid transit of the French mails. The contract was entered into properly and righteously enough, and there was nothing even alleged to be wrong, but a supposed statement which was denied. Mr. Churchward had been unjustly used, especially when the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, the then Attorney General, shut him up in a Court of Law, by insisting that the contract did not mean that he was to receive payment, but meant that he was always to have his boats ready for the service of Her Majesty's Government. An attack was unjustly and unfairly made upon Mr. Churchward, so as to put him in a position of not being entitled to receive the grant which the Crown had made for the services which that gentleman had rendered. And that was followed up by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond, the late Attorney General, preventing Mr. Churchward from showing in a Court of Law that his contract was a valid one, by meeting him with a demurrer to that very contract for the rescinding of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was responsible. Mr. Churchward had been most unjustly treated. When he (Mr. Freshfield) heard that night the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, made as it was in that spirit of advocacy which was so oppressive, when administered by so eminent an advocate, he could not refrain from addressing the House against this attempt to shut out Mr. Churchward under those circumstances from exercising the office of magistrate for the borough of Dover, which his position in that place justly entitled him to occupy. This proceeding would be a great hardship on Mr. Churchward, following, as it would, the hardship of having denied him the benefit of the contract which he made with the Crown.

I hope the House will pause before assenting to a general proposition of this nature without any examination into it.

Sir, I hope the House and I hope the country will consider well the purport of the short speech that has now been extracted from the right hon. Gentleman. About an hour ago it was my duty to rise upon the Amendment propounded—no doubt, honestly propounded—by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck), and I pointed out, or endeavoured to point out, that the subject-matter of the Amendment, at the proper time, deserved the consideration of the House of Commons. In doing so, Sir, I was guided mainly by the fact that this important Amendment had been proposed and the discussion on it raised without previous notice given to the House. On that account it did appear to me that the time for the discussion of the question had not arrived, and that it should not be discussed except on notice, because of its novelty and because of the breadth of the field which it covered. The right hon. Gentleman has now discovered this. "The engineer hoist with his own petard," and smarting under the consequences of the victory which his Friends have gained for him, now falls back on words of wisdom, which he would not speak while it was yet time. I raised that issue. I did not object to the substance of the Amendment. I am convinced that the time is come when this House should take care as to the impression it creates out of doors with regard to the seriousness of its intentions at striking at acts of bribery in high places. But upon the issue of the unfitness of the present time. I objected to the addition of the words of the Amendment. The House has overruled my objection by a majority. The House has decided by a majority that this is the time to entertain the question, and Her Majesty's Government have formed a portion of that majority. If, Sir, this be the time to entertain the question, I feel that my duty to the House, and my respect to the House, bind me to say "Aye" or "No" on it. My choice is made in a moment. I will say "Aye" on it.

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) warned us to think well before we adopted the Amendment that is now before us. I voted against the Motion, because I felt that we were likely to be guilty of a gross injus- tice in punishing a man a second time for an offence committed in a matter which a Committee had recommended should not be further proceeded with, and I voted in the majority. The right hon. Gentleman now for the sake of attracting popular attention supports an Amendment which he condemned at the beginning of this debate. I have no love of corruption. I supported last year the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire (Sir Rainald Knightley) upon the subject of bribery and corruption, and I did so honestly, in the sense in which Mr. Pitt proposed to punish bribery and corruption—namely, by disfranchising the corrupt constituencies. I am prepared to pursue that course again; and I know that the hon. Baronet will not be wanting when the time comes. But I am not going to vote for an Address to the Crown to issue a fishing inquiry into transactions of years long past. I am not going to vote for a proposition that the right hon. Gentleman condemned at the beginning of this discussion. He may find it convenient to change his opinion during the evening. I shall retain mine. All I hope is that when the time comes for the hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire to cite Mr. Pitt's opinion for the effectual prevention of bribery we shall be supported by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, it would be in the recollection of Members of the House that the right hon. Gentleman now Secretary of State for War, and then at the head of die Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), made a statement in answer to a question put to him that on his accession to office he had not found the reserves of ships in time state in which he had a right to expect them. There was no quali- fication in that statement as to the class of vessels. It was accepted by the public as referring generally to the state of the navy and to all classes of ships, and there resulted a series of attacks in the press upon the administration of the late Board. The statement further alarmed not only those who were prone to panics about the state of the navy, but those who dreaded another re-construction of the navy similar to that inaugurated in 1859 by the right hon. Gentleman. At the commencement of this Session, the Duke of Somerset addressed himself to this subject in "another place," and defended the condition in which he had left the navy. The noble Earl at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby) answered him, and produced in justification of his Colleague an extract from a memorandum by Sir Frederick Grey, which had been found among papers left at the Admiralty, and on the faith of which he said the right hon. Gentleman had made his answer in this House. Sir Frederick Grey was very much dissatisfied with the use made of his name, and of some casual remarks of his in a memorandum upon the policy of building some paddle-wheel steamers, and had asked him to move for a Return of the memorandum. Finding, however, that it would be contrary to the forms of the House to move for a paper which had been quoted in "another place," he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) contented himself with making a general denial on behalf of Sir Frederick Grey, in the course of the debate on the state of the dockyards, and there the matter would have rested. But in the course of the very able and clear statement made by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), on bringing in the Estimates, the memorandum was again quoted. Sir Frederick Grey now wished that his memorandum and the submission of the Controller, to which it was an answer, should be laid before the House, so that it might be seen how little ground existed for quoting him in justification of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. The memorandum was written in February of last year, before the Estimates were brought in. It had reference solely to a proposal to build a paddle-wheel steamer, on the merits of which there was some difference of opinion. Sir Frederick Grey contended that in no wise could it be used in support of the general statement made last Session, or in any way as justifying the charges against the late Board. There never was any difference of opinion between himself and the Duke of Somerset as regarded the policy of building ships, or the condition in which the navy was at any time, and he said that any attempt to quote him as an authority for statements of such a nature was entirely unwarranted.

said, he felt compelled to resist the application. The memorandum was attached to confidential communications between the Controller and the Board of Admiralty on questions of public policy and referring to other matters. It would be extremely inconvenient for the public service that these papers should be produced. That was his only reason for resisting the Motion. Both in the debates in that House and in "another place" ample justice had been done to the Duke of Somerset and the late Board of Admiralty.

said, it was the universal rule that when a document was quoted by a Minister of the Crown the Government were bound to lay it on the table of the House. He should not press for any document the production of which was declared to be injurious to the public service; but he could not help expressing his surprise that in both Houses of Parliament a document should have been used in debate which it was now declared could not be produced.

said, he feared he had not made himself understood. The memorandum was only a short one, but it was attached to correspondence of considerable length relating to matters of public policy which it was not desirable to produce, but without which it would be scarcely intelligible.

said, that if that were the case the document should not have been quoted. Towards the end of last Session it was said that the present Board of Admiralty found the reserve in a state in which they did not expect to see it. That statement was challenged in "another place;" and in reply a minute of Sir Frederick Grey was quoted, which should not have been done if the document could not be produced without injury to the public service. Sir Frederick Grey was put in an unfair position by its non-production.

said, there was no objection to produce Sir Frederick Grey's memorial itself if it were desired. It had already appeared in print. But the confidential communications contained in the Controller's submission it would be extremely undesirable to lay before the House.

said, he had no wish for the memorial without the submission of the Controller to which it formed an answer. On Sir Frederick Grey's part he entirely repudiated the construction which had been put upon that document.

said, he objected to proceeding with such an important Bill at that late hour (quarter past twelve.) That measure and the one which immediately followed it (Transubstantiation, &c., Declaration Bill) involved important constitutional questions which must be considered together, and it would be impossible properly to debate theist at that hour. There were many Amendments on the paper respecting it, and he thought it impossible that they could make any progress with the measure at that sitting. He should therefore move that the House do now adjourn.

said, he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare would be allowed to go into Committee. After the lengthened debate and the exciting scenes which had already taken place, his hon. and learned Friend would be satisfied if the Bill were committed pro formâ. As a matter of courtesy he hoped this would be conceded.

said, he had supported this Bill at every stage, and was still prepared to give it his best adhesion. At the same time, though limited in extent, the Bill certainly did involve serious constitutional questions which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate) consistently treated as belonging to a very high range of politics. A debate of somewhat unusual length and animation on a subject of considerable interest had already taken place that evening. He could not but think that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was justified in objecting to going on with the Bill at present, and he should therefore recommend his hon. Friend not to press his Motion.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in any future discussion of the Bill would meet them in a fair and honourable spirit, and that no vexatious delays would be interposed to the progress of the Bill.

said, he could assure the hon. Member that his only wish was that the House should fully understand the great and important principle involved in the question.

said, that as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire objected to going into Committee on the Bill at present, and as the right hon. Member for South Lancashire recommended that he should not press his Motion, he would give notice of the Committee on the Bill for that day week.