said, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill for the Repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act stood for the evening sitting, but there had been an understanding that there would be a Committee upon the Act, and that this Bill for the repeal of the Act would not be proceeded with. Under these circumstances, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he knew what were the intentions of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. MacEvoy) as to proceeding with the second reading of the Bill, and what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to it, if it were proceeded with?

, in reply, said, he had not been aware of the Order for that night, and he had had no communication with the hon. Member for Meath. On the part of the Government he had assented to a Committee upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, but that was upon the clear understanding that the Bill introduced for its repeal should not be proceeded with. If the Bill were proceeded with it would entirely change the state of affairs.

proposed to add the following words at the end of the clause:—

"And with the Registration Acts; and in construing the provisions of the 24th and 25th sections of the Act 2 Will. IV. c. 45, the expressions 'the provisions hereinafter contained' and 'as aforesaid,' shall be deemed to refer to the provisions of this Act conferring rights to vote as well as to the provisions of the said Act."

said, the Committee ought to have some explanation of those words.

said, they were very simple. The object of the 24th and 25th sections of the Act in question was to prevent any person from voting for a county in respect of a freehold house occupied by himself which would confer a vote for the borough, and to prevent a person from voting in a county in respect of certain copyholds and leaseholds in a borough under the same circumstances. The House was unanimously of opinion that a person so situated should not vote in a county, and the object of the addition of those words to the clause was to carry out that view.

said, the question was one which the Committee had decided, and they could not propose to renew that discussion.

moved, after line 7, page 14, to add—

"'Dwelling house' shall include any building, or part of a building, occupied as a dwelling, and separately rated to the relief of the poor; 'lodgings' shall mean any part of a house or building occupied by any person dwelling therein, and not separately rated to the relief of the poor."

The Committee would recollect that they had given a vote to every occupier of a dwelling-house, and had said that in all such cases the occupier, not the owner, was to be rated in respect of it. The words were "dwelling house or other tenement," recognizing what he believed was the general sense of the Committee, that it was in tended to include under the term "dwelling-house" everything which was substantially a dwelling house, although it might only be a part of a single building, as in the case of flats, chambers in the Inns of Court and in Victoria Street, and flats as they existed in Sunderland, Newcastle, and the North of England as well as in Scotland. It would be impossible to undertake the task of defining with any satisfactory result what should constitute a flat, with reference to a separate door or staircase. They must therefore enact that the occupation of less than the entire house, if the occupier were separately rated, should entitle a man to the franchise. He could not, of course, pretend to define under what circumstances the overseers should rate persons separately. That was a point as to which persons must be left to their remedies. But it was right that words should be introduced showing that where any inhabited portion of a building was separately rated it should be treated for the purposes of the franchise as a dwelling-house.

said, this was a more serious question than the House is aware of. He thought it unadvisable to insert in the interpretation clause a definition of the words "dwelling-house." A judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, when Sir William Erle was Chief Justice, accurately defines what is a dwelling-house under the meaning of the Reform Act. The judgment, which had reference to the distinction between a dwelling-house and part of a house, determined that part of a house may give the franchise provided it is occupied as an independent occupation and there is a complete severance between it and the remainder of the house, even though the landlord resides there. The result of that decision is that every man who inhabits a flat, chambers in the Inns of Court, and—where a house is divided into several floors, if each of those floors has a separate entrance from a common passage leading from a common staircase, with a common outer door—each person who occupies one of these floors as a separate house, is entitled to a vote. The difference between this decision and the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond was this, that according to the latter any person who occupied and resided in premises, being part of a building, whether separated or not from the rest of the building, would, if rated, be entitled to a vote as the occupier of a dwelling-house. He did not say that such a person ought not to be entitled, but what he did say was that if the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal were adopted it would make a great addition to what was meant as a dwelling-house. Now, as a clear definition of what was meant by a dwelling-house had been given by the Court of Common Pleas, what more did they want? If they were to introduce a definition of a dwelling-house into the Bill, the effect of it would be to put revising barristers at sea upon that subject.

reminded the Committee that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas to which the hon. and learned Serjeant had directed their attention had been delivered under totally different circumstances from those which would arise under the present Bill. At that time the owner, and not the occupier, was in the great majority of instances liable for the payment of the rates; but by the measure now before the Committee the occupier himself should take upon himself that liability if he desired to acquire the franchise. The measure, as it stood, would thus exclude a large number of persons who were perfectly qualified to return Members to that House, and in order to obviate that grievance a provision like that proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman was necessary, and he should therefore support it.

also supported the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond.

remarked that in Newcastle-on-Tyne many old - fashioned houses formerly inhabited by the well-to-do classes were now occupied in flats by labouring people, the outer door not being in the possession of any one person. It was to be regretted that so many persons lived in houses of this description, but it was attributable to the difficulty of finding better accommodation. According to the decision of the Court of Common Pleas these persons would not have votes, which he thought they were clearly entitled to if they were separately rated.

said, that the hon. and learned Serjeant had given them the present legal interpretation of the word "dwelling - house," but that was, he understood, very different from the interpretation which had formerly been adopted. There seemed no reason, therefore, why that interpretation itself might not be again altered, and he thought they ought now to give a clear definition of the meaning the word was intended to convey.

I agree with my hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat that it would be very desirable to give a definition of the word "dwelling-house." I understood that Her Majesty's Government, in the person of the Attorney General, undertook to see what could be done in the way of defining it. As no clause has proceeded from the consideration which they have given to the subject, I have come to the conclusion—and I am not at all surprised at it—that they have found difficulties in their way so great that they have not been able to submit to the Committee, with satisfaction to themselves, any distinct definition in terms of a "dwelling-house." I hope, therefore, that the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond is not at all in conflict with what has been stated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Locke King), because, although my hon. and learned Friend does not directly and in terms define a dwelling—that is to say, by reference to its conformation and its access — yet indirectly he gives a perfect, absolute, and simple definition of a dwelling-house—namely, a tenement which, even if it be not a separate; house, is subject to a separate rating; and that appears to me to be a reasonable proposal. I think it is a great mistake to set up judicial construction against legislative discretion in cases of this description. The business of a Judge is not to find the best possible definition, but to construe the existing law, whatever it may be; while the business of the legistator is to determine, not upon considerations of interpretation, but upon considerations of policy, what is the best course to be taken. Let me now observe that this question is essentially shifted by the introduction of the lodger franchise. We have to draw a line which will separate the lodger from the householder. Last year we had to consider this question, and to encounter the same difficulties which I imagine the Government have now to encounter. We did not then find it possible to arrive at any satisfactory definition of the word "dwelling-house," in direct terms; and consequently we were driven to the necessity of adopting the proposal which is now revived in substance by my hon. and learned Friend—namely, that that which the parish finds it convenient on the whole to subject to separate rating, shall be for the purposes of this law a dwelling-house. Let us look at the advantages which this proposal presents. In the first place, it is eminently agreeable to that which the House has adopted as the principle of the Bill—namely, personal rating. Here are a class of persons every one of whom, by the force of the terms used, must be permanently rated, and must be under exactly the same obligations with respect to their personal rates, whether they have apartments to which there is a separate and independent access, or whether they are dependent upon a common access. But what has a common access to do with the respectability or responsibility of the party? Nothing whatever: and if the principle of the Bill be the principle of personal rating—that every man who is to enjoy the franchise as a householder is to do so because he is the direct object of the local tax, and because he is under an absolute legal liability to pay that tax personally — I want to know what conceivable reason there can be in the fact that he has an outer access to his house which is common to him with many other persons, for excluding him from a privilege which does not depend upon any consideration connected with the structure and conformation of the dwelling? If we decline to give the franchise in such a case, we depart from the principle of the Bill, and mar its application. But how will this Amendment work? It will work, I believe, with the greatest possible simplicity. There are two modes of proceeding proposed. One is that we should indicate separate rating as the test of the house-holding character; the next is that we should lay down as the test certain conditions connected with the structure of the house. If you adopt the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend you have, when you come before the revising barrister, nothing to do, to ascertain whether a man is qualified to register as a householder, but to turn to the rate book; but if, on the other hand, you adopt the principle that the appearance of his name on the rate book is not sufficient, you are driven to the alternative of compelling him to call witnesses and to produce evidence to satisfy the revising barrister, and probably to produce plans and drawings to show that there exists a separate access to the premises in respect of which the franchise is claimed. This question is, in point of fact, the very same question over again which was originally agitated as to clear annual value. In the case of a reference to the rate book we shall escape all these difficulties. The Government process of deciding what is to be considered a dwelling-house will be cumbrous and expensive, whereas the definition offered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond is simple and effective. If we adopt the principle of separate access, and that is to be fatal to the right of enjoying household suffrage so called, every man will be thrown back upon the lodger franchise, and then we ought to inquire what is a separate access. Some Members of this House have no separate access to their chambers, and the houses in Victoria Street have no separate access. Most of the chambers in the Inns of Court have, and they are separately rated; but they have a common staircase; and I contend that a common staircase ought to have no bearing upon this question. I understand all the anxiety manifested by the Committee is to find a definition of a "dwelling-house" which shall not cut out persons subject to the condition of a common access, but those persons who live in miserable hovels which are not fit to be called dwelling-houses. I understand that in the case of the northern towns there are buildings in which a great many of the labouring classes are accommodated in apartments one over the other, and notwithstanding they are separately rated. Now, there will be a great advantage in having a natural, self-adjusting, and spontaneous working machinery, and the parish will rate people according to the mode most convenient for rating purposes; and we should follow that principle which has in itself a spontaneous action rather than a definition of an artificial and conventional character. Much has been said of the incongruity and impropriety of disfranchising proposals coming from the Liberal side of the House. But, at any rate, this proposal is not one of this description, for it is one of an enfranchising character. There is this important difference between a householder and a lodger. A householder is registered by a public officer, and a lodger will have to make out his claim and prove his title to vote; and the practical operation of the clause will be that scarcely one out of two or three will obtain the franchise as compared with the householders. Therefore, because of the simplicity of this definition,, of the enfranchising tendency, of the practical results, and of the legal principle involved, I hold that this proposal is a good proposal, and as there is no other in a distinct shape before the Committee, and as I believe no other proposal of an effective kind can be produced, I think this one fully deserves the approval of the Committee.

said, he thought it unfortunate that the question should be mixed up with the previous question of "What is a dwelling-house?" He wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite upon what the right of rating was to depend? Was it upon the discretion of the overseer? Had the owner of a house the right to claim to be rated for the purpose of registration, and ought he to have that right, even though the tenement he occupied might not be worth 10s. or 20s. a year? If a man had a right to be rated without reference to the nature of his tenement, the Parliamentary franchise would be very much lower than the municipal. He wished to protect the public against the influx of the lower class of voters, who he was afraid would obtain admission in large numbers.

said, the addition to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond was in opposition to, and would come into conflict with, the lodger clause which had been already passed by the Committee. That clause required that lodgings should be part of the same dwelling-house, whereas the clause now proposed said that the tenement should be part of a house or dwelling-house. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) that they should be informed whether under this Bill the occupier of a hovel was to become one of the future legislators for this Empire. In former discussions they had had a promise from the Government of a definition of what a dwelling-house was to be considered. As this had not yet been fulfilled, he would suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond should, in his Amendment, insert after the word "building" the words "fit for human habitation." That would deal with the question, which the House must admit to be of great importance. The effect of the clause would be to give dwellings notoriously unfit for human habitation additional value from the occupier having a vote.

said, the difficulty in the way of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was, that anything actually inhabited by a human being would probably be determined by a Court of Law to be fit for human habitation, because if not fit it would not be inhabited. But the hon. Gentleman would find his remedy in the principle of the Bill, which was, that those who lived in hovels should be put in the position of holding political power. However, he was not one of those who approved of that principle, and if the hon. Gentleman could discover any means of excluding the hovel population, he should be very glad to give his assistance. He wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond to the result of his definition of the word lodging. As now defined, in connection with the lodger clause, it appeared to him that any man who was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment would have a vote under this Bill. [Laughter.] He was sorry that his suggestion should be received with ridicule; but he was afraid it was an actual fact. The definition included any part of a house occupied by a person dwelling there. The prisoner occupied a part of the House in which he dwelt, and was certainly not rated to the poor. There was not a word as to the occupier paying rent, but only as to the clear annual value of the tenement. It would be dangerous to leave the definition wholly to the discretion of the Courts of Law.

said, it had been thought wiser to leave the existing decisions, as to what was a dwelling-house, to stand, instead of adopting legislation which was likely to conflict with them. The proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had the merit of simplicity; but the question was whether that was a sufficient reason to induce them to adopt his definition. At present it rested very much with the overseers whether they would rate particular persons occupying particular rooms; and if this definition were adopted, this consequence would arise—that rooms which an overseer was induced to rate separately in one year would constitute a dwelling-house in that year, and that they would cease to do so next year, because the overseer might then refuse to rate them separately. As to a hovel not being a dwelling-house, they must first define what was a hovel. As long as they had the definition given of a dwelling-house under the Reform Act by the Courts of Law, after a vast amount of consideration, as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Rochester, was it not better to leave that definition to stand, rather than to say that any person who had a single room in a house opening on a common staircase, or even over a stable, provided only the overseer rated him separately, was the occupier of a dwelling-house within the meaning of that Bill?

asked, if it was so clear what the Courts of Law had done in defining what a "dwelling-house" was, why the Government had not adopted and incorporated it with this Bill? If the proposal were not incorporated in the Bill, a large class of persons inhabiting tenements of a certain sort would be left in doubt whether they were inhabiting houses or not. The Government had undertaken to give a clear definition of the term, and they had failed. It would be very unsatisfactory to leave the matter to the Courts of Law. He wished to ask the Solicitor General whether the persons inhabiting the large blocks of buildings known as Alderman Waterlow's, and others of the same sort, were to be held inhabitant householders or lodgers.

said, he thought it obvious that by the Bill of the Government, as it now stood, the occupant of a single room on a staircase or over a stable would have a vote, and the objection taken to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond applied equally to that of the Government. He thought that if the decisions of the Courts of Law were opposed to the principles of this Bill, and were not in accordance with what the Committee intended, then the Committee should take the matter into their own hands, and not leave it to the presiding judge of any court to make the law. There were thousands of dwelling-houses in this country which would be excluded if the language of the clause was left unaltered, though the occupants of them possessed every moral and social qualification for the exercise of the franchise. He took it that the object of the Government was to enfranchise every bonâ fide occupier of a house paying rates. In his own borough persons rated for rooms would not be enfranchised by the Bill of the Government without adopting the Amendment proposed, There were several houses in Sunderland all entered by a common street door. If the houses were dilapidated, or the street doors had fallen off their hinges, the inhabitants of these houses would have votes; but if there were locks to the street doors they would have no votes. He asked would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be content to take the law from the judges on this particular point, when he had the opportunity of correcting one of the most strange anomalies that ever existed. Men paying £8 or £9 a year rent would have no votes; while persons living in houses falling into decay without street doors, and who only paid 9d. or 1s. a week rent could have a vote because the winds of heaven could blow into their dwellings unobstructed by any street door. He trusted the Government would reconsider their decision, and assured them that they would be acting most unequally if they did not agree to the Amendment.

admitted that it was necessary to have a definition of a dwelling-house, and he regretted that the learned Gentlemen employed by the Government had not prepared such a definition. He doubted, however, whether the definition of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), simple as it was, would not leave matters worse than they were. The Amendment would get rid of a great deal of litigation before the revising barrister; but, in the case of a hostile claimant appealing before the parish officer, there was nothing to prevent the latter saying that the former did not occupy a dwelling-house, and that, therefore, he would not put him on the rate book. The matter ought not to be left in doubt, for any per- son to fish up antagonistic judgments by the Courts of Law, but there ought to be a clear definition of the meaning of a dwelling-house.

I think if any Gentleman had received any communication from registration agents during the discussion of this Bill, he would be asked if it be possible to remove from this great question some of those apparently small matters that create great litigation and difficulty in connection with the registration action under the Reform Act. I have received such a letter from the registration agent in the town in which I live, and if the Committee could settle the question it would be of great advantage. At present the question is very much unsettled. The revising barristers are continually giving different decisions on the point; and it would be a great advantage to adopt the plan now proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, even if it could be shown, which it cannot, that it is not the best plan of all that can be brought forward. Even though it should not be the best plan of all, I think it would be of great advantage to accept it rather than adopt no plan at all. The Solicitor General is afraid that if the Amendment were adopted, the overseer would rate persons out of favour not entitled to have a vote. That is a mistake. The overseer wants to have as few persons rated as possible. If he rates them, it will give him more trouble in preparing his books and in collecting the rates: and the interest of the overseer always will be to have as few persons on the rate book as possible; so that on that ground there is no real objection to the Amendment. As to the whole matter, it is not probably of great consequence whether a few persons should get on or be kept off, that the law did not intend; considering the great number of electors to be got under the Bill, half a dozen votes will be of little consequence in future compared with past times. This question will not be contested so furiously as in past times, and this House may proceed at once to define what a dwelling-house means. I think if you say any building or part of a building in which a family lives, that is rated to the poor, shall be called a dwelling house, you put into the hands of the parish authorities a mode of conducting its affairs, and of deciding how far the suffrage will go. You will thus have a definition that will put au end to litigation, and be founded on a safe principle. If the authorities of a parish shall decide that a set of rooms shall be rated as a dwelling-house, I would advise the House of Commons to give the occupier a vote without further contest. Then comes the question which the noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne) misunderstood. The lodger question is settled; for it is not connected with the question of rating, and the lodger has only to prove that he has lived in his lodgings for a certain time, and that the room he occupies is of the clear yearly value of £10. The noble Lord need not be afraid that any person in a penitentiary will take the trouble to prove his right to a vote, and even if he did, he would not be let out to prove it. I believe it will be gratifying to persons connected with the registration if you settle the question on the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond.

understood some time ago that the Law Officers of the Crown had undertaken to draw up a definition of a dwelling-house. That would be a difficult task; but the present Amendment did not propose such a definition. There was considerable difficulty in the present law; and, on the whole, he thought the Committee could not do better than adopt the principle laid down by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer), that for the purposes of the franchise a dwelling house should include the case of part of a house, provided it were occupied as a dwelling and were separately rated.

said, that the Solicitor General had failed to tell the Committee what the definition of a dwelling-house by the Courts of Law really was. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Heathcote), that it was most desirable that there should be such a definition. At the same time he doubted whether this Amendment would be a wise one, because it would leave all the overseers in the country in the greatest possible difficulty as to what dwellings they were to rate, and what they were not to rate. The Amendment would leave it entirely to their arbitrary will whether to rate one of these occupancies or not. Now he did not think that was a discretion which they would like to have, or which Parliament ought to leave to them. Parliament ought not to drive parties to legal proceedings, either to compel the overseers to put them on the rate book or to appeal against being put on the rate book. He could not vote for the Amendment because it would throw things completely into con- fusion. It would be a most inconvenient thing to have overseer A. this year putting men on the register, and overseer B. next year cutting them off, without any one being able to say that they had done wrong.

said, the first question to be determined was whether the Committee intended to adhere to the definition of a dwelling-house as established by law, or to make a new definition of their own irrespective of the existing law. Of course, it would be quite competent for the Committee to say that they would have a definition of their own; and that definition would not necessarily be in accordance with the present decisions of the Courts of Law. Now, in his opinion, it would be wise not to interfere with the law as it now stands. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the Government found an insuperable difficulty in giving a definition, but the fact was that in their judgment, it was better that the law should not be altered, and that the present decisions should determine the matter. Even if the Committee adopted the Amendment, they would still leave it to the Courts of Law to determine what it was that constituted a separate and complete dwelling-house. Could any one say authoritatively what was the rule by which overseers assessed to the poor rate any dwelling or part of a dwelling? He was persuaded the rule could not be laid down in that Bill. They had to guard, therefore, against the arbitrary exercise of discretion on the part of overseers. Besides, there were other difficulties in the matter. A person might have a room and dine in it, but sleep elsewhere, and it might be rated separately, and the question would arise whether that was a dwelling-house under this Amendment. In fact, the Amendment would bring them no nearer a definition than at present. As to the borough of Sunderland, which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Candlish) had brought under the notice of the Committee, his opinion was that if there was a door on the staircase which shut in and separated the occupier, the tenement was as the law now stood, a dwelling-house. [Mr. CANDLISH: Not if there be a street door closed.] He believed if there was a separate and independent dwelling, whether the street door was kept closed or open, that constituted a dwelling-house. All that the Committee could do, in his opinion, was to lay down broad and general principles, and the best way of doing this was to adopt the existing law; if they attempted to go further, they would still ultimately, after, perhaps, a long period of new uncertainty, be left where they were by the Courts of Law.

thought there were great objections to the word "building" in the Amendment. If the word "house" were substituted it would be much better, He would suggest that the word "dwellinghouse" should be taken to include any part of a house used as a separate dwelling and separately rated to the relief of the poor. He believed those words would meet the difficulties of the case in question.

said, he could see no substantial objection to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham. He believed the hon. Gentleman's proposal was to substitute for "building," &c., "any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling and separately rated to the relief of the poor." He hoped the Committee would understand that nothing was further from his wish than to intrude upon the province of the Attorney General. It was only after they had wailed a long time, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had not suggested any definition, that he had put the Amendment on the Paper. He thought there were points which were left by the legal decisions in an unsatisfactory position, and that Parliament should take care that every part of a house separately rated should confer a vote, independent of any niceties as to the outer door or the kitchen and out-houses. As to the discretion of the overseers, his Amendment would not enlarge it, for as the Bill stood it would be left to them to discriminate between a dwelling-house of which the occupier should be rated and one wholly let in apartments.

said, the feeling of the Committee appeared to be in favour of some definition, although his own feeling was that, under the very great difficulties of the case, it was more prudent not to embark into the dangerous domain of definitions. If a definition, however, was to be adopted, he preferred the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Roundell Palmer), but thought it would be well to have more epithets, and that the definition suggested some time ago by the Attorney General, "a separate, independent, and complete dwelling," would more perfectly carry out the idea of the hon. Member for Oldham.

thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, as amended by the hon. Member for Oldham, afforded the best definition, and that the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would only add to the difficulties.

pointed out that these questions would equally arise whatever definition was adopted. Several suggestions had been offered which were deserving of consideration, and he thought it would be better to postpone the clause.

hoped a conclusion would be now arrived at, seeing that the Committee were favoured with the presence of many Gentlemen of the long robe. The subject was not novel, and as he had been receiving definitions of a dwelling-house for the last two months, it was, he thought, pretty well exhausted. The objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Robert Collier) to the words "independent" and "complete" equally applied to "separate." He left it to the Committee to decide on the best definition, and hoped it would prove satisfactory.

said, he feared that the accumulation of epithets would lead to difficulty, and thought the word "separate" would be sufficient.

said, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham as a middle term.

moved in page 10, line 28, after "say" to insert—

"The Right Hon. Lord Viscount Eversley, the Right Hon. Russell Gurney, Sir John Thomas Buller Duckworth, Bart., Sir Francis Crossley, Bart., and John Walter, Esq., to be Boundary Commissioners; three to form a Quorum."

said, that some time ago it had been a question whether Members of the House should be upon the Commission; and he was one of those who thought it undesirable that they should be. That system of exclusion, however, was not adopted, and then the hon. Member for Birmingham objected that there was no Gentlemen who represented his own political party who was to be on the Commission; but if the principle of party representation was a sound one, then other parties ought also to be represented there. He regretted that the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had been removed from the list of the Commissioners, because he thought that if any Gentleman on the Commission would be animated by a desire to act with impartiality and justice, it would have been the right hon. Gentleman, and he made no scruple in acknowledging that he should have greatly preferred the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for the West Riding (Sir Francis Crossley), whom he considered to be the party representative of a certain section in that House. He was guilty of no discourtesy to the Commissioners of 1832 when he said that, tied down and restricted as they were, they had altogether failed in making anything like an equitable arrangement of the boroughs. For instance, some of them were confined almost to the limits of the old municipal boundaries, and others were actually spread over fifty square miles of country in order to fulfil the requisition of the Government that every borough should contain at least 300 houses of £10 annual value. In 1832 the Boundary Commission did not comprise any Members of Parliament; but was composed of persons who were in no degree subject to Parliamentary influences. What they were going to do now was to appoint a Commission, the majority of the Members of which would be neither more nor less than sleeping partners. There would be about six Commissioners, who would superintend the work only, and it was quite clear that the principal portion of the business would be done by Assistant Commissioners, who would be appointed under the patronage principally of the Chief Commissioner. He hoped that care would be taken that none of the Assistant Commissioners would be chosen from the class of political agents. There was one name on the Commission to which he could not but object. It was that of a gentleman who was very well known as a party man—he meant the gentleman who was Member in the last Parliament for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and was now a candidate for the same county. He knew of no grounds whatever why a peculiar public distinction should be conferred upon that gentleman, except that he was understood to be connected with a very influential organ of public opinion, and he did not think that that was an adequate reason why he should be appointed on the Commission. While he willingly testified to the excellence of his personal character, he considered he was not in a position favourable to the exercise of strict impartiality in his treatment of a question of this kind, and he thought that other gentlemen less connected with party politics would be better qualified to fulfil this duty. He thought that it was high time that there should be a little more candour, and a little less delicacy, in that House, and that men should not hesitate to say there what they did not hesitate to say to each other at the clubs.

was not going to undertake the invidious task of objecting to particular Members of the Commission, but he objected on constitutional grounds to the whole management and superintendence of the Commission being handed over to a Peer, who would have the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners, and all the patronage resulting therefrom. At one time the House of Commons were very jealous with respect to handing over their privileges to Peers, and they would not even suffer them to vote at elections for Members of Parliament. He thought that it would have been better if the Government had taken upon itself the responsibility of appointing the Commissioners, and not have left it to the House of Commons; the result of which was that, practically, no one would be responsible for the faults committed by the Commissioners or their Assistants.

said, that they could not forget that, in inserting the names of the Commissioners in the Bill, they did in fact relieve the Government to some extent from responsibility for the work of the Commissioners, and imposed that responsibility upon those who named the Commissioners. This being so, it was felt that they ought to give them power to appoint their Assistant Commissioners, and he wished to ask whether the same rule would apply to the appointment of Secretary. He believed that he was not wrong in saying that upon occasions of appointing Boundary Commissioners the custom had been that the Secretary should be appointed by the Commissioners themselves. He trusted that this course would be followed upon the present occasion.

said, he thought it but fair to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the names which he had now submitted to the Committee appeared to him to be free from any just objection on the ground of party preference. But he must reserve to himself the liberty of offering this criticism on the composition of the Commission. He understood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman to be that in both Houses of Parliament it might be convenient to have present those who would be able to explain the recommendations of the Commissioners. He therefore thought that the appointment of a Peer as a member of the Commission was not at all liable to the objection taken by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee), who should bear in mind that the Lords had a direct, immediate, and co-ordinate share in the legislation of the House of Commons. That House could not claim to deal with the question of its representation as a matter of privilege; and, consequently, it was perfectly fair that when Parliament was called upon to name persons as agents of its will for any purpose outside its own walls, among those persons, some Members of the House of Lords should be found. But he did not see the same strength of argument for the appointment of ex-Members of that House. It was evident that they could render no such service in explaining the views of the Commission. At the time of the Government of Lord Grey a course was taken which he should have thought more expedient on the present occasion—that was to say, that gentlemen of scientific attainments or engineering abilities unconnected with political party, but fully cognizant of a great variety of circumstances, bearing materially upon questions connected with the division of counties, were appointed. He thought there was nothing objectionable, as a matter of Government patronage, in the proposition now made, which seemed to be dictated by a desire to meet the claims of the Government and the general views of Parliament. With respect to the Secretary, he thought that the appointment ought properly to be in the hands of the Commission, but in a case of this kind, connected directly with the privileges of Parliament, as nearly the whole of the business of this Commission would be to direct the servants of the Legislature and not of the Government, he certainly was of opinion that there was no legitimate occasion for the interference of the Govern- ment with respect to appointments such as the Assistant Commissioners or the Secretary. At any rate, in all questions of this importance it was customary to take the House into the confidence of the Executive Government. With respect to the Oxford University Commission he did not remember whether the Secretary was appointed by the Government or by the Commissioners, but the name of the Secretary was made a matter of discussion in that House, and the opinion of Parliament was taken with respect to the appointment before it was ultimately sanctioned. He trusted that the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in conformity with the view of his hon. Friend, because it was but fair to urge that this was a case in which the Legislature had a peculiar and exclusive concern, and in which the Executive Government as such had no concern whatever.

said, he was extremely glad to find that, upon the whole, the Committee seemed disposed to accept the names which were now proposed; and he would only observe that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had answered sufficiently the objections made by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to a Peer being placed on this Commission. It would have been a great omission on the part of the Government, even if it had not been in their power to avail themselves of the services of one so experienced in such matters, and so entitled to public confidence as the noble Lord alluded to. It was highly important that, on a great constitutional Commission touching particularly the representation of the people of that House, both branches of the Legislature should be intimately connected with the investigation. With respect to the Gentlemen named on the Commission, who were ex-Members of that House, they were chosen, not on that account, but because the Government really thought that they were two of the ablest men who could be selected for the duty required of them. They were not, however, selected until many others had been appealed to in vain. The question as to whether they should have scientific Members on the Commission, was one which had been much considered by the Government: and it had not been from any neglect or want of appreciation of that peculiar kind of service that should thus be rendered, but from ob-stacks and difficulties which were so great as to be insurmountable, that such Gentle- men were not appointed. He still hoped that when the Commissioners settled the duties of their subordinate officers they would be able to avail themselves of services of that kind. With regard to the appointment of hon. Members of that House, he need say nothing of his right hon. Friend the Recorder of London. And he could only say with regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Sir Francis Crossley), that the Government selected him because he was a Member of the great Liberal party, and because they believed, on the whole, that he represented impartially the opinions and feelings of the two sides. That hon. Gentleman probably represented the opinions of both sections in respect to this question, because though his own opinions were known to be what were called Liberal, and though his social position showed that he had a constitutional sympathy with the Whig party, nevertheless from his territorial connections he might be supposed to have some interest common to the country party. The Government therefore felt they might be permitted to put him as a co-member on the Commission, resting satisfied that his presence there would not frighten the hon. Member for Birmingham or his political friends. With regard to the patronage of the Commissioners, that was a question which it appeared interested hon. Gentlemen more than Her Majesty's Government. He thought it was rather premature to settle details of that kind when they had not as yet obtained the appointment of these Commissioners. As soon as they were appointed all the steps that were necessary for the due performance of their duties would be taken. Until the Commissioners met and deliberated, it would be impossible for them to form any idea of the amount of subordinate assistance they would require. He had already informed the Committee that the Commissioners themselves would appoint the sub-Commissioners. In regard to the appointment of the Secretary, his first impression was that it was highly important that there should be some intimate relation between the Executive and the Commission, as it was no doubt a Commission that would lead to a considerable expenditure of the public money. If the Government had retained the privilege of nominating the Secretary, it certainly would not have been their duty to have recommended any person connected with polities, but a public servant in whom the House and the country would have con- fidence. It was, however, premature, to enter into those discussions. All he could say was that, when the Commissioners were appointed, and had met, the Government would confer entirely with them, and no Secretary would be appointed who did not meet with their approval.

then proposed to substitute for that portion of the original clause which defined the functions of the Commissioners, an Amendment to the effect that the Boundary Commissioners should immediately after the passing of the Act

"Proceed by themselves or by the Assistant Commissioners appointed by them to inquire into the boundaries of every newly constituted borough, with power to suggest such alterations therein as they may deem expedient; they shall also inquire into the boundaries of every other borough in England and Wales, with a view to ascertain whether the boundaries should be enlarged, so as to include within the limits of the borough all premises the occupiers of which ought, due regard being had to situation or other local circumstances, to be included therein for Parliamentary purposes, for the purpose of conferring upon the occupiers thereof the Parliamentary franchise for such borough. They shall also inquire into the temporary divisions of counties as constituted by this Act, and as to the places appointed for holding courts for the election of Members for such divisions, with a view to ascertain whether, having regard to the natural and legal divisions of each county, and the distribution of the population therein, any, and what, alterations should be made in such divisions or places. And the said Commissioners shall, with all practicable dispatch, report to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State upon the several matters in this section referred to them, and their Report shall be laid before Parliament."

suggested that there might, if the clause were altered as proposed, be some difficulty on the part of the Commissioners as to whether the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners rested with those who would have the necessary powers to make the inquiry. It would, perhaps, be better to postpone the clause, and bring up another in which the point was more clearly defined.

thought there could be no doubt that every means would on application to the Treasury he given to the Commissioners to perform their duties.

moved, as an Amendment, to add after the word "therein," the following:—

"For Parliamentary purposes, and in the case of those boroughs for which freemen dwelling within seven miles of them have a right to vote, to enquire whether their boundaries should be so enlarged as to include equally all householders dwelling within the same radius of seven miles from the said boroughs."

The hon. Member thought it highly important that there should be a certain mixture of urban and rural voters in order to prevent the House from forming two hostile camps, with no moderate men to soften down the differences between them; and also because the enlargement of boroughs had proved, in such cases as Shoreham and East Retford, an effectual mode of putting a stop to electoral corruption.

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon seemed to illustrate in a singular manner the debate of yesterday with regard to the privileges of freemen. Great indignation then existed as to the slightest suggestion being made that they were of all classes of the constituency, more open to human infirmities than the great mass of the householders of the country, and that it was dangerous to admit a special class of that kind separate from the general type contained in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's proposal was directly intended to apply to corruption; and he made it, in reference to the freemen, because wherever there were freemen the area was greatly to be enlarged. [MR. SANDFORD: No, certainly not.] For the purpose of correcting the abuse and corruption that arose therefrom. If not, why did not the hon. Member propose to extend the area in the case of every borough? That it appeared to him was the clear Parliamentary meaning of the proposal—namely, that it was to be a special proposition against corruption where freemen existed; and he referred to Shoreham and East Retford where the evil had been cured. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated the case against freemen when he supposed that his Amendment would be regarded as a cure for their erratic tendencies. He regarded the proposal as objectionable, and as one that raised a question of policy rather than a question of boundaries. If it were right, wherever there were freemen, or in all boroughs, to extend the boundaries to the uniform radius of seven miles, the question was not one to be referred to Boundary Commissioners, but a political question of great importance, which was perfectly within the knowledge of the House, and one which it would be right to submit as a separate Motion rather than as a detail of instructions to the Boundary Commissioners, to whose duties it had no relevance whatever.

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would extend household suffrage further than it was intended at the commencement of the Session.

suggested that the seven mile radius should be measured from the boundary of the borough and not as now from the supposed centre of the borough. It was measured now from the place where the poll takes place, and it often happened, as in the borough which he represented (Armagh), that the polling took place in one corner of the borough.

said, the Amendment seemed to intend to make a circle with a diameter of fourteen miles, and that all persons residing within that circle should have the privilege of being in the same situation as if they resided within the borough; thereby, in fact, creating a small county.

said, his Amendment was not intended to apply specially to freemen to maintain the balance in boroughs where the town and rural element prevailed, and he should be willing to extend it to all boroughs of a certain amount of population.

said, the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon would be to completely upset the whole Parliamentary system of the country. A great dual might be said irrespective of freemen on the propriety of their making districts of this kind. They were now proceeding on a different principle, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment. He could understand the advantage of extending the area of boroughs of a rural character, but there could be no doubt that the balance of opinion was doubtful on the subject. A proposition of this kind could not be brought incidentally into a Bill of this kind, which proposed to deal with matters on principles quite different. He would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved, as an Amendment, the insertion, after the word "boundaries," of the words "should be reduced, or whether they." This would give the Commissioners power to inquire as to whether the boundaries ought to be reduced, sis well as whether they should be enlarged.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. There were great objections to it. It would open up a very large question, and might lead to so much disturbance of the present boundaries as to greatly retard the operation of the Bill. It would also entirely destroy the arrangement that had been entered into with the Boundary Commissioners.

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

moved an Amendment to the effect that, after the word "premises" the words "the occupiers of" should be omitted, and that the words "Parliamentary purposes" should be omitted, in order to insert the words "for the purpose of conferring on the occupiers thereof the Parliamentary franchise for such boroughs."

said, the original proposal in the Bill of 1831 empowered the Commissioners to add to any borough any place adjoining it, no part of which was locally situated more than one mile from it except in cases where the existing boroughs were of so small a size as not to have more than 300 voters, and then their powers were limited to add places not more than seven miles distant. That clause, however, did not become law.

asked, whether it was proposed that the Royal Commissioners should be empowered to include within the borough boundaries large villages which happened to be within the seven-mile radius?

said, in the Bill of 1831 there was a distinct object totally different from that which they now had in view. The details were different then to what they now were, and consequently different instructions were given to the Boundary Commissioners. The object in 1831 was to bring the boroughs up to a certain magnitude, which was to be done irrespective of the question whether the parts necessary to bring them up to that magnitude belonged to the boroughs or not. The clause as now proposed he understood to be substantially a mere expansion of the expression used in the clause as it originally stood, and the effect of it would be only to include within the area of such boroughs the population proper to them, the Commissioners having nothing to do with the question of including large villages or small towns in the neighbourhood of such boroughs.

said, it appeared to him that they were drifting very fast into electoral districts. It had been said that the primary object of the Committee was to come to a settlement of the question.

rose to order. The hon. and gallant Member was referring to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Surrey, which had been withdrawn.

said, he was not; but he was calling attention to the fact that it was the primary object of the Committee to come to a settlement of the question. Only yesterday a petition was presented by the hon. Member for Shropshire, from a parish comprising a population of 12,000, in the immediate neighbourhood of the borough of Wenlock, praying to be in-included within that borough, which at present comprised seventy-five square miles. It would be necessary, in order to make a settlement of the question, to give the Commissioners other powers besides those of enlarging the areas of boroughs. He reminded the Committee that the present Prime Minister in 1852, speaking upon the question of Reform, as connected with household suffrage and electoral districts, observed how nearly allied were the two extremes of unlimited franchise and unlimited despotism.

, in the absence of Mr. BRIGHT, proposed the insertion of the following words:—

"Due regard being also had, where advisable to any definite limits already assigned to any of such boroughs for municipal or other local purposes."

He thought that, without fettering the discretion of the Commissioners, it was desirable in cases where the municipal boundary fairly comprised the borough population, to make the Parliamentary boundary conterminous with it.

said, the boundaries for municipal and local purposes were con- stantly being changed, and he thought the Commissioners, instead of being restricted by existing boundaries, should rather be encouraged to enlarge those boundaries by including outlying districts.

said, the Amendment was hardly applicable to the metropolis and some other towns, where there were districts for gas, water, postage, boards of health, and other things, having limits with no relation whatever to the political purposes of boroughs.

said, the Amendment certainly would not apply to the metropolis. The Amendment did not pretend to bind the Commissioners, but only to direct their attention to existing boundaries.

remarked that in Halifax and many other towns the population beyond the municipal boundary exceeded that within it. The Commissioners ought, he thought, to be left as free as possible. If the Committee held it desirable to restrict existing boundaries, the policy of which he doubted, it ought to be indicated in the Commissioners' instructions.

thought it would be wise to direct the attention of the Commissioners to the limits already assigned by law to any of these boroughs. They proposed last year that where boroughs were enlarged for municipal purposes, beyond the limit of the Parliamentary boundary, they should adopt a similar course with respect to the Parliamentary boundary; that would be a very proper provision to introduce into this Bill. They could not provide completely for prospective enlargement, but they should provide for prospective enlargement as far as they could. The enlargement for municipal purposes could never be considered too large, because none but bonâ fide districts were likely to be included.

pointed out that a suburban district frequently objected to inclusion within the municipality, on account of its higher taxation. The Commissioners should not therefore be debarred from including it in the Parliamentary boundary.

thought that the districts which objected to coming within the municipal boundary ought not to be anxious to come within the Parliamentary boundary.

said, Rochdale was a case where there was a large population outside the municipality. He thought the question should be left to the discretion of the Commissioners.

said, that in the case of Rochdale a circle drawn with a three-quarters of a mile radius would exclude a larger portion of the population than it would include, and the outer population refused to be drawn into the municipality. He thought the proposed instruction to the Commissioners altogether unnecessary, and he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would withdraw the Amendment.

contended that the Amendment did not restrict the Commissioners, but merely directed their attention to a certain point.

said, that the Commissioners would have the power of considering all the facts of the case, the municipal boundaries included, and he recommended that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

remarked that in several boroughs the extra parts were much larger than the original boroughs.

observed, that the position of Rochdale showed the inexpediency of trying to extend the boundary of the Parliamentary borough beyond the municipal boundary. In Rochdale they built a town hall, and to defray the expense 40,000 inhabitants voluntarily assessed themselves at 25s. per head. There were gas works and other public improvements and for defraying the cost heavy rates should be levied for several years. The inhabitants of a considerable township outside might say that they would avoid the payment of rates for such purposes as a country parish; but would claim, should the Parliamentary boundary be extended beyond the municipal boundary, to have an equal share in the election of Members of Parliament for the borough, though they would bear none of its burdens. That was contrary to the general principle upon which these things should be regulated.

doubted whether any Commissioners would take upon themselves the responsibility of exercising so large a power. The proposed division of his own county (Staffordshire) was regarded as unsatisfactory. At present the county was divided into North and South; but by the present Bill it was proposed to divide the Southern Division into two, to be called East and West.

asked what was the extent of power to be given to the Commissioners as to the divisions. Originally no power was given to the Commissioners to interfere with counties. Now that power had been introduced. The Government proposed to divide the county of the West Riding into three divisions, and those divisions were so framed, that one of the divisions would consist of three-fifths of the whole area of the Riding, another of less than one tenth of that area. Many of the inhabitants, as well as several hon. Members, did not think this would be a satisfactory arrangement, and he wished to know from the Government whether the Boundary Commissioners would have power to revise it.

said, there was no doubt the Commissioners would have the power of revising those arrangements; but they would have no power to make divisions, as Parliament would retain the right of examining and sanctioning, if it thought proper their recommendations. It was the decided intention of the Government that the Commissioners should possess these powers, and, as the Government were advised, they would possess these powers.

said, that, as he understood the explanation which had been given, the Commissioners were not to be prejudiced in the divisions of the counties and ridings by anything in the schedule.

apprehended that there were cases where the Commissioners would really have the power to create new constituencies. They could not, of course, do that in the boroughs, nor in those counties that were already divided into two. In such cases their power would be limited to making the constituencies either larger or smaller; or to take from one division of a county and give it to another. But then take the case of the West Riding. It was proposed to divide that into three divisions, which he might call A, B, and C. Now it would be in the power of the Commissioners to unite B and C into one and to divide A into two, which would practically be a new constituency. It might therefore be well, when considering the Report, to add some words indicating the general sense of Parliament as to the limits of the power which they were to exercise.

said, in his county, as well as in some others, the temporary divisions proposed in the schedules were very inconvenient to the electors, and they would be better pleased if the divisions were left as they were at present.

said, it was the unanimous opinion of all persons in North Staffordshire that the divison recommended by the Government was extremely fair and unimpeachable.

deprecated any further discussion of the schedule, which was not at present before the Committee. He would say again that the schedule had been prepared against a contingency which it was necessary to contemplate; but which was in the highest degree improbable, and which the Government did not anticipate would occur. But for this contingency it would not have been necessary to make such temporary provision; and the Government would have been satisfied with leaving a blank, and only enacting that certain boroughs should be enfranchised, and certain counties divided.

moved the following addition to the clause:—

"And the said Commissioners shall Report to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State upon the several matters in this section referred to, and their Report shall be laid before Parliament."

was afraid that the Government were going to leave out the two paragraphs which followed in the original clause.

, in rising to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider whether any alteration can be made in the internal arrangements of the House of Commons, so as to enable a greater number of Members to hear and take part in the procedings, said, he would not detain the House at length, as he believed there would be no opposition to the Motion from any quarter. The inconveniences attending present arrangements were clear and obvious. Unseemly competition sometimes took place for seats; and Members frequently failed to obtain them, al- though they came down early in order to secure them, and were thus prevented from taking part in debates. The subject required careful consideration, but he did not wish to pledge the Committee by expressing any opinion as to what ought to be done. If the Committee were appointed, however, he would do his best to have the subject fully and fairly considered, and he trusted that the Report of the Committee would result in the improved comfort and convenience of Members, so that important deliberations might be carried on in a befitting manner.

reminded the House that it was not so often as was imagined that their Chamber was too small for the purposes required of it. When any personal quarrel was on the tapis, hon. Members crowded in most abundantly, and caused a great scarcity of seats; but those who kept their places knew, as he did, that between half past 7 and 8 to half past 10 and 11 there was no reason to complain of the smallness of the Chamber. He doubted whether an enlargement of the House would enable Members to hear better what was going on; for though he was afraid, he must admit, that discussions could not be heard as plainly now as formerly, the cause was not to be found in the apartment as much as in the fact that those who led the discussions usually spoke in a tone of voice which appeared to be addressed only to those sitting on the Bench opposite them. This remark did not apply to the case of a debate of great moment, such as had been common of late, but to matters of perhaps less interest, but certainly of far too great importance to be disposed of in a conversational tone, quite inaudible to hon. Members at any distance from the speakers. If the House were enlarged, then he doubted whether they would hear anything at all. When his late lamented Friend Sir Robert Peel was in the House, it mattered not from what part of it he spoke, no one ever had occasion to call on him to speak up; he understood that it was his duty to let the House generally hear what he had to any. Every evening the business of the House was commenced by the asking and answering of a series of ques- tions of general interest, by which a large amount of important information might be conveyed to hon. Members; but such was the buzz of voices prevailing at the time, and such the conversational tone in which this part of their proceedings was conducted, that outsiders were quite unable to profit by it. Some were desirous of procuring a change which would enable more Members to take part in the debates; it was very problematical, however, whether that would be an advantage. He was of opinion that a great deal of time would be saved, and that the business would be more efficiently conducted, if fewer Members spoke upon it than was the case at present. If, for instance, only the leading Members of the Government and Opposition, and those personally concerned in the question were to take part in the discussion of it, he believed the result would be far more satisfactory. But notwithstanding all this, he did not object to the Motion for a Committee.

said, with reference to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam), that it was quite evident a sufficient case would be made out in support of it. He perceived, however, that the right hon. Member proposed that the Committee should make inquiry into the internal arrangements of the House of Commons. He thought that the word "internal" would hamper the proceedings of the Committee, and that it had better be omitted, so that their discretion might be unfettered. If therefore the hon. Gentleman would consent to the omission of that word he should be happy to accede to the Motion.

moved an Address for a copy of the Report of the Committee appointed by the Science and Art Department, to inquire into the alleged deterioration of the pictures belonging to the Naional Gallery deposited at the South Kensington Museum.

said, that a Committee had formerly been appointed to consider the subject of the injury which resulted to the pictures at South Kensington from the use of gas. The Committee drew up their Report, which was laid upon the table and printed. In consequence of a recommendation from that Committee, another Committee—the one referred to by the hon. Member—was appointed, and that Committee were now continuing their labours. As soon as their Report was drawn up it would be laid upon the table, printed, and distributed; but until then the Report could not be produced. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.

proposed to add the following words to the clause: —

"Provided that no meeting shall be deemed a public meeting within the meaning of this clause unless it be held, if in a county, with the written permission of the sheriff of such county; if in a city or borough, with the written permission of the mayor of such city or borough; if in a place not within the limits of any county or borough, then with the permission of the local public authority in whom is vested the management and control of the place in which such meeting is held; and no meeting held beyond the limits of any county or borough shall be deemed to be a meeting within the meaning of this clause if held in any place being private property, whether with or without the permission of the owner."

He wished to know how much beyond those words the hon. and learned Member (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), who had made no statement as to the general scope of the Bill, wished to carry his definition of a legal meeting. In his opinion this was not a time in which the immunities of the press could properly be extended. The press, under existing regulations, was all that it ought to be; but it was impossible to say, until it had been tried, how far the propriety of its conduct was owing to a sense of legal responsibility. In ordinary private life the sense of legal duty was increased by a sense of legal responsibility, and in his opinion it would be a matter of considerable danger to exempt the press from all its legal responsibilities, more especially at the present time, when newspapers were read more and more by a lower and more ignorant population, who might easily be guided or misguided by what they read in those publications. By adopting the clause as it stood there would be danger of calling into existence a press of a less high moral character than that which existed at present; and, in his opinion, this was not a time when Parliament should allow the reins to slip out of their hands. This was a question that should be taken up by Her Majesty's Government, as individual Members were liable to pressure from the various local newspapers. He had himself received a letter on the subject from the Association of Provincial Newspapers, which comprised representatives from every county in England, and such an association was likely to be able to put considerable pressure upon individual Members. Under these circumstances private Members were entitled to demand from Her Majesty's Government a decided expression of opinion upon the question; and if Her Majesty's Government stated that, in their opinion, the press of this country could be safely trusted with the liberty conferred upon them by the clause now before the Committee he should be willing to withdraw his opposition to it; but until a decided opinion to that effect was expressed by them he should feel bound to press his Amendment. It was also of the first importance that Her Ma- jesty's Government should state what in their opinion was, and what was not a legal public meeting. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice.

explained that the reason he had made no statement in moving to go into Committee upon the Bill was that its general scope had been fully debated on the second reading, and, at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, it had been referred to a Select Committee, composed of fifteen Members, among whom were the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, the right hon. Member for Calne, the hon Member for Sheffield, the late President of the Board of Trade, the noble Lord the Member for Nottingham, the late Attorney General, the late Solicitor General, and the late Irish Secretary. That Committee went deliberately through the Bill, which they canvassed line by line, and eventually agreed to in its present shape. Under these circumstances he had felt it unnecessary to make any statement in moving to go into Committee upon it. He would now confine himself to the objection which had been taken by the hon. Member for Oxford, that the clause before the Committee was too general, and that some definition should be drawn as to the meetings at which speeches might be reported. The matter was fully discussed by the Select Committee, and several attempts were made to put a definition upon the words, and, eventually, it was decided that the words of the clause were the best that could be adopted. The subject had come under discussion in the House of Lords upon the introduction of Lord Campbell's Bill in 1858, when an attempt was made to define what meetings came under the words "legal public meeting." On that occasion Lord Lyndhurst defined the meetings to be "public meetings lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose." He admitted that in the clause the word "public" had been omitted; but that was so as to embrace railway, joint-stock companies, and other meetings which were not strictly speaking public meetings, although it was very important that reports of their proceedings should be published. The words inserted in the clause were "meetings lawfully assembled for lawful purposes, open to reporters, and at which reporters are present." It would be for the Judge and jury at the trial to deter- mine whether the meeting came under that definition.

observed, that the object of the Bill was to place society at large at the mercy of the excellent persons who conducted public journals. The word "public" was the very essence of Lord Lyndhurst's definition. Under the clause as it stood anything that was uttered by three persons who met together to drink tea, and who chose to call in a reporter, would be privileged, and might be published with impunity by a newspaper. He thought the addition proposed by his hon. Friend was necessary to give force and character to the proceeding. What was meant by a lawful assembly for a lawful purpose? How many persons would constitute such an assemby? Any purpose was lawful which was not malum in se or malum prohibitum. He should like to hear the Solicitor General define what was meant by a "lawful assembly for a lawful purpose."

said, he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets took an extreme view of the case. He seemed to think that a meeting in the Tea-room, where two or three were gathered together, and a reporter was called in to report the proceedings, would bring the meeting within the description of the clause. But the words of the clause were—

"A meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose, open to reporters, and at which reporters were present for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for the public newspapers."

The Judge and jury must decide in every case whether it was a lawful meeting; and to ask a Solicitor General to define beforehand what constituted a public meeting was such a thing as no Solicitor General who had ever eat upon that Bench had ever been called upon to do. But why should not a newspaper be protected in reporting the proceedings of meetings? Take a railway meeting, for instance, where they all knew disagreeable things were sometimes said; one man charged another with false representation and cheating, and going on in a way that was perfectly disgraceful. Why should the newspaper proprietor who reported those speeches for the information of those who were interested be held responsible for any untrue statements, instead of the speaker who made the statement? They ought not to consider what peculiar meetings might be manufactured, but should look at the everyday meetings that took place; and decide whether the newspaper should be liable for the offence which had been committed by some one else.

thought the first clause should be taken in connection with the third, which considerably modified it. The principle was to take the responsibility from the newspaper, and place it on the person who uttered the libel. If that principle was right, they ought to make the definition of "public meetings" as large as possible. If it was wrong, they should throw out the Bill altogether. He hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.

said, he had no intention of discussing what was the meaning of the term "lawful meeting assembled for a lawful purpose." The Select Committee had left out the word "public" because there was so much difficulty in determining what was a public meeting; and he thought that there were sufficient words in the clause to exclude those imaginary meetings of two or three persons which had been referred to. He thought that it would be better to adopt some such phrase as that in the Bill rather than pursue the course of an attempt at definition such as was recommended by the Amendment. If there was any definition it would be found that certain meetings would not come within the definition, though there was no intention to keep them out of it; and that in respect of them, persons whom it was intended to protect would not be protected. He hoped the Amendment would be negatived.

was understood to say that the clause would not apply to the case of some literary and scientific meetings.

proposed to add at the end of the clause words to the following effect:—

"And in the case of any action for libel for words spoken the defendant shall have the same privileges as he would have in an action for Blander."

said, it seemed to him somewhat unreasonable to make a man responsible for words which he was reported to have used, although he might deny the accuracy of the report.

contended that it was open to the person who was reported to have used certain language, to impugn the accuracy of the report in the event of having been misrepresented.

also maintained that it would be a sufficient answer in an action for libel under the Bill for words spoken to prove that they had never been uttered.

put the case of a man going to a meeting who had no wish to address the public but merely to influence those present, and suggested that it would be somewhat hard to make him liable to an action for libel for words so used, merely because a reporter chose to lay hold of them and publish them to the world.

proposed the following new clause:—

"No action or prosecution shrill be maintainable for the publication of any defamatory matter contained in any report, paper, votes, or proceedings of either House of Parliament, which either House of Parliament shall have ordered to be published; nor shall any action or prosecution be maintainable against a printer or publisher for the publication of any defamatory matter in any periodical or other publication, if such defamatory matter shall be a true and fair report of the proceedings of either House of Parliament."

He mentioned that Mr. Hansard had had two actions brought against him in consequence of the publication of the reports of speeches made in that House; and, though the parties did not proceed with their actions, he had been put to considerable expense. They were all indebted for the reports which appeared every morning in the newspapers, and yet the persons publishing them were liable to have legal proceedings taken against them. Mr. Rigby Wason had that year brought fourteen actions for reporting proceedings which took place in the House of Lords upon the presentation of a petition from himself, and applied for a summons against the publisher of The Times newspaper, but the magistrates decided against the application. It was desirable that the principle which the House had adopted with respect to the reports of the proceedings of public meetings should also apply to the reports of the proceedings of Parliament.

believed the clause now proposed to be exactly contradictory to the other parts of the Bill. The party ag- grieved was to have a remedy against the party uttering defamatory language. But the clause now under consideration would enable any hon. Member to abuse any one to his heart's content. He did not think that a Member ought to be allowed to state things which might be published all over the world without the party aggrieved having a remedy. So long as the matter stated was confined within the walls of the House the party was not injured, unless he was present to hear what was said; but if it got into the papers, and was thus disseminated over all the world, the person aggrieved would have no remedy. It would be almost tempting people to do a good stroke of abuse, and give it a wide circulation, He did not think such a course of proceeding would tend to the amendment of the manners of hon. Gentlemen, or to promote good feeling, and he should therefore vote against the clause.

also opposed the clause, The House, in the action which it took upon the case of "Stockwell v. Hansard," only assumed to assert its privilege as a body, and did not claim to protect individual members against the indiscreet abuse of the freedom of speech.

observed, that although the "Reports, Papers, Votes, or Proceedings" of the House might not be injurious to the character of any person, paragraphs taken from those Reports might be injurious, and charges might be published to all the world without a syllable of explanation or defence. He suggested that words similar to those which were used in the case of Reports, and which required that they should be "true and fair," should be inserted in the part of the clause which related to the publication of Parliamentary Papers.

said, that the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) did not fully appreciate the effect of the Amendment, which was to put a periodical on the same footing as a newspaper. The first part of the Bill was artificially confined to newspapers, and did not embrace periodicals. The right hon. Member's objection to the clause was an objection to the Bill.

said, there was no doubt that the principle of the Bill was to transfer from the reporter to the speaker the responsibility for what was said at a public meeting; but if a speaker could plead privilege he was protected, and no liability attached to him. The privilege of Par- liament exempted a speaker from any legal liability. The objection to the clause was founded on this fact, which seemed to have been overlooked, and the matter was therefore one which was altogether outside the Bill.

said, the first part of the clause provided that there should be no remedy for any defamatory matter contained in any document ordered by the House to be printed. Remembering the multifarious sources of the documents which the House ordered to be printed, he could not help thinking that if there was to be no remedy against the public, as them could be none against the House, for the circulation of any defamatory matter, the House could not do less than appoint some person to look carefully over all documents and see that no defamatory matter was needlessly introduced.

observed, that a speaker in the House was in a different position from a writer in a newspaper. The speaker was responsible for what he stated; and if the writer in a newspaper desired to be responsible he had nothing to do but to put his name to an article written by him. The party ought to be able to plead that the report was an accurate report.

said, that he should be willing to insert in the clause words which would prevent the selection for publication of defamatory matters from Parliamentary Papers. The necessity for making the reports of Parliamentary proceedings privileged was obviated by the circumstance that the jury would say that Parliament was a lawful assembly, for a lawful purpose; but that consideration would not apply to Hansard's Debates, and it was with a view to legalizing them that the clause was framed.

said, that as this clause had not been before the Select Committee, the House ought not to be asked to adopt it.

said, that no doubt the press was to a certain extent in an exceptional position, and the fair way was to place newspaper proprietors in the same position as other persons. The tendency of legislation had of late been in that direction, by doing away with the necessity of giving recognizances. He asked his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the clause, because it would close Courts of Justice against humble individuals who happened to be libelled. The better way would be to apply the principle as contained in the Lords' Bill.

suggested the withdrawal of the clause. The Bill was intended to apply to newspapers only; but it was now proposed to add a clause that was rejected by the Select Committee, to make every document containing libellous matter privileged.

rose to move the following new clause:—

"In any action for libel in a public newspaper the court or a judge may, on the application of the defendant at any time during the proceedings, order that the plaintiff shall give to the defendant security for the payment of defendant's costs, and that all proceedings in the cause shall be stayed until such security shall be given."

He said, the Lord Chancellor had introduced a Bill into the House of Lords for the purpose of requiring that, in certain cases of a doubtful character, security for costs should be taken; and in cases arising under this Bill it seemed right that there should be power to take security for the costs of defence. If the party alleging that he was libelled declined to proceed against the person who libelled him, and elected to bring an action against a newspaper, he should be compelled to give security. This course would put a stop to vexations actions, which there were several speculative attorneys only too ready to institute. The plaintiff might not be worth a penny, but the newspaper proprietor was obliged to lodge security at Somerset House. A verdict for 40s. would entitle the speculative attorney to his costs; but on the other hand, if the defendant succeeded, he had no hope of recovering from the plaintiff the expenses to which he had been, however vexatiously, put. If newspaper proprietors performed their duty fairly, they were entitled to the protection which the clause sought to obtain for them.

said, the question raised by the clause had been discussed in the Committee, and they were unanimously of opinion that it would be most unfair that the proprietors of newspapers should possess a privilege which was not enjoyed by any other class of persons. He could not understand why a person who brought an action against a newspaper should be required to give security for costs because a sum of money had been deposited by the newspaper at Somerset House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were prepared to say that, in all cases, persons who brought actions should be compelled to give security for the costs, that was a totally different and much more comprehensive question; but, for his part, he could certainly see no reason why an exception to the ordinary rule should be made in cases where the defendants were proprietors of newspapers.

said, there was a difference between newspapers and ordinary defendants, because the former were obliged to deposit a sum of money at Somerset House, whereas the latter gave no security whatever for the payment of costs. There were, however, many arguments in favour of a general measure on the subject of security for costs being given by plaintiffs; and he might mention that a Bill relating to the County Courts had already passed the House of Lords, containing an express provision to the effect that when an action was brought for malicious prosecution, libel, &c., the defendant might make an affidavit that the plaintiff had no visible means of defraying the costs, and that the judge might thereupon make an order that the plaintiff should give good security for the defendant's costs. If that Bill had passed this House of course the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark would be unnecessary; but, under existing circumstances, be thought it would be desirable to incorporate the proposed Amendment in the Bill.

trusted that the Committee would not agree to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because if it were carried it would have the effect of placing the press in a different position from that occupied by private individuals. He hoped the Committee would not condescend to the low position of "toadying" the press. In his opinion an anonymous press was one of the greatest evils of modern times. He might add that this proposition was fully discussed by the Committee of which he was a member, and that it was unanimously rejected.

was of opinion that the proprietors of newspapers ought to be placed in exactly the same position as other people, and he trusted, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment. The result of its adoption would be to close the Courts of Justice against the humbler classes of society.

felt certain that no one inside or outside the House had the slightest disposition to "toady" the press, and he was sorry such an observation had fallen from the hon. Member for Maldon. This country might regard its press as one of the finest institutions in the universe, and one of its main features was its unanimous character.

did not think the Solicitor General had met his proposition fairly; but as it appeared that his clause had been considered by the Committee upstairs, he begged to withdraw it.

called attention to the fact that as the speakers at all assemblies of a privileged character, such as the meetings of joint-stock banks, were to be privileged, and as the newspapers were to be privileged, there would be no one to proceed against for a libel spoken at one of those meetings.

moved the second reading of this Bill, which proposed to enable trustees to invest funds intrusted to them in the new East India Stock. The principle of the Bill was in accordance with judgments delivered by Lord Campbell and other Judges; and, in fact, might be regarded more as explanatory of the law than as a new proposition.

desired to know the opinion of the Government on the Bill, as it appeared to him to contain some important provisions; it proposed to enable trustees to invest in funds not secured by the Government, whereas at present trustees were very properly confined to funds that were so secured.

desired to know whether the hon. Member who had moved the second reading of the Bill was sure that Lord Campbell had given a judgment in favour of the principle on which the Bill was founded, as in a case in which he had been personally concerned he was informed to a contrary effect.

hoped that if the principle of the Bill were approved, the stock of the New Canada Railway would be included in the same class with the New East India Stock, as trustees had great difficulties now-a-days in making what could surely be deemed sound investments, having a reasonable rate of interest to recommend them.

said, that the Amendment suggested by the last Speaker would meet with his cordial assent in Committee, and with reference to the question of the hon. and gallant Member, said, that he had Lord Campbell's judgment in his hand, and would read it, if the House wished.

, while declining to express a decided opinion without first consulting with the Attorney General, said, that previous Acts of Parliament had permitted trustees to invest in those stocks only which the Government had secured; the Bill of the hon. Member would permit trustees to invest in stock which was not so guaranteed. He did not see, however, why the hon. Member should not pass his Bill through this stage.

, who opposed the further progress of the measure, contended that railway companies, being the chief sufferers by accidents, would be only too glad to adopt any invention which would give greater security to the public. No invention had hitherto been brought forward which had obtained the confidence of the public. This Bill merely enacted that a communication, without describing any particular communication, should be adopted. All carriages were to be provided with an effectual means of communication with the guard; but no conviction could be obtained for the infringement of such a loosely drawn clause of an Act of Parliament as that. At present the only means of communication was by means of a cord running through the whole train, which was far from effectual, because when the train was on a curve it became loose. He should be glad if his hon. Friend would point out an effectual means of communication between the guard and the passenger; but until it was pointed out he must oppose the further progress of the Bill.

said, he had presented a petition praying that the Bill might be allowed to pass, and in the prayer of that petition he cordially concurred. The object which it was sought to attain he looked upon as excellent; and it seemed to him incredible that the whole inventive genius of this county should be unable to devise some means of communication which would answer the required purposes.

pointed out that as a matter of fact the inventive genius of the country had failed to accomplish the object. Men of the greatest experience had endeavoured, in the interests of the railway companies themselves, to establish some means of communication, such as that which the Bill proposed to carry out, but without success; and Captain Tyler, as the representative of the Board of Trade, had stated that no scheme for the purpose had been brought under his notice, the adoption of which he could recommend. The railway companies were extremely anxious that the Board itself should prescribe the means to be taken to provide the necessary communication; and seeing that that was not done, and that Clause 6 was to be struck out, he should like to know what use there could be in proceeding with a measure which was thus shorn of its original provisions by the hon. Gentleman by whom it was promoted. He called upon the Government, if they could avail themselves of the necessary engineering information to accomplish the object in view, to introduce a Bill for that purpose; but it certainly was not, he must say, fair to throw upon the railway companies a responsibility such as that which it was now proposed to cast upon them.

said, that if they were to leave the matter to railway directors, they might wait till doomsday before anything would be done. A short time ago the roof of a carriage in which some of his friends were travelling took fire, and as there were no means of communication with the guard, all they had to do was to shout in order to attract notice. The fire was observed as they went by a station, but the train could not be stopped. At last the train was stopped, and immediately after the roof fell in. His friends escaped with their lives, but their baggage was consumed. Now, if there had been some mode of communication with the guard the train might have been stopped earlier, the baggage would not have been lost, nor the passengers frightened almost out of their lives. If no means of communication between passengers and guard could be established, he wished to know whether they could not, at all events, do as was done in America, and contrive a mode by which the guard might pass from one end of the train to the other. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to go into Committee, in order that they might see whether some means might not be adopted for saving the lives of the public.

said, that there was a special department of the Government—namely, the Board of Trade, whose province it was to look to such matters; and he should like to hear what the representative of that department had to say on this question. He had never seen any plan by which such means of communication as was desired could be provided. As for the guard going from one part of the train to the other, that might be done; but it would place the railway companies under the necessity of providing new rolling stock altogether. He, as a railway director, could say that directors were most anxious to adopt any means of communicating with the guard that might be found practicable, and they were willing to submit to the Board of Trade in the matter.

said, that he had recently had an opportunity of seeing a signal adopted on the Great Northern of France which he was told was very effective. There was plenty of engineering talent in England to discover some means of communication between passengers and guards, and if such means were not at first as effective as might be desirable, they could by degrees be improved. Let Parliament say that some means must be established, and no doubt a remedy for the present state of things would soon be discovered.

expressed an opinion that it was quite possible to adopt some mode of communication such as was contemplated by the Bill. In fact, it was already in use not only on the Continent, but on some English lines.

said, that this was one of the measures which appealed to the general feeling of the country, and those who made objections to it were exposed to a certain amount of obloquy. When the hon. Member moved the second reading of the Bill, he (Mr. Stephen Cave) recommended that before going into Committee they should wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. Now, that Report was rather against the measure, the object being to fix absolute responsibility on the railway companies. The Commissioners consider that if they were to interfere with the details of the management of railways they would, to a certain extent, diminish that absolute responsibility; and they wished if any accident occurred to person or property that the railway company should be absolutely responsible. He had on a former occasion gone into this question at length, and should be very brief now. He had no doubt that communication between passengers and guards might be established. There was such communication in Royal trains, there was such on the Continent, and also in some parts of England. The hon. Baronet who had last spoken, and who was a great authority on matters of this kind, had stated that communication was possible. But there was a great difference between England and foreign countries in one particular, and hon. Members who had spoken had felt the difficulty. If a guard was informed that something was going wrong, was he to be at liberty to stop the train or not? In several cases it would be found extremely difficult and dangerous to stop the train. Was the guard to be responsible in such cases without knowing; the precise meaning of the signal? On the Continent and in America it was different. The guard who received a signal could go at once to the carriage whence it proceeded. On English railways there would be a minimum of advantage from the establishment of a communication between guards and drivers. There would also be a difficulty in adapting signals to carriages in the case of lines with frequent junctions, at which the continuity of the train was broken. Besides, in cases of outrage, the first thing would be for the person committing it to prevent access to the signal. He entirely repudiated all responsibility for the Board of Trade in the matter. The Bill in its first draught required the Board of Trade to certify that particular communications between guards and drivers were in a perfect state. But that he held to be impracticable, and he had insisted on that portion of the Bill being omitted. The hon. Member for Dudley had consented to this, and he therefore would not oppose going into Committee; but he thought the Bill would require careful consideration in Committee.

moved that the Chairman do report Progress.

explained that the measure did not throw any responsibility upon the Board of Trade, and stated that one of the best managed companies in England—the South Eastern Company—had successfully adopted a system of communication between guards and passengers and saw no objection to the measure. He should therefore divide the House on the Motion of the hon. Member opposite.

said, he had, ten years ago, sat on a Committee on this subject, which reported in favour of the establishment of a communication between guards and drivers, and if Parliament determined that it should be established, railway directors would soon find out the best means of doing so.

said, that the Committee referred to by the last speaker was appointed to consider the feasibility of establishing communications between the guards, and not between the guards and the passengers, which was a very important distinction.

said, that the Directors of railways were most anxious to discover some plan by which it would be possible for passengers to communicate with the guards; and it would, perhaps, be better to leave the matter in their hands.

, in support of his contention that there was no physical difficulty to prevent guards walking along the foot-boards of the carriages, alluded to the fact that in some parts of Scotland it was customary for the guards to collect the tickets by that means while the train was in motion.

said, that the system adopted on the Great Northern of France and on the Mediterranean Railways had been found to work admirably. In that system the passenger seeking to communicate with the guard broke a glass and pulled a ring. There was also a communication between adjoining compartments of the carriage—an arrangement that tended to give passengers, especially ladies, a feeling of security.

moved the omission of the words "ready and effectual."

thought the clause ought to be omitted, and that a fresh one, framed on the principle of the one to be proposed in the place of Clause 3, should be brought up.

was of opinion that the Bill ought not to be proceeded with until the clauses, which it was proposed to bring up, were before the Committee. He moved that the Chairman report Progress.

thought it was unwise to oppose the Bill in the interest of the railway companies, because it certainly was the mildest form of legislation that could be proposed.

said, the clause was a very important one, and time ought to be given for consideration in its amended form. He therefore moved that the Chairman do report Progress. ["Oh, oh!"] It was in no spirit of faction that this Motion was made.

said, that the object of repeated Motions to report Progress on a short Bill of this kind at this period of the Session were perfectly well understood. It showed that a determination existed on the part of railway directors to defeat this Bill if possible. He could call it nothing else but a factious opposition.

denied that such a charge was fairly to be made against the representatives of railway interests. It was impossible to suppose that Railway Directors would resist the adoption of any system really calculated to protect human life from risk, and increase the safety of their passengers. But the fact was that, in the present state of science, no really efficient system of protection had been yet discovered, and therefore it was idle to go on with the Bill at present. He had supported and should continue to support Motions for reporting Progress.

said, the hon. Member was desirous of reporting Progress in order, apparently, that some really satisfactory invention might be discovered before the Bill came on again for discussion. If no real security was afforded by the systems at present in use on different railways, how was it that companies took such credit for adopting them? His hon. Friend had been beaten by two to one in the former division, mid three to one in the last. He put it to him seriously, whether it was worth his while to run about the lobbies any more that evening?

said, he must confess the course taken by Railway Directors looked exceedingly like a determination to reject the Bill if possible. He could not say how many years this farce had been going on, and it was now time to do something practical.

protested against the language of the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford. There was not a railway board in the kingdom which had failed to devote hours to the anxious consideration of this question, and many of them had incurred great expense in trying experiments. He would suggest that the Bill be revived in a more practical shape next Session.

stated, that communications between passengers and guard had been established on the South Western line.

also testified to the same fact, remarking that railway directors appeared lamentably ignorant on the subject.

suggested that the contest on the Bill should be reserved for the 3rd Clause.

moved the omission of the clause.

said, that the certificate of the Board of Trade was useless as the Bill stood. It was not to be expected that the Board of Trade should certify to each train having some signal.

, in lieu of Clause 6, proposed the following clause, which was read a second time:—

"From and after the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act each and every railway company in Great Britain and Ireland shall in every train provided for the conveyance of passengers upon lines of railway under their control and management, whenever the distance to be traversed by such train without stopping shall, in any case during the journey exceed fifteen miles, fit up and provide in each carnage, and in each compartment of a carriage in which passengers are conveyed, means of communication between the passengers and the guard in charge of such train, and shall also provide means of communication between the said guard and the driver or drivers of the locomotive engine or engines attached to such train."

proposed after the word "shall" to insert the words "if required by the Board of Trade;" but after some discussion the addition of the words was negatived, and the clause was added to the Bill.

said, that the Amendment would establish a new principle of legislation, because the Act of Parliament would only become operative on the requisition of the Board of Trade. This would be changing the functions of a Government department which were now simply executive.