The addition which I propose to this clause is one of great importance, since it raises the question of providing better security against corrupt practices in municipal, as well as Parliamentary elections. No one is likely to deny that bribery in municipal elections deserves repression as much, and is as unfit to be tolerated or indulged, as bribery in Parliamentary elections; and the special reason why it should be dealt with in this Bill is that, as we are told by all who know anything about the matter, municipal bribery is the great school of Parliamentary bribery. Hon. Members of this House have on a former occasion testified to this fact from their personal knowledge, and I shall quote only two authorities for it. One is that eminent Conservative solicitor, Mr. Philip Rose, formerly as intimately known to hon. Gentleman opposite as his partner, Mr. Spofforth, now is. Mr. Rose, before the Select Committee of this House on Corrupt Practices, in 1860, expressed himself in these words—

"My strong opinion is, that all the efforts which are now being made to check bribery at Parliamentary elections will fail, for this reason, that you do not attempt to strike at the root of the offence. The real nursery for the evil is the municipal contests; and those oft-recurring contests have led to the establishment of what I might almost term an organized system of corruption in the municipal boroughs throughout the kingdom, which provides a machinery ready made to hand, available when the Parliamentary contest arrives."

My next authority is the Committee itself, before whom this evidence was given, and who reported—

"That it has been proved to the satisfaction of your Committee, that an intimate connection exists between bribery at municipal and Parliamentary elections, and it is expedient that the provisions as to punishments and forfeitures for the offences of bribery at each such election should be assimilated as far as possible."

Notwithstanding this recommendation of the Select Committee, which I hope that the next House of Commons will see the propriety of adopting in its integrity, I have not ventured to propose that the present Bill should provide a machinery for the investigation and punishment of corrupt practices at municipal elections. But I do propose, by the present Amendment, and by an additional clause which will follow in due course, that when the machinery which the Bill does provide for the investigation of corrupt practices at Parliamentary elections is actually set in motion, the inquiry may extend to municipal as well as to Parliamentary corruption. If the House adopt my Amendment, the Special Commission, which is already empowered to inquire into Parliamentary elections previous to that which caused the issue of the Commission, will have the power conferred on it of inquiring, to exactly the same extent, into previous municipal elections. By the additional clause, the Judge who tries an Election Petition, may take evidence to prove that an elector who voted at the Parliamentary election had been guilty of corrupt practices at any municipal election within two years previous, for the purpose, of course, of showing that his vote was corruptly influenced at the Parliamentary election. The period of two years is selected with reference to the term fixed by the 56th clause of the Municipal Corpora- tions Act; and I confidently claim, both for the Amendment and for the new clause, the support of all hon. Members who really desire to lay the axe at the root of electoral corruption. The hon. Member moved to add at the end of the clause the following words:—

"And it shall be competent for any such Commission to inquire into corrupt practices at previous municipal Elections within the county or borough as fully as into corrupt practices at previous Parliamentary Elections."

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member was not sufficiently relevant to the Bill to enable it to be inserted in the Bill in the absence of a direct Instruction of the House to the Committee on the subject. The Amendment had reference to municipal elections, and the Bill referred only to the elections of Members of Parliament.

submitted, that if bribery at municipal elections tended to corruption at Parliamentary elections, the Amendment was relative.

observed, that, under this clause the whole practice would be changed. The Judge, and not the Committee, would have to inquire into the seat, and the alleged corrupt practices at the election. The Judge, and not the Committee, would hear the evidence. The Judge, and not the Committee, would report to the House whether extensive corruption had or had not prevailed among the constituency. Hitherto it had devolved on the Chairman of the Committee to bring the matter on the Report before the House; but on whom would that duty devolve under the new system? On the Government? They had already enough to do. Was it, then, to be left haphazard to any private Member on either side of the House who might read the shorthand writer's notes, but who had neither seen the witnesses nor heard their evidence? That would be a most lame and impotent conclusion, more likely to encourage party feeling and give latitude to corrupt practices than the present system. The arrangement proposed would lead to nothing being done. What he suggested was that the issue of the Commission should depend on the finding of the Judge, and not on any Address being moved. He was prepared to move the insertion of words in this clause, making the issuing of the Commission obligatory whenever the Judge stated in his Report that he had reason to believe that corrupt practices had prevailed at an election.

observed that he had so altered his Amendment as to obviate the difficulty started by the Chairman. He proposed it should run thus—

"And it shall be competent for any such Commission to inquire how far corrupt practices at any previous municipal Election may have conduced to corrupt practices at the Parliamentary Election."

felt bound to say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster, even as it now stood, extended beyond the bonâ fide limits of the Bill, and the Committee could not well entertain it. He would therefore suggest that the hon. Member should bring up a clause to the effect stated on the Report.

said, he would avail himself of that suggestion.

supported the proposal of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) and hoped he would frame a clause such as he had described.

said, he thought that the clause as it stood was very important and valuable in itself, and that, therefore, the Committee would not wish to get rid of it altogether. It proposed to enact that when the judge should report that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in a county or borough the House should he placed in exactly the same position as it was at present when a Committee made a Report to a similar effect. The Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for Westminster would, if substituted for this clause, deprive the House of the discretionary power it had hitherto exercised upon the Report of a Committee being made to it alleging the existence of extensive corrupt practices in a county or borough. It was the more necessary that this discretionary power should be left to the House, seeing that the present Bill made the ratepayers liable for the expenses of the Commission. He therefore hoped that the clause would be allowed to stand.

said, he was afraid that the Judges who were appointed to try these Petitions would be placed in a very awkward and unpleasant position by this Bill; they would first be requested to make a Report as to whether or not corrupt practices extensively prevailed in a borough or county, and when they had made that Report they were to be told that they were not to be believed, and that the whole Inquiry must be gone over again before the House could act in the matter. He thought that a Commission should issue as a matter of course upon the Report of the Judge that corrupt practices were extensively prevalent in a county or borough being made. He did not think that in one case out of ten the Judge would make such a Report, as he would content himself with ascertaining the existence of one or two cases of bribery, and would then make a dry Report to the effect that the seat was vacant by reason of bribery having been committed.

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken that the clause should either be struck out or considerably amended. He was of opinion that a Judge should not be called on to say extra judicially "that he had reason to believe" that bribery extensively prevailed.

said, he did not think the House could compel the Crown to issue a Commission in these cases. The best plan would be to pass the clause and discuss the question in a separate form. He trusted that the Committee would be allowed to make some, progress with the Bill.

said, he had endeavoured to discuss the provisions of the Bill with a view to rendering it more efficient. No one, he thought, could accuse him of trying in any way to retard its passing. ["Oh!"] He thought that the course now being adopted would render corruption more easy, instead of more difficult; but, finding the Committee against him, he would withdraw the Amendment.

wished to know whether a Member was to be tapped on the shoulder and served with an Election Petition in the same way that a man was now served with a writ?

said, he had never understood that tapping on the shoulder was a necessary accompaniment to the serving of a writ.

said, he objected to the construction of the clause, which would throw a monopoly of the shorthand writing into the hands of Messrs. Gurney, who already enjoyed the monopoly of the shorthand writing of the House of Commons. Without in the slightest degree wishing to impugn the skill of those gentlemen and their staff he thought that the shorthand writing business arising out of these Inquiries should be thrown open to the shorthand writing profession generally. He suggested that the shorthand writer to attend these Inquiries should be appointed either by the Judge or by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, he would move the Amendment of which Notice had been: given by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive), to leave out—

"On the trial of an Election Petition under this Act, the shorthand writer of the House of Commons, or his deputy, shall attend, and shall be sworn by the judge faithfully and truly to take down the evidence given at the trial, &c." and insert—

"On the trial of an Election Petition under this Act, a shorthand writer shall be appointed by the judge (in the manner hereinafter provided), to attend, and shall be sworn by the judge faithfully and truly to take down the evidence given at the trial, &c."

said, he should support the clause as it stood, seeing that if they were to interfere in this way with every small matter in the Bill they had better at once proceed to construct a Bill themselves, and to treat the initiatory action of the Government as amounting to nothing. The shorthand writing of the House of Commons as performed by Messrs. Gurney was incomparably well done. He had never seen any operation of the human mind combined with that of the hand that appeared to him so wonderful as the precision with which the proceedings in the Committees of that House, where the utmost confusion frequently prevailed, were taken down and read off fluently by the shorthand writer. If the Government were to announce that this Bill was merely of a temporary character the greater part of these discussions would at once fall to the ground.

observed that his object was merely to permit the direct employment of those who now did the work.

With the permission of the Committee I will take this opportu- nity of stating that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose that this shall be a limited Bill, to remain in force for three years only.

observed that perhaps this would be the proper time for him to move a proviso, to which he believed the Government would not object. As the Bill stood Parliamentary agents would not be entitled to appear professionally in Election cases before the Judges. The object of his proviso was to provide that agents or counsel now entitled to practise in the House of Commons in respect of election matters, should be entitled to practise before the Judges in respect of similar matters.

said, he would make some additions to the hon. Member's proviso, and bring it up as a new clause.

said, he was about to propose the insertion of words which would throw the expenses of the Court held by the Judge upon the locality whose misconduct had been the cause of the outlay. He apprehended that the object of the House of Commons was to educate public opinion to bear against electoral corruption. With that view he thought it would be well to make the existence of such corruption in any community inconvenient to that community. The presence of a Judge for a short time in a borough was not looked upon as either a disgrace or an inconvenience to that borough. On several occasions the House had seen the anxiety displayed by communities to have their particular locality selected as the assize town. There were festivities of various kinds—including the "Assize Ball "—during the visit of a Judge to a county town. Perhaps next year they should hear of "the Bribery Ball." The House as much as possible ought to avoid giving the smallest ground for the supposition that the visit of the Judge to try a case under this Bill was to be an occasion of merrymaking. He had taken the words of his proviso from those of a clause framed by the Government, and applying to the expenses of a Commission. He was willing to add words providing that where the allegations in the Petition were found to be frivolous and vexatious, the expenses of the inquiry should be borne by the Petitioner.

said, that no one would go further than he was ready to go in punishing a constituency found guilty of corrupt practices; but the House must take care not to press that principle too far. In their anxiety to suppress corruption they must not do what was unjust. The intention was that a Judge should proceed to the particular borough in order to try whether there had been corrupt practices there or not. Now, the Judge might arrive at the conclusion that the charges were unfounded, and yet not be prepared to hold that they were frivolous and vexatious. There was a great difference between those two findings. Again, the charge of an undue return might be sustained in consequence of five or ten persons in a borough having taken bribes. The general rule was that the country provided the expenses of judicial investigations.

said, that nothing could be so well contrived as the clause to prevent the presentation of Election Petitions, for which the utmost freedom ought to be allowed; and he moved the omission of the words—

"Subject, as aforesaid, a substituted Petitioner shall stand in the same position as nearly as may be, and be subject to the same liabilities as the original Petitioner."

observed that it was only where the Judge was of opinion that the withdrawal of a Petition was the result of a corrupt bargain, and that the first surely was a party to the corruption, that in case another Petitioner came forward to prosecute the inquiry, the old sureties would remain liable. He thought that a very proper provision.

explained that the Committee intended by this clause to prevent the withdrawal of bonâ fide Petitions; and with this view where the Judge was satisfied that a corrupt bargain existed for the withdrawal of a Petition the clause provided that the £1,000 lodged by the first surety should be impounded and applied, so far as it would go, to pay the legitimate expenses of the inquiry.

observed that the sureties were required by the clause to guarantee that the prosecution of the Petition should be effective, and not merely that the expenses should be paid.

said, that the object of the clause was to prevent the Petition being withdrawn from corrupt motives.

thought that the Petition should not be allowed to be withdrawn under any circumstances.

said, he could not see how the Judge was to ascertain whether the withdrawal of the Petition was owing to corrupt motives. If he endeavoured to cross-examine the Petitioner the latter might refuse to answer on the ground that he declined to criminate himself, or else one or two witnesses might be brought forward who had no evidence to give, and it might be said that the case had broken down, as in either of these cases the Judge would be helpless.

said, that the object of the clause was to prevent Petitions being withdrawn in pursuance of corrupt arrangements. The hon. and learned Baronet who had just spoken had shown how it was possible for the ends of justice to be defeated, and the present clause only endeavoured to meet a certain number of the contrivances that might be adopted with that view. A former clause provided for this difficulty, because under it the Judges were enabled from time to time to prescribe rules under which Petitions might be withdrawn. He did not mean to say that there could be no evasions of the Act; but if they desired to prevent the corrupt withdrawal of Peti- tions it was worth their while to try whether the machinery now devised would not effect that result.

said, he was of opinion that the only remedy would be found in the appointment of a public prosecutor.

called attention to the fact that there were no means by which the House could be officially informed of the steps taken from time to time affecting seats, and consequently a Member whose seat had been declared vacant might still take part in these proceedings, and vote in important divisions.

remarked that the means of information were just as great as they were at present.

replied that at present the proceedings before Committees, needed no notification to the House, because the deliberations and duties of Committees were really deliberations and duties of the House; but in this case they were constituting a new tribunal, with which they would have no connection whatever.

said, he did not wish to say anything impertinent, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that the proceedings of the Court would not be transacted in a cellar.

remarked, that the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) ought to be removed by a previous portion of the Bill, where the determination of the Court was ordered to be reported to the Speaker.

said, he thought there was an important omission in the clause, because, if the person petitioned against did not choose, from want of means or any other reason, to defend his seat, nobody else could come forward to rebut the charge of bribery and corruption made against the borough.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would find that that difficulty had already been provided for by an earlier clause.

proposed, in page 14, line 11, to insert after "on the whole successful" the words—

"And in the case of any such Petition where any corrupt practice is charged to have taken place, and where the court or judge has decided that any corrupt practice has been proved, the court or judge shall have power to order any portion or the whole of the costs, charges, and expenses to be defrayed by any party or parties who may have been proved guilty of corrupt practices, or by the county or borough, in the same manner as expenses incurred in the registration of voters for the county or borough, regard being had to the importance of securing the beat efforts of the county or borough for repression of corrupt practices.

"In the case of any Petition complaining of general or extensive prevalence of corrupt practices, if the court or judge shall be of opinion that there was reasonable and probable ground for its allegations, the petitioner or petitioners shall be relieved of all costs, charges, and expenses incurred in and about the inquiry, and it shall be in the power of the court or judge to distribute the said costs, charges, and expenses in such proportions as it or he may think fit between parties who shall have been found guilty of corrupt practices, or who shall have caused expense by vexatious conduct, unfounded allegations, or unfounded objections, and the county or borough, as the case may be, the expenses charged on the county or borough to be defrayed in the same manner as expenses incurred in the registration of voters for the county or borough."

The principle of this Amendment is that to bring to light, and prosecute to conviction, acts of bribery or other corruption at elections, is a public service; and that, being a public service, those who are judicially decided to have performed that service ought not to be required to pay the expenses of it from their private purse. It is enough that they take upon themselves the risk of failing to establish the charge, which, we all know, may easily, and does frequently, happen when it is perfectly notorious that the charge is true. But when it has been proved true, and is judicially declared to be so proved, I maintain that the Petitioners have a clear moral right to be indemnified for the expense. Their first claim, no doubt, is upon the parties who, through their instrumentality, have been found guilty; but the Judge may not always think fit to inflict even upon proved corruption, so heavy a penalty as the entire expenses of the Petition; and it will often happen that the parties have not the means of paying it. I propose, therefore that the Judge should have the power of apportioning the expense in whatever manner he deems most just, between the persons convicted of corrupt practices, and the county or borough.

remarked, with reference to the earlier part of the clause, that, as persons would be less able to inform themselves of their grounds of action through the shortening of time during which a Petition could be presented, a provision making the payment of costs depend upon the event would almost entirely prevent Petitions being presented.

said, the Petitioner did not pay costs unless the Committee decided his proceedings had been vexatious. The Committee desired on the one hand to put an end to corrupt practices; but at the same time to protect a Member from improper Petitions. The Judge was vested with a discretion as to awarding costs.

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, and he did not believe the hon. Member would press it when he understood what it comprehended. It actually gave the Judge power to award costs against any man whom another might have charged with bribery under circumstances in which he could offer no defence. Any voter might go before the Judge and say, without the least foundation, "Such a one offered me a sum of money." He was sure, too, the latter part of the Amendment went far beyond the intention of the hon. Member.

asked, whether since Judges could be trusted to decide cases of political importance, the Attorney General believed they could not be trusted to exercise proper caution in awarding costs?

thought costs, properly so called, could only fall on persons who, as parties to the suit, could be heard; here, however, was a proposal to impose an arbitrary fine on persons not parties to a suit, and having no power to make themselves heard. The same remark applied to the borough or county as to persons, and the only possible precedent which could be quoted in support of either case was that of making an attorney pay costs for improper conduct in a suit.

observed that there was surplusage in the use of the word "personally," as referring to the person guilty of bribery.

said, that the Amendment would effect a very important change in the Bill. The question raised by the hon. Member for Westminster had been very fully discussed and considered by the Select Committee, and that Committee thought it would be going too far to exclude a man from the House of Commons for seven years because he had been found guilty of treating or guilty of intimidation. That penalty was by the clause now under discussion inflicted on any person found guilty of bribery.

observed that treating was bribery by means of eating and drinking, and therefore it was morally as bad as bribery by payment of money.

said, he hoped the Government would not assent to the proposed Amendment. He did not think that a punishment which was almost as bad as transportation for seven years should be inflicted merely for giving a man half-a-crown to get something to drink.

hoped the hon. Member for Westminster would persevere with his clause.

thought that intimidation was even worse than bribery.

proposed to leave oat in page 14, line 37, the words "during the seven years" to the end of the clause, with the view of adding the words "or sitting in Parliament for such county or borough during the Parliament then in existence." He observed that the Bill as now drawn did not retain the provision that a candidate found guilty of malpractices by himself or his agents should be incapable of sitting in the House of Commons during the then existing Parliament for the same constituency. He thought that a just and wise provision. Else a candidate unseated on Petition might at a subsequent election—that election being a pure election, and therefore free from attack—be returned by force and by virtue of that very corruption which had vitiated the former return. The Amendment raised the whole of the large question whether a single Judge sitting alone without a, jury should have the power of depriving a citizen of his civil rights. A man so charged was entitled to a trial by jury. Before a citizen was found guilty of such an offence, and was subjected to such a punishment, his trial should proceed, not on a collateral and accidental issue, but on a fair issue fairly raised, and the verdict should be arrived at after careful investigation by a jury under the guidance of a Judge in reference to the special and individual case. It was not necessary for him to enlarge on the horrible nature of the punishment which sent a man forth into the world deprived of all that made life worth having, by rendering him incapable of sitting in Parliament for seven years. It had been found that extreme severity of punishment defeated its own object, and he was of opinion that an English citizen should not be liable to suffer this punishment by the sentence of a Judge sitting without a jury. He therefore proposed to omit from the clause the words rendering the candidate with whose knowledge and consent bribery had, in the opinion of the Judge, been committed, "incapable of being elected to and of sitting in the House of Commons during the seven years next after the date of his being found guilty;" and to substitute for them a provision rendering such candidate incapable "of sitting in Parliament for such county or borough during the Parliament then in existence."

said, that the observations of the hon. and learned Member directed attention to a matter which it was necessary should be properly understood. It was desirable to know whether it was intended by the clause to repeal altogether the present law, which declared that, if a candidate were found guilty of bribery, treating, or undue influence, by himself or his agents, he should be incapable of sitting in the House of Commons during the Parliament then existing. The Committee would observe that agency was not mentioned in the present clause, and that omission would have the effect of operating as a very great stimulus and encouragement to bribery in those cases where the present law discouraged such offences. The unpopularity of the persons who spent large sums of money in corrupt practices was not so great as the advocates of purity of election might desire, and if a candidate who had committed bribery were allowed to stand again for the same place where the bribery had been practised, it would be ten to one in many cases that he would be returned. In abolishing Election Committees it was manifest that, if the House intended to retain the substance of the existing law, some words must be introduced into the Bill to make the present consequences of agency applicable to a person convicted by a Judge.

stated that the intention of the Bill was that the penalty in the case of a candidate personally guilty of bribery should be more severe than at present; but it was not intended to alter the law applicable to candidates guilty of bribery by their agents, and he would, in order to preclude all doubt on the point, undertake to bring up a clause relating to the matter upon the Report.

thought that the clause seemed framed with undue severity. An immense penalty was annexed to the offence mentioned in the clause, and they were obliged to exaggerate the character of the offence before they could bring themselves to assent to the penalty. The clause stated that where, by the report of a Judge upon an Election Petition, it should be found that bribery had been committed with the knowledge or consent of a candidate, such candidate should be deemed to have been personally guilty of bribery. They might say that, but their saying so did not make the candidate personally guilty, though by the use of those words they might seek to excuse themselves for providing so heavy a penalty. In the case of murder they might say that any person with whose consent or knowledge murder was committed should be deemed personally guilty of murder; but that was not law. Such a person was not a principal, but an accessory. This constrained construction being put on the Act mentioned in the clause, the penalty imposed was seven years' exclusion from the House of Commons. The penalty here would be worse than transportation for life to some persons. It would be extremely wrong to put this tremendous power into the hands of a single Judge. They would defeat their own object, for no Judge would ever take on himself the responsibility of saying what he might think in his own mind, because he would shrink from the consequences it would involve. But let them look at the matter with reference to political expediency. They were not saying that every man who had done this must be dealt with after a certain manner, but everyone who had been proved to have done it. There was the difficulty of deciding what was true and false on such testimony as was given in these cases; it was not on the fact of a man having done it, but of the witnesses being able to impress the mind of a Judge that he had done it, they were proceeding. There were Gentlemen sitting in that House whose presence there was most important to the interests of party and the interests of the nation; and there was hardly anything that might not be contrived by wicked and unscrupulous persons to procure their absence. Yet their absence during the past seven years, and Still more during the next seven years, would revolutionize and alter the whole history of the country. Everything would depend on the presence or absence of those two Gentlemen; and would they leave so tremendous an issue to be decided in this manner? He could not reconcile his mind to such a conclusion. He did not stand there as an advocate of those who gave or took bribes; but by such arbitrary and harsh constructions they strained the laws into what they were not; and their penalties, being utterly wild, violent, and extravagant, would not check bribery, but rather enable many to escape the stigma justly due to their misconduct. They would act much more wisely by leaving these matters to he dealt with as they had been already—not to outrun, but trusting to the force of public opinion to put down this offence. He was quite sure that here, as in all other cases, laws too severe and extravagant had only a tendency to defeat themselves.

said, he thought the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) struck at the root of the whole Bill. Observations very much to the same effect had been made on many of the clauses of the Bill; but it was only now the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at a conclusion as to the real character of the Bill, and denounced it as a most deplorable calamity. They were attempting to combine a civil and criminal suit—to blend two very different things, and involving such tremendous penalties as seven years' ostracism from the House of Commons. But the objection of the right hon. Gentleman came somewhat late. After constructing the most excellent tribunal they could by possibility devise, and entitled to every confidence, they suddenly turned round, and would not allow justice to take its course. He, on the other hand, maintained they were bound to accept the legitimate consequences of what they had done in the penal character of the clause.

said, he found that the clause now under discussion was accepted by the Committee on the Corrupt Practices Bill last year nem. con. Seventeen Members were present, and fifteen Members of the Committee voted for it, among whom was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne.

I did not vote for it.

The Motion was made and the Question put—

"That it is desirable that persons found guilty of bribery or reported by the Judge or Commissioners as having been guilty of bribery should, notwithstanding any indemnity, be for seven years incapacitated from being elected as Members of Parliament, or voting for Members of Parliament, or holding municipal offices, or being included in a Commission of the Peace."

That question was put at the instance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney), and agreed to. Of course he was not able to say, from the report of the proceedings, whether the right hon. Gentleman had before then left the room.

I did leave the Committee-room.

The right hon. Gentleman was there immediately before.

I was.

No Member of the Committee took exception to the Resolution. Of course, it was open to any Member of the Committee to change his mind.

I did not change my mind on that matter.

did not say that the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind. But he did not record his vote against the proposition. With regard to the question whether it was desirable to have such a provision he, would say a few words. Why was money spent in bribery? The object to be attained was a seat in that House; and if it were provided that on Members being convicted of spending money illegally in order to obtain a seat in Parliament that object would be defeated, very strong discouragement would be given to bribery. No doubt there might be combinations and conspiracies to prove distinguished Members of the House guilty of bribery; but they must trust, as in other cases, to the acumen of the tribunal to detect and defeat those conspiracies.

said, he hoped that the Government would not be induced to consent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge(Mr. Powell), which proposed to place the man who was cognizant of bribery being committed for him with the individual who was so unfortunate as to have over-zealous friends who bribed on his behalf, but without his knowledge. He doubted whether seven years' exclusion was a sufficient punishment for those who had been guilty of bribery.

said, he was afraid that the words of the clause would not carry the punishment intended.

, as a Member of the Committee, explained that the penal clauses had been very much discussed, and that the right hon. Member for Calne voted with the minority against them. The best course would be to withdraw the penal clauses, and to leave the law upon the point as it now stood.

said, he thought it was not just to treat an accessory in the same manner as a principal, although it appeared the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) was incapable of understanding the distinction.

said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Powell), both on grounds of justice and expediency, was a good one. After the stigma had been cast upon a man, all the witnesses might admit that they had made a mistake, or might be convicted of perjury, yet there would be no means of setting him right for seven years. He should like to know how long such a regulation would remain in force after one of the Leaders of that House was excluded under this provision. The best way would be to leave the period of exclusion in the discretion of the Judges who tried the Petition.

said, he thought the stigma resulted from the conviction of the offence, and not from the punishment inflicted by the tribunal. The real foundation of all who spoke against the clause was want of trust in the tribunal. He did not include the right hon. Member for Calne in the number, for he had been all along in favour of the tribunal. The Amendment did not provide against the candidate trying his fortune in another borough or county; for it might happen that the reputation which a candidate had acquired in this respect would tell in his favour in a locality where bribery was valued.

asked whether the Bill would be taken as the first Order on resuming Business this evening?

said, he hoped the noble Lord (Viscount Amberley) would withdraw his Motion that the clause might be agreed to.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

, said, he wished to limit the words, to prevent candidates from being entangled by acts of which they were not conscious. Under the clause it might be considered that, by the most casual proceeding, a candidate had engaged a person to act for him. He therefore proposed to insert after the word "engaged," the words "as an agent."

stated that, through the wrong Paper being placed in the Chairman's hands, a much smaller sum was voted for Greenwich Hospital last night than was actually required, that being the last Vote that was taken. In order to remedy this he would move that the Report of Supply take precedence of the other Orders.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the extent, cost, and classification of the Civil Service. Premising that on account of the late period of the Session, to which, in order that certain Returns might be prepared, the question had been deferred, he was unwilling to delay the progress of the Estimates, and should not therefore address the House at so great a length as he had originally intended, he remarked that although there had recently been debates upon particular portions of the Civil Service, the entire subject of its organization had not been discussed for some time past. The present, he thought, was an appropriate time for considering it, for this was the end of a Parliament and of an electoral system, and the impending change would undoubtedly lead to considerable alterations in the manner of dealing with the public expenditure and public Departments. He was anxious, too, at a moment when our finances were not in a condition to afford any increase in these charges, to strengthen the hands of the Government; for an increase had unfortu- nately of late been the rule. Moreover, the new system of examinations, whether competitive or test examinations—the result of the labours of two very valuable civil servants some years ago—had been in operation long enough to show what its effect had been upon the service, and whether any amendment was required. Another reason for considering the question at the present time was that whereas some years since only a fraction of our civil expenditure was included in the Estimates—owing to the charges on the Consolidated Fund, the Civil List, and various fee and other funds not coming directly under the cognizance of Parliament—we had gradually brought the whole of it, with the exception of the Court of Chancery and one or two minor Departments, and the charges of the Judges and great Officers of State, within the annual Votes. The House was thus able, on the face of the Estimates, to ascertain the charge of the Civil Service, and to deal with it as a whole. In the suggestions and criticisms he was about to offer, he wished it to be understood that he did not wish to interfere with any existing vested interests, or with the fair claims of any member of the service; for he thought the inadvertent neglect of this rule when making great changes had had a mischievous effect. His principle, too, in dealing with these great establishments would be to economize, not by here and there cutting £50 or £100 off salaries, but by endeavouring to reduce the numbers where the charge was too great; and he thought he should be able to show that there was an excellent opportunity for an enterprizing Chancellor of the Exchequer of making such reductions. He would proceed to give the House some figures as to the expense and condition of the Civil Service, meaning by that term the body of persons employed in the Government service in civil capacities, and charged directly or indirectly on the Consolidated Fund or the Votes of Parliament—including members of the Judicial, Legal, and Police establishments, the Revenue Departments, and the civilians employed in the army and navy, but excluding all officers, whether combatants or non-combatants, provided for in the Votes for the Army and Navy. He would now give to the House the present charge and the present number, as accurately as he had been able to obtain them. And here he would say that he had to thank his right hem. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who with great kindness had placed at his disposal the resources of the Treasury, and enabled him to obtain those figures, if not quite accurately, yet as nearly so as it was possible to do in the case of such vast establishments. The state of things was this—The salaries, wages, payments for services in the shape of remuneration, stipends, or whatever else it might be called, in the Civil Service proper amounted altogether to £1,855,000 a year. The similar payments in our Judicial and Police establishments amounted to £2,833,000. The payments in our Revenue Departments for the same services amounted to £3,280,000 a year; and the payments of civilians, strictly so called, in the Naval and Military Departments, or in other words, in the "War Office, the Admiralty, and the Dockyards, amounted to £2,868,000 a year. The House was therefore dealing with no less a sum than £10,839,000 a year in respect of the civil expenditure of the country. The House would be interested in comparing that sum with the strictly Military Votes or the Votes for the pay and allowances of the combatant and non-combatant forces of the army and navy. Separate Votes were taken in the Army and Navy Estimates for the pay and provisions of the officers and men of the two forces; and these together made up a sum of £8,785,000. Therefore, the expenditure for what were strictly speaking civil salaries and wages exceeded by no less than £2,000,000 the entire annual charge for pay and allowances of the officers and men of the army and navy. [General PEEL asked the number of men included in the Returns.] He was on the point of giving this information. There were 650 persons in the higher grades of the four divisions of the Civil Service who received annual salaries to the amount in all of £1,092,000 a year. Of course, he excluded from this the officers near the person of the Sovereign charged on the Civil List. There were 364 clerks receiving altogether as salaries £368,000, and here he was only taking clerks of the highest grade, with salaries of, or above, £800 a year. Then there were 13,808 clerks and others receiving salaries under £800 a year, which made a sum of £3,369,214; so that there were altogether in the Civil Service 14,822 persons employed receiving salaries to the extent of £4,830,392. Then there were on wages 79,554 persons who received £4,448,106. Both classes made a total of 94,376 persons, who received from the State £9,278,498. In addition to that the State had to pay for clerical assistance a sum of £154,131, and for salaries and allowances to persons not entirely, but only partially, paid from Imperial funds £1,406,392. The sum total, therefore, amounted to£10,839,021. But we not only paid this large sum to our civil servants, but we allowed in the shape of civil pensions and superannuations a very large sum besides. There was for this purpose a charge on the Consolidated Fund of £352,000; Civil Votes for Police, £118,000; for others, £255,000; Law Funds, £50,000; Revenue Votes, £468,000; Army Votes, £135,000; Navy Votes, £223,000; making a total of £1,601,000, which, added to the charge for salaries, &c, gave a grand total of £12,440,000. He did not think there was any country in the world in which so large an expenditure was made in the Civil Service at the present time. It was exceedingly difficult to make a comparison in this respect with foreign countries. In the case of France, as the House well knew, the whole expenditure of the Administration, with very slight exceptions indeed, was charged upon the public Revenues, not as in this country, in which the charge to a very great extent was borne on the county, borough, and other local rates. He had said that he could not make a complete comparison of our civil expenditure with the civil expenditure of France; but he had taken some pains to compare the cost of one branch—that of the administration of justice—in both countries. The items of cost for the administration of justice in France was as follows:—Salaries—Department, £23,000; Cour de Cassation, £47,000; Cours Imperiales, £279,000; Cours d'As-sises, £6,000; Tribunaux de Premiere Instance, £410,000; Tribunaux de Commerce, £7,000; Tribunaux de Police, £3,000; Juges de Paix, £315.000—£1,090,000; other expenses, £245,000—total, £1,335,000. The cost of the administration of justice in England was as follows:—Chancery, £180,000; Common Law, £182,000; Probate and Admiralty, £106,000; Bankruptcy, £120,000; County Courts, £491,000; Police Courts, £41,000; all other Courts, £33,000; prosecutions, £212,000; sundry expenses, £50,000; total for England, £1,415,000. In Scotland—Courts, £205,000. In Ireland—Courts £244,000; prosecutions, £18,000; sundry, £32,000; total of Ireland, £294,000. Total for the United Kingdom, £1,924,000; and if the £315,000 (the salaries of the Juges de Paix), was, us in fairness it ought to be, deducted for the purposes of comparison from the French Estimate, the result was, that our Estimate was nearly £1,000,000in excess of that of France. Now, what were the real facts as to our civil expenditure? There was no doubt that within the last twenty or twenty-five years that expenditure had greatly increased. It, had not increased in the years from 1861 to 1865, but it had gone on increasing within the last two or three years. He did not say that at the present time byway of reflection on anyone, but it was impossible to deny that the tendency for the last twenty-five years had been in the direction of a steady increase in our civil charges. He had tried to compare English with foreign expenditure, and also the expenditure of particular Departments at home with one another. It was exceedingly difficult to do so, because the system had altered very much of late years. There were Departments, however, as to which you could legitimately compare their state in 1853 and their state now. For example, the Foreign Office, in 1853, employed fifty-one persons; it now employed eighty-five. In 1853 the Colonial Office, before the great colonial changes, which one would have thought would have reduced the staff there, employed thirty-seven persons; now it employed fifty-three. The Department of Works then employed thirty-seven persons; now it employed eighty-four. Again, in 1853, the expenditure of the Admiralty Office proper was £122,000; it was now £182,000, showing an increase of £60,000. On the other hand, the Treasury, where eighty-four persons were employed in 1853, now had eighty-five; and in the Pay Office at both periods there were seventy-three persons. It was not therefore impossible in some Departments to keep down this increase of numbers and of expense. In the other cases mentioned, to his mind the increase was such that nobody could wonder if the Civil Service Estimates showed the effects of it. It was impossible, without an immense amount of trouble and of official knowledge—which, of course, at the present moment he did not possess—to compare the total expenditure in the Civil Service at the two periods, because there had been so many transfers of charge from the Consolidated Fund to the Votes, and from the Naval and Military Votes to the Civil Votes, and so on, that the mere figures, if quoted, would only deceive the House. But he had adduced facts which could be substantiated, and those facts evidently deserved the attention of the Government. One of the principal evils in the Civil Service, as at present constituted, sprung from the entire want of systematic classification in the different salaries of public servants. There were not two Departments in which civil servants of the same class had the same rates and augmentations of salaries. When he was at the Treasury he examined into this question in reference to one Department—the warehousing Department of the Customs—and there he found not less than eighteen varieties of classification, with different minimums, different maximums, different augmentations, and different proportions of salary, so that an officer had eighteen different sets of chances with reference to his promotion. The same system prevailed in other Departments. Now, he did not mean to say that the whole service should be classified in the same way; but at present there was an entire want of system, in spite of the exertions of the Treasury. Such a state of things produced the worst results, because it led to constant complaints and grumbling on the part of the officers; and when complaints and grumbling prevailed the public service could not be satisfactorily carried on. The next evil was the want of a sufficient distinction between officers who worked with their brains and officers who worked with their hands. One common word "clerk" was applied to gentlemen of the highest education, whose information and ability rendered immense service to their country, and men who were well paid at £100 or £150 a year for the merest routine work. This want; of a distinction between brain and handwork was a greater cause of difficulty than 'that to which he had just alluded. And he would give a practical illustration of the mistakes made even recently in not recognizing this distinction. There were formerly in the Customs two distinct classes of officers—the one known as landing waiters and gaugers, men of considerable education, who rose to £400 or £500 a year, and even to the highest posts in the; Customs; and below them were weighers, tidewaiters, and inferior officers. For a; reason which, he admitted, possessed considerable weight, these two classes bad been practically amalgamated. You now had the landing officers, who were the old landing waiters and gaugers, and the out-door officers, who were the weighers and tidewaiters; and all appointments to the superior were made from the inferior class, so that no landing waiters could obtain employment unless they had passed through the inferior class of out-door officers. The result was that you had far too good men as out-door officers, and you would find a difficulty by-and-by in obtaining sufficiently good men as landing officers. There was a story—he did not know whether it was anything but a story—that a high wrangler at Cambridge, who might have been a Fellow at one of the small Colleges, was to be found among those doing the duty of weighers, because he hoped by-and-by to become a landing waiter, with a superior salary. The effect, also, of the competitive system of examination was gradually to raise the standard, and thus to give you too high a class of men for the simple duties which inferior officers had to perform. He was in favour of competitive examination for the class of persons for whom it was originally intended; but he thought that in the case of minor appointments, from which there was no promotion to the establishment, it should be left to the heads of Departments to engage or dismiss upon their own responsibility. At present you got men who were above their work and were always asking for increase of pay. Examination and even competitive examination was very well in the right place; but he was not for competitive examination run mad, and he feared that the system was tending in that direction. Another evil was the want of any systematic control over the expenditure of Departments and over the salaries and numbers of public servants. What was the case with regard to our legal Department? Who was responsible for the legal arrangements of the country? The Treasury knew nothing about them until an application was made; the Home Office would repudiate all responsibility; the Attorney General was overwhelmed with work, and did not attempt administrative functions; the Lord Chancellor had no charge in the matter, and thus there was nobody who was responsible for the financial arrangements of our Courts of Justice. The result was an expenditure of from £300,000 to £500,000 more than was necessary; and if we had a Minister upon whom we could call to redress abuses these things might be remedied. With a responsible Minister for instance there could hardly have been such a scandal as the Middlesex Registry and its three sinecures created since the so-called reform of the Law Departments. An evil which it was delicate to allude to was the absence of interference on the part of the House. Instead of endeavouring to repress extravagance, hon. Members were perpetually urging greater expenditure at the instance of individuals or Departments; thus the Treasury had to do that which the House ought to do; and, in the absence of proper Parliamentary interference and support, the Treasury was becoming, as a Department, unpopular with the other Departments, and much of its time expended on contests with other offices, to the detriment of its efficiency as the highest authority on general questions of finance. He therefore ventured to say that the House ought to interfere to a greater extent than it did in the direction of enforcing economy in the public Departments. Another evil in the Civil Service which must be looked into before long was unnecessary superannuation. The object of superannuation was two-fold. One was to retain valuable public servants and not expose them to the temptation of more remunerative employment, and the other to provide in old age for those who might have given more time to the public than to their own affairs and so prevent them being turned out as beggars into the streets. Of the two objects the former was of course the more important; and the latter would become insignificant, as the facilities for making provision for old age through companies or the Government annuity system became better known. But we applied the system to a mass of public servants as to whom it was a matter of comparative indifference whether they left the service or not. The practical effect was we did not get those servants for any less pay than we should get them for if there were no superannuation; and the very fact of its being looked forward to as a sort of vested right did harm instead of good, because it led us to retain inefficient public servants. We ought to confine superannuation to the higher ranks of the service—to those working with the brain. In the other ranks it would be desirable to introduce the system of deductions from salaries, the amount paid in to be returned with interest when a man left the service. To add the right of super- annuation to a salary when the office could be adequately filled without the superannuation was to a great extent to throw money away. He now came to the remedies he would propose. First, he would give all public servants to understand that if they could reduce their numbers, the reduction should be taken into account in dealing with their salaries. He believed that if this were done, in many instances two public servants would be able to do work which now required three. Next a clear distinction should be drawn between clerks and writers, between brainwork and handwork. In the clerical part of the service we should extend the system adopted in the Admiralty and Customs of employing an inferior class of men as writers, and paying them by the day, without any right to superannuation, and with power to discharge them if their services were not satisfactory. We might certainly carry out this plan much further than we did in the Military and Naval Departments, and he should like to see soldiers employed Upon work for which we paid at the rate of three or four times as much as a soldier's pay. The third remedy he proposed was simplification of class. It was possible by degrees to lay down a rule as to classification, which, of course, would not apply to all Departments equally, but still one which would prevent enormous additions to our expenditure. Fourthly, for the future when persons as to whom we did not require the present system of superannuation entered the service, he would give them no right to superannuation; but would treat them as we treat a large number of persons in the dockyards, in fact all the officers and men in the factories, who remained in the service just as much as they would if they were entitled to superannuation. In this way we should in process of time save between £750,000 and £1,000,000. The last remedy he would propose was that the House should, by its own efforts, endeavour to increase the control of the Treasury, and enable them to carry out those financial reforms which, if they were well-treated by this House he knew the Treasury was capable of carrying out. In making these suggestions he meant to convey no reflection upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was not a party but an economical question which was involved; it was simply how the House could best discharge one of its most important functions; and if he had done no more for the pro-sent than direct the attention of some hon. Members to the subject his object would have been gained.

rose to move—

"That it is expedient that the Departments of Public Health, Cattle Plague, and Quarantine should cease to exist as Establishments, due regard being had to all personal interests and to all individual claims."

He reminded the House that this was no new subject with him. He had addressed the House more than once on the subject of the public health, though he had not been able to make himself intelligible to the noble Lord at the head of the Department (Lord Robert Montagu) who fancied on one occasion that in referring to the illness of the Minister for War, he was referring to his official conduct. The case of the Minister for War or of Prince Arthur proved that the remedies of the noble Lord were of no avail. It was not from faulty vaccination, for it might he said of them, what Hood said of Miss Kilmansegg—

"In short she was born, and bred, and nurst,

And dressed in the best from the very first,

To please the genteelest censor;

And then, as soon as strength would allow,

Was vaccinated, as babes are now,

With virus taken from the best bred cow

Of Lord Althorp's, now Lord Spencer."

The failure of the precautions in the case of the right hon. Gentleman and the illustrious Prince was a proof of the practical inutility of the Department. He contended that the whole of the establishments referred to were based upon a theory which was easily refuted by the Sixth Report of the Medical Officers of the Privy Council, and a vast expense had been incurred without any corresponding results. Some time ago it was determined to employ special conveyances for persons taken to the hospitals; but the very first one that refused to employ them was the Smallpox Hospital. Passing from that point to the cattle plague, he contended that the employment of special railway cars had failed, because, it was not in the cars but in the conveyance of cattle that the so-called infection lay. He denied altogether that the cattle plague had been communicated by infected cattle imported from abroad. The doctrine of the Privy Council was not founded on scientific grounds. ["Agreed!"] As for quarantine, the Vice President of Council on Education had stated that it was not established for sanitary purposes. When the Estimates were brought forward he should move that the expense charged for these Departments should be disallowed and the establishments suppressed.

said, he had failed to observe the hon. Baronet's Notice on the Paper; otherwise he would have risen immediately after his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had concluded his speech. With regard to the observations of the hon. Baronet, he understood that for some time the Treasury had been Considering the question, whether there might not be a further reduction in the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. He believed that if the provisions of the Metropolitan Cattle Market Bill should be carried out it would enable the Treasury to effect a considerable reduction in the expenses of that Department. But, apart from the question, whether that should be carried or not, the Treasury were considering whether a reduction could not be made. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract, (Mr. Childers) he thought the hon. Gentleman had done good service in calling the attention of the House to the regulations with respect to the Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the large amount of salaries and pensions, and the figures to which he had called the attention of the House, showed that this was a matter of no little importance. He had compared the number of persons employed at the present day in the different Departments of the Civil Service with the number employed some years ago; but he had himself admitted most candidly that that comparison would be imperfect unless you went into all the causes of increase, and into the different duties assigned to the Departments now in contrast with the duties assigned then. Anyone who had followed the course of legislation for the last few years must be aware that the tendency had been to require a much greater supervision over different branches of trade, of agriculture, and of the other descriptions of employment in which the population of this country was engaged, than had been required formerly. There was now a close inspection of the factories in which young persons and children were engaged in manufacturing operations. Now, such supervision required an increased number of civil servants and an enlarged organization. Again, there had been a rapid progress in luxury and refinements. Persons were content a few years ago to live in a much more frugal way than they did now. Persons now required luxuries and refinements which a few years ago were only enjoyed by those in a. higher grade than they occupied. All those circumstances tended to increase the expenditure for the Civil Service. He was not at all sure, either, whether those additional luxuries did not make persons in the Civil Service think that the hours formerly spent in public offices were too long, that so constant an attention to business as had formerly been paid to it was irksome, and that they ought to be afforded more frequent opportunities of absenting themselves from duty. In fact, there was much greater luxury in every department of life now than there had been in the days of our fathers. There was more luxurious living and a greater number of hours and days were spent in pleasure; and the effect was felt in increased demands on the public purse, he thought all that must be taken into account. Not only had the salaries of different officers been raised, but more persons were required to do the work. He thought it probable that something might be done in the way of reducing the number of persons employed in the public service; but, as regarded salaries, he could assure the House that the Treasury was the great keeping down Department. He had heard it alleged that the Treasury was the spending Department; but it was in the other Departments—more particularly the War Department and the Admiralty—the great expenditure took place. If any hon. Gentlemen attended even for one day in the Treasury he would hear there the constant cries of "Give, give, give," and "Lend, lend, lend," followed on the part of the Office by the reply, "No, no, no." But, with great respect, he must say that in its efforts to keep down the public expenditure, the Treasury was not always backed up by the House of Commons. It was true that in Parliament loud complaints were made of the amount of that expenditure; but when pensions and salaries were brought under the notice of hon. Members the tendency of the House was to increase those charges. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Queen's County constantly blamed the Treasury for refusing to make certain payments—[General DUNNE: Hear, hear!]—but it was his belief that if hon. Members supported the Treasury in its attempts to keep down the public expenditure, they would do much more good than they could possibly do by making abstract speeches and so forth. His hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract had compared the expenses connected with the administration of justice here with the expenses connected with the administration of justice in France. He had said he possessed no means of making a comparison between any other items in the Civil Service expenditure of the two countries. Now, he did not go so far as his hon. Friend, because he thought he had no means of making a comparison between the two items compared by his hon. Friend. He believed that the administration of justice in this country and the administration of justice in France proceeded on different principles. He thought it quite likely that under a system by which the administration of justice was so much centralized that administration might cost much less than it did in our country, where to a very great extent it was localized. But that which satisfied France might not satisfy England. It was of the last importance that a country should be satisfied with the system under which justice was administered to its people, and therefore this was one of the things in respect of which we must have regard to quality as well as to quantity. He confessed that to a great extent he went with his hon. Friend, as regarded the competitive system. He believed that when we carried it into the very low branches of the Civil Service we made a mistake. In these branches our object was to get men of good character, and trustworthy. Of course it was necessary that they should have a certain amount of education to enable them to perform their duties; but the effect of going too low with competitive examinations was to get men who were above their work. A man who passed a competitive examination, and was then appointed to a humble position, said—"I have passed an examination and obtained so many marks. I am entitled to something better than this." The consequence was that he became a discontented man. He was not content to give his services for the salary which had been paid to the man who had preceded him. He believed that the feeling to which he had just referred was at the bottom of a good deal of the discontent in the Civil Service. Therefore, while admitting the utility of competitive examinations in the higher branches, he did not think they should run the system too far. His hon. Friend had spoken of the want of classification. A good deal might be said on that score; but he did not know a more difficult question with which the Treasury had to deal than that of the adjustment of the duties and the salaries of officers in the Civil Service. The matter was one on which scarcely any two persons could be found to agree. The classifications of Departments and of ranks on some general principle was matter to which he had been turning his attention for a long time; but though in theory such a classification was one which recommended itself, in practice it presented serious difficulties. It could not be started without leaving vested interests untouched. In almost every Department a place had to be made for some person, who, though not properly coming within it, was really indispensable to the office. It would be almost impossible to lay down any rule to which there would be no exceptions. If a uniform system were established, and regard were had to vested interests, the rule so established could not be carried out for a century, or for fifteen or twenty years at least; and before then, some new notion might spring up, which would make another change absolutely necessary. Those were very considerable difficulties in a practical point of view; and although the theory might do very well if they were starting with a tabula rasa in a new society, yet, in an old country like this, with different Departments which had grown up from time to time, and where the existing staff had had their salaries fixed with reference to their special duties, the difficulties in establishing such a system would almost appal anybody who attempted it. At all events, it could only be done by means of a Commission, going not only into the question of the salaries of the different Departments, but also into the duties of almost every officer, and certainly of every class of officer in them. The subject was really one of vast dimensions, and he confessed that he almost thought it would be better to leave pretty well alone than to embark upon an unknown sea. At that hour of the night he would not trespass further on the time of the House, as he wished to get into Committee; but the question was one on which it was possible to speak at almost any length; and if he did not follow the hon. Member further into it, it was from no disrespect towards him, nor from any want of appreciation of the importance of the subject. He thanked him for bringing the question forward, and he hoped that the hon. Member's remarks would not be without their effect on the House when they were considering questions of salaries and pensions.

begged to inquire of the Secretary of the Treasury, Whether he has directed his attention to the Return which he had brought under the Notice of the House last night, on the subject of Courts of Appeal in cases of Assessed Taxes?

said, he was exceedingly sorry that he was unable to reply to the hon. Gentleman's statement last night. His attention had been called to the Return for which the hon. Member moved some months back, and which had been laid on the table. That Return showed that throughout the country there were a great number of towns, containing a considerable population, which were situated more than four miles distant from a Court of Appeal for Assessed Taxes. Considering the great amount of apparent inconvenience which that must occasion, it was surprising that the complaints of the taxpayers were not more frequent or more bitter than they were on that account. He could only say that, having made inquiry of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, he was informed it was very rarely that serious complaints were made to them of the inconveniences which must undoubtedly exist, and that practically they found little difficulty, when complaints were made, in getting the Local Commissioners to appoint more convenient places for holding the appeals. Still the subject was, no doubt, one requiring consideration with a view to the provision of a remedy. That was only one instance among many of what the people of this country were willing to bear in order to enjoy the advantage of a tribunal, which was independent of the Government. The Local Commissioners were generally country gentlemen, and were entirely unpaid. He would take care that inquiries should be made into the extent to which those difficulties prevailed, and hoped in the course of the Recess to be able to inform himself whether legislation on the matter was necessary, or whether it was possible by other means to remove great part of the inconvenience to which the hon. Gentleman had referred.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Post Office authorities are aware that the Circular Delivery Company (Limited) was a strictly co-operative Company, delivering documents, newspapers, and circulars for their own members only by their own servants; and, whether it is their intention to press for the penalties in the case, as it appears that the proceedings of the Company in question have been strictly within the provisions of the Post Office Act; and, whether it is intended to prosecute the body of Commissionaires, who have been for years employed publicly in doing precisely the same kind of work; and, if the Post Office authorities do not intend to prosecute in that case what are the reasons for the exemption, and how the Commissionaires can legally do that which the Circular Delivery Company (Limited) is prosecuted for doing?

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prevented by the rules of the House from speaking again; but if it had been otherwise, his right hon. Friend would not have been able to answer the question put by the hon. Gentleman, because the matter to which it related was at the present moment before a Court of Law.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Government to the present condition of the Royal Irish Academy, owing to the operations of the Irish Board of Works. There were three different operations carried on under one Department in Ireland, and the result was mismanagement, confusion, and expense.

The threefold operations just named have been brought to a termination.

said, he was extremely glad to receive this assurance. The Royal Irish Academy possesses the most remarkable collection of Scandinavian—he meant Celtic antiquities; and this vast collection is shut up in boxes scattered here, there, and everywhere. He wished to know, Whether anything is going to be done to enable the Royal Irish Academy to exhibit its Museum to the public? Large sums have been contributed by the public, and the collection ought to be open to the public.

said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that there was a Commission appointed to inquire into all the Art Institutions in Ireland, and he hoped the result of their labours would be to terminate the abuses to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

said, that this Vote had gone unchallenged since he had the honour of a scat in that House. In this country it was part of our creed that public matters should be discussed in the light of day. Open doors and full newspaper reports were advocated as necessary to political health, and he could not understand why there should be a Vote of this kind. He had been informed that part of the money asked was not for the purest objects, and unless the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could assure him that none of this money went for base and corrupt political purposes, he should move that the Vote be reduced by £10,000.

agreed that the Committee ought to know what was done with this secret service money. It might, for all they knew, be employed for base purposes, as in the payment of informers and spies. If they were told what the secret service money was wanted for they would vote it freely.

said, it was obvious that no detailed explanation could be given of the destination of secret service money. It had been the practice of the House for many years to entrust the Government with the distribution of this sum, no part of which went in "base or political purposes." Almost the whole of the amount was disbursed by the Foreign Office, and none of it went to the Treasury.

said, he hoped that the explanation would be satisfactory to the worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Lusk).

said, it was hardly so explicit and to the purpose as he could have wished; but, under the circumstances, he would not press his objection.

said, there was an understanding that the expenses of the Fisheries Commission should not be increased, and he therefore regretted to see an addition of five persons connected with the Commission.

said, there was an increase of £5,600 in this Vote. There was now no need for some of the Inspectors, as the Act under which several were appointed in Scotland had been done away with.

said, he could not understand how the travelling expenses of the Inspectors were always the same fixed sum. Was it done by contract?

wished to know when the present system would cease?

said, he thought the fees to surgeons in the Factory Department, which had increased from £1,550 to £2,000, ought to be paid by the factory owners themselves, and not by the Government. The salaries of the Local Government Act Office had increased by £1,000. He thought that fees to cover the expenses of this Office ought to be charged to those towns which employed its agency.

said, there, had been a considerable increase in the number of Inspectors of late years, and if the House passed Acts which required Inspectors to carry them out, they must not be surprised if this Vote showed an increase. The Fisheries Commission was being wound up, and an additional Commissioner was appointed to bring the matter to a conclusion. Those in Scotland were paid so much a day while actually employed. The fees paid to certifying surgeons under the Factory Acts were for examining children to see that they were of age to be employed, and the House could not expect this expense to be paid by the factory owners.

asked for an explanation of the increased number of clerks employed, and the large augmentation of this Vote year after year.

stated that the arranging of a large accumulation of papers in the Library had necessitated a temporary increase.

wished to know who were employed in making the translations, which were often very slovenly and incorrect?

said, he thought there was mystification in these accounts. Items were bandied about from one Department to another, and it was impossible to detect where the items of the net increase were to be found.

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman should not object to the introduction of a better classification. He presumed that all the clerks in the Foreign Office were acquainted with modern languages, and were therefore intrusted with translations.

said, he objected, not to an improved classification, but to constant alterations.

remarked that the expenses of this Department were continually increasing. He thought that some of those Inspectors who were considered necessary to be employed to look after different branches of trade should be paid by those for whose benefit they were appointed.

, with reference to an increase in the number of temporary clerks from fifty-one to sixty, and of the junior clerks from twenty-four to thirty-one, suggested that temporary and supplementary clerks should be abolished, and that persons of the class of writer should be employed whose numbers might vary with the amount of business which had to be got through.

thought that, instead of employing sixty temporary clerks, persons who had been superseded and pensioned for reasons difficult to understand might be utilized. He was surprised that more notice had not been taken of the large number of able-bodied officials of the Board of Trade, who had been pensioned off at large retiring allowances, to make room for new appointments.

remarked that the expense of these statistics had increased by £4,500. In 1866 the sum was £10,000 for two Returns; whereas it was now £14,500: last year it was £18,000, and only one Return was collected.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Read) was mistaken, there being a decrease and not an increase of £4,500. He believed these statistics would prove of very great value as the system became better organized, and the prejudices of the agriculturists disappeared.

stated, in answer to the remarks of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Childers), that supplementary clerks were extinct as a class, there being only a few left, and no others being appointed. The temporary clerks were exactly the class whose employment his hon. Friend had suggested, they being taken on when wanted on weekly wages, and discharged when the occasion for their services ceased. This was a better plan than the employment of law stationers' clerks, who were often of a class which rendered it undesirable that they should mix with the other clerks. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) had noticed the increasing expenses of the Board; but he must be aware that the increase had been caused by various Votes of the House, imposing upon the Board many duties which they were by no means anxious to undertake, and this accounted for the augmented number of junior clerks. Inspection of gas companies had been thrown on the Board of Trade, and next year his hon. Friend would see an increase of charge on that account. The inspection of lime juice also was one of those things which had been forced upon the Department. Medical officers had declared that lime juice was the proper preventative against scurvy. The Government knew, however, that the juice which had hitherto been served out to merchant vessels was very bad. It was, in fact, not lime juice at all, but was composed of nitric instead of citric acid. The country demanded that remedies should he taken against the scurvy, lime juice was the best remedy, and therefore the Government were compelled to appoint an inspector of that juice. Then there was an inspection of oyster fisheries and also of cables and anchors, both of which measures were carried in that House against the wish of the late Government, and he feared he was himself instrumental in carrying them. And so it was, hon. Gentlemen in the beginning of the year perhaps urged the Government to undertake such and such a duty, and afterwards when they saw the Estimates complained of increase of charge. But new duties could not be undertaken by any Department without entailing additional expense. With regard to the inspection of ships he had to say that he had always resisted the movement in that direction, because he believed it would add enormously to the Votes. The same remark applied to training ships and sailors' homes. As an instance of the kind of pressure to which the Board of Trade was subjected he might mention that only that very day he had received a deputation, urging upon his Department to undertake the responsibility of seeing that railways were possessed of proper stations and level crossings. With regard to what had been said about superannuation, it should be borne in mind that there was a tendency to hare senior clerks, who from various circumstances were not quite capable of performing their duties. He agreed with the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that the system of competitive examination, though very had as regarded the lowest class, would do away with much of the evil to which he bad referred. There were some cases, however, in which it was better to get rid of a man by giving him a retiring allowance than to continue him in office. With regard to agricultural statistics he might express the hope that they were year by year becoming more and more correct. He trusted they would become still more accurate. They were practically becoming less expensive so far as collection was concerned, and would in time work more smoothly than at present. He believed that many of the higher classes and of the landlords themselves had need of education on the subject. It was only the other day that he got a letter from a gentleman of high position, who, in answer to a circular asking for agricultural statistics, declined to give them, alleging that this was a legacy which the present Government had inherited from the inquisitorial Whigs. He had answered all the questions that had been put to him, and had only to say, in conclusion, that the heads of Departments were all most anxious to economize as much as possible.

said, he agreed with his hon. Friend that the number of horses in the country would be an extremely valuable addition to the Returns; but as the Returns were entirely voluntary, they must wait for a short time before they could ask people to make any addition to them.

wished to know in what part of the United Kingdom the foreshores were situated which were alluded to in the blue book? Where they in Scotland or in the South of England?

said, he could not answer the question. Applications were constantly being made to the Board of Trade to arrange disputes with regard to foreshores in various parts of the kingdom.

said, he thought the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to agricultural statistics, was satisfactory. He hoped the experiment would be persevered in.

bore his testimony to the admirable manner in which the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland discharged the duties of his Office, and expressed his belief that an addition should be made to his allowance. In case of a change of Government, no future Viceroy would be likely to maintain the dignity of the Office with the splendour with which it had been maintained by Lord Abercorn on the sum now allowed.

said, that the Committee should not contemplate anything so distressing as the retirement of Lord Abercorn from his present Office; and he; thought that the hon., and gallant Gentleman had proved that it was not in the interest of the Government to increase the salary of the Lord Lieutenant.

said, the hon. Member had never succeeded in reducing any Vote, often as he had attempted to do so. This question had been so often discussed that it was not worth while to debate it now. He felt surprised at finding an Alderman of the City of London, the Corporation of which had always been so strongly supported in that House by the Irish party, opposing a grant of that description. It should be remembered that a much larger sum was contributed from the Civil List to racing purposes in this country. In London when a mob levelled the Park railings they were replaced at the public expense, and it was hard to object to an item of this kind affecting Ireland. The hon. Member ought not to break the contract between the Irish Members and the Liberal party on so trifling a Vote.

said, he wished to know on what principle the Plates were allocated. If the object were the improvement of the breed of horses, the Plates ought not to be given to one locality only, but ought to be distributed to various parts of the country.

also thought the Plates should be more fairly divided.

said, that the races and the conditions under which they were run were regulated by Her Majesty's Master of the Horse, who was quite ready to attend to any suggestion. The conditions under which the Queen's Plates were to be run for in future had been altered recently, with the view of promoting improvement in the breed of horses. He was sure that the representations of those who were most interested would be readily attended to; but he believed the general opinion was that the running for the Plates was most useful at the Curragh, because more horses were trained there than anywhere else. The hon. Member for Fins-bury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) had referred to facts which everybody must deplore; but the Irish turf was entirely free from the scandals alluded to.

wished to know what were the duties of the Gentlemen-at-Large?

said, a Viceroy must have a Household, and it could hardly be said that the Lord Lieutenant was over-supplied with attendants.

said, he would this Session withdraw his Motion.

asked why the property connected with metropolitan improvements made under the direction of this Department had not been sold, and the accounts completed?

observed that during the time the First Commissioner of Works had been in Office no Royal Arms were allowed to be put on the metropolitan or provincial branches of the Post Office. He hoped the noble Lord would inquire into the matter. As the noble Lord was a member of the Constitutional party, this conduct must be very painful to his feelings.

complained that all the charges were not inserted in the account, and asked for an explanation. He also called attention to the fact that the road through Kensington Palace Gardens to Bayswater was closed to public cabs, notwithstanding that to a great extent it was maintained out of the public funds.

said, that the accounts furnished to the Treasury by the Office of Woods were net accounts, after making certain deductions. They were accounts such as would be furnished by an owner of an estate, after making various allowances. The Woods and Forests had no option in the matter of the road referred to; but he would make inquiries on the subject.

thought that the closing of the road against the public was a very questionable proceeding.

said, this subject had been discussed, and the Vote had met with the approval of the House.

said, there were only three or four more Votes to complete the Estimates for the year, and they ought to finish the Supply tonight.

reminded the House they had only sat since nine o'clock. Time was now very valuable, and he wished to get through Supply tonight that they might proceed on Thursday morning with the Corrupt Practices Bill.

observed that there was likely to be a discussion on a postponed Army Vote.

said, that the Government were ready to take the discussion that night. If it did not come on now, it must take precedence of the Corrupt Practices Bill on Thursday.

said, that he had postponed the Army Vote in order that a Paper which he had presented might be printed. The Paper was not yet in the hands of Members; but he hoped the House would be content to pass the Vote.

said, that they had been waiting for months for this particular Paper, and without it they could not determine whether the Report of the Select Committee or the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman in respect to a certain scheme of retirement should he considered.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member laboured under a complete misapprehension. The House had never waited for the Paper, which he only mentioned a few days ago. The Paper contained no scheme of any reform, nor had he any scheme to propose.

stated that for months the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) refrained from pressing this question because it was clearly understood that the War Office had a scheme to propose.

observed that the right hon. Baronet had on two occasions stated that he was preparing a scheme, and he, in consequence, asked for the production of the Paper in connection with it.

said, he had never made any promise to produce any scheme. The Report to be produced was simply that of the actuaries on the scheme of the Committee.

said, he had no intention to charge his right hon. Friend with any breach of faith. It was quite clear if there was to be any discussion on this subject, it could not be tonight.

said, he trusted they would be allowed to pass the two additional Votes on the Paper, and thus facilitate Business.

explained that the sum collected in local subscriptions had been expended in providing medicines and sustenance for the sufferers during the time they were incapacitated for work, and in the case of those permanently injured towards providing them with pensions to insure them against dependence on parochial relief. In some cases, also, it had been applied in the purchase of tools to workmen where their tools had been destroyed. Certain furniture also had been provided out of the fund. The voluntary efforts of that Committee bad been of great assistance to the sufferers, and the benevolent persons engaged were deserving of every commendation for their admirable exertions. The Committee had represented to the Government that they were entirely unable to give compensation to those whose property had been destroyed. Some of the parties had been advised that they had a remedy against the Hundred as in the case of a riot; but that had been tried, and it was decided that the diabolical proceeding was not in the nature of a riot, but an attempt to rescue from prison a prisoner who had committed an offence against the State. Under these circumstances it was thought the Government ought to make some compensation to those who had suffered by the destruction of their property. They had therefore sent a proper person to make inquiry, and, although they had not yet got a detailed Report, it was believed the sum now taken would be sufficient for the purpose.

said, he thought the Treasury occupied a most unenviable position in allowing that to be done by private individuals which ought to have been done by the State.

eulogized the charitable and public-spirited efforts made by the Prime Minister at the time of the explosion to assuage the sufferings of those who were wounded by the explosion, and men- tioned that a deputation had called on him to-day to request him to state to the House how highly the inhabitants of the neighbourhood approved the spirit thus displayed by the Government.

also thanked the Government and the House for the generous manner in which they had rendered aid to some of his constituents who were innocent victims of this deplorable and wicked piece of madness.

expressed a hope that they should he able to dispose of this Vote on Thursday, as well as of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill.