inquired, Whether the Lord Advocate's attention has been called to the fact that, the local Poor Law authorities in Stromness having unanimously appointed a woman to be In- spector of the Poor for that parish, the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh cancelled the appointment, although the woman had performed all the duties to the entire satisfaction of the parish for several years previously, in place of her father, who nominally held the office, but from the state of his health could not perform the duties; and, to inquire whether there is any Law disqualifying a woman from being appointed to the office of Poor Law Inspector in such a parish as Stromness?

said, that he was not in possession of the requisite information, but had sent for it; and, if his hon. Friend would repeat the Question on a future day, he hoped he would be able to answer it.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether in consequence of the agricultural Returns, which show a great decrease in sheep and cattle, and the high price of meat resulting therefrom, he will reconsider the Order in Council, of December 20th, 1871, with the view of allowing imported sheep to pass to the inland towns when free from disease; and, whether Prussia might not, in regard to horned cattle, be put in the same position as Spain, Holland, Norway, and Sweden?

said, that the instructions issued under the Order in question provided for the slaughter at the port of landing of all sheep in case any of the cargo had the foot and mouth disease; and the Government did not feel that they could depart from that Order. A very important deputation, however, which had waited upon him from the Northern towns, had complained of the effect of that Order, stating that it caused a large number of sheep to be slaughtered. He might, in answer to that, observe that the total number of sheep imported had not been diminished by the regulation, for the total import of sheep into great Britain for the first quarter of the year from the Continent was about 123,000, as against 64,000 for the first quarter of last year. It was certainly true that there had been a smaller import into the Northern towns in proportion, than there had been into London; but the reason of that was, that there had been much more disease amongst the sheep which came into the North, for only 6 per cent of the ships which came into London had diseased animals on board, whereas in the case of Hull and several other of the Northern towns, the per-centage was not far from 50. That was owing, he believed, to greater care being taken in London with regard to having ships free from infection, and also with regard to the selection of the animals. It was also stated by the deputation, that the inspection was more severe and stringent in the North than in London, but that, he believed, was not the case, for he had ascertained that the regulations were precisely the same in London and the North. It had further been stated that several sheep had been slaughtered which had not the foot and mouth disease, but were merely footsore. From inquiries that had been made, however, he was satisfied that that statement was without foundation. The Government had been strongly urged to allow sheep to go under proper regulations from the port of landing to inland towns. He thought the regulations for that purpose would be exceedingly difficult; but the Government were prepared to try the experiment whether that import could or could not be permitted. In doing so, however, it would not be surprising if the restrictions placed upon it were onerous; to be safe, they could not be otherwise. But the local authorities of large inland towns would be informed that if they liked to make application for a license for sheep to be taken under those conditions to inland towns, it would be granted. With regard to the second Question put to him, it was impossible for the Government safely to do what was suggested, having the present facts regarding the cattle plague before them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why, or on what grounds, he has consented to relieve the Wells Union from the cost of maintenance, at Broadmoor Asylum, of William Bisgrove, sentenced to death for murder, and after such sentence certified to be insane, when he has refused to relieve the ratepayers of Brighton from the burthen of the maintenance at the Broadmoor Asylum of Christiana Edmunds, alike sentenced to death for murder, and who also as in the case of Bisgrove, was subsequently certified to be insane?

said, in reply, that the practice was for the Treasury to bear the costs of the maintenance of lunatics under sentence of penal servitude, but not of other persons becoming lunatics. William Bisgrove was, and Christina Edmunds had never been, under such sentence. Moreover, Christiana Edmunds had relations who were able to pay for her support. The Home Office was not able to compel them to do so—the parochial authorities were able, and he thought they ought to see to it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it was proposed to charge the pay and expenses of the one hundred men of the Metropolitan Police Force recently sent to Southampton to preserve order during a strike of Seamen at that Port, to the metropolitan ratepayers; and, if not, out of what fund are such pay and expenses to be discharged?

, in reply, said, that no part of the expenses of sending the metropolitan police to Southampton would be borne by the metropolitan ratepayers. Before they were sent, it was ascertained that they might be spared without inconvenience from the metropolis for a short time, and an assurance was obtained that the whole of the expense would be defrayed by the borough of Southampton.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government have taken any, and what steps, towards carrying out the recom- mendations of the Committee of last Session on the East African Slave Trade?

Sir, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee of last Session on the East African Slave Trade, the Governments of Germany, France, America, and Portugal have been invited to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government in the suppression of the slave traffic; and both the United States and France have expressed their willingness to assist in the work. The German Goverment expresses sympathy with this object, and has referred the matter to the Hamburg Senate for a Report, as the merchants of that place are chiefly interested in the Zanzibar trade. From Portugal no answer has yet been received.

Sir, I have fore-borne to place upon the Notice Paper for this evening any Notice of my intention to make at half-past 4 o'clock the usual Motion with regard to the Adjournment of the House over the Whitsuntide holidays from fear that, had I done so, it might have been thought the Government were disposed to exercise pressure upon the House with regard to the course which it may think fit to take after it has heard the explanation I am about to make with reference to the Treaty of Washington. For the same reason I shall forbear to make any Motion for the Adjournment in offering that statement to the House, because it is a matter which we shall leave entirely in the hands of the House itself and of individual Members. I shall, therefore, simply appeal to the indulgence of hon. Members to allow me to make a statement in respect of a subject of great and general interest. I may also say that Her Majesty's Government have arrived at a conclusion—the reasons for which I am about to lay before the House—that the time has not yet come for laying Papers in reference to this subject upon the Tables of the two Houses of Parliament. In what I have to say I shall not enter into any controversial or defensive matters. The House has with remarkable and, as we think, most wise—but, certainly, with very signal—for- bearance, refrained from discussing a variety of matters with regard to the Treaty of Washington which are admitted to be of general interest, which are collateral to the issue under discussion with the United States, and which may form, either now or at some future time, the subject of detail, and, possibly, of hostile comment. But that forbearance which has been practised on both sides of the House—by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends, and likewise by those who sit behind me—has relieved the Government from any difficulty which they might have felt had they appeared on the present occasion as parties accused; and, therefore, I hold it to be no part of my duty under these circumstances to perplex the House or load the brief statement which I have to make with reference to matters of that class. I therefore will give a very brief narrative to the House, commencing from the time when Her Majesty's Government, assembled in Cabinet on the 18th of January, took this question into their consideration. I will not refer to the preliminary communications which had passed between my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Legal Advisers of the Crown, and afterwards between him and myself, as well as my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor; but I will begin, as I before observed, from the 18th of January, on which day the whole subject raised by the American Case, and by those parts of it which referred to the Indirect Claims in particular, came under the consideration of the Cabinet. On that day we arrived at the conclusion that those Indirect Claims were not within the scope of the Arbitration to which we had agreed, and therefore we felt that it would not be possible for us to be parties to their submission to the Arbitrators at Geneva. On the 3rd of February, as is known to the House, we addressed a friendly communication to the Government of the United States, in which it was stated that according to the holding of Her Majesty's Government those Claims were not included within the limits of the reference, and the purport of that communication—the essential part of it—was made known to Parliament in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session. These declarations and these opinions formed within the Cabinet have been the basis of the whole of our subsequent proceedings. We have not found it necessary, in a formal manner, to go beyond them, and at no time up to the moment at which I speak have we in the slightest degree receded or departed from them. Now, subsequently to the despatch of the 3rd of February, the House is aware that several communications relating to the general argument had passed between the two Governments, and I will not scruple to state, for the information of the House, the general purport of those communications, and especially as I can undertake to do this in a very few words. The despatch of the 3rd of February did little more than communicate the opinions and the convictions entertained by the British Government, and the despatch of the American Government in reply, which I think was addressed to us on a late day in February, and which was received by us about the 12th or the 14th of March, in like manner did not enter into the argument at large, but it signified the dissent of the President of the United States from the conclusions of the British Government as to the legitimacy of the topic of the Indirect Claims as a portion of the American Claims to be submitted to the Arbitrators at Geneva. In that despatch the President observed that he was in ignorance of the grounds and reasons upon which the opinion of the British Government had been founded, and we, interpreting that expression on the part of the President as a friendly invitation to us to give an explanation of those reasons, considered the despatch which was addressed by Lord Granville on the 20th of March to General Schenck, in which we went into them at length. The heads of our argument were these—We contended that the reference of the Indirect Claims to the Arbitrators at Geneva was not within the Treaty of Washington as it stood; we contended that, separately from the terms of that Treaty, as it was not within its terms so neither had it been within the intention of the parties that those claims should be referred; and, apart from these two contentions, we endeavoured to show that as it was not within the terms of the Treaty nor within the intention of the parties that they should be so referred, so likewise there were considerations, drawn from the reason of the Case considered more at large, which fortified the same conclusion and supported us in the general doctrine that these Indirect Claims formed no part of the subject-matter which we had agreed to refer. Besides these branches of the argument, of which I have given a very rude and small outline, there was a portion of the despatch, or rather a memorandum annexed to it, in which we thought it wise to indicate that these Claims, if they could he entertained at all in principle—and it was the question of principle on which we had really joined issue—were likewise of an amount warranting, and more than warranting, the largest statement that had been made with respect to them, although some of those statements appear to have caused astonishment on the other side of the water. Of course, we did not allow it to be supposed that our objection was based upon a question of amount, although we referred to that point, and gave some evidence from American sources of authority which supported the opinions which we gave utterance to in regard to it. That was on the 20th of March. On the 16th of April Mr. Fish sent an answer in the nature of an argumentative reply to the despatch. With some portions of the argument advanced by us he dealt in detail; with respect to others he was content to state only that, according to the view of the Government of the United States, the whole subject was a fit and proper one to be argued before the Arbitrators at Geneva. The tone of this answer, I am bound to say, was friendly throughout; but on the receipt of it we felt it to be our duty to communicate to Parliament—and we did communicate to Parliament—that, as far as its terms were concerned, it had not afforded to us any opening which would advance a friendly and honourable settlement of this great question. But before the answer was in the hands of the British Government, a new opening had been found. A communication had been made by the Minister of the United States to Lord Granville, which was to the effect that, in the opinion of his Government, there was a method of settlement which, if it were proposed by the Government of Her Majesty, it might be open to the Government of the United States to consider and to accept, and which, in the view of the United States' Government, would be perfectly honourable and satisfactory to both countries. This suggestion of the Minister of the United States contemplated a proceeding not by any new international engagement in the nature of a Treaty, but by correspondence between the two Governments, or by what is commonly called an exchange of Notes. Upon this information we immediately entered on a consideration of the detailed proceedings which might be adopted, and, as was to be expected in the development of those details, various points emerged and came more fully into view as the matter matured which, although there never was a departure on the part of either party from the general basis sketched out by the Minister of the United States, yet, on the whole, tended to give to the contemplated proceeding more of a substantive character than had been in the view of the American Government when it was originally projected and suggested on their part. That being so, upon the 8th of May—that is to say, upon Wednesday last, we learnt, on the direct authority of the American Government, that, in order to meet the views which had been stated on our part, it would be necessary, as they exceeded the powers of the President, that a reference should be made to the Senate, and that that power also should be called in aid, with a view to a satisfactory and complete settlement of the case. This was upon the 8th instant, and the House will recollect that I am now upon a series of communications which have been conducted entirely by telegraph; and that valuable and all important as that instrument is for certain purposes, all who have been concerned in difficult matters of business are very well aware that the conveyance of explanations, of motives, of those shadings of thought and impression which are very often vital to the true comprehension of the matter at issue becomes extremely difficult when that mode of communication is adopted. We were not made precisely aware on the 8th of May of the grounds on which this reference to the Senate would be requisite. The explanations, however, of which we were in possession by the evening of the 9th made it perfectly clear to us; and, as I have stated, it was a project as it had been sketched by the British Government on the basis suggested by General Schenck which rendered the reference necessary. It was at a late hour on Thursday evening—indeed, I believe the withdrawal of Members of the Cabinet from this bench after midnight was noticed by hon. Members of the House—that we proceeded to contemplate the question on that precise point. On the next day—that is to say, on Friday last, acting on the suggestion of the Government of the United States, that they were perfectly willing to deal with the question in this aspect, as a matter requiring the assistance of the Senate, we placed our views in the shape of that which might become an Article, and might be the subject of an International contract between the two countries. This draft, together with a covering letter, was forwarded on Friday evening by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the American Minister, and though it was a document, with the covering letter, of some length, it was immediately telegraphed by him to the Government of the United States. It was taken into consideration by that Government on Saturday, and yesterday morning the Minister of the United States was in a condition to inform my noble Friend that that proposition of the British Government, framed as I have stated, was entertained by the President of the United States, and would be submitted by him to the Senate for its approval. Now, let it be understood that, while I have stated the exact and literal truth upon this matter, I am anxious not to overstate anything. The communication between the President and Senate of the United States is a strictly confidential communication. It is entertained by the Senate not in its legislative, but in its executive, capacity, and it is entertained by it not as a public body, but almost, if I may so say, as a portion of the Cabinet of the President pro hâc vice, and in what is termed in America a secret Session. Consequently, although in possession of the Senate, the proposition in its terms is at this time a strictly confidential communication. This much, however, we are justified in stating—that the course taken by the President in making known this draft to the Senate distinctly implies his approval, conditional only on the concurrence and approval of the Senate. I may also state that we have no reason to complain of the slightest disposition to delay on the part of the Government of the United States, for this proposal, which was received through the telegraph in America on Saturday, is at this moment that I am now speaking under the consideration of the Senate. Of course, it is not for us to say at what time that consideration will terminate; but we are told that probably in two or three days a decision will be arrived at by the Senate on its general character and import. The Senate, I need hardly remind the House, is the perfectly free deliberative organ of a perfectly free as well as great country. I cannot forestall its judgment. It must be for the House, taking into view the action of the President and the whole facts of the case as furnished by the description I have given, to consider what are the present circumstances and aspects of the negotiation. I hope the House will not think me unreasonable in observing that we have not the same opportunity of communicating confidentially with the Houses of Parliament as the President has with the Senate; and I hope also that I shall not go beyond the bounds of due respect when I express the opinion, not on my own part merely, but on the part of the Government as a whole, that we trust nothing will be said or done to interfere with the perfectly free and dispassionate consideration by the Senate of this great matter, now advanced, as we trust, so near to its maturity. I have said we shall not move the Adjournment of the House for the Recess in any manner which might appear to show a disposition to press our opinion unduly upon the House; but we wish, notwithstanding, to make an appeal to the perfectly free judgment of the House. We feel, and feel deeply, that in these matters it is not only the Executive Governments on both sides of the water that are concerned, but that it is only by concurrent prudence and circumspection on the part of all the great Powers that act for and influence the destinies of free peoples that delicate and difficult negotiations of this kind can be conducted to a happy issue. I will say nothing for ourselves, for I could say nothing beyond that which all men know of every British Government—that under all circumstances they will do their best; but I will venture to say this—that the House of Commons, by its remarkable prudence and self-restraint, has powerfully contributed to a favourable result; and that if that favourable result shall happily he attained, it will in no small degree be due to the wisdom, circumspection, and self-restraint of the body which I have the honour to address. Let me say, also, that we shall not do justice to the case if we do not express the strong sense we entertain of the friendly feeling which has prompted the conduct of the Government of the United States, and which in a degree certainly not less remarkable has actuated that great and free-speaking people. Had this House thought fit, by the exhibition of menaces and threats, by premature declarations of what we would do and would not do in contingencies which had not arrived, to arouse the patriotism and public spirit of that great country beyond the Atlantic into a temper of exasperation, I certainly do not think we should have reached the point at which we now happily stand; and I feel confident that the House which has so long, under circumstances so difficult, and now for a period of very nearly four months, exercised that self-command, will at the moment when already it appears to reap its reward persist in that line of conduct even to the end. I trust, therefore, there will be an opinion that while the free judgment of the House upon the whole proceedings of the Government from first to last must be reserved, and may at any fit time be freely expressed, the position of the question at the present moment, when it is no longer in the hands of those who are responsible to you—when their definite proposal, by which in spirit and in letter they are bound, has passed across the ocean, and is now before the tribunal on which, as far as America is concerned, it depends authoritatively to decide—the position of the question is such that it would not be by the debates of Parliament, if I may presume to say so, that Members of Parliament should desire to exercise an opinion upon their deliberations. I think that, feeling towards the United States the respect which we should desire them to feel towards us, we should be ambitious of signalizing in every way our anxiety that not even a semblance of interference by those expressions should pass from among us to appear in any or the slightest degree to derogate from the positive, absolute, and perfect political and moral liberty with which the authorities of America will now arrive, I trust, at a very early conclusion. I take leave again to tender on the part of the Government the expression of our thanks to Parliament for this remarkable forbearance, together with the assurance that we do not misunderstand it—that we do not take it as a compliment, or as implying in the slightest degree anything more than an enlightened regard to the great public interests which are involved in the present issue. For this is, after all, a very great issue, for it is an issue upon a matter which in itself is of very great importance between two of the most powerful and free and energetic nations upon the face of the earth; and great in itself as between them, it is greater yet, because it involves the interests of every other country, and therefore that extraordinary liveliness and movement of mind which we cannot but have witnessed in the Press of the Continent with respect to this diplomatic controversy is easily accounted for when we bear in mind that they know as well as we do that, mutatis mutandis, any other two Powers in the world may at any time stand in the position which England and America now occupy with respect to the principles at issue. But this importance is greatest of all with respect to its bearing on the subject of arbitration, and upon the future interests of the world, for England and America undertook a great responsibility in the face of all other nations, when they attempted to apply, after some recent discouragements, this principle of amicable settlement to a great controversy between two high-spirited nations; and if these two nations succeed in giving effect to what undoubtedly is the desire sincerely entertained, and cordially entertained alike on the one side and on the other, something, I think, will be achieved for the benefit of the cause of peace. If, on the other hand, they should fail, however the case may stand as between the parties, they conjointly will suffer great discredit in the face of all civilized nations; and their failure in this great case of peaceful settlement will be nothing less in our judgment than a misfortune to mankind. It is, therefore, that we earnestly hope that that admirable control of feeling and temper, by which such free scope and such ample advantage have thus far been left to the Government as the trustees of the public interest in their endeavours to bring about a satisfactory settlement of this matter, may still be continued. I have stated in brief terms, but in terms which. I hope were not devoid of meaning, the basis on which the proceedings were commenced in the months of January and February last. From that basis we have not departed; from that basis—practicable, as we trust, for the views of the two Governments to be placed in substantial harmony and conciliation—and with that prospect before them, we trust we may make the suggestion to the House—which, undoubtedly for our own sakes, we should have no title whatever to prefer—that they will be contented to wait, for the short time that yet remains, the result, which can hardly be otherwise than decisive; and which I hope it is not too sanguine a temper on my part if I venture to say that there is every probability that we may be enabled to recognize as honourable and satisfactory.

Sir, in the critical state of affairs as regards our relations with the United States of America, and which now has subsisted for five months, I think there have been two duties for Parliament to fulfil. The first was to give fair play to the Government, constituted of whatever party or materials, placed in such a situation—and I may say, without at all binding ourselves to any approbation of the course they have pursued, or as to our ultimate decision, that we have given them that constitutional support which they had a right, I think, in their difficult position to look forward to. Our second part has been at the same time, consistently with that line, to assert the policy with respect to the matters in question on which I believe the great majority of the people of this country are decided. I have, Sir, myself been influenced by these two feelings, and I believe I may say that I represent accurately the feelings of hon. Gentlemen generally on this side of the House. Whatever may be our opinions as to the general policy of the Government in this matter, when once the great embarrassment had occurred we resolved to give them the utmost indulgence so far as the forms of the House and the general conduct of party proceedings are concerned; and at the same time we wished to assert the policy which we think, generally speaking, they ought to have followed. I collect to-night, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he and his Colleagues have prepared a distinct proposition, which has been made to the Government of the United States—that that proposition has been accepted by the President of the United States; and that in order that it may be ultimately adopted as the solution of these difficulties, it is at this moment submitted to the Senate of the United States. That is what I collect generally from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. That being the case, I cannot for a moment hesitate to express my own opinion—and so far as my opinion can influence others I wish to express it most distinctly—that we are in duty bound to continue that forbearance which we have already shown. It is quite clear from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that it is utterly impossible for us to give any opinion, under the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, as to the course which Her Majesty's Government have pursued. It is quite clear from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there have been perhaps even voluminous despatches, and everyone must feel that our opinion as to the policy of the Government must depend upon the precise language contained in the propositions which they have made to the Government of the United States. Everyone, therefore, must feel that it is totally out of our power, without we were in possession of the precise contents of those authentic documents, to offer an opinion at this moment. At the same time, I must express my hope that these Papers will be placed upon the Table of the House without any unnecessary delay, for when we are in possession of these documents, we shall be able to form an opinion as to the course of Her Majesty's Government. I trust, however, that, whatever difference of opinion as to that course may prevail, only one result will accrue from these labours of Her Majesty's Government and from this forbearance of Parliament—I trust we shall find a settlement of the question which will be satisfactory, not only to the interests of both countries, but which will in every respect satisfy the honour of England. I must again hope there will be no unnecessary delay in the production of these Papers, for until we are in possession of them, we can form no opinion as to the course of Her Majesty's Government; but until then I am clear, under the circumstances de- tailed by the right hon. Gentleman, that the conduct of Parliament should he—as it has been for a considerable period, one of complete forbearance.

Sir, the desire of the Government will be to lay the Papers on the Table at the earliest possible moment. ["The Adjournment!"] I think it would be irregular to propose the Motion for the Adjournment now; but I will propose it, when it comes on in its turn.

, in proposing to amend the Amendment to the First Schedule, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, by leaving out the words "and certificate," said, his object was to relieve magistrates of the duty sought to be imposed upon them—namely, that of giving to a voter who declared himself unable to read a certificate to that effect. He therefore begged to move to leave out in page 23, line 14, Rule 26 of the First Schedule, the words "and certificate."

said, that he could not see the necessity of requiring the voter to go before the magistrate at all, for quite sufficient security would, in his opinion, be provided by a declaration before the presiding officer, the same penalties being attached to a false declaration as if it were made before a magistrate. They could determine whether a man could read by making him read, but they could not make a man read who said he was un- able; and from what he had heard of Irish witnesses, he did not see that it would be very easy to make an Irishman acknowledge that he could read, if he was determined to declare that he could not. Why was it necessary, moreover, to oblige a man to make two declarations, one before a magistrate and the other at the poll? At present it was hard enough to get electors to go before the revising barrister. Many would lose their votes sooner than do so, and the House might be sure that men would not be readily got to go before a magistrate to make this declaration, because there was an atmosphere of summary conviction about him. They would never get a man to go before a magistrate unless the agent took him there. But in addition to those objections, the voter whom they wanted to protect from influence would first of all have to go with the agent to a magistrate, and then to declare to the Returning Officer, in the hearing of the agent, how he was going to vote, and that was not a good machinery either for getting rid of influence or securing secrecy.

said, he could give a very good idea of the considerable additional duty that would be imposed upon magistrates by means of the question at issue, for he was a few years ago Secretary to the Great Yarmouth Commission, and he had to take receipts from every one examined before it. There were 700 witnesses examined, of whom 300 had to make their marks. Now, if between the nomination day and the day of polling the magistrates were to be engaged in giving certificates in such a borough as Great Yarmouth, it would be utterly impossible that the work could be got through.

said, the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would be a very dangerous one in Ireland, because there every agent of a large proprietor was a magistrate. He did not mean to state that anything improper would be done by a magistrate; but where party feeling ran so high, all the voters on the proprietors estate might be taken to a justice of the peace, and for one that could read 40 would declare they could not. That declaration would be made before the agent, the men would then be taken to the presiding officer, and how they would vote could be easily ascertained. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not persist in his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal, moreover, would not touch the question of those voters who wished for a little assistance in order to record their votes.

said, he would remind the House that when last year he brought forward a proposal for the introduction of a system of voting papers, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that they would not have magistrates enough to execute the duties that would be thrown on them. That argument was conclusive against the right hon. Gentleman's own scheme now. The machinery of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was so cumbrous that he believed voters would grope about in the dark rather than avail themselves of it. It was, in point of fact, a proposal which would take away with the left hand what was given with the right. The voter would be taken to the polling-booth, and having committed some trumpery inaccuracy in voting, in consequence of the involved nature of the process through which he had to go, would be met at the door of the booth by the right hon. Gentleman's favourite conveyance—the prison van, and taken away to undergo a term of imprisonment. The right hon. Gentleman generally treated his suggestions with suspicion, but still he would offer him another, which if adopted would help him out of his difficulty. It was that in boroughs the polling-places should be the gaol, and that, on the receipt of the writ, every registered elector should be committed to solitary confinement until the return of the writ to the Crown Office.

said, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Wharton) that the presiding officer and the Returning Officer would not, as he seemed to suppose, be one and the same person. Under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) it was proposed to make voting as easy in future as it was now, when a man in a state of drunkenness was taken to the the poll as a free and independent elector. He (Mr. Rylands), however, looked upon the Ballot as a preventive against such voters recording their votes; and if they wanted by the Bill to be able to coach such men up to the poll, he would be no party to it.

said, the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Rylands') argument appeared to be based on the assumption that if an English voter was not able to read, he was ignorant and vicious, but he (Lord John Manners) objected to that assumption. The objection to the proposal of the right hon Gentleman was not with the view of disfranchisement, but that the machinery would be found in practice to be so difficult and so complicated that in reality the voter would not be able to record his vote. He hoped, therefore, the House would assent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Southwest Lancashire.

said, he must object to the word "certificate" being left out of the Amendment. The magistrates could not obtain information as to the inability of the voter to read, except by means of a declaration; and therefore he ought to have full power to receive and act upon such declarations. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment.

said, there was a grave objection to taking these voters before magistrates. During the cattle plague the same sort of provision existed, and it was found impossible in many districts for two justices to sign the certificates within a given time. He knew a parish that contained a large number of illiterate inhabitants, and he felt convinced that it would be impossible to take the voters first before a magistrate and then to the poll in time for them to record their votes. Not only that, but a magistrate would probably be ignorant of the voters residing out of his own parish, and the certificate, therefore, to be of any value, should be signed by some one residing in the parish where the voter lived—either the clergyman or the churchwarden, and not by a magistrate who would probably reside at a distance.

said, the Government proposition would be found to be impracticable without adopting a double conveyance—one to the magistrate and the other to the poll, and on different days, for they would have to make special arrangements for "ticketing the dunces." They would be also obliged to have a separate canvass to ascertain the number likely to require certificates. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) evidently desired to disfranchise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham once called "the residuum," but the experience of Yarmouth showed that it was not always the most ignorant who were the most corrupt. He would suggest that the most competent persons to give the required certificate would be the certificated schoolmasters. It would not be open to such objection as going before a magistrate, and a man did not like to have thrown in his teeth the statement that he had been before a magistrate, so as to imply a slur that he had been in trouble.

said, he should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, what reason he had for supposing that a man who could read would say that he could not?

said, he hoped hon. Members would excuse his not answering all the observations that had been addressed to the House in the course of the debate that afternoon, and must decline further to treat of them, except to say there was no desire to disfranchise in any part of the House. The Government, in their original proposition, had provided for the case of the illiterate voter; but there was a difference of opinion on that matter; and as it was not a vital point, they had conceded to the wish of many hon. Gentlemen. The question of examination by the magistrate into ability to read was not one on which it was worth while to take a division, though he still thought the proposal of the Government the better plan.

said, he hoped the Government would adhere to their Amendment, for there had been already too much yielding on important points of the Bill. In South Australia, where universal suffrage existed, a great number of illiterate persons came to the poll to vote; but in that country there was no such provision as that to be provided by this Bill for voters to record their votes, and in practice it had been found to be totally unnecessary. Almost every man who could not read letters was able to read figures up to "nine," and by that means in Australia a man was able to mark the name of the candidate for whom he wished to vote. If necessary colours might be used; and if a man who could not read perfectly was so stupid as not to be able to distinguish colours, it would be no great detriment to him or to the community if he were disfranchised. The presiding officer too, in many instances, was not the man to be entrusted with the power of marking voting papers, for it would give him an opportunity, in many instances, of turning the election. With regard to the proposed Amendments of the Government, he thought it would be impossible to take the number of declarations that would have to be made in the progress of an election.

said, that in each of the four colonies of Australia, according to the Reports of the Governors, provision was made for illiterate voters. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), and those who acted with him, evidently wanted to disfranchise as many voters as they could. Why was it the Christians were to be obliged to make all those declarations, and the Jews were relieved from the obligation? How was the Jewish voter to be identified? Surely the order of things had been changed, and the Christian must now say that "Sufferance is the badge of all our tribe." He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would persevere with his Amendment.

said, he would suggest that the word "certificate" be left out altogether.

said, he was willing to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, if it was clearly understood that it would not preclude their raising the question at a future stage.

said, a certificate would be of use only for the information of the returning Officer, in case the declaration were made before a magistrate, for if the declaration were made before the Returning Officer the certificate would be useless. But if the Returning Officer's time were to be taken up by receiving these declarations, how was he to discharge his ordinary duties?

said, he thought a very short way might perhaps be found, by which to avoid all the loss of time and inconvenience likely to arise from these certificates and declarations. Why not have a distinct polling-booth, which might be called the "illiterate booth?"

said, he did not think he could persist in putting upon the magistrate the duty of satisfying himself by examination that the voter was unable to read. It seemed, however, to be necessary that the magistrate, or whoever it was before whom the declaration might be taken, should give a certificate that the declaration had been made. But to retain the words of the Amendment "and certificate" would in effect imply that the magistrate had satisfied himself that the voter was unable to read, and he was therefore prepared to allow the exclusion of the words on the understanding that when he came to his next Amendment he should move the insertion of the words to show that a certified declaration had been made by the voter, in the presence of the person to whom it was given.

said, he was unable to accept the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, for he maintained that no certificate was necessary, since the declaration before the presiding officer would be sufficient.

said, he had given Notice of words which he believed would meet a wish very generally expressed by the House—namely, that all voters, Jew or Gentile, should be placed on an equal footing. If the opinion, however, should be in favour of the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), he would not press his Amendment. He only wished it to be distinctly understood that the words he proposed were a protest against any other authority than that of the presiding officer being brought into requisition. He moved that the words "or who states to the presiding officer" be inserted.

said, he hoped the words would not be pressed. If they were, he should vote against them. He thought there ought to be a recorded statement which might be marked, and that would take no more time than the verification of a declaration made before a magistrate.

said, he thought it was the opinion of the House that there ought to be an actual declaration. If so, it was also of very great importance that the whole of these declarations should be filed. The presiding officer, therefore, would in every case enclose them to the Returning Officer, who would forward them to the Clerk of the Crown.

observed that the Amendment would not only place Jew and Gentile on a par, but it would place the Jew on a par with himself; for if a Jew who could not read voted on Saturday, he might vote without a declaration, whereas, if he voted on the Monday he must make a declaration.

said, he was of opinion there should be no declaration except before the presiding officer. There was nothing more uncertain in description than a person's being able to read; but the presiding officer could at once test the fact by asking the voter whether he could read the paper he held in his hand.

said, he thought the clause in its present shape would put in jeopardy two of the main conditions of a satisfactory election—that every elector when he voted should be certain that his vote was given to the proper candidate, and that the conduct of the Returning Officer should be above suspicion. As long as votes were given by blind and illiterate people, great distrust would be felt of the conduct of the presiding officer, especially when the majority at an election was not large; and he proposed to cure this defect in the Bill by proposing that the declaration of the voter should be made in the presence of the agents of the candidates, and not in a hole-and-corner way to the presiding officer. He therefore moved to insert in page 23, line 14, after "shall," the words "in the presence of the agents of the candidates."

said, he felt compelled to support the Amendment. He had protested—in a manner, he had been told, not wanting in earnestness—against the provision permitting the presiding officer to assist illiterate voters; but, now that the provision had been introduced, he desired to see the best arrangements made for carrying it out. Practically, he submitted, it was absolutely necessary to adopt the Amendment. It would, in fact, be unavoidable that the voter should receive the required assistance in the presence of the agents of the candidates, for there would be no separate place where he could get it, and he could not be compelled to speak in a whisper. If the agents were to become aware in that way what candidate the voter favoured, they might also, very properly, be allowed to see that the presiding officer carried out the voter's wishes. Moreover, if there was no check, a serious amount of power would be placed in the hands of the presiding officer. He looked upon the proposed Amendment as an antidote in some measure to the provision against which he had protested.

said, that if the House divided he would vote in favour of the Amendment.

said, he thought it would be a check upon a dishonest presiding officer if the declaration were made in the presence of the agents and the presiding officer.

said, that at present they did not trust the presiding officer to record votes without the presence of the agents, and therefore the Amendment would make no change in that respect.

said, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not accept the Amendment, because he believed it would be fatal to the Bill.

said, he thought that a very important part of the Bill. He did not think that the Returning Officer could retire with the voter; for who was to look after the ballot box and the security of the ballot papers, for which the Returning Officer was responsible? In order to enable illiterate men to vote, he had suggested a resort to colour, and in that way what was felt to be a difficulty could, he thought, be got rid of. But that was rejected; and he, therefore, agreed that it was necessary, if the Government proposal was persisted in, that it should be amended in the form suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe.

said, that when the Returning Officers and the voters retired together bribery would be as easy as now. And so would coercion. What so easy as to say to a man—"You can't read. Go and vote in the presence of the agents." The whole affair of the voting would then become known. All difficulty in this direction would have been obviated by the adoption of a mechanical contrivance which he had without success recommended to the Committee last year.

said, the Bill was one to promote secret voting. The House, however, had been told by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) that 20 per cent of the voters in Ireland would vote under the declaration that they could not read, and in the presence of the agents; but, if so, the Bill might as well be given up. He should not vote for the Amendment, as he believed it would be far better to employ colours as aids in this matter, and would reserve his vote for that question, which he saw was to come on later.

said, there could be no doubt whatever as to the difficulty embraced in the question under discussion. He, however, believed that the proportion of illiterate voters had been greatly exaggerated, and was quickly diminishing. He might remind the House that in every colony but one where the Ballot was in use provision was made for the case of the illiterate voter. He was not much afraid that the presiding officer would misuse his power; but, on the other hand, he could see that it was advisable not to leave him without any check. It was a choice of evils; but the balance was probably in favour of placing a check upon the presiding officer. After a great deal of thought, therefore, he believed it would be better to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe.

proposed, in line 15, to leave out the word "secretly," for a vote given in the presence of the presiding officer and two other persons could not be said to be given "secretly."

moved the insertion of words, the object of which was first to secure a list of all voters whose votes were marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why they were so marked. Then came the question of the declaration; and his amended Amendment would provide that the declaration of inability to read should be made by the voter before a justice of the peace, who should attest it in a form hereinafter mentioned, which would include a statement by the magistrate that the declaration was made in his presence.

said, the Amendment raised the question whether the declaration should be made before the magistrate or presiding, officer? It had been already agreed that the presiding officer should mark the vote; and if he was to be trusted to do that, was he not a fit man to receive the declaration? The Amendment of which he had given Notice, and which he now moved, would enable the presiding officer to take the declaration of the illiterate voter at the polling station.

said, he hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), as the intervention of a magistrate in taking the declaration of the illiterate voter would be a safeguard against corrupt practices on the part of the presiding officer.

said, he objected to the Amendment, on the ground that the illiterate voter would rather make the declaration of his ignorance before a magistrate than before the presiding officer; and also because the magistrate would be less likely than the presiding officer to receive such a declaration on insufficient grounds. He also thought the illiterate voter was much more likely to be known to the magistrate of his locality than to the presiding officer; and, moreover, it would greatly delay the polling if the latter had not only to take the votes, but also to receive those declarations.

said, he thought that it was of very little importance what became of the Amendment, or what became of the Bill; whether it passed that House, or whether it ever returned from the other one. He had always been a warm supporter of the Ballot, but the Government had now given up the whole principle of secret voting, and nothing that remained in the Bill was worth contesting about.

trusted that the Government would not accede to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Harcourt).

said, he thought the balance of argument was decidedly in favour of the proposition as he had first made it. They ought to guard against the danger, which he thought was exaggerated, but which without doubt existed—that the voter who was most likely to be bribed and intimidated would be brought up under cover of being unable to read, and made to vote under pressure. The declaration before a magistrate was likely to be a more effectual check upon that than a mere statement made in the polling-booth. Therefore, if the hon. Member (Mr. Harcourt) pushed his Amendment to a division, he should be compelled to vote against it. With regard to the fears of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he believed they were exaggerated; and if the evils which he dreaded were found really to arise, something would probably soon be done to correct them.

said, he was afraid the result of the clause, whether they adopted one kind of cumbrous machinery or another, would be that the illiterate voter would be disfranchised.

said, he thought the House was under a delusion—and more especially with regard to Ireland—as to the amount of exertion the illiterate voter would make, if they thought he would search for a magistrate before the day of election to enable himself to vote. It would also be very difficult in Ireland to get a magistrate to remain in the booth all day during the polling. Then, again, the penalty on making a false declaration would be the same, whether it was made before the magistrate or before the presiding officer. The illiterate voters would not only complain of the additional labour that would be imposed upon them by requiring them to make a declaration before a magistrate, but they would also expect that the candidates would pay their travelling expenses, an item of election expenditure which in the case of some Irish constituencies had amounted to upwards of £1,000. He thought that the presiding officer might well be trusted to receive the declaration himself.

said, he was glad that a point had been found beyond which the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would not go. It was important that the mode of making this declaration should be as little onerous as possible. Had his proposal to have coloured voting papers been adopted, all the difficulties that were now started would have been swept away.

said, he must also urge upon the Government the necessity of permitting the presiding officer to take these declarations, on the ground of the difficulty that would be experienced in finding a magistrate before whom they could be made.

said, he had supported the Government until they had betrayed themselves, and now he thought that the Bill had been so greatly impaired during its passage through that House that many friends of the Ballot were scarcely anxious that it should receive the Royal Assent. The various duties which the measure would impose upon the Returning Officer were very heavy, he having to make out lists of the blind, of those who could not read, and of the Jews, whose consciences would not permit them to vote on Saturdays, besides having to stamp every ballot paper with a secret stamp, and to keep everything generally in order. He was satisfied that the only remedy for the difficulties that had been suggested was that the Government should retrace their steps, and adopt the proposition for having coloured printing on the voting papers.

said, the Government would find it difficult to retrace their steps on this question; and that being so, the next thing was, how best to carry into effect what had been passed? His own experience had shown him how difficult it was to settle such a question. The Government seemed to have accepted a conclusion, and they must abide by that conclusion. He, however, thought that the presiding officer, who would be a respectable person, might well be trusted to deal with the illiterate voter, without the intervention of a magistrate.

trusted that the Government would resist the Amendment.

said, he wished to ask, whether it was now competent for him to move the rejection of the Rule just adopted? If it was not, he should endeavour at a future stage to get rid of it, for it was one of the most mischievous parts of the Bill. Every hon. Member must be convinced that the House had got into inextricable confusion in this matter. Secrecy had been done away with. ["Order!"]

said, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that he could not on a point of Order enter into a general discussion of the Bill.

wished to know whether he could move the rejection of the Rule?

in reply, said, that the House was now considering the First Schedule of the Bill, of which this Rule formed part. Had the hon. Gentleman wished to propose the omission of the Schedule, he should have given Notice thereof before the Schedule was entered into; and so, also, had he wished the Rule omitted, he should have intimated his desire before it was entered upon. It was now too late for him to move the omission of the Rule; but he could, if he thought proper, propose the re-committal of the Bill at the third reading for that purpose.

said, in that case, he intended to move the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose of having this Rule struck out.

moved, in Rule 43, page 26, line 40, to insert after "law," the words—

"And the returning officer shall deliver the writ with such certificate endorsed to the postmaster of the principal post office of the place of election, or his deputy, and shall take a receipt from the postmaster or his deputy for the same; and such postmaster or his deputy shall forward the same by the first post, under cover, to the Clerk of the Crown, with the words 'Election Writ and Return' endorsed thereon."

moved, in page 29, after Rule 61, to insert the following Rule:—

"A presiding officer at a polling station in a county in Ireland need not be a freeholder of the county."

, in moving, in page 36, line 1, to omit the words "as to," and insert "guidance of the voter," said, that by inserting these words at the head of the Schedule it would be shown that the words which followed were intended as directions to the voter, and not as positive enactments. When it was proposed that the voter should make a cross simply, an objection was taken to it; and he stated that if there was any danger that the vote would be lost on that account he would introduce on the Report the words "or other mark." He had been informed, however, that there would be some danger if those words were introduced, and he thought that if the words which he now moved were inserted it would be clear that this was a directing and not an enacting Schedule.

said, as he understood, the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in making this proposal was that any mark made by the voter—and not a cross simply—should be taken as sufficient indication how he wished to vote, and should be accepted by the Returning Officer. But if such were the case, why not say so in plain words? Since the Amendment was put on the Paper he had taken the trouble to inquire how persons voted at charitable institutions, and he found that while in some cases it was by a tick, in others by a line, it was never by a cross.

said, that a man might denote his initials in a flourish, and that it would be unfair to make that a punishable offence.

Sir, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene), I rise to move the Amendment of which he has given Notice, that this Bill be re-committed. I believe some notice was taken on a former occasion of the point to which I wish to call the attention of the House; but from all I can gather of what then took place, I do not think that point was so fairly submitted to the House as it ought to have been. This Bill proposes to alter the substance of the 3rd clause of the Irish Church Act. In that 3rd clause the Commissioners are appointed, who are to administer all the affairs of the Irish Church as disestablished—that is, disestablished in so far as regards its connection with the State—and also disendowed; some portions of its property being thrown into a common fund, which was to be administered by the Commissioners under this section of the Irish Church Act. The powers of those Commissioners are most extensive. They have power to deal with the whole of the property remaining to the Irish Church, and their proceedings are not subject to be cheeked by any Court whatever. It is expressly stated that their proceedings shall not be removed by certiorari into any other Court; that their decisions shall have the power of acts of the Court of Chancery; and that those decisions shall be absolutely final. These are far more extensive powers than Parliament is wont to confer. The Commissioners were Viscount Monck, Mr. Justice Lawson, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and my lamented Friend the late Mr. George Alexander Hamilton. Many of us remember him. He was one of the Representatives of the University of Dublin, and a better man than he was I do not know. He was afterwards appointed Secretary to the Treasury, and successive Prime Ministers have testified to his excellence and efficiency as a public officer. When the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister proposed Mr. Hamilton as one of the Commissioners, it was quite evident that he nominated him in addition to Mr. Justice Lawson and Lord Monck, as a person in whom the members of the Irish Church might place implicit confidence. He distinctly stated in this House, that Mr. Hamilton had written to him, to the effect that his consenting to serve on the Commission was not to be taken to imply his acquiescence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government in disestablishing the Irish Church; and in those words, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister conveyed to this side of the House, who were opposd to it, an assurance that in Mr. Hamilton, there would be one Commissioner, who, if feeling was to have anything to do with the proceedings of the Commission, would he absolutely with the Irish Church. I come now to the Bill before the House. That Bill, instead of allowing the vacancy created in the Commission by the lamented death of Mr. Hamilton to be filled up according to the course prescribed in the Irish Church Act of 1870, proposes to vary the proceedings in relation to the constitution of the Commission; and here I would add, that, although we were aware in 1870 that each of the Commissioners was a member of the Irish Church, as it is still termed in the Act, when the Bill reached the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Canterbury moved the insertion of words, specifying that the persons, who were to be, or who should succeed the Commissioners, appointed under the 3rd clause of the Act, should each be thus qualified—as being a member either of the said Church or of the said United Church—that is, either of the Irish Church or of the United Church of England and Ireland as it existed at that time. That Amendment was accepted without opposition by the House of Lords, and also without question in this House. Well, I do not understand the reasons for it, but it happens that in the present measure that principle is to be departed from. The words proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and accepted by Parliament, are to be set aside by this Bill. The Bill proposes that the third Commissionership—that vacated by the death of Mr. Hamilton, should be filled by one of the Irish Judges in certain events—that is, in cases in which there is an appeal from the decision of one of the Commissioners—for the Commissioners are empowered to act singly, but with an appeal from a single Commissioner to the full Bench of Commissioners in contested cases. Therefore, the person who is to be successor to the late Mr. George Alexander Hamilton is to come in and take part as a Commissioner, and share in all the powers of the Commission, the decisions of which are to be final in such contested cases. Now, a single Commissioner may transact the business, which is not contested, in which no serious objection is raised; but by this Bill it is not necessary that the third person, who is to be one of the Judges, and who is to be called on to assist in deciding contested business as the third Commissioner—it is not rendered necessary by this Bill, as it was in the original Act, that he should be a member of the Irish Church. So a Roman Catholic, if the Bill remain unaltered, could dispose of the property of the Protestant Church. I can scarcely think it is the intention of the House to allow this qualification to be dispensed with. I have shown that it will be in the most critical business of this Commission, in cases in which it will be dealing absolutely with the various interests created under the Irish Church Act of 1870, that this third Commissioner will be called in; and I hold that for that very reason, the third Commissioner should have the same qualification as is required of the other two Commissioners, and as was required of all three by the unanimous consent of Parliament in 1870. I have no means of carrying out that intention, except by moving that the Bill be re-committed; and I trust the House will accept the statement I have made as evincing the strong feeling which was entertained of the great importance of the late Mr. Hamilton's qualifications and services when he was appointed to the Commission, a feeling entertained by many others as well as myself. I have now to move that the Bill be re-committed.

said, he trusted the House would not consider it necessary to re-commit the Bill, for the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was under a misconception when he stated that it was the duty of the Commissioners to administer the affairs of the Disestab- lished Irish Church. But that was not so. Their duty was to superintend the operation of the transfer of the property of the Irish Church to the State, and to deal with all questions arising out of that transfer, such as the commutation of life interests, and other matters affecting existing incumbents. A further duty of the Commissioners was to take charge of the property of the Disestablished Church until it could be converted into ready money and be disposed of by Parliament. As had been stated the other day in Committee on the Bill, almost all the questions affecting the interests of the incumbents of the Irish Church had been disposed of; and even were that not the case, the introduction of a third Member for a particular purpose would not in the least prejudice their interests. A judicial Member of the Privy Council, as this Judge might be, who might be called upon to act, might, no doubt, be a Roman Catholic, or not a member either of the Disestablished Church or the Church of England; but he would be called upon to take no part whatever in the administrative business of the Commission, but only to act judicially.

, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said he proposed that it should be referred to a Select Committee. He proposed that course because the matters contained in it were of a complicated character, and better to be dealt with in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House. He might, however, say that his main object in framing the Bill had been to bring in as many men as possible to serve on juries, and thereby to diminish the pressure of the service on each individual. It had, however, been found necessary to deal separately with the City of London, the object in view being to get the same class of persons to serve on common and special juries there as elsewhere. In some cases, disqualifications would be extended. For instance, persons who had been convicted of felony would be no longer qualified to serve on juries; but, on the other hand, many classes now exempted would in future be liable to serve. Clergymen of the various religious denominations would no longer be exempt, and the Bill also proposed that the absolute exemption in favour of Members of the House of Commons should not extend beyond the Sitting of Parliament. ["No, no!"] Of course, it was quite possible that the House of Commons might entertain a different opinion on that point. Then the Bill would reduce the number of jurors, except in cases of murder, from 12 to seven, and in civil cases two out of the seven would be special jurors; but while doing so, it would in no way interfere with coroners' or grand juries. As he should propose to refer the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee, he would not now enter into its details, but would merely move the second reading.

said, he must protest against a Bill which proposed such important changes of the law, and which had not been circulated among hon. Members many days, being discussed at so late an hour (12·45 A.M.). The alteration in the number of jurors assigning different numbers to different classes of crimes was quite novel, and in his opinion the House ought not to sanction the principle of the Bill without further consideration.

said, he must admit that the Bill would introduce important alterations in the jury system, but thought its provisions could be better dealt with by a Select Committee than by the House at large. He could say that in the Australian colony with which he was formerly connected the number of jurors for the trial of civil issues had been reduced from 12 to 4, and that the change had proved beneficial. He was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman had not thought fit to introduce into the Bill the principle of not requiring complete unanimity in the case of the decisions of juries in civil cases, because the present system was sometimes productive of results which were perfectly absurd.

hoped the Bill would be read a second time that evening, for otherwise it was doubtful whether it would become law that Session. The question had been frequently discussed by Committees of that House; and the only new proposal was the reduction of jurymen, which, he believed, would give relief to the general body of jurymen without depreciating the tribunal.

trusted that, in assenting to the second reading, the House would not be considered as pledging itself to the affirmation of the principle of reducing the number of a jury. That principle ought not to be accepted without full discussion.

said, he would move the adjournment of the debate. The subject was one of great importance, and more time should, in his opinion, be given to consider it.

said, he could testify to the interest felt by the public in the question, and would entreat the House to read the Bill a second time, in order that it might go before a Select Committee. There would afterwards be ample time to discuss its main provisions.

hoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would not be pressed. He wished also to point out that great inconvenience was sometimes experienced in the City of London from the fact that jurymen were summoned to attend at two or even three Courts on the same day. As to the exemption of Members of that House from serving on juries, it would not, he trusted, be taken away.

said, the qualification for jurors in this Bill was so high that it would throw the work upon a very limited number of persons. He had no objection to see the details of the Bill referred to a Select Committee provided certain constitutional questions which it involved were reserved for the decision of the House.

said, he thought there would be some difficulty in withholding the constitutional points of the Bill from the consideration of a Committee. He must, moreover, remind hon. Members that they were dealing with one of the fundamental institutions of the country, and would contend that it was not right to shuffle off a measure of such importance to a Select Committee at 1 o'clock in the morning.