asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether in view of the small value for scientific purposes of isolated observations in the Arctic Regions in comparison with simultaneous observations at different places, and in view also of the interest now taken in Arctic science by foreign Governments, he will postpone for one season the departure of the proposed British Arctic Expedition, and in the interval communicate with Foreign Governments, with a view to the organisation of other expeditions to make scientific observations simultaneously with our own at fixed times?

I am not prepared to take the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The preparations for the Expedition are now far advanced, and I should regard his project of combination with other Powers to attain the objects in view as one beset with difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it be the fact that Christina Vivian, aged 18, pleaded guilty at the Middlesex Sessions on the 10th instant to stealing two gold watches value £30 from the shop of a jeweller, and if he would ex-plain to the House the special circumstances under which she was discharged by the Assistant Judge without sentence, on her own recognizance and that of a gentleman who did not wish his name to be disclosed?

in reply, said, he believed it was a fact that Christina Vivian, aged 18, pleaded guilty at the Middlesex Sessions on the 10th instant to stealing two gold watches, value £30, from the shop of a jeweller. He could not answer the other part of the Question otherwise than by reading to the House an extract from a rather long letter which he had received from the presiding magistrate, and which he would be happy to show to the hon. Member if he wished to see the whole of it. The prisoner, the magistrate wrote, pleaded guilty. It was her first offence, and she was most strongly recommended to mercy by the prosecutor, whose counsel was instructed earnestly to pray the Court to forbear from passing sentence, and thus afford her an opportunity of retrieving her character. The counsel for the prosecution having assured the Court that he had ascertained that the person proposed as surety, and who was then in attendance to enter into the required recognizance, was a person of unquestionable responsibility and respectability, it did not appear to the magistrate to be in accordance with practice to examine him in open Court in such a preliminary proceeding.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session to extend the provisions of the Factory Act of last Session to the persons employed in the bleach works and dye works of the United Kingdom; or if it be the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission or Commission to inquire into the condition of women and young persons employed in such works, with a view to legislation?

It is at the present moment under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government in what way they will best make an inquiry with respect to children and young persons employed in factories and workshops other than textile manufactories, as far as regards health and education; but at present I am not able to state exactly what form that inquiry will take.

Mr. Speaker—I beg leave to make a few remarks in reference to the way in which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) spoke of me yesterday. I do not wish to go into the question of good taste on his part—as to whether, after I had withdrawn the remarks that I had made at an agricultural show, and which I admit were pretty strong—I do not care to go into the question of whether it was good taste on the hon. Member's part to bring the matter up again. But I do feel that some of those remarks which he made may go forth to people who do not happen to know me perfectly, or that I have been in the Army and am a soldier; and they may think that I was frightened by an Irishman. I beg to say that I never have been frightened by any individual yet, and I certainly was not influenced by any such feeling in this matter. I have got the letters with me, and with the permission of the House I will read them, to show that what the hon. Member for Louth said was not quite correct. In the month of September, shortly after the agricultural show was held at which I made the remarks complained of, I received the following letter:—

in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill for appointing Commissioners to inquire respecting Monastic and Conventual Institutions in Great Britain, and for other purposes connected therewith, said, that the Bill was the same Bill he had introduced in the last Session, but for the second reading of which he had failed to obtain an opportunity, owing to the crowded state of the Order Book. Since, therefore, the Bill had been in the hands of hon. Members for the greater part of the last Session, it was unnecessary that he should then enter into a detail of its provisions. He rested the measure chiefly on this circumstance—that, with the exception of the United States, this was the only principal country in the world in which there were no practical legal regulations with respect to those institutions. He felt it would be unreasonable, as the documents and translations descriptive of the laws of foreign States with respect to these institutions would soon be in the hands of hon. Members, that he should on the present occasion detain the House further than by moving for leave to introduce his Bill.

in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was identical with the Bill which he introduced last Session, but which he was unable to proceed with on account of the time of the House being taken up with Government affairs; and further it was similar to the Bill which passed through the House in 1873, but which, owing to some misunderstanding, was lost in its passage through the House of Lords. It differed from the Bill of 1873 in some important points. He had omitted altogether the clause relating to chapels in private houses. He had omitted it in deference to the views expressed by some Members of the Upper House. Peers had peculiar, but not very well defined privileges with respect to private chaplains and chapels. It might seem somewhat strange that persons connected with the Peerage, and possessing large property, should have ecclesiastical privileges simply because they were Members of the Peerage. Other persons being only commoners, had estates and households as large or larger than those of any Peer. If they felt aggrieved, he could offer them some comfort. They had a large choice of religions. He could inform them, having paid attention to the subject for some years, that there was not a form of religion amongst the hundreds in the world which men might not practise with perfect liberty in their own homes, with the exception of the worship of the Church of England. He would now proceed to say a few words as to the difficulties for which he proposed in the present Bill to provide a remedy, and he could not better explain them than by quoting a passage from a Charge which was delivered in 1872 by one of the most eloquent of our Bishops. The Bishop of Peterborough, in speaking on that occasion of the great activity which existed throughout the Church generally, expressed a wish that he could say as much of every parish in his diocese, that there were in it no neglected parishes, no slothful or incompetent clergymen.

"There are," he added, "parishes among us which are a disgrace to the diocese and the despair of the Bishop; clergymen who neither do their duty nor allow anyone else to do it for them; who strain to the utmost those legal rights of our parochial system which are designed to protect the clergyman in his work, and not from it; and who contrive by virtue of these to make, in spite of parishioners or Bishop, their parishes very Gideons fleeces, dry as summer dust, while all around them may be watered with the dews of reviving life."

Such was the rebuke of one of the most eminent Prelates on the Episcopal Bench—a truly hard-working Bishop. There was a letter published some two years ago by a clergyman resident in the metropolis, in which he stated that in the parish in which he lived there were fully 100,000 inhabitants, and church accommodation for about 18,000. The Dissenting chapels would hold about 12,000 more, and after deducting the 20,000 persons who were too old or too young to attend, there were probably 50,000 persons unprovided for in church or chapel. Of these, perhaps, 25,000 would attend if suitable accommodation were provided. The writer went on to make a very good suggestion to the effect that, as there were a great many clergymen employed in the parish in schools, and as professors, lecturers, or tutors, and in various other ways, who had Sundays at their disposal, their services might be made available for additional Sunday services. But what made this simple and sensible plan impossible? It was in the power of the incumbent to suppress every meeting for public worship conducted according to the forms of the Church of England, while he had no power to interfere with the propagation of Romanism, Dissent, Infidelity, or Red Republicanism. He (Mr. Salt) would now refer to a letter from a gentleman living in a country parish. He said that the village and the larger portion of the population were two and a half miles from the parish church—so that, with the exception of two or three landowners who could avail themselves of carriage conveyance, not a soul ever attended Divine Service there. The writer went on to state that the poor of the parish especially were subjected to the caprice and indolence of an incumbent who held very extreme opinions, and if such a Bill as the present were to become law the wants of the parish would be supplied by the erection of places affording adequate accommodation for public worship. The writer added—

"I can afford abundant evidence of the good effect which Divine Service has produced here in former years, when I then fitted up a dwelling-house for the purpose, and a clergyman was permitted to do week-day duty in this parish."

Now, that evidence, he thought, was sufficient to show that there existed some need for interference on the part of the Legislature. There was a curious state of the law as matters now stood, in accordance with which, supposing an incumbent of a parish who was a really zealous man had established a small school or public service in any part of his parish where he might think the population stood in need of special attention, that service might go on very well during his incumbency, but might be stopped in the event of his removal from the parish by his successor without any reason whatsoever being assigned, and although the parishioners might be willing to pay for an additional clergyman. He would now attempt to show how his Bill would deal with the difficulty. It was practically divided into two portions. The first clause provided that where a service had been established by an incumbent, or with his consent, it should not of necessity cease on the incumbency becoming void—that was, should not cease unless the Bishop's license said that it should. Another part of the Bill would be much more debated—that relating to the cases in which the Bishop's authority was brought to bear. A certain number of parishioners—namely, 25—who wanted a service established in a particular part of a parish might go the Bishop and apply for the license for a minister. In this matter the interests of the incumbent were strictly guarded. As soon as the Bishop received the requisition he would have to ascertain for himself whether the additional service was absolutely necessary, and also, if it was, whether the incumbent was unwilling or unable to provide the service required. In case the incumbent was either unable or unwilling to provide such service, the Bishop would give notice of his intention to license a clergyman for the duty, and state who the clergyman was to be, after which the appointment would be made in due course. But there was a provision enabling either the Bishop, the incumbent, or the parishioners, to refer the whole matter to a Commission, consisting of the rural dean or archdeacon as chairman, a clergyman and layman nominated by the incumbent, and another clergyman and layman nominated by the parishioners, who should inquire into the case, and upon their report the license should issue or not issue. Several objections had been made to the Bill. Amongst other things, it had been said that this Bill would be an infringement of the parochial system. Now, what was the parochial system? Such an inquiry presented unusual difficulties, not only from the complexity of Ecclesiastical Law, but from the fact that the opinions of ecclesiastical lawyers themselves were generally at total variance with each other. He had never been able in his experience to find two persons who agreed on the subject. If he went to one ecclesiastical lawyer and told him he had just consulted another, he was sure to be told that the other gentleman knew nothing about it. But with respect to the parochial system, he found in Burns's Ecclesiastical Law a remarkably clear statement—namely,

"There is no general principle of ecclesiastical law more firmly established than this—that it is not competent to any clergyman to officiate within the limits of a parish without the consent of the incumbent thereof."

Whether that was good law he could not say; but he had no doubt that it embodied the general idea underlying the parochial system. Now, so far from being the first person to infringe this principle, which some people seemed to hold as almost sacred, he was only following in the wake of a series of Acts of Parliament which had been passed during the last 40 years. However dear the parochial system might be to clergymen themselves, there was no doubt it had proved very inconvenient to laymen, as was shown by the long-continued struggle of Parliament to limit its stringency. About the year 1824 an Act was passed for the appointment of chaplains of gaols, without reference to the incumbent, and simply by the license of a Bishop. In 1830 Parliament passed the Church Building Act, which also set aside the incumbent, merely allowing him power to make a statement of his objections. In 1834 an Act was passed for the appointment of chaplains of unions, again without reference to the incumbent. In 1863 an Act was passed with regard to services in Wales which was specially framed to prevent interference on the incumbent's part. Again, in 1868, an Army Bill was passed, which disposed of the incumbent by the ingenious device of marking off a space which was to be regarded as extra-parochial, and within which services could be held. An anecdote had once been related to him that a Volunteer officer, who had assembled his men for a Sunday service, to be performed by their own chaplain, was interrupted by the rector of the parish. The officer, without staying to argue, simply marched his regiment into the next parish, where the neighbouring incumbent was more complaisant. The Public Schools Act, passed the same year—1868—withdrew public school chapels from the jurisdiction of incumbents; and in 1869 the Endowed Schools Act was passed with similar provisions. Then, in 1871, the Private Chapels Act removed from the jurisdiction of incumbents chapels belonging to all public and charitable institutions. But the Act to which he desired to call particular attention, and which he thought must have been overlooked by those persons who accused him of infringing the parochial system, was the Private Patronage Act, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 97. This Act empowered the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to establish a church with only the consent of the Diocesan, and without reference to the incumbent at all. In effect, that Act absolutely overrode the incumbent altogether. But it was necessary under that Act that persons seeking additional church accommodation should—

"Provide (a) a permanent church to be approved by the Board, (b) an endowment of £100 at least, and (c) a small repair fund of £150 or £200."

He was quoting from a letter of the Commissioners. He had referred to the Act, and believed that a church might be built under that Act without having any district assigned to it. What this Act did for men of large means, his Bill, to a certain extent, proposed to do for men of moderate means, and of a humbler rank of life. The Church ought to be the Church of the poor as well as of the rich. Other objections had been made to the Bill. It was said by some persons that the Bill would establish Nonconformity; but he was quite at a loss to see how it could have that effect. Nonconformity practically was established and endowed already. It had established and endowed itself. And why? Because the restrictions under the existing law were so great that large bodies of men burst through the bonds they were unable to enlarge. The Bill would have the contrary effect of providing Church of England services for those who were now compelled either to live without religious services altogether or to resort to those provided by Nonconformist bodies. Somebody else argued that the Bill would establish congregational worship, and said—" You are going to establish a chapel in every parish in the kingdom." If this were necessary, it would be requisite to pass a far more drastic and stringent measure than the quiet, cautious, and frequently-considered Bill which he now asked the House to adopt. He noticed that objection, not because it was a sound or strong objection, but because it had been urged by men of considerable ability, and his answer to it was this—" If you say this Bill is to establish a chapel in every parish, how extremely rotten the whole system must be. All laymen must be in a state of semi-revolt against their pastors. I, who advocate this measure, do not say I am going to establish a chapel in every parish in the kingdom. I say the effect of the Bill in that way will be very small. I only profess to deal with certain cases of neglect, and these cases are extremely few." Another point to which he would call attention was as to what had been the opinions of the Bishops and clergy on the subject. Now, this Bill had almost the unanimous assent of the Episcopal Bench. With regard to the clergy, his own impression was that there was a slight majority of the clergy in favour of the measure. They were, perhaps, about equally divided. On one occasion last year, at a clerical meeting, when the question was discussed, the votes on both sides were even. However, on that subject he had some evidence from a very good source. Some time ago a gentleman was kind enough to send him particulars of a discussion which took place at a rural deanery—he would not say what rural deanery. At that meeting there were 14 persons present, and the result of their consideration of this Bill was that, by a majority of 8 to 6, they passed a resolution to the effect—

"That considering how greatly Mr. Salt's Bill interferes with the parochial system, affects the position of incumbents, and risks the introduction of division and strife into parishes, this Chapter cannot approve the provisions' of the said Bill."

If the gentlemen who voted for this proposition had watched the progress of ecclesiastical law during the past 40 years, and had also examined the provisions of his Bill, they would have seen that endless Acts of Parliament had been passed which more or less interfered with the parochial system—some of them cutting away its principle altogether—and that his measure did not propose or attempt to do anything of the kind. Then it was said that the measure affected the position of the incumbents; but those who said so could scarcely have read the Bill. How did it affect the position of the incumbents? It did not touch their revenues in a single iota; it did not interfere with their rights and privileges in going about among the parishioners; it did not interfere with the incumbent in the least with respect either to the revenues or to the performance of his pastoral duties; because before a Bishop could issue a license under the Bill he must ascertain whether the incumbent was actually performing, or was willing to perform, his duty and supply services of which the parish had need. The Bill would only interfere with the right of the incumbent to do wrong by neglecting his duty, and no one could reasonably oppose the measure on that ground. Lastly, it was said that the measure would lead to division and strife in the parishes. Well, there were abundant instances of strife and division in the parishes; but this measure was one which would rather heal than create sores. It was an attempt to realise the wish of the late Rev. Sidney Smith, and raise "the English clergy to the privilege of Dissenters." What was their position at present? His friend who had sent him the report and resolution of his ruri-decanal meeting could never have read or heard of the following passage, which recently appeared in a well-known Review, and which was an extract from a Review published early in the present century:—

"In any parish of England any layman or clergyman, by paying 6d., can open a place of worship, provided it be not the worship of the Church of England. If he wishes to attack the doctrines of the Bishop or the incumbent, he is not compelled to ask the consent of any person; but if by any evil chance he should he persuaded of the truth of those doctrines, and build a chapel or mount a pulpit to support them, he is instantly put in the Spiritual Court, for the incumbent, who has a legal monopoly of this doctrine, does not choose to suffer any interloper; and without his consent it is illegal to preach the doctrines of the Church within his precincts."

The object and intention of this Bill was to deal with spiritual neglect, and with wide or crowded parishes. He should have liked to stop at that point, but was bound to say something more. There was another point pressed upon him both by his friends and his opponents, which did not actually relate to spiritual neglect in parishes, but to a very different matter. He was bound more or less to answer the question—" How does this Bill affect rival parties in the Church?" Well, this Bill, as he had already said, was not brought in in any party spirit; its honest and clear intention being to deal simply with spiritual neglect in parishes. At the same time, he felt bound to acknowledge what had often been repeated to him—that this Bill might be used for the purposes of party warfare. But to whatever uses the Bill might be put, it was in itself absolutely impartial. Any person, of any opinion whatever—whether High Church or Low Church, or any other Church—was equally at liberty to make use of the measure. It would be difficult for its provisions to be used for party purposes, because the sole duty of a Bishop, when applied to to put the clauses of the Act in force, was to ascertain whether the services asked for were necessary for the good of the parish. He would go a step further and ask whether, even supposing the Bill were occasionally used for party purposes, that would not be, on the whole, better than the present system. In a parish well-known to himself, there were two churches served by the same clergyman. In one church the service was plain and old-fashioned, in the other it was very ornate. Peace and friendship had almost invariably reigned in that parish. Each service was a safety valve for the legitimate desires of certain of the parishioners. Men of experience were of opinion that in dealing with the parochial system attention should be paid to the nature of clerical appointments. A man who was extremely young and very indifferently educated, and wholly with-out experience, might be appointed to some parish which required great energy, great tact, and great knowledge. Once appointed, however objectionable his conduct might be to the parishioners, however near he might go to a violation of the Ecclesiastical Law, however he might fail in character and morals, it was almost impossible to remove him. In a case of that kind, would it not be far better, instead of, as often happened, driving away the parishioners into other parishes or into forms of worship which from their habits, education, and tastes they disliked, to give them an opportunity, at least for a temporary period, of carrying on worship agreeably to their opinions? The liberty of doing so was enjoyed in the fullest degree in every other religious community. He had endeavoured by this Bill to provide a remedy for an evil which, he believed, he had shown to exist in certain cases. He asked for the members of his own religious community that liberty which, as he had said, was enjoyed by every other religious community in this country—namely, the liberty of carrying on their own worship according to their own consciences. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.

in seconding the Motion, expressed his opinion that the Bill of his hon. Friend was in accordance with the comprehensive character of the Church of England. It had received the approval of a large number of Prelates and of many thoughtful clergymen. It would produce union rather than strife in parishes, and would maintain and strengthen what he believed was the best part of our parochial system. The consideration which most induced him to support this Bill was that it would give scope for the various kinds of thought which existed in the Church of England. In London and other large towns, where free and ample expression was given to those varieties of thought, that odium theologicum which was so strong in country districts was very rare. He read some time ago of a watering-place at the South of England where the population were armed against each other, and old friendships broken up on account of the position of the organ in the parish church; and near his own parish a dispute with reference to the position of the pulpit ended in a Commission to inquire into the veracity of the rector, which Commission was presided over by a county Member, whose verdict in favour of the clergyman produced a contest at the last election. In country districts such quarrels were inevitable. There were facilities for their weekly recurrence, and the irritation was never allowed to subside. As his hon. Friend had observed, Nonconfor- mists were allowed to build chapels as they liked; restrictions were put only on members of the Church of England. The result of the present restrictions was that free churches of England had been established in several towns. His own conviction was, that if some such measure as that now proposed should not be passed, the process of disestablishment would be greatly facilitated. What they really wanted were Churches of Refuge, where those persons who did not agree with the incumbent's mode of conducting the services might have preaching and ceremonies with which they could sympathize. He trusted that hon. Members on both sides of the House who looked upon the Church, not merely as the vehicle of their own views, but as a great national institution, would relieve her of those cumbrous restrictions, which breathed the spirit that had deprived the Church of the followers of Wesley, and which were now driving away many earnest men who felt and knew that there was a place for them in her territory but declined to be tied down to the monopoly, or it might be called the infallibility for particular incumbent. He trusted that by affirming this Bill the House would allow the Church that fair field and full play for energy and zeal now only enjoyed by those who rejected her communion.

said, he had opposed with considerable energy the Bill which his hon. Friend (Mr. Salt) introduced on a former occasion on this subject. He did not propose to take that course with regard to this Bill. He thought the Bill previously introduced was a dangerous Bill. His hon. Friend had very much modified it, and the machinery of the Bill would thereby be made to work much bettor. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) in saying that the churches we needed were "Churches of Refuge;" refuge meant shelter from something evil, and he could not look on any form of worship in the light of evil. The Bill had been modified vitally in the clause which gave the incumbent the option of providing the desired services. The Bishop, too, had antecedently to make up his own mind whether the services in question were, or were not, wanted. Then, the incumbent had the choice himself of providing them. This provision would, he believed, very much relieve the Bill from the character it formerly possessed, when it appeared to present a pistol at the head of the incumbent. Another concession which his hon. Friend had made was that when a matter came to trial the Commission was to be composed of five members, of whom the Bishop had only the appointing of one, and that one had been limited to the existing category of archdeacons and rural deans, while the remainder were equally divided between incumbent and parishioners. There was a further improvement in the Bill in the omission of the clause for creating a special privileged class of private chapels. He did not think that the existence of the privilege of the Peerage was any reason for creating a privilege of plutocracy, which the Bill of last year would have done. There were, however, points omitted which, he thought, had much altered the Bill for the worse. When the measure first came before the House it contained a special prohibition against the celebration of marriage being one of the items which the Episcopal licence would include; but there was no such prohibition now, and he thought the creation of what might prove to be almost clandestine places for the celebration of marriages would do no good to anybody. Therefore, he trusted that at some future stage of the Bill the former prohibition as to the celebration of marriages would be re-inserted. What was wanted was not fresh marriage stations, but opportunities of public worship. People need not always be marrying and giving in marriage, having the banns put up, and all that sort of thing. Again, the Bill, as it formerly stood, contained the following clause:—

"No seat shall be let for hire, and no fee shall be charged for admission in any chapel or building wherein Divine service is celebrated under this Act."

This was a valuable provision, as it excluded the commercial element from the Bill. The measure would not be worked on the old system of proprietary chapels, of which he had hoped everybody was ashamed, and which now only existed as remanets in a few corners of London. A return to such a system would be intolerable. It might perhaps be argued that the Bishop could prevent this, but how could he? A chapel might be licensed and an excellent clergyman procured; but if both ends did not meet the persons interested would go to the Bishop and say—" If you won't let us have pew-rents we will shut up shop and drop the whole affair." It would require a very strong-minded Bishop to reply—" Shut up shop, then, and be bankrupt." He hoped the clause prohibiting pew-rents would be re-introduced when the Bill was in the Committee stage. If pew-rents and marriages were prohibited, if the time for giving notices were revised, and if a fair consideration were given to the minimum number of persons entitled to petition for the privileges to be accorded, he thought the Bill might be safely sent to "another place," where those persons sat who, from their position, were even more familiar than Members of the House of Commons with such questions. If the Bill produced dissension in parishes he should be very sorry; but he gave his hon. Friend credit for endeavouring to prevent that result. Most people, he believed, agreed that in the broad and comprehensive Church of England there ought to be a certain elasticity of worship; and if the present measure increased elasticity without introducing flabbiness, it was desirable to pass it. Therefore, he would not on this occasion interpose such opposition as he had offered to the Bill in previous years, when it was submitted to the House in another form.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was very similar to that which was introduced last Session. That Bill was read a second time, the House approving of the principle of it, as far as any principle was involved in it, and it was then referred to a Select Committee. There the matter was fully discussed, and the evidence of returning officers and other persons most interested was gone into, the result being that the Committee reported in the very terms of this Bill both in relation to the clauses and the amounts mentioned in the Schedules. Under these circumstances, he need only very briefly state the purpose and object of the Bill. The charges of returning officers had become, according to the views of many Members of this House, and also of candidates, very excessive, and far beyond what the law allowed. There were, however, words in the Ballot. Bill which gave opportunity for returning officers to contend that they were entitled to make these charges, and it was very difficult indeed for candidates to argue with returning officers as to their rights to make the charges; indeed, it was almost impossible to refuse to pay such charges, whatever they might be. But these charges were not only excessive, but they were exceedingly uncertain in amount. In some constituencies, indeed, great liberality had been shown by returning officers who had devoted their attention to procure economical expenditure, and had given their services gratuitously in many instances or had made only reasonable and fair charges. In other places the expenditure had been reckless as regarded the number of clerks and their payment, the representative of the returning officer in each booth, and the personal charges of the returning officer. He did not wish to refer to instances which could be freely given; but a Return had been obtained by the hon. Member for Mid Somerset which showed that in many cases these charges amounted to nearly £3,000. There was one peculiar example in the county of Bucks, where, although the contest was not a very severe one, the charges were very high, and altogether disproportionate with those in other constituencies. He believed he expressed the general feeling of the House when he said that the charges were excessive and that their inequality ought to be removed. The Schedules had been carefully prepared with a view to the attainment of this object. There was only one matter of principle involved in the Bill—namely, in the third section, which required that candidates before being nominated should deposit the sums they were liable to be charged under the Schedules. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) might take exception to this section on the ground that it tended to ratify the principle of the payment being made by candidates instead of by the ratepayers. They must, however, take things as they found them. This House had decided that candidates should continue to bear the expenses, and had refused to put them upon the rates, and so long as this remained they must act in accordance. As to the future, if the hon. Gentleman brought forward any measure to effect the change he desired, that would no doubt be freely and fairly discussed, and anything he urged would be decided upon its merits. But so long as candidates were to pay these expenses this difficulty remained—a candidate who was insolvent might present himself, and the returning officer might expend £1,000 on his behalf, and he had no remedy to recover the share of the expense of the insolvent candidate, and he could charge the other portion against the willing and honest candidate. An instance of this kind took place in the case of the election for Haverford west. A candidate presented himself, whereupon the returning officer thought he had a right to make a demand for a deposit, which the candidate refused to pay. Upon this the returning officer wrongly considered he had the power to refuse the nomination, and he made an unopposed return in favour of the present Member (Lord Kensington), who was unseated, and had to undergo a second election. It was the wish of the returning officers themselves that this security should be given to them. It would be in the option of the returning officer to apply for the deposit or not. In many eases he would not, perhaps, make any such application; but it was only right that he should be secured from any loss.

said, he had always been of opinion that the true reason why the charges of the returning officers amounted to considerable sums was because the candidates, and not the ratepayers, had to pay them. If the constituencies had been required to pay them there would have been no necessity for this Bill, as the charges would in that case have been kept within moderate limits. One of the chief provisions of the Bill was that a considerable sum should be deposited by candidates to cover the returning officer's expenses. This provision, again, was only rendered necessary by the existing law, which made the candidate pay the returning officer's expenses. On this subject, as on some others, he differed altogether from most of those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House; but he had never yet been able to understand why the constituents should cast upon the candidates the expenses caused by their assembling to give their own votes under the presidency of their own returning officers. When the proper time came he should have no hesitation in asking the House to support the proposition that such expenses be paid by the constituency, because they ought to pay for the election of their own Members, and he believed the practice would tend to purity of election. If they went into Committee on this Bill for the purpose of dealing with the items in the Schedule he should call attention to the fees of the sub-returning officers, which he considered in some cases were too small.

said, before the Bill was read a second time, he should like to make one or two observations. He thought, to say the least of it, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the second reading of the Bill was extremely inadequate. It was true the Bill was rejected last year; but the House generally did not know in what form it would be brought forward. Looking at the Bill itself there were one or two points upon which his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) gave them insufficient information. It did not seem to him at all certain that the Bill would reduce the fees of returning officers. In fact, there were hon. Members in the House who could prove conclusively that in elections appointed under the Schedules of this Bill the expenses of returning officers, instead of being decreased would be very considerably increased, in some eases by no less than 50 or 100 per cent. Apart, however, from these details, the Bill was based upon a radically unsound principle. If we were to have excessive expenses of returning officers, they would not prevent them by this Bill. What they must do would be to interest the constituencies themselves in economy. Now, constituencies were encouraged in extravagance; and the more the returning officers got from candidates the better it was thought for the trade of the place, and that was the secret of the great expenses associated with the present system. There was no reason, so far as he knew, why a school board election should be less expensive than a Parliamentary election. In many instances, in consequence of women being able to vote, the constituency for a school board election was more numerous, and therefore, à priori, the necessary expenses ought to be greater than those of a Parliamentary election. In some cases he was free to admit that the constituencies in school board elections had not taken proper care of the expenses; but if they looked at the Returns lately laid before Parliament they would find again and again the, expenses of returning officers at school board elections were in many instances not one-half, in some cases not one-third, and in one or two instances not one-sixth of what they had been at Parliamentary elections. If they gave constituencies an interest, they would try to decrease the expenses. If constituencies had to bear the expenses of municipal and school board elections, why should they not bear the expenses of Parliamentary elections? Was not a Member of this House just as much a servant of the constituency—did he not, at any rate, do the constituency just as great service—as a member of a school board or a Town Councillor? It appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill ought to be able to give the House some assurance that it would not actually increase the cost of Parliamentary elections, as he thought it would in many cases do. In his own constituency he found that the candidates would have to deposit £1,200, and that was within a few shillings of what was deposited at the last election. He hoped it would be understood that the Bill would not be accepted as it stood, either as regarded principles or details.

said, he wished to offer one or two observations on this Bill. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), that in many cases the expenses of returning officers would be enormously increased under it. Elections in Ireland were conducted in a somewhat different manner from what they were in England. In Ireland in nearly every polling district there was a court-house, and when that was used the expenses on account of polling-booths were very small. By the Schedule of the Bill it was possible for the sheriff or under-sheriff to charge £7 7s. for the hiring of a polling-booth, and £7 7s. for fitting up the same, and that was a total of £14 14s., which was a large sum of money to pay for such a purpose. Take, for instance, his own constituency (Galway), where the most extravagant sum of any constituency in Ireland was, according to the last Returns, spent on the official items. There the amount expended wasonly £3 3s. for each poll-booth. He had consulted hon. Members whose constituencies adjoined his, and they perfectly agreed with him that in no case would more than 4s. or 5s. have been the cost of fitting up the booths. By the proposed system, instead of decreasing the expenses, they would enormously increase them. There was another thing to which he would call the attention of the hon. and learned Member who had brought in this Bill—namely, the charge for travelling expenses. In Ireland those expenses were necessarily very large at elections, because the counties were in no case divided into electoral divisions as they were here in England. This was an important point that the Bill before the House did not notice, and which was equally ignored by the Ballot Act. There was at present no means of fixing how travelling was to be charged for. There was to be considered the journey of the presiding officers to the sheriff, their return, their fresh journey with the ballot boxes, return again, and then the officers' journey home. There were some good points in the Bill, he must acknowledge, but constituencies differed very much. Strange to say, on the point the hon. Member for Hackney had adverted to, the Bill would suit the constituency of Galway exactly, as the franchise was higher there than in the boroughs in England. Some Bill like the present was necessary, but it would require a great deal of revision before it was passed.

pointed out that the Schedule of the Bill already met the objection raised by the hon. Member, and remarked that it was said that the Bill would tend to increase the expenses of the returning officers; but he did not see how that could be, as their expenses were at the present time practically unlimited. What the Bill proposed to do was to put some reasonable limit to the expenses, and prevent such enormous sums being charged as were returned by some returning officers. He highly approved of the remedy the Bill gave to the officer to enable him to recover his expenses where a candidate was put up without his own consent, for which at present he had none. They had travelled rather beyond the limits of the debate by discussing whether constituencies should pay the cost of election, and he feared that if they had to wait till that question was settled before they fixed the relations between the candidate and the sheriff, they would have to wait a very long time indeed.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to remedy a defect in the Common Law Procedure Act of 1852, which permitted foreign corporations to sue in this country, but not to be sued. This had been illustrated only lately in a case in which a foreign corporation recovered a large sum of money in this country, and the defendants could not even plead as a set-off the amount due to them from the corporation.

said, he rose on the part of some hon. Members for Ireland, and in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), to make a few remarks on the Motion just made. It was unnecessary for him to say that he did not sympathise in any way with the past politics of Mr. Mitchel—he did not know what his present politics were—but he did think the conduct of the Crown, if they wished to interfere with the election for the county of Tipperary, which could be the only object of the present Motion, was unfair—he might almost say, unworthy. Whatever Mr. Mitchel's former offences might be, he was in Ireland last year, and the Government might then, if it had chosen, have put him in prison for any offences he had committed. He did not say that he should not have opposed such action on their part. But, at the present moment, there was a constituency in Ireland open for election. He knew nothing of the reason why that election was being held—or rather he knew nothing of the cause which created the vacancy—except that he remembered what a former Member for Tipperary (Colonel White) said in that House five or six months ago in a Home Rule debate. It seemed to him that in the present case the Crown had determined to prevent a contest in Tipperary—and to prevent that constituency from speaking out. By the Crown, of course he meant the present Ministers of the Crown. The proper course, in his opinion, would have been either for the Government last year to have imprisoned Mr. Mitchel when he was over here, or now to have started a Conservative candidate against him. He entirely disapproved of the conduct of the Government in the matter, and, if allowed to do so, should oppose it.

It may be convenient for the House that I should read a Notice I am about to give of a Resolution I propose to move on Thursday next:—

"That John Mitchel, returned as Member for the county of Tipperary, having been adjudged guilty of felony, and sentenced to transportation for fourteen years, and not having endured the punishment to which he was adjudged for such felony, or received a pardon under the Great Seal, has "become, and continues, incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House; that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Tipperary, in the room of John Mitchel, adjudged and sentenced as aforesaid."

I have only this moment, Sir, entered the House, and I am not aware whether I have been accurately informed as to the exact nature of the Motion before the Chair; but I understand it is a Motion for Papers relating to the conviction of Mr. Mitchel. How is Mr. Mitchel before this House? I should like to ask what cognizance this House has of whatever return the county of Tipperary may have made this day? How is Her Majesty's Government aware, or is there a precedent—it becomes me to speak with diffidence upon the precedents of the House, but I speak in all good faith when I ask—Is there any precedent for these proceedings? Sir, this House sits under a Constitution that has not been the creation nor the draft on paper or a year or a century; but it sits here under forms and precedents established throughout the course of many centuries, and I should like to know whether there is a precedent for these proceedings, that in this Chamber, within almost an hour or two of the time fixed for the Sheriff to receive the nomination for the county, one of Her Majesty's Ministers should rise in this House to overshadow and arrest the choice of that constituency? The electric telegraph has flashed to London the news that Mr. John Mitchel is knight of the shire for the county of Tipperary; but I do not know, Sir, how far the discoveries and the application of science in the transmission of political news have been incorporated with the Forms or usages of this House; and if there be a precedent for this extreme precipitancy on the part of the Government, on finding that they ought to have done something yesterday which they did not do, and therefore running down in hot haste to-night with their Motion before the return of the Sheriff to the writ has reached them. I hope this House will, at all events, take a little breathing time; the British Constitution can endure Mr. John Mitchel, Member of Parliament, for 24 hours, and I hope there is no need of creating in this hot haste a precedent that may hereafter be very dangerous. The electors of the county of Tipperary were asked to select a man to represent them as knight of the shire in this Assembly. They by this time have made their choice. It may be that they have made an unwise, it may be that they have made a wise, choice. Mr. Mitchel's politics are not mine. I have stated that elsewhere, where I had the opportunity ere now. But the people of Tipperary, if they have elected him as their Representative, have done it deliberately. I state here that they have done that act deliberately as their reversal, in the face of all the world, of the ignominious sentence that was passed upon him when he was carried out of Ireland loaded with chains. It is not in the power of this House—though it is omnipotent in all that relates to legislation, I say it with all respect—it is not in the power of any vote of this House to arrest that signal compliment paid by an Irish constituency to the public character of a man with whose political opinions I believe they do not coincide. It is to his fate as a victim of the evil system under which Ireland has groaned, to his broken life, broken fortunes, and health ruined in the desperate cause of his country, that the people of Tipperary have offered this signal compliment in the face of all the world. I said here last year—and perhaps English Gentlemen did not attach sufficient weight to my statement—that the Home Rule Members in this House were the middle party in Irish politics, and that they corresponded somewhat with the like party in Hungary, having the advocates of separation on the one hand, and the advocates of Imperial absorption on the other. Perhaps the House will understand what I said now when our Gambetta has been returned as the most extreme of our Extreme Left—for we have exactly such parties in Ireland. A Member of the Extreme Left, no doubt an advocate of separation, has been returned for Tipperary, if we can trust the telegraph. When the House has the return fairly before it—when you, Mr. Speaker, in the proper course of procedure, have the document before you on the Table—then let the House deal with this matter. Surely this haste is most unseemly; and I notice that another new precedent is to be set up in this case. Mr. Mitchel was adjudged guilty of treason-felony. If I am not in error, among all the precedents upon your Journals, the last Motion before this House of this kind was that Jeremiah Rossa, having been adjudged guilty of treason-felony, and being now in prison undergoing his sentence, the election was void. That is not the case here. I state upon authority that Mr. Mitchel has obtained the opinion of two eminent lawyers—one an English, the other an Irish barrister—that he is fully eligible, and he is prepared to establish his eligibility before any legal tribunal. But if the trial of a point of law is dexterously to be snatched from the ordinary legal tribunals of the land, and this matter is to be settled upon party principles by a party vote in this House, then I say you do an injustice to Mr. Mitchel to-day that may be the means of doing injustice to any citizen to-morrow. If he be legally disqualified, let the legal disqualification be brought before the ordinary legal tribunals of the land. There is, at all events, a disputed point in this question. It is said that felony may be purged by one of two courses—either by the pardon of the Crown, or the lapse of the time of sentence; and I believe the legal opinion has been given that as Mr. Mitchel did not return to these Realms for the 14 years for which he was transported beyond the seas, though he may be amenable to a charge of gaol-breaking, yet he is not liable for his original sentence. If that be not law, let us have the legal point decided in a legal way. I protest, Mr. Speaker, against the attempt in this House to snatch this question from the purview of legal authorities, and to settle it here by, as I say, a strong party vote. Perhaps, Sir, I should not have said so much had I heard the Motion more correctly; but I, for one, rise to protest against the undue haste manifested—the rush made—to prevent Mr. Mitchel from taking his seat in this House.

asked, for the sake of the proceedings of the House, and the observance of the Constitutional laws of the country, whether the return for the county of Tipperary had been yet received? Until it was, no one knew anything officially as to the election. The writ was issued out of Chancery, and the return should be brought into Chancery. Until that return was received, no legal act could be done with respect to the election—its validity could not be questioned, or the return quashed. When the return was lodged in the Court of Chancery, it could have been questioned on a point of law on demurrer, or opposed on a question of fact in the Court of Common Picas, according to the ancient form of procedure which prevailed up to the reign of Elizabeth. Since then the House of Commons had usurped the form of deciding upon the validity of election; but it really stood in the place occupied in that respect by the Court of Chancery before Elizabeth's time. A point arose as to the validity of the return for Tipperary; but he must protest, as a matter of regularity and Constitutional law, against the return to the writ being adjudged invalid by the House of Commons before the return had been placed before them. If it were, he was strongly of opinion that the next return would be hold to be void. This Motion, if carried, would create a most unfavourable impression in Ireland.

moved that the Papers be taken into consideration on Thursday next.

said, that what had occurred showed the great inconvenience of proceeding with an important Motion of which no Notice had been given on the Paper. What had happened? The Irish Members were in the lobby or in the dining-room; at all events, out of the House. They heard that something was being done about the Tipperary election; they came in, and they did not know what it was that was proposed. [Ironical cheers.] How could they know if they were absent? He was informed that a writ for Tipperary was being moved for, and the con- sequence was, that he threw away and wasted a sound Constitutional speech. This would not have happened if Notice had been given on the Paper of the Motion to be moved on the part of the Government, and he hoped it would not occur again. He was now informed that Notice had been given of the intention to move for a new writ for the county of Tipperary on Thursday next. If so, he thought that was irregular and premature; because the return of the election had yet to be made, and the proper authority had to decide whether it was valid or void, and whether the person returned was qualified to sit. A question of law had to be decided, and it was on the official return alone that it could be decided. Therefore, it was premature and irregular to give Notice of a Motion for the issue of a writ. He hoped the Government would withdraw the Notice of Motion. The time would come when that Motion might be made and when it would, no doubt, be entertained in a proper manner.

I beg to move that in addition to the Papers ordered, there also be furnished Papers showing the composition of the jury on the occasion of Mr. Mitchel's trial, the names of the jurors, and the proceedings in the Courts of Law with reference to the selection and striking of the jury. I will explain to the House that my reason for doing so is to satisfy hon. Members of the gross jury-packing which has prevented the verdict from having had any moral effect in Ireland.

I thought I was in Order in proposing my Amendment. If I am now in Order, I move for the production also of the Papers setting forth the names of the jurors who convicted Mr. Mitchel, the proceedings at the trial by which these jurors were selected by the Government, and all such further information as may be required for clearing up to the satisfaction of the House the character of that transaction as a trial in a Court of Law and of Justice.

Will the hon. Member bring up the terms of his Motion?

was about to place his Motion in writing when—

I must remind the hon. Member that in accordance with ordinary practice he should give Notice of his Motion for a future day, when there will be an opportunity of considering the terms of the Motion which the hon. Member proposes to submit to the House.

It would have been well, Sir, if the Government had adopted the wise course you have suggested.

I beg to give Notice of my Motion for to-morrow.