asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether changes have been made by Foreign Powers in their tariffs within the last six months which were favourable to British commerce; and, whether any Foreign Power raises now any differential Duties unfavourable to British commerce?

Sir, no changes, as far as I am aware, have been made by Foreign Powers in their tariffs within the last six months which are favourable to British commerce. There have been no changes of any importance made in any portion of the world during that period. With regard to the second branch of the Question, Spain, I am sorry to say, has raised her duties, and still continues to do so. At the same time, I have much hope that the result of existing negotiations with that country may lead to a better state of things.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will be willing to include the County of Monmouth within the scope of the inquiry of the Departmental Committee for considering the question of higher education in the Principality of Wales?

, in reply, said, that all previous inquiries had reported that it was desirable that Monmouth should be included in the scope of the inquiry. He had, therefore, decided to include that county.

moved—

"That the Orders of the Day he postponed until after the several Notices of Motion for Addresses praying Her Majesty to appoint Commissioners to inquire into Corrupt Practices at certain Elections."

said, he had given Notice, on the previous day, that he should take that opportunity of asking the noble Marquess a Question with regard to the Eastern Question. Since he gave that Notice, however, he had found that it might be dangerous to the second reading of the Appropriation Bill to raise such a discussion at the present stage. If, therefore, he received any sort of promise or assurance that he should have an opportunity of making the remarks he wished to offer, he should not delay the Business of the House at that moment.

said, he trusted that there might be an opportunity for a short discussion; at all events, he thought the discussion might be raised on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill without risking the loss of the stage of that measure. After that day there were two more stages of the Bill on which his hon. Friend might, undoubtedly, make any remarks on foreign affairs which he thought necessary. In saying this he did not wish to be understood as saying that, in the opinion of the Government, a discussion on the statement made in "another place," which he repeated yesterday, would be at all for the benefit of the public service. However, if his hon. Friend thought it necessary to put any question, he should not prevent him doing so. He might take that opportunity of saying that he hoped hon. Members who had Motions on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill might be induced not to press them, if a discussion would make it impossible to take the stage of the Bill that day. He believed that the House was anxious that this protracted Session should close, and hon. Members were aware that this depended on the progress of the Appropriation Bill. The two further stages of the Bill he hoped would be taken tomorrow or next day. There would then be ample opportunity for discussion.

said, the first was a Motion that stood in his name, to draw attention to certain abuses and irregularities in the Belfast workhouse; and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, prompt measures are necessary to restore public confidence in this institution."

He had no wish, however, to delay the House if the Government would give him an undertaking that he should have a subsequent opportunity of bringing on this Motion. At the same time, he felt bound to complain that there had never been a Session when the rights of private Members had been more taken up by the Government than in the present Session.

I think it right to point out to the hon. Member that the Resolution which he proposes to move is not relative to the Appropriation Bill. It will be open for him to make any general observations on the matter he referred to in the Motion; but he could not move his Resolution as an Amendment to the second reading.

, with all respect, submitted to Mr. Speaker that the concluding part of the Motion was applicable to the Appropriation Bill, seeing that it related to the conduct of a public board which was paid for out of the taxes of the country, and, therefore, came under the Estimates. He apprehended that that was a subject which might probably be found appropriate to the Appropriation Bill.

said, the general feeling of the House was that the suggestion of the noble Marquess should be acceded to, and that all the Business on the Paper should be got through. He was sure the noble Marquess would give the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) an opportunity of discussing the question he wished to raise; and it would be better to discuss such an important subject when the House was not occupied with other things.

remarked, that if the second reading of the Appropriation Bill was got through in reasonable time that day he could say what he wished, which would not occupy much time. If not, he would put off his observations until to-morrow (Thursday), on the understanding that the Bill would be the first Order of the Day.

said, he understood the noble Marquess to state that it would be inconvenient to the public service that there should be any discussion at all on this matter, and that he was not prepared to make any further statement. That was a very awkward position for the House to be placed in. They were about separating for perhaps six months; and the Cabinet, therefore, would be able to pursue its action uncriticized, unchallenged, and uncommented on. He thought, therefore, it was desirable that the noble Marquess should make a more complete statement as to the object of this adventure of coercion which the Government seemed disposed to engage in. He thought such an explanation would be of advantage to the country and to Parliament. There was, however, no desire to press the Government if they said that it would be inconvenient to the public service; and he thought it would probably be best for his hon. Friend to abandon his intention to-day and make his statement on the Appropriation Bill to-morrow, thereby affording the noble Marquess an opportunity of re-considering his determination.

said, he had no desire to interfere with the convenience of the House; and he was willing to take the course suggested.

said, he did not think he could add anything to what he had already stated. He was inclined to think it would be impossible for him, consistently with the public service, substantially to extend the statement he had made, and that which his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had made in "another place;" but, of course, it was impossible to state, until he heard the Question of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, whether it would be advisable to give an answer or not. He should not like to pledge himself that the Appropriation Bill would be the First Order on the following day. If it were not it could only be preceded by some very urgent Business. But, no doubt, the Appropriation Bill would be taken almost immediately after the House met on the following day.

thought it was the invariable practice to put the Appropriation Bill first.

said, there was a certain Bill which must be sent to the House of Lords at once.

asked the noble Marquess if any additional telegram had been received from India?

said, that no telegram from the seat of war had been received that day.

in rising to move—

"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty to cause an inquiry to he made, and a Commission to issue to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the City of Gloucester,"

said, the House would probably be aware that the course he was then pursuing was in compliance with the conditions of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1853. That Act provided that when an Address had been presented by both Houses of Parliament to the Crown praying for inquiry, in consequence of a Report by the Judges that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in any constituency, certain consequences followed both to the constituency and to the persons concerned in such practices. The House would also be aware that up to the year 1868 the question of the existence of corrupt practices was tried by a Committee of that House. It was then the duty of the Chairman to move that an Address be presented to the Crown to cause an inquiry to be made into the existence of corrupt practices. In 1868, when the jurisdiction to try Election Petitions was transferred from that House to a single Election Judge, the duty formerly devolving on the Chairman of the Committee fell upon the Attorney General. Before 1868 it had been the custom of the House to discuss the evidence brought before the Committee, and, to a certain extent, to review its decision. But it was not the custom to review the decision of the Judge. He did not think it necessary or advisable to discuss the question, in which so many hon. Members had interested themselves, whether or not there had been a greater prevalence of corrupt practices in the late General Election than had previously existed. It was very difficult, with the evidence before them, to arrive at a clear conclusion upon that point. His own impression was that during the last 25 or 30 years corrupt practices had not been on the increase, especially if they considered the growth of the constituencies, and the increase in the number of electors, owing to the extension of the franchise. The House would, no doubt, permit him to give such evidence as he could on the question —defective though it was—gathered from the number of Petitions presented after General Elections prior to the year 1868. He found by reference to the Journals of the House that in 1857, after the General Election, there were 46 Petitions presented complaining of corrupt practices, of which 22 were withdrawn, 24 tried, and only seven successful and 17 unsuccessful. In 1859, after the General Election, 41 Petitions were presented, 22 withdrawn, and of the remaining 19 tried, only eight were successful. In 1865 there were 55 Petitions presented, 26 withdrawn, 29 tried, and 14 successful. It must be borne in mind that 1868 was an exceptional year, in consequence of the new jurisdiction given to the Judges; and there were, consequently, a number of Petitions which were no real evidence of the existence of corrupt practices. In 1868 there were 82 Petitions presented, 32 withdrawn, 50 tried, 19 successful, and 31 unsuccessful. He did not dwell on 1868, because, as he had said, it was an exceptional year. But in 1874 the number of Petitions presented fell to 30, of these eight were withdrawn, 22 tried, and 15 successful. In the present year there were 42 presented, 14 withdrawn, 28 tried, and 17 successful. He would make a comparison, leaving the abnormal year 1868 out of account of the two years previously to 1868, when General Elections were held, and of the two years subsequent to that date. In the earlier two years there were 96 Petitions presented, and in 1874 and 1880 only 72, showing a difference, in favour of the last two years, of 24 Petitions. Of the 96, 48 were withdrawn, but of the 72 only 22 were withdrawn; of the 48 Petitions actually tried in the two earlier years, only 22 were successful. Of the 50 tried in 1874–80, 32 were successful. The only deduction safely to be drawn from these figures was that fewer Petitions had been presented since the alteration of the law removing the trial of Petitions from Committees of the House to the Judges, and that fewer also had been withdrawn, because it was more difficult now to withdraw them than formerly, and that of those tried the successful Petitions had increased 42 per cent. It might be that the Judges were more strict in their interpretation of the law than former tribunals had been; but he thought that the comparison which he had made gave no reason for supposing that a greater amount of corrupt practices prevailed now than formerly. In former times the candidates had to answer for their own acts, and where a candidate was unseated they were generally able to trace the corrupt practices home either to himself or to his agent; but of late years a new state of things had sprung up in the enlarged constituencies which constituted a grievous burden on candidates. No doubt, the communication of political views through the Press, and the practice of hon. Members addressing their constituents from year to year, had caused more active interest to be taken in politics than formerly; and the result was that the organizations had sprung up, established by hostile political bodies in different localities, tending to make contention, not so much between rival candidates, as between rival political bodies in the constituency which marshalled their forces in order to secure a victory for a particular set of political opinions. So the candidate found an organization, not of his own creation, but previously existing. If a candidate strove to support his candidature without the aid of this organization he would most probably fail. If, however, he obtained the aid of the organization he had frequently to bear heavy burdens imposed on him by his most active supporters. However strong his desire to avoid all corrupt practices, however much he might threaten those who resorted to them, he would find that members of the organization on which he had been compelled by force of circumstances to rely had, through excessive zeal, produced results in relation to the election which placed him in an unpleasant position. Unfortunately, it was the candidate only who had to bear the burden, however innocent he might be; for, so long as the inquiry into corrupt practices was confined to that before the Judges, they were unable to find out who were really the principal offenders. The Judges had held that their duties were not of an inquisitorial character; and, therefore, a subsequent investigation became necessary in order to ascertain the existence and extent of the corrupt practices. The Commissioners appointed under the Act for that purpose could institute a searching inquiry into the matter, and the consequences of their Report might be very serious, resulting in the disfranchisement of the borough, or of the persons scheduled as having been guilty of corrupt practices. The persons thus scheduled would also be disqualified from acting as agents at subsequent elections. Another consequence of appointing a Commission was that the constituency would have to pay the full expenses of the inquiry. It was said—Why not institute a criminal prosecution against the offenders? Well, there were many difficulties connected with that course. The practical result would probably be that the smaller offender would be caught, while the greater escaped, and the effect so produced on the public mind would unquestionably be demoralizing. At the same time, it was becoming more and more the duty of the House to jealously guard the purity of elections now that parties were carefully marshalled in opposition to each other, and that so much popular interest was excited in electoral contests, and one good means of promoting the purity of election seemed to him to be the issue of such Commissions as those now proposed. In 1868, in the course of a discussion on the subject of Election Petitions, Mr. Gathorne Hardy pointed out that after the House of Commons had transferred to the Judges the duty of reporting whether corrupt practices prevailed it would not be proper to criticize or review the exercise of the discretion of their own delegates. That view seemed to be generally assented to at the time, and he hoped the House would act upon it in the present instance, accepting the decision of the Judges that corrupt practices had prevailed at the several elections in question, and consenting to his Motion that Commissions should be issued to make a more searching and complete inquiry into the matter. There were altogether eight inquiries to be held, six in connection with the General Election, and the remaining two in connection with bye-elections held subsequently. In conclusion, he begged to move the first of the Resolutions of which he had given Notice.

Sir, I venture on behalf of this side of the House, and, I trust, on behalf of the whole House, although I have no authority to speak for hon. Members across the floor, to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for the very masterly and conciliatory way in which he has raised the question, which, I trust, will be discussed above the low level of Party politics. It is one which affects the character, the honour, and the dignity of the House of Commons. It is one which comes before us this year under exceptional circumstances, for this is the year on which the probationary existence of the new system of voting has come to an end; so that an inquiry such as those which these Commissions involve are most essential in order to provide a full and searching dissection of the Ballot Question, which, I trust, will be one of the most carefully discussed, as it will be one of the most important features of next Session. With these convictions, I shall feel it my duty to vote for every one of the Commissions, solely and simply because the information which they are likely to elicit will be most important and valuable elements in the task for which we shall have to gird ourselves up for next year. My hon. and learned Friend, with that forensic ingenuity which we all admire and appreciate in him, produced some very interesting statistics, which he very adroitly mixed up. A French salad could not have been better mixed up. We had Petitions presented, Petitions withdrawn, Petitions which failed, and Petitions which were successful; and the result was that, in his opinion, corrupt practices do not now exist to any greater degree than they did, for instance, under the old franchise coupled with the old system of voting as in 1865, or under the new franchise, and the old system as in 1868. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the ability which he has displayed in stating his case, while I venture to bring his statistics before the House again. While accepting all of them as the record of facts, I will only trouble the House with that portion of those statistics which possesses any substantial value. I repudiate the Petitions presented and withdrawn. I will not deal with those Petitions which were unsuccessful or abandoned. In order to prove how far bribery and corrupt practices have been encouraged by the Ballot, and to show the comparative corruption of different periods, it is necessary to see how many of these Petitions were successful, and how many Members were unseated. My hon. and learned Friend's statistics show that in 1857, 1859, and 1865, Petitioners were successful in 7, 9, and 14 cases, making 30 in all. The average, therefore, is 10. Note that this average of 10 is the result of three General Elections held under the two conditions of the more restricted franchise of 1832, and of open voting. In 1868, which my hon. and learned Friend says was an exceptional time, when the extended franchise came in but open voting still existed, the number was 19. In 1874 and 1880, under the double condition of an extended franchise and of secret voting, the numbers were 15 and 17; 32, divided by 2, gives the average of 16, so that, according to my hon. and learned Friend's own statistics, corruption has, in the period selected by himself, grown from 10 to 16, tested by the cases of Members who have been unseated. In the old Parliaments a property qualification existed; but, at the instance of my right hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Spencer Walpole), that qualification was repealed between 1857 and 1859. Therefore, up to the date of that repeal in the Parliament of 1857, we have not been told how many of those who were unseated may have been so because they possessed an income which did not exceed £299 a-year. After again observing that from 1857 to 1880 the unseating of Members has increased from 10 to 16, as the average of each General Election, I proceed to the question itself that is before us. I hope to deal with the general question opened out by the Motion on one point only—namely, how far bribery and corrupt practices have or have not been encouraged. First, by the Ballot; and, secondly, by a system of "electoral organization," of which, I believe, it was the undoubted origin. It is from my hon. and learned Friend that I take "recognized organization." I like the phrase "recognized organization." It has a good Johnsonian ring about it; and it is a more mouth-filling word than "caucus." My hon. and learned Friend has also given us a very apt phrase to describe the animating spirit of this recognized organization. This animating spirit is "excess of zeal." Many Friends of ours, whose presence we can ill afford to spare, have been obliged to absent themselves from the House for a time, owing to their supporters' "excess of zeal." Among them, in particular, the President of the Local Government Board was an innocent victim of "excess of zeal." I call, then, upon the House to pass this Resolution, as well as those which follow, so as to afford an opportunity for that patient, full, and searching inquiry into the present electoral system, which I will not say political expediency, but political decency, absolutely demands from the House of Commons. My hon. and learned Friend, with a force which I cannot hope to equal, has laid down the doctrine that we are bound to accept, at least for the present Motion, and for the purposes of this debate, the dicta of the Electoral Judges, to use a theological phrase, as "infallible and irrefragable." Whatever peoples' political opinions may have been, however ardent and enthusiastic a supporter of the Ballot, on moral considerations, my hon. Friend may be, however cold-blooded a sceptic on the other side I may be, we are both of us at the feet of the Judge."Roma locata est, causa finita est." Now, I shall quote from the Judgments of these legal dignitaries, beginning with the words of Judge Manisty, at Oxford—

"A careful consideration of the evidence which has been laid before us during our present long Circuit"—

A long Circuit that is devoted to the painful consideration of the noisome incidents of the bribery and corruption of this one year perpetrated in many places—

"A careful consideration of the evidence which has been laid before us during our present long Circuit has led us to the conclusion that, while the Ballot Act has to a great extent done away with what might be called the simple evil of undue influence, it has created a compound evil of a worse kind. Under the old system of open voting a man who took a bribe could scarcely avoid voting according to his promise. Now, speaking from what has come out in evidence before us, many a man is bribed, and expressly, or impliedly, promises to vote for a particular candidate, and, in the end, breaks his promise."

The Judge then goes on to say—

"I fear secret voting tempts many a man to commit the compound offence of bribery, falsehood, and fraud."

Is not this pleasant triplet a very pregnant exemplification of my hon. and learned Friend's "excess of zeal?" Mr. Justice Manisty then goes on to say—

"Doubtless, in some cases, the subtle system of bribing by means of colourable or even real employment of voters, which is now so common, does secure some votes; and, bearing in mind the small majorities by which many elections, in boroughs more especially, have been gained, it is not, I think, going too far to conclude that a great number of candidates at the late Election owe their seats to voters gained over to their side by corrupt practices."

Regarding, as I have done, with stupefaction the spectacle of the nation arraying itself under the banner first unfurled in Mid Lothian, and marching onwards, who knows whither, I really shudder to think that these results, achieved, as we have been told, by patriotic Liberalism, may have been brought about, after all, with the help of "bribery, falsehood, and fraud." "Bribery, falsehood, and fraud," without which, as the Judge so clearly indicates, the actual balance of Parties might have been so different, had these illegitimate influences not been present to turn the scale at the recent General Election. I now proceed to the utterances of Mr. Justice Lush also at Oxford, who goes more into particulars than his learned Brother. The learned Judge thus expresses himself—

"Mr. Day complained in his opening speech, as well he might, of the large expenditure on the part of the respondent at the last single Election, as compared with that of the preceding General Election in April, which extended over a period of three weeks."

In this passage, Mr. Hall, in whom all of us, without distinction of Party, are sorry to have lost so able and promising a Member of Parliament, is condemned by the Judge; and I will read the condemnation of the friends of Mr. Hall, as I will read their condemnation of the friends of another distinguished Gentleman who is among us now, as the House will see presently. After the words I have just read, the Judge continues—

"The expenditure in April was, in round numbers, £2,559; while the cost of the single Election, as returned, was £3,611. Although the contest occupied only ten days, there wore nine polling districts. Yet the respondent has returned payments for 26 committee rooms, for 96 clerks, and 259 messengers. On the other side, the returned expenses were £3,275, being £335 loss than the respondent's."

A rule-of-three sum, which this points to, might very well be worked out by those who think that all the virtues are on the one side of the House, and all the wickedness on the other. I must not, however, interrupt my quotation—

"But this difference is more than accounted for by the large sums paid by the respondent for legal agents in comparison with that paid by the Liberal candidate. But on the Liberal side we find that 24 committee rooms were opened, 78 clerks employed, besides 15 paid canvassers, 179 messengers, 106 detectives and constables. The aggregate of persons employed by the respondent, as shown by the return, was 355; of the employed by the Liberal candidate, 389."

Actually, the Home Secretary employed 389 persons to promote his cause by those gentle insinuations which paid canvassers and other gentlemen of that profession are apt to employ.

"It has been asserted by counsel, and not denied, that the respondent's return did not include by many all the persons employed and paid as messengers…How many of those 744 persons employed on both sides were voters?"

Such are the facts, and it is useless for the pot to call the kettle black. These observations of Mr. Justice Lush show that the party of Mr. Hall and the party of the Home Secretary were six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. Both those candidates, I have no doubt, were shocked at, and repudiated the action of, their understrappers; but there those understrappers were, and so the action of his understrappers unseated Mr. Hall; while there is, at least, the strongest moral probability that if the Home Secretary had been the sitting Member, and had been petitioned against, the action of the Home Secretary's understrappers would have been quite sufficient to unseat him. Of course, the loss to public life of the Home Secretary would have been the greater one. Mr. Hall was only a rising man; the Home Secretary was a veteran statesman; and so, though the offence would have been the same, the wrong done by these unscrupulous dregs of society, in the person of a veteran statesman, must have been greater than when their victim was a comparatively young, though rising, man. Here I have come to a point to which my hon. and learned Friend referred with so much feeling—the way in which a candidate and a candidate's friends now take his being unseated. I remember the time when being unseated was a thing that, however innocent the candidate might feel himself, and however innocent his friends knew him to be, attached a sort of stigma to him. This may often have worked unjustly for a most innocent man, and the stigma most unfairly clung to him. But still the feeling was a mark of national sensitiveness which I am afraid has now disappeared. Some Members may recall that most tragical case when a distinguished leader of my hon. and learned Friend's own Profession, in a sister Kingdom, fell a victim to the self-torments of a too sensitive conscience. His end was a tragedy. I am afraid that comedy is more likely now to reign in giving their character to electioneering misadventures. I cannot look upon this deterioration of moral feeling, when the chances of being unseated are in question, as merely a misfortune. At the same time, I charge the Ballot with the fault. Under the Ballot, men think all is chance—no fixed right or wrong. In the hands of the Election Judges the Ballot has been dissected. It has been prepared, like the most delicate preparation in Surgeon's Hall, put into spirits, and labelled, that all men might see it. In one of the most pregnant decisions of these Judges, Mr. Justice Manisty, as we have seen, has spoken of the bribery of the present day, the child of the Ballot, as no longer a simple evil, but a compound evil, composed of bribery, falsehood, and fraud. In other words, if we are driven to speak the truth, such an institution as the Ballot stands confessed as a failure. But why should we be ashamed to say so? What sacred majesty is enshrined in that experiment of eight years ago? I throw myself on 600 years of Parliamentary life—on the old English system of open voting—and I say I am not afraid of being met, in lack of argument, by the false charge of being reactionary. I am not afraid of being pointed at as a Tory. A man who is afraid of the mimic terrors of such an imputation is not worthy of a seat in Parliament. I thought the Ballot would be a failure in 1871 and 1872. I said so in this House, and I stand here now justified in my words. I do not suppose that I shall produce any effect on the Benches opposite. But I appeal to that evidence which the hon. and learned Attorney General has himself called on us to accept; and I assert, he being my witness, that my words have come fatally true. Now, let us remember what the bright hopes were of the eminent man who brought in the Ballot Bill. I do not know how many of us there are here at this instant who were Members of this House and present on that occasion. Everyone admired and sympathized with the evident sincerity and enthusiasm — the almost sacred fire — that cheered and encouraged the right hon. Gentleman, now Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, when he advocated in this House the darling project of his life. Those whose reason must have told them that he was deluding himself were constrained to say that his delusion was that of an able and enthusiastic man— a man who looked to political success as nothing compared with the triumph of the views which he honestly held upon the Ballot. I wish that that right hon. Member were here now to hear what I have to say. During the two Sessions which I have mentioned, I sat for days and for weeks patiently opposite to him, labouring night after night with him in endeavouring to amend the details of the measure, and to bring its elaborate machinery into something like working order, although I had opposed the second reading of the Bill. I did so without much heart; but I did it as a duty. I say without much heart, for I had some heart, and I will tell the House what that heart was. The Ballot Bill was not only a Ballot Bill, but a Bill to regulate electioneering proceedings in other ways. Among the changes it compassed wore the abolition of the hustings, and of the publication of the state of the poll during the polling day. Now, both of these things had become, as I felt, anachronisms. Public nomination, which was once regarded as a great Constitutional fact, had become a mere source of drunken and disorderly disturbance. Even in such an immaculate borough as Stoke, when I stood for it, the row upon the nomination day was so great, and the mob brought together by my Liberal friends so disorderly, that it was impossible to hear anything that took place. [Mr. WOODALL: Oh !] I certainly do not mean to wound the susceptibilities of my hon. Friend opposite. I will only say that there was so much "excess of zeal" spontaneously displayed on behalf of the Liberal candidates. The earliest incident was that the reporters and the desks provided for them were sent flying. One of my opponents had expressed his determination to crush me in his speech; but his own friends made such a terrible noise that, although he only stood a few yards from me, I could not hear one word he said—so my castigation fell dead. When my turn came, I saw that not one word I said would be heard; so I simply went on gesticulating, and the mob howled, they believing themselves strangling my eloquence, and I laughing in my sleeve at the practical joke I was playing them. Once or twice I uttered some short sentences, which appeared in the Staffordshire papers on the following day, with the remark that, owing to the great confusion which prevailed, they were all that the reporter was able to catch. I thoroughly supported the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland in his proposal to abolish the open nomination day, and that great source of corruption, the publication of the gradual state of the poll on the polling day. So did other Members, who were most opposed to the main scope of the measure. But what were the prophecies to which he committed himself when he introduced the Bill in 1871?

"I support the Ballot because I believe it would destroy the illegitimate influences of bribery and intimidation, which are those besetting sins of our Parliamentary system, to remove which we have been vainly struggling for years. I believe the present measure will do what we want, because it will touch the motive that prompts to the commission of these crimes. I ask the support of all sides of the House because I feel sure all are anxious to destroy illegitimate influence, and also for the reason that the more you destroy that influence the more you will increase the legitimate influence; because any attempt to use illegitimate influence produces needless irritation and prejudices people against persons who may have the power to intimidate them, though they may rarely or never have practised intimidation."

In the peroration of his speech, he stated that a large class desired the Ballot—most conscientiously I am sure—

"Because they believe that the Ballot would be a blow to bribery and intimidation; because it would take away the motive to bribe and intimidate, and even the power to do so."— [3 Hansard, cciv. 546–7.]

These may have been the motives which induced the House to adopt the Ballot Bill; but what is the result of its handiwork, in the words of those Election Judges whom we are bound to respect? It has put an end to the simple evil of undue influence; but it has created the worse and compound offence of bribery, falsehood, and fraud. I have said that the Ballot was a failure, and I have proved it out of the mouth of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Election Judge. You have listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said nine years ago. Let me reduce his statement from the past tense to the present. Let us turn to what he must say now, with the facts of the late inquiry before him. He would say now—"I did support the Ballot because I did believe it would destroy the illegitimate influence of bribery and intimidation, which were the besetting sins of our Parliamentary system, to remove which we have been struggling for years. I can no longer support it, for I see that the simple evil which I have tried to remove has been replaced by a compound and much worse evil. I believed, in 1871, that the measure would do what we wanted, because it would have touched the motives that prompted to the commission of these crimes—motives which I see still alive and more full of mischief in the embodied shape of caucuses and local organizations which labour with excess of zeal to do all that they ought not, and to work upon the worst and not the best elements of human nature. I no longer ask the support of any side of the House for secret voting, because I feel sure that all are anxious to prevent illegitimate influence, which finds impunity in the ballot-box; and also for the reason that the more you resist the introduction of that illegitimate influence, the more you will increase every legitimate influence; and because any attempt to use illegitimate influence produces needless irritation, and prejudices people against persons who may have the power to intimidate them, though they may have rarely or never practised intimidation." Let us be honest, and confess that, in 1872, we sowed the dragon's teeth. The truth confronts us in these horrible revelations, these startling judgments. The proof of the wide corruption which has settled on the land, has left the confessed doubt upon the minds of the Election Judges whether this present Parliament of 1880 represents the real, because the unbribed, opinions of the nation. I need add very little more; but there is one thing I must say in defence of the position which I have taken up. I opposed the Ballot at its rise; I oppose it now in the day of its disgrace and its exposure. Let no man cast in my teeth that, in doing so, I am a reactionary, or that I am an oligarch. They may call me a Tory; but I think to be called a Tory is a compliment, when I remember that it was the great Tory Party that fought Waterloo and saved the liberties of the world. You may call me a Tory; but do not call me a re-actionary, nor an enemy of the liberties of the people. The Ballot has been the sum and completion of all the worst tyrannies of the world. Bonapartism, with all its corruption and hypocrisy, is the child of the ballot-box. With the history of France before you on the one side, and the old history of England on the other, let people up- hold the Ballot if they please; but do not bandy it about that supporting or opposing the Ballot is any test of a greater or less conscious love of liberty. Yet the men who opposed the Ballot were, I believe, the truest friends of liberty. I shall give my vote in support of this Resolution, and to all the others, in the hope that the facts which may come out in future investigations may be of use to the House in dealing with the Ballot Bill of next Session.

said, that, like his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, he had put down an Amendment on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because he wished to suggest, in some degree, a practical remedy for the difficulties connected with Election Petitions. He was glad that the hon. and learned Attorney General had not laid it down absolutely that the Judges' Report was in all cases to be considered as final. As long as the House had the question submitted to it to say "Aye" or "No," it was not desirable that it should be laid down on the authority of the Government that they were to act merely Ministerially in the matter. They ought to go behind the Reports of the Judges and consider the circumstances in which they were made, and other things which might be material. Several times during the Session he had endeavoured to call attention to the evils of the present law, because he believed it to bear hardly upon the comparatively innocent and to favour the comparatively guilty. By the comparatively innocent he meant, as a general rule, the Members and the great mass of the constituency; by the comparatively guilty the persons who had been either bribers or bribees. The case of Gloucester, as to which they were now called upon to make up their minds, brought out in an especial degree the liability of the present law to press hardly upon those whom, in the absence of other evidence, they must, in a legal sense, presume to be innocent. When the Judges had to make their Report under three heads—namely, the guilt or innocence of the Member, that of other persons, and that of the constituency as a whole, they were required to make a Report of a definite kind, to answer "Aye" or "No" to each of these questions—"Is the Member, are his agents, or any other person guilty, or is the constituency?" The Judges, being compelled with their backs to the wall to answer these questions, inasmuch as human nature was too strong even for Judges, had resorted to expedients for qualifying their verdicts. They said, in some cases, that corrupt practices had prevailed extensively; in others that there was reason to believe corrupt practices had prevailed; in another case that, having regard to the evidence before them, to which they had confined their attention, there was no reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed; and they had even gone one step further and said, having confined their attention strictly to the evidence before them, there was no reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. He had quoted these words to show that they were justified in going behind the Reports of the Judges and not following these Reports blindly. The remedy he would suggest was one proposed by Mr. Ayrton in 1868—namely, that, at an investigation, an officer should be present, who, when bribery was proved, and there was reason to believe that materials for the consideration of the Judges in regard to the character of the constituents were being kept back, should have the same power as the Queen's Proctor in the Divorce Court of following up any clues which he might get at the time, and reporting the result to the House. That proposal was received with favour by the late Mr. J. Stuart Mill, who said the only fault he found with it was that it did not go far enough. It was also supported by Mr. T. Hughes, and was only faintly resisted by the Solicitor General of the Conservative Government then in power, who said that it would be bettor to pass the Bill, and afterwards it would be easy to amend it, if necessary, by a short Act containing a provision such as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets suggested. Mr. Ayrton's proposal was defeated only by a majority of eight, the numbers being 102 to 110. He did not believe they would be able to arrive at any real opinion as to the necessity or expediency of issuing a Commission unless they had some such machinery as he had indicated. A Commission was a very heavy penalty to inflict; it was an instrument which should not be lightly used on the supposition that the constituency had been "sampled." The indi- cations were in many cases misleading; and it was because he thought in the case of Gloucester they had an instance of that kind that he intended to conclude by moving to negative the Resolution with regard to Gloucester. With the other Resolutions he did not intend to interfere. The Report with regard to Gloucester was, there was reason to believe that "extensive corrupt practices had taken place" at the last election. The Judges said here, as elsewhere, that, having regard to the evidence before them, they came to the conclusion stated, and they confined themselves to the bare formula. And why did they do so? Obviously, because the evidence was absurdly inadequate to support such a conclusion. The evidence before them was that an agent of Mr. Robinson had bribed three persons with a sovereign each, and that the same agent had given £5 more to be spent in a similar manner. This was the beginning, the middle, and the end of what was proved. Taking these facts by themselves it was absurd to contend that they furnished any justification for a Commission. If that was so, the Judges had founded their Report on the assumption that all the other cases that were mentioned were precisely similar to those proved as to their degree of guilt. They must also have assumed that all the cases so mentioned to them were equally capable of proof. The Judges also alluded to a further matter, which, in their opinion, was material to the issue. It was evident that all these three things being together in their minds induced them to come to the opinion that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. The Judges stated that, in the 80 cases scheduled, similar charges were specified; and Mr. Justice Hawkins remarked that he could not suppose the particulars would have been delivered unless the agent believed the cases could be proved. That was complimentary, no doubt, to the agent; but, assuming his bonâ fide belief, it did not follow that the cases were capable of proof. There was nothing easier than to file a number of particulars, and it was necessary to do so, because, otherwise, the cases could not be gone into on the trial. Therefore, perhaps, no one was more surprised at the Judges' complaint than the agent himself. The other matter referred to was that which had been already discussed in that House when he opposed the appointment of a Committee to inquire whether there was any imputation against the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), and withdrew the opposition in view of the remonstrance of the hon. Member. He was entitled to accept the Report of that Committee until it was contradicted, and, therefore, to discount the presumption against the constituency in the minds of the Judges based on the withdrawal of the Petition. It was from the cases proved, from the cases scheduled, and from the withdrawal of the Petition as against the hon. Member that the Judges arrived at their conclusion; but if they had been in the possession of the facts, as we knew them, they probably would not have made the Report they did. If Commissions were to be appointed in all cases in which as much could be proved, there would be a large increase in the number of Commissions. He did not believe there was in this case any more reason for establishing such a precedent than there was in the case of numerous other boroughs. They could not judge of the amount of corruption by the presentation of a Petition. In the best managed instances of corruption Petitions were avoided. If the House, in their legitimate anxiety— which no one applauded more than he himself did—to put down the evils which existed under the present imperfect system, if they sent down these Commissions on the very slight indications as were afforded by the one instance of bribery proved in the case of Gloucester, they would bewilder the public mind and embarrass the proceedings of Parliament, and it would be perfectly impossible for them to follow up the vast number of examples which would appear by disfranchisement. He would, therefore, recommend that Gloucester should now have the benefit of the very considerable doubt which existed, and that the Commission against that city should not be pressed.

desired to support the last speaker, and said, he did not wish to give Gloucester the benefit of any doubt whatever; but he wished the House to keep in its own hands the jurisdiction respecting Election Petitions. He was not prepared to accept the finding of the Election Judges as conclusive. Election Judges ought to confine themselves strictly to the question referred to them. They were appointed not to express opi- nions as to the Ballot Act. They ought not to speak of an individual whom they unseated for bribery as a benefactor of the borough, nor ought they to call attention to the action of a particular Liberal association, thus giving rise to questions in that House which cast imputations upon the Party which sat on the Ministerial side of the House. Above all things, they ought not to speak of their suspicions. In the case of Gloucester, but for their suspicions, the learned Judges would never have reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in that borough. Eighty cases of corrupt practices were mentioned in the particulars furnished by the Petitioners; but only four cases of bribery were proved —namely, the payment of half a sovereign each to three men, and a sum of £5 to another voter. He submitted that the Judges were wanting in their duty to the House in not requiring evidence which would have enabled them to make a Report as to the cases which were set forth in the particulars. The Report of the learned Judges—Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Hawkins—assumed a character entirely different from the judgment they had delivered. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, having proved the four cases of bribery to which he had alluded, did not proceed further, and Baron Pollock said that in doing so the learned counsel had properly discharged his duty. For his part, he was of opinion that the learned counsel did not do his duty—-as it was his duty to have given such evidence as he could to sustain the allegations made in the particulars. In their Report the learned Judges stated that "bribery of the same character as that proved must have existed in other cases." That was a pure assumption unsustained by any proof, and only resting on the unproved statements of the particulars—all of which, however, were assumed to be true. Then came a remarkable statement made by both the learned Judges, to the effect that the delivery of the particulars had led them to the conclusion that bribery had been committed. They said—

"In these circumstances, we are not satisfied that the abandonment of the case against Mr. Monk was not the result of an arrangement made with a view to the withholding from us of evidence of the extensive corrupt practices which there is reason to believe prevailed at the election."

The fact was that they had no evidence whatever to found the "reason to believe" upon. He could not admit that in a proceeding of this kind either Judges or any other persons were entitled to act upon mere suspicion, as had been done in the present case, and upon leading questions such as the learned Judges put to several of the witnesses in the course of the hearing. His own view was that Parliament made a mistake when it departed from the practice of appointing Select Committees of its own body to inquire into disputed elections; but, as that matter had been finally decided, he warned hon. Members against following the example of the Judges, and taking any course which was based upon a suspicion that something wrong had been done. He himself would not object to be a party to the issuing of a Commission in every borough of the Kingdom, because, although the cost would be great, he thought great good would result from such a general inquiry, and because it might lead them to the consideration of some other system of dealing with corrupt voting. The charge of corruption in Gloucester was an extremely slender one; and he hoped that the House would hesitate long before acceding to the Motion for an Address which was now before the House.

remarked that, before he said anything about Gloucester, somebody on the Opposition side of the House ought to express an opinion that nothing could exceed the impartiality of the tribunal selected by the hon. and learned Attorney General. The Attorney General had not only taken great pains to obtain impartiality, but he had selected a tribunal which, by its ability, as well as its impartiality, would command the confidence of the country. He was sorry the late Attorney General or Solicitor General was not present to make that statement on behalf of the Conservative Party; but he hoped the Attorney General would accept it from him as representing not only the opinion of what was called the Fourth Party, but the general opinion of the Conservative Party. At the same time, he could not concur in the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that corrupt practices were not on the increase. He had a great deal of personal experience of the General Election of 1874, and of the General Elec- tion of 1880; and he was very strongly of opinion that the General Election of 1880 was far more corrupt than the General Election of 1874, and, to a certain extent, the statistics produced by the Attorney General corroborated that opinion. In the latter year there were 15 successful Election Petitions, and not a single case in which the Judges reported extensive corrupt practices; whereas in 1880 there were 17 Petitions, and no less than eight in which the Judges reported that extensive corrupt practices had prevailed. As long as there were persons willing to receive bribes, and persons ready to offer bribes, they could not put down bribery by legislation, but what they could do by legislation was to put a stop to the known and recognized customary mode of bribery. If the Government would fulfil the pledge which he understood they had given to bring in a Corrupt Practices Bill next Session, the action of these tribunals would be extremely useful to the House in legislating upon that subject. As to the case of Gloucester, he hoped the House would not be led by the clever and ingenious speeches of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke) and the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) to depart from the wide principle laid down by the Attorney General, and to infer that the Commission as regarded Gloucester was unnecessary. He did not think the House was inclined to constitute itself into a Court of Appeal, and to say whether the Judges were justified or not in what they said as to the existence of corrupt practices. The Judges were only fulfilling their statutory duty, because when a Petition was withdrawn, as in this case the Petition virtually was, it was the duty of the Judges, if they thought there was any reason to believe that it had been withdrawn in consequence of any corrupt arrangement, to say so. In this case, both the learned Judges intimated, before the incident of the costs arose, that they entertained that belief. As to the light in which the action of the House in this matter would be viewed by the country, there was, rightly or wrongly, an impression abroad that corrupt practices did extensively prevail, and no one would deny that in most of the English boroughs such was the case. Nor could it be denied that those practices prevailed in the City of Gloucester during the last election. In these circumstances, if the House were to negative the Resolution and refuse to allow inquiry, the country would never be got to believe that the House was in earnest in its pretended efforts to suppress corrupt practices. Even before the incident to which reference had been made had occurred at the trial of the Gloucester Petition, the Judges had come to the conclusion that they would, in all probability, have to report that corrupt practices prevailed there; and it was not desirable, he repeated, that the House should make itself a Court of Appeal from the decision at which the Judges had arrived.

said, that, on looking over the judgments which had been given by the learned personages who had tried the recent Election Petitions, he had been struck by the manner in which they had gone beyond the line of their duty in commenting on the conduct of individuals. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) had spoken at great length on the Ballot, and had urged that it was mischievous; but it would be found in dealing with these boroughs that far more important facts must be recognized in their character, and the facts belonging to them. He thought it was important to notice, in connection with the eight boroughs for which it was proposed Commissions should issue, that they were all of a particular kind, and were precisely the places where one might expect corruption. Four of them were cathedral cities, and all but one were ancient boroughs; they nearly all contained freemen, and they all had very seamy histories with respect to Election Petitions. Therefore, it was not marvellous there should be a recurrence of these corrupt practices. If a measure for the redistribution of seats were passed, on a strict basis of population, these towns would — the number of their population being taken into account—not be likely to have any Representatives at all. He would merely add, in reference to the ancient City in which he resided, that he thought it was a little too hard on the residents in the Colleges of the University of Oxford, who could not vote and did take part in the Elections with the view of using such influence as they possessed one way or other, that they should be called upon to contribute to the rate which, the proposed inquiry would render necessary. A good deal of the bribery would be found to have been committed by the outlying freemen, who were, practically, irresponsible for their actions. In 1831 the House of Commons very wisely abolished the franchise of the freemen; but they were reinstated by the other House, which was constantly doing mischief; and he thought it would be a good thing if the franchise of freemen was put an end to entirely.

said, he did not desire to express any opinion as to the particular case of the City of Gloucester, or to question the position of the hon. Member, who, he (Mr. Newdegate) sincerely trusted, might remain a Member of the House; but that did not interfere with his view as to what should be the decision of the House with respect to the appointment of these Commissions on corrupt practices; and he could scarcely think that any hon. Member would wish to remain in that House sitting for a borough, in respect of which the Election Judges had thought fit to express suspicion, without desiring that there should be full inquiry in order to ascertain what ground there was for such suspicion. It was proposed to issue eight of those Commissions, and he did not think any man could deny the existence of extensive corruption under the present system of Parliamentary election. In his opinion, the reflections which had been cast on the conduct of the Judges for furnishing the House with their opinion were extremely unjust. Let the House remember that before it established the system of secret voting, or very soon after it established that system, it abandoned the system of inquiry by its own Committees, and invested the Election Judges with additional powers, because the House was aware that the secrecy would tend to defeat inquiry; and when hon. Members reflected upon the conduct of the Judges in reporting to the House their impressions, received from the conduct of witnesses on the spot, they should remember that the Judges were only acting in accordance with the duties, which they were appointed to discharge, in being sent down to the different localities to make their investigations, and obtain information as to the working of the Act. To every reasonable man it must occur that the promises, an- ticipations, and calculations upon which Parliament was induced to adopt the Ballot had been grossly and manifestly falsified. Sitting on the other side of the House he always supported Lord Palmerston, as Prime Minister, in resisting the Ballot; and when he referred to the speeches of that noble Lord, he could conceive no tribute to his memory, his foresight, his knowledge of this country, and of other countries, and his knowledge of human nature—he could conceive no more emphatic tribute to the memory of Lord Palmerston than to recall the speeches he made in opposition to the establishment of the electoral system which now existed. He mentioned this because no man living, he thought, would dispute that of all the advocates of free institutions Lord Palmerston was one of the most powerful and sincere. He (Mr. Newdegate) was opposed to the Ballot, and the authority of Lord Palmerston had always enabled him to condemn the democratic notion that freedom was promoted by secret voting. There never was such a delusion. In France they had the Ballot, and the Empire went beyond the Ballot in seeking democratic support by establishing a system of the plébiscite. Yet that democratic system certainly did not save the freedom of the people of Prance; and it was his belief that among those who were consistent supporters of the Ballot there was no small section who looked to the establishment of an Imperial system in this country akin to that which existed under the late Empire in France. In the Session of 1864, while resisting the Motion of Mr. Berkeley in favour of secret voting, Lord Palmerston said—

"I object to the Motion because it is founded on an erroneous assumption. The hon. Member deals with the right of voting as if it were a personal right, which an individual was entitled to exercise free from any responsibility, whereas I contend that the vote is a trust to be exercised on behalf of the community at large."— [3 Hansard, clxxvi. 44.]

Afterwards he said—

"Even if the franchise were ever so extended—even if we had a manhood franchise, if every man arrived at the age of discretion were entitled to vote, it would be only a trust, because there would still be a large portion of the community, women and minors, affected by the laws, by taxation, and so on, whose interests would be committed to those who had votes. Indeed, our legislation is based on the understanding that a vote is a trust, and not a right. If a vote were a purely personal right, would not a voter be entitled to ask on what principle of justice you should punish him for exercising it in the manner which he thinks most for his own individual advantage?"

Your system of secret voting was, in fact, in favour of bribery. Lord Pal-merston went on to say—

"But you attach a penalty to the man who employs that right of voting in a way at variance, as you deem, with the public interest, for bribery or any other such consideration. I say, then, that the vote is a trust, and I maintain that every political trust ought to be exercised subject to the responsibility of public opinion. The whole political framework of civilized nations rests on the principle of trust. The interests of the community are in various degrees, more or less important, committed to a selected few who are charged with duties, in regard to particular things, on behalf of the people at large; and their action in fulfilling that trust ought to be subject to responsibility towards those on whose account they exercise it. But I contend that the Ballot as proposed is intended to withdraw the voter from that responsibility which the public exercise of the trust confided to him would impose, and in that respect I think it would be a political evil. We have been told about the system in other countries—in America, for instance But in America, as everybody knows, ballot voting is not secret. It is ticket voting. A man votes for a great number of officers at a time, and he sticks his ticket in his hat, and is proud of the party and the cause he espouses; he does not think of concealing the members, judges, governor, or other officers appointed by public election in the United States for whom he gives his voice. The Ballot, then, I hold, is founded on a mistake in principle, and is at variance with the fundamental assumption on which all our political institutions are based."—[Ibid. 44–5.]

Now the House had bad some experience of the system of secret voting, and be felt confident that the House would forgive him for thus having quoted the opinions of so eminent a man as Lord Palmerston.

reminded the hon. Member that the question immediately before the House was not the Ballot, but the appointment of a Commission to inquire into corrupt practices at Gloucester. The hon. Member would not be in Order in travelling beyond that question.

bowed to the Speaker's correction. But he had thought, considering how this debate had been opened by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beres-ford Hope), and that the House was about to appoint Commissions to inquire into corrupt practices, it would not be out of place if he ventured to explain his opinion as to the occasion for those Commissions. The proposal to appoint those Commissions was the sequel to the last two elections under the Ballot, and the result was that 50 per cent more Members had been unseated under that system than were unseated as the result of the previous three elections under the system of open voting. Such was the effect of the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, who so very ably opened the debate. He trusted the House would permit him to draw their attention to another failure on the part of that electoral system, of the success of which the necessity for the appointment of these Commissions were certainly no proof. It had been hoped that secrecy of voting would put an end to the exercise of undue influence. Now, he thought there was much during the late elections to indicate the existence of undue influence. The present system of secret voting was introduced in a great measure owing to the use of intimidation at Irish elections. Anybody who chose to refer to Hansard's Debates would find that what be said was true; and he would ask the House whether, during the present Session and the last three Sessions of the last Parliament, the conduct of Members returned from Ireland to the House had not been exceptional?

rose to Order.

said, he had already called the hon. Member's attention to the Question immediately before the House.

said, he would reserve what further he might have to say not merely upon the question of the alleged corruption but upon the necessity of issuing Commissions. He bowed most respectfully to the Speaker's decision; but he had thought that, when the question before the House was the adoption of an Address for the issue of a Commission, surely one might be justified in commenting upon such serious evidence of defects in the present electoral system as justifying that proceeding; the more especially when it was announced that the consideration of the system of secret voting was merely deferred till next Session for the sake of convenience, and when a Bill was before the House for continuing that system. Bowing, however, respectfully, as he hoped he always did, to the Speaker's ruling, he would reserve what further he had to say on the general evidence with respect to the system of secret voting, merely observing that, though it still continued in the United States, it was repudiated in Canada.

said, he would not follow the hon. Member who had just sat down into the question of the working of the Ballot Act, for a dicussion on that subject could not end in a profitable manner on that occasion. With reference to the question before the House, he wished to point out that some hon. Members who had spoken seemed to have forgotten that the Legislature had cast upon the Judges the obligation of saying "aye" or "no" to the question whether there was any reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in any given place. The Judges, hon. Members should recollect, could not be silent on the matter. Of course, some Judges might be led to a belief by reasons less cogent than those which would be required to lead other persons to the same belief; but he held that great inconvenience might be caused if the House were to go behind the expression of the Judges' opinion. On this occasion, the matter had happily been discussed apart from all Party considerations; but might there not be many cases in which there would be a very great temptation to question the determination of the Judges on grounds which might not be entirely free from Party bias? In his opinion, the only safe ground to go upon was the finding and determination of the Judges. He by no means agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), that this opinion was tantamount to saying that the House was bound by whatever the Judges might say in their judgments. All he said was that when Judges, in discharge of their statutory duty, laid before the House a finding upon any matter, the House might very well consent to be bound by that finding. The Judges, in the present case, had found that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices prevailed in Gloucester, and upon that finding the House was asked to assent to the issuing of a Commission. Well, supposing that there had been a mistake, and that corrupt practices had not extensively prevailed, what harm would be done by agreeing to this course? The City of Gloucester would be freed from suspicion, while the attendant expense would not be very great. If, on the other hand, the Judges had not made a mistake, it could not be thought desirable that the fact of the prevalence of corrupt practices should remain in obscurity, and that Gloucester should escape with impunity. He hoped the House might now be allowed to come to a decision, and would not be led into a discussion on the Ballot, which would come before them in regular form next year.

could not agree with the Attorney General in the lesson which he deduced from the figures which he quoted. In his opinion, the statistics showed conclusively that corruption was on the increase. As to the charge against Gloucester, he held that there never had been a case based on weaker evidence. The case was one of suspicion, rather than actual proof of corrupt practices.

said, he was glad to think that nothing in the debate called for any personal explanation from him. But, although the Petition against his own Return was withdrawn, he thought that it would be more becoming in him as Member for the City of Gloucester not to take part in the Division.

asked the Attorney General whether the proposed Commissions would be instructed to take into consideration the quality and character of the various constituencies. Out of the eight constituencies to be brought up for trial six contained the impure element of freemen, and only one, that of Macclesfield, was without freemen or other hereditary voters. He, therefore, wished to know how far the Commissioners would be empowered to inquire into the proceedings of the freemen as a class in connection with the elections?

replied that the Commissioners were bound to report, according to the Statute, on certain heads of inquiry. The question of the nature of the constituency was one that did not come under those heads, but it would be within the power of the Commissioners, if the circumstances seemed to require it, to state that corrupt practices prevailed to a greater extent among the freemen or among the ordinary inhabitants of the boroughs concerned.

, in rising to draw attention to the present disgraceful state of the management in Belfast Workhouse, where it had been alleged immorality and drunkenness had existed to an alarming extent; and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Local Government Board should take prompt measures to restore public confidence in the management of Belfast Workhouse;"

wished to say, at the outset, that he had no personal object in bringing forward this matter. He had no personal connection with the town of Belfast, and was unacquainted with the Guardians of the Union; but he rose to draw attention to the circumstance of these irregularities and abuses on public grounds. For the last 18 months the Press had been constantly appealing to public opinion, to the Local Government Board, and, in default of any interference on their part, to this House. The Press had been unanimous in that course; all shades of politics had combined in asking for some remedy and some interference on the part of the Executive Government. His attention was first drawn to the state of Belfast Workhouse by a letter written by Mr. Hamilton, a Tory Justice of the Peace—or, rather, he should say that his attention was first called by some words Mr. Hamilton used on the bench. That Justice of the Peace openly stated that Belfast Workhouse was a nest of drunkenness, immorality, and vice. He was taken to task for that statement, and he at once endeavoured to substan- tiate the charges he had made. He visited the house, and subsequently wrote several letters to the Press. Writing on the 29th February, he stated that it had been sworn before him by a female inmate of the workhouse that she had been 19 years in the workhouse and that, after her husband's death, she had given birth to four children without leaving the institution. The letter went on to say—

"I found in the nursery 79 women and 107 children; but 50 of the women were married, and 50 or 60 of the children were illegitimate and born in the house. Hero we have facts which reveal a most distressing state of things. No one can deny that it is exceedingly wrong-that young girls should grow up in the company of women such as these. They never came upon such wickedness as in Belfast Workhouse."

But in spite of these charges, which were brought forward by a gentleman of position, no cognizance was taken of them by the Local Government Board. This occurred in February, and immediately afterwards a letter was written to the Press by the Roman Catholic chaplain of the workhouse, who was called upon by the Local Government Board to substantiate his statements. However, when it came to the point, although he had made serious statements, he could not substantiate them. He was a young man, and perhaps in peculiar circumstances, and although his statements were founded on truth, some feeling of delicacy prevented him from coming forward; but, although he did not substantiate them, it did not follow that they were not well-founded. A few days afterwards a meeting of Guardians was held, at which attention was drawn to the existing state of Poor Law administration, and the opinion expressed that there was a great deal of immorality in connection with the Belfast Workhouse. An inquiry, he found, had been instituted, and a high official in the workhouse had been dismissed for immorality. In April, 1879, he found a subordinate official, but in a position of responsibility, dismissed for the same reason; and he came across the remarkable fact that the Union officials were armed with latch-keys, so that they could travel through the whole house. On the 14th of April the matron complained to the Board that the pauper men had access to the women's quarters; and, practically, there was no division of sexes in the house. There was a reso- lution of the Board condemning the practice, but the matter rested there. They deplored the existence of the pass keys and let the matter drop. The real gist of the discursive quotations he had made was that the women in Belfast Union Workhouse became mothers without going out of the house. That was difficult to prove; but he considered he could substantiate three cases. The difficulty of proving the case was, that these women who lived on the public went out and came in as they pleased, and there was no means of limiting this freedom. One woman, he saw, left the house 59 times, and another, who had gone out 39 times, had four illegitimate children. One woman had been in the house from 1872 to 1876 without going out, and in 1875 she had a child. Another woman had a child born in the house in 1874 who had been about 13 months in the house. In 1878 a third woman had a child who had been in the house for a considerable time. Again, he had evidence of the existence of a considerable amount of drunkenness among the paupers in the workhouse. If they read the proceedings of the Board they would find that at the Local Government Board inspection it was sworn by the assistant matron that she and the matron were up all night attending women who were drunk. The matron thought it was the milkman who brought the spirits into the house, while the assistant matron thought they must have a private still somewhere. On the 14th of June it was sworn by the laundress that the matron herself was seen sitting on the floor between three drunken paupers. From the evidence he was satisfied that the matron was given to drink, and she should have been dismissed. When the heads of the Institution gave themselves to drink they could not expect the paupers to be in a very good state. The paupers seemed to obtain spirits on a regular system. Two paupers took their discharge, and on the following day they made their presence known outside the walls by a given signal. The paupers inside then threw over some of the property of the Union which was sold, and they then returned to the house with the drink. On one occasion two women were caught by the police in the act of receiving goods thrown over the wall in this way; but although the master had given the information, the parties inside were al- lowed to escape. Those outside pleaded guilty, and got six months. On another occasion the property of the Union was found in a house adjoining the workhouse, but it was impossible to obtain a conviction. The indiscriminate association was one of the most painful phases of the subject. Children up to six years were condemned to listen to the curses of the women, and were subjected to their contaminating influence, and afterwards they were handed over to the workhouse teacher to see what he could do for them. When the girls came to the age of 15, they were thrust into the women's room, and again subjected to all the evil influences. Much the same thing occurred on the male side of the house; the same difficulties awaited the boys, and nothing was done to teach them a trade or teach them to maintain themselves. Then the old men who came to seek shelter and rest in their declining years, through the abominable mismanagement were subject to a tyranny that was positively repulsive, on the part of the younger men in the same room. He had the names of 10 of the old men who said that they were habitually and grossly insulted. They were afraid to go singly, as they were knocked about and often driven to defend themselves with knives. One of these old men positively asserted that on the 9th or 10th of December he was attacked by three young men and and robbed of the little money he had in his possession, and he could get no redress. The Local Government Board had sent down a young Inspector; but, instead of laying the knife to the sore, he had lapsed in his Report into an essay on sanitation. Dr. M. Lake had reported on the 2nd of June, 1880, that the sanitary state of the house was not altogether satisfactory, and that from January to June, 82 infants had died in the infant nursery. Further, he went on to say that there was very great overcrowding in the hospital and dormitories. This Inspector had not been the first to call attention to this overcrowding, as in March, 1879, the Local Government Board reported that there was excessive overcrowding, and he wondered that some epidemic fever did not break out. It had also been shown that the separation and nursery wards were in a filthy state. In October, 1879, three girls were charged before the magistrates with insubordination, and their excuse was that they were unable to undress owing to the filth and vermin on their beds. This was brought up at a Guardians' meeting, and a deputation was sent to the workhouse along with an Inspector of the Local Government Board. They found the beds in a most filthy state, and the nurse was dismissed, but the matron was only admonished. These were very unpleasant matters, but it was necessary to let light in upon them. His charge was that the Union had been mal-ad-ministered. Each board day brought some fresh charge of insubordination against the paupers, but the paupers could not always be wrong. Paupers had been found lying outside the gates of the union on a frosty night in conse-. quence of some absurd regulation on the part of the board. Again, it was found that there was a deficiency in the quantity of stock, and inferior articles had been received. The muster roll had been shown to be entirely wrong. On one occasion 100 paupers were on the roll who were not in the house, and 32 were in the house who were not on the roll, so that the ratepayers were paying for about 70 who were not in the house. He did not think the master was wholly to blame, but 195 folios of manuscript charges had been drawn up against him. He (Mr. A. Moore) had moved for a Return of these charges, but the Chief Secretary had refused. No doubt, he did so with some good object; but, by so doing, the right hon. Gentleman had taken a certain responsibility upon himself. This he was glad of, as, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would do what was right. Had these charges been pre-sented to the House, the result would be to show that one of the principal culprits was the Local Government Board. Looking at the list of the Belfast Guardians, the names of Members of the House would be found upon it, but he supposed they were disgusted and did not attend. It was a great pity their names were there when they did not attend, as it gave a false confidence to the public. The Guardians at their meeting indulged in the most indecent levity; and at a recent meeting one Guardian had even the impertinence to propose a resolution—"That the ratepayers should not read the proceedings of the Board." He was moving this Amendment in the interests of the poor of Ireland and in the interests of the ratepayers of Ireland, and he believed the words he spoke would find an echo throughout that country. The town of Belfast was one of the most rising and most enterprising commercial communities in the United Kingdom. It was the centre of the linen trade, and from it went forth the finest Atlantic ocean steamers, and it was monstrous to suppose that a body of men could not be found in that town not only capable of conducting the affairs of the Belfast Union, but even the affairs of the Empire. He trusted that he would receive some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that prompt measures would be taken, and that a full and searching inquiry would be made.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that he had listened with great sorrow to the very serious charges—serious, but unhappily so well founded, as appeared both from statistics and from well known facts—brought against the Belfast Workhouse by the hon. Member for Clonmel(Mr. A. Moore). It was a very sad thing. The Local Government Board of Ireland and the Government generally of Ireland—he did not in saying this include the Chief Secretary—were much to blame. It did appear that in Ireland the Government official authorities gave very little attention to public opinion, and that arose from the fact that they were not, as the authorities in this country were, amenable to public opinion. Meetings might be got up and the views of those who spoke might be expressed in the newspapers, but very little attention was given to them by the Government officials, because they were not amenable to public opinion. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would compel the permanent officials in Ireland to do their duty in the letter and in the spirit of the law. It appeared that this workhouse was a pesthouse—a refuge for travelling criminals and for those who had spent their lives in all sorts of misdeeds; and this was a disgrace not only to Belfast, but to the Local Government Board of Ireland. He hoped the Chief Secretary would issue some instructions which would render a repetition of such immorality and disgrace an impossibility in time to come.

observed that the speech made by his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment contained certain very grave charges against the Belfast Workhouse, and those charges, having been made, must be sifted to the bottom. They were very strong charges indeed. He was sorry that, as there were members of the Belfast Board of Guardians who were also Members of this House, they were not here to defend the Board of which they were members. He did not at all blame his hon. Friend for bringing forward the question at this time of the Session, because it was his only opportunity; but he could not but think that those hon. Members who were members of the Board of Guardians would have been here if they had been aware of the charges that would be made. Almost all these charges were new to him. They related to matters that occurred before he acceded to office. He knew, indeed, that there had been considerable Correspondence between the Local Government Board of Ireland and the Belfast Board of Guardians with regard to the master, and he had heard also of a charge against the matron, but as to most of the charges made to-day, he now heard of them for the first time. The hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) had stated that the blame rested mainly with the Local Government Board. Now, the blame mainly rested, first with the Belfast Board of Guardians, and secondly with the Belfast ratepayers who elected those guardians. The Board of Guardians was a popular body, and it was in the power of the ratepayers to visit on the guardians the penalty for their shortcomings. Considering the size, the wealth, and the civilization of Belfast, he could not conceive but that if these charges were true, the members of the Board would not be members very long. Undoubtedly the Local Government Board had a duty to perform. They had only to inquire into such charges as these, and to find out whether they were true or not, and then, as far as they could, to put things right. But they had not the absolute power to put thing right unless they resorted to the very strong act of dissolving the Board of Guardians and appointing a vice Board of Guardians in their places. He did not say that because Belfast was a large town, if there was no other course open, the Local Government Board would not be justified in dissolving the Board of Guardians—in fact, it would be their duty to take that course; but they would have to have the case very clearly made out. They would have to have it made out that nothing else could be done, and they would consider, not merely the importance of the locality, but to some extent the cause of local self-government as compared with central administration. He was one of those who looked forward with more hope to the extension of local and municipal government both in town and country in Ireland than he did to almost anything else in doing good for Ireland, and he should be sorry to be obliged to dispense with an institution that ought to be so well managed as the Belfast Board of Guardians. He did not think his hon. Friend would expect him to say more than that, but as he had thought fit to make such charges it was a matter of course that they could not rest there. They must be thoroughly sifted, and to the best of his ability he would take care that they were sifted.

trusted that the Chief Secretary's inquiry would not be limited to the Belfast Workhouse. He would then find that the whole system of Poor Law administration in Ireland was radically bad, and that in every branch of the administration there were shortcomings that would not be allowed to exist for a single Session in England. He had resolved to take up the subject and to bring it piecemeal before the House. He had a Resolution on the Order Book for next Session in reference to the dietary scale in a single workhouse in the County Kerry, and his object was to show that the dietary scale was inadequate to maintain normal existence without impairment to health. The diet consisted almost exclusively of Indian meal, and a mixture once a week of what by a euphemism was called "soup," which consisted of an ounce of fat to a pint of water. The tea issued to the sick inmates consisted of one-eighth of an ounce of tea to a pint of water. Infants under three years of age were allowed half-a-pint of milk in the morning and half-a-pint at dinner, which he believed was at about 12 o'clock, and until the following morning the unfortunate children were absolutely without food. These were some of the points with regard to the dietary scale which he remembered; but at the present moment he could not remember the amount of food allowed to the able-bodied member, but he would incline to think it was the worst in the whole scale. It was deplorable the amount of food allowed to these creatures who were not altogether in a state of idleness; it was not much more than half that which had been found by scientific statisticians to be absolutely necessary to maintain human life in an ordinary state of health. But an inquiry was necessary, not only into the dietary, but into every branch of the Poor Law administration. He himself saw in a workhouse some months ago a number of children in a large room where lunatic women and children were. Then, again, the question of the stores required looking into. With regard to the education of pauper children, such a state of things existed in Ireland as would not be allowed to endure for a single Session in England. These were points which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would find well worthy of his attention. One other great evil was that in many unions two-thirds of the entire amount of the rates was spent in salaries and the payment of the staff, and only a very small modicum went to the relief of the poor.

said, that as grievance preceded Supply it was prudent to remark that there had been no redress of the grievances of the Irish people this Session. He would refer to one measure which the Government had introduced which had been received with great joy in Ireland. That was the Borough Franchise Bill. The Government introduced that Bill and for a long time kept it before the public; but upon the first challenge they threw it over- board. The only other measure upon the programme was the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, the fate of which in "another place" they all remembered. When the fate of that Bill was decided the Government ought to have reinstated the Borough Franchise Bill and proceeded with it, and in neglecting to do so they had shown a disregard of popular feeling in Ireland, and a disregard of justice. They had been looking for some proof that the Government if they were unable to pass any remedial measure, would, at any rate, do something to conciliate Irish popular fooling. The Government were invited on the Constabulary Vote to consent to the reasonable demand that if the Irish people were to be shot down with bullets or buckshot, they might be so shot by men who were recognized as soldiers and not by the police. The Irishmen asked that the police should be disarmed, and that the action of the police should be confined to police duties proper, and they asked that if a military force was to be introduced, it might be a force in ordinary military costume, and recognized as a military force, and that the force which was supposed to be a police force should be assimilated to the police force in England. But the Government had refused to make even that small concession, and the consequence was that during this long Session they had seen week after week devoted to the consideration of Bills relating to hares and rabbits, and to employers' liability, and such matters which were of secondary importance, while measures concerning the vital interests of the people of Ireland had been treated by the Government with very scant courtesy. Under these circumstances he could not abstain from protesting, as he thought all Irish Members were called on to do, and he, therefore moved the rejection of the Bill.

said, if he had the power on the present occasion he would prevent the granting of any money whatever to Her Majesty's Government. As the present measure was introduced for the appropriation of moneys, he was entitled to point out to the Government, on this last opportunity, that it was clearly the duty of the Irish Members to use their very best efforts to prevent the Government from obtaining any of this money. It seemed to him and other hon. Members around him that they had a right to urge that the Government had not done anything at all for Ireland up to the present time. The reason why they had not done so had nothing to do with the question before them. He came over from Ireland for the purpose of legislating for his country, and, although he had used his most earnest efforts for that end, he had been prevented from carrying our his intention. He, therefore, felt it was his duty, on this last opportunity, to protest against the action of the Government, and of this fiasco in the affairs of Ireland.

entirely agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon.) He (Mr. Finigan) spoke as one loyal to the Constitution, and to Her Majesty who was at its head; but he spoke also as one who was thoroughly disloyal to the spirit of the Constitution as carried out in Ireland. He spoke as one thoroughly opposed to the system of misgovernment in Ireland; and finally he spoke as one determined to oppose, by every means within his power, the present unjust and tyrannous system of government in Ireland. Although Ireland had taken a great part in building up the Empire, both by sea and land, and although Irish blood had flown in order to build up the majesty and greatness of the Empire—for it was a great and a noble Empire—yet to Ireland had not been. given the slightest consideration, nor had there been meted out to his country that measure of justice which it had so long called for but in vain. The part played by the other House of Parliament in the government of Ireland was as foul, as wrong, and as unjust as ever was played by any despot in Russia. ["Order!"]

, interposing, said, he must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Bill before the House.

expressed his anxiety to abide by the Speaker's ruling, but submitted that inasmuch as they were called upon by the Bill to appropriate a considerable sum of money for the other House of Parliament, he would be in Order in directing attention to the fact that it had not done its duty towards the Constitution. He found that there was a large sum of money— £2,500 a-year—voted to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords. What did he do towards governing Ireland as she ought to be governed— namely, according to the spirit of the Constitution? The spirit of the Constitution, so far as England was concerned, was that it perfectly reflected the opinions of the people, and the wishes of that Assembly freely elected by the people. Well, that House had passed two great measures from an English point of view.

pointed out that the measures which had been passed by the House did not constitute a subject relevant to the Appropriation Bill, and he must call upon the hon. Member to confine himself strictly to the Bill before the House.

, continuing, remarked that there were several items in this Bill which he might enlarge upon at great length, and which required to be dismissed in view of the want of sympathy which existed in "another place" with the House, and which had been exemplified recently by a reckless disregard of the House, and the opinions which it represented. But he would content himself with saying that he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County, and expressing a hope that when next year the Appropriation Bill was brought forward they would have no cause to oppose it, but some real and just ground for giving it their united support.

said, that in view of the action taken in "another place" in regard to a certain Bill, he wished to suggest to the Government that they might take a course on the Appropriation Bill which would have the effect of showing what the feelings and sympathies of the Government really were in regard to the administration of affairs in Ireland, and also of showing that the Government did not intend to allow the proceedings of that House in regard to Ireland to be set at nought, and made the subject of ridicule. He wished to suggest to the Government that they had two courses open to them. He thought it would be possible to prove that these courses were open to them by precedents of long standing. The Government could agree to tack the 8th clause of the Bill in question on to the Appropriation Bill, and limit the operation of that clause to two years; or they could introduce a new Bill, consisting of the 8th clause, for a similar period of duration. There were several direct precedents as to the first course, as was evidenced by a Re-solution of the House of Lords, passed on the 9th December, 1702, and referred to by Sir Erskine May in his work. On that date it was ordered and declared by the Lords that the annexation of any clause to a Bill of aid or supply was unparliamentary and tended to the destruction of the Constitution. There was a Resolution passed by the Lords in reference to special Acts from the Commons in the paragraph he had described, and referring to the precedents which he desired the Government to consider. He found also that in 1872 a conference took place between the two Houses in reference to the clause introduced by the Commons in a Money Bill creating an incapacity in the Commissioners or Assessors of the Excise to sit in Parliament. Against this action the Lords protested; but at the conference which was held they gave way, and they passed the Bill with these clauses in it. On that occasion the Commons successfully vindicated their right to attach to a Money Bill a matter which was foreign to the subject matter of the Bill in question. Now, with reference to the second course, it was open to the Government to introduce a new Bill consisting of the 8th clause, and limiting the duration of the Bill, say to two years. He found that he had a precedent upon that in 1827, when Mr. Canning re-introduced a Bill with reference to the duties on foreign corn which had been seriously modified by the Lords. He re-introduced it and limited its duration for two years, and it was passed by the Commons and subsequently passed by the Lords. There was a further course for a precedent of of a different kind. In 1874 a Bill, consisting of two clauses, came to the Committee stage, and was saved from the interference of the Lords by an Instruction being given to the Committee to deal with the clauses on the Appropriation Bill being considered, so that the Appropriation Bill was tacked to the other Bill. The two courses which he recommended to Her Majesty's Government were the two which he had mentioned—namely, that they should either tack the 8th clause to the Bill, or they should introduce a fresh Bill, and move to suspend the Standing Orders, in order to carry it at one sitting; but if consent were given that was not necessary. He thought they were fairly entitled to ask the Government to show their bona fides. He wished to point out what had been the course of attempted legislation with regard to Ireland, that every Bill sent up from the House of Commons making any real change in the law had been ignominiously rejected by the House of Lords upon the second reading. That happened with regard to the Limitation of Costs Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington).

, interposing, said, the observations of the hon. Member up to the present time appeared to have some relevancy to the Bill before the House, but he was now diverging into matter which really had no relevancy to it.

said, he had referred to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Longford, because he had been informed that on several occasions opportunities had been taken on the stages of the Appropriation Bill to call the attention of the House to the course of legislation during the Session, and consequently he supposed himself in Order in referring to that measure. However, it was not absolutely necessary for him in order to argue his point to refer to matters patent, and in the mind of hon. Members, and which constituted a ground for the application he made to the Government and to the House—namely, that the Government should mark their sense of passing events, and of the determination in the future to carry out the authority of the House of Commons by that legitimate action which he had pointed out, based upon precedents of unimpeachable authority, and securing that the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill might come before Her Majesty for Her good will and pleasure.

Sir, with regard to the Motion and the speech of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) and other speeches of hon. Members who think it is their duty to take the very unusual course on the Appropriation Bill to make a protest against the government of Ireland—of course, it lies with them to take that course if they think it necessary to do so; but they cannot expect me to enter at the present time into a general argument in defence of our present system of government in Ireland; nor do I imagine that the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) would ask me to discuss the Vote which has been already proposed and agreed to by the House. The hon. Member for Queen's County was hardly quite fair to either the House or the Government. He seemed to have the impression, and his words gave the impression, that Irish affairs have not occupied much attention of this House this Session. Well, notoriously that is not the fact. Irish affairs—

I do not think I said that. What I said was, that we had no substantial proof of the determination of the Government to do justice to Ireland.

I think that the Government sacrificed the time of the House and gave up their own time, and certainly very much endangered the passage of other measures, in order to give a very large number of nights to Irish Bills. That was the proof that the Government did what they could in the matter, and that the House was willing to give up a great deal of time to the discussion of Irish Bills. The hon. Member further said that only one Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech. There were two Bills mentioned. One was with regard to Relief, and the other with regard to the Borough Franchise. The first measure certainly took up a great deal of time, and that time was thought by the Irish Members necessary. As regards the Borough Franchise Bill, the hon. Member says it was not upon the defeat of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill that the Government should have proposed its withdrawal. Well, the time that the Compensation Bill was likely to take was plainly a great deal of the time of the House, and it was generally admitted that it would hardly be reasonable to press the Franchise Bill on this Session, and the Order was discharged several days before the Compensation Bill was dealt with in "another place." However, we now come to the practical question put by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The hon. Member, I suppose, alluded to something that had happened to-day, and he asked the Government what course we proposed to take? Well, the Government and, I do not doubt, the House, are very sorry that the Bills that have been passed by this House have been rejected by the House of Lords; but when the hon. Member asks me whether we will take either of two courses which he suggests, we have to consider the circumstances of this particular case. Now, he suggests that we might tack this Bill on to the Bill which we are now considering. That would be a very strong step to take indeed. He has referred to Sir Erskine May's book on the subject; but evidently the opinion of that great authority is that this is a very questionable course to be adopted, and, if at all adopted, only to be adopted in the most extreme cases. Then the hon. Member says why not take up part of the Bill and pass it very quickly and send it up to "another place" to be considered. Well, it is not in the power of the Government to pass anything very quickly.

The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me; what I said was, that the Government might ask the House to do so.

Well, but as to the Government asking the House to do so at any time, and especially at this time, we must consider the reasonable probability of all parties in the House responding to it. Hon. Members know that the moment the Government asked anything of this kind it would not be assented to by all parts of the House. Well, then comes the question, is this an extreme case? Now, I do not think, upon the merits of the Bill, upon the urgency of the Bill, it can be considered an extreme case. It is a Bill for the Registration of Voters in Ireland. That is a very important matter, and I am very sorry that, in "another place" the Irish Bill of this year should have been treated as the English Bill of 1873 was treated. The first Bill passed by this House was rejected by the House of Lords, and it was finally passed very much in the same form, and not long afterwards. What I am empowered to say on behalf of the Government is this, that we think this registration question ought to be settled, and settled in the manner indicated by the Bill which has met with disaster today, and that we shall put the matter in a way much more likely to succeed next year than it has been put this. This year it was brought forward by a private Member—though by a Member of great experience. It was only adopted by the Government very recently indeed, and we trust that next year it will not be sent up to the Lords at this very late period. We hope to send it up next year so early that there will be no excuse in "another place," as has been given in this instance, that it was too late to be considered; and, in like manner, I shall be most happy to confer with my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Errington), and to see whether we cannot get the very useful measure which he proposed in shape for consideration. As to what has been done in "another place," I do not think we can say that this is a Bill of that urgency that would warrant us in entering at this moment into a long contest, or even a sharp contest, with the House of Lords. No one regrets more the action they have taken than I do; but I think the way in which we must treat it is to submit to their consideration next Session the same measure which they have treated in rather a summary fashion.

differed from the Chief Secretary in thinking that the measure was one of great urgency. They must take into consideration both the mode in which the Bill was rejected and the fact that every Bill in which the Irish Party were interested, in which the Irish people were interested, was—he would not say thrown out in "another place"—-but was ignominously rejected there. What would be and must be the necessary result of the action that had taken place? It would be that during the Recess and during next Session the agitation in Ireland would be intensified ten times over. What occurred to-day? There was not a noble Lord to be found in the House of Lords to give up his time for one instant to discuss the principle of the measure. The only person discussing the measure was a salaried Official, who was paid for his services, and who moved the rejection of the measure on account of the late period of the Session. The measure which had been rejected was one affecting that House only, and it certainly was the greatest strain which he had ever known the Upper House to put on Parliamentary practices to have thrown out a Bill of that description. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would see their way to the adoption of either of the two courses suggested.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in announcing the policy of the Government in reference to what had taken place in "another place," had said that, considering the character of the measure, it was not urgently necessary to take any steps in order to resist the conclusion which had been arrived at. That meant that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill was not a very important one. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No, I did not say not important; I said it was not urgent.] Well, he was very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was sensible of the importance of the measure; but the argument he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was endeavouring to advance was that a measure which had been before the House at an earlier period in the Session, both important and urgent, had been treated in the same way. The treatment of the Government was the same as on the present occasion, so that, whether it was a great or a small measure, urgent or not urgent, they had proof that the Government intended to adopt the same policy—namely, a policy of surrender. If his hon. Friend went to a Division he should vote with him; but he should recommend and, in fact, should move the adjournment of the debate—he trusted with the concurrence of his hon. Friend—because he thought if they were to take a Division now upon the Main Question, they would place a large body of Members who must sympathise with them at a decided disadvantage. He, therefore, moved that the debate be now adjourned.

would not at that late period of the Session, and also late hour of the Sitting, prolong the discussion by offering any lengthened observations. He simply wished to remind the House that the Bill, though a very important one, would not, according to its provisions, have come into operation until the 1st of January, 1881. It would not affect the coming revisions, and therefore was not urgent, as there would be sufficient time in the ensuing Session to pass a measure which would enable Parliament to settle the difficulty before the registrations in 1881.

said, if they allowed the Government to take this stage of the Appropriation Bill in deference to the wishes of their Friends, the Liberal Party, who had done so much for the Irish Members, it would be on the understanding that they would be at liberty to move the addition of the proposed clauses on the Committee stages of the Bill.

said, he certainly must reprobate, just as much as his hon. Friend, the action taken with regard to the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill in "another place," but, at the same time, he must say that he thought it only showed what the effect of unworthy compromises and of secret understandings was. The Bill, as amended in the House of Commons, deprived many persons of the advantages of representation. That was caused by the omission of the 15th clause.

pointed out to the hon. Member that he was discussing a Bill which was not before the House.

said he did not regret the fate the Bill had met in the House of Lords, because he hoped now that the Government would introduce next Session a more comprehensive measure. He certainly regretted that the 15th clause had been omitted.

said, he must again point out to the hon. Member that he was out of Order in discussing a Bill not before the House.

hoped that the Government would bring in a Bill next Session, and pass it, not with undue haste, but with fair speed, so that it might come into operation in 1881.