sociation, for the Withdrawal of the Regium Donum Grant.-By Mr. Hume, from several Inhabitants of Edinburgh, for Inquiry into the Annuity Tax (Scotland). -By Mr. J. E. Vivian, from Adventurers in British Copper Mines in Camborne, and its Vicinity, against the Copper and Lead Duties Bill-By Mr. William Lockhart, from several Wine and Spirit Merchants of Ayr, for an Alteration of the British Spirits Warehousing Bill. By Mr. Chisholm Anstey, from the Grand Jury of the County of Sligo, for an Abolition of the Coroner's Office (Ireland). From the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, praying for the Relief of the Distress in Ireland.-By Mr. Reynolds, from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Dublin, for Alteration of the Dublin Police Bill. By Sir De Lacy Evans, from the Parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, Westminster, for Alteration of the Metropolitan Commissions of Sewers Bill.-By Mr. C. Lewis, from the Guardians of the Hereford Union, against the Poor Law Union District Schools Bill.-By Colonel Kemeys Tynte, from Jonathan Toogood, M. D. of Torquay, Devonshire, for Restricting the Sale of Poisons. By Mr. Anstey, from the Grand Jury of Sligo, for an Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).-By Mr. Spooner, from the Guardians of the Aston Union, Warwickshire, for Alteration of the Poor Law Union Charges Bill. By Mr. W. Lockhart, from the Presbytery of Hamilton, for Alteration of the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.-By Mr. Fuller, from the Parish of Rye, Sussex, to take the Turnpike Trusts into Consideration. RENEWABLE LEASEHOLD CONVERSION (IRELAND) BILL. On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee, MR. LAW opposed the further progress of the measure. It was a Bill seriously affecting English owners, whether absentees or residents of Irish property, and went, in fact, to convert the fee-simple of their land into a fee farm rent, and to confer upon middlemen the freehold now vested in proprietors. This was the first time that an arbitrary law had struck at the power of the Irish Society in the plantation in Ulster since the reign of Charles I.; and he thought it was an extreme hardship that such a course should be pursued towards a public body like this, created for public purposes, and who, with the rarest exceptions, were the only contributors to schools and public institutions. The Irish Society stated that one of the promoters of this Bill was a gentleman whose estate was liable to be forfeited, and that he promoted it in order to set aside the forfeiture, and to convey to himself a freehold in his estate. The Bill sanctioned neither more nor less than a complete spoliation of property to the prejudice of the occupier and real proprietor, and for the benefit of middlemen. He did not say that the measure was altogether bad; there were many things in the principle of the Bill and in some of its provisions which he did not complain of; but a measure affecting property to so large an extent hould have machinery which applied to He all cases, and not merely to the divesting of the proprietors of large estates. entreated the Government to give him an assurance that the Irish Society would be exempted from the operation of the Bill; or that the measure would be postponed until next Session, in order that, by a different framing of the Bill, the objections to its provisions might be obviated. SIR W. SOMERVILLE referred to several opinions delivered by law authorities in Ireland, with the view of demonstrating the evils and inconveniences arising out of the existing system. It had created, over and over again, the most extensive and most vexatious kinds of litigation, and had done more to give insecurity to property in Ireland than almost anything else. Every care had been taken in framing the Bill not to deprive the Irish Society or other proprietors of any power of enforcing claims and conditions on which the leases were now held. The object of the measure was to give increased security to property; and he believed that it would be found beneficial both to the proprietor and lessee. House in Committee pro formá. Resumed. Bill to be recommitted. THE NAVIGATION LAWS. House in Committee on the laws relating to navigation and the registration of ships and seamen. MR. LABOUCHERE said, that in placing in the hands of the Chairman the resolution he was about to move, it was scarcely necessary for him to remind the House that the Government had been compelled, very reluctantly, to give up all expectation of being able, during the present Session, to pass a Bill for the alteration of the navigation laws. He hoped the question might be brought under the notice of the House next year, at so early a period as to insure its receiving that full consideration which its importance deserved, and to enable Parliament to adopt a matured measure. It was not the intention of the Government to attempt to pass any measure on the subject during the present Session; but they were desirous to be enabled to lay their views before the House and the country in the shape of a Bill, which would be a much more satisfactory way of presenting the subject to their attention than by the statement of a Minister of the Crown. He believed there was a general disposition on the part of the House to assent to this course; and he considered that it MR. HERRIES did not feel that he should be justified in entering into a discussion of the merits of the proposition, as the object of the Government was only to lay their measure completely before the House, and not carry it further this Ses sion. would be altogether inconsistent with the | view before Christmas; but the pressure of spirit of the agreement which had been other business induced them to postpone entered into if he were to say anything it; and, having been postponed to a later that could lead to a discussion on the sub- period, it was found impossible to proceed ject. He begged, therefore, to place a re- with the measure this Session. The right solution in the hands of the Chairman, with hon. Gentleman had said that he did not wish the object of enabling him to bring in a to be bound to the peculiar form in which Bill. The right hon. Gentleman moved this question was introduced, and that he "That it is expedient to remove the Restrictions thought the resolution ought to be in gewhich prevent the free Carriage of Goods, by Sea, neral terms. to and from the United Kingdom and the British hon. Gentleman as to the nature of the He agreed with the right Possessions Abroad, subject, nevertheless, to such Control by Her Majesty in Council as may be neresolution to be proposed; but, in this incessary; and to amend the Laws for the Registra- stance, it was originally made an objection tion of Ships and Seamen." that there was not a sufficiently specific resolution proposed; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries), instead of going into Committee to discuss the question there, moved a previous resolution by which he wished the House to affirm the maintenance of the general principle of the navigation laws. The right hon. MR. W. E. GLADSTONE thought the Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had said that Government could not be blamed for post- he considered the peculiar form in which poing the measure. There could be no the repeal of the navigation laws was thus hope of passing one so complicated-in- | proposed to remain, perfectly open to disvolving such extensive interests, appeal- cussion; it certainly would, but he would ing so much to the feelings of large par- state, that though the Government had ties in and out of the House, and compel-wished to introduce the measure in this ling the discussion of complex collateral particular form, there would be nothing to questions-unless it were introduced at a preclude them from reconsidering that very early period of the Session. Know- form. The opinion of the House had been ing, that with the mass of public business to be dealt with, it was very difficult for a Government to bring forward its measures as early as it would desire, he did not refer to this in the way of censure, but to express a hope that it might be submitted very early in the next Session, if not as the first measure of the Session. With respect to the form of the resolution, he confessed he should have preferred one of a more general character, not involving that peculiar feature of the Government plan the reservation of a very large discretionary power to the Queen in Council; to his mind it was an extremely doubtful question whether the form in which the measure was thus shaped was the most conducive to the public interests; and he did not quite agree that, as a general rule, resolutions of this kind ought to be passed MR. BRIGHT would repeat what he pro formá, and without committing those had stated on a former occasion, that the who voted on them. It must be under-population even of the shipping towns stood that he did not hold himself bound to were in favour of this measure. any assent to this feature in the Government plan, but that that subjeet remained entirely open. LORD J. RUSSELL said, it had been the purpose of the Government to state their intentions and go into their general obtained upon the general question, whether the navigation laws should be maintained with exceptions, or repealed with exceptions, and there was a very decided majority against the proposition that the navigation laws ought to be maintained. This was the state of the question at present; and the Government having obtained that opinion of the House, it would be open to them to reconsider, if they should think proper, the form in which, in a future Session, they would propose the repeal of these laws. He quite agreed that, whatever the measure, it should be proposed early in the Session. MR. ROBINSON denied that the House had affirmed the principle of the Government measure. They had only negatived the counter resolution proposed. At a public meeting in Sunderland, the opinion was almost unanimous in that direction; and three or four years ago, when the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hudson) was first returned, though he had a majority of the shipowners at the poll, the sailors and artisans were for the abolition of the navigation and corn laws. When the sailors' procession assembled in Trafalgar-square not long since, he (Mr. Bright) asked one of them what they were going about; and the answer was, that some of the people down the river had told them they were to eat black bread if the navigation laws were abolished." This was the sort of delusion attempted to be practised upon them. He wanted to make no boast of his sympathy for them-he wanted only what was just for the labourer; and in regard to this particular question, seeing how large a portion of the population of this country lived by industry employed on articles exported to foreign countries, and by the trade arising from the importation of foreign products, he saw nothing that could be more calculated to stimulate industry, and improve the condition of our labourers, as far as it went, than a measure which would throw open more extensively and freely the great highway of nations, across which those products were carried to and from this country. The hon. Member for Sunderland was in fact an exemplification of the want of soundness of his own principle; for perhaps no man had done more than the hon. Member to bring about a free communication between Scotland and the southern parts of this island. He was surprised, then, to see the hon. Member stand up in that House and support the miserable and obsolete code of the navigation laws. If the hon. Member would examine this question with the same plain common sense which he applied to the management of railways, and would trust less to the politics of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn than to his own powers, he would do better for himself and for the part which he took in the legislation of the House. But he (Mr. Bright) trusted, if this resolution were adopted as he hoped it would be, that the Government would in the next Session bring in a Bill with that sort of spirit and determination which, when exhibited from the Treasury bench, had a great effect not only in that but in the other House; for he found that when the Government brought forward in that House a somewhat good measure, and urged it feebly, and without some determination, some noble Lords in another place plucked up courage they otherwise would not have had, and threw out measures which, under other circumstances, they would have been willing to accept. MR. NEWDEGATE supposed that the resolution which had been placed in the hands of the Chairman was a true exposition of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman was about to lay on the table of the House, because otherwise those who had opposed the measure introduced by the Government would be in a false position. MR. LABOUCHERE said, that the hon. Member for Warwickshire had asked him whether the Bill he proposed to lay on the table was in accordance with the statement he had made when he brought this question before the House, and also with the resolution in the hands of the Chairman? He (Mr. Labouchere) should think that he was practising a sort of trick upon the House if the Bill were otherwise than in accordance with the resolution; and he thought when the hon. Gentleman compared that Bill with the resolution, and recollected what he (Mr. Labouchere) had stated on introducing the subject to the House, he would find that the Bill he was about to introduce carried into effect that which he then proposed. At the same time he did not consider himself precluded from taking advantage of any information or consideration he could give to the question during the recess. He would only repeat the assertion he made on the former occasion, that nothing would have induced him to propose this measure to the House if he had thought that those alterations were inconsistent either with the commercial greatness of this country or the maritime power which he felt was indissolubly connected with that commercial greatness. It was because he believed that by this wise and timely alteration we should secure the foundation upon which the most important national objects were based, that he had ventured to recommend it to the House. of the Committee also stated that sums of money were paid to voters for their lost time; and they expressed their opinion. that practices of this kind must always be open to serious evils, and required some definite enactment to prevent them. More good would be done by stating, in plain language, in an Act of Parliament, what corruption was, than by Committees of appeal, or Commissioners scouring the country at a very great expense to find out what was patent to everybody. The SOLICITOR GENERAL hoped that the Committee, having already agreed to include four boroughs in the schedule, would also consent to insert Lincoln, and not think it necessary again to discuss the principle of the measure. His family had performed those acts which he considered to be the paramount duty of an Englishman, and he had followed their excellent example, if that was bribery and corruption. Of these acts he was not ashamed; he would tell the noble Lord that, in spite of the House of Commons he would repeat them. If the noble Lord admitted, on a question connected with this important subject, that to give refreshment to a county representative body, which was not to influence the vote, was justifiable, he would ask the noble Lord. with what right he could charge an individual like himself (Colonel Sibthorp) with giving to the poor man that which he had a right to have, and which he (Colonel Sibthorp) should have been unworthy of representing the city of Lincoln if he had forgotten? He knew it was vain to contend against the premeditated intentions of the noble Lord; but let the noble Lord think what he would of the constituencies of England, he (Colonel Sibthorp) had that opinion of the independence of the city of Lincoln that he was confident the electors would act as men, and that they would not be ashamed either of what they had done, or of what their representative had done. He would not insult the borough, nor degrade himself, by petitioning the noble Lord to remove Lincoln out of the schedule. The noble Lord and his coadjutors might inflict any punishment they thought proper upon it; and he (Colonel Sibthorp) had done his duty in denouncing the un-case was there any proved fact to proceed manly, arbitrary, and unjust character of the whole proceeding. MR. W. MILES had expected that his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Lincoln Election Committee would have moved to strike out Lincoln from the Bill; but as his hon. Friend was not now present, he himself, as a Member of the Committee, wished to call the attention of the House to the evidence and the report. The counsel stated that there were forty-six cases of bribery, but only three were brought before the Committee, and of these only one was proved, and that was only a 10s. case. The report of the Committee stated that a system of treating had for a long time existed in the city of Lincoln, and five or six houses were mentioned which had been opened by the candidates for that purpose. But the real difficulty was to ascertain what was and what was not corrupt treating, because that depended upon the intent with which the refreshments were given. The report MR. ANSTEY did not think that the case of Lincoln was governed by the rule which applied to Horsham. There was sufficient information obtained about Lincoln already. But the Horsham rule would also apply to the city of London; and as he saw the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) in his place, he would give him an opportunity of coming forward and saying that he did not shrink from an investigation into matters of which the world had heard so much. Management, no doubt, had prevented the presentation of a petition against the return for London, and management had caused the petition which had been presented against the return for Horsham not to be prosecuted. In neither upon; the charges as to each rested upon common fame. Why not then apply the same rule to both? It was generally believed that in London the "long shore men" had been bribed to the number of 1,000. It was also affirmed that personation had been practised to a great extent. These corrupt practices were alleged to have been committed by persons in the interest of the noble Lord and his Colleagues; and that allegation rested, he believed, on unimpeachable evidence. It had been asserted by a Member in his place in that House, and yet the noble Lord took no notice of the matter. It was stated out of doors, that no less than 32,000l. were spent in procuring the election of the Ministerial candidates at the last election for the city of London. That was too large a sum to be expended for a bona fide purpose. He would now put this question to the noble Lord--would he include the city of London in the schedule of the Bill? His reason for asking that question was this— he was promised by a Member of the House | acting in the discharge of my public duty, that he should be placed in a position to and I maintain that the place which I restate names and to specify particular sums in connexion with corrupt practices at the last election for London; but the document upon which the statement was to have been founded had miscarried. He called upon the noble Lord to break the silence which he had hitherto observed with reference to this matter, and to attempt to vindicate the character of his friends and constituents in the city of London. present could only be put in the schedule in consequence of having been the subject of the report of an Election Committee, or upon other substantial ground being laid for that proceeding. I will relate to the Committee the history of my connexion with the city of London. I represented the borough of Stroud, which had done me the honour to elect me in the first instance without opposition, and subsequently, when a contest took place, I was returned for the borough by a large majority. I was elected without being put to any expense whatever, and I was allowed perfect independence as to my political course in this House. A numerous body of the electors of Londonsome thousands I believe-addressed a requisition to me, stating that a great public question being at issue, namely, that of protection or free trade, they desired that I would allow myself to be put in nomination as the advocate of free trade. I told the deputation which waited upon me that personally I had no desire to leave the constituency with which I was connected LORD J. RUSSELL: The Committee must recollect the circumstances under which I determined to proceed with the Bill now under consideration. Various reports were made from Election Committees, and many Members thought that the writs for the boroughs to which these reports referred ought to be suspended until further inquiry was made into corrupt practices alleged to have taken place at the elections for those boroughs, with a view of determining whether Parliament ought to legislate on the subject. Various opinions were given on that point; but I confined myself to voting, as an individual Member of the House, upon the questions that it was possible that constituency as they arose relative to the issuing or sus- might think me ungrateful for leaving it pending of the writs. It, however, was for another; but seeing that the decision urged by several Members, and especially of the city of London upon the great quesby the right hon. Baronet the Member for tion of free trade must necessarily exercise Tamworth, that it was fit that some Mem- an important influence upon public opinion, ber of the Government should introduce a I would consent to become a candidate; Bill for the purpose of determining the but I distinctly stated that my election form which the inquiry into the reported must be conducted without recourse being boroughs should take. For some time I had to any of those means to which the declined to take this course; but at last, term corrupt practices" could be apseeing that a Bill on the subject which an plied. The deputation assured me that independent Member had introduced was my wishes in that respect should be strictly perpetually causing the delay of public followed. The election for London took business, I did undertake to introduce the place, and I was returned by a small maBill which is now before the Committee. jority of nine. At the last election I was The hon. and learned Member, thereupon, asked whether I would be a candidate in thinks that I am a fair object of attack, conjunction with three other gentlemen. I and that he is justified in bringing a per- replied that I felt honoured by having been sonal charge against me. [Mr. ANSTEY: elected for London, and that I was willing I made no personal attack.] Well, the to be a candidate again; but that I would hon. Member at least attacked the charac- not be connected in a requisition with any ter of my constituency, and called upon other person whatever. The election took me to put the city of London into the place, and I was returned by a great maschedule of the Bill. I deny that, because jority. No person, that I know of, has I have undertaken the management of this complained of the manner in which that Bill, at the request of influential Members election was conducted. I have not paid of the House, I am bound to put the place out of my own pocket the sum of 32,0001. I represent in the schedule without any I paid nothing more than I thought necescause being assigned for that proceeding, sary for the lawful expenses of the elecmerely to gratify the curiosity or the ma- tion. I contributed no money to be aplignity of those who pursue me as the in-plied to corrupt practices, nor did I resort troducer of this measure. I am merely to any management to prevent an election 66 |