to the practical part of the Question, we have no intention of revising the Bill in order to bring the First Lord of the Admiralty into this Honse. We are quite satisfied with the present arrange ment. PARLIAMENT (MR. BRADLAUGH). MR. P. A. TAYLOR asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has, during the past three weeks, received resolutions from numerous largely at tended public meetings strongly protesting against the borough of Northampton being deprived of its constitutional representation in the House of Commons; whether he is aware that similar resolutions have been received by Mr.Speaker; and, whether, if Mr. Bradlaugh is forbidden to take his seat, he will support a Motion that a new writ should be forthwith issued for the election of a Member in his stead? sent to me by chairmen of public meetings, but they have no official character; and, therefore, I should not be warranted in communicating them to the House, which can only be properly approached by Petition on a subject of this kind. THE OFFICE OF LORD PRIVY SEAL. MR. BROADHURST asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to abolish the office of Lord Privy Seal? MR. GLADSTONE: Her Majesty's Ministers have not yet finally decided as to how they will advise Her Majesty with regard to the Office of Lord Privy Seal. The question is connected with some other matters of administration; but they will take care that the House is informed of their intention before they come to the consideration of any vote on the subject. SOUTH AFRICA-THE TRANSVAAL- I wish to ask the Prime Minister, If he MR. GLADSTONE: I have received a variety of resolutions which purport to come, and I daresay may come, "from numerous largely attended public meetings," protesting against the present state of things with regard to the borough of Northampton. Some of them protest in language, the strength and unmeasured character of which-although I quite admit that the question is very serious, and justifies the use of language that is strong in a certain sense-I cannot help regretting. I am aware that it is mentioned that in one or two cases those resolutions have been transmitted to Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), as well as to myself. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I am not sure that the hon. Member has fully considered what it implies. He asks whether, if Mr. Bradlaugh is forbidden POST OFFICE-MAIL SERVICE TO THE to take his seat, the Government will support the Motion for the issue of a New Writ for the borough of Northampton? I apprehend that the seat is certainly not vacant, and that no Writ could issue. MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received the resolutions referred to by the Prime Minister; and, if so, whether you deem it advisable to communicate them to the House? MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that several resolutions have been MR. GLADSTONE: Owing to cir cumstances which have occurred since I last answered a Question on this subject, and which I will explain in a day or two, I am not able to give the answer which I fully hoped to be able to give to-day. On Monday I hope to be able to give an explanation to the right hon. Gentle man. MAURITIUS. SIR JOHN HAY asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the condition of affairs in Madagascar, and of the importance of the Mauritius as a Naval Station, and as the mail service on that route was carried out by French vessels only once a month, Her Majesty's Ministers would consider the necessity for increasing. the mail communication between this country, Madagascar, and the Mauritius, especially as there was no telegraphic communication between Africa and those Islands? MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord asks the hon. and learned Gentleman a specific Question, involving the action of the Attorney General as a Member of that Committee. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, Sir-["Order, order!"] THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- | intentions with regard to a Bill of which QUER (Mr. CHILDERS): My right hon. they have charge, and which is now beFriend the First Minister has asked fore the House? me to answer this Question. In reply, I have to say that no proposal for increased mail communication between this country and Mauritius, including Madagascar, has been before the Treasury. There was a suggestion for subsidizing a line of steamers between Natal and Mauritius in 1879, on which the Colonial Office and Admiralty were consulted; but it was decided that the line would not be of sufficient importance to warrant their Lordships of the Treasury in asking Parliament to contribute to its support. At this moment I cannot say that we see any necessity for a duplicate line to Mauritius; but, beyond doubt, the Departments concerned will watch the course of events. PARLIAMENT-THE STANDING COM- LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Seeing the Attorney General in his place, I wish to ask him, Whether it is the fact, as generally rumoured in the House, that he has come to the deplorable decision of abandoning the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill, in the Grand Committee on Law; and, if that is so, whether he recollects the answer he gave, I think, on Monday last, in which he announced his intention of vigorously persevering with the measure, and how he proposes to reconcile his present action with his recent answer? MR. BUCHANAN: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman answers, I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Question of the noble Lord is in Order, when the proceedings of a Committee on a certain Bill before them to which it has reference are not reported to the House? MR. SPEAKER: The Committee not having reported to the House, undoubtedly the Question is not strictly in Order; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks proper to answer the noble Lord, I should not feel bound to prevent him. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: On a point of Order I wish to know whether it is not in the power of any Member to ask the Government their MR. SPEAKER: What I meant to say was that if the noble Lord asked the Question of the Attorney General, as a Member of the Committee, it would not be in Order. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No. I asked him as a Member of the Government. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Has it not been distinctly laid down that the Standing Committees take the place of Committees of the Whole House? Under these circumstances, are they not in a different category from ordinary Select Committees, and are we not entitled to ask Ministers what are their intentions as to the future stages of a Bill? MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I wish to ask what difference there is between the present Question and the Question which I put on Monday on the same subject? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): As you have said, Sir, that there is no objection to the Question of the noble Lord being answered, I have not the slightest objection to answer it. I did think it right this afternoon to give Notice that I would submit to the Committee, at its next meeting on Tuesday next, a Resolution to the effect that the Committee should not proceed with the further consideration of the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill. I have been led to take that course with the greatest possible regret; but circumstances have been placed before me-notably the circumstances of to-day, when we were prevented from forming a Committee by the active exertions of one of its Members-which caused me to think that it would be hopeless to endeavour to proIceed with the Bill. I did not state on Monday that I would exert myself vigorously to go on with the Bill; but I did say that I would not abandon all hope until it became quite clear that it was not possible to proceed with the Bill. We arrived at that stage to-day, and therefore I felt compelled to take the course I have done. MR. GIBSON: It would be a great convenience if the Attorney General would state to the House whether the Resolution he will submit to the Committee on Tuesday next will be of the simple character he has just stated, or will contain reasons which may be contentious for the step he has taken? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I think this Question is going a little beyond what a Question should be. But I may state that the Motion I shall submit to the Committee I will endeavour to make very brief and simple, so as to avoid all matters of a controversial character. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask whether the reasons the Attorney General will submit to the Committee will contain the name of the Member he has just been alluding to? MR. RAIKES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the great and signal success of the principle of delegation and devolution, he proposes to refer any more Bills to this Committee during the present Session? [Laughter.] MR. GLADSTONE: Owing to the laughter of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) and those near him, I was unable myself to hear the Question. I do not see that the announcement just made by my hon. and learned Friend to visit the spot and make a full Report as to the condition of the Viaduct. As soon as that Report was received, there would be no objection to lay it on the Table. PARLIAMENT THE STANDING COM MITTEES-RE-APPOINTMENT. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the Prime Minister, Whether, considering the undertaking given by the Session that the question of the re-apSecretary of State for War in the last pointment of the Standing Committees should be brought forward at a time when it could be fully discussed by the House, he would now state when he would be prepared to bring forward the question of the re-appointment of those Committees for next Session? MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I have not come to any resolution as to asking the House to consider that question at the present time; but, as the hon. Member intends to imply by his Question, a proposal will not be made without consulting the convenience of the House. MR. GIBSON said, a distinct promise was given that the question would be brought on before the end of July. [An hon. Member: Or October.] ORDERS OF THE DAY. 1609 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (COR RUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.-[BILL 7.] imposes on the Government, or upon (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, the House, the duty of arriving at any immediate decision with regard to the possibility of referring any other measures to this Committee. I agree that that question should be considered as soon as it conveniently can. MR. RAIKES said, that, having regard to an answer which had been made by the Attorney General within the last few minutes, to the effect that the Government were willing to favourably consider Amendments which did not touch crucial or essential points of the Bill, he would venture to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would not reconsider the course he proposed to take when the Amendment was proposed; and whether the Government would not even now see their way to accept the Amendment? He put this question, because he felt certain that there were very few points in the Bill more likely to cause difference of opinion in the House than that which was involved in the Amendment he had proposed; and he ventured to think that those differences were likely to arise among Members who usually supported the Government of which the hon. and learned Member was one. He, therefore, hoped that the Attorney General would accept his advice in good part. The feeling was strong that the penalty of 10 years' exclusion from Parliament was sufficient for the graver offences covered by the clause; and he was quite sure that with regard to the more venial offences, such as treating, there would be a very general repugnance to see a man so severely punished whenever it could be shown that he had committed the offence himself. He hoped, therefore, that the Attorney General would be able to accept this Amendment, because he felt certain that his so doing would considerably tend to the passing of the Bill. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, the Committee would recollect that the question of penalties under the 3rd clause came before them as a whole, and that at the time he stated very distinctly the course which he would be willing to take, the view of the Government being that the penalty of disqualification ought to be retained, because the effect of the action of a candidate upon a constituency would remain for a long time after the Parliamentary contested election in which he had been guilty of corrupt practices. The question of degree was, of course, an important one to consider; and he hoped the Committee would not think that he had omitted to consider that as well as every other branch of the question. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he did not desire to interpose for any length of time between the Committee and a division; but he wished very shortly to say that, in his view, it would be wise to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge and mitigate the penalty in the way which he proposed. They must consider what the general bearing of a very severe measure must be, and in so considering it they must remember that one of two things would probably happen. If the penalties were made too severe the result would probably be that men of sensitive honour and high character, afraid of the consequences of some inadvertence on their own part, or of the steps taken by their agents, would refrain from seeking seats in the House, or the constituencies would be appealed to by candidates of a class less to be depended upon, and less sensitive in the matter of honour. One or other of those things would happen, or the Bill might become. inoperative by reason of the fact that there would be an indisposition to put in force a measure which would produce such serious consequences; and therefore the measure might prove inoperative by virtue of its own severity. He was reluctant to appear indifferent to the taking of any steps for the repression of corrupt practices; but his own opinion, after having considered the matter very carefully, was that it would be advisable to adopt a milder course than that which was proposed in the Bill; and therefore he hoped that the Committee would adopt the Amendment which had been proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge. MR. RYLANDS said, he did not wish to delay the Committee in coming to a decision on this question; and his hope was to give some assistance-he certainly should give all the assistance in his power-towards the passing of the Bill. He had endeavoured to gather the opinions of Members on both sides of the House in regard to the measure; and he believed there was a general consensus of opinion that if the Attorney General showed a disposition to meet the views of a majority in the House, he would find that there was a desire to pass the Bill in a modified form at the earliest possible moment. He had, therefore, been glad to hear his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General | placed in the same category men who state that he was not unwilling to listen patiently to suggestions which might be made in order to improve the Bill. His own view was that in any case no sufficient reason had been shown to justify so extreme a penalty as was included in the Bill. He would suggest that it might be possible to limit the term of years during which a candidate should not be allowed to contest any constituency. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that if a candidate had been guilty of very wide and general corruption in a borough, no penalty could be too severe; but there were cases in which some elasticity should be be given. MR. CHAMBERLAIN said, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had on every occasion shown a desire to meet every reasonable demand that could be made from every quarter in reference to the provisions of this Bill. As far as this particular question was concerned, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition in thinking that it was not desirable for the Bill to be so stringent as to defeat its own object; but, on the other hand, he thought it necessary to point out that if Parliament was really in earnest in this matter, they must not fritter away and water down the measure until the last stage of the question would be worse than the first. His hon. Friend had spoken of a Gentleman not being able to sit for what he called "his own constituency," and upon this point he was particularly hard. He should very much like to know what constituted a right for any Member of the House to call any constituency his own. A man could only, in any circumstances, make a constituency "his own in the sense in which the phrase had been used by buying and corrupting it, with the view of sooner or later being returned for it, as the result of the corruption which he had practised. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, he had been surprised by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Pesident of the Board of Trade, who seemed to think that any man who could come under this particular clause must necessarily be a man whose sole business in life had been the debauching of constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman practically asked that there should be VOL. CCLXXX. (THIRD SERIES] had literally and deliberately debauched whole constituencies, and other men who, by accident or mistake, had committed a trifling error, and so brought themselves within the clauses of the Bill under discussion. It would be a very hard case for a young man who had just come of age, and who wished to sit for a particular constituency with which he was connected by birth, if by the act of an agent he was prevented from representing the constituency, even though he might live to 80 or 90 years of age. A man sent into penal servitude might, after he had served his time, go back to the place from whence he came and perform all the duties of citizenship therein; but a man who had, by the act of an agent or by his own inadvertence, committed an offence under this Bill, no matter how good and high his character might be, could never sit for the constituency. MR. MACFARLANE said, this had been described as a Bill of degrees, and he was particularly anxious to know whether there were not degrees as well of guilt as of punishment? It certainly seemed to him hard that the smallest slip or accident occurring to a candidate or his agent should disqualify a candidate from sitting for the constituency which might choose him, and which certainly would be his own choice, for the remainder of his life. He certainly could not accept the principle of life-long punishment; and when the opportunity arose he should move an Amendment which would have the effect of reducing the penalty. He had no objection to retaining the maximum period of 10 years as that during which a candidate should not be allowed to contest a constituency which he had corrupted; but he thought that the Judges should be allowed a discretion in reference to inflicting the maximum penalty. MR. R. N. FOWLER agreed with the hon. Member who had spoken last in thinking that the Bill ought not to be made too severe in its provisions; because he was of opinion that it might thereby defeat its own object, which was, on the whole, a wise and reasonable one. The Bill bristled with difficulties; and he feared that if it was passed into law in its present form it would permit the entrance of men to the House whose presence therein would only result in a [Seventh Night.] 2 P |