trolled, and he must therefore press his clause to a division. LORD DENMAN addressed the House shortly, but was quite inaudible. On Question? their Lordships divided --Contents 17; Not-Contents 30: Majority 13. Resolved in the Negative. CONTENTS. Lyveden, L. Saltersford, L. (E. Cour- NOT-CONTENTS. Cairns L. (L. Chancel lor.) Buckingham and Chandos, D. Marlborough, D. Exeter, M. Bradford, E. Brooke and Warwick, E. Chichester, E. Graham, E, (D. Montrose.) Harrowby, E. Hawarden, V. [Teller.] Abinger, L. Churston, L. Clinton, L. Colchester, L. persons who for the last two years had House of Commons, and that it would EARL GRANVILLE said, he did not think it necessary, as the Government did Colville of Culross, L. not intend to propose the restoration of [Teller.] Denman, L. the clauses expunged by the other House, Hartismere, L. (L. Hen- to enter into the reasons why those clauses niker.) had been deemed objectionable. Houghton, L. Lucan, E. Malmesbury, E. Mostyn, L. Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accord Silchester, L. (E. Long-ingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next. ford.) Southampton, L. Further Amendments made: Bill to be read 3 on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 288.) REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL(No. 281.) (The Lord Privy Seal.) SECOND READING. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. THE EARL OF LEITRIM expressed regret at the course taken by the House of Commons with regard to polling places, his fear being that scenes of confusion and bloodshed would occur at the approaching election. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, he deeply regretted the failure of the proposition made by the Government, when the Bill was in the other House, for an increased number of polling-places, in consequence of the opposition of the very House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, half past Four o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, July 24, 1868. MINUTES.]· SELECT COMMITTEE Report- Committee - Regulation of Railways [142]- * The House met at Two of the clock. COURT OF CHANCERY AND COUNTY COURTS.-QUESTION. MR. HARDCASTLE said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a statement of Vice Chancellor Stuart's, in the case "Picard v. Hine," in which the Vice Chancellor refused to transfer the suit to a County Court on the ground that the costs in the County Courts exceeded those in the Court above; and, whether he is aware of the truth of this statement of Vice Chancellor Stuart's? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, in reply, that he had received a communica tion from the chief clerk of Vice Chancellor Sir John Stuart on this subject. The re sult of that communication was this-that the chief clerk believed he did state in reply to a question from his Honour that the expenses to be incurred after the transfer of the case to a County Court would exceed those in the Court of Chancery. He went on to say that the opinion so expressed was formed from general impressions. METROPOLIS-PARK LANE.-QUESTION. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether it is the intention of the Metropolitan Board of Works to give the necessary notices to the owners and occupiers of houses in Hamilton Place, in order to enable the next Parliament, should it think it expedient, to carry out the recommendations of the Private Bill Committee, to which was referred the Bill to widen and improve Park Lane? COLONEL HOGG said, as the hon. Genleman appeared to be under some misapprehension, he would state exactly what had been done in this matter. The first Bill brought into Parliament by the Metropolitan Board of Works for improving Park Lane was in the Session of 1865; its object was to open a new public road or street in continuation of Hamilton Place (Sec. 7). The deposited estimate of expense was £10,000. The Bill went into Committee, but the Preamble was declared not proved. A further Bill was brought into Parliament by the Board in the Session of 1866 to widen and improve Park Lane on the west side. The capital sought to be raised was £120,000. The deposited Bill was withdrawn by order of the Board on account of the state of the Session. A further Bill was brought into Parliament by the Board in the Session of 1867 for the same improvement as mentioned in the Bill of 1866; the proposed capital was £120,000. The Bill was never proceeded with in Committee. A further Bill was brought in by the Board this Session for the same improvement, the capital proposed mittee, who declared the Preamble not to being £115,000. This Bill went into Comhave been proved. The Metropolitan Board were, therefore, in some sort of difficulty. They had several meetings on the subject, and the matter had been referred to the surveyor to go into the matter thoroughly. weeks engaged on it, and expected to That gentleman had now been about three report next week about the various schemes What the decision of the Board would be it was impossible for him to say, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that they would endeavour next year to bring in some Bill or other for opening up Park Lane, and making it more convenient for the public than it was at present. AGENTS AT THE FOREIGN OFFICE. QUESTION. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Circular has been sent to Her Majesty's Missions Abroad, notifying that no person in the Diplomatic or Consular Service who has not now an Agent at the Foreign Office will be allowed to take one; and, whether it is intended to make any arrangement to enable those who will be without Agents to draw their salaries; and, if so, whether those who now have Agents will be allowed to profit by any such arrangement? LORD STANLEY, in reply, said, what had been decided and what the diplomatic and consular servants had been informed of was the adoption of a Minute, of which the following is an extract: "That no Clerk or other person connected with the Foreign Office, except such as are at the date of this Minute (June 24, 1866) acting as Agents, shall hereafter, directly or indirectly, undertake to act as such for any of Her Majesty's diplomatic or consular servants." Diplomatists and Consuls have at the same time been reminded "That there is no obligation on them to employ as an Agent a Clerk in the Foreign Office for any purpose whatsoever, and that they may entrust to any person whom they may choose to employ, unconnected with the Foreign Office, their Powers | upon the Table of the House Copies in full of Attorney, under which moneys becoming due to them may be regularly received." CASE OF JAMES BELL.-QUESTION. MR ALDERMAN LUSK said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received any communication on behalf of a lad of the name of James Bell, who was convicted on the evidence of three policemen at the Middlesex Sessions on the 28th day of March last, (but from evidence since obtained he is supposed to be innocent); whether any copy or original Confession of a man named Daly, who was convicted on the 21st instant at the Middlesex Sessions has been received at the Home Office; and, what course the Home Secretary intends to pursue in reference to the lad James Bell? of the Reports and Letters of Captain Macdonald, Captain Vansittart, Admiral Ryder, and one of the Officers of the Ocean, Captain Chamberlain, of Admiral Warden, Admiral Yelverton, Captain Foley, Captain Hood, Captain King Hall, and Captain Willes, relating to Turret and Broadside-ships, with the Letters (if any) proceeding from any officer in the Admiralty to which any of these Reports and Letters were replies? LORD HENRY LENNOX said, in reply, that he had received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to the effect that there would be no objection on his part to lay upon the table of the House the documents to which the hon. Member referred. Some of those documents were written under the supposition that they would not be published, and contained matters of a personal nature; but the hon. Member might feel assured that nothing material to the subject would be omitted. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, in reply, that that morning only the Papers to which the hon. Gentleman referred reached the Home Office, consisting of a Memorial from the accused in his own favour, to which was attached a statement CASE OF CHARLES PENNEL MEASOR. of a person who was in custody. He had directed that the Papers should be immediately sent to the Assistant Judge who tried the case, in order that he might receive the learned Judge's notes and such comments as he might think fit to make upon the case before he took further steps in the matter. NAVY-OLD SHIPS AND SHEERNESS DOCKYARD.-QUESTION. MR. PEMBERTON said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the Government have come to any decision as to the mode of disposing of old ships; and, whether there is any truth in the report that the Government intended to close Sheerness Dockyard? LORD HENRY LENNOX said, in reply, that the mode in which old ships belonging to Her Majesty's Navy would be disposed of in future would depend upon the recommendations of the Committee now sitting upon the subject. There was no intention to close Sheerness Dockyard at present. NAVY-TURRET AND BROADSIDE SHIPS. QUESTION. MR. SEELY said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the extracts which he read on the 2nd and 13th instant, If he will lay QUESTION. Sir John Gray, said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Correspondence between Charles Pennell Measor, late sub-inspector of Factories and previously Deputy Governor in the Convict Service, and the Home Office, in reference to his claims for compensation for suggestions made by him for the improvement of the Convict system? An hon. MEMBER, in the absence of MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, in reply, that this was a Question which should be made perfectly clear to the House. The Question of the hon. Member was whether he would lay upon the table of the House a statement which a man made in his own favour in order to obtain compensation from the public? and, in reply, he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) begged to state that he did not think it expedient that such a course should be adopted. This was a case where a gentleman who thought that he had done. great service to the public had entered into a long correspondence with a particular Department of the Government for the purpose of obtaining a favourable consideration of his claims, which had been already rejected. The gentleman had other modes of bringing the correspondence before the public than that of having it laid upon the table of the House. Under these circumstances he could not consent to the request of the hon. Member. OUTBREAK OF CATTLE PLAGUE. QUESTION. MR. LIDDELL said, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Vice President of the Privy Council a Question of which he had given him private Notice-namely, Whether his attention has been called to the report which has appeared in one of the morning journals that an outbreak of Cattle Plague had occurred on the Continent of Europe; and, whether any official information on the subject of that report has reached him; and, if not, whether he will take immediate steps to ascertain whether or not that report is accurate? LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, in reply, that about a week ago the Government received official intelligence that an outbreak of cattle plague had occurred in Egypt, and that morning he had seen a telegraphic communication stating that there had also been outbreaks of that disease in St. Petersburg and in other districts of Russia. He was not aware that any official intelligence had been received with respect to the latter occurrence, but he would take care to inform himself whether such was the case or not by nine o'clock that evening. ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir Stafford Northcote.) [BILL 243]. THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."-(Mr. Disrveli.) MR. FAWCETT said, he rose to move as an Amendment that the Bill be re-committed, with the object of bringing up a clause relating to election expenses. His object was not to reverse a decision already arrived at; but he was induced to take this course, because, in consequence of the tactics adopted by the Government, he had been prevented from adding to the clause on which the House divided yesterday a proviso which originally belonged to it, protecting constituencies against unnecessary and factious contests, and consequently a false issue had been raised, and many hon. Members voted against the clause who would have supported it if it had been accompanied with the proviso in question. Therefore he contended that he was justified in taking this, perhaps, unusual course, in order to obtain the decision of the House on a straightforward Motion to re-commit the Bill were carried, and intelligible issue. He proposed, if his to bring up the original clause, throwing the expenses of elections in boroughs and counties on the ratepayers, and to add to it the clause carried by his noble Friend the Member for West Riding (Viscount Milton), which was approved of by the highest authority in that House upon the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) rating questions-the right hon. Gentleman and which enacted that, as regarded county elections, the expense should fall on the tion took place. Then he should also add division of the county in which the electhe proviso proposed yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman) requiring every candidate for whom a poll turning officer, in the case of a borough, was demanded to deposit with the re£100, and in the case of a county, £200, which deposit would be forfeited in case the candidate did not poll one-fifth of the whole number of electors voting at the election. candidates. safeguard against the nomination of sham This proviso was an effectual safeguard against the nomination of sham His great desire was that before the subject was finally decided the House should have the opportunity of expressing its opinion in a clause properly framed and properly protected. Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," in order to add the words "re-committed in respect of a Clause providing for returning officers' expenses out of rates,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)—instead thereof. MR. DIXON said, if there should be an objection to the proposed clause that it would not work well in the counties, they might in Committee make it applicable only to boroughs. He maintained that the expenses incurred at election contests by the returning officer would be reduced by one-half, or possibly by twothirds, if those expenses fell upon ratepayers instead of the candidates, inasmuch as the latter were regarded by the builders as fair game, and plundered in a way to which the guardians of the ratepayers' money would never think of submitting. Last year, in the borough the that he represented there was a contested | proposition. On more than one occasion election, and the expenses of the returning they had passed a clause, transferring the officer were £876. About 10,000 per expenses of elections from the candidate sons voted; but at the next election the to the locality for which the election took number of voters would probably be three place; but whenever such a clause had times as many, and the expenses of the been moved the hon. Member had declared returning officer would probably be in- that it must be accompanied by an arrangecreased in proportion. The Mayor of Bir- ment that would save the constituencies mingham, a man of great experience and from having to bear the charge of improper capacity, and he might add, for the benefit and vexatious contests. The hon. Gentleof hon. Gentlemen opposite, a sound Con- man had repeated that morning his stateservative, had informed him last night that ment that that was an indispensable porthe ratepayers of that borough were quite tion of his proposition. But the hon. Genwilling that the cost should fall on them, tleman had never brought that second half and he added that the authorities of the of his proposition before the House; and town would be able to erect hustings and what did he tell them that morning? He booths at a much less cost than the can- said that if he had the opportunity given didate could; the same, he believed, might him at this period he would propose the be said of all the boroughs throughout the original clause, transferring the expenses kingdom. Personally he should hail any of elections to the constituencies, and, at increase in the election charges with satis- the same time, would endeavour to accomfaction, because it would lessen the chances plish the other part of his plan to protect of any opposition to his return on the part the constituencies from vexatious contests, of gentlemen who were not able to expend by proposing the clause which was brought, as much as he could afford to; but he without Notice, under the consideration of trusted that the House would not consent the House yesterday by the hon. Member for to any course which would make wealth York (Mr. Leeman), and which the House, the passport to that assembly. The squires so far as he (Mr. Disraeli) could form any of this country must not expect that they opinion of their treatment of it, almost were to continue to be the only class who unanimously rejected. They rejected it could get into the House; for he would because they preferred the proposition of warn them that the traders and manufac- the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. turers were rapidly passing them in wealth, W. B. Beaumont), which they then proand were prepared to spend more money ceeded to consider; but in the end they to get into the House than the landed were obliged to reject that also. Therearistocracy could, and therefore it was for fore they had every reason to believe the interest of the landed gentry to oppose that no practical proposition could be this clause. He appealed to the right hon. advanced which would satisfactorily acGentleman at the head of the Government complish the hon. Gentleman's object, not to diminish the credit which he had for the hon. Member had told them obtained in reference to this measure from that some addendum was not only indisall parties throughout this country by re- pensably necessary but was an indispensisting a clause which was received out- sable portion of his proposition. He (Mr. of-doors with so much favour. Disraeli) wished to say one word in reference to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the original clause proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton. When that clause was passed, the Government thought it their duty to take the opinion of the Committee a second time upon it, because they felt that the final adoption of it in its imperfect state would probably involve them and the country in difficulties which could be scarcely exaggerated. It had been said that he had expressed great indignation on Monday last at the idea being suggested that Her Majesty's Government contemplated asking the House to re-consider this question. Now that was a complete misapprehension. MR. DISRAELI said, he could assure the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) that one of the principal objects of the Bill, which he (Mr. Disraeli) had had the honour to introduce, was to prevent any undue advantage being given to wealth in the election of Members of Parliament; and he hoped that that purpose was apparent in most of its clauses. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) seemed to complain that he had not been fairly treated by the Government or the House in reference to his clause. But he (Mr. Disraeli) wished to remind the hon. Member and the House that they had never had from the hon. Member a complete |