He

MR. CHILDERS concurred in the wish that the Estimates had been more clearly prepared. He trusted that the Civil Estimates when produced would be found to be arranged, not after the fashion of the Army, but of the Navy Estimates. He wished to say a word about the storehouses at Woolwich. He was far from saying that more store accommodation was not needed at the Tower. But the Admiralty had valuable property at Woolwich and at Deptford suitable for storing purposes; and he did not see why the Admiralty and the War Office might not have referred the matter to the Treasury for settlement. The First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that he would abandon Deptford, and, after a time, Woolwich, as far as shipbuilding was concerned; but Deptford was the best store receiving place in the Kingdom; and it would therefore be a great waste of money to spend £70,000 for new storehouses at Woolwich. He trusted that the Admiralty and the War Office would come to some arrangement in regard to this matter.

which would accordingly be appropriated | about the country, and he wished to check for that purpose, while the Chelsea Bar- the expense of unnecessary marches. racks would accommodate the Guards here- would not therefore venture upon pledges tofore quartered there. Then there was which he might not find convenient, or, the proposed new store accommodation, perhaps, even agreeable to the soldier, to and he doubted whether any one charge carry out; and he could only assure the in all these Estimates was of more press- hon. Baronet that he thought the recoming necessity than this. Ever since the mendations of the Committee worthy of Crimean War our stores had been huddled careful consideration. together in a ditch at the Tower in the most unseemly, inconvenient, and extravagant way. Hon. Members would recollect the painful alarm that arose some months ago as to the possibility of acts of outrage in London. He did not feel at liberty to disregard the remonstrance, pressed upon him from the highest quarters, lest damage should be done to these stores. They were close to the east angle of the Tower, exposed to injury by fire thrown over the wall; and upon representations made by competent officers whom he had appointed to inspect the Store Department, he ordered the stores to be at once removed. They were very large in quantity and very valuable; and, having no place to put them, he was obliged to distribute them all over the country measure not only inconvenient, but costly. Under those circumstances, he arranged for the purchase of a large building on the banks of the Thames, opposite Woolwich, but legal difficulties unfortunately occurred, and he was unable to proceed with the purchase. His hon. Friend said, "Why did you not put them at Deptford ?" He was desirous to put them there, and sent to inspect the site. But it was absolutely necessary to have a water access, and the Admiralty would not part with any portion of the yard which had a water access. The only remaining point he had to notice was the reference that had been made to Aldershot. On this point, he (Sir John Pakington) thought there was some misapprehension. He was asked to relieve the soldiers from the inconvenience and annoyance of being quartered there in the winter. Now, the reports which reached him were that regiments returning to this country were far from objecting to Aldershot. For the sake of the soldier and of the country, however, he thought it was desirable that considerable portions of the troops should be sent into barracks in country quarters; and had it not been for the unfortunate outrages which occurred in connection with Fenians, arrangements would have been made with this view. But great expense arose in moving soldiers

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON reminded the hon. Gentleman that he could not prepare these Estimates in reference to an opinion uttered by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty only a few days ago. He should be glad, however, to come if possible to an arrangement with the Admiralty, in which event the proposed expenditure would of course be unnecessary.

SIR HARRY VERNEY remarked that the right hon. Gentleman had adverted to the possibility of sending a portion of the Guards away from the middle of London to a most inconvenient barrack at Chelsea. Two years ago, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) suggested that the barracks behind the National Gallery might, perhaps, be done away with at some future time. On the very night that suggestion was made he chanced to walk from the House to Hyde Park, and there found a mob busily engaged in knocking down the railings. That circumstance plainly showed

the impolicy of carrying out the suggestion, | The Committee was influenced by these two as these barracks were of great import- considerations-first, that the officers' pay ance for securing the tranquillity of the was very small, compared with the position metropolis in the event of disturbances breaking out.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, while earnestly desiring to provide

Member who might object to decisions at which they had arrived. It would almost appear, from the manner in which this question had been argued both in that House and in the Press, as though their only object was to substitute for the Election Committee another tribunal; but, for his own part, he would not have consented to part, with the power of that House with respect to elections petitions upon that ground alone. The two great objects to be kept in view were to secure an immediate trial; and to secure that the trial should take place on the spot. By trying the case immediately they would get rid of the disgraceful system, which he was given to understand prevailed to a large extent, of pairing off one petition against another, by which the worst cases of corruption were prevented from coming before the public. It was, of course, difficult to procure evidence upon this point; but he was afraid there was but too much truth in the charge. Then, as to the advantages to be derived from a trial upon the spot, most hon. Members had been present during the time that one of those disgraceful scandals-the trial of an election petition-was going on, and one of the worst features of those trials was that frequently answer after answer was given which everyone present knew was untrue. This would not be the case if the evidence were given in the face of those who were fully acquainted with the facts, and at the place where the witness lived. The trial of elections as proposed by the Bill would be surrounded by circumstances similar to those attending ordinary trials by a Judge in open court. The trial of a charge of bribery could not, therefore, fail to be associated in the minds of the people with the trial of other criminal offences; and would, in time, induce the belief that, after all, bribery was a serious offence of which an honest man should be ashamed. It was said, however, that the House was un-years ago the table of the House was laden willing to part with its jurisdiction. But what was the jurisdiction of the House in that matter at present? He said that the House as a House had no more jurisdiction in the case at present than it would have under the Bill. The House had no voice in the constitution of the Election Committees, and it had not reserved to itself the right of questioning the decisions of those Committees. As Sir Erskine May had accurately said, it was impossible to conceive a Legislative Assembly more strictly bound by a public law over which it had no control, and in carrying out

which it had little or no discretion. The moment the House had allowed the General Committee of Elections to be appointed unchallenged it had no more voice in the matter. Another illustration of the erroneous impression existing with regard to the jurisdiction of the House was to be found in the case of a bankrupt Member. If after a year that Member's bankruptcy was not reversed, the House did not think its jurisdiction encroached on because the seat was vacated without a Parliamentary inquiry into the solvency of its Member. All that was wanted in the trial of an election petition was to ascertain a matter of fact-whether A. B. was guilty of tendering a bribe or not. That was not the province of a Legislature, but eminently within the province of a Judge. Some hoped to see bribery die out as constituencies were enlarged; but he had little faith in that prophecy. It was true the smaller constituencies had furnished cases of most flagrant corruption; the obvious reason being that it was easier and cheaper to buy a small constituency than a large one. Others had directed attention to the West, and perhaps an hon. Member experienced in United States elections would furnish the House with trustworthy information on the subject. His belief, however, was that any person in the streets of a United States' city during a closely contested election would soon be asked whether he had voted, and, if not, would be informed that a sumptuous breakfast and a ten dollar bill were at his disposal in a neighbouring house. Still, it could not be denied the changes proposed by the Bill were very great, and it too often hapened that it was only when a change had been made that the wisdom of the original practice was discovered. But, notwithstanding this, the House should inquire under what circumstances the Bill had come before it.

Two

with petitions, and, from time to time, hon. Members had received the records of the disclosures to which those petitions led. Another General Election was impending, and if some such Bill as the present were not passed a repetition of these unwelcome proceedings must necessarily follow. He therefore contended that some change was demanded by the necessities of the times; and, in his opinion, the changes proposed by the Bill were one and all sound in principle. He would have been unwilling to refer the trial of election petitions to any tribunal which had not the full confidence of the

country; but the scheme of the Bill left | country, the Judges were bound to decide no room for criticism on this head. The such matters when they rested upon quesnew franchises conferred by the Act of last tions of fact. In cases of bribery, the year, if used honestly, would be a source Lord Chancellor, not being able to decide of strength to the House; but, if they be- questions of fact, would in former times came wares to be bought and sold, they send the traverse to the Queen's Bench as would undoubtedly be a source of great a matter of course, and then it would be weakness. If corruption entered largely tried. So that it would appear that by into the composition of the next Parlia- the ancient common law every question of ment the money-elected would find that it fact with regard to the validity of the rewas one thing to buy the suffrages of the turn to the writ for the election of Mempeople, but quite another to secure their bers of Parliament was triable by the confidence. Such a Parliament might well Judges with a jury, and not by the House and fairly represent the heaped-up wealth of Commons, and that, when the validity of of the country; but it would fail to feel the the election depended upon a question of pulse which stir those working millions law, it was decided by the Chancellor withwho go to make the real life-blood of the out a jury, sitting as a Judge at common nation. law on the Common Law side of the Court of Chancery. So if the election of a Coroner, under the writ De Coronatore eligendo, or a Verderer, were impeached questions of law were decided by the Chancellor sitting on the Common Law side in Chancery, while questions of fact were triable by the Judges with a jury in the Court of Queen's Bench. The present anomalous power of the House of Commons had been assumed for political reasons; and he did not think that the House of Commons, in abandoning this jurisdiction, could fairly be charged with sacrificing any portion of its independence, especially when they remembered the great power which the House of Commons possessed and the diminished importance of the Royal Prerogative. Though he approved, however, the principles on which this Bill was founded, he doubted whether the mode selected was the one best calculated to carry out the objects which they had in view. He understood the Bill to provide that two Judges should be drafted from the Superior Courts, to decide upon this question of contested elections; but he much doubted whether they would be able to determine all the questions that would be raised after a General Election, while, at other times, they would have little more than sinecure appointments. He would recommend, instead of this proposal, that power be given to the Crown to issue a Special Commission whenever elections were to be decided upon-a plan by which the services of the most competent persons could be secured; while, when no election inquiries were pending, they would not have officials receiving salaries without rendering any services in return.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he feared some misapprehension existed regarding the constitutional question involved in the Bill. It seemed to be assumed that the jurisdiction of the House of Commons over its election petitions was a part of the ancient Constitution, and of the liberties of Parliament; but it could be traced back no earlier than Elizabeth's time, and originated in an anomalous usurpation by the House of Commons contrary to the common law of the country; though pro bably it was necessary, considering the influence of the Crown at that time, that Parliament should vindicate its right to say who should and who should not sit in the House. No such vindication, however, was necessary in these days. What, then, was the common law on the subject? Before that usurpation to which he referred, the common law was that a return to a writ, if triable, had to be invariably contested in the Court from which it had issued, and to which it returned. The writ for the election of Members of Parliament issued from the Court of Chancery; and the return was still made to that Court, and no Member could take his seat until the return had been so made. If questioned, the validity of the return was tried in the Courts of Law; if impeached by a demurrer, it was tried in the Court of Chancery, sitting as a Court of Common Law; if impeached by a traverse, the Lord Chancellor delivered the record into the hands of the officers of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the trial was made by that Court and a jury. This was the more worthy of remark because the Judges had lately declared themselves incompetent to decide any election questions; whereas, by the common law of the

MR. BERKELEY said, this was a Bill which had come down to the House by