time of the bad smell, when there was a considerable inattention to legislative duties. Another unhappy circumstance of that time was, that those on that (the Opposition) side laboured under the misfortune of finding one of their own friends and companions miraculously taking part against them. In conclusion, he must express his wonder that a Government which had acquired a considerable hold upon popular opinion, and which, if the reports circulated in Parliament Street were true, might any day in the week be called upon to exhibit its strength, should, after gaining credit by removing the Qualification of Members, have fallen into the snare which had been, whether designedly or not he knew not, laid for them. £1,500 a year it had been said in that House, he heard it,—was the proper sum for a candidate to expend. Was not that creating a worse property qualification than the old one? He won dered much at the conduct of the Government, because he thanked them for the good things they had done, his gratitude not being without that component part which looked for benefits to come. MR. AYRTON said, the clause which he had proposed in the Bill of last Session had been so much altered by hon. Gentlemen introducing a word here and a word there, that when it passed out of Committee it expressed a different idea from the one he had intended. It was an entire mistake to suppose that they had not gone further into that question than the discussion of any mere abstract proposition. The House got a step beyond that. They discussed it in a practical point of view, and then it was that the difficulties of the subject presented themselves. If his hon. and learned Friend should succeed in passing this Bill, and it should have the effect of putting an end to all bribery of the kind contemplated, no one would be more gratified than he (Mr. Ayrton) should be; but he was bound to say there had been a great deal of talk about this question in the recess, and he was induced to think he had rendered great service to some hon. Members whose votes in that House did not seem popular with their constituents. He could not but say, in reference to a point which had been mooted during the Debate, that to place in the hands of the Executive Government the management of elections, instead of leaving it with some local authority, would be to violate a principle of the constitution, and to embark in a career more dangerous to the enjoyment of political liberty in this country than any course which could possibly be conceived. MR. COX said, the main question was whether the House did or did not desire to put an end to corrupt practices. He saw no difficulty whatever in the matter. The objection of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton) against the Government appointing additional polling places was wholly absurd. What more easy than to enact that there should be one or more polling places in every parish throughout the kingdom? He was glad the Government had consented to the introduction of the Bill. It would be discussed at every stage, for there was a feeling abroad since the passing of the hon. and learned Gentleman's insidious clause that the House was not sincere in its efforts to prevent corruption. That Bill had passed last July, when they were stunk out by the Thames; it was not a fair expression of the opinions of the House; the votes on the third reading being only ninety-three to sixty, not a quarter of the House. 66 LORD HOTHAM said he did not rise to speak in opposition to the Bill, but in consequence of an observation that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier). If he (Lord Hotham) were allowed to assimilate the proceedings of this place to the proceedings of a certain place of which he (Mr. Collier) was a distinguished ornament, he would say that the hon. and learned Gentleman, availing himself of the opening of the Parliamentary Term, had that evening moved for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted of a cause heard and determined last Session. The hon. and learned Member had laid three grounds for his Motion. One, that the House had been taken by surprise; another, that the Bill of last Session had not been sufficiently discussed. He (Lord Hotham) thought his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had shown that there was no ground for these allegations. That the House was not taken by surprise had been shown by the hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) also. The division list gave evidence of the same fact, and there was as much discussion on the Bill as could possibly be expected at the time of year when it was passing through the House. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) had alluded to the paucity of the Members who took part in the discussion; but when that hon. Gentleman had more experience of that House he would find that no business whatever would secure a large their presence was felt to be an advantage; attendance at that season of the year. He and he thought that too much had been (Lord Hotham) had, however, no desire made about the indulgence shown to them; to refuse the hon. and learned Gentleman which was nothing more than this: they (Mr. Collier) his "rule" on the ground were asked, the same as other Members, that he had failed to make out a case of when it would be convenient to them to surprise or of insufficient discussion; but the attend on Committees, and therefore were hon. and learned Member had brought for- not put on Committees when they were ward a third ground-namely, the absence about to proceed on circuit. When the Bill of members of the common-law bar on of last Session was introduced, he certainly circuit. Now, the principle involved on understood from some one on the Governthat ground was one against which he ment side that it would not be pressed if (Lord Hotham) thought the House was serious opposition was offered. Finding it bound to set its face. He was sure the in the paper he came up from circuit members of the learned profession would to oppose it; but it was postponed for the not forget the great indulgence shown to convenience of Government to another day; them when it is necessary for the fulfilment and when he came up again he found the of their professional duties. An hon. and clause had been passed. He strongly dislearned Gentleman never failed to receive approved of it, as opening a wide door to leave of absence to enable him to go on fraud. The practice of paying travelling circuit. Members of the learned profession expenses had been condemned on this were almost entirely excused from those ground by Lord Mansfield, and other aulaborious duties on Committees which other thorities. The real remedy was to bring Members of the House had to discharge. the polling places to the voters; for if they The House did not complain of that, be- were too poor or apathetic to go to the poll cause it felt that the maintenance of the the House could not legislate for them. high feeling and education and standard of It had been well said by Mr. Justice Willes, the Bar was a matter of importance to the in the trial of Cooper v. Slade," that, country; but he hoped the members of the profession to which the hon. and learned Member belonged would not make so bad a return for the indulgence which they always received from the House as to expect, in addition to that indulgence, that the exertions of the House should be paralysed while they were attending to the duties of their profession, or that Parliament would reverse any decision come to whilst they were absent attending to their private avocations. He had his own opinion on the question at issue; but into that question he would not at present enter. He had, as one of the oldest Members of that House, felt it necessary, as no other hon. Member had done so, to protest against the principle which the hon. and learned Member had laid down in respect of the absence of lawyers-one which he hoped would not receive the sanction of the other hon. and learned Members in that House. MR. D. NICOLL said, the second division on the Bill of last Session was taken after one o'clock in the morning-an hour at which, according to his experience, there never was a large attendance of Members. MR. MELLOR said, that Lord Hotham had mistaken his hon. and learned Friend's remarks respecting the absence of lawyers. There undoubtedly were occasions when "Whatever may be the better opinion as to the justice of payments between candidate and voter, it may well have been the intention of the Legislature to prohibit them as very likely to engender corrupt practices which would be the more dangerous from being plausible." He sincerely hoped that the Act would be repealed before a dissolution took place. The expense that had been incurred already at isolated elections was enormous- -much more than equal, in the case of each candidate, to a property qualification. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he thought it right to bear his testimony to the fact that the Bill of last Session was very fully and fairly discussed, and that the attendance of Members at the time was what, under the fluctuating circumstances which governed attendances from day to day, might be considered a very fair average attendance. At the same time, he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend, the introducer of this Bill, that he had gone out of his way to lay a ground which was quite unnecessary for the purpose he had in view. He might have admitted that the Bill had had the fullest and fairest discussion last year; but that was no reason why any Member who was of a different opinion should not call upon the House to reconsider its decision. It was not necessary, in order to bring an im portant matter under the consideration of the House in one Session, to show that the thing had not been fully discussed before; on the contrary, they all knew that the most important questions which had come from time to time before the House had been fully and fairly discussed in one Session, had been brought under consideration also in the succeeding one, and that many had only been carried after repeated discussions. He was one who had supported the Bill as it stood; and he owned he had not heard in the course of the discussion anything that very much shook his belief that, on the whole, the course pursued by Parliament last year was the best. He could not bring his mind to conceive that paying the expense of conveying a voter to the poll was an act of bribery. He really could not bring himself to believe that a voter would give his vote merely for the sake of a five minutes' ride in a cab, especially when he knew that whoever he voted for would give him the same advantage. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, it is a quibble to attempt to draw a distinction between paying a voter's expenses and giving him the money to pay it himself. But it seemed to him that there was a very real and practical distinction between the two; and that was the subject of the many discussions on the Bill last year. If it were permitted to give money to the voter, that would open the door to any amount of bribery; because if, under the guise of giving him money to pay his travelling expenses, any money passed between the candidate and the voter, it was impossible to prevent any amount of bribery. And the reason why he thought the law a good one as it stood was, that it prohibited money from passing between the voter and the candidate, and only permitted the latter to pay the expenses attendant on the conveyance of the voter to the poll. It would be very difficult indeed to frame a measure which would completely carry out the views of those who supported this proposition. Not only must the candidate, but also his friends and supporters, be prohibited from providing the means of conveyance ; in short, they must enact that every voter should find for himself the means of going to the poll. How far that would be acceptable to constituents he could not take upon himself to say; but the result would be, that a great many poor electors, who lived at a distance from the places of polling, would be pre cluded from exercising their franchise. He quite agreed that they ought to mul tiply polling places as far as possible both in counties and in boroughs, so that no man should be able to say that he could not get to the poll to give his vote. But on all those matters there was much to be said both ways; and hon. Members must recollect that the creation of additional polling places would throw additional expense on candidates for extra clerks and the erection of booths. He feared that they would mislead themselves if they supposed it possible to make a contested election au enjoyment free of all expense. Like every other luxury it must be paid for. He wished it to be as cheap as possible. He had enjoyed it himself several times, but not so cheaply as he could wish. He thought that they would not promote the public service by stigmatizing as bribery and corruption acts which in themselves were innocent and blameless. He was quite disposed to give this Bill every consideration when it was brought in; but he should be rather apprehensive of their falling into one error in endeavouring to avoid another. Of this, however, he was perfectly sure, that every Member of the House would be anxious to do his utmost in support of any measure which would really tend to the prevention of bribery and corruption. MR. COLLIER, in reply, said that in remarking on the absence of lawyers, he had merely meant to excuse himself for not opposing the Bill of last Session. This Bill would reduce the expenses of elections, and on that ground he claimed the support of the learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Deasy). As to polling places, he would merely give the Government the power to ascertain whether additional polling places were necessary, and if so, to make the requisite Order in Council. desired to remedy what was considered to be a great grievance connected with the administration of public justice. The Coroners' juries were quite incompetent to decide what was manslaughter and what was not. It often required great discrimination to draw the line, and it was a very common thing to hear Judges at assizes tell the grand jury that the evidence against persons committed on Coroners' inquisitions was not sufficient to support the charges on which they had been committed. But at present, after the verdict had been found, Coroners had no power to admit to bail persons charged with manslaughter; and, consequently, persons were sometimes detained for five or six months in prison, waiting for the assize, who were immediately acquitted upon their trials, or only sentenced to very light punishment. A poor man, committed under a Coroner's warrant, not having the means of applying to a Judge in London, must lie in prison, and even in the case of those of better means, there was some imprisonment and some expense. An act of manslaughter might be committed by some slight act of negligence; as in a recent case, where a man employed in a mine omitted to place properly a stage, and consequently a truck fell into the mine and unhappily killed a man passing underneath. There was no intention in that case, and it was impossible for any man not a lawyer to say whether the negligence amounted to manslaughter. In another case of a different kind, where an epidemic prevailed in a village remote from medical aid, the clergyman of the parish provided himself with powders prescribed for the disease by a book of competent authority. One of those powders was given to a child of weak frame, who subsequently died. Upon an inquest the medical men admitted that in all probability the child would in any case have died from the disease; but one of them said he thought the death had been hastened by the administration of the powder to a child of delicate frame. The jury return ed a verdict of Manslaughter," and the Coroner was obliged to commit the clergyman to gaol, where he had to remain until an application could be made to a Judge in London for his admission to bail. When the case came on at the assizes the Judge said it was impossible to say that this act amounted to manslaughter, and the grand jury at once ignored the Bill. Now, under those circumstances, there could, he thought, be no reasonable objection to the introduction of the measure which he proposed, and he should therefore simply add that it contained no provision dealing with the somewhat complicated subject of Coroners' fees, on which a Committee was then sitting, or the question of whether magistrates were in the habit or not of interfering to so great an extent with those officers in the discharge of their duties. Motion agreed to. Bill to enable Coroners in England and Wales to admit to Bail persons charged with the offence of Manslaughter, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ADAMS, Mr. SMITH CHILD, and Mr. GARD. Bill presented, and read 1o. TOLLS ON BRIDGES (METROPOLIS). MOTION FOR ADDRESS. MR. ALCOCK moved "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that further Instructions be given to the Royal Commissioners appointed to consider the best means of abolishing Turnpike Tolls within six miles of Charing Cross, to the effect that they will also take into consideration the best means of abolishing the Tolls on the Bridges within the same area.' The hon. Member took occasion to state that the present moment, when the abovementioned Commissioners were sitting, was the most favourable time for dealing with the subject of Tolls levied on Bridges in London, and dwelt upon the expediency, for the convenience of the inhabitants of the metropolis, of having Waterloo, Southwark, and Battersea Bridges thrown open free of charge to the public. MR. INGRAM seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed. MR. WALPOLE said, that the Commissioners on Turnpike Tolls were pursuing their investigation on the subject up to the present time; that there remained much matter in connection with it through which they had still to wade, and that if any additional labour were thrown upon them they would not be in a position to issue their Report for a considerably longer period than would otherwise be the case. He might add that there would be great difficulty in procuring the funds which would be required to be raised in order that the abolition of turnpike tolls should be effected, and he should, under those circumstances, suggest to his hon. Friend whether it would not be desirable to allow the Commissioners to proceed with the inquiry which they were now engaged in pro secuting, and to wait until he had seen | nation of voters, which was sometimes their Report to ascertain whether the in- carried on to a great extent. As the law vestigation which he proposed in reference to bridges would or would not be likely to be attended with advantage. For his own part, he was perfectly alive to the inconvenience which, in more than one instance, resulted to the inhabitants of the metropolis from the maintenance of the tolls to which the hon. Gentleman's Motion re lated, and should be very glad to find that some reasonable remedy for that inconvenience could be provided. At the same time, he could not help thinking that his hon. Friend would act wisely in withdrawing his Motion for the present. MR. ALCOCK said, he would act upon the suggestion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL. SECOND READING. stood at present the presiding officer had no power of himself to put questions to the person who came up to vote. His mouth was absolutely closed unless he had two burgesses to put him in motion. The Bill provided for this by giving power to inflict an imprisonment of three months on the person who personated a voter. He likewise proposed to extend the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act to municipal elections, with a view to the prevention of bribery. The penalty at present was too severe, namely, a fine of £50 and disfranchisement, whilst the remedy was too expensive, for there was no power of giving costs. He proposed that the fine should be 40s., and that the disfranchisement should be for two rounds only of municipal elections. He knew of one case where £200 had been spent in bribing a constituency consisting of only 432 voters. There was also a new provision for appointing a public prosecutor to carry on prosecutions at the request of two burgesses. That clause might create some laughing from its novelty; but he believed there were good grounds for it, and he should be prepared to defend it in Committee. Since he gave notice of the measure he received communications from all parts of the country, pointing out various parts of the Municipal Reform Act which required amendment, but he though it better to confine his attention to a particular blot and to apply a remedy, than to open up the whole question of a general reform of that act. MR. CROSS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, briefly explained its provisions. One of its objects was to provide for a more equal division of wards. Since the passing of the Reform Act, some wards had greatly increased, whilst others had scarcely increased at all. Such was particularly the case with regard to outlying wards; and in one instance the number of voters had increased from 488 to 1053, and in another from 246 to 1487; and he thought it was extremely desirable that a better apportionment of these numbers should be effected. The Bill also contained a provision for throwing the costs on parties who made frivolous objections. He knew a case where nearly one-half of the constituency had been objected to for vexatious purposes. The next object of the Bill was to simplify the mode of electing councillors. At present, although there was to be no contest, the candidates were put to inconvenience and expense. They had to print voting papers, to hire clerks and committee rooms, because they did not know that a candidate might not start up in opposition at the last moment, and it happened sometimes that candidates were started for vexatious pur-personated voters should not be subjected poses. He provided against this by pro posing that, four days before the election, the names of the persons to be nominated, and those of the persons nominating them, should be sent to the town clerk, who was to have them posted on the Town-hall one day before the day of election. The next object of the Bill was to prevent the perso MR. FOX said, that some Bill seemed to be required on the subject. He rose for the purpose of giving notice, that when the Bill was in Committee he should move a clause for the abolition of the property qualification in the case of town councillors. MR. RIDLEY would give his vote for the second reading of the Bill, but there were one or two points in it which would require serious consideration. He saw no reason why the system of voting by papers should not be introduced, or why those who to the same penalties as attached to persons who were guilty of bribery. He doubted also whether it would be advisable to commence in this Bill the institution of a public prosecutor, or whether it would be expedient that the cost of those proceedings should be defrayed from the borough fund. He would rather suggest that the |