tion convenient to each other, the more conveniently and economically would the public business be discharged. Of this he was convinced, that the returns now moved for would establish beyoud all question the exceedingly great inconvenience of the mode under which the public offices were at this moment conducted. While he agreed with his noble Friend in the abstract, it was also a question to be considered on economical grounds. He was not, he believed, far wrong when he stated that, independently of the offices held by the Crown in fee simple, there was now being paid annual rents for something more than fifty-six different offices. Of these fifty-six, only seven, he believed, were held of the Crown, and consequently rent was paid for the whole of the remainder to private individuals. He believed that 20,000l. a year was paid for rents by the Office of Woods and Forests alone. But there was not only an enormous sum paid for rents; a most extravagant system was adopted in consequence of the dispersed and inconvenient character of the buildings rented. These buildings had most of them been private houses, and therefore they were only suited for private families, and as a matter of course almost one-half the space was thrown away wastefully. But this was not all. There must be officekeepers and messengers to each. Messengers were kept running about, and undoubtedly, besides the rent, a considerable sum was annually expended in this way. And for what? Why, that the public business might be inconvenienced, and carried on with much less satisfaction to those who had the conduct of it, and with much less advantage to the public, than if a considerable sum were at once expended in the erection of new buildings, the interest on the capital of which he believed would be less than the amount annually paid for rent. To afford their Lordships some idea of the inconvenience sustained under the present state of things, he would mention that, apart from the central office held by the Board of Trade which the President occupied, there were ten or eleven other offices elsewhere, in which the business of departments of the Board was carried on. It must be obvious that, under such circumstances, the President of the Board of Trade could not exercise control, or conduct business in a manner which the public had a right to require. The same observation applied to the War Department. He did not speak only of the The Duke of Newcastle great offices of the Horse Guards and the Ordnance, but of a number of small offices, such as the recruiting office, the medical inspector's office, the medical examination of recruits office, and others, all of which, being held in different buildings, were practically beyond that supervision and control by the Secretary at War, which the head of every department ought to have the means of exercising. The question, therefore, was not merely one of pounds, shillings, and pence, it was one of economy and efficiency; and for these reasons he believed it would be for the ad vantage of the public service that a considerable expenditure should be incurred for this purpose. The attention of the Government had been directed to the subject, but under existing circumstances he could give no pledge upon it. We were at this moment engaged in very expensive operations, and it must be matter for consideration how far it would be right or desirable to choose such a time for calling upon Parliament for such an expenditure. At the same time the expenditure would be right in itself, and he felt confident that the country would support any Government in proposing a Vote for this important object at the very earliest moment at which it could be proposed consistently with the other requisitions upon the people. LORD REDESDALE thought it desirable that there should be no delay. It was important the Government should come to some determination by next Session, for the land with old buildings might be procured cheaper now than at a future time, when new ones might perhaps have been erected; and if Government determined to become possessed of the property, they might name a certain time within which they should be at liberty to conclude the purchase, so as not to render any immediate expenditure necessary. He did not think it reasonable to keep such a matter hanging over the heads of the holders of the property for a lengthened period, but he suggested that five years might not be thought too long a time; and even if Government should pay the price at once, they need not pull down the houses, but might let them, and the rents would be more than sufficient to pay the interest of the money expended. On Question, agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, August 8, 1854. "In the extreme case which may be supposed of corrupt or tyrannical abuse of such powers as these which is not suggested-there must always be open to all the Queen's subjects those MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-3° Bankruptcy; Com- rights of complaint-in the last resort, either to mon Law Procedure. Parliament or to the Crown-neither Parliament nor the Crown ever being deaf, we must assume and believe, to the voice of reason and abstract justice." The petitioner, therefore, was left to take such course as he might be advised, with reference to an application to the Crown, through the Board of Control, or otherwise. Under these circumstances, he (Sir E. Perry) begged to put the question of which he had given notice, whether, as the Privy Council have decided that the determination of the Governor of Bombay in Council against the claim of the daughter and only surviving child of the late Nawab of Surat to succeed to his private property was an executive and not a judicial act, the Board of Control will take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, whether the judgment of Mr. Frere, on which the decision of the Bombay Government has proceeded, is not a fit matter to be referred to the Privy Council for their opinion as to its soundness in point of law and its conformity with the evidence in the casewhether, if an Act of the Legislature of India takes away from any subject of Her Majesty the right of appeal to any court of law or equity, there are any means by which such individual complaining of injustice can obtain redress? NAWAB OF SURAT-QUESTION. SIR ERSKINE PERRY said, he had given notice of a question with reference to the conduct of the Governor of Bombay towards the family of the Nawab of Surat, which it would be expedient for him to preface by a short statement of the case. The late Nawab of Surat had made over his territories to the East India Company upon a stipulated pension for himself and his family of 15,000l. per annum, reserving to himself rights of sovereignty over his immediate family and dependents. This state of things ceased with his death, upon which event some difficulties arose in connection with his representative, a daughter, In consequence, an Act of the Supreme Legislature of India was placed in 1848 for the administration of the estate of the late Nawab of Surat, to continue privileges to his family. By section 2 of that Act, the Governor of Bombay in Council was empowered to act in the administration of the property of whatever nature, left by the late Nawab of Surat, &c., and no act of the said Governor of Bombay in Council in respect to the administration to, and distribution of such property was to be liable to be questioned in any court of law or equity. The Governor of Bombay in Council, having proceeded to act in execution of the powers thus conferred upon him, had exercised that power in a manner not satisfactory to a member of the family of the Nawab, and, in consequence, that member of the family sought to have the proceeding reheard or the distribution thought right by the Governor of Bombay in Council brought under the review of the Judicial Council, as a matter of right, and in the exercise of its ordi- SIR ERSKINE PERRY said, he wishnary administration. The Judicial Coun- ed to know whether the right hon. Baronet cil, however, by the mouth of Vice Chan- would not consent, at least, to instruct the cellor Knight Bruce, held that under the Governor of Bombay to suspend the distrithird section of the Act, under which they bution of the property until the opportusat, the court had no jurisdiction to enter-nity of remedying the grievance by an aptain the appeal, because the Legislature of peal to that House, or otherwise, had been India had framed an Act enabling the Go- afforded? vernment of Bombay to deal with the subject-matter in his executive capacity, and not in a judicial manner, but that they had jurisdiction in the matter, if Her Majesty should be pleased to refer it to them. And he said VOL. CXXXV. [THIRD SERIES.] SIR CHARLES WOOD said, he did not see any necessity that existed for taking the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on a question which had been decided in so distinct and formal a manner; nor did he see that there were any means of meeting the views indicated in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The law which had been passed on the subject was a special law, rendered necessary by the difficulties which had arisen. SIR CHARLES WOOD said, the property, he believed, had already been distributed. SIR ERSKINE PERRY had reason to believe that it had not yet been distributed. 2 Z SIR FITZROY KELLY said, he would take that opportunity of giving notice that he should, early next Session, call the attention of the House to the propriety of taking some steps by which the grievances arising out of such legislation in India should be averted for the future. MR. BRIGHT said, he was of opinion that some competent tribunal should be created for the special disposal of these cases, and with adequate powers. Some such tribunal had been advocated by Sir Robert Peel in 1834, and it would prevent a great deal of oppression and injustice towards our Indian fellow-subjects. BRIBERY BILL. LORD JOHN RUSSELL moved that the House should take into its consideration the Lords' Amendments in this Bill. competent to expunge those other declarations in the Bill which were consequent upon the principal one. They had been informed, however, from the Chair that it was then too late to take those other declarations into their consideration. Now, in the House of Lords those declarations had been struck out. An important clause, Clause 23, legalising the payment of travelling expenses to the voter, had also been struck out by the House of Lords. He himself had proposed that clause to the House, in the belief that it was desirable to confirm the law as it at present stood. The House would bear in mind, however, that the necessity for the clause in question depended in some measure upon the declaration to be taken by Members of Parliament, and that declaration having been struck out, the clause with respect to travelling expenses no longer retained its former value. He proposed that that House should agree to the omission of this clause. No doubt, when a declaration was to be required from every Member of that House that he had not incurred any illegal expenses, it was most essential that there should be a particular MR. SPEAKER said, that previous to definition of what expenses were or were the establishment of a rule to which the not illegal, but that declaration had been Ilouse had some time ago agreed, the struck out. The only effect of agreeing to Amendments introduced by the Lords into this Amendment was, that the law would a Bill might be taken into consideration at remain in its present state; but he might any time. That rule, however, had pro- say that, while this Bill treated one part vided that the Lords' Amendments should of the subject of bribery and corruption, not be taken into consideration upon the there was another part of the subjectday upon which they came down from the namely, that which referred to the trial of other House, but should be fixed for some offences before Election Committees ; and subsequent day, unless the House was he hoped to be able to deal with that subpleased to order otherwise. It was com-ject during the next Session of Parliament. petent, however, for the noble Lord (Lord LORD HOTHAM said, he still retained J. Russell), having given notice of Motion all those objections to the Bill which he upon the subject, to move that those had urged against it upon the third readAmendments be taken into considerationing, but he should not upon the present forthwith. LORD HOTHAM said, he begged to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was competent for the noble Lord to bring the subject under their notice at that moment. There stood upon the paper a number of Orders of the Day, while the Motion of the noble Lord was placed upon the paper in the shape of a notice. LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, that a general assent had been given by the other House of Parliament to the Bill as it had been sent up to them from the House of Commons. The important definitions of bribery and treating and undue influence, and the important provision which related to the appointment of an election officer, had undergone no alteration. The last day upon which the Bill had been considered in that House a former decision of the House had been reversed-he meant that with respect to the declaration to be taken by hon. Members at the table. It had then been asked whether it was not occasion enter into a recapitulation of those objections. The course he meant to take was to call the attention of the House to the manner in which, and to the time at which, the House of Commons was called upon to take into consideration the subject of the noble Lord's Motion. For his own part he must say that he had never yet, during the time he had sat in that House, seen a Minister ask the concurrence of the House to an Amendment against which, in conjunction with his colleagues, he had spoken and voted. The present Bill had undergone considerable discussion in that House, and also the severe scrutiny of a Select Committee and, indeed, the consideration of it could to reverse the decision at which the House not be concluded before the day arrived of Commons had arrived. He must, sorry after which the Lords had determined not as he should be to be compelled to do so, to receive any more Bills from that House. if the noble Lord persisted in asking the They had, however, for various reasons, House to assent to the omission of the consented to take this Bill into discussion, clause in question, adopt a mode of proand among other reasons stated was a feel-ceeding the object of which was to protect ing of deference to the opinion of that House. LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I understand that the noble Lord is about to enter into a detail of the proceedings with respect to this Bill which took place in the other House; but the proceedings which have taken place there, in Committee, with regard to it, are not properly matter for discussion in this House. that House from an improper interference with its action, let that interference come from whatever quarter it might. During the long period which he had sat in that House he had never felt it to be his duty to resort to the mode of proceeding to which he referred; but he had seen upon one occasion, no less than thirty divisions taken in Committee of Supply by the noble Lord's colleague, the late Lord Durham, and the last of those divisions had been taken on the question whether fresh candles should be lighted or not. There was a limit to all human endurance, and the present was an occasion upon which, he thought, the noble Lord might be considered to have passed that limit. The noble Lord, in fact, called upon the House of Commons to stultify itself by giving its assent to a proposition, the effect of which was to declare that it was prepared to act in a manner which would reflect disgrace upon its proceedings. Under these circumstances, he should implore of the noble Lord to reconsider the determination at which he seemed to have arrived, and not compel him, and those who might concur in his view of the matter, to have recourse to either one or the other of two alternatives namely, either to take a course which it must be most repugnant to their feelings to adopt, or to make a pusillanimous and disgraceful surrender of the duty which they owed to their own consciences, to that House of which they were Members, and to those constituents whom they had the honour to represent. If the noble Lord, however, should persevere in the course which he had signified it to be his intention to pursue, then he (Lord Hotham), when they should have arrived at the 23rd clause, should move that the consideration of the Amendment of the House of Lords with respect to that clause be agreed to that day month. LORD HOTHAM: The noble Lord was perhaps justified in calling him to order; but he thought that the noble Lord himself, in asking the House to consider what had never been printed, and of which they had no Parliamentary knowledge, was scarcely taking a legitimate course. The clause to whose omission from the Bill the noble Lord now asked them to give their assent, was one which had been considered upon no less than five different occasions, and upon every one of those occasions the noble Lord had either spoken or voted in its favour. The whole force of the Government had, in fact, been arrayed in support of it; and yet the noble Lord had no hesitation in asking the House of Commons to sanction its removal from the Bill. It was vain to say that to reject this Amendment would only leave the law in the same condition as it at present was, for surely it was not unreasonable, on the part of those who desired to see the law settled with regard to this subject, to complain of its being left in its present state. He contended that if the House consented under any pretence to the proposal of the omission of this clause, they would expose themselves to the scorn and contempt of every man throughout the country. What, then, was to be done under the present peculiar circumstances? To take the sense of the House would be a perfect absurdity, for, at that advanced period of the Session, when very few hon. Members besides Members of the Government were in London, the Government would, he was well aware, be able to carry any measure Amendment, to leave out Clause 23, read. they pleased to bring forward, even if it Motion made, and Question proposed, were a proposal to make bribery at elec-"That this House doth agree with the tions a capital offence. He scarcely knew Lords in the said Amendment." what course he should take in order to resist Amendment proposed, to leave out from the unjustifiable attempt of the noble Lord the word "That to the end of the Ques 23. Amendments agreed to, as far as Clause tion, in order to add the words "the said Amendment be taken into further consideration upon this day month," instead thereof. had merely decided in favour of the omission of the clause; so that if the payment of travelling expenses had heretofore been legal, it would still continue legal under that Bill. It might be desirable that Parliament should come to some definite decision upon that point; but as the Bill now under consideration contained many other useful provisions-provisions, for instance, defining what was bribery, what was treating, what was undue influence, and provid LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, that the noble Lord seemed to consider that clause to be a very essential portion of the Bill; but the fact was that the Bill which he (Lord J. Russell) had introduced at the commencement of the Session had contained no such provision; and he believed that no such provision was to be founding for the appointment of an election offiamong the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly). It certainly was not true that the adoption of such a clause had been regarded as one of the primary objects of the measure. But it was true that when they had been discussing the declaration clause, it had been strongly urged that if every Member were to be compelled to declare that he had incurred no expenses except legal expenses, they ought to define as exactly as possible what expenses were legal and what expenses were illegal; and it was in consequence of that argument that he had been induced to advise the House to agree to the clause then under their consideration. But he should confess that he thought the arguments used in that House against allowing candidates to pay election expenses had appeared to him very strong, and that they had certainly made a considerable impression upon his mind. It had been argued that by that clause they would open the door to many practices which should be clearly considered corrupt, and which were very akin to direct bribery. He could not help thinking that there was considerable weight in the objections thus put forward against the clause; and in his opinion it was desirable that they should agree with the Amendment of the Lords, and omit the clause from the Bill. It was not one of the essential provisions of the measure, although some hon. Members on both sides of the House had chosen so to represent it. If the House of Lords had undertaken to define what expenses should be legal, and what expenses should be illegal, he could understand that there would be some force in the objections advanced by the noble Lord against the course which the Lords had pursued, because the decision to which the House of Commons had come would then have been directly reversed by the other House. But the Lords had taken no such course; they cer with a view of ascertaining and limiting the expenses of elections, he thought that it was well worth the approval of the House, although it did not peremptorily deal with the question of the legality or the illegality of the payment of travelling expenses. He could not, therefore, conceive that the noble Lord could have any reason to say that that House would be at all disparaged by agreeing to that Amendment of the Lords. On the contrary, he was exceedingly glad that the Lords had not made any further Amendments in the Bill, and that in spite of the Resolution to which they had come, not to consider any Bills after the 25th of July, except Bills of Supply, or Bills of extreme urgency, they had thought proper to proceed with the present measure after that date. That fact showed that the House of Lords were more aware than the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) appeared to be of the urgency of that measure. It showed an earnest desire, on their parts, to put a check to those corrupt practices, and it likewise showed that they entertained very considerable deference for the wishes of the House of Commons, in which House the question of the propriety of issuing new writs for the five boroughs which had, for some time, remained unrepresented, was to be considered on Friday next. Under all the circumstances of the case, it appeared to him to be very desirable that the Bill should pass as soon as possible, and that if new writs were to be issued for Cambridge and the other unrepresented boroughs, they should have an opportunity of seeing whether the measure would be effectual in preventing that corruption by which those boroughs had hitherto been disgraced. He had, therefore, no hesitation in advising the House to agree to that Amendment of the Lords. He trusted that if the noble Lord opposite should divide the House upon that occasion, and if his Motion should be rejected, he would see that the feeling against those corrupt practices was |