the ensuing year. But last year they were | Gerald) was happy to say that that hon. told they would not be allowed to fish, and Member's wish had been also anticipated. they would have starved if the people of There were two Commissioners to be apSt. John's had not sent them relief. He pointed on each side. And so far as the wished to ask the Government if those Commissioners for England were concerned, people of St. George's Bay would receive one had been already appointed by the Goany compensation for the loss they had vernment at home, and one was to be nosustained, and if they would obtain leave minated upon the recommendation of the to fish next year? He was told that Com-Legislature of Newfoundland. He should missioners were to be appointed to inquire into the Newfoundland fisheries; but he wanted to know what these Commissioners were to do, or what orders they were to receive. Were they to investigate treaties already existing, or to settle the preliminaries of another treaty. Although no negotiations were going on at the present time, Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the necessity of protecting the interests of our fisheries. Negotiations would probably take place at a future time, and he apprehended therefore that under the circumstances the noble Lord would not persevere in his Motion for these papers. SIRHARRY VERNEY said, he thought it not too much to say that large tracts would have been preserved to this country which had now been lost, through careless authorities, if in former Parliaments there had been some individual as well acquainted with the subject as the noble Lord. As instances he might refer to the cession of 500 miles of the coast of the Pacific, known as Russian America, the island of Java, and various other places. guard himself, however, by observing that Her Majesty's Government had sent out a despatch in which they said they should be happy to nominate a Commissioner at the recommendation of the Legislature of Newfoundland; but no reply had as yet been received from the Colony to that comMR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, munication. ERA he would not enter into the merits of the convention signed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere), but this he must say, that it was not open to the charges brought against it by the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson). The right hon. Gentleman had shown himself as unwilling to sacrifice the rights of the people of Newfoundland as any gentleman could be, because he had inserted an express article in the convention making it of no force whatever until it had received the assent of the Newfoundland Legisla-ness or ignorance on the part of the British ture. The right hon. Member for Ashton said that the fishermen were acting har moniously. That might be true, but it was beside the question. The noble Lord had asked whether any negotiations were at present going on between the French and English Governments on this subject. In reply he had to state that the French naval authorities last year gave notice that they were determined to insist on their extreme rights under the treaty. Commissioners were therefore appointed to ascertain as nearly as they could what were the exact rights of both sides under existing treaties. They were to ascertain how far those rights had been exceeded-if they said, he rose to move an Address for a copy had been exceeded at all—either on the of any correspondence between the Colonial one side or the other; but they were strict- Office and the Hudson's Bay Company with ly precluded from entering into any dis-reference to the charter or to the licence cussion whatever by which the rights of the parties should in future be bound. He believed that that was all the noble Lord asked for, and he would, of course, rest satisfied at hearing that those orders had already been given by the Government. Motion made, and Question proposedThe hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) "That an Humble Address be presented to suggested that there should be associated Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased with the British Minister a Commissioner to give directions that there be laid before this who should have the confidence of the Le- the Colonial Office and the Hudson's Bay ComHouse, a Copy of any Correspondence between gislature of Newfoundland. He (Mr. Fitz-pany, with reference to the Charter or to the Li VISCOUNT BURY said, he would withdraw his Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. PAPERS MOVED FOR. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE of trade of that company, since the 22nd day of February, 1858, being the date of the last returns upon the subject. He be lieved the time had come when that information could no longer be withheld. cence of Trade of that Company, since the 22nd | tec would not sanction an Amendment, day of February, 1858, being the date of the last the effect of which would be to throw a re Returns upon the subject." SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON said that an important letter had recently been forwarded by the Foreign Office to the Hudson's Bay Company, that he expected to receive in a few days the reply to it, that he believed that would bring the correspondence to a close, and that he should then be ready to produce the whole of the papers. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to lay the papers before the House as soon as they should be ready, without rendering it necessary that any Motion should be made upon the subject. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that as soon as the papers were ready they would be laid on the table, by command. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT asked how the hon. Member proposed to detect and prove the delinquency against which he wished to provide? MR. RIDLEY replied that he would proceed in the same manner as in a case of subornation of perjury. MR. CROSS suggested that the word "suborn should be substituted for "induce. MR. RIDLEY said, he would adopt the suggestion. Amendment agreed to. MR. HUNT said, he would move an Amendment to the effect that cases of personation should be tried, not by the justices of the borough in which the offences were committed but by those "of the county in which the borough was situated." In many cases the justices in boroughs were political partisans. MR. GILPIN said, he did not think justices in boroughs were more subject to political influence than justices in counties. MR. SALISBURY trusted the Commit flection on the borough justices. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, he thought it would be most objectionable to throw on one set of justices duties which ought to be performed by another set. Amendment withdrawn. Clause, as amended, agreed to; as was also Clause 12. Clause 13, Penalties for Bribery at Elections. MR. DIVETT said, he thought the proposed penalty of 40s. for bribery far below the offence. He would therefore move to insert" £50" instead of “ 40s.' Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 1, to leave out 40s." and insert" £50." MR. CROSS remarked that if the penalty should be fixed at £50 the clause might as well be left out of the Bill. The present penalty was £50, and was so high that nobody thought of putting it in force. The object of the clause was to make the penalty small but certain. Besides the pecuniary penalty, the party offending would be disfranchised for six years. The greater part of the persons to whom the penalty would apply were poor, and to them 40s. was a serious sum. The rich would have to pay 40s. for every person whom they might bribe. MR. DIVETT said, that those who bribed were usually rich men, who would not be deterred by a penaly of 40s. MR. SALISBURY said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. His attention had been called to the penalties which had accrued under the Act, and he had been informed by a deputation which waited upon him that the Act could not be put in force in consequence of the penalties being so heavy. He believed that if the present Bill should pass there would be no difficulty in putting an end to the bribery which at present existed in Chester and other places. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, that the object of the clause was that every instance of bribery should be punished, and they were far more likely to arrive at this result by imposing the penalty of 40s. The penalty of £50 would not be felt by a rich man in a pecunary point of view. That class of persons were deterred by the degradation and exposure. Question put of the Clause.' That 40s.' stand part The Committee divided :-Ayes 261; Noes 13; Majority 248. to. Clause agreed to. The remaining clauses were then agreed MR. HADFIELD said he wished to move the addition of a clause reducing the period of residence within a borough necessary to qualify a man to vote as a burgess at municipal elections from three years (as at present) to one year, as in the case of Parliamentary elections. The perty should be amongst the members of municipal corporations, and should exert their due influence in local affairs; but it was also desirable that the corporations should include men of ability and character belonging to different classes of society. It did sometimes happen that the interests of private property were at variance with the interests of the community. wealthy alderman who resided in a suburban villa might perhaps feel indifferent to questions of sewerage and sanitary regulation, which would be matters of life and death to the poor inhabitants of the closer and more crowded districts of the town, and cases had even been known in which the inspectors and officers of health were afraid to lay an information against some wretched cottages or other dangerous nuisance because the owners of those buildings were members of the corporation, and they were their servants. It was not, however, from the poorer classes themselves, nor was it from any ambitious demagogues who wanted to get into municipal offices, that this demand for the repeal of the property qualification now proceeded; but one corporation after another had pe"That the clause be read titioned the House of Commons to that MR. CROSS said, he must oppose the proposition. He had taken great pains with the Bill, and would suggest that it should pass as it stood. He had found that bribery and corruption in municipal affairs prevailed more or less all over the country, and he did not wish any clause inserted that would tend to cause political discussion and imperil the passing of the Bill this Ses sion. MR. H. BERKELEY said, he thought the hon. Gentleman in his Bill had not gone the right way to cure the evils complained of, and was of opinion that municipal electors were in as much need of protection as the great body of Parliamentary electors throughout the country. Clause brought up, and read 1°. a second time." The Tellers being come to the Table, Mr. Gilpin, one of the Tellers for the Ayes, stated that Mr. Arthur Kinnaird, Member for the City of Perth, had not voted, though he had been in the House when the Question was put; whereupon the Chairman directed the Honourable Member for Perth to come to the Table, and asked him if he had heard the Question put. The Honourable Member having stated that he had heard the Question put, and having declared himself with the Ayes, the Chairman desired his name to be added to the Ayes. The Tellers accordingly declared the Numbers:-Ayes 97; Noes 187: Majority 90. MR. FOX said, he would propose the insertion of a clause to repeal that provision of the existing Act which rendered the possession of a certain amount of property in real estate, or being rated at a certain annual value, requisite qualifications for the office of mayor, alderman, or councillor of a borough. The House had wisely repealed the property qualification for Members of Parliament, and he now asked them to do the same for municipalities. It was desirable, no doubt, that persons of pro effect the corporations of Rochdale, Oldham, and Sheffield had lately done so, and if the corporation of Leicester had not actually petitioned, it had joined in ex pressing the same desire. These corporations wanted to be allowed to avail themselves of the talents and energy of men in every rank of society who might be found willing and competent to serve the borough, and whom the electors might think fit to be chosen. Clause brought up and read 1°. MR. CROSS said, he hoped it would not be thought that he had cured all the existing evils. The Bill had been drawn for one certain object, and he did not see how the proposition before the Committee could prevent bribery and corruption at munici pal elections. Property qualification was a subject upon which different opinions existed, but upon the same ground as that which induced him to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, he should oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham. Question put, "That the clause be read a second time." The Committee divided:-Ayes 108; Noes 181: Majority 73. MR. HADFIELD said, he would now bring up a clause relieving Dissenters from the necessity of taking the oath not to use MR. H. BERKELEY said, he would sub their office to the prejudice of the Estab-mit to the dictum of the right hon. Gentlelished Church. man, but would, perhaps, introduce an Amendment on the Report. MR. CROSS said, he must repeat the answer he had given to the previous proposal. Clause negatived. House resumed; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 70]. CHURCH RATES' ABOLITION BILL. Order for Second Reading read. SIR JOHN TRELAWNY said, he had given up Wednesday to the Bill of the Government. He might also point out that the question had been under discussion for twenty-five years. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had admitted that all modes of settling the question had been exhausted, except that proposed by this Bill. Last year the other House had complained of the "indecent haste" with which a similar measure had been sent up to them, which, consequently, they said they had not time to consider. That Bil was passed in the Commons last year, after full discussion, and believing that that circumstance would have due weight, he should press the second reading. MR. H. BERKELEY said, he rose to propose a clause providing for the votes at municipal elections being taken by Ballot. He considered that the arguments he had adduced on previous occasions remained unanswered, and when he contrasted the small talent of which he could boast with the great ability with which he was opposed, he could not but attribute his suc-"That the Bill be now read a second time." ces to the goodness of his cause. Those MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, he must hon. Gentlemen, however, who advocated appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press open voting at Parliamentary elections the Bill at that late hour. If he did not would naturally advocate it at municipal accede to his request, he must move the elections, which were also liable to bribery Adjournment of the debate. and intimidation. It was impossible to overrate the mischief that arose under the present system. There was but one remedy for intimidation, and that remedy for intimidation was the Ballot. He would not trouble the Committee with many cases, but would cite a few to show the cases of tyranny by the employers to the employed, for in those municipal elections the stronger put the screw upon the weaker. There was a case of a man employed at a mill at Staleybridge who was employed there twenty years, and one morning he was told he might go home, because he had voted for a candidate to whom his employer was opposed. [Cries of "Divide!"] That was the way the wrongs of the working classes were received by the House. had before him thirteen cases of persons brought to ruin in that way. He would read them if they liked. He could bring cases of that sort from every corporate town in England, The only protection against this was secret voting, and as he should bring the subject of voting by Ballot for Members of Parliament before the House this Session he should leave the matter now in the hands of the Committee. MR. STEUART said, he wished to point out, that the Committee had already decided in the 16th Clause, that the mode of voting should be as heretofore; and he must, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, whether it was competent now to bring forward a clause which would upset the previous decision. He Mr. FITZROY said, that the clause would be inconsistent with the 16th Clause, which had been agreed to. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned.' The House divided:-Ayes 108; Noes 173: Majority 65. Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.' MR. BENTINCK said, he could assure the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill, that he appreciated fully the good temper, forbearance, and courtesy which he had uniformly exhibited in dealing with this most difficult question, and it was to these feelings that he now desired to make an appeal. He perfectly understood the views of the hon. Baronet; but there was a large minority in the House who felt strongly upon the subject. The hon. Baronet had urged as a reason for proceeding with the second reading to-night, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had failed in producing a satisfactory measure; but that seemed to him (Mr. Bentinck) to be hardly sufficient grounds for persevering had hitherto characterised his proceedings MR. FOX remarked, that the Motion of SIR JOHN TRELAWNY said, that not SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he House Adjourned at One o'clock. INDEX. |
