measure. I then expressed to the House the principal propositions which we had to make in order to prevent bribery and corruption. And I undertook that I would lose no time, after the introduction of the larger measure, in bringing before the House the consideration of this matter in another Bill. And, Sir, I shall be prepared to fulfil that engagement. My noble Friend the Member for Stamford has, in a manner that must have interested the House, touched upon the conduct of the party of which he is still a most distinguished member, and he has expressed his regret and his anxiety that we should not deviate from the course which it becomes us, in honour and in truth, to maintain. Sir, my noble Friend seems for the moment to suppose that there is an inconsistency in the course we are pursuing, because we are introducing a Bill to amend the laws which regulate the representation of the people of the kingdom in Parliament. [Opposition Cries of 'No, no!"] But can this be said with any justice of a party that eight years ago attempted to the best of their ability, and at great sacrifice, to grapple with the same question? And what have we ever said, or what done, to justify any such suspicion in the mind of the noble Lord? Let my noble Friend, or any hon. Gentleman who has spoken, point to any conclusion during the debates of last year, to any vote that was given, to any Resolution inconsistent with the course we have taken. ["Oh!"] VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: I never imputed any inconsistency to the course taken by the Government. What I said was that if the Government introduced household suffrage pure and simple I then thought they would be guilty of inconsistency. jeer. I state that to the country and to Parliament, and I will maintain it as truth in every place and in all circumstances. I think that we were perfectly free to deal with this question, if the circumstances of the country required that we should advise Her Majesty upon it. And the circumstances of the country did require it. I hope the House will give to our proposition a dispassionate consideration. I hope we shall show in the discussion which it may produce, that there is in this House a sincere desire to bring to a satisfactory settlement a question that has too long existed. If you throw out this Bill on the second reading you may affect the position of Ministers, but you will still more affect the position of this House. You will on this question place it with respect to the country in a position which no friend to our institutions can desire. This question has existed too long and lingered too long. Do not decide rashly against a measure which you have never even seen. Let it not be said that to-night, excited by rhetoric which I may at least describe as prejudiced, you are deciding on a question on which the people of this country are deeply interested without even a complete cognizance of the propositions that we are bringing forward. You are deciding on hearsay. [Cries of "Oh!"] You are deciding upon a narrative of the proceedings which took place under a roof where you were not present, and where you quoted expressions on a most important subject which were never used. would be wiser at least to take this Bill and read it before you decide upon its merits. I believe that it at least has this great object-it seeks to bring about the settlement of a question deeply interesting to the people, in a manner conservative in the highest sense of the institutions of the country. Motion agreed to. I think it THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Government will never introduce household suffrage pure and simple. It is not merely my noble Friend, but another right hon. Gentleman has spoken Bill to amend the Representation of the People of our inconsistency in bringing forward in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in a Reform Bill. I maintain there is no by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. Seinconsistency. This is not the first Re-cretary WALPOLE, and Lord STANLEY. form Bill we have brought forward. Nor Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 79.] is there a single vote that I gave last year, nor is there any single Resolution in which I have joined, at all inconsistent with the course which I and my Colleagues are pursuing at the present moment. I state that without reserve, and it is not to be answered by a mere PETIT JURIES (IRELAND) BILL. (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.) [BILL 46.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON), in moving the second reading of this Bill, briefly explained its object to be to provide a remedy for the want of a sufficient supply of jurors which was experienced in the administration of justice in Ireland. The Bill, with a few alterations, was the same as that which had been introduced last Session. Kildare and the hon. Member for Longford would receive consideration. He thought that the proposal of his hon. Friend ought to be adopted. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 1st April. SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES BILL [BILL 38.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.”—(Mr. Leeman.) Motion made, and Question proposed," "That the Bill be now read a second time." (The Solicitor General for Ireland.) MR. COGAN complained that the mode in which jury panels were constitued in Ireland was highly objectionable. They could be packed even by so humble an individual as the sub-sheriff of a county, and that in cases in which sectarian or party feeling come into play a fair verdict could not as a consequence be obtained. There had been recently in Monaghan a trial for homicide, in which it was, notwithstanding that very little doubt as to the guilt of the accused persons existed, found impossible to secure a conviction. Among the first 100 names on the panel there were those of only three Roman Catholics, though the majority of the population in the county belonged to that persuasion. MR. GRENFELL, in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said, he must preface his observations by apologizing to the hon. Member for York for again asking the House to discuss the matter after an apparent decision had been arrived at. He did so not as the representative of any body or community, and much less of his colleagues in the Bank of England, but he made that proposal because he believed that the failure of the joint-stock banks had been erroneously attributed to the proceedings of certain speculators on the Stock Exchange, and that the Legislature ought to be exceedingly careful before interfering in transactions that were common not only to the Stock Exchange, but to many other places where men engaged in different branches of commerce met under special regulations of their own together. He believed that the causes of the disastrous failures of joint-stock banks last year lay deeper than the hon. Member for York seemed to suppose. real cause of these unfortunate failures was, that the managers of those institutions had failed to regulate their proceedings by those rules of prudence and caution which MR. LAWSON said, he did not rise to had been effectual in the past few years oppose the Bill, for it was substantially the in securing for the Bank of England same as he had himself introduced last the confidence of the Government and year. His experience was that in some of of the country; and it was because of the counties of Ireland that class of lease-this belief, and because he had no faith in holders had almost entirely disappeared, and it was difficult to get a sufficient number of jurors for the work required of them. Therefore, what the Government proposed to do was absolutely necessary. But he trusted, as the administration of justice in Ireland should not only be, as he believed it was, pure, but above suspicion, that the subject adverted to by the hon. Member for MR. O'REILLY thought that it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of convincing the people of Ireland that justice was impartially administered in that country. He also thought that the privilege which the Crown enjoyed of challenging jurors was liable to abuse, and that some alteration should be made in the present system. The the assertion that the joint-stock banks failed last year from the operations of Stock Exchange speculations, that he moved that this Bill be referred to a Select Committec. It was well known to the House that certain economists were in favour of a more unrestricted currency than was allowed by the Act of 1844. Whatever might be said on that score, there could be no doubt that every panic created a most unlimited paper currency in the shape of pamphlets and letters to the newspapers. And in none of these pamphlets-many of which were replete with wisdom and sound commercial advice-could be found the name of any joint-stock bank which had stopped from the cause assigned by the hon. Member for York; and when he (Mr. Grenfell) asked for information as to what bank had so stopped he was always answered, "Oh, the Agra and Masterman Bank." Now, what were the facts with regard to Agra and Masterman's Bank. Far be it from him to say anything to add one atom to the pain of those who had lost their incomes or their capital in these banks. Still less did he wish to offer impertinent criticisms of his own on the management of that or other similar establishments; but when he was told that Agra and Masterman's Bank had stopped, solely through the action of speculators, he was justified in asking for something like proof of the facts. He had sought in vain among all the pamphlets and papers that had been written on the subject, and he could not find any. thing like a statement in figures of the position of the Agra and Masterman Bank which would justify the directors in attributing their misfortunes to those causes. But he did find statements directly in contradiction of that allegation. He had before him an extract from a grave review which appeared in The Economist of the week before, on the whole commercial events of 1866, in which it was stated that the causes of the principal bank failures was unsound financing, and it especially mentioned the cases of the Bank of London, and Agra and Masterman's. If that were so, and all that legislation accomplished after the panic was the punishment of a small body of jobbers, the result would be very insignificant indeed. In 1847, the late Sir Robert Peel said, in a speech on the commercial distress of that year, it was the fashion to put down commercial failures to the Bank Act of 1844, and cited the balance-sheets of some of the houses which failed, the partners of which had the assurance to say, "We could have got money if it had not been for this confounded Act of 1844." So it was in the case of the panic of 1866. Managers and shareholders of banks which had stopped payment, in consequence of imprudent financing, came down to this House and said, "Oh, we have stopped VOL. CLXXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] in consequence of the proceedings of a certain number of speculators for a fall on the Stock Exchange.. But the House must recollect that besides those who speculated for the fall were those who speculated for the rise, and in his humble opinion the latter did the greater mischief of the two. They had already appointed a Select Committee on Companies with Limited Liability, and if it were wished to interfere in the regulations of the Stock Exchange, he thought that the reference of this Bill to a similar Committee would complete the investigation. He moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. MR. NEATE, in seconding the Motion, disclaimed any intention of casting any reflection upon the honour of the great body of the Stock Exchange in a previous debate. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee," (Mr. Grenfell,) instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words. proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. BARNETT said, that if this Bill really was likely to accomplish what it professed-the prevention of an undue depreciation in bank shares by fictitious saleshe should cordially support the measure; but he did not think it would be effectual for the purpose. Notwithstanding all its machinery, there was nothing to prevent collusion being resorted to to effect the objects which the Bill sought to put down. If the Bill could be made effectual, he admitted that it would be a boon to the public; but, believing that it would be totally inoperative, he thought it was only a waste of time to discuss it. MR. LEEMAN said, it was somewhat late in the day to be discussing the principle of this Bill-if there had been any real intention of opposing its progress some indication of that purpose should have been made known earlier. The observations of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment would have been made more appropriately on the second reading, when, however, the hon. Gentle man was not present. The arguments in favour of the Bill did not proceed merely upon what had occurred during the monetary panic of 1866, but its object was to E 1 prevent the recurrence of acts which were perty? The House, however, decided in well known, and which might otherwise a contrary sense, and he bowed to its debe repeated. Nor was this Bill merely cision. The matter being one of principle introduced with reference to London, rather than of detail, he saw no reason which was not the only place where a for referring the Bill to a Select CommitStock Exchange existed; for many of the tee, nor would he now have troubled the Stock Exchanges in the provinces had ex- House had it not been for a matter partly pressed their thanks to him for introducing public and partly personal. The hon. the measure; indeed, since the Bill had Member for York (Mr. Leeman) was rebeen read a second time, a great many pe- ported to have said the other daytitions had been presented to the House in its favour and not one against it. He hoped the House would reject the Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Com mittee. MR. CRAWFORD said, that his reason for abandoning his intention of moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee was that the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill after full discussion, and therefore he did not like to be a party to defeating it by a side-wind. The Bill contained only one clause, and he thought the House was quite competent to consider it with sufficient effect in Committee of the Whole House. He did not think it would be desirable to bring the question of the Stock Exchange before that House, any more than it would be proper to introduce there the business of the Corn Exchange, or any other similar body; but if such a mode of proceeding were taken it ought to be by a distinct Motion, and not by a mere side-wind. So far as the Bank of England was concerned, it was indifferent to the Bill. As to the petitions that had been presented, he knew there had been a great number of them, but he thought they were not entitled to much weight, the mass of them being lithographs, and emanating from some central authority; and everyone knew the little reflection with which signatures were attached to petitions got up in such a manner. MR. STEPHEN CAVE said, that on the second reading he thought it his duty to state the objections he felt to the measure. He approved its object, and certainly felt no sympathy for the speculators against whom it was directed; on the contrary, he would like to "Put in every honest hand a whip To lash the rascals naked through the world." Ile questioned the means proposed for effecting the object, and his doubts had been confirmed by an Amendment on the paper to extend the operation of the Bill to railway shares; and if so, why not to all other shares and all other kinds of pro "The Vice President of the Board of Trade was connected with one of the largest institu tions in the City of London, of which in that debate he must be taken to speak as the repre sentative." He did not catch the hon. Member's words them then. He begged leave to state that at the time, or he would have noticed he had no interest directly or indirectly Bill; and if the hon. Member alluded to affected by the fate of the hon. Member's his former connection with the Bank of directorship when he accepted the office he England, he gave up that and every other had now the honour to hold. He apologized for saying so much about himself; but he thought it inconvenient that public men, even in the humble, responsible position he held, should be supposed liable to be actuated by personal or interested motives on such questions. MR. BASS read an extract from The Economist newspaper to the effect that it would be difficult to propose a restriction more foolish than that contained in the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 (Contracts for Sale, &c., of Shares to be void unless the Numbers by which such Shares are distinguished are set forth in the Contract.) MR. ALDERMAN LUSK proposed in line 15, after the word "banking," to insert railway or other," contending that if the principle of the measure was good in the case of banks, it should be good in the case of railway and other companies. Amendment negatived. MR. LEEMAN moved, in line 15, to leave out "England and Wales " and insert "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." MR. CRAUFURD protested against extending so absurd a Bill to Scotland. MR. LEEMAN said, it was at the re Motion made, and Question, quest of an Irish and Scotch Member that! he proposed the Amendment. MR. AYRTON inquired whether the hon. Gentleman intended that the Bill should apply to any foreign bank carrying on business in this country, as well as to banks established under the Joint Stock Companies Act? MR. LEEMAN said, he did not. MR. AYRTON said, that as the measure was penal in its character, its language ought to be more precise, and he would appeal to the legal Gentlemen opposite whether the words of the measure as they stood would not embrace the institutions to which he had referred. Amendment agreed to. MR. LEEMAN said, he would adopt the suggestion of the Solicitor General, and expressed a hope that he would be allowed to proceed with the Bill. MR. MOFFATT said, they ought not to be called upon in this Bill to enact something like the Statute of Frauds, and he moved that the Chairman report Progress. The Bill required further consideration. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."-(Mr. Moffatt.) MR. ALDERMAN LUSK moved to omit, Noes 71: Majority 48. The Committee divided:-Ayes 23: in line 18, the words that the contract or token" shall be in writing and." Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, after the word "token," to leave out the words "shall be in writing and." (Mr. Lusk.) Question proposed, "That the words. proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." MR. ALBERT GRANT, to prove the sincerity of his desire to facilitate the passing of the measure, would recommend the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill himself to move that the Chairman report Progress, and he gave that advice in consequence, not only of the lateness of the hour (a quarter to One o'clock), but also from the construction of the measure itself. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, it would be better to alter the words in the clause so as to cause the shares to be designated by number in writing, leaving it to the parties to decide whether the contract should be in writing or oral, as might be most convenient. MR. BASS said, the difficulties of passing this measure appeared to be so great that he thought it would be better to report Progress, which would enable the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leeman) to consider the Amendment. He moved that the Chairman report Progress. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bass.) The Committee divided:-Ayes 35; Noes 75: Majority 40. MR. ALDERMAN LUSK then moved that the Chairman leave the Chair. MR. LEEMAN felt it was impossible to withstand the determination of the minority, and therefore himself moved that the Chairman report Progress. Motion agreed to. House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow. House adjourned at half after One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, March 19, 1867. MINUTES. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading - Withdrawn-Railway Traffic Protection (43). METROPOLITAN POOR BILL-(No. 45.) (The Earl of Devon.) SECOND READING, Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. THE EARL OF DEVON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the objects of the measure were three-folddoor and indoor, within the metropolitan first, to provide for the sick poor, both outarea, for the insane and other classes of the inmates of workhouses, better accommodation than they at present enjoyed; |