The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-29 00:00:00

FENIANISM

Mr. VirSITESIDE asked when tho papers relative to
Fenianisni would be distributed to members.

Mr. C. FORTESCUE said papers had been laid on the
table, but he could not say when they would be ready for
distribution.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

ment, who could settle and unsettle a constitution in a few
days, might as speedily frame a measure to suppress
bribery.
After some remarks from Colonel CaO LAD and Mr.
WYLD,
Mr. GIBSON said that if the subject of bribery had been
introduced into the bill the Government would have been
justly chargeable with departing from precedent. The
motion was a most effective mode of materially lessening
the chance of carrying the bill, and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would not be acting as a true friend to his own
proposals if he gave his assent to the motion.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For Sir R. Knightley's motion 248
Against it 238

Majority against Government 10
When the numbers were thus declared the cheers of
the Opposition were again renewed. There being some
impatient calls from the Opposition to have the numbers
read from the chair.

The SPEAKER again read the numbers, and declared that
he "Ayes" had it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in moving
that the Speaker should leave the chair, said that of course
Ministers would wait for the production of the scheme,
which no doubt Sir R. Knightley had formed, though he
had not communicated it to the house, for dealing with
bribery and corruption. When they had gone through
those parts of the bill which were legitimate portions of it,
and they had the clauses relating to bribery before them,
it would be their duty to give them a dispassionate consi-
deration, and if the hon. gentleman's proposal would suc-
ceed in dealing with that which was a great evil, the
Government would be glad to give him every assistance
in their power. But they would not, so far as depended
upon them, recede from the determination to prosecute
the bill during the present session.
Captain HA YTER (Wells) then moved the amendment
of which he had given notice, to the effect that the house
was of opinion that the system of grouping proposed by
her Majesty's Ministers was neither convenient nor equit-
able, and that it was otherwise not sufficiently matured to
form the basis of a satisfactory measure. In placing this
motion before the house, the hon. member, whilst dis-
claiming all factious motives, frankly avowed that he pro-
posed it in direct hostility to the Government. Ile then
examined the several groupings of boroughs contained in
the bill, and insisted that upon topographical considera-
tions, and on the grounds of want of homogeneity in
population and local interests, the measure of the Govern-
ment was alike crude and immature, in principle vicious
and dangerous, unjust to the boroughs concerned, and
would not be a satisfactory settlement.
Major ANSON (Lichfield) seconded the motion, and
argued that the scheme of the Government was altogether
without principle, sound or unsound, and that it would be
impossible to make a good measure out of it.
Mr. BAGNALL (Whitby), while agreeing that the re-
presentative system was not in a satisfactory state, con-
sidered that the bill of the Government would only make
matters worse, and urged that a just distribution of seats
would include the enfranchisement of several important
communities that the measure left entirely untouched.
Mr. BARNET (Woodstock) protested against the man-
ner in which the bill dealt with the borough he represented
in tacking it on to two other places in a different county ;
and Mr. S. BOOTH, who expressed disapproval of the mode
in which it proposed to unite Petersfield in Hampshire
with Horsham and Midhurst in Sussex, declared that the
feeling in the South of England was decidedly opposed to
such a " shunting" of seats.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was not surprised at the
opposition of Captain Hayter to the Government scheme,
seeing that Wells was a place which must be wholly or
partially disfranchised by any Reform Bill, but he was sur-
prised at the shape which the hon. member's opposition
had taken. He then proceeded to contrast the provisions
of the Ministerial measure with the scheme shadowed out
by Mr. Disraeli on the second reading of the bill, and con-
tended that if the proposed groupings of small boroughs
were carried into effect the result would be to cure the
anomalous state of things under which those boroughs had
the same number of representatives as the most populous
constituencies, to destroy the system of nomination by
neighbouring landowners and the influence of local
cliques, and to render more difficult the work of corruption
at elections. If the motion before the house were carried
the reins of power might be transferred to gentlemen oppo-
site, but he warned them that they would not bo able to
evade the question of Parliamentary Reform.
Mr. SANDFORD (Maldon) observed that, if the views
of the Solicitor-General pointed in any direction, it was to
the establishment of electoral districts. Arguing in favour
of the retention of small boroughs as the nurseries and har-
bours of refuge for public men, he reminded the house that
among the members of the Government the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Mr. Cardwell, and Sir G. Grey ; amongst
the members of the late Ministry, General Peel, Mr. Wal-
pole, Sir Bulwer Lytton, Sir John Pakington, and Lord J.
Manners ; and amongst independent members, Mr. R.
Lowe, Mr. Horsman, and Lord Cranborne, had all owed
their introduction to public life through the means of small
constituencies, and he held that if the bill passed it would
be fatal to the intellect of the house.

Mr. LOCKE opposed the motion as sinister in character,
and predicted that although the members for small and in-
significant boroughs like Wells and Caine might succeed in
defeating the bill, when next the question should be
brought forward, instead of being treated as infinitesimal
quantities, they would be swept away entirely.
Colonel BARTELOT criticised the operation of the bill
upon the representation of counties, and complained that,
by the introduction of leaseholders and copyholders into
the county constituencies, the effect must be to swamp the
rural element, with which the urban was not identical. He
pleaded especially that counties, or divisions of counties,
in the position of East Sussex, ought to have a third
member.

On the reading of the order of the day for the going
into committee on this bill,
Mr. BOUVERIE rose and moved " That the Represen-
tation of the People Bill and the Redistribution of Seats
BiA be referred to the same committee—that it be an in-
struction to the committee that they have power to con-
solidate the said bills into one bill."
The motion was put from the chair and agreed to.
Sir R. RNIGHTLEY then moved that it be an instruc-
tion to the committee that they have power to make pro-
vision for the better prevention of bribery and corruption
at elections.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
instruction of the hon. member was in anticipation of a
debate. He hoped, however, he would not persevere with
it. The labour of sitting, perhaps, in September and Oc-
tober to dispose of the Representation of the People Bill
and the Redistribution of Seats Bill was long enough,
without sitting into November to consider the question of
bribery.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the hon. member for Northamp-
tonshire deserved the thanks of all true reformers in
bringing forward the motion relative to bribery, which he
looked upon as the plague spot on the constitution.
If the Government were to get rid of their Re-
distribution of Seats Bill in order to consider the
best means to put an end to bribery and corruption,
they would then do something that was really useful.
(Hear, hear.) He knew very well what waiting for the re-
po of a committee on the subject meant—it meant this,
that nothing at all would be done. If, however, they
waited for a "convenient opportunity," they would wait
for a longtime. He hoped the hon. member would perse-
vere, and if he divided the house he would give him his
vote. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGA.TE thought that whilst the subject of
redistribution of seats was under discussion bribery ought
not to be lost sight of.
Mr. CLAY thought it was unavoidablet
to postponematter a
the
in-
definitely the consideration of such an important
bribery, and it was of the highest importance that th
matter should be disposed of before the next election, and
no one could say how soon that might occur.
Sir L. PALS also thought it highly desirable to consider
and dispose of the subject of bribery.
Sir G. GREY thought the law with respect to bribery
was now nearly as stringent as it was possible for a legis-
lative enactment to be. He thought that if hon. members
were in earnest the best course to adopt was rigidly to test
the efficiency of the law. He hoped that the consideration
of the bill for the amendment of the representation of the
people would not be impeded by the consideration of the
matter of bribery.
Sir H. CAIRNS said one member of the Government
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said the law with re-
!Ted to bribery was gravely and seriously defec-
tive_ .
(1:6"r, near.) Now he should like to know
how that opinion be
Statement was to reconciled with the
just sat dotewei; the right. hon. baronet who had
was absolutely e(llbyear, hear.) He felt that legislation
Mr. H. VIVIAN necessarysa on the subject.
the importance of detain he was so deeply impressed with
agnivfciiit.h the question of bribery that
he had given notice ogfiven
tiorltehat a member who might
be found to have
should henceforth be
disqualified from sitting in that houseoccupy rr he
thequestion
house of
bribery was of itself quite sufficiet.ti;
an entire session, and therefore he
would not impede the bill by now proceeding,
the hon. hart.
"eeding, with his mo-

Major JERVIS having moved the adjournment of the
debate,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The Go-
vernment have no disposition to prevent a full discussion
upon this question ; but I cannot help expressing my regret
at the motion for adjournment, because having listened to
the debate from the commencement, it does not appear to
me that it has been a debate on the principle of this bill,
but almost entirely on points of objection that ought rather
to be discussed in committee. If, however, there is a desire
for the adjournment I trust we shall be able to proceed
with the debate to-morrow, for as all parties profess to be
agreed on the great importance of this question—all parties,
I hope, will be prepared to testify their sense of that im-
portance by facilitating arrangements which are intended
to bring it speedily to an issue. At all events that is the
view of the Government, and in that view 1 shall presume
to make an appeal to my hon. friend the member for
Glamorganshire (Mr. H. Vivian), who has a motion on the
paper for to-morrow with reference to bribery at elections.
On the notice paper it stands alone, Mt I understand that
two or three motions have since been added, and of course
my hon. friend cannot be asked to postpone his motion
unless other gentlemen do the same. (The right hon. '
gentleman on turning round discovered, amid some laugh-
ter, that the hon. member was not in his place.) I suspect
my hon. friend has been misled by the early hour at which
the motion for adjournment has been made, because I be-
lieve ho was prepared to entertain the question so far as
to say that he would withdraw his motion provided other
gentlemen would do the same. Of ccurse I am not autho-
rised to commit him to anything in his absence, but I
would ask whether gentlemen who have notices for to-
morrow are willing to withdraw them if my hon friend does
the same ? ("No, no !") If they are not, of course the Go-
vernment are in the hands of the house, and I must in that
case fix the adjourned debate for Thursday. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI.—Perhaps the house will allow me to
express what my view is as to the position in which they
are placed with regard to this question. I do not wish to
enter into any recrimination on the matter, but merely to
state what is the position of the house, and what I think is
the course we ought to take. Now, from the remarkable
manner in which, from circumstances to which I do not wish
to
recur, those important measures for the improvement of
the
representation of the people have been brought before
us, there really has been no discussion as yet on what may
be called the principle of the complete measure. (Cheers.)
I appeal to the fairness of both sides of the house whether
this is not the fact.
partial measure was in the first in-
stance brought forward by the Government. The propriety
after of that course was contested, and considerable discus-
sion, but a discussion confined to the partial
an-
other part of the scheme was broughtmeasure,
forwardth by the Go-
vernment. Well, from the manner in which these
were introduced to our notice, and from the measures
ni
cumstances attendant upon the discussion which arose,
partialee
l
rioa:e,c7ire-
gn
were obliged to agree to the second reading of
measure, and that having taken place, there was a general
understanding on both sides of the house that when the
other moiety of the measure was brought forward it should
be placed in the same position as the first part of the mea-
sure found itselfin, rather by good luck than by concur-
rence of opinion. That was a course which was a very
difficult one to pursue, and which involved considerable
sacrifice to many lion. members ; still, on the whole, bear-
ing in mind the very complicated and perplexing position
in which the house was placed with reference to what may
fairly be described as the most important subject
that could come under i,:s consideration, it was,
1 think, the best course that could be adopted. The
house acted with perfect good faith in that spirit, and,
therefore, when the question of the second reading of the
secondmoiety of the measure was brought forward, 1 on the
Part of my friends expressed oui intention to place it in
the same position as the first moiety. We have thus suc-
buetwhile I won't say it was a condition that we should
road it a second time, yet from circumstances over which,
Perhaps, we agree that no one had any control, it so hap-
pened that theefkaour:eawseas really obliged to agree to the se-
cond reading
three
which never was discussed as a
whole. After nearly
of the first b'ilel,months' therefore, from the in-
troduction° have had no opportunity
until to-night of considering thin complete measure.
(Cheers.) Now, whatever influenceg possess
rweeitthe my
e friends I certainly exercised to intlucerataZ
second reading of the Redistribution Bill,e in order that it
might be put upon the same level Ls the
but I did so by assuring them—for I thought'l'coculhdisreeßpeilali

tion.
Mr. MOWBRAY thought the Government was not
in
earnest in issuing the commissions appointed to inquire
into bribery. Up to the present time, although a month
had elapsed since the Commissioners were
appointed,
nothing further had yet been done.
Mr. STANILAND said, to show the necessity for
something being done to put down bribery, he knew a
borough on the, east coast of England with about 1,000
voters where 700 received bribes—(cries of "Name, name")
—that the price paid on the average was.£3s per head, some
of the independent electors had received as much as £6O
for their vote, and yet no petition had been presented to
that house complaining of such a state of things.
Mr. BARROW also supported the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL argued that the present
was not the proper time to consider the question with a
view of bringing it to a practical settlement. If the in-
struction meant anything it was to throw over the question
of reform altogether.
Mr. WHITESIDE created considerable merriment by
remarking that if a little pressure were put on, the Govern-

the assurance I had received from the Government, that
the house should have a fair opportunity of discussing
the whole measure before we went into committee.
(Cheers.) I was most anxious notto embarrass the Govern-
ment on that occasion, but at the same timel was so anxious
that the house should have an opportunity of expressing
an opinion upon the complete measure that I should have
been satisfied if I had succeeded in my attempt, which was
to have a discussion though not a division on that occa-
sion, because a discussion on the second reading of the Re-
distribution Bill would have enabled the house to consider
the complete measure of the Government. I gave every
opportunity to the Government, if they had chosen to
avail themselves of that occasion, generally to consider
that subject. A right hon. gentleman a Secretary of State
did me the honour, certainly, to reply to the observations
I made ; several gentlemen, however, rose on this side and
offered their views to the house, but were not responded
to, and it appeared—it might be by some unfortunate acci-
dent—that the Government and their supporters were
not prepared to take the debate on that occasion. (Hear,
hear.) In what position do we now find ourselves? To-
night a very important amendment has been at length
proposed to the question that the Speaker do leave the
chair. It has been proposed in a speech of considerable
detail, and seconded in a speech of great ability, and enter-
ing very much into the details and merits of the scheme of
the Government ; but really, so far as the Government are
concerned, no notice has been taken of it. (Hear, hear.)
No notice has been taken of the amendments or the speech
either of the mover or seconder. Several gentlemen on this
side of the house had continued the debate for a consider-
able time without the slightest evidence being given to
the house that the Government and their supporters were
even • conscious of the subject which was before them.
(Cheers.) But time drew on, and at length it was absolutely
necessary that some individual from the Treasury bench
should rise—and what took place? An hon. and learned
gentleman rose, and, instead of addressing himself to the
amendment of the hon. and gallant gentleman the member
for Wells, or to the speech of his seconder, the hon. mem-
ber for Lichfield, he offered to the house what I suppose
he considered an answer—if it gave him a night of easy
slumber to indulge in that dream, I will not disturb it—
(cheers and a laugh)—to some observation which I made
some weeks ago before the holidays. (Cheers and a laugh.)
There is only one inference to be drawn from this. I
cannot suppose that the Government are not conscious of
the importance of this subject or the merits of this mea-
sure. I can only draw this inference—that they are not
prepared for the discussion which the house seems very
anxious should be proceeded with. (Hear, hear.) It appears
to me, therefore, that the best course will be for us not to
interfere with the business of to-morrow—let that take its
course ; and so on Wednesday. I take it for granted that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no engagement for
Thursday—(cheers and laughter)—and we may then be
capable of taking that part in the debate on this subject
which I think both houses and the country require. (Hear,
hear.) The amendment has not been noticed by the Go-
vernment or their supporters—(hear)--and on this occa-
sion they have avoided any discussion when it was offered
to them under circumstances that show it was offered with
no intention of embarrassing them, and the house having
had no opportunity till now of viewing as a whole the
scheme of the Government, I think the most discreet
course for us is to let this debate be adjourned till a future
day, in order that those who ought to take a leading part
in it may be able to address the house with that amount of
reflection without which no debate can be conducted with
advantage to the country, and without which we shall
occupy a position scarcely creditable to ourselves. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT—I think that those who sent us here,
when to-morrow they read the report of what has taken
place, especially the speeches made on the other side of
the house, will be extremely gratified at the new zeal of
honourable gentlemen opposite with regard to the ques-
tion of purity of election (a laugh) and their gratification
will be the greater if they should happen to believe in that
zeal. Now, there is no man in the house, I am sure,
notwithstanding the speeches that have been made,
and there is no man out of it, who knows anything about
the principles of law-making, who is not quite certain of
this—that to attempt to draw up a series of clauses upon
all matters affecting the conduct of elections, with a view
to insert them in this bill, is not a proceeding which is wise
with regard to the question of purity of election, and is
most adverse to the bill now before the house. (Hear,
hear.) The Attorney-General has already stated that, and
I repeat it. This question of purity of election is a very
great and a very difficult question. We have had several
committees of the house to inquire into it. I recollect
sitting on a committee for many weeks with, I think, the
learned gentleman, one of the members for Suffolk, whom
I see opposite. Well, every kind of proposition almost
was made. Most of the propositions were rejected, and
of those that were accepted by the committee some
have been rejected by the house and some have been
accepted, but those that were accepted have apparently ut-
terly failed. (Hear, hear.) Some members have an idea
that you can suppress bribery and corruption by measures
of punishment. I entertain no such belief. (Hear, hear.)
The law is strong enough now as far as the matter of
punishment is concerned, and yet apparently nothing is
clone by the law to suppress bribery. What is clear to
every man who is connected with therepresentative system
in every other country but this is, that you can only sup-
press bribery by having constituencies sufficiently large,
and by having the mode of election by ballot. (Hear, hear.)
Now, sir, I will not go into a discussion of that question,
but an hon. gentleman behind me has referred to it, and I
wish only to utter one sentence with regard to it. It is this
—that there is no country in the world but this in which
we have constant charges and admissions of the gross
bribery which takes place at elections. It is not charged
universally—it is scarcely charged at all in the United
States. (Cries of " Oh " from the Opposition.) It is
not charged in any of the countries on the European
continent. (Oh, oh.) I beg to tell my hon. friend that
the electoral system of all these countries, or nearly
all, differs from that of this country in this particular—
that small constituencies such as we have, manageable
constituencies, are not known, and vote by ballot is all
but universal. (Hear, hear.) Now, the hon. gentleman
the member for Northamptonshire has proposed that the
house should go into an entirelynew question in committee
on this bill. I venture to say that, whether he be honest
in making this proposal now with a view to forward gene-
rally the cause of Reform or not, I am quite sure that the
result of his proposition, and I fear the object of his pro-
position—(Oh, oh !)—as far as it is supported by many
gentlemen—(hear, hear)—is to cumber the bill of the Go-
vernment so that it shall be impossible to pass it through
Parliament during this session. (Cheers.) I do not know
whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as leader of the
house, and the most influential member of the Government,
shall think fit to accede to any Such proposition. I think
he has not gained much by having acceded to the proposi-
tion of the member for Kilmarnock. (Hear, hear.) I
believe the proper course to be taken with regard to
Reform was that which the Government offered to the
house in the first instance (hear, hear) and that
every step they take in adding to their measure any of
those propositions which are intended to make the bill
more comprehensive in doing something now which
may be necessary to be done, but which they have not
proposed to do at present—is only adding to their difficul-
ties in carrying any bill at all. (Hear, hear.) And I state
without hesitation my opinion that outside this house
every member, whether he be on this side or upon that
who insists on adding to this bill matter which does not
come within its original scope of extending the franchise,
or of rearranging the distribution of seats, will be adjudged
as a man who is putting obstacles in the path of this bill
—(" Oh," and cheers)—and is desirous to embarrass the
Government, whose difficulties, whatever else we may
disagree about, we must all admit are at least sufficient
for the time. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I merely rise to say that I feel con-
fident the house will come to a decision on the question
before it without any fear of the reign of terror with
which we are threatened. (Cheers.) The fact is that
those threats are repeated too often, and not having been
frightened by the letter that was read at Primrose Hill—
(cheers)—the House of Commons will not be deterred
from doing that which, under the circumstances, I clearly
believe it to be the duty of the House of Commons to per-
form. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman who has
just addressed us has taunted us with a new-born zeal
in favour of measures to put down corruption and
bribery at elections. (Hear, hear.) But I am not aware
that we on this side of the house were ever particularly
interested in maintaining that system of corruption.
I always understood that the great mass of gentlemen
on this side of the house were returned by county con-
stituencies—at least have represented constituents
to whom, never for a moment, corruption has been
attributed. (Cheers.) I do not find that with
regard to borough elections the gentlemen on this side of
the house have any cause to be afraid of confronting this
question. (Ilea; hear.)
sleibtaxeocprpatshlnttleiosn_Whether the feelings of the hon.
gentleman, and those intimately connected with him are
the same—(Opposition cheers and laughter)—l shall not
that; but
w ife wm ea arey
appeal attackedto
the upon
annals theseof dhveaakdesL
fiN.
were
00
lando ne uddersfleld. (Cheers.) The transactions that
instanceshenloaycinpusdriaoryewf e
as profess
c understoodwereo ser
vpart oi
vvteeodospatiyor havethat it
(Hear,
eesannr
not
hear.)
place, and
)a
lastn d
properlyl
cßowsn:ArninieDd: were not perpetrated by mem-
bers
cries of Order'," rose to
election the right hon. gentleman was referring to.
Mr. DISRAELI —Whethes the experience was more
recent, or whether it was at a more distant date, I under-
stand from the hon. gentleman that he agrees that my
statement with regard to the constituency was quite accu-
rate. (Laughter.) Let me ask the house what they aro
called upon to do by the instruction moved by my hon.
friend the member for Northamptonshire. It is, in my
mind, to perform a duty which it is the very first which
the house ought to consider under the circumstances in
which the Government have placed them with respect to
these
the m
peopleeasm e
in forP a
lhi
ae
mimprovementAnd
whatof the
is
the
representation
ofargument
of the Government? The Attorney-Genera], who made a
f
speech which was really only explanatory of the speech of
.s
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that there was no
precedent for this, and that in 1832, when the great mea-
sure of rallianiuittary La.:ol-m was introdu7ad, the house

was not asked to deal with the question of corruption or
bribery when it was dealing with the franchise and
redistribution of seats and other matters of that
kind. Of course not. In 1832 you were creating the con-
stituencies that have since been corrupted. The case is not
at all parallel. What has occurred in consequence of the
Reform of 1832 in this respect was not contemplated at
that time, but we must profit by the expert once of what
has occurred since 1832. We know the measure of 1832,
though it has been fraught with incalculable benefits to
the country, has greatly increased bribery and corruption
at elections ; and when we are called upon to increase the
constituencies, to institute fresh borough representation,
what is more natural than that we should profit by the
experience of the past, and at the same time take means
and measures by which this great evil should not be in-
creased, but rather reduced. Therefore I conceive it is
impossible we can refrain from acceding to the instruction
of my hon. friend the member for Northamptonshire, and
I am still in hopes that her Majesty's Government will re-
lieve the house from the trouble of a division upon the
motion. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY retorted upon the Opposition that they
had assented to the second reading of the bill, and now en-
couraged its obstruction, without having had the candour
themselves of placing an amendment on the paper.
Sir H. CAIRNS charged the Government with having,
by their silence, exhibited a desire to stifle discussion.
Mr. CARDWELL denied the imputation, and said that
it was the earnest desire of the Government to proceed at
the earliest possible moment, and not to interpose a need-
less delay.
Mr. H. VIVIAN believed the Government were firmly
determined to press forward the bill, and so thinking he
was ready to withdraw the notice he had on the paper, and
invited other gentlemen to follow his example.
Mr COCHRANE had•already given way on one occasion
in favour of the Franchise Bill, and was not prepared to do
so again to promote what he regarded as a most mischiev-
ous measure.
After some remarks from Lord R. Montagu, Sir M. W.
Ridley, and Mr. Earle, the debate was adjourned to Thurs-
day.
The Customs and Inland Revenue Bill passed through
committee.
The Indian Prize Money Bill, the Reformatory Schools
Bill, and the Industrial Schools Bill, were severally read a
second time.
Other measures were also advanced a stage, and Mr.
Childers having obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend
the acts relating to the standard weights and measures, and
to the standard trial pieces of the coin of the realm,
The house adjourned at one o'clock.

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVEN:ING, MAY 29, 1866.

exceeded in value the amount obtained on them by
nearly £250,000.

Mr. EAMES, seconded by Mr. HovEs, moved that
the committee be requested to continue in office till
after the next meeting, to take such steps as would
further the voluntary winding up of the company.
The motion was carried.

The CHAIRMAN, in reply to questions, stated that
the liabilities of the company were about £2,700,000
when first presented to the committee ; they would
therefore want £2,000,000 to carry them through.
His belief was that, with a call of £5 per share paid
up, and arrangements with the largest creditors, they
would want no more than the £5 call in addition to
the calls already made. But there were two sides
to the question ; the association had entered into
solemn compact to lend thousands of pounds to con-
tractors to carry out certain works, those contracts
had been entered into, and the association were
bound to see those contracts carried through. He
wished that every account had been as profitable
and safe as that of ➢lessrs. Peto and Betts. Some
years ago he was a partner in that firm, and as to
Sir M. Peto, he was truth and honour itself, and he
was that the credit of that firm would not suffer
with them, and they were bound to see it safe
through. The association must fulfil its obligations.
It was altogether a pocket question, £lO per share
had been called up, and all they would want was £5
per share more, making in all £l5 a share to carry
out their engagements. With the forbearance of
their creditors they would not only be able to pay
their debts, but to fulfil their obligations.
The best thanks of the meeting were then voted
to the chairman and committee for their services,
and the proceedings terminated.