HC Deb 17 June 1861 vol 163 cc1172-206

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee,

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3 (Chelsea and Kensington to form a Borough to return one Member),

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, that he regretted to say that, owing to the indisposition of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) who had given notice of his intention to propose a clause conferring one of the seats on the University of London, he was unable to attend. Several persons, however, who took an interest in the matter had requested him (Sir Francis Goldsmid) to move a similar clause. But in consequence of the multiplicity of Amendments of which notice had been given, and of other circumstances, with a statement of which it was not necessary to trouble the Committee, be thought it host not at present to move the Amendment, the object of which was to give a Member to the London University. He would reserve to himself the right of making the statement to which he had referred at any time at which it might appear desirable that it should be made, and if, when the Committee arrived at the end of the Bill—if they did arrive at that point—a seat remained vacant, he would move a short clause giving it to the London University.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Northampton, he intended to submit the Amendment of which that hon. Member had given notice.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he rose to move the insertion of the town of Burnley, in Lancashire, in the place of Chelsea, which had been struck out.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that his Amendment for the insertion of Cork preceded that of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. and gallant Member that he was not in the House to take precedence. The hon. Member for Finsbury was now in possession of the Chair.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he wished to know if he should be in order to moving that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask leave to sit again that day six months?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he understood that the hon. Member for Finsbury had possession of the Committee.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, that on Friday evening he asked the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intended to proceed with the Bill, and, if so, what place he intended to substitute in it for Chelsea and Kensington. The answer was, that the Government intended to proceed with the Bill, and that they would state in Committee the substitute which they intended to propose for Chelsea and Kensington. The person who ought to be addressing the Committee was the right hon. Baronet. The House was in Committee, and he asked the Government what place they proposed to enfranchise instead of Chelsea and Kensington, which had been struck out? For his own part, he thought that the Motion to report Progress, or, which would have been better, to proceed to the other orders of the day, would have been a very proper Motion to have adopted. He could not understand Ministers bringing in a Bill of that sort for what they called Reform, though it certainly was a very trumpery measure, and submitting to the striking out of the first clause which gave representation to wealth and population without at once throwing up the measure. The consequence was that the Committee was about to be dragged through the mire of a parcel of propositions which were to be made one after another, without any prospect of arriving at a satisfactory result, and all the time which was so spent would be wasted. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) desired to give a Member to the London University; but if such a proposition had been made he (Mr. T. Duncombe) should certainly have been inclined to move as an Amendment that Burnley should be put in its place. The wealth and population of Burnley entitled it far more than the London University to representation. The London University belonged to the district which he had the honour to represent, and therefore, his vote would be unpopular; but he wanted to know what were the claims of the London University? It was said that it had the same claims as Oxford and Cambridge. Their right to representation was, however, conferred upon those Universities by charter, and if it was intended that it should possess them, why were not similar rights conferred in a similar manner upon the University of London? In the Reform Bills of 1852, 1854, and 1860, to the introduction of one of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was a party, Birkenhead and Burnley took precedence of the London University, and why should their position be changed? He called upon the Government to state the name of the place the claims of which they were prepared to support. The murder must be out that evening. He did not like the measure at nil. It was a frittering away of the great cause of Reform. He would rather wait for better times, when the House of Commons would be obliged to do what they now refused. That House, though called together for the purpose of Reform, was not likely to pass a Reform Bill, and, therefore, the Government might ask what their duty was. He should say their duty was to bring in a good comprehensive measure of Reform, to ask the House to read it a second time, and, if they refused, to take the sense of the country. The hon. Member concluded by moving the insertion of "Burnley" in the place of "Chelsea and Kensington," which had been struck out of the clause.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that he had stated upon a former occasion that the Government did not bring in this Bill as a comprehensive measure of Parliamentary Reform, they brought it in as a measure to supply the vacancies in that House, which had been occasioned by two Acts of Parliament, under the operation of which four seats had become vacant. That was the whole extent of their proposal, and they were now quite ready to go through the Bill, taking in succession the different proposals which might be made in the place of that which was negatived on Thursday evening, and to give the best opinion which they could upon each of them. As to this being a pitiful measure, as the hon. Gentleman had implied, he would only remark that if giving an additional Member to the great county division, the West Riding of Yorkshire and another to South Lancashire was a pitiful proceeding, then that word was properly applied to this Bill; but it certainly appeared to him from the Amendments of which notice had been given that there was on the part of different portions of the country no want of solicitude to obtain a representation in that House. The question before the Committee was, whether the seat which the Government had proposed to give to Chelsea and Kensington should be given to the borough of Burnley. There was no doubt that the town of Burnley was a considerable and an increasing place. The reason why the Government did not propose to assign a Member to Burnley was that Burnley was in North Lancashire, upon the border of South Lancashire, and that it was a manufacturing town, its principal industry being the production of cotton goods. The Bill already proposed to give one seat to South Lancashire, another to the West Riding, where much the same land of manufacturing industry was carried on, and the third seat to Birkenhead; so that had the Government proposed to give the fourth scat to Burnley, they would all have been assigned to a limited district in Lancashire, Cheshire, and the West Riding. Therefore, though he did not dispute that the claim of Burnley to additional representation was entitled to consideration whenever a more extensive scheme was brought before the House, he did not feel justified, under present circumstances, in giving his support to the proposition.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he thought it would have been very advantageous if the House at the outset of the discussion had agreed to the Motion of the noble Lord (Earl Jermyn) for adjourning the further progress of the Bill to that day six mouths. At present the Government were coy in proposing any fresh Motion, fearing they would suffer a further defeat, which they most certainly would; while lion. Gentlemen with a favourite seat to propose were equally coy in commencing the battle, hoping that when all the other Motions had been disposed of, their's might be accepted as a pis aller. Hon. Members must regret the illness of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, but it certainly was fortunate for the University of London that he was invalided, because, as his Motion was the first to come on, unquestionably he would have been the first to be defeated. The Scotch Members, with the shrewdness which distinguished them, put their heads together and abstained from giving notice of any Amendments which would come on early in the debate, intimating their intention of proposing certain clauses, which they would try to carry after the other Amendments had run their course and been defeated. It was not fair on the part of the Government to leave matters to proceed in this confused manner. To put an end to this state of uncertainty he very much wished that somebody would move to report Progress. Hon. Members behind him suggested that he should do so himself, but as he had a proposition to make he would leave that very popular Motion to them, by way of Amendment, and he should be very happy to vote in its favour. With the consent of the hon. Members for the Queen's County and Dungarvan, he should move that the blank be filled up by inserting "the county of Cork," and if it had not a good case the Motion might as well be negatived and its advocates be put out of pain. He did not see how it was possible to reject the claim which the county of Cork possessed, unless the House adopted the principle laid down by the right lion. Gentleman the Home Secretary the other night, that these being English seats, Ireland need not expect any share of increased representation. He had never advocated the repeal of the Union, but if it were once understood that the different portions of the United Kingdom were not to be identical in rights and privileges, he should advocate a complete and actual severance, as far as was consistent with loyalty to the Queen. He based his claim to a third Member for the county of Cork upon figures taken from Thom's Almanack—the most accurate work on this subject which he could find; and if Ireland had any representative in the Cabinet attention would undoubtedly have been directed to the subject. Excluding the city of Cork and the other boroughs already represented, he found that the county of Cork contained of property rated under Schedule A £832,045, 15,716 electors, and a population in the year 1851 of 563,576. The county Down stood next in point of property and number of electors, but was deficient in population. Tipperary was third in wealth and number of electors, and second in population. He had heard it said that Mayo was by some considered to have a stronger claim to increased representation, but a brief comparison would show that this idea was mistaken. Cork contained £832,000 worth of property; Mayo only £224,000; Cork had 15,700 registered electors, while Mayo had only 3,779; the population of the county of Cork was 563,000, while that of Mayo was but 274,000. Again, it was said that Cork, taking into account its borough Members, returned a sufficient share of representatives to that House. In respect of population, valuation, and acreable extent the county of Cork might be regarded as one-tenth of the whole of Ireland; yet the number of Irish representatives was 105, while Cork, including the city and boroughs, had only eight, of which the county had only two. He did not want to take a Member from any other Irish constituency, but he wished to have an additional Member given to the county which he had the honour to represent. He believed that Cork had a more overwhelming case than could be made for any other county; and, therefore, he hoped his proposal would receive the support of the Irish Members. Then, as regarded the English counties, the county of Lancaster, including its boroughs, had no less than twenty-six Members, and there was a proposal on the paper to give it another. ["Divide, divide!"] If hon. Members wished him to sit down he would do so; but it was not fair to refuse him a hearing after he had been at the trouble of making up his case. He was about to state facts which were already known to himself; and, therefore, if he were not allowed to state them, the loss would not be his but that of hon. Members who refused to listen to him, and who were at present ignorant of that which he wished to tell them. He ought not, perhaps, to accuse the Committee at large of interrupting him; for he believed the buzz of "Divide" came from two or three Members on the back benches. He had gone carefully through the English and Scotch counties; but had not found one of them that could contest with the county of Cork the claim for another Member. Comparing the county of Cork with what were called the "unicorn" counties of England, returning each three Members, he found that it was superior to any one of them in regard to valuation, to number of electors, and population. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would come forward and manfully declare in favour of Cork, and he could assure them that if they did so it would go far to do away with that unfavourable opinion which he had been forced to form of them, especially with regard to their Irish policy. He did not see how the refusal to give Cork an additional Member could be justified, except on the disloyal principle laid down the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that Ireland was a distinct and separate country, and not to be treated as an integral part of the empire. He trusted no one would oppose his proposition on the ground that the county of Cork would return a Catholic to that House. The hon. Member for Westmeath stated it the other night as a fact, that, while Protestant constituencies never returned Catholic Members, Catholic constituencies were often found returning Protestant Members. This fact was strongly borne out by Mr. Massey in his History of the Reign of George III., in which he said that while Dissenters of every kind were elected by the English people, and had no difficulty in finding seats, yet "during the thirty years that followed Catholic Emancipation, not more than two or three Roman Catholics had been sent to Parliament by Protestant constituencies." The county of Cork and its boroughs returned eight Members; and of these eight the Catholics might, if they chose, return seven. Perhaps they could not return a Catholic Member for Bandon. That borough returned a good Tory Protestant of the right sort. The borough of Youghal returned a Liberal Protestant, and Kinsale sent a Liberal Presbyterian. The Catholic borough of Mallow returned an Ultramontane Protestant, and the Catholic constituency of the county of Cork returned as his colleague a Gentleman whom he might also describe as an Ultramontane Protestant. ["Divide!"] He knew that in dilating on the unwillingness of Protestant constituencies to elect Roman Catholic representatives he was uttering unpleasant statements; still, the House of Commons was the fairest audience in the world, and if he had uttered equally unpalatable statements to any audience elsewhere, he should not succeed in getting an audience at all. He also could joke and jest when he chose, but he wanted the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to answer his figures, and to state some better reason why the county of Cork should not have an additional representative. He defied contradiction when he asserted that the Roman Catholics exercised the franchise in a more ultra-liberal manner than Protestant electors. Perhaps no Irish Catholic candidate had ever had sufficient spirit to present himself to an English constituency. If he were rejected for a Roman Catholic constituency he might try some English constituency like Marylebone, in order to see whether there were not some really liberal constituencies in this country. It might be said that Protestants would not elect a Roman Catholic because, although there were liberal Protestants, there were no such persons as liberal Roman Catholics. But many Roman Catholics were kept out of Parliament at that moment because they would not adopt the politics of the Ultramontane party. While there were Protestants too liberal for Irish Protestant constituencies, there were, on the other hand, Roman Catholics who were quite liberal enough to represent English Protestant constituencies. There were Roman Catholics who, although attached to their religious creed, altogether dissented from the Ultramontane policy in Italy. If the Committee would bear with him he would read—[cries of "Oh!"] He was saying what would, perhaps, be unpopular among his constituency, and, if the Committee stopped him, he must not hereafter be charged with concealing his opinions on this subject. He had that morning cut out of a Cork newspaper of Saturday a statement by a writer who would not object to his name being quoted. ["Divide, divide!"] It was difficult to address that House. It had been said that eloquence was rather in the audience than the speaker. He, therefore, defied any Irishman to attempt to be eloquent in that House. As soon as he got under way some hon. Gentleman on the back benches always interrupted him in a rude manner. He wished that hon. Members would not interrupt him until he had done, to use an Irish mode of expression. [Cries of "Agree!"] If hon. Members would not hear him he might as well sit down. The hon. Member concluded by moving to insert "County of Cork," in lieu of the words "Parishes of Chelsea and Kensington in the," which had been struck out.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member could not put his Amendment until the other propositions before the Committee were disposed of.

MR. AYRTON

said he rose to move that the Chairman should report Progress, because he thought something was due to the House from Her Majesty's Government in order to extricate them from the state of bewilderment in which they were placed by the four propositions which had been submitted to the chair. First, they had the proposition of the hon. Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid); then came the noble Lord, the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield), who shadowed out a proposal, but did not make one. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) next followed with a statement in favour of the proposal, which he did not intend to have put, but which was accidentally put by the Chair; and, lastly, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully), which could not be put from the Chair. On a former occasion he had suggested that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Knightley) should go on with his proposal, but the Government had then desired Progress to be reported, in order that they might consider what course should be adopted. It was generally expected that the Government would come down to-day and make a statement of their intentions in regard to this Bill. The Government submitted to the Committee a distinct proposal for dealing with the four seats, and he should have thought that it was intended to stand as a whole; but as the proposal was negatived in part the Committee was now entitled to ask the Government what step they intended to take for filling up the vacancy thereby created in the plan. In dealing with a Bill which affected the constitutional Government of the whole country, was there to be a scramble for the seat among different Members, while the Government only gave utterance to vague expressions which would not commit them to anything, leaving the House to get out of the difficulty in the best way it could? That was a case with which no private Member could deal properly, and it was the bounden duty of the Government to consider, according to the great principles of justice, what should be the representation of the country. He, therefore, made the Motion for reporting Progress, in order to invite the noble Lord the Prime Minister to inform the Committee what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the four seats, and unless he got some distinct answer lie should divide upon the Motion.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that the difficulty of which the lion. Member complained had not been in any way created by the Government, nor were they responsible for it. The difficulty had arisen out of the course, the unusual nature of which he had pointed out when the Motion was made, of moving to omit certain words in the clause without proposing to substitute other words for them. The consequence was that a blank had been created which different hon. Members proposed to fill up in different ways, and it was necessary that their Motions should be taken in the order of precedence. It was not in the power of the Government to prevent those Motions being made. The Government were perfectly ready to state their views upon each Motion as it was made. The Motion before the House was that the blank should be filled up by "Burnley," and if the hon. Member for Finsbury should press that Motion he (Sir George Lewis) should give his vote against it. With regard to the question of the county Cork, they had virtually divided on that—but if the Motion should be repeated be would be quite prepared to state his views upon it. Whenever the Motion of the noble Lord, the Member For Middlesex (Viscount Enfield), or that of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Mr. Knightley) should be made the Government would be ready to vote in favour of the proposition for giving a third Member to Middlesex.

MR. DISRAELI

said, that after the course which he had taken a week before of persuading his Friends to support the Motion then made to report Progress, he would take the liberty of making one remark. Certainly on that occasion he was under the impression, and he thought the House largely shared in it, that the Government intended generally to consider their position with regard to the clause, so that when the House went into Committee again, they would receive a distinct statement on the subject from the Government. What the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State repeated to night—namely, his complaint as to the manner in which the opposition, the successful opposition, to the proposition of the Government as to the representation of Chelsea was to be regarded—appeared to him not to be sound. The course taken might have been inconvenient to the Government, but no one would pretend that it was unusual or unparliamentary. It was adopted with a due regard to precedent by the Gentleman who made the proposition, and no one questioned the full right of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. It was undoubtedly inconvenient for the Government that the Amendment should have been carried; but the resistance to the proposition on the part of the Government did not denote that the success of the proposition was an event of which they had not in some degree contemplated the probability. But although that success was inconvenient to the Government in the previous week, that was no reason why the Government should not, in the interval, have considered their position, and upon that question of all others—the representation of the people in Parliament—have been prepared with some suggestion which would have served as a guide to the House. IF the Government were responsible for anything they were responsible for the policy pursued on that question. They had to consider the due distribution of the representation in the north and in the south, in the urban and in the rural population; they had to consider whether there were distinct interests not represented, or not adequately represented at that moment. These con- siderations formed the peculiar province of statesmen, and of a Cabinet of statesmen, who, if they did not bring forward large and comprehensive measures, had at least on some of these points taken large and comprehensive views. But if the whole matter was simply to be thrown down into the centre of the House, for any Gentleman, who considered he could bring forward a title for a share in the four seats, to take up, without due reference to the general interests of the community, there would be no end to the inconvenience in reference to public business, and there might be possible injury to the public welfare. He, therefore, intreated the Government to assume the responsibility which belonged to them, and bring before the House some proposition made with their authority. The Government had no right to complain of the manner in which the proposal respecting Chelsea and Kensington was treated by the House. The debate was not of a character, especially on the part of the Government, to convey to the House the conviction that the proposition was one which the Government were anxious to enforce with all the weight of their authority and position but let them profit by the lesson, let them well consider the subject, and again bring forward a proposal on which he did not say that there should be staked the existence of the Government (which the Government always fancied in danger when advice was given), but with respect to which they might say that they sincerely believed that its acceptance was of importance to the general welfare; and he was bound that the House would give it a fair consideration. If Government were not prepared to pursue that course, then he thought that the best step the Committee could take would be to assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He did not wish the Committee to come to a conclusion hostile to the Government, but he would suggest that they should name a day for resuming the Committee, when they would submit their proposition to the House, and the House would give it fair and ample discussion.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he begged leave to assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the Government made no complaint of the manner in which the debate was conducted on a former evening. Those four seats having been long vacant, the Government thought it their duty not to let the Session pass without proposing to the House a measure for allotting them. They chose four places which, in their opinion, were fitting to receive these four Members. The House appeared to the Government to concur with them in regard to three of them. With regard to two there was an actual vote; with regard to Birkenhead it seemed to be generally agreed that that was a fit place to receive a Member. The House disagreed with the Government in regard to Chelsea and Kensington. The right hon. Gentleman might have wished that decision should be considered as a decision determining the fate of the Government, but other hon. Members having proposed places in lieu of Chelsea and Kensington, the Government did not wish to impose a heavier responsibility upon those who, however reluctantly, were prepared to assume it. There being now several propositions before the House as to places to which different Members suggested that this single seat should be given, the Government had taken into consideration which of the propositions was on the whole the best suited for adoption by the House, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had stated that the Government were prepared to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, that a third Member should be given to Middlesex. He hoped that the House would concur with the Government in supporting that proposition, and he trusted that it would not be necessary for the Government to pursue the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman of adjourning the debate further for the purpose of considering some great and comprehensive measure as to the disposal of one single and solitary seat. Such were the intentions of the Government, and when the hon. Member for Northamptonshire submitted his proposition to the House it should receive their support.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, he wished to observe that he had that morning received a communication from his constituents at Burnley, complaining of a statement which had a few evenings before been made by the Secretary for the Home Department to the effect that the population of that town amounted to—he believed it was—only 26,000 persons. That statement must, he felt assured, be the result of some misapprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, for it appeared that the population of Burnley was at least 38,000, and that if a somewhat larger district were taken it would amount to nearer 40,000. He had also been requested to call the attention of Parliament to one or two facts. The borough of Burnley had always stood the first in the list of those boroughs to which in any scheme of Parliamentary Reform, from the first Reform Bill down to the present time, it had been proposed to give a representative. Even in 1832 it was discussed in the Cabinet of the day whether Burnley should not have a Member. The decision was against the town. But in every Reform Bill since introduced Burnley had stood first. In the Bills which the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had introduced since Burnley stood first; it was first in the Bill introduced by the Government of the Earl of Derby; and at the present moment the inhabitants felt that the town ought to have been placed among the four places now selected for a representative. The case now rested in the hands of the hon. Member for Fins-bury; but that hon. Gentleman was, he thought, putting it in a somewhat disadvantageous position by taking so early an opportunity of pressing its claims on the attention of the Committee. It would seem that there was to be a regular scramble for the seats to be disposed of by the Bill, and, under those circumstances, those towns would, he believed, stand the best chance the names of which came last on the list. Be that, however, as it might, if the hon. Member for Finsbury went to a division he should give him his support.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

Burnley is not yet included in the returns of the census of this year. The numbers I quoted are given correctly from the Return of 1851, 20,828; and Birkenhead, in the same return, is placed the highest, 24,175.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

That was Burnley Proper. The error, no doubt, had arisen from the population of an adjoining parish to Burnley, but forming part of the borough, having been given separately.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, that when on Friday the Committee rejected the claim of the University of London he inquired whether Government intended to support the proposition of giving an extra Member to Middlesex, and if they had replied in the affirmative he would not have moved the insertion of "Burnley." The four vacancies had been created in borough representation, and he thought, therefore, that the seats ought to have been given to the other boroughs. He could not see that Ireland had the least claim; but Chelsea having been negatived it had been proposed to give the seat to the county of Middlesex, and he should withdraw his Motion in favour of Burnley in favour of that proposition.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he thought no course could be productive of a more useless waste of time than to leave it to hon. Members generally to set up ninepins to be bowled down one after another at discretion. If, therefore, the Government should be a second time beaten in supporting the claims of a particular locality he hoped they would abandon the Bill.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the course proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) was the one proposed by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In the middle of the debate the hon. Member for Northamptonshire moved to omit certain words, and did not propose to fill up the vacancy with other words particularizing the place he wished to insert. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire would, no doubt, bring on his proposal as to Middlesex as soon as he had the opportunity, but so long as any hon. Member had an Amendment to come earlier it could not be submitted. If the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was allowed to propose the insertion of the words of which he had given notice as to the county of Middlesex, it would form a substantive Amendment. But it was not in the power of Government to overrule the forms of the House.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he must beg leave to differ with the right hon. Gentleman. The course proposed was exactly contrary to that taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. If the view of the right hon. Gentleman was right—and he did not dispute it—it showed that the repeated complaints of the Home Secretary as to the conduct of the Committee had no foundation whatever. It seemed that now it was held that the course taken by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was not an unusual and inconvenient course, but the only course he could adopt.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he did not understand that his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis) had blamed the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. That hon. Gentleman stated the reasons why he thought Chelsea should not have the Member, and he gave some of the reasons why he thought Middlesex should have a third Member. The Government proposed, when he (Mr. Knightley) brought forward a Mo- tion to give a third Member to Middlesex, to support that Motion, their own original proposition which they thought best not having met with the favour of the Committee. Nothing was more regular than the course adopted.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, if ever he understood anything distinctly, it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had complained, and, on more than one occasion, of the course taken by the Members of the House. Therefore he was now very glad to hear the admission of the right hon. Baronet that he concurred in the views of his right hon. Friend. But he agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that a great deal of valuable time had been lost; and if the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made earlier the communication which the Committee had just heard from him, the whole of the early part of the discussion might have been saved. The first statement was that the Government were prepared to accept any Amendment. It was quite clear hon. Members had, without knowing it, been present at the sitting of a Cabinet Council within the last hour or two, and that upon the Treasury bench the steps which the Government intended to take with respect to the point under discussion had within that time been decided upon. He regretted that the Cabinet had not met and considered the subject a little sooner.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the hon. Member opposite had misrepresented his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Committee would recollect that his right hon. Friend stated distinctly that it was the intention of the Government to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

expressed his belief that unless the Government pledged themselves, in the event of the proposition of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire being negatived, to withdraw the Bill, the claims of the county of Middlesex would be more regarded than those of Chelsea and Kensington. Whatever proposition were made, there were thirty-seven Scotch Members who would still adhere to their wish to have the Scotch Universities represented.

MR. AYRTON

said, he trusted the Committee would permit him to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress, as the object of it had been attained by the statement of the Government that they intended to give a third Member to Middlesex.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KNIGHTLEY

said, he then rose to move that a third Member should be given to Middlesex.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he rose to order. He had an Amendment to propose which appeared on the paper before that of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. The Amendment which he wished to submit to the Committee was the second of those of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) had given notice—namely, to "leave out from 'county' in line 29, to 'borough' in line 31, inclusive." The substantial effect of that Amendment, if adopted, would be to dispose of the claims of the county of Middlesex to a third Member. It was, in fact, a direct negative to the proposition which the Government had announced their intention to support. He did not think that a third Member was a good thing for any county; but, if he had to make a choice, he should prefer the West Riding of Yorkshire to Middlesex. There was another constituency, however, which he thought had stronger claims still—he meant the Scotch Universities. Middlesex was almost part of the Metropolis, and the Committee had already decided that no addition should be made to the number of metropolitan Members.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire would only plunge the Committee into greater confusion than before. It was part of an Amendment of which notice had been given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, and its adoption would leave the clause without any meaning, unless the hon. Gentleman followed it up by proposing the insertion of words in lieu of those which had been struck out—namely, "parishes of Chelsea and Kensington."

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he thought he had sufficiently distinctly expressed his preference for the Scotch Universities. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Stirling) had given notice of an Amendment to insert the Scotch Universities, and he (Mr. Blackburn) wished to clear the way for him.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that so far as he was able to see, the claim of the West Riding to the fourth seat was the strongest; but the House had decided against that. [Cries of "No, no!"] He hoped the House would not be induced to stultify its proceedings, as he thought there was some danger of doing. Next to the claims of the West Riding, there was none so valid as those of the county of Middlesex. He was born in that county, and he had had the honour of sometimes acting as Chairman of its Conservative registration, and, therefore, he felt that he addressed the Committee with a knowledge of the circumstances of that county. He rejoiced most sincerely that Her Majesty's Government had adopted the second best case among the counties of England. He hoped then that his hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire would be allowed to proceed with his Motion.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, the hon. Member for Stirlingshire was evidently endeavouring to get rid of the clause altogether. He ought, therefore, to reserve his proposal until they came to the end of clause, and meanwhile the hon. Member for Northamptonshire should be allowed to proceed with his Amendment.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, on that understanding he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. KNIGHTLEY

assured the Committee he would not detain them more than a very few minutes. The population of Middlesex, including the City of London and the represented boroughs was, according to the last census, £2,205,771; the next largest was the West Riding, and then South Lancashire. They had already given one additional Member to the West Riding and one to South Lancashire; and he thought the claims of Middlesex, on the grounds of population, property, and importance, unquestionably came next. The proposal of the Government was to enfranchise Chelsea and Kensington, but he did not see why those two parishes should have a monopoly of the new Member to the exclusion of the remaining population. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge had suggested that Middlesex should be divided, and that each division should return two Members. He cordially concurred in that suggestion. He thought it much preferable to any other proposal which had been made; but then they must cut their coat according to the amount of cloth they possessed. He ventured to submit his proposition with great deference, but, upon the whole, he thought it a fair compromise between the claims of the northern and southern parts of England on the one hand and of the towns and counties on the other. He should, therefore, move to leave out from "shall" in line 30 to "serve" in line 33; and insert "be entitled to return three Knights of the Shire instead of two."

Amendment proposed, in line 30, to leave out from "shall," to "to," inline 33, and insert the words "be entitled to return three Knights of the Shire instead of two."

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman included the City of London and the represented boroughs; but he was prepared to show that, excluding London and the represented boroughs, Middlesex had the next claim after the West Riding of Yorkshire. He was free to say that the West Riding had, perhaps, a higher claim; but, after the West Riding, he repeated the county of Middlesex had the strongest claims to additional representation. If they gave two new Members to the West Riding, the whole four would be assigned to the north of England, and it was a fair compromise to give one of them to Middlesex. There were seven counties which returned three Members—Berkshire, with 4,847 electors; Bucks, with 5,774 electors; Cambridgeshire, with 7,157; Dorsetshire, with 6,723; Herefordshire, with 7,722; Herts, with 6,071; and Oxfordshire, with 5,123 electors. Now, Middlesex had 15,328 electors, and North Lancashire only 12,183 electors. There were fifteen counties—Cheshire, Cornwall, Cumberland, Derby shire, Durham, Essex, Hampshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire—all returning four Members, and with fewer electors than Middlesex. The annual value of property rated under Schedule A, not within the limits of a Parliamentary borough was—in Middlesex £1,616,405; in North Lancashire, £1,269,367; in South Derbyshire, £1,541,024; in Parts of Lindsay, £1,525,925; and in West Kent, £1,356,859. The gross estimated rental not within the limits of a Parliamentary borough was, in North Lancashire £1,304,991, and in Middlesex £1,819,569. The population not within the limits of a Parliamentary borough was, in North Lancashire, 316,804, in Middlesex; 283,256. North Lancashire was larger in population but less than Middlesex in the number of electors, contributions to Schedule A, and gross estimated rental. He took these figures from three Parliamentary Returns, No. 141, February 17, 1859; No. 131, March 1, 1860; and No. 400, June 22, 1860; and he ventured to think they made out a strong claim in favour of an increase to the representation of Middlesex.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

thought it very desirable that the Committee should not come to a decision on the question under an erroneous impression of what was to follow. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was mistaken as to the cause of the West Riding of Yorkshire being disposed of. It I Although the Committee had agreed, the was quite true that the Motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins) had been negatived, but that hon. Member had on the paper a notice to move a clause, when the proper time came, to give another vote to the West Riding of Yorkshire. He must in candour say he agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) that the claims of Middlesex were strong, and perhaps the best course would have been to divide the West Riding and Middlesex, and to give to each two Members. But that had not been done. He did not take the view of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, but would oppose every proposition in order to support that of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, in order to give another Member to the West Riding.

MR. COLLINS

said, he intended distinctly to raise the question whether the West Riding should or should not be divided. That question had not been decided. The only question which had been decided was that Clause 1 should not be postponed. If the West Riding were divided, one division would have 21,000 electors and another 19,000, while the area of the West Riding was some hundredfold larger than that of Middlesex. Yorkshire stood first on the list for increased representation; and those who agreed with him were entitled to vote against every proposal until a fair measure of justice were meted out to the West Riding.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he must remind the hon. Member for Knaresborough that the first clause had been agreed to, which assigned three Members to the West Riding and three to the Southern Division of Lancashire. That clause assumed that the West Riding, for the purpose of electing three Members, should not be divided; and if the hon. Member proposed that the Riding should be divided, it could only be for the election of a fourth Member, who could only be elected after the present Parliament.

MR. COLLINS

We should be quite prepared to wait that time.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that, though the Committee had arrived at the resolution to which he had referred, and passed the first clause, the hon. Member for Knaresborough would have a legitimate occasion to propose the clause of which he had given notice on bringing up the Report. Although the Committee had agreed, the House had not agreed that the West Riding should not be divided. He, himself, entirely objected to the principle of increasing the representation of counties by plurality of votes. He thought two Members enough to represent any place. In 1859, when he had the honour to bring forward a larger measure for the amendment of the representation of the people, there was a very general feeling in the House in favour of the view, that Members were sent to Parliament not to represent the power, but the opinions of a place, and two Members were sufficient for that purpose. If they once admitted plurality of votes in the representative body he did not see at what point they were to stop. It was very true that precedents were made in 1832, but they were bad precedents. The county he had the honour to represent was one of them. It had three Members, and had been placed in a very false position by that arrangement. He did not agree with respect to the Resolution which the Committe had passed, and he should support on the Report the Motion of the lion. Member for Knaresborough. In the present case he should certainly vote against giving a third Member to Middlesex, although it was not from want of appreciation of its claims and its importance, because had there been any arrangement brought forward to divide and give Middlesex two new Members, he should have been ready to support it.

MB. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he disapproved of the unicorn system, though he wanted a third Member for Cork, but then he wanted to divide that county afterwards. He went further than the right hon. Gentleman, and thought one Member sufficient for each place. He rose, however, to call attention to the fact that the county of Cork had a larger number of electors than the county of Middlesex. The Committee, by a previous division, had virtually de- cided not to give any more Members to Middlesex.

ME. HUMBERSTON

said, he wished to correct a statement which had been made by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield). He had no doubt that the noble Lord was right in saying that the number of electors was somewhat greater in Middlesex than in Cheshire. But the difference in that case was not a wide one; and it should be remembered that while Cheshire had only three boroughs returning Members Middlesex returned sixteen borough Members.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that he had to remind the Committee that Middlesex, which had a population of 2,000,000, was represented by only two Members, and that the labouring classes were being gradually driven out of the Metropolis into the surrounding country. Under these circumstances he believed that the Committee, by adopting the proposal under its consideration, would be giving a Member to the labouring population of the Metropolis; and he knew no claim so strong as that of Middlesex to obtain an addition to the number of its representatives.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." Put and negatived.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 236: Majority 50.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that after the successive operations of which the clause had been the subject, he believed nothing remained but a few unintelligible words. The best course would, therefore, be simply to negative the clause and proceed to the next.

Clause negatived.

Clause 4 (Birkenhead to form a Borough to return One Member),

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

We have presented to the House and successively supported what we believed to be the best proposals. I am sorry the House did not agree with the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire; but, after the vote which has just been given, it is necessary for us to state our views. I think the best course will be for the House to affirm the clause which gives a Member to Birkenhead, and then we shall be quite ready to adopt the suggestion thrown out in the course of the discussion to give four Members to the West Riding of Yorkshire. That is a suggestion on which a great deal may be said, on which, indeed, a great deal has been said, and which has a great deal of merit in itself. The question will be, therefore, whether the West Riding should have four Members divided or undivided. My own opinion is that, perhaps, it would be better to divide it. That proposal, of course, can only be carried out by clauses brought up at the proper time.

MR. COLLINS

said, that when he proposed that four Members should be given to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and that it should be divided, he told the Government that it would be better for them to adopt the suggestion at once. They must feel now that if they had only taken his advice they would have been spared all those troubles into which they had been led. He was confident that when he appealed to the common sense and justice of the Committee the other night he would not appeal in vain, and the result had proved that he was right. As they were all going to be unanimous, however, he would not interrupt the debate further.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the proposal of the noble Lord at the head of the Government rested on a principle totally different from that on which the Bill was introduced. He concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, that if they abandoned the sort of compromise proposed in the name of the Government they ought to proceed on some definite and intelligible principle, such as the division of large constituencies. But there were other districts in England as important as that which the Government seemed to anxious to court, and which it was intended to strengthen exclusively by the Bill. The county of Middlesex contained a body of people who held in a large degree what might be called the fixed property of the country; and they were bound, when they divided the West Riding, to consider whether in common fairness they ought not also to divide the county of Middlesex. He would vote against the clause giving a Member to Birkenhead, with the view of supporting the appropriation of two seats to the West Riding and two seats to Middlesex.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, that he was anxious to propose that one of the four seats should be given to the Scotch Universities. But he believed that in the present temper of the Committee, it would be useless to bring forward any such proposal; and the best course they could follow would be, as it seemed to him, to agree to the rest of the Bill sub silentio, and then for each lion. Member to submit his particular scheme to the House on the bringing up of the Report.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Stirlingshire was not going to leave the Scottish Universities in the lurch.

MR. STIRLING

said, he was satisfied that he would not be doing justice to the Universities of Scotland in attempting to urge their claims at that moment.

MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE

said, he concurred in the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Blackburn) that it would be better for the cause they espoused to advocate it on the Report. It was also desirable that the Government should have time to reflect on the circumstances of the case. They had made some very sudden proposals, and he feared they did not know whether they were standing on their head or heels. It was well that the Government should have an opportunity of reflecting on the undignified position which they occupied, so that before they arrived at the Report of the proceedings in Committee they might come to their senses, and see the propriety of adopting a juster policy towards the country to which he belonged, which was the only one of the three kingdoms which had to bear the badge of inferiority in not having her Universities represented in the House, while those of England had four Members, and those of Ireland two.

MR. DISRAELI

I would impress upon the Committee that this is a subject of great and enduring importance. It is highly desirable that we should not deal with such a question as if this were a mere private Bill, on which we often arrive at a decision in one Session which we reverse in a subsequent Session. The vote which has just been taken has very much changed the character of this Bill, and it is of the utmost importance that we should consider the consequences of these changes in all their bearings. With regard to the clause immediately before our notice for giving a Member to Birkenhead, I see that there is an Amendment placed on the paper by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State, proposing to alter the boundaries of that borough as they are described in the Bill. I do not want now to go into the merits or demerits of that proposition. But I beg the Committee to remember that the question of Birkenhead has been considered over and over again, and has been considered by more than one Ministry; and, therefore, when a measure is proposed for giving a Member to Birkenhead, the House had a right to suppose that it has been very maturely considered. If the Government have felt suddenly that it is necessary to alter the boundaries of that borough, they ought to have placed before the House ample information as to the data on which that recommendation is made, and we ought not to be called upon hastily to decide on so important a question. When I remember that we are going to give four Members to the north of England, and that the only borough to which one of the four seats is to be appropriated is in so undefined a condition, I really think it is desirable that we should report Progress and allow ourselves an opportunity of further considering this subject. I would rather this proposal came from the Government, and I believe the noble Lord would now do well to take it into his consideration. This has been rather a memorable night in the history of the Bill. The Committee have done a great deal in a short time, and let us now digest what we have done—let us have an opportunity of seeing whether we cannot appropriate these seats in a manner satisfactory to the south as well as to the north of England. I must repeat my belief that on the whole the best arrangement that could be made would be to divide both the West Riding of Yorkshire and the county of Middlesex, and to apportion all the four seats between those two great counties. These are questions, however, which I wish the Committee to consider, and not to settle by any sudden Resolution. The claims of Birkenhead are, no doubt, moat respectable; but the Government seem to doubt whether that borough, as at first proposed, would furnish a sufficiently ample constituency to justify them in giving it a Member, or why the change of which the Homo Secretary has given notice? Therefore, I think that if there is a little delay, and Her Majesty's Government consider the propriety of dividing the West Riding of Yorkshire and the county of Middlesex, and appropriating the seats to those great, flourishing, and increasing constituencies, they will take a wise course, and one which will be satisfactory to the general community. I will not propose that we should report Progress, or take any other course which might be offensive to the Government. I would rather see the noble Lord take his na- tural position as leader of the House; but I think that the adoption of that course would he convenient, and not unprofitable.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

I think it will be better that the Committee should proceed with the consideration of this clause. If the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member should in Committee propose any changes, they may then he considered, but at present the Government adhere to the clauses which have been carried. And be it remembered that the change which has been made, although there has been more than one division, has affected only one of the scats now in question. With regard to Birkenhead, I gave notice of an Amendment to incorporate with that place a small township to the north of it, which I thought might conveniently form part of the new borough; but since I made that proposal I have understood that the local interests are unfavourable to its incorporation with Birkenhead. This township adjoins the creek upon which Birkenhead is situate, and the gentleman who was sent to examine Birkenhead suggested to mo that it might properly be considered as forming part of the borough. For that reason I gave notice of the Amendment which has been referred to. I gave notice of it some time ago, in order to ascertain whether the change would be acceptable, and I have since found that it would not. The population of this township is insignificant, and the question which the right hon. Gentleman has magnified into an important, is really a very unimportant one. The whole population of the chaperly of Birkenhead, according to the last census, amounts to 35,000, or nearly 36,000 persons. There are other townships within the borough which raise the population to 51,105. The small township which I proposed to add, but which I shall not now insist upon adding to the borough, contains a population of only 3,600 persons; therefore, the House will see that this is a matter of very limited importance. I think that any one who looks at a map of the borough will think that there was a primâ facie case for annexing this township. However, I shall not press the Motion, and I trust that the Committee will agree to the clause as it stands.

MR. J. TOLLEMACHE

said, that the inhabitants of the township of Wallasey entertained strong objections against being included in the Borough of Birkenhead, which they had expressed in a petition to that House, and he thanked the right hon. Baronet for having so properly and so considerately complied with the wishes of those who were most concerned in the matter. He thought Birkenhead was entitled to a Member. It was quite impossible to consider what would be the population of that thriving place in the next ten years. They must not consider her local interests. The port of Birkenhead was greater than London, and greater than New York, and the docks they were now making would cost £3,000,000. The future Member would have to look to large interests, for there was not a manufacturing town in the north which was not interested in Birkenhead. The population of Liverpool was less by two-thirds than that of Lancashire and Yorkshire, but he would venture to say the duties of the Members for Liverpool were more heavy than those of the Members for the West Riding and Lancashire put together; and he was not sure that the duties of the Members for Liverpool were not more onerous than those of half a dozen metropolitan Members. Under these circumstances he felt that the Government had exercised a wise and sound discretion in giving to Birkenhead a Member.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, that the proposal to give a Member to Birkenhead raised the important question of principle whether all these four seats should be given to Lancashire and Yorkshire, which possessed already almost as many Members as Scotland, and whether those two counties should be allowed to raise their preponderating influence in that House from fifty-one to fifty-five Members. If the argument against Middlesex was worth anything, à fortiori it was valid against Yorkshire. He objected to Ireland and Scotland being treated with contempt in a question of such importance, and should certainly move that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he would support the Amendment, but upon different grounds. The hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to make out a great Irish grievance, but, in fact, he had made out no case at all, for the hon. and learned Gentleman had lost sight of the fact that the counties of Ireland were fully and amply represented; while, on the other hand, if he had taken the trouble to look at the matter from an imperial point of view, and taken the whole case of the representation into consideration, he would have found how badly the rural districts of England were represented. Every seat given to a borough was an act of deliberate and cold-blooded spoliation. ["Oh, oh!"] He was prepared to prove that statement. Would any one deny that "taxation" and "representation" were convertible terms? If the whole power of taxation were put into the hands of one portion of the community, that portion would use it to relieve themselves of the burden of taxation at the expense of those who were less powerfully represented. The rural districts of England were in the latter position. He begged every rural representative to consider that in voting in favour of increased urban representation he was virtually assisting in placing those whom he represented in a worse position than they were at present.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he hoped he might be allowed to say one or two words. If population, the number of houses, and the amount of property were taken as the conditions that commanded increased representation, the counties of England were entitled to 130 additional seats. As to the claims of Ireland, he could only say that the wished that the counties of England were as fully represented as those of Ireland; taking into account the number of the population and the amount of property. Ireland could found no claim to additional seats, except upon the ground of population. Her case was infinitely weaker than that of Scotland. By population and by property, taken as as a test of the intelligence of the people, Scotland was entitled to twelve seats; but, as he had said, the English counties by the same rule were entitled to 130. He did not, however, desire to see a anything like a perfect equality of representation in that House between the boroughs and counties so long as the House of Lords existed; but he thought the counties deserved some consideration. The noble Lord the Member for the City in his Bill of 1854—which was on the whole the best Reform Bill which he (Mr. Newdegate) had known introduced—proposed to allot to the counties of England no less than forty-six seats. He trusted that in future they should hear no more of the claims of Ireland and Scotland, whilst the claims of the English counties remained unsatisfied to the extent which he had mentioned. He had voted for an additional Member being given to Middlesex; but he thought in justice that county should have two seats allotted to it. His opinion was, that so long as they had enormous masses of population represented in the aggregate by two Members only for each of these large constituencies, the elections would be controlled by knots of men acting with a power which rendered such representation analogous to that of close boroughs. Let the Committee consider the difficulty of communicating with vast masses of people. No ordinary man could address more than about 4,000 people by his own voice, and twelve was the number of a jury, probably because it was found that that was the greatest number of persons who could conveniently communicate by conversation. The reason against enlarging the number of Members of that House was because the numbers of the House would be too large for the purposes of debate. Unless these enormous constituencies were divided true public opinion would often be overborne in them, therefore, he agreed in the proposition for dividing Yorkshire. As two of the disposable seats came from St. Albans, a borough near the Metropolis, he thought that in justice those seats should be given to the metropolitan county of Middlesex. There was a strong Conservative element-in Middlesex, and it was but fair that that spirit should be represented. Without intending the slightest disrespect to the metropolitan Members, he was confident that they would find assistance in such an additional representation for the metropolitan county. Iii his own case he knew that the Members for the large boroughs in his county could perform certain duties to which he was unequal, whilst he, in like manner, could perform duties of which they were incapable. Let the Committee remember the combinations of working men, and the organization by which they were governed—often both unreasonable and tyrannical, but the existence of these combinations proved the Committee ought to give them legitimate representation, such as they would do by giving additional Members to Middlesex; that course would produce satisfaction which could not be produced by other means.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that considering the difficulty there was with the present press of business in fixing a certain day when the Bill could come on, there could be no course more inconvenient, or indeed, more unreasonable, than to report Progress at so early an hour. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would consent to go on with the Bill to the end.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he had given notice of a Motion in reference to Cork, though he had not been fortunate enough to catch the Chairman's eye. He could not promise that the House should hear no more of the claims of Ireland, for there were no interests so badly represented in that House as Irish interests. The number of Irish Members were so out of proportion to the rest of the House that they had no chance; and, no matter where an English Member sat, he was always ready to cheer anything against Ireland. Ireland had got nothing from that House, and he hoped that Irish Members, for the future, would not be deterred by any amount of vituperation from combining, and would refuse to go into the lobby for any party question—no matter what it might be—which did not lead to her advantage. On comparing the representation of the various countries he found that Scotland had one Member to 53,000 persons, while Ireland had one to 63,000, and that in Scotland there was a Member to every 1,700 electors, and in Ireland there was one to every 1,704. Then as to the property of the country he denied that that was a fair test. The wealth of Ireland had been drawn for centuries into this country, for £11,000,000 of taxes were raised in that country but only £4,000,000 were spent in it; and, in addition, a large amount of the rent of absentees was drawn to this country.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he thought the Government ought to state exactly what course they proposed to adopt, in what way Yorkshire was to be divided, and whether the clauses for that purpose would be introduced in Committee, or upon the Report.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, what he proposed was that the remaining clauses should be proceeded with, and then that the ordinary course should be taken of reporting the Bill. Three seats had been disposed of, and on the Report it was proposed to bring up a new clause, dividing the West Riding, which it was not competent to do in Committee. The alteration in the mode of election in the West Riding, he should add, could only take place at the next general election. If but one seat were added the election might take place during the present Parliament, but the necessity of dividing the constituency would preclude the two new seats from being filled up till a dissolution took place.

SIB JOHN SHELLEY

said, he felt so strongly the difficulty in which the Committee was placed, after the votes which had been taken, that he believed the best course which the Government could adopt would be to withdraw the Bill. If they wished to proceed with the measure they ought to take time for reflection, instead of being guided by the last vote. Either the Government had a principle or they had not. If they had, he supposed it was that population and rateable value should be regarded in the distribution of the seats, and that on that principle they had acted in proposing first to give a Member to Chelsea and Kensington, and then to Middlesex. That principle, however, had been twice upset. If they were to go on scrambling through the different propositions, he believed the only course which he could safely take was to imitate the action of the Scotch Members, and to vote steadily against every proposition, in the hope that ultimately Middlesex might come to the top again. He protested against the principle that four seats were to be given to the North. Certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman consulted the wishes of his own supporters, he would withdraw the Bill, which dealt with a subject that ought not to be trifled with.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he could not admit that the Government had trifled with the subject. They had distinctly pointed out the places to which, in their opinion, seats might with propriety be given; and, having done so, the most respectful course to the House was to allow hon. Gentlemen to urge their views, and then for the Government to deliver their opinions, instead of making any attempt previously to dictate to the House. But it was by no means to be inferred that they had not fully considered the subject. The Government stated that they would vote in favour of another Member for Middlesex, but the Committee decided against that proposition. While that issue remained uncertain it was not competent for the Government to say what course they would take; but as soon as the House had pronounced its decision, his noble Friend rose and stated what the Government was prepared to do. He did not see how it was possible to take a more clear and straightforward course. It was now said they ought to adjourn the debate and report Progress. Well, the Government did not ask for time. If they felt any doubt or hesitation it would be natural that they should ask for delay, and under the circumstances it would probably be conceded by the Committee. But they did not ask for it; they were quite ready to proceed with the Bill, and they asked the Committee to give a Member to Birkenhead, a pro- posal which formed part of the original scheme. With regard to the fourth Member, he understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite were favourable to a division of the West Riding. In the Bill of last year the Government proposed to give four Members to the West Riding. Everybody must see that it was a proposition which had strong arguments in its favour; and, therefore, as they entertained no objection to it, they were ready to adopt the proposal. But the only way in which it was possible to engraft the clause requisite for that purpose on the Bill was in the manner which he proposed; and if they reported Progress to all eternity they would be no nearer either to giving four Members to the West Riding or to submitting the question for the decision of the House. He hoped the Committee would not lose time in debating what they should do, but would proceed at once to consider the question of giving a Member to Birkenhead.

MR. HARDY

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that, after an immensity of discussion, the House had now got into the right line, and that the Government had adopted a proposition which would receive the concurrence of the country at large. The West Riding had always shown itself an independent constituency, and the representatives which it returned had always truly reflected the political feeling of the time. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was in error in thinking that the West Killing would be purely a manufacturing constituency; as one went westward it became much more agricultural in its character. It had in it, moreover, a great number of what were called small statesmen—probably the most independent class in the community. It was to them that Wilberforce and Brougham in great part owed their election. With all respect for the Irish and Scotch Members, he had viewed the question before them from the first as an English question, and were a different course pursued it might afford a dangerous precedent, for at some future time one of their little boroughs might get into trouble, and English Members might conspire to rob them of the seat. Not denying that at some future time the good service done to the cause of education might entitle the Scotch Universities to representation? be believed fewer jealousies would be created by the division of the West Riding as proposed.

MR. JACKSON

contended that of the four borough seats which the House had to dispose of, the borough interest had a right to at least one. During the last few years the sum on which the income tax was levied had increased by about £20,000,000, of which the land only claimed £1,000,000, while house property claimed £8,000,000, mines and minerals £3,000,000, and manufactures £2,000,000; the rest being made up of miscellaneous incomes, a strong reason for continuing to boroughs the five seats. Birkenhead would have a very peculiar constituency. It would start with 5,500 voters, of whom the bulk would claim in respect of houses of £30 a year and upwards. It would represent a very varied interest, and would altogether be one of the most respectable constituencies in the kingdom.

MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE

said, he could not conceive any place more entitled to representation than Birkenhead, but he must protest against the assumption that because the four seats at the disposal of the House were English seats they could only be distributed to English constituencies. Such a doctrine could not be adopted by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary or those who wore concerned with him in the Reform Bill of 1832. Therefore, after the claim of Birkenhead had been disposed of, he should be prepared to submit the claim of the Universities of Scotland before either the West Riding or Middlesex for one of the vacant seats.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, it was quite true that by the Reform Bill additional seats were given to Scotland and Ireland, but he did not think it followed from that circumstance that whenever there was any distribution of seats the sister kingdoms must be included with England. In the present case, the four seats which the House had to dispose of were English seats, and he did not see that a case had been made out for giving any of them to Scotland or Ireland.

MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE

said, he wished to know whether the noble Lord meant to convey that until the Scotch Members succeeded in demoralizing one of their constituencies—which he did not think it would be possible to do—they were to have no claim for a representation of the two Scotch Universities? Did the noble Lord advise them to make the attempt in order to establish a title to such a representation?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I did not mean that.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he thought the Committee ought at once to know whether the Bill was to be considered a Government measure. The Government began by opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, and in that opposition they were beater, by a very large majority—over 100. That evening they acceded to his second Amendment, and the result was that success left him, and he and they were beaten. They at first opposed the proposition of the lion, and learned Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins), but now they tendered him their assistance, but he should recommend the hon. and learned Member to take care, for their assistance might be as fatal to him as it had been to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. He did not think the Government were consulting their own dignity in the course which they were taking in respect to the Bill.

Motion negatived.

Question put, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 26: Majority 137.

Clause agreed to, as were the remaining Clauses.

On Question that the Bill as amended be reported,

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, that he could not see the fairness of the suggestion which had been made for giving all the four Members to one part of England; and he, therefore, gave notice that at the next stage of the Bill he should bring before the House the case of the University of London unless, meanwhile, the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) recovered, so as to be able to take the question into, his much abler hands.

MR. BLACKBURN

suggested that the Bill should be reprinted as amended, and that the Government should give notice of the clause for dividing the West Riding.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to call attention to the extreme difficulty of dealing with these questions on the Report, and to suggest the recommittal of the Bill,

MR. STIRLING

said, he wished to give notice that on the Report he should take the opportunity of stating the case of the Scotch. Universities. It would probably be for the convenience of the House that the discussion upon the Scotch Universities and London Universities should be taken together; and, therefore, when he had seen the notice of the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Goldsmid) he would endea- vour so to frame his own Motion that the discussion should be so taken.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, it was not usual to recommit a Bill unless extensive alterations were proposed. The change proposed was only on a single point; and it would be, therefore, competent for hon. Gentlemen to submit their Amendment upon the Motion for the division of the West Riding.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to give notice that, if the plan of dividing the West Riding were adopted, he should propose to strike out Lancashire and substitute for it the division of Middlesex.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he should take the same opportunity of urging again the claims of the county of Cork.

House resumed.

Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]