Commons Sitting of 11 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Agricultural Servants; Admiralty Court Jurisdiction (No. 2).
2° Offences Against the Person; Malicious Injuries to Property: Coinage Offenees; Accessories and Abettors; Forgery; Larceny, &c.; Criminal Statutes Repeal; Highways, Roads, &c.; Tithe Commutation; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) (No. 2); Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland); Leasing and Improving Land (Ireland).
3° Masters and Operatives.

CASE OF DANIEL SHEA AND THE ISLINGTON UNION.—QUESTION.
MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Daniel Shea, who, having been sick for many months, died on the 29th of May in the Killarney Workhouse in consequence of hunger and cold endured by him on his passage from London to Cork; and whether he has directed an Inquiry to be made into the conduct of the Poor Law Officials of the Islington Union who caused his deportation under circumstances of such peculiar hardship? It was alleged that the poor man in question had not received even sufficient food during the passage.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, his attention had not been directed to this matter otherwise than by the Notice on the paper. There had been no communication made to the Poor Law Board in reference to the matter. But he had directed an inquiry to be made of the Parochial Officers of Islington as to what was known of this case, and they had positively denied that any blame attached to them, or that they were in any way responsible for the death of Daniel Shea, who was in the workhouse, and who, most unusually, applied to bere-moved to his own country.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—COMMITTEE.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.—THIRD NIGHT.

  WITHDRAWAL OF THE BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [4th June],
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair:" and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in
  226
  order to add the words "in order to obtain a safe and effective Reform, it would be inexpedient and unjust to proceed further with the proposed Legislative Measure for the Representation of the People until the House has before it the results of the Census authorised by the Bill now under its consideration,"
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in rising to address the House on this occasion, I must say, in the first place, that it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accede to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon), and that I think it would be most inconvenient for the House itself, in deciding upon the question of his Reform Bill, to fix the time to which they would postpone it, or to commit themselves to any pledge that they would not entertain it at any period before the expiration of two or three years. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not persist in his Amendment. I have also a further statement to make to the House with respect to the position of this Bill; and in making it I beg to say that it is not my wish to excite any asperity of debate, or to refer more than in passing to the debate which took place the other night. In the debate of Thursday evening, my noble Friend at the head of the Government stated the case in favour of the Bill, and against delay, and I do not wish to abate a single word of what my noble Friend stated on that occasion; but having said thus much, it is not necessary that I should repeat any of the arguments then used on behalf of the Government. This, however, is apparent on the division, that there were 250 Members of this House who declared for the postponement of the Bill for this Session. I say for the postponement, because if we had taken a different line—if we had said, "we are determined to go on, not only with the English Bill, but also with the Scotch and Irish Bills," I think it could have been said as strenuously, and to my mind with much more reason, "You cannot expect to carry these three Bills; you might possibly have carried the English Bill; but if you attempt to carry the three Bills, it is obvious there will not be time for the performance of the work." The Government therefore—250 Members having voted in affirmation of the proposal for postponement—thought themselves bound seriously

  227
  to consider the position of the question, and to ask themselves what was their duty to the House and the country. I must say that I think that if we are not of opinion that we can succeed in carrying this Bill through both Houses of Parliament in the present Session, it would be idle, perhaps culpable, to go into Committee for some four or five days and then to make the delays which would arise in Committee the reason for abandoning the Bill. The position, then, is this—we have not yet got into Committee on the 11th of June—250 Members have voted for a postponement—and there are, moreover, some sixty or seventy Amendments to be proposed in Committee. It cannot be expected but that all those Amendments would be discussed. The question of the representation of the people in Parliament is a very large one, and the Bill being before the House there is certainly no Parliamentary objection to the introduction of any topic immediately connected with the representation. There could be no objection to the argument that one part of the system of representation bears upon others, to the argument that the redistribution of Members bears on the question of the franchise, nor to the introduction of other subjects which, though not contained in the Bill, belong to the question of the representation of the people. It would, therefore, be a matter which must take up considerable time. But if we were able to command all the time from the 11th of June to what may be presumed to be the usual time for the close of the Session, I should then say that it was our duty to proceed with the Bill, and, even at a late period, to propose it for the consideration of Parliament. But it happens that there are other questions which must be considered, and some of them must inter pose during the passage of this Bill through Committee. There are questions which have arisen very recently. There is the question with regard to the Supplies, which depends upon the news we have received from China, putting an end to all hope that our dispute with China can be settled without hostilities, and therefore requiring this House to consider what Supplies will be necessary for the operations of our army and navy now in the China seas, and what Ways and Means may be required for bringing those operations to a successful termination. There is the question also which my noble Friend mentioned the other night—the propositions which may arise out of the Report of the Com-
  228
  missioners on the National Defences. No one could pretend to say, that either with regard to the China war, or with regard to the defence of the country, it would be allowable to the Government to make themselves responsible for the postponement to another year, or even to a late period of the present Session, of questions of such urgency and importance. The question, then, being whether we should be able to go through Committee on the Bill in the course of the present Session, we came to the conclusion that it was not probable we should be able to go through Committee, and to obtain the assent of the House of Commons to the various clauses of the Bill, in the time usually devoted to the Session. There was this further objection—that if we were not able completely to carry the Bill into law, it would not be fair to ask the House of Commons to decide prematurely upon the amount of the county and borough franchise, thereby fettering their discretion and injuring the discussion of the question in another year. Supposing, then, that in the ordinary period of the Session it was not possible to carry the Bill through this House in such time as to send it up to the House of Lords for them to decide upon it, there arose this further question—whether by extraordinary means, whether by the unusual step of an adjournment instead of a prorogation, it would not be possible to carry this measure through. But I think it is evident that, important as the question is, there is not that immediate urgency with regard to it, and I may say that there is not that demand that it should be proceeded with without any delay or postponement, which would justify the Government in resorting to an extraordinary measure of that kind. Well, Sir, such being the case, we have came to the conclusion—which I will at once state to the House—that it is not our duty to attempt to proceed with the Bill in the present Session. But, in making that announcement, I think I should hardly be justified if I were not to refer to some questions which may be asked, perhaps to some reproaches that may he addressed to the Ministry. It may be said that it was not till the 4th of June that we asked the House to go into Committee, and that if we had pressed the Bill at an earlier period of the Session we should have been enabled to get a decision of the House on the provisions which it contained. But I must remind the House that in the first instance it was necessary that the usual Supplies

  229
  for the army and navy should be granted to the Crown, and at a very early period of the Session we brought forward measures with that object, which were not only of the utmost importance, but likewise of the greatest urgency. We had thought it our duty to conclude a commercial treaty with France, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the name of the Government, proposed various measures connected with that treaty largely affecting the finances of the country. According to all the views that have been usually entertained by the most competent authorities under any Government it would not have been right to postpone for an indefinite time questions of taxation and of duties of so important a character as those to which I refer. For the sake of the trade and industry of the country, and for the maintenance of the financial stability of the State, it was necessary to proceed with those measures without delay. They occupied a very considerable time; and I therefore felt myself compelled to postpone to as late a period as after Whitsuntide the proposal that we should go into Committee on this Bill. There are other questions with regard to the usual Supplies of the year which remain to be settled; the Army Votes, or many of them, are not at present agreed to. The whole of the Civil Service Estimates have likewise to be taken; and, though it be reasonable and necessary to ask for a Vote on account of them, it would not be reasonable to postpone beyond a very limited time—say the early part of July—the discussion on those Estimates. These questions would again have impeded the progress of the Bill, and would have made it necessary for us to ask for frequent delays. But, Sir, there is a subject, with regard to which I must say a few words further to the House, and that is as to the nature of the Bill which we have proposed. I do not now intend to discuss those matters which are merely points of detail, but I think it is necessary to state that the Government were persuaded, and are persuaded, that the reduction of the borough franchise is required for the future safety of the State and for the improvement of our representative system. Many years ago, when I had to consider this question, Mr. Hume, who was then a Member of this House, and who from the first day that the Reform Bill passed in 1831 always told me what he intended to do, urged, among various other arguments, that six out of every seven of the male
  230
  adults of this country were excluded from the franchise; and that among those who were so excluded were men whose intelligence and probity would fully entitle them to the enjoyment of that privilege. I will own that his arguments on that occasion made a great impression on my mind, and induced me to set on foot inquiries and to send persons into the country to ask who were excluded, and to ascertain the character of those working men who did not possess the franchise. The result of those inquiries convinced me that there were many of those men whose intelligence and integrity qualified them for the exercise of the right of voting. But if that be the case, then their exclusion—their continued exclusion, their perpetual exclusion—must weaken, while their admission cannot fail to strengthen the basis on which our representative institutions rest. I am not speaking now of any particular franchise; but I am persuaded more than ever I was before that there are great numbers of persons who would exercise that franchise well and worthily, and that it they were admitted the result would be favourable to the maintenance and increased vigour of our institutions. It is, therefore, our intention at the earliest period which may be in our power to introduce a Bill containing provisions for the reduction of the franchise. Nor, Sir, am I discouraged by seeing that more than once measures of this kind have been obliged to be postponed; for I have remarked that, while proposals for the advancement of Liberal principles in conformity with the opinions entertained by the majority of this House have been frequently delayed, yet the result has been that when once they have obtained the assent of Parliament they have remained permanently enrolled among the statutes of the realm, and become permanent institutions of the country. For a long time the sacramental test was required as a qualification for office. No one would now think of proposing that test. For a long time Roman Catholics were excluded from this House and from office by old penal enactments. Nobody would now think of excluding them on those grounds. Reform itself was for a long time opposed, and successfully opposed, in this House; but nobody would now contemplate the restoration of the boroughs which were disfranchised in 1831 and 1832. And in the same way I am convinced that, when a measure has passed this House enlarging the franchise and extending to persons who

  231
  are qualified to exercise it a participation in the right of voting for Members of this House, no one will think of disturbing that settlement or will attempt to curtail those privileges. It is, therefore, with the utmost confidence that I look forward to the renewal of a measure carrying these principles into effect. I do not wish now to do more than to ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Mackinnon) to withdraw his Motion, and when that step shall have been taken I shall move the discharge of the Order for going into Committee.
  MR. MACKINNON: In answer to the application made to me by the noble Lord I can only say that I congratulate him, I congratulate the House, and I congratulate the country on the step he has taken. I look upon the proposal of my noble Friend as a very satisfactory settlement of this question; and I trust that the powerful mind and ample talents of the noble Lord will find ample occupation in conducting our diplomatic relations, in settling the affairs of Europe, and in promoting the prosperity of this country and of the world at large—better occupied than if this House had sat night after night till two o'clock in the morning, haggling about this question of the franchise. I will take the liberty of saying that, though with the feelings of Englishmen in general, the Members of this House may cordially enter into any question which they take up, and may vigorously defend their opinions on one side or the other, yet, when the contest is over, they will, I trust, as Englishmen, sink all remembrance of differences, and show themselves anxious to promote the business of the country by putting their shoulders to the wheel, and making up for the great loss of time which has been incurred by the discussions on this measure. Under the circumstances it is with great satisfaction that I withdraw the Motion of which I have given notice.
  MR. DISRAELI:—Sir, I think Her Majesty's Government have taken a wise and not undignified course. It is much better, under the circumstances in which the House finds itself with regard to the progress of public business, that the Government should at once have made up their mind as to the course which they are to adopt, rather than have allowed this Bill to go into Committee, to waste more time, without any prospect of coming to a satisfactory result, preventing what I think we shall now find ourselves able to accomplish—the carrying on the business of the
  232
  House with great effect and great unanimity on both sides. I should not have wished for a moment to touch on the subject of the Bill now about to be withdrawn; but the noble Lord made an allusion, which I hardly like to pass without comment. The noble Lord, referring—as is his custom on such occasions—to the pedigree of progress, seemed to intimate that on this side of the House there could be no authentic claim to assist in it. But I beg the noble Lord and the House to remember that this Bill is withdrwn, not from any successful opposition, or from any opposition of any kind that has been offered to the real and bonâ fide Amendment of the representation of the people of England. This Bill has not advanced, because, unfortunately for the Government, they were this year encumbered with a great mass of public business of a character which rendered it utterly impossible, with any support, to have carried a Bill of this kind through the House. And as there have been complaints on both sides of the causes of delay, I may be permitted to observe that the real cause of this delay is, in fact, that the Government have undertaken other questions of such importance, of such magnitude, and encumbered with such details, that it was physically and morally impossible for them to carry the measure which they have now so wisely withdrawn. In the heat of debate imputations are sometimes made on both sides of the House without sufficient grounds; but I am persuaded that I am now speaking what is literally the state of the case, when I say that the Government have withdrawn this Bill because it is impossible for them to carry on the necessary and urgent business of the country with this measure still under our notice. The delays and impediments to the Bill have arisen from the Government having other engagements which rendered progress with the measure impossible. I am not now expressing any opinion as to the policy of the measure—I do not think this is the occasion on which to enter into any discussion of the kind—but in reference to the general principles laid down by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London as to the necessity of the representation being extended in a certain degree to the working classes, I beg to remind the noble Lord this really has not been the question of controversy. The question of controversy has been as to the means and method of effecting that exten-

  233
  sion. And, so far as I can read public opinion and watch the progress of intellectual investigation on this subject, I cannot help thinking that before this House can ever be called on again to consider it, it will, be found that there are more satisfactory modes of effecting that important object than by what I venture to call the coarse expedient of a degradation of the franchise. I would, therefore, state, on the part of Gentlemen on this side of the House, why we receive with perfect approbation the course which Her Majesty's Government has taken in regard to this measure. We recognize that in taking that course they have acted in a spirit of honour and propriety to the House. We give them credit for this, that in the course they have taken they have acted with a sincere desire for the public welfare and the advancement of the public interest. And I can assure Her Majesty's Government that they will receive from us every assistance in the prosecution of the public business which is now so urgent, and to which they have sacrificed—and especially the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs—objects which were dear, and no doubt honourably dear, to them. I would now sit down had it not been my duty to ask the House for a moment to consider a personal question. If it had concerned myself solely, I should not have taken this opportunity of alluding to it; but it concerns the feelings of an hon. Gentleman, a Member of this House, and it relates also a subject which must be interesting to every Member of the House; and that is, the relation between the House generally and the individual who may from time to time be responsible for the chief conduct of its business. The other night, in the course of a debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) made a statement, containing no matter offensive to myself, but he said, that after the last general election, I entered into a compact with some hon. Gentleman on this side of the House that I would introduce a Bill for the Reform of Parliament, including a £10 franchise for counties and a £6 franchise for boroughs. That statement was very freely circulated, but like many other statements I had not thought it necessary particularly to notice it. But as the hon. Member for Birmingham was then about to found an argument on it, I thought I would take the liberty, which I do not often take, of interrupting a speaker. I thought it was as much for his convenience as for myself and
  234
  for the rest of the House, and inform him at once that he was under a complete misapprehension. It appears that the hon. Member for Birmingham afterwards mentioned the name of an hon. Member of this House—the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), who was not then present, and that hon. Gentleman is under an impression that I stated that I had not been in communication with him on the subject, and that the statements to that effect which had been circulated were utterly unfounded I should be glad at all times to remove a painful and unfounded impression from an hon. Gentleman's mind, but I hope the House will not consider it impertinent on my part, as this probably is the last evening we shall, for some time at least, speak on this subject of Parliamentary Reform, if for a few moments I touch briefly on this topic. The subject concerns the relations between the House generally and that individual who may be responsible for the chief conduct of its business. Now, when I had the honour of leading the business of this House, I considered that my time was at the service of any Gentleman on either side of the House, with reference to the conduct of business in this House, or with reference to any business that might concern his constituents; and I see many Gentlemen on the benches opposite who have communicated with me on those subjects, and I trust that they always received from me every attention and assistance in my power. Well, Sir, I received a letter, among others, requesting an interview, from the hon. Gentleman who now represents the port of Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). He immediately had an appointment. The appointment was not a secret appointment. The hon. Gentleman came to me at Downing Street on a subject of the greatest importance. It referred to the war commenced between France and Austria, and to the important question of what was contraband of war. I gave the hon. Gentleman all the information and advice I could, and pointed out to him the means by which he could obtain assistance from the other Departments. Now it so happened that on that occasion a newspaper was lying on my table, which contained the official announcement—official I mean, in the Opposition sense—that a vote of want of confidence was about to be proposed against Her Majesty's then Government, on the ground that they were going to throw over the question of Parliamentary Deform, and that it must be a

  235
  point with all sincere Reformers to insist that a measure be brought forward immediately. The hon. Gentleman called my attention to this paragraph, which he had observed before; and he said for his part he did not agree with it, and that he did not believe that a vote of want of confidence was at all one that the House would sanction. He spoke to me—I cannot say it was a confidential interview—it involved just that degree of discretion and reserve which prevents a conversation on business from degenerating into gossip. I spoke to the hon. Gentleman as I speak to hon. Gentlemen every day in my life, when I meet them in the lobby, and I trust that that sort of free intercourse will always exist in this House, and that it will not be merely in theory that we are an assemblage of Gentlemen, but in practice also. I said to the hon. Gentleman, "If they mean that they are going to introduce a vote of want of confidence unless we bring forward a Reform Bill immediately, you may rely upon it we are not going to introduce a Reform measure immediately; but neither are we going to throw over the question of Reform." On a subsequent occasion the hon. Gentleman said to me, "I can assure you there is a feeling of great dissatisfaction on the part of many independent Members of the House, and if you will only repeat to me that you are not going to throw overboard the Reform question, but intend to deal with it bonâ fide, it would have a great effect on public opinion." And I then said, "It is totally impossible for me, or any Minister of the Crown, in private, to say what will be the policy of the Government; what that policy will be will be stated in Parliament, and in no other place. But you may rely upon it we shall not bring forward a Reform Bill this year; that we are not going to throw overboard the question, that we shall endeavour to deal with the question in a satisfactory manner. But so far as a general course is concerned, you may take it for granted that, before the Vote is taken, I, as the organ of the Government, shall generally describe our policy, and therefore no persons will be able to pretend that they are ignorant on the subject." And there the matter ended. I believe the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland had confidence in what I stated; I believe that he wished the Government to remain in office, and I cannot see what imputation there is on his honour
  236
  in his having entertained that wish. While we were in office, though he voted for the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), yet he had been amongst those of the Liberal party on whose generous support I had been accustomed to rely. I have no hesitation in saying that the conduct of the hon. Member for Sunderland was perfectly Parliamentary, honourable, and straightforward. I mentioned that in a letter when the hon. Member was unjustly attacked last year.—That letter was seen only by a very few persons,—and as the matter has been brought before the notice of Parliament with so much misapprehension, I thought I would take this opportunity of saying these few words on the subject in order to set the matter right. I take it for granted that the feeling which influences the House is that which influences myself, and that it has no desire to place any barrier on that frank communication which ought to be permitted at all times between the leader of this House and its other Members on whatever side they may sit, or sanction as a rule that a leader, in receiving those opposed to him, should treat them with the utmost reserve. I have now placed fairly and frankly before you the real state of the case, and I think hon. Members will be of opinion that the course which I took in the matter I was justified in adopting, and that no imputation rests on the hon. Gentleman to whom I allude, for the share which he has had in the transaction.
  MR. BRIGHT:—Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to refer to a matter which I mentioned in a speech the other night; but the House, I think, will remember that I did not introduce that topic for the purpose of attacking the right hon. Gentleman in regard to it. My object was to show that the course of the right hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister of the Crown, and up to the time of his resignation of office, was in favour, according to his own language, of a large extension of the suffrage. He said that the Bill which he brought forward would introduce 500,000 new voters; and he afterwards said he would go even further than his Bill. Then I said it was understood that he had intimated to a Gentleman on this side of the House that he was willing to go as far as, in fact, the terms of the measure, the withdrawal of which we are now engaged in discussing, and I quoted from a speech of an hon. Gentleman of this House. In alluding to the subject,

  237
  I made no charge against the right hon. Gentleman at all; but I was simply endeavouring to show how consistent he had been up to a certain time in his views upon this question, and I can only lament that his conduct in the present Session has not been equally consistent. But leaving this, which after all is, perhaps, of not very great importance, I will, with the permission of the House, proceed to say a few words in reference to the announcement which has this evening been made by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—an announcement which probably has not taken all the House by surprise, and which will be received with very different feelings in different quarters of the House. Down here, I believe, and I hope in some other parts, it has been received with great regret. I do not rise, however, for the purpose of blaming the noble Lord for the course he has taken, or of complaining of the Government for the decision at which they have arrived in this matter; because I know very well that this House is not the best place in the world for getting through business, and especially if the business be one which one-half the House do not at all like. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) tells us to be oblivious of all that has been done during the past few weeks. He tells us that he and his friends have not offered any opposition to the passing of this Bill. Now, that, it seems to me, is a somewhat daring statement, considering what we have all heard and seen take place within these walls on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman and his party have, no doubt, exhibited no small degree of adroitness in the course which they have pursued with reference to the Bill; but there has been opposition upon their part to it nevertheless. It was, if I am not mistaken, a Member of the party opposite who first placed the notice on the paper with regard to the Census, with a view to get rid of the Bill. Afterwards, I admit, the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon)—who sits on this side, and who did not like to be defrauded of the privilege of performing, I will not say an act of wisdom, but an act which, having done something similar thirty years ago, he thought it right to be unwise enough to repeat—placed on the paper a notice to the same effect. The hon. Member for Berwick (Captain Gordon) was consequently hustled—I had almost said bullied, but that is not a proper word to be applied to him—or cajoled, or coaxed into withdrawing his
  238
  Motion. ["No, no!"] I think I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman's Motion stood first; but it was in some way managed that the Amendment with respect to the taking of the Census should be brought forward by the hon. Member for Rye. Then hon. Gentlemen opposite came with all their forces to his support, and having done all the mischief they could, they now turn round and say, "This is not our work, but that of an hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial side of the House." Now, I should wish hon. Gentlemen to bear in mind that the hon. Member for Rye has never carried anything in this House up to the present moment. We recollect, indeed, that he took an active part in a discussion about opaque smoke some few years ago, but nothing came of it, and I am not sure that there was not a pretty general opinion in the House, when the hon. Gentleman put himself forward to oppose the present Bill, that the circumstance did add somewhat to the prospects of the measure passing into a law. But, to return to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks. I cannot help feeling that he imagines we must have forgotten what has taken place with reference to this question of Reform. He says the noble Lord spoke about the working classes, and extending the suffrage to them; and then he says, "I hold precisely the same views as those entertained by the noble Lord the Member for London as to the expediency of extending the franchise to the working classes; but then I do not wish to do it by means of the coarse and vulgar method of lowering the franchise to the scale of a £6 rental. I should propose some other mode of effecting what I admit to be a desirable object." The public, however, will judge whether the right hen. Gentleman and his friends are in earnest from the fact that from them, and certainly not from the supporters of the Bill, have proceeded those grievous, and unjust, and unfounded charges which have been made during the progress of these discussions against that portion of the population living in houses whose value is below £10. Notwithstanding, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe that he stands on a par in regard to this question of Reform with the noble Lord the Member for London, we must come to the conclusion—a conclusion at which I am sure the public out of doors will also arrive—that there exists a wide gulf between the noble Lord, who expresses confidence in the working classes,

  239
  and the right hon. Gentleman and his followers, who contend that they represent poverty and passion, and that to hand over power to them would be to subject ourselves to the control of debauchery and crime. Now, I suppose as it is with the tree, the orchard, or the field, so it is with legislation, and that we must not expect more than a given harvest in a given season. It may be, also, that in this season we have shaken off all the fruit we can gather, and that we must rest satisfied with the things which we have accomplished. Looking back on the course of the Session—and I wish to say this because I think there are those out of doors who will be greatly dissatisfied with the announcement which has been made to-night, and many persons within the House who may be disposed to assail the Government for having made it—it will, I am sure, at once be admitted by every impartial person that it has not been a Session barren of results. It must not at the same time be supposed that I am not dissatisfied also with what has taken place this evening. I lament it as much as anybody; for there is, I believe, no one in this House who has given so much time of late years to this question, and I hoped—you may think, if you like, with a too ardent enthusiasm—that something might he done this year towards its settlement. To-night, therefore, when this hope is blighted, I have a right to say that I deplore as much as any man the adoption of the course which the Government have deemed it to be their duty to take. And if I do not assail them for having pursued that course it is simply because I feel it would be unjust to make an attack upon them for that for which they are not, in my opinion, entirely responsible, and to denounce them for not having accomplished an object which any other dozen Members in this House would find it equally difficult to attain. I was, however, observing that the present Session cannot be regarded as having produced no fruit. It has seen 400 obstacles to the free development of our industry, which at its commencement existed, struck out of the pages of the tariff. So important an event would, if it had taken place only a few years ago, have been sufficient in itself to mark a Session as one in which much had been achieved, and almost to immortalize the reputation of a Minster. But we have had some more work done; we have had a Treaty concluded with France—which no
  240
  doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite will tell us by and by they never said a syllable against—which those who observe what is passing cannot fail to perceive there have been steady endeavours on the part of some persons in this House, and by some in "another place," and by one influential organ at least of the public press to disparage; it being contended that there is no good faith to be expected with respect to the mode in which it is to be carried out on the part of France; that everything connected with it has been a series of blunders, and that all that enthusiasm which found expression, both in the House and in the country, with respect to it at the opening of the Session has been entirely thrown away. Now, I would beg to refer those who advance such opinions to the authority of Gentlemen who have recently returned from Paris—I could refer them even to higher authority—to show that nothing can exceed the good faith of the French Government in their endeavour to carry into effect the purposes for which the Treaty was framed. I have the best reason for believing that the duties fixed on under its operation will be below the maximum stated in the instrument itself; and I am assured on the authority of one than whom there is nobody more competent to form a reliable opinion on the point, that the necessary details being settled the result of the Treaty will, in all probability, be such as to exceed the sanguine expectations with which it was at the outset of the Session received. But, passing from the question of the Treaty—I should like to know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are disposed to consider the occurrence of this evening a triumph or not. I do not think it appears to have excited among them much exultation. There are many of them who in all probability would prefer that this Bill had been fairly discussed, and its main provisions passed into a law. I believe that there are very few of them who have been much affected by the exaggerated statements which have been made with respect to the terrible consequences which it is said to be calculated to entail, and I suspect that between this and next winter the great majority will have learned to regret that a measure so moderate has not found its way into the statute book. The Bill is, I contend, one of a very moderate and a very reasonable character, and when you who sit on the benches opposite heard it introduced you were of the

  241
  same opinion. I will undertake to say that you have been emboldened in your opposition to it mainly by the conduct of a few hon. Members on this side of the House. Now, I am told there are Gentlemen sitting on these benches who think the time is come when we ought to have what is called "a sound Whig Government;" that what they regard as the "foreign element" should be got rid of—meaning, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Well, I may perhaps be permitted to give hon. Gentlemen who entertain those views a piece of information, and it this,—that that which they call "a sound Whig Government" modelled after the old fashion, is just as much a thing of the past as the dodo. You may say there are some remains of it, as Professor Owen knows something of the head and foot of a dodo, and what it was like; but in my opinion, you will never see that sort of Government again in this country. But if we are to sit on one side, calling ourselves the Liberal party, the sooner, I think, we get rid of these old party distinctions the better, and endeavour in the conduct of affairs in Parliament, in connection with our principles, to act rather a more unanimous part, and act in a more ingenuous, a more open and a fairer manner to the Government than has been done this Session by some calling themselves followers of the Whig party. I say, then, although hon. Gentlemen opposite do not appear to exult, I think I have reason to exult that this Bill has been withdrawn, rather than it should have gone into Committee to be mangled so that its authors would hardly have known it, to settle this question in a manner that would render it of no advantage to the country. I have said over and over again that it was not worth while to deal with this question, unless you do so much as will make a substantial change in a direction which so many of your countrymen wish, and such as shall be felt to leave one without any strong excuse for asking you at an early period to proceed further. That is my policy with regard to this question. I think it a wise policy. I am, therefore, glad that the Government propose to withdraw the Bill, rather than go into Committee and submit the £6 franchise to be made into an £8 franchise, which would have been one of the most childish, and, to the great body of the working classes, to whom you are making some advances, one of the
  242
  most pernicious and insulting measures Parliament could possibly adopt. The noble Lord the Member for the City has referred to questions coming on; there is one question to which he has not referred, and that is the one which affects the conduct of this House with regard to its control over the taxation of the country. Now, I hope, if the House of Commons determines that this Session it will have no measure of Reform for itself, that, at least, it will not allow anything to be done that shall impair its powers and alter its inherent right over the taxation and finances of this kingdom. I hope that, if we are about to shut out the people, we shall not, at the same time, consent to let in the Peers. I hope the course you take with regard to this Bill of Reform is not an indication that you are willing, in any degree, to let down the character and power of this House with regard to those questions on which the public have looked up to us for generations and centuries more anxiously than to either of the other branches of the State. The noble Lord, as I understand, has given a pledge that at an early period—whether in November or in February—at the first time Parliament shall meet, the Government of which he is a Member will again introduce a Bill with a view to amend the Representation of the People. Now, I am of opinion that this determination and the measures of this Session and the discussion which has taken place on this question will throughout the country produce much healthy action. I hope that during the winter—between this time and the time when we shall meet again—such of us as may meet again—that there will be expressed throughout the country a firm and wise opinion with regard to the course Parliament should take in the coming Session. Why should not hon. Gentlemen opposite entertain more liberal views? [A laugh.] An hon. Gentleman near the gangway laughs. If this were the time I could easily show him that all the legislation of which we have reason to be proud—during his lifetime and mine—has been legislation according to what we term Liberal views—has been opposed by the party with which he is connected—["No, no!"]—has been supported uniformly by the party with which I have been connected. Well, if it be so in the past, why not in the future? We may be as right on these questions as on the previous questions. Look at the condition of our people. That great measure which the Chancellor of the Exche-

  243
  quer has passed this Session—the reform of the tariff—is but a portion of the great work which has been going on for twenty years; and yet I will undertake to say that that great work, completed within twenty years, has done more for the people and poor of England, in giving them the comforts of life and some taste for independence—than all the party contests, party triumphs, bloody wars, extensive conquests, martial renown, and historical glories, you have had for a century past. Now, what I want is this, that the House should always consider the great body of the people. The Peers, the rich, the powerful, can always take care of themselves, and never suffer, unless it may be for a time in great political convulsions, which we all hope may never again visit our country. Look at the condition of the great body of the people—their intelligence, their morality, their independence—and you find written in characters which you cannot mistake the real truth with regard to the Government under which they have lived. I say, then, that the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken is one laden with blessings to the great body of the people; and if the House of Commons would at the same time, whilst so much good physically was being conferred upon them—if in the same Session it could have shown its confidence in them by offering them this moderate extension of the suffrage which the noble Lord proposed—I think it would have been said in after times that there had been no Session of the Parliament of England comparable to that of 1860 for the good it had given the people and for the binding effect which its legislation had had between the great body of the people and the three estates of the realm.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the proposition of the noble Lord to withdraw the Bill was a wise and judicious one, inasmuch as it was impossible that it should be passed this Session. But with regard to the Treaty with France, the hon. Member for Birmingham would excuse him if, when he talked of the blessings which that treaty had conferred on the working classes, he (Mr. Newdegate) reminded him that in a large district of the county which he had the honour to represent, the people were suffering the deepest distress in consequence of that treaty. There were at the present moment 10,000 people out of employment in Coventry alone; and he should have thought that Coventry was not so very
  244
  far from Birmingham that the hon. Member could be ignorant of that fact. The hon. Member had referred to favourable prognostications, and communications which he had received from France on the subject of the treaty; but he (Mr. Newdegate) did not share the bright anticipations of the hon. Member as to the result of the negotiations. He also had had communications, which informed him that the stipulations with respect to the treaty were such that the Government of Prance could not injustice to the expectations of the people of Franco reduce the duties to such a point as would allow a competition on the part of the English silk trade in the markets of France with a fair chance of an adequate profit. With regard to the Reform Bill, he entirely approved of the course which had been taken by the hon. Member on the side of the House on which he sat in not dividing against the second reading of the Bill, but in subjecting its provisions to a sifting debate. He was in favour of Reform, or rather a re-adjustment. But he (Mr. Newdegate) did not stand committed to the details of the Bill, notwithstanding his respect for the high character of the noble Lord who proposed it. He wished to take this opportunity of stating to the House that he had found from further inquiry that he had been misled as to the returns which purported to give the increase that the reduction of the qualification for county voters from £50 to £10 would effect. He would not trouble the House by stating how he had been misled, but would beg hon. Members to understand that the details of the calculation as to the increase of county voters by the operation of the Bill which he used on a former occasion were incorrect; but he begged the House also to understand that the further statement, which he made on the occasion to which he referred, showing the gross disproportion between the representation of the majority of the people who lived in the counties (that is, beyond the limits of the boroughs), as compared with the representation allotted to the borough population under the present state of the law, was, and is, perfectly accurate. He would shortly state the main objection which he entertained to the Bill. If the county franchise were to be reduced to £10, and the county constituencies were thus placed in the position which the borough constituencies now occupied, he insisted on a larger allocation of Members to the counties. The hon. Member for Birmingham had

  245
  said that the proposal for the better equalization of the representation was of a democratic character, and then, oddly enough, he had declared that the House of Lords represented the counties of England; but the hon. Member seemed quite taken aback when the House of Lords took him at his word, and, in some degree, exercised that right of representation in the matter of taxation. Who now so furious as the hon. Member? What did this show but a determination on his part to keep the majority of the people inadequately represented? The hon. Member for Birmingham taunted the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon) that he had never carried a measure in this House. But the hon. Member for Rye had never proposed a Reform Bill, circulated it through the country, prepared maps and plans in explanation of it, and, after all, feared to submit it to the consideration of the House. And why did the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) fear? Because he sought to perpetuate that inequality of representation between the counties and boroughs which was established by the Reform Bill of 1832—because he rather sought to aggravate that inequality, that he might strengthen the party he had already formed in this House. The hon. Member lately stated in the country this palpable truth, that the Reform Bill had admitted 100 Members to the House, of whom he was the leader, and through whom he managed to exercise the patronage of the Crown in the appointment of Her Majesty's Ministers. They had had an instance to-night of his dictatorial tone; to-night he had declared that the Government must retain its present form or perish. His belief was that the hon. Gentleman did not regret the withdrawal of this Bill, because he saw that if they had gone into Committee, the question would have been raised which the hon. Member sought to avoid, whether it was not just and constitutional, whether it was not in accordance with the Republican elements in our Constitution, that the majority of the population of the country—the people of the counties—should not have a larger representation than 129, while the minority had the unreasonable number of 354. His object in rising now was to call the attention of the House to this subject, and to declare that if the county franchise were reduced on any future occasion, he would never rest satisfied till that inadequacy were amended.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that the hapless offspring of the noble Lord the
  246
  Member for London having been so peacefully consigned to its last resting-place, he hardly liked to interpose for a moment upon the harmony of the funeral party. He must, however, say that the speech of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, though tinged with the most charming touch of satire, contrasted gracefully and strongly with the speech delivered by the noble Lord at the head of the Government on the occasion of the debate on the Resolution which led to the defeat of the Reform Bill introduced by the late Ministry. On that occasion the noble Lord declared that the then Government should neither withdraw their Reform Bill nor should they resign; but that, to use a sporting metaphor, they were bound to go on with their measure, having taken office "with all its engagements." The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, on the other hand, respectfully leant over the grave of the departed, and paid "the tribute of a passing tear." If that Bill ever required an epitaph there were two lines among the Elegant Extracts familiar to his boyhood, which would forcibly illustrate its unhappy fate:—
  "If so soon as this I'm done for,
  I wonders what I was begun for."
  That would form a very apt inscription In Memoriam of the innocent whose existence had been so chequered and so brief. The noble Lord was warned early in the Session by the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), that delay in the introduction of the measure would lead to the result which had just been witnessed. Her Majesty's Government had incurred a very serious responsibility by the withdrawal of the Bill. It was brought forward in such an incomplete shape as to be the mere skeleton of a great constitutional measure, and it was not fair to charge the Opposition with obstructing its progress because they had given notice of many proposals that would have been real amendments. He himself asked, on the introduction of the Bill, whether it was intended to accompany the Bill with any system of registration; and the cold, bureaucratic, Whigocratic answer he received from the Home Secretary was that "at the proper time Her Majesty's Government would introduce some measure for establishing a mode of registration." He had felt sure the measure could not pass from the want of such a provision; and, although the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had accused the hon. Member for Ayrshire

  247
  (Sir James Fergusson) of ignorance of constitutional law; it was nevertheless the fact that if the Bill had passed in August there could have been no election till the year 1862. And if, from circumstances over which nobody could have control, a dissolution had happened in the Spring, it would have turned out that twenty-five seats would have been disfranchised by the measure, and they would have had a Parliament without a single Member to fill the new seats. He did not accuse the Government of insincerity, but they had certainly failed to provide the requisite constitutional machinery for the passing of a Reform Bill this Session. That was not the case in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. That Bill, as he (Mr. James) formerly pointed out, very properly contained clauses for effecting the registration of the new constituencies in the event of a dissolution following on the passing of his measure. The Government, however, took no notice of that suggestion, and when he and others called their attention to it, sneered at it—he did not mean uncourteously. Members of the Opposition had been charged with delay because they had supported the Motion for deferring the measure until the new Census had been taken; but the question of the Census had been made a material element in regard to the disfranchisement of seats, because the noble Lord, instead of adopting the number of electors for his basis, as he did in his measures of 1852 and 1854, had taken the basis of population. The noble Lord the Member for the City had accused him of making statements on the subject of population that were "ludicrous." If they were ludicrous, why had not some Member of the Government endeavoured to contradict them? The Bill of the noble Lord was unworthy of the name, when he left Salford, with its 7,000 or 8,000 electors, in no better position in the representative system than insignificant places like Calne or Portarlington. Such a proposal had no pretensions to be deemed a real reform. He repeated that the Government had incurred a serious responsibility by withdrawing their Bill. If they had not shown an apathy and indifference which discouraged those who had wished to assist them, and among that number he included himself, the Bill might have been put into a more satisfactory shape and carried. But the responsibility of withdrawing it now rested with the Government.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHthought that
  248
  hitherto the question of Parliamentary Reform had not been treated in a general and comprehensive manner. It had been made the mere battledore of party. All that the noble Lord said of his measure was, that it was the best that he believed he would be able to pass. That was, perhaps, a practical consideration with a Ministry; but in dealing with a great constitutional question it was one that was almost worthless and contemptible. Possibly there never had been at any former period so favourable an opportunity of dealing with the question as the present; but the inconsistencies of the various plans which the noble Lord had from time to time proposed had shaken the confidence of the House in his guidance on such a subject. The noble Lord had repeatedly shifted his ground. In 1852 he introduced a Bill formed on very different principles from those which he adopted in 1832. In 1832 he proposed a large disfranchisement; in 1852 he announced that wholesale disfranchisement formed no part of the principle of his Bill, but that he would transfer the franchise, whenever corruption was proved, to another constituency; and now in 1860 he adopted a principle of partial disfranchisement. If the principle of 1852 was good, how was it that the noble Lord abandoned it in 1854, and how was it on the other hand, that the great authority upon reform, who introduced a large and comprehensive measure of disfranchisement in 1854, could ask the confidence of the House and country when he produced a measure so limited and scanty as that which was now to be withdrawn? He did not indeed see that the present Bill proceeded upon any intelligible principle whatever—the extension of the suffrage was framed on a system that was utterly arbitrary, and yet at the same time no principle had been laid down which should prevent a further unlimited demand for a fresh extension at a future period. For his own part, he held that there was no ground for depriving England of any portion of her representation in order to confer it on Ireland or Scotland. There were, no doubt, anomalies in our representative system, but no one, he presumed, would venture to assert that the House did not fairly represent the intelligence of the people. He did not believe that there was any section of public opinion which failed to obtain representation in the House, in one way or another. If they once conceded any merely arbitrary reduction of the fran-

  249
  chise, it would be difficult to say where they would be able to stop. Just as the £6 and £7-pounders were jealous of those within the present pale of the franchise, so would they, if admitted as voters, in turn excite the jealousy of the £4 and £5-pounders, who would still be excluded. He took it for granted that the public professions of the House were contradicted by the private judgment and experience of every man in it. They did not in practice prefer the lowest classes to the higher classes. If they wished for any judgment or opinion, on any affairs, public or private, they would prefer that of an educated and superior class. If, therefore, they wished to extend the franchise to the lowest classes, they must do so on some certain principle and with some limit, while at the same time, they gave compensation to the higher classes for that extension. Such a principle would not be difficult to find, it was embodied in an Amendment he had put upon the Notice Paper, which was that of the Poor Law franchise, namely, to give a plurality of votes in proportion to the property and intelligence of the constituents. He believed that if the Government adopted that principle they would find less difficulty in settling the question than they had experienced on this and other occasions. He assented to the lowering the franchise in counties, and he should on some future occasion either propose or support a £20 qualification.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, that in the very few sentences which he wished to address to the House he should not attempt to follow the previous speaker, nor should he follow the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Opposition, upon the question between himself and the hon. Member for Sunderland; nor did he mean to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham in his discussion of the sincerity of the Emperor of the French, the advantages of the French treaty, and the merits of the Budget which had been altered in "another place;" but should confine his observations to the immediate question before the House—the bold and bare announcement of the noble Lord that he was about to withdraw the Reform Bill. The character of public men and political parties ought to be dear to every Member of the House, and he must say he heard the announcement which had been made that evening with feelings of disappointment—nay, with feelings of dismay, because if ever there was a Government, and if ever there was a House
  250
  of Commons, whose sole and only mission appeared to be to carry a Reform Bill for England, they were Her Majesty's present Government and the present House of Commons. He had not been able to discern in any of the reasons given by the noble Lord any good and sufficient ground for the withdrawal of the Bill. What had been the history of the Government with regard to this question of Reform? They came into power on the express and clear understanding that they were the only parties in the country who were willing and at the same time able to carry a Reform Bill through that House of Parliament, and that—and that alone—was the ground upon which they entered office. Now, the noble Lord gave as his first reason for withdrawing the Bill the time of the Session at which they had arrived; the next ground was the Chinese war and the necessity of voting the Estimates for carrying it on; then he gave as a reason the state of the national defences; and finally, he wound up by implying—more than by saying—that there was a want of enthusiasm in the country which compelled him to withdraw it. Now, with regard to the late period of the Session, whose fault was it that they had arrived at the month of June without the Bill having got into Committee? Parliament assembled this year much earlier than usual, as they all thought for the express purpose of enabling the Government to carry out their pledge on the subject of Reform, and he, in common with many others, had been led to expect that on the very first day somebody would have announced that it was the noble Lord's intention to bring in the Bill after the lapse of two or three days, or a week at most. But what took place? On the second day, he believed it was, after Parliament met they were told that the Reform Bill was not to be brought in for a month—when the month was up it was postponed for another fortnight—and then it was again postponed that it might be brought in on an auspicious day—that day of fair auspices being the first of March. Here then was a loss of two mouths—["No, no!"]—well, of at least, six weeks—and by whom was it caused? By the Government. The noble Lord, though he had not actually said it, had implied that the delay was owing to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, in candour, he (Lord Fermoy) could not say that any proposal or Amendment had been brought forward by the other side of the House, as a body,

  251
  which could fairly be characterized as unreasonable on such an important subject. No question could possibly arise that was more likely to give rise to long discussions and important Motions than a Reform Bill, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were perfectly justified in giving notice of questions which they considered of moment in reference to the principle of representation on going into Committee. He must say then, that the House was perfectly free from any charge of wasting time, and the argument of time fell to the ground, when it was remembered that this, which was to have been, par excellence, the Reform Government, had lost six weeks at the commencement of the Session before they even brought in their Bill. Then as to the Chinese war and the defences of the country, he did not see any reason why they should not provide for the Chinese war and the defences of the country, and for a Reform Bill also. At all events, if that was the only reason of the Government for withdrawing the Bill—if, after having got into office as sincere and ardent Reformers, they now swallowed all their pledges in order to discuss the China war and the national defences, he could not help saying that the Chinese Estimates might be as well submitted, and the defences of the country as well provided for by hon. Gentlemen opposite as by those who now filled the Ministerial benches. Again, as to the want of enthusiasm on the part of the country on the subject, the noble Lord had, as he always did on such occasions, favoured the House with sundry chapters of constitutional history, and reminded them that in the several cases of Catholic Emancipation, the Test Act, the Reform Bill, and free trade, and other great measures, when the principle of those measures was once carried by a majority of the House of Commons, they were certain to triumph. But he would ask the noble Lord did those measures triumph by being abandoned by their own promoters?—yet such was the course the noble Lord took in the present instance. How could they expect enthusiasm in the country, when the very men who came into power for the express purpose of carrying forward a Bill for improving the Representation of the People, abandoned it as soon as they experienced the slightest opposition? At the same time, after the speech of the noble Lord on Monday night, he scarcely thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was acting in the most open
  252
  and generous manner. The noble Lord on that occasion made a declaration which carried dismay to the minds of many Members of the Liberal party; and when he said let us go into Committee, and endeavour to arrive at some sort of a franchise, the real meaning of which was, "I am not tied to anything: if you won't have a £6 franchise, let us agree to an £8 franchise; but let us adopt the rating test." That was a declaration which carried dismay to the minds of many on that side of the House, but which ought to have induced hon. Gentlemen opposite to go into Committee on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that he and his party were Reformers and sincere Reformers; here, then, was an opportunity of showing it. He would venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman, that he would never again have the chance of getting a Reform Bill that would be so agreeable, or at all events so little disagreeable, to his party, as the present Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, instead of accepting the offer of the noble Lord, had refused to go into Committee. If be (Lord Fermoy) were the hon. Member for Birmingham, and desired to agitate the country, he should be delighted that the right hon. Gentleman had refused that offer, and doubly delighted that the noble Lord bad now withdrawn the Bill. This was no settlement of the question, notwithstanding what had been stated by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon), and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. What the people would have received this year with gratitude, they would reject next year with disdain. The party opposite, as well as Members on that side, had admitted Reform in Parliament to be necessary, yet they refused to go into Committee, to determine how far that reform should go; they refused to go into Committee to pledge themselves to a £6, or an £8, or any other franchise; and to say to what extent the Parliamentary institutions of the country required reform.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Although I was not so fortunate as to collect the tenor of the observations of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), still I gathered from his mournful tone and manner that if he was not a mute he was a sincere mourner on this occasion. At any rate, he gained by contrast with the senior Member for Marylebone (Mr. E. James), for it must be apparent to the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman was somewhat of a merry mourner. The hon. and

  253
  learned Gentleman, indeed, differing from his noble Colleague in this respect, made no secret that he did not regret the dissolution of this Bill. I, for one, do not agree that any discredit attaches to the noble Lord the Member for London for his conduct in regard to this Bill, and I think the criticisms of the two hon. Members for Marylebone are equally unjust and ungenerous. The noble Lord (Lord Fermoy) it appears was somewhat astonished the other night at the attack of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire on the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. I was much more astonished tonight to hear the attack of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone on the noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs; because, if there were a noble Lord in the House from whom that criticism could not have been expected, it was the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. But different positions oftentimes made different men. But I must say I do not think the House will endorse the opinion of either of the hon. Members for Marylebone. I do not think the noble Lord is responsible for giving up the Bill on this occasion: if responsibility attaches anywhere, it is to the conduct of this House. The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon) got up to-night in a jaunty manner—he has an idea that he is the man who has killed Cock Robin—and he says, "let us shake hands and say nothing about it;" and he congratulates the House on what he calls the settlement of this question. I, for one, can neither congratulate the House nor the hon. Member for Rye on such a settlement. I came down to vote on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and I should be very sorry if the House consents to its withdrawal. In bringing it forward, the hon. Member stated that he was a follower of the noble Lord, and that thirty-one years ago he had brought forward the same Motion. Yes; but on referring to the records of that date I found that the hon. Member for Rye was not then a devoted follower of the noble Lord; he spoke and voted on every occasion against the Reform Bill, and he predicted the same revolution which he now foretells from the alteration of the £10 franchise. If I recollect rightly, the Member for Rye at that time represented the borough of Lymington, which was put into Schedule B; and he brought forward his Motion not in exactly the same terms as at present, but proposed that the operation of the Bill as regarded all the boroughs in-
  254
  cluded in Schedule B should be postponed until the results of the Census had been ascertained. He has no longer the same complaint to make as to Rye, because I believe that borough was excluded from the operation of this Bill; but, forsooth! he is so enamoured of his first love of thirty-one years ago that he returns to it again; and now, although a devoted follower of the noble Lord's, he brings forward this ridiculous Motion, which has no more to do with the subject than the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes. We have heard something to-night of the dignity and wisdom of the course which has been taken. I think the noble Lord has discharged his duty with dignity; but I much question the wisdom of the House in the course they have taken with regard to this Bill. What are we doing? We are doing nothing but offering a premium to out-of-doors agitation. We say the people are indifferent. I do not think that is a theme for congratulation at all; because, when the people are indifferent on such a subject, it shows a conviction that they have no sympathy with this House—that this House does not understand their wants and requirements. And what has been the pretext for the postponement of this measure? The Instructions to the Committee have been framed for no other purpose than to be obstructions to the passing of the Bill. There has been no open, honest, fair, stand-up fight on this question; the Bill has been got rid off by a species of Parliamentary assassination, by the administration of small doses of adjournment and other poisonous ingredients. We are told, indeed, that in the month of June the noble Lord is able to contend against this homoeopathic system of assassination, and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone holds him accountable for having dropped the Bill. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had no other course; but I think it becomes the House very seriously to consider the position in which they have been placed, for I have a very strong idea that out of doors we are neither regarded with respect nor favour by the great body of the people. In my opinion, we hold a most discreditable position in the eyes of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks well described the state of Reform when he said that for fifteen years it had been a Parliamentary question, and for ten years a Ministerial question. Five times have different Cabi-

  255
  nets pledged themselves to measures of Reform; five times has the Sovereign from the throne promised legislation on the subject; and yet here we are, by a most ex traordinary coincidence, on the 11th of June, 1860—throwing over a Reform Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] I can understand that cheer. I think it a most unfortunate thing for his own reputation, and for that of his party, that Lord Derby ever brought forward his Reform Bill. At the same time, I grant it was unfortunate for the country that when he did bring it forward it was so summarily rejected. I will do justice to my hon. Friend there; I think he was right in the course he took; and I think the rejection was most unfortunate, because we are shuffling off this question till God knows when, and we do not know under what circumstances the consideration of the Reform Bill may next be forced upon us. The hon. Gentlemen on the other side, the recent converts to Reform—for everybody is a Reformer now; the only question is as to the pace at which we shall go, and probably as to who shall drive the coach—did they offer any opposition to the principle of this Bill when it was first brought forward? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) opposed it rather in the spirit of Sir Fretful Plagiary. He complained that there was "not enough of incident in it," and concluded by saying that although the Bill was most meagre and unsatisfactory, he would offer no opposition to the second reading. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the party took a different view, and complained that it would swamp property and intelligence; but, nevertheless, no hostile division was called for, and the second reading was allowed to pass almost sub silentio [Laughter]. Well, not exactly sub silentio, because we all know the "gift of tongues" has been enormous; but it was certainly allowed to pass without a division. What has happened then? We have had all those pretexts put forward which are too transparent to deceive anybody except the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and probably the next meeting which he attends at the "Yorkshire Stingo" will lead him to give up that delusion. I am of opinion that the country, so far from being dissatisfied with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) will sympathize with his position; but I do not think it will sympathise with that of many Members of this House.
  256
  "An open foe may prove a curse,
  But a pretended friend is worse."
  What is the language that has been held on this subject? I find that a noble Lord in "another place," when he came into power, made the following declaration on the subject of Reform:—
  "In my opinion it is highly inconvenient that from Session to Session a question of this importance and interest should be perpetually kept dangling before the Legislature, and that Session after Session it should he hung up till a future day;"
  and, without pledging himself to details, he promised to give the subject his attention "with the sincere and earnest desire to trifle no longer with this great question." What have we been doing all this Session but trifling with this great and important question? That was the opinion of the noble Lord the head of the late Government in "another place." What was the view of the leader of this House on the same occasion? In bringing forward his Reform Bill, he asked,—
  "Is Parliamentary Reform a subject which touches the interest of all classes and all individuals, to be suffered to remain as a desperate resource of faction? Or is it a matter to be grappled with only at a moment of great popular excitement, and settled, not by the reason, but by the passion of the people?"
  Now, I ask the House what they are going to do—will they allow the passions and not the reason of the people to settle this question? Could there have been a time more opportune than the present for dealing with this subject? I have no intention of going, as other hon. Gentlemen have clone, into a discussion of the measure; but this I say, that if from year to year the House is content to shuffle off this question with pretexts and pleas which deceive no man in this House or out of it, the time may come when, with a bad harvest and with discontent reigning both at home and abroad, you will be called on to pass a measure, not by the reason, but by the passions of the people. I am surprised that the Conservative party, with such a fair offer as has been made by the noble Lord, should have been so lost to the tenets of their creed as not eagerly to accept a proposal made at a moment when men are disposed to be satisfied with much less than I am convinced will eventually have to be given. By assisting to pass this Bill they would, at any rate, have given an earnest to the country that they were sincere in their desire to amend the representation of the people.
  MR. HORSMAN: Sir, Although the announcement made by the noble Lord tonight could not have been very long delayed, yet when it was made I think it was not the less agreeable to the House that it was somewhat unexpected. I should be glad to leave the withdrawal of the Bill where it was left by the judicious speech of the noble Lord, had it not been partly for the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and partly for some other remarks which have been made—and which, deriving importance not so much from their reference to the past as to the future, I think it is the duty of the House not to allow to pass altogether unnoticed.
  Sir, there was no necessity for the hon. Member for Birmingham to attempt to mystify the subject. The reasons for the withdrawal of the Bill are obvious,—the lateness of the season, and the general unpopularity of the measure. More than a month was lost by introducing it in March instead of January, and when introduced it caused very general disappointment. No one liked it—few expected or wished it to pass—fewer still thought it could pass. From the moment we entered on the second reading, the Government lost all command of the House upon it. The strongest speeches against it, the most vehement denunciations of it, the fiercest outpourings of reproach on it, came from the benches behind the Government; and not only that, but there was this prospect before us in going into Committee, that whereas on the last trial of strength on the Bill, the Government had only a majority of twenty-one, there were, to set off against it, no less than seventy notices of Amendments placed on the paper by Members on the Government side of the House. The noble Lord said just now there were upwards of seventy Amendments on the notice paper, but there were more than that, for I have had the curiosity to examine it—and there are in fact more than ninety Amendments, of which seventy are from this side of the House.
  The general feeling, on one side and on the other was unfavourable to the Bill, but there is one section of the House to which it was most particularly unpalatable. That section is not composed of the Gentlemen below the gangway. In so far as it may be considered a democratic measure, it would rather give strength to those whose sympathies are democratic. It is not the Gentlemen on the opposite side who would be most affected by it, for Members of the Conser-
  258
  vative party are not returned to this House by the popular element, but rather in spite of it. But the Gentlemen who most dreaded the Bill were that section of the House that is neither Conservative nor democratic, but who, representing both the aristocratic and popular element, were elected by constituencies that would be made democratic by the improvement, of which the first effect would be to improve their present representatives off the face of the Parliamentary arena. They are the Gentlemen who have really felt the greatest dislike of the Bill. There being therefore a common feeling on both sides,—when an attempt is now made to fasten that responsibility of delaying the Bill on one side of the House, which attaches to all,—and to construe the disinclination to entertain this particular measure into hostility to any Reform whatever—I think the House ought to interpose, and if we are to get rid of the Bill, we ought at the same time to get rid of all the hypocrisies and delusions that have disgraced its history. When I see, as I have to-night, the seed sown for a new crop of misrepresentations—when I see those who have become bankrupt by trading on bad Bills of Reform, scolding, and warning, and threatening those whom they have been in vain endeavouring to cajole, I think we ought to have—as for a few moments I will ask leave to have—an opportunity of settling one or two short accounts of the past before we allow them to issue a new prospectus for the future. I should not have thought of doing so had not so many references and allusions been made to the past history of the Reform question. We have heard repeated the history of all the various Reform Bills brought forward, and I really think that with regard to the future, the House ought now to take stock of the question, especially as the hon. Gentleman near me has endeavoured to pin down the noble Lord to a promise to introduce another Reform Bill in the autumn.
  The country has become familiar with the whole of the Reform agitation. It originated in the mistaken belief of some shortsighted politicians, that because the Reform Bill of 1832 gave great strength and popularity to the Liberal party, therefore, when that party was at a low ebb of popularity, it had nothing to do but resuscitate the cry of Reform, and its leaders would once more be borne aloft on the shoulders of the people. That was the beginning of the second Reform of the Constitution in 1852. We have lately had

  259
  some very curious and interesting revelations as to the history of that Bill. In that Reform Cabinet of 1852 it appears there was only one Reformer; he was very sincere and ardent, no doubt, and his sincerity requires no explanation; but I think the country may be curious to know how the other members of that Cabinet, that was almost unanimous in dreading and deprecating another measure of Reform, thought it consistent with their personal honour and public duty to propose to Parliament a great constitutional change that they believed, if carried out, would be dangerous and disastrous to the country. But the question we know did not stop there. Two years later these same Gentlemen who had been alarmed by the comparatively moderate Reform Bill of 1852, made themselves parties to another measure, so much larger that it is difficult to understand how it could emanate from the same Ministers and the same red box. No Minister has asked permission of Her Majesty to make a similar revelation as to the Bill of 1854 to that which Lord Grey has made as to the Bill of 1852; but, if made, they would probably be a very interesting continuation of the chapter already published. The Bills of 1852 and 1854, though brought in with all the authority of statesmen possessing a popular character, failed—as the simultaneous agitation of Mr. Hume, to which the noble Lord has just referred, for a much larger measure also failed—because the practical intelligence of the English people could distinguish between the real demand for Reform in 1832, and the artificial demand for it in 1852. They would not lend themselves to further organic changes, the necessity of which they did not see, and the plan for which they did not approve. There were, doubtless, still great anomalies in our system; but the people knew that anomalies were not grievances, and they would not lend themselves to crude, immature, rash, and mischievous attempts to tamper with the Constitution—they wanted rest rather than agitation.
  But the agitation, though discountenanced by the country, was not suffered to drop by those in high places. In 1858, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton once more raised public expectation only to disappoint it—I had almost said to trifle with it—and in 1859, the Government of Lord Derby inherited, as they believed, the duty and the difficulty of dealing with the question. The hon. Member
  260
  for Liskeard alluded to the measure introduced by that Cabinet, and to the mistake of the Liberal party in its treatment, and my hon. Friend noticed the cheer that I gave him when I remembered that on that occasion he was one of my severest assailants for the course I took. I have this Session avoided taking any part in these discussions, because last year I took a course that was very painful to me—a course that separated me from my political friends—["Hear, hear," from an Hon. MEMBER on the back Ministerial benches.]—after twenty-four years of more constant, more arduous, and more consistent action with my party than that of the hon. Gentleman who sneers at me. I did not separate from those Friends without giving them, in private, the warnings I repeated afterwards in public; and I did not wish this Session to undergo the imputation of assisting to verify my predictions. When it was first made known to me—I was then in the confidence of those hon. Gentlemen—that they had determined to reject the Bill of Lord Derby's Government, I used what was once a familiar mode of illustration among us, and said, "The Liberal party may pursue one of the three courses. It may reject the Bill on the second reading—it may amend it in Committee, or it may strangle it by an abstract Resolution. The two first," I said, "are perfectly legitimate, and must succeed, and I am ready to go with my Friends on either of them; but the third course is illegitimate, and must prove discreditable and embarrassing, and I am not prepared to support it." And I showed how it would prove embarrassing. I said, "You will have a narrow division, a damaging dissolution, a reduced party majority, and after a year lost, a new Bill no better than the one rejected." My protest and my opinions are recorded; they are on that record to which any one can refer. I have no occasion to reproach myself for them, and I ought not to be reproached by any one on this side of the House. I was answered by the Member for Birmingham, and others, "A year will not be lost. A new Bill can be introduced before Parliament rises—it can be passed in an autumnal Session, and in February, 1860, we shall meet under the new Constitution."
  The Bill was rejected—followed by the dissolution, the bare announcement of which took away the breath of the framers of the Resolution, followed again by the elections, which took away some valuable

  261
  elements of their party majority. But when the new Government was formed, and when the new Parliament met, there was no hurry for a new Reform Bill. In that summer Session there was no Bill. The autumn passed, and no signs of a Bill. This year Parliament met unusually early, but the introduction of the Reform Bill was put off for more than a month. I protested very strongly against the delay; but my protest was not backed up by the ardent Friends of Reform, nor by the hon. Member for Birmingham, I protested, because I felt the absolute necessity of showing an honest desire to deal with the question this year, and because, adhering to my former views, I had no reason to dread a Bill which I believed would verify my predictions, and more than justify the course I had taken. But I found that a great change had come over the dream of the advanced Reformers. The secret of the forthcoming Bill had partly oozed out, and had produced on them a very tranquillizing effect. Their patience in 1860 presented a remarkable contrast to their chivalrous impetuosity in 1859; and while on the part of the Government there was no disposition to be prematurely communicative on the details of the measure, there was on the part of the supporters an amiable desire not to be too inquisitive. The fact was that the Ministry and their supporters were equally in a dilemma—and while the occupants of the Treasury Bench felt that they had burnt their fingers by rejecting the very moderate measure of their opponents, the occupants of these other benches were afraid of also burning their fingers by having to accept an equally unsatisfactory measure from their own leaders. So the Bill was by common consent postponed till the ides of March, with a fervent prayer on both sides that some Providential interposition would put it off till doomsday.
  But Providence was not propitious, and when the day came, the appearance of the Bill was the bursting of the Bill; and the Liberal party immediately opened out their fire upon it. Of all the Reform Bills ever proposed, this was pronounced by common consent to be the very worst. "Others have been bad," said the Member for Bristol; "but this one is contemptible." "It is not Liberal," said the Gentlemen on this side; "it is not Conservative," said the Gentlemen on that. "On the most important point of Reform," said the Member for Birmingham, "it unsettles every-
  262
  thing and settles nothing," It gives one party fresh cause for agitation," said the Member for Huddersfield. "It gives another great reason for alarm," said the Member for Edinburgh. "Where it tries to be Conservative," said the Member for Marylebone, "it relapses into old Toryism." "Where it professes to be liberal," said the Member for Galway, "it becomes revolutionary." And when at the close of all these friendly criticisms the Committee on the Bill was postponed on the 3rd May to the 4th of June, everybody knew that it was virtually abandoned. And it has been abandoned to-night.
  There is only point in the speech of the noble Lord (Russell) to which I wish to refer. The hon. Member for Birmingham tried to pin the noble Lord down to a pledge that another Reform Bill would be introduced at an early period; and my hon. Friend endeavoured to fix upon his political opponents in this House a result which the public ought well to understand is due to the general feeling of the House against the Bill. It is not a result of which the responsibility attaches to one side of the House more than to another, but arises out of the general feeling on all sides—a feeling endorsed by the country out of doors, which sees plainly that this question of Parliamentary Reform has been trifled with in the course of the present Session, and that there has been on the part of the Government no effective or satisfactory attempt at its solution. But I must say that of all the men who may be charged with inconsistency on this question, and who is least justified in bringing a charge of insincerity and want of zeal against other Members, that man is the hon. Member for Birmingham. He has abandoned every principle and violated every profession in endeavouring to support a Bill which he has told us was utterly worthless. Two years ago he had a Bill of his own, which was carried with a great flourish through the country. We have never seen that Bill, but he has allowed this Bill of the Government to be substituted for it, though it does not contain a single provision that he had been accustomed to say was essential to a Reform Bill. He has approved of the £6 franchise, though he was at the pains on Friday night to show that this was a franchise which would introduce only 300,000, or less than 5 per cent of the classes who are now excluded. He told us to-night that he would have been sorry to see the

  263
  Bill proceeded with if it had ended in the adoption of an £8 franchise; but when the noble Lord said on Friday night that be was ready to adopt a modification of the £6 franchise, and even to accept a higher franchise, the hon. Gentleman was a party to that compromise, and following the noble Lord in the debate, he said he was ready to do all he could to carry out the objects of the Government, so that, instead of a £6 rental, the hon. Gentleman was ready to take a higher. On the question of the franchise he is ready to exclude, as he admits, at least 95 per cent of the unenfranchised operative classes; but on what he considers the greater question of the redistribution of seats, which affects, not the operatives, but the masters, which implies a transfer of power from one class to another, and which will greatly facilitate the admission to power of his own class—on that question the hon. Gentleman will hear of no compromise. This is not the first time that my hon. Friend has failed to be the peculiar representative of working men. He has applied the same principle in matters of taxation wherever he has had to choose between removing a tax that fell on the operatives and one that fell on the master employers. In cases of taxation, as of representation, he has acted to the injury of the poor, while he has endeavoured to benefit the master classes. I believe no man is more sincere or more honest than he is in the advocacy of his own particular views; but there is this peculiarity about him, that on all questions affecting the education, the taxation, the representation of the working classes, the Member for Birmingham has been an ardent, unflinching, outspoken champion of the operative class against the rich landowner. But when it is a question not of landowners but of millowners and master manufacturers on one side, and operatives on the other, then in these cases the interests of the manufacturers and masters have been upheld, and those of the poor trampled on. Therefore, I decline taking the hon. Gentleman as a representative of the working people of this country. I do not believe that he represents their opinions.
  I have said that I wish to refer to one remark made by the noble Lord, in what I have described as, with one exception, his moderate and judicious speech. But the noble Lord said something that sounded very like a promise to introduce another Reform Bill. I can sympathize with the
  264
  general feeling of the House to spare the noble Lord any of those reproaches which he anticipated might be cast on him on this occasion; and I only speak now in the same spirit in which I sincerely told him last year, that if by supporting his Resolution I could promote reform, and strengthen his position, he would have no readier follower than myself; but it was because both objects would be defeated by his Resolution, and that with the success of his Resolution his difficulties would commence, that I warned him against it. And in the same earnest spirit in which I warned him as to the past, let me now once more warn him as to the future. Let me tell him that it is no light thing for a Minister of England to discredit the only free constitution now left in Europe. It is no light thing for one in the noble Lord's position to promulgate the doctrine that it is a legitimate function of the Ministers of this country once every twenty years to remodel the Constitution and effect a new distribution of political power always in one direction, giving less and less influence to intelligence and property, and more and more power to numbers, and to establish the fatal principle that the Constitution of England is only capable of expansion in a downward direction. I concur in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bucks, that this may be the last occasion on which, for some time to come, we may have an opportunity of discussing the question of Reform, and I cannot let it pass without saying,—what indeed we are all well aware of,—that this Reform Bill did not emanate from without, that it did not arise from the aspirations of the unenfranchised classes. It is the off-spring of official rivalries and Ministerial necessities. Political and party chiefs, racing and wrestling for power, endeavoured to outvie each other in bidding for the support of a political minority that held the balance between the great powers in the State. And while that political minority,—that party, as regards its representation of national opinion, is the least important party in the nation, it still has ruled the Cabinet, it has ruled the House of Commons, it has ruled the country, for its support was a political necessity to Ministers, who dreaded Reform very much, but dreaded exclusion from office a great deal more. The authors of these insincere Bills have, indeed, much to answer for. I cannot but recollect how, when in the autumn of 1858 the hon. Member for Birmingham was making

  265
  his tour in the provinces, they and their organs denounced him because, as they said, he was discrediting the Constitution. No, Sir, he was not discrediting the Constitution—he was only illustrating that great law of the Constitution which enables every man in this free country publicly to promulgate his own political belief. But I will tell you what it is that discredits the Constitution. It is when public men, ministers and statesmen, vie with one another in promising what they do not wish to perform—in conceding what they think dangerous—denying what they hold true—pandering to unwholesome appetites, and endorsing what they despise—then it is that they not only discredit but imperil the Constitution, and arm men of more advanced opinions, but also of more earnest purpose than themselves, with a power which they find it impossible to resist; and which is capable of being resisted in the present instance, simply because the hon. Member for Birmingham happily neither understands nor represents the sentiments of the great mass of the English people. Indeed, there is, in my opinion, no man possessing his powers and his opportunities who so completely fails to excite their sympathies or to arouse their enthusiasm. They do not understand my hon. Friend's idiosyncracies; they cannot conceive how one and the same individual can be a great friend to freedom at home and a great advocate of despotism abroad. They are unable to comprehend how a great upholder of the doctrines of peace in this country can be the great admirer of the representative of war in another; nor can they approve the principle in accordance with which free nations may be absorbed or swallowed up and enslaved by a despotic Power, because the small but free State is a bad customer, and the larger one may be a large purchaser of Manchester manufactures. Least of all do they desire to Reform our institutions after the Transatlantic model. The masses in this country are sound at heart—English to the backbone; and, thank God, intelligent enough and well-conditioned enough to appreciate the Constitution under which they live. They know that under that Constitution they enjoy politically, socially, and religiously, such rights as are not enjoyed under any other Government in the world. That Constitution is precious to them as it is to us. They know that its blessings have not been easily attained, and that they ought not to be lightly perilled. The House of
  266
  Commons is one of its appointed Guardians. In our hands, Providence has at this time confided this sacred trust, and that as we discharge ourselves, now or at any future time, of that high trust, honestly, faithfully, and righteously, we shall be surely judged.
  MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the question was hazarded by the Government, and he thought the time would come when they would regret that this Bill had not been allowed to go into Committee, where it might have been moulded into such a shape as would have secured it passing into law. Had the Government taken that course the people would at length have had that Reform which had been promised them by four Governments in succession. He would leave to the country to determine whether the Opposition, who had opposed this Bill in every stage, were the persons to whom was to be entrusted the question of Reform.
  MR. SLANEYthought that on the whole the Government had adopted the best course that lay open to them under the circumstances of the case; but he humbly hoped that the noble Lord's failure on this occasion would not prevent him from bringing the subject forward in another Session. It appeared to him that by a fusion of provisions contained in the two last Bills a satisfactory measure might be arrived at; but he hoped the noble Lord would in his next attempt fix his borough franchise somewhat higher. That, with a county qualification of £15, and some of the franchises out of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, would, in his opinion, make up a measure likely to meet with general approbation.
  MR. LONGoffered his thanks to the Government for the course they had taken that evening. The House was in the position of a contractor who had undertaken to do more than he could perform; and the best thing they could do was to confess that they were unable to perform it. The people of England cared more at the present moment about reconstructing their rotten gunboats than about reconstructing their rotten boroughs.
  MR. W. E. DUNCOMBEfelt it must now be admitted, although the noble Lord opposite had attempted to rouse the feelings of the people on this subject, that an almost universal apathy prevailed in regard to it. He ventured to think that apathy could only be accounted for by the general conviction

  267
  that there existed no necessity for Parliamentary Reform. In his opinion the whole proceeding on the part of the Government had been got up for party purposes, to secure their position in office, and not with a view to any real remedy for abuses alleged, but which certainly had not been proved to exist. Since 1832 there had been no question which had excited the attention or moved the interest of the public that has not been brought before the consideration of that House, received full discussion, and been settled in accordance with the wishes of the people. There was he great question of free trade, for instance, peculiarly affecting the working classes—that was debated in 1846 on both sides of the House, with a view to promote the welfare of the working classes. It was a question in which the people took a deep interest, and he would ask the House whether it had not received a solution in accordance with the people's wishes? And for himself he was ready to admit that free trade had been of great benefit to the people of this country. And so, if there had been any general feeling in the country in favour of Parliamentary Reform, it would have made itself heard. Besides, before they concluded that Reform was necessary, they were bound to prove that the recent legislation of the House had not been in accordance with the views of the people. On the other hand, he believed the people attributed much of the happiness, wealth, and prosperity they enjoyed to the satisfactory legislation of that House; and it was because they were contented with the principles of Government which had been adopted, and with the legislation which had been carried out, that they now felt there was no necessity for changing the constitution of a Parliament, which had conferred on them so many and such signal blessings. He regretted to hear the statement from the noble Lord that they were next year to be favoured with another Reform Bill. He hoped the noble Lord and the Government would reconsider that matter. Surely they did not wish again to expose the House and the country to renewed uncertainty, and to an interruption of all useful and practical legislation, by the futile reproduction of such a measure, for the purpose of conciliating the hon. Member for Birmingham, who would never be satisfied with any measure of Reform the noble Lord might introduce. The Government must not judge the hon. Member for Birmingham by his speeches or professions
  268
  in Parliament, but rather by the speeches he made and the principles he maintained in his tours of agitation throughout the country. He believed the principles of the hon. Member to be inconsistent with our present form of Government, and the sooner the connection between the Government and the hon. Member ceased the better. Many of the principles, and much of the policy, of the Government, particularly their financial policy, certainly savoured very much of those recommended by the hon. Member for Birmingham. He begged them not to follow in that direction. If they did, they would bring themselves into hostile collision with the real wants and wishes of the people; and though they might for a time retain the honours of office, their course would terminate in future disaster to themselves, and great disadvantage to the country.
  MR. WARNERsincerely regretted that the noble Lord had been compelled, by circumstances which no doubt he regretted, but over which he had no control, to take the course he had announced to-night. The Session was eminently suited for passing a satisfactory and comparatively permanent Reform Bill. There was no excitement in the country and there was a general wish to have the question settled. He regretted that such an opportunity should be lost; he only hoped another would before long recur. Both sides of the House had the strongest interest in attaining a satisfactory settlement of the Reform question. That was especially the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who so long as the question was left unsettled were placed in the wrong before the country and kept excluded from office. There would be no chance of a Reform Bill passing until both sides agreed not to treat it as a party question. He thought, however, that the time which had been consumed in discussing this Bill had not been wasted, for it had been shown that neither the House nor the country was yet prepared to deal with the question of Reform. A variety of Reform measures had been introduced of late years, containing a great variety of propositions. All these had failed to gain acceptance; and then the noble Lord was obliged to content himself with the simplest measure that had ever been presented. He brought in a skeleton Reform Bill, leaving it to others to fill it up and clothe it with flesh. The attempt, however, like all the others, was obliged to be abandoned. In any future Bill he

  269
  hoped that there would be no uniform line of rental or rating to give the franchise. Such a line of demarcation was very well where the line was kept to a high standard, but when reduced to a lower level it would be impossible to retain it. He desired to see a representation of classes and of interests and not of mere numbers.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was willing to give the Government credit for honest intentions in withdrawing the Bill, but he thought that this would have been a proper occasion for them to inform the House and the country what course they intended to take on the constitutional question in debate between the Lords and the Commons. The country would not be satisfied of the sincerity of the Government if they withdrew the Reform Bill without pledging themselves to repel the insult which the House of Commons had received at the hands of the Lords. The country would not willingly allow the privileges of their representatives in that House to be overridden by the Lords on account of any paper precedents which might be discovered by the Committee, even if such could be found. Their Report ought by this time to have been laid before the House; and he thought the Government were exposing themselves to great suspicion by the course they had taken, and the appearance of trifling with the question which had been exhibited. Until this matter was settled the functions of the House were almost in abeyance. In former times it was the practice to adjourn the House until any assault on its privileges had been fully repelled; and still it was the rule that privilege questions took precedence of all others. Why did the Government depart from this practice? The noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs had expressly declared that the question was more important that any that had arisen within his experience; and what could he expect but that the opponents of Reform, and those who were supposed to sympathize with the Lords should endeavour, and most successfully, to bring that House into contempt by its own conduct, as most effectually they had done by the frivolous debates on Reform? The noble Lord had submitted to that indignity, and had withdrawn the Bill. Was the Government also ready to submit not merely to the postponement of Reform, but to what was nothing less than a change in the constitution of the country. For the Lords to interfere with the Government financial arrangement was to
  270
  deprive this House of the only function by which it held authority in the State, coupled with the fact that the revenue of this country is almost entirely by Act of Parliament, and that the House, in excess of its authority, had voted not merely subsidies for present wants, but had imposed on the country a permanent system of taxation. It constituted the Lords beyond all doubt the paramount authority in the State. He trusted the conduct of Government in this matter would be such as to justify the confidence with which he desired to regard them, and though at present their conduct was to himself and to others wholly inexplicable, that they would not forget the gravity of the question, or the importance that the public, when it became fully understood, attached to it. He thought it would be a great relief to the country, and a great credit to the Government, now that they had abandoned the Reform Bill, if they would give some expression of their opinion with regard to the vital question to which he adverted, and that it was not their intention to sacrifice the Constitution of the country and the privileges of that House to the arbitrary rule of the Lords.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Bill withdrawn.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURasked whether the Order of the Day was discharged?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment is withdrawn, the Motion is withdrawn, and the Bill is withdrawn.

STATUTE CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in moving the second reading of the Offences against the Person Bill, said, this was one of several Bills for the consolidation of the Criminal Law which had come down from the Lords. The Bills dealt with offences against the person, malicious injuries to property, coinage offences, the law relating to accessories and abettors, forgery, and larceny; and they resulted from the labours of various Commissions which during the last twenty-seven years had considered the subject of our criminal law. He thought the House might congratulate itself, that after the question which had been disposed of that night, and which would have unavoidably led to the continuance of party discussion, they now approached a subject

    271
    remote from party strife, which commended itself to all parties alike, and which he was sure would obtain the careful consideration of the House. Each of these Bills proposed not only to consolidate, but also to assimilate the law of England and of Ireland on the particular matter to which it referred; but only one, that relating to the coinage, included Scotland, and was therefore applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom. At the head of criminal law reformers in modern times, and the most successful of them, stood the late Sir Robert Peel, who entered upon the career of the amendment and consolidation of the criminal law in 1826. Subsequently, many statutes had been passed, putting the criminal law of England and Ireland, to a considerable extent, on the same footing. Most law reformers thought it now desirable that, instead of having one law for England and another for Ireland, the statutes in force in the two parts of the kingdom should be carefully considered, and so altered that one criminal law should be applicable to both countries; and it was to a great extent owing to the zeal and ability with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside) and the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) had devoted their time and attention to this work that the attempt was now made, in addition to measures of general consolidation and improvement, to effect an assimilation, as far as practicable, of the criminal law of England and Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman then described the labours of the successive Commissions issued between the years 1833 and 1845 with a view to the reform of the law. The Commission issued in the latter year was appointed with power to revise the work of the Commissioners who had preceded it. In 1845 two Reports were made under that Commission, and Reports were also made in 1847, 1848, and 1849—being five Reports in all. In the year 1848 Lord Brougham introduced a Bill for the consolidation of the criminal law, founded on the Reports of the Commissioners, but that Bill did not pass into a law. The hon. and learned Gentleman, having referred to the Commissions of 1852 and 1855, proceeded to say that in 1856 eight Bills were prepared relating to England, and were introduced into the House of Lords, but failed to pass into law in consequence of the lateness of the Session. In the spring of 1857 a Resolution was come to which was em-
    272
    bodied practically in the Bills now before the House. Up to that time it appeared that the various Commissioners had been somewhat restricted in their labours by not being called on to suggest or devise amendments in the law, their duty being simply to consolidate. Amendment, however, ought to proceed together with consolidation, for to embody the words of the existing law, however objectionable, into a consolidating statute, leaving amendments to be brought about afterwards by different other Acts, was not a very satisfactory mode of proceeding, and would not have embraced the assimilation of the law of England and Ireland. In order, therefore, to place upon the statute-book good laws, expressed in convenient terms, nine Bills, going in some respects beyond the scope of the present Bills, were brought forward, and those Bills, he might state, were the foundation of the measures he now submitted to the House. Subsequently, under Lord Derby's Government, it was determined that this matter should be proceeded with, and particular attention was called to the necessity of assimilating the law of the two countries; and, after Lord Derby's Government had ceased to exist, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University brought forward certain Bills, and it had been the intention and endeavour of those, to whom the preparation of the present Bills had been committed, to incorporate in them everything that could be properly taken, for that purpose, from the Bills of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. With respect to the Bills of the right hon. Gentleman and those before the House, there was one point of difference which he would briefly explain. It was thought by that right hon. Gentleman a convenient arrangement in a scheme for the consolidation and amendment of the criminal law to put the punishments, with convenient references, into one distinct Bill, which might be called a Punishment Bill. This was a matter on which opinions might vary; but it had been the practice in this country to do, with respect to the punishment of crime, what it was proposed to do in the present Bills—namely, after the definition and description of each particular crime, to enact, in the same clause, the punishment. He would not affect to decide which plan was the more convenient; but he did not suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would think the point of so much importance as to deem these Bills open to any grave objection on

    273
    that account. He should confine himself on the present occasion to the general statement he had just made, and defer, until the next stage, any observations as to the manner in which it was proposed to bring about the amendment and assimilation of the law, and the extent to which that amendment and assimilation would be carried. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Offences against the Person Bill.
    MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the subject now before the House was one interesting alike to the philanthropic lawyer and the statesman. It was impossible to reflect upon it for a moment without thinking of the difficulties that Romilly, Mackintosh, and even Peel had to contend with in endeavouring to amend the criminal law. When the late Government obtained possession of the Reports of the Statute Law Commissioners they found there was a great difference of opinion among those eminent persons as to whether or not we could consolidate the Criminal Statute Law of the two kingdoms into one set of statutes. Some of them thought that there ought to be separate laws peculiar to Ireland, while others, including the late Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Napier), were of opinion that it would be better to lay aside exceptional legislation and to have a common system of Criminal Statute Law applicable to the two countries. Afterwards the late Home Secretary called upon the Irish Executive Government to state in writing—which was always convenient, for it conduced to precision—their views upon the subject. That paper was drawn up, and it recommended the abolition of the punishment of death in all cases save the premeditated taking away of human life. The Bills of the late Government were framed somewhat differently from these. For example, it was thought convenient to have a Procedure Bill and a Punishment Bill separate from the other measures. That plan had now been departed from, and at the risk of repetition, the clauses of the Punishment and Procedure Bills had been incorporated in the others. He did not think that that alteration was an amendment, but rather the reverse. Again, while some of the recommendations of the Commissioners as to the abolition of the punishment of death had been acted upon, others had been neglected. The principle upon which those recommendations were founded was, that capital punishment should only be inflicted in cases in which death
    274
    followed the act of the offender. In these Bills, however, while the punishment of death was no longer to be inflicted in the case of a conspiracy to murder, attempts to murder, such as administering poison, exploding gunpowder so as to damage buildings, or setting fire to a shop with intent to commit murder, were still to remain capital offences. When the Offences against the Person Bill went into Committee, it would be desirable to reconsider those provisions. He, for one, was of opinion that they would do more to repress crime by establishing a severe secondary punishment which would be certain to follow its commission, than by maintaining the punishment of death in these cases. He was also sorry that a definition of murder, calculated to put an end to the cases turning upon the distinction between implied and expressed malice, had been omitted from these Bills. Subject to the improvements which might be made in them in Committee, he thought that it might be convenient to pass those measures, and he had no doubt that if any of the clauses were altered the House would, upon a conference, be found open to conviction. With all deference to those learned persons, he was not quite sure that the Judges were the best persons to decide upon such questions as were raised by these Bills. He did not mean to be disrespectful, but he remembered several passages in the life of Si Samuel Romilly in which that eminent man complained of the difficulties which he had to encounter in quarters where they were least to be expected. He was also of opinion that in cases of high treason it would be sufficient to take away a man's life, without depriving his family, who might have nothing to do with his offence, of his estate, and that it would be desirable to do away with the confiscation to the use of the Crown of the goods and chattels of convicted felons, thus carrying the punishment home to the defenceless and unoffending families of the criminals. The Crown virtually never did take the property of convicted felons, and therefore he thought it time to abolish the legal fiction. If they abolished the punishment of death in eight out of ten of the cases in which it was now imposed by the statute, and consolidated and assimilated the law of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, they would have done a good work; and though the noble Viscount might not have passed a Reform Bill he would have had the satisfaction of having, with the assistance of the able law

    275
    officers of his Government, carried a measure which would be useful to the country, and which would redound to his credit.
    MR. COLLIERsaid, he was willing to accept these Bills, and would give his best assistance towards improving them in Committee; but he could not agree with the Solicitor General that they had at last hit upon the right way of consolidating the criminal law; and he did not believe that upon the plan now acting upon the Statute Law would be consolidated within our time. He had more than once expressed an opinion which he now repeated—that there was but one mode of dealing with this question, and that was to undertake the consolidation of the criminal and statute law as a whole. The Attorney General had intimated a plan for that purpose, the constitution of a Department of Public Justice, or a Board whose functions should be, first to expurgate and next to consolidate the whole body of law, and then submit it to that House. He believed if the Attorney General would come down to the House prepared to constitute such a Board, he would find that the House would not be illiberal in granting money for that purpose. If such a Board was constituted and composed of able men, he was satisfied that in two or three years the whole statute law might be expurgated and consolidated. If the Roman law, which was much more voluminous than ours, could be codified in four or five years, and the French law in three years, was it to be said that the English law could not be likewise codified? If the Attorney General succeeded in doing that, he would have effected a greater work than had been accomplished in our time.
    MR. M'MAHONthought there were good reasons why this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. A great deal of money had been expended on this and other similar Bills. He had looked through the Bills, and he thought he could satisfy the House that it would be a very serious thing to give them a second reading. By one provision of the present Bill the definition of murder or manslaughter extended to killing any person, whether he was a subject of her Majesty or not. If the House adopted that clause, then it followed that killing a person abroad—a foreigner—not in the dominions of Her Majesty, would be murder. Now, there was an Englishman fighting with Garibaldi in Sicily; if he should be taken prisoner, he might be sent over here and
    276
    his countrymen would be required to find a Bill against him at the Old Bailey, and we ahould be called upon to hang him. Take another case. It was said that a great number of his (Mr. M'Mahon's) countrymen were going to some part of Italy, who might have to fight against the King of Sardinia; suppose the Sardinians to take some of them and send them over here to be hung in batches. They would thus be dealing with persons who were not subjects of the Queen, and it would be the whole story of the Conspiracy to Murder Bill over again, and they would be continually troubled with prosecutions of that kind. Then again, as if the law of landlord and tenant were not sufficient already, a very objectionable clause was inserted, making it a punishable offence to assault any one engaged in making a distress. The provision that persons who were convicted under the Act should be bound to find sureties for good behaviour would practically have the effect of subjecting them to almost perpetual imprisonment. The same defect ran through the whole group of Bills. He objected to the clause in the Coinage Bill which empowered any one to whom base coin was tendered to give the utterer into custody on the spot, because a mistake might be so readily made as to the nature of the coin, and also to the provision, that even if, in an action for false imprisonment, the plaintiff obtained a verdict in his favour, the Judge should have power to disallow costs unless he approved the case. In the Larceny Bill there was a provision that if any person should unlawfully and wilfully course, snare, or carry away, kill or wound, or attempt to kill or wound, any deer in an unenclosed part of a forest or chase, he should be liable to a penalty of £50. That was according to the existing law; but the provision went on to say that if any person should be convicted of a second offence of the same kind—namely, attempting to kill or wound any deer, &c., he should be guilty of felony. He doubted whether that could be called an improvement, and if the Bills were read a second time he hoped that at all events they would be referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. AYRTONsaid, great inconvenience arose from their not having any key to the manner in which these Bills were prepared. It was impossible to know what part was an amendment, and what part a mere repetition of the existing law, and it was impossible that hon. Members should ascer-

    277
    tain it for themselves by a comparison of the Bills with the statutes. Some of the amendments were not improvements. He doubted the wisdom of providing that if a person fired a gun with a charge in it, but with no cap to it, he should be deemed guilty of an attempt to commit murder. It also seemed a contradiction in terms to say that if any person attempted to procure a miscarriage it should be an offence whether the woman was with child or not. He observed that there was a want of harmony and symmetry of the Bills. A person who was hung for one felony was to be buried in a particular way, but there was no provision as to the burial of the body of a person who was hung for another description of felony. He hoped that the Solicitor General intended to proceed with these Bills, and not to make of the second readings a mere display for a night, as had been done in the last three or four Sessions, because it tended to render consolidation ridiculous.
    MR. GEORGEdid not think it necessary to discuss the details of the Bill at that stage, and he should not, therefore, trouble the House with any lengthened observations in regard to them. He congratulated the law officers of the Government on the vigorous efforts which they were now making for consolidating the criminal and statute law of England and Ireland, and he hoped that that consolidation would be still further extended in many other respects between the two countries.
    MR. W. EWARTwas also glad to see that the Government had determined upon effecting a consolidation of the various statutes, and thought the country was much indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) for having done so much towards assimilating the laws of the two kingdoms. One great reason, he thought, why all former attempts at consolidation had failed was because the Commissioners had other work to do besides that of consolidation. He was of opinion that the Bill was calculated to introduce improvements in our criminal jurisprudence. It would be a good thing to have a Board appointed that should watch the legislation of the House, codify the statutes, and so simplfy the phraseology of Acts that the plainest intelligence could comprehend them. The objections that had been made to the measure might be considered in Committee. Now that the House had bidden farewell to political reform he trusted there was some prospect of legal reform.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could assure the House that it was intended to proceed with those Bills vigorously and earnestly. It would be a poor return for the ready co-operation of the other side of the House in these law reforms if the Government were at all slow or indifferent in the prosecution of them. He should be exceedingly sorry, however, to see the Bills referred to a Select Committee, for he should then despair of seeing them pass into law this Session. All the matters which bad been objected to involved formalities on which he should desire to have the sense of the House, and he had much more confidence in the benefit which would be derived from a discussion in the House than in any result to be obtained by a Select Committee. The general consolidation of the statutes was being proceeded with as earnestly as the scanty means at the disposal of those responsible for it would allow, and he hoped before the end of the Session to be able to lay on the table a Bill, which would be the first step towards a general consolidation—towards expurgating the statute book, and removing those things which were impediments to their consolidation—he might even say towards a systematic arrangement and codification of the statute law. The House would then be able to see at a glance what was the existing state of the law, and he thought it would be a surprise to many to learn to within how small a compass the statute law might be reduced.
    MR. DIGBY SEYMOURhad to thank the Law Officers of the Crown for the production of these Bills, knowing from experience the difficulties that at present arose in connection with the statutes. He hightly approved the determination of the Government to proceed with them vigourously; but he thought there were some parts that would require very careful consideration.
    MR. BOWYERsaid he was afraid, although these Bills presented a considerable advantage, that when even these Bills had passed we should be very far from the commencement of a criminal code. There was a great want of scientific arrangement in these Bills, and a great deal of repetition and unnecessary matter might have been spared had there been proper scientific definitions of what constituted certain offences, such as murder and assaults. The whole Bill did not contain a definition of any offence. The language of these Bills was very different from that

    279
    of any other codes in the world. Hon. Gentlemen acquainted with the codes of France, Sardinia, and Prussia would see that in them offences and punishments were set forth in very terse language, so that every person could understand what was forbidden and what the punishment was if he committed an offence. Some of the clauses of this Bill ran on to a great length without a stop, such were the long-winded phrases employed in them. This mode of drawing up Acts of Parliament ought to be got rid of as soon as possible, especially in regard to criminal matters He must make an observation regarding the mode of debating these Bills. Bills of consolidation must always to a certain extent be taken on trust by the House, for it might happen in a thin House—a not unlikely state of things when law reform was under consideration—that some Member, perhaps least of all acquainted with law, might introduce and carry an Amendment which would put the Bill into confusion, and render abortive the labours of the learned person who had drawn it. Our form of Government was not favourable to scientific legislation. Law reform had always been prosecuted with the greatest success under despotic Governments—as under Justinian and Napoleon I. In those cases the new body of laws or code had been maturely considered by a select Concil of the most learned and experienced persons. But in this country there was the inconvenience of having to discuss the Bills in two separate large assemblies, composed, for the greater part, of unlearned persons. The only way of dealing with this difficulty, was for the House to defer greatly to the opinions of the learned lawyers who prepared the Bills, and to take such Bills to a great extent on trust, without minutely discussing their details.
    MR. BUTThoped that the Committee would be fixed for some time when there could be a full discussion of the Bills, for very extensive Amendments were required.
    MR. HENLEYwas glad that the Attorney General had made up his mind not to send those Bills to a Select Committee, because the only chance of their passing them into law was to pass them in the ordinary way through a Committee of the Whole House. The Law Officers of the Crown would then be present to explain the reasons for each alteration of the law, and the House could then decide. He regretted that the Government had not found it consistent with their duty to get rid of
    280
    the punishment of death for certain offences for which he thought—following the spirit of legislation of late years—it might very well have been abolished. The changes which had taken place during the lifetime of the present generation in that direction had all been successful. Where the punishment was not necessary for the repression of the crime it ought to be got rid of. These, however, were matters for Committee.
    Bill read 2° and committed for Thursday.
    Then the Bills following—namely,

    (2.) Malicious Injuries to Property Bill.

    (3.) Coinage Offences Bill.

    (4.) Accessories and Abettors Bill.

    (5.) Forgery Bill.

    (6.) Larceny, &c., Bill.

    (7.) Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill.

    were severally read 2°, and committed for Thursday.
    MR. DENMANthought it would be to the convenience of the House if the Government would adopt some plan by which it might be seen at a glance whether a clause was an Amendment, or alteration, or simply consolidation. That would very much facilitate the progress of these Bills. Those who had drawn these Bills could speedily underscore those clauses that were Amendments of the law, and those clauses could be printed in italics.

ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, that at the suggestion of the Government, he proposed to withdraw this Bill, and to introduce another framed upon a suggestion from the Admiralty.
Order discharged. Bill withdrawn.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved, that the Bill be now read the second time, and explained that the Bill was based on a mass of evidence taken by a Commission which sat some years ago to inquire into the subject. Seven or eight years ago an attempt was made by the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Napier) and himself to legislate on this subject by consolidating or repealing every existing law in reference to the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland; but in consequence of the large number of

281
statutes—for when the Irish Parliament had nothing else to do they appeared to have passed a law on the subject of landlord and tenant—this was found a very laborious and troublesome affair. A number of Irish Members also objected to the Bill which was prepared, though he never could clearly understand why; because, as he had said, the Bill simply consolidated the law. However, another Bill miscalled the Tenant Right Bill having been introduced, the very simple Bill for consolidating the existing law he had brought forward was rejected. The result, therefore, was that the Bill continued in abeyance for about six years. The late Government having been called upon by certain Irish Members to deal with the matter reproduced the Bill after having subjected it to revision and improvement. The Bill was called "No. 2," because the present Attorney General for Ireland also had a measure on the same subject. He ought to say that his Bill dealt with two matters, the law of fixtures and the law of distress, which matters were both omitted from the Bill of his right hon. Friend. The Bill of his right hon. Friend simply proposed that there should be no distress for more than a year's rent; whilst he (Mr. Whiteside) proposed to adopt the Scotch law, reserving to the landlord the right to distrain, but securing the tenant from a hasty sale of his property if he gave security for the rent. As to fixtures, he proposed to make what was put upon the land by the tenant his property, even though the consent of the landlord had not been obtained for putting them there; but he would not have the right to remove them without the assent of the landlord. The landlord was to have the right of pre-emption; but if neither he nor the incoming tenant chose to buy them, the outgoing tenant would then have the right to remove them, which was simply justice to the tenant. If they were placed on the land contrary to covenant, the tenant would have no right to remove, but if there was no agreement there would be power to remove. This clause would probably lead to the making of agreements between landlord and tenant, or to incoming tenants buying the fixtures. These two branches of the law were, he believed, by his Bill, placed on a more satisfactory footing than by that of his right hon. Friend. He suggested to the Government the propriety of adopting this as the groundwork of any measure on the subject.
MR. DEASYsaid, he had not the least objection to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. He proposed, however, to proceed with the Bill which he had himself introduced, though he did not claim any merit for it, but was free to admit that the merit belonged to the right hon. Gentleman and the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Napier). He should be glad to receive any suggestions for the improvement of his Bill, whether from the right hon. Gentleman, or any Gentleman opposite, as his sole object was to carry through a measure of beneficial legislation.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, that the Bill was one for the consolidation of all the laws relating to landlord and tenant; but then the right hon. Gentleman had told them that Acts were passed by the Irish Parliaments when they had nothing else to do, and it was well known those Acts were all made in behalf of the landlord and against the tenant. Except the provision relating to fixtures he found nothing in the Bill beneficia to the tenant. By the 108th sec, any farmer who availed himself of nature's provision of the harvest moon would be guilty of misdemeanour. That section declared any one guilty of misdemeanour who was found cutting corn after sunset and before sunrise with an intent to evade payment of rent. With a packed or prejudiced jury any man who availed himself of nature's provision of the harvest moon might be found guilty of such an intent.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the clause referred to was simply to prevent a man availing himself of the moonlight to de fraud the landlord of his just rights.
SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, the question relating to fixtures had always given rise to great uneasiness and agitation in Ireland. Some law was necessary on the subject. A short time ago an Act wes passed for England on that very subject, and the provision was that the tenant should be allowed to remove or sell to the landlord such fixtures as had been erected with the landlord's consent. He objected to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Deasy), because it did not follow the example of that Act. There was such a thing as improving a person out of his estate.
Bill read 2° and committed for Thursday.

TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—SECOND READING.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned De-

  283
  bate on Amendment proposed to Question [15th May],
  "That the Bill be now read a second time:" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he assumed that from the time that had elapsed since the last debate on the Bill the House had forgotten its objects. The question was, not what it had been alleged to be, one of insuperable difficulty, and the past failures had had their origin in the want of earnestness and sincerity on the part of Cabinets, or of individual Members, or of the Members of the House generally. It was said, with some truth, that those who were conspicuous in their demands for tenant right had made themselves ridiculous in the country—that they were in the habit of getting up two or three demonstrations on the subject in Ireland in the course of the year, and then letting the matter drop. He confessed that the subject was one which he approached with aversion, because he had an honest conviction that it was not the intention of Parliament to deal with the question in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Irish people. He disbelieved in the professions of the late Government, and the Bill of the present Government he regarded as absolutely worthless. At the same time he would vote for the second reading, in order that in Committee it might, if possible, he converted into a bonâ fide tenant right Bill. If the efforts to make it so failed he would protest against it being considered a settlement of the question, and he would advise all with whom he had influence to desist from agitation on the subject till such an organization was established in Ireland or in Parliament as would give a fair prospect of success. When they spoke of improving the condition of the Irish people they were told that the sure way to do so was to improve the land; but the truth was that in proportion as the land was improved in Ireland the people were destroyed. The landlords in Ireland had the power to make the people happy if they chose; nine out of ten of them could give leases, and they had the power to borrow money to carry out improvements. The present Bill merely enabled the landlords to do these things in a new way; there was nothing in it of a compulsory character—it left everything
  284
  to the option of the landlord. Whatever were the novelties introduced into the Bill they secured no advantage to the tenant and the people of Ireland were left in exactly the position they were before. Nothing beneficial to the tenants would come from the present Bill. The landowners would only ridicule its provisions and go on, as hitherto, withholding leases and enlarging farms, to be occupied by Scotch or English settlers. The Bill did not contain one provision to mitigate the evils of which the people of Ireland complained. If they were to accept this Bill it would be an admission that they had been the victims of delusion, and that till the present Secretary for Ireland came among them they never knew what the country wanted. What the tenants wanted was some measure that would guarantee to them security for their outlay for improvements—compensation for the capital they laid out—and unless this were done it would be better not to attempt legislation at all. They must also have protection against unjust evictions; for the ancient inhabitants of the country, who were not colonists, held that an eviction was a gross violation of morality. The people of Ireland held that God made the earth for the use of all men, and not for that of the landlord alone. But he regretted to be obliged to say that, in his opinion, there was very little difference between the position of the tenant at-will in that country and the slave in America; for, although it was true the former could not be tied up and flogged, yet he might, if he disputed for a moment the authority of the landlord, be left without a roof to cover his head or a bit to eat. Now he found in the Bill no remedy for the unbridled power of eviction of which he complained, and he thought he was therefore justified in characterizing it as, to a great extent, a useless measure. It was contended, however, that the landlord was, in accordance with the principles of political economy, justified in selling his property to the highest bidder; but was it right, he would ask, to say to the poor man who could not afford to pay a single penny more for his land without exposing himself to irretrievable ruin, that he must not hope to escape the consequences, inasmuch as some stranger from Yorkshire or Inverness would be found ready to pay a higher rent and occupy his place? Such a principle became unjust and iniquitous, when in order to give effect to it, it was necessary to evict the present occupying population, and thus

  285
  consign them to misery and ruin, and oftentimes to death. Why, if the doctrines of political economy were thus to be carried out to their full extent, Ireland would be depopulated in six months. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had, in his introductory speech, talked about the prosperity of that country; but he (The O'Donoghue) could not see how she could be regarded as prosperous while discontent prevailed to so large an extent among her people that they were quitting their native shores in thousands. He found from the official returns which had been presented by the Registrar General to both Houses of Parliament, that on the 30th of March, 1851, the population of Ireland had amounted to 6,551,385, and on the 1st of January of the present year to only 5,988,820; while the number of emigrants last year had been 80,599, and the drain from that source continued to show no sign of diminution. Now, what token of prosperity, he should like to know, was to be found in facts which so plainly told their own tale? He might, however, be told that it was not the farmers so much as the labouring class who were leaving the country; but to the justice of that view he must demur, for it was his belief that the farmers and their sons were swelling the tide of emigration in great numbers. The right hon. Gentleman had further, in his introductory speech, stated that the number of evictions was considerably less in Ireland during the present year than it had been ten years ago; but that circumstance only proved that the number of the population had been reduced so low that extermination was no longer held to be necessary to such an extent as before. The right hon. Gentleman had then gone on to point to the action of the Encumbered Estates Court, through the medium of which, he said, £25,000,000 worth of property had been sold, and, for the most part, purchased by Irishmen. What was there to boast of in the Encumbered Estates Court? It only proved that one set of men had been ruined, and that another set had profited by their ruin. That Court only recognized the buyer and seller, and ignored the existence of the tenant. It was a desperate remedy applied to a most disastrous state of things, and it had led to a daily increasing emigration. The people were wretched and miserable, keenly alive to their position; they knew full well that according to law they might be dispossessed in six months, and this power of almost instantaneous
  286
  eviction was held over them for moral and physical coercion. A Bill which did not apply a remedy to this state of things was not worth acceptance. He would suggest that no landlord, under any circumstances whatever, should be able to evict a tenant unless he held under a twenty-one years' lease; in all cases of dispute as to the fairness of the rent demanded by the landlord, he would send the dispute to be decided before a jury at the assizes or Quarter Sessions, and he would have no appeal from the decision of the Jury. He would allow every occupier to dispose of his interest to any one who offered a fair value, and he would allow him to make any improvements, which, however, should not be chargeable to the landlord if they were not found to improve the letting value of the land. These provisions would remove the feeling of insecurity which was the great source of evil. If adopted, the tide of emigration would be stopped, and the people, who had gone forth in thousands, would be found flowing back to settle in the land of their fathers. He had read an article in The Times which stated that the time might come when an English or Scotch agriculturist who took a farm in Galway or Kerry would be obliged to take over Scotch or English labourers with him. Matters, he feared, had a tendency to realize this prophecy; but he trusted he should never see the day. There was hardly any calamity, except war, that be would not prefer, He thought it would be better for the people of Ireland to live under an autocrat who would secure for them possession of the soil and the right to transmit it to their sons, than to live under a Constitution which only gave them a six months' tenure, and allowed them to be victims of class legislation.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he scarcely agreed with one single observation of his hon. Friend who had just spoken, except when he said that a clause limiting the power of eviction to tenants holding leases for twenty-one years, would stop the tide of emigration. That was quite true, for such a clause would induce a tide of immigration to the favoured land, where tenants would be placed in the position of owners. He certainly did not know any position that would be preferable to that of an Irish tenant if he were not obliged, except as a matter of honour, to pay rent unless he had a twenty-one years' lease. He certainly had expected some remarks upon

  287
  the merits of the Bill, but he had not been prepared for a disquisition upon extermination and the cruelty of landlords. His own experience, which was greater than that of the hon. Gentleman, enabled him to say that the evictions which had taken place were not simple arbitrary acts on the part of the landlord, and that a better feeling was rapidly springing up between landlords and tenants in Ireland. He denied that the tenants were emigrating because of those evictions, for the cause of the emigration now going on was quite different; it was a desire on the part of the young, intelligent, and energetic, to better themselves. Landlords now cherished their tenants, and tenants respected their landlords. To prove his statement, he could appeal to statistics as well as to experience. Were the pauper lists increasing? Were not the prices of stock and agricultural produce rising? Was there not an improvement in the dwellings, the clothing, and the general condition of the people of Ireland? But those facts would not induce him to refuse to pass a Bill which would tend to ameliorate the relations between landlord and tenant. The great cause of the difference between the state of things in Ireland, and that which prevailed in England, was the want of security. The principles of this Bill were threefold—to enable the tenant for life to improve land and to charge the estate as against his successors, to enable the tenants themselves to improve under certain circumstances, and to charge against the owners; and, lastly, to encourage the granting of leases. All those principles wore most useful. The Bill would not give a fee simple to the tenant, but it would enable him to make a fair bargain with his landlord. At the same time he did not think the Bill was effectual in its machinery, or even in its principle, and unless it was greatly altered it would not work at all. He had spoken to many assistant barristers upon the subject, and they all admitted that they did not consider themselves a proper tribunal for the settlement of such questions. These gentlemen, however, were also unanimous in thinking that if those duties should be imposed upon them their salaries should be increased. With respect to the power of charging the estate by the tenant for life, he thought the terms offered by the Bill might be improved, but still he thought the arrangement was sound in principle. With respect to leasing powers, that pro-
  288
  vision would also be useful; but caution would be necessary in dealing with it, and he thought the powers to be given to the yearly tenant to improve might be more extensive. It was from legislation cautiously and prudently applied that he looked for improvement in the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, not from Utopian schemes which were only fit for the hustings, and which were certain to be rejected.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, the Bill did little or nothing to meet the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had pointed out so clearly in his speech. It only enabled landlords, who had limited interests, to do that which their marriage settlements or other family arrangements now rendered impossible. That, no doubt, was a useful provision, so far as it went; but it conferred no special advantage on the tenant. He hoped, however, that the warnings of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Walsh) would prevent no English Members from voting for a Bill which in Committee might have engrafted upon it clauses of real advantage to the Irish tenants, and which might thus assist in settling a question of vast importance to the welfare of Ireland.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, his objection to the Bill was that it would never become law. He quite appreciated what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen interested on behalf of a section of the peasantry of Ireland, but he denied that the hon. Member for Tipperary (the O'Donoghue) was correct in stating that he represented the sentiments of the people of Ireland generally, because a large class were directly opposed to the opinions of the hon. Gentleman on this very question. No doubt the events which were now passing in Ireland could not fail to make a deep impression on every thoughtful mind, but their causes were not what the hon. Member represented. If a return could be presented of the ejectments from any Irish county he did not believe that any facts would appear to justify the exaggerated picture drawn by the hon. Member, and even in Tipperarary itself he doubted whether there ever were so few ejectments as at the present moment. It was not true, therefore, that the emigration now going on was to be fairly ascribed to the measures pursued by "exterminating landlords." The fact that Irishmen could find £25,000,000 to lay out in the purchase of land, and that the land had fetched so high a price went far to upset the

  289
  visionary statements indulged in by the hon. Gentleman. He agreed that the operation of the Encumbered Estates Act had been unjust in its commencement in consequence of its giving no right of appeal; but this Bill would do still greater injustice. The Secretary for Ireland had declared that his object in bringing forward this measure was to deal with the law of landlord and tenant. But the first part of the measure had nothing to do with that question. The right hon. Gentleman from his residence in Ireland must surely have acquired some of the peculiarities of the country. The title of the first part of the Bill was a misnomer. It had nothing to do with landlord and tenant—the parties to whom it referred were only limited owners. It was also irrelevant, and ought to be expunged. Moreover, if any measure of the kind was to be passed at all, it ought to be applicable alike to England and Ireland. The criminal Bills they had previously discussed that night were designed to consolidate the statute law of both countries. They were also to have a Bill introduced for England, carrying out the principles of the Irish Encumbered Estates Court Act. But in this case the Chief Secretary was proposing to make the difference between the law of the two countries greater than it was already. Professing to be a measure to improve the law of landlord and tenant, this Bill began by dealing with that which had no connection with the subject. It gave certain powers over estates to limited owners. He maintained that to do that was quite unnecessary, because by a series of Acts, commencing with the 13th and 14th Victoria, they had given to limited owners, of a different class and a higher status than those contemplated by this Bill, the power of working out those improvements of the soil which it was the right hon. Gentleman's object to encourage. By an Act passed the other day, facilities had also been afforded for the erection of labourers' dwellings. The second part of this Bill related to leasing power. It aimed at a useful object; but the contrivances by which it sought to accomplish it were such as would never receive the assent of the other House. The noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston), himself an Irish landlord, could never sanction the mode in which the power of making leases was to be given to limited owners. The entire machinery of that part of the Bill would produce continual litigation. The assistant barristers of the different counties could not now decide on the
  290
  price of a poor man's pig without there being an appeal to a Judge of Assize. But under this Bill those learned gentlemen, who might never have had a foot of land, and knew nothing of its value, were to fix the rent under improving leases; and when their sanction was once given to such arrangements it was to be conclusive, both at law and in equity, unless the amount was £100 a year or upwards. That was a most objectionable principle. If a lease was honestly entered into, it should stand. If it was a fraudulent lease, it should be left to the action of the ordinary tribunals to set it aside. The noble Viscount could never have read the third part of the Bill, relating to tenants' improvements. The word tenant was defined as meaning a "tenant from year to year;" and "landlord" as "the person for the time being entitled to the rent payable by the tenant from year to year." The effect of this would be that the middleman of Ireland, who had no interest at all in the land, and the tenant, who had as little, would have the power of making a contract which would have the effect of charging the land with an annuity in respect of any "improvements" they might agree to between them. The Bill he had himself introduced gave leasing powers and the power to make contracts to the person who ought to have them, and established proper limitations, he objected to the Bill introduced by the Government, because the first part of it was irrelevant, the second part was unwise and inexpedient, and the third part allowed two persons who had the least interest in the property to charge it with an annuity. It was a Bill that never could become part of the law of England.
  MR. HENNESSYadverted to what he described as the uncalled-for attack made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) on a previous occasion upon the landlords of Ireland; and observed that he had hoped that the old system of denouncing the landlord class, or any particular class, had been abandoned. He regarded another Bill relating to landlord and tenant which was among the Orders of the Day, and which had been prepared by an Irish landlord, as far better than the present measure; but he trusted that in Committee some practical and useful provisions would be introduced into the Bill of the Government.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would not at that late hour trespass many minutes on the patience of the House; but as representing

  291
  an earnest tenant right constituency, he did not wish the debate to close without appealing to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to consider, before the Bill went into Committee, the representations which had been made to him in favour of making the measure which he had introduced more useful to that class whose just requirements and expectations had so long remained unfulfilled. As the Bill stood, the great mass of the cultivators of the soil would be left in just as bad a condition as before; as any one acquainted with Ireland would agree with him that, judging of the future by the past and present, that the great majority of the landlords would prefer taking chance to come in for the benefit of the tenant's improvements than undertaking to compensate for them; and the consequence would be that, so far as the tenant-at-will was concerned, that the same state of insecurity would prevail—the land would not be properly cultivated, and neither owner or occupier would be benefited. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, appeared to dwell with peculiar satisfaction on the fact of the great increase of fat cattle in the country; but he quite forgot to mention the fearful decrease of human beings in a land capable of supporting twice as many; and he would seriously recommend him to ponder on these lines—
  "Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
  Where bullocks fatten, but men decay."
  It was not a fact that the emigration from Ireland was composed of the labouring population of Ireland. He represented one of the ports that was a great point of departure, and he could positively say that there were quite as much of the farming classes went away as any other, and latterly the vast majority of the exiles consisted of those who constituted the flower, and strength, and hope of every country—persons from fifteen to thirty-five years of age. He did not expect that the House of Commons would grant much to Ireland merely for the sake of justice, and he would not, therefore, appeal to them on the ground of the benefit Ireland would derive from a just settlement of the land question; but he addressed himself to the English and Scotch portion of the House, if they valued the safely and prosperity of the Empire, not to delay, before it came too late, conceding to the Irish peasant what was asked for him. The hon. Member for Tipperary had shown the fearful decrease of population since 1851. According to the usual ratio of population, Ireland ought to
  292
  have increased 2,000,000 since that period; but, instead, it had diminished some hundreds of thousands, and this was not caused by famine or disease, but by the people flying from the country. As Imperialists, he asked them to consider the effect of all this. He was sorry the hon. Member for Birmingham was not in his place that night, as he would tell him a fact that would make him a tenant-righter. It was calculated that each person in Ireland consumed, on an average, three pounds worth a year of British manufacture. Now, with two millions of people gone to a land which did not consume much English goods, there was six millions of money every year out of the pocket of the British trader, for which he might thank the Irish landlords, and the Government which combined with them against their best customers. Then, when war threatened and they wanted men, they could not get them in Ireland, though it was once their best recruiting ground. Even the militia regiments that remained at home could hardly complete half their complements. Take the Waterford Artillery as an example—the pay was good, the employment light, the officers popular—and yet he would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for the County Waterford, who sat opposite, and was one of the most deservedly popular officers in the regiment, whether he ever saw more than 400 men paraded, whilst they ought to have mustered 800 bayonets at least, and such was the case with a great many other corps nearly as distinguished. Every man who left the country carried in his breast a deep feeling of hatred against the Government, whose disregard for the welfare of his country obliged him to exile himself from the land of his birth, which an Irishman loves so well, and the feeling of those who remained behind was just as embittered, and with cause too. They felt it was utterly useless to appeal to the English Parliament to enable them to live by even hard labour on their native soil—and the consequence was that they were looking elsewhere and trusting to other means to obtain that justice which their own Government denied them. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen appeared to doubt that. Then, why did they not trust the Irish people with arms and enrol them as volunteers? Because they knew well that they had disregarded their grievances, and could hardly expect them to fight for the maintenance of a power under which they became every day poorer and less indepen-

  293
  dent. Before he sat down he would tell them another truth, and he addressed it to them as a solemn warning and not in an exulting spirit, because he regretted the deplorable state of things which he depicted, and earnestly wished that there was a cordial union between England and Ireland, founded on mutual interest and the desire to maintain and help each other—they were afraid of a French invasion. ["No, no!"] No doubt they were, or else why all the talking and aiming, and other precautions against it? Well, he could tell them, from his knowledge of Ireland, that if they allowed things to go on as at present, and confirmed the Irish peasant in the belief which he now very strongly entertained, that nothing would be done to secure to him the fruits of his toil, that if a French invading force landed in the country, of even thirty thousand men, that the British flag would not be dying in any part of the island in a fortnight afterwards. ["Hear, hear," and derisive cheers!] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but let them take care that his prediction would not some day be realized; they had it in their power to prevent it; they might by a simple act of justice make Ireland happy, prosperous, and loyal, instead of being as she was a reproach and a cause of dread in the hour of danger; they then had an opportunity of doing a gracious act without the appearance of being coerced into it, and he implored them to avail themselves of it, and they might rely, by so doing, they would benefit every interest in Ireland, strengthen the hands of Government, and add to the strength, security, and greatness of their mighty empire.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that when the House went into Committee on the Bill he should be able to discuss at greater length than at present the various objections which had been raised to the provisions of the measure. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had charged him with having introduced a Bill applicable only to Ireland, which, it seemed, was retrogressive legislation, since all measures ought to be applicable to England, as well as to Ireland. Why, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had himself upon a former occasion brought in a Landed Estates Bill applicable only to Ireland, and at that moment he had two measures before the House which were limited in the same way to the sister kingdom. The right hon. and learned Member said that the first
  294
  part of the Bill relating to landlords was irrelevant:—but the House would not deal with the measure if it dealt exclusively with the tenant; the landlord must be included. He had also stated that the first part of the present Bill—that relating to landlord's improvements, contained a mass of novelties and new ideas which had never been heard of before. Now, the truth was that the clauses thus characterized by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were nothing more nor less than an attempt to give practical effect in Ireland to an Act of the United Kingdom, passed in 1845, enabling landlords to mortgage their estates for the improvement of their land, and to the Montgomery Act, which, as the House had been told, had converted Scotland from a wilderness into a smiling garden. Hitherto, in consequence of the Act of 1845 being worked through the instrumentality of the Court of Chancery there had not been a single application under it in Ireland; and hence his wish to invoke it from a sleep of death and give it life and vitality. In like manner the Settled Estates Act of 1855 was the basis of the second, or leasing, part of the present Bill. That Act also operated through the instrumentality of the Court of Chancery, and consequently was a dead letter, or nearly so, in Ireland. By the third part of the Bill he did not seek to give compulsory or retrospective legislation as against the landlord, but simply established the principle that where a tenant, with the knowledge and approbation of his landlord, had expended his capital or his labour upon the improvement of the road, he should not be liable to be disappointed of his just expectations, but the harvest should return to the bosom of him who sowed the seed. Such a principle he thought could not fail to facilitate and stimulate the improvement of land in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing his obligations to Mr. Sharman Crawford, not only for his valuable labours on behalf of the tenants of Ireland, but also for the candid and friendly spirit in which he had spoken of the present Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed; considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed as amended [Bill 172]; re-committed for Friday.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.