Commons Sitting of 1 March 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC Bins.—1° Representation of the People; Representation of the People (Ireland); Representation of the People (Scotland).

GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
"That Sir Edmund Henry Knowles Lacon, hart., and Sir Henry Josias Stracey, bart., are duly elected Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Great Yarmouth.
"And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House."

MR. JOHN POPE HENNESSY.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received a Telegraphic Message addressed to him by Mr. John Pope Hennessy in Ireland:—Message read, as followeth:—
H. B.
58, Threadneedle Street, March 1, 1860.
John Pope Hennessy, Cork.
The Right Hon. the
Speaker of the
House of Commons,
London.
The Railway Committee had escaped my recol-
2048
lection. I most respectfully apologize to the House. I hasten to London without delay.

DUBLIN CORPORATION WATER BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MAGUIRE MR. MAGUIRE moved the second reading of the Bill. There were 24,000 houses in Dublin, of which only 12,000 were supplied with water. The corporation had decided by a majority of two to one that it was their duty to furnish the people with a better and more wholesome supply of water, an article of which they had stood much in need for a great number of years.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, there was a conflict of opinion in Dublin on this. The corporation had voted in favour of it, and he had received a petition from a number of most respectable firms requesting its postponement. Under these circumstances, he and his colleagues were ready to leave the matter to the decision of the House.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the Bill was a gross job, to which the University of Dublin and many of the most respectable inhabitants were opposed. The Bill proposed to take the water supply from the river Liffey, but the inhabitants of Dublin did not wish to be poisoned. He now understood that the promoters gave up that scheme, and intended to enter into a contract with the canal companies for the supply of water. As the Bill had been framed with the view of taking the supply from the former source, he wished to know from the Chairman of Committees whether it was competent for the promoters to make so essential a change in the Bill. He suggested that the Bill should be postponed till the next Session.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, if the fact was as stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it was so substantial a departure from the provisions that the Bill could not be allowed to proceed further. But as the Bill was one of great public importance, and deeply interesting to the people of Dublin, it would be a hard measure to postpone the scheme till next Session. He ventured, therefore, to suggest that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maguire) should ask leave to withdraw the Bill, and then ask leave to introduce another in which the intention of the promoters would be clearly expressed.
  MR. M'CANN, as a rate-payer of Dublin, supported the Bill, the great object of

  2049
  which was to provide for the poor of that city an abundant supply of good water.
  MR LEFROYurged the withdrawal of the Bill, on the ground of informality.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he did not think the House should reject a measure of such importance on the ground stated. Moreover, he perceived that the Bill gave alternative power to take water either from the Liffey or from the Canal Company. It would be unfair to the Corporation of Dublin to reject their Bill so summarily, and he would therefore suggest that it should be postponed for a week, with a view to its amendment.
  MR. BRIGHTprotested against the hon. Chairman of Committees being called on to express an opinion upon such a subject, a course which looked somewhat like dictatation to the House.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would withdraw his Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill until that day week.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

FOREIGN DUTY ON HERRINGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. MILLERwould beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether (the comparatively moderate rates of Import Duty charged by Belgium, Russia, and Prussia on British Herrings being respectively 1s. 6d., 2s.10 d., and 3s. per Barrel, worth about 25 s., encourage a large trade in that article to the Countries chiefly from the Scotch Fishing Stations, but the French Import Duty being 52 s. 6d. per barrel, or prohibitory) any negotiation has taken place, with the view of obtaining a remission or reduction of such Duty on the part of the French Government; and, if so, whether the Correspondence relating thereto may be ordered to be printed?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, no correspondence on the subject had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government.

RUMOURED AUSTRO-RUSSIAN TREATY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STEUARTsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in consequence of a paragraph he had seen that morning in a late edition of a leading journal. He wished to know, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received any information
  2050
  of the existence of an Austro-Russian Treaty?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I have to state that Count Rechberg, the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Vienna, has positively denied the existence of any such document.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I rise, Sir, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to ask leave to bring in a Bill further to amend the laws relating to the representation of the people in England and Wales. But before I enter into the subject it is necessary for me to make a few remarks. I wish to disclaim entirely any intention, by the measure I ask leave to introduce, to frame a new Constitution. I disclaim such a project for two reasons. One reason is that I have no wish to alter the Constitution of this House; the other is that, if any such alteration were sought, I should feel totally unable to propose anything that would stand in the place of the ancient and glorious Constitution of this country. And I have this further to say, that if I propose a Bill to amend the representation of the people, it is not as a confession that the Reform Act of 1832 has failed; it is rather because that Act has succeeded. I do not think that any Act was ever passed by this House that has had more complete success, or with which so few faults have been found as the measure of 1832. And when I compare the present state of this country with what was its state some years before the Reform Act, I cannot but congratulate this House that by that measure so much discontent has been allayed and so much satisfaction been given. I do not allude to our material wealth, or the great increase that has taken place in our prosperity, because that progress may be attributed to other causes. But it is that the people since 1832 have been more generally satisfied with the institutions under which they live. If I compare the year 1820 with the year 1860 I remember that in the former year Lord Castlereagh had introduced measures which he himself designated as measures of severe repression; they were measures intended to restrain the press, to prevent public meetings in the open air, with other restrictions upon the liberty of the people of the same kind. These restrictions were thought necessary by the Government of that day; and I think that, according to the system

  2051
  of Government then pursued, such measures may be considered necessary. But looking at the state of the country in 1860 I find a generally prevailing spirit of loyalty to our institutions—a spirit that wishes to preserve and extend, not to destroy them. Sir, with this preface I proceed to say what we propose to do, in some degree at least, to supply the omissions and remedy the defects of the Reform Act. In doing so, I shall pass on at once to the questions on which I mean to ask the opinion of the House.
  Sir, there is one point that has more than once attracted the attention of the House, and on which it has clearly pronounced its decision. It is the franchise in counties. During the progress of the Reform Act through this House it was decided that freehold and leasehold tenures should no longer give the sole title to a county vote; but that an occupation, merely, of the annual value of £50 should also confer on the occupier the right of voting. That was an obvious change in the nature of a county franchise. That claim having been sanctioned by Parliament, those who since that time have looked into the subject, with the view of amending the law, have very naturally said, "If an occupation merely is to give a title to a vote, it should no longer be restricted to a £50 holding; the occupier of a £20 or £10 holding is as fully entitled to a vote, and would form as good a class of electors as the occupier of a value of £50." That view of the question has been more than once adopted; in principle it was adopted by the late Government. Therefore, in the Bill I now introduce we propose to add to the county franchise an occupation franchise of £10 a year. But we propose also to take further securities than were taken in the Bill of last year, that this shall be a bonâ fide franchise. It is obvious that under the plan of a £10 holding the land might be covered with small occupations that could not be properly called beneficial holdings. We propose that where land is attached to a dwelling-house no sum shall be required as value in respect of the dwelling-house, but where there shall be on the land any building other than a dwelling-house a sum not less than £5 shall be required as the value on such building. We propose, therefore, that the building not being a dwelling-house should be assessed at the value of not less than £5 per annum We expect, however, that in the case of a dwelling-house the annual value shall be not less than £10.
  2052
  I now proceed, Sir, to the consideration of a question which has occasioned far more disputes, which gave rise last year to warm debate in this House, and with respect to which various opinions were expressed—I mean the question of lowering the borough franchise. It appeared to me, I must confess, that the late Mr. Hume had good reason to complain, some time after the Reform Bill of 1832 had come into operation, that a £10 franchise in boroughs drew too arbitrary a line; that a number of persons were in consequence of the line being so drawn deprived of the light of voting who might fairly enjoy the privilege, and that in that respect an injury was done to our system of Parliamentary representation. The longer the time that has elapsed the more distinctly have I perceived that that complaint was founded in justice. It has been said that the franchise in boroughs was in 1832 purposely framed to exclude the working classes from the right of voting; but to that statement I cannot subscribe, although I am ready to admit that it was framed with the view generally of giving weight to the middle classes in this country, whose information and character appeared to us at that time to be such as to entitle them to obtain that vast accession of power which they then received. I own, however, that I think it would be a great evil if we were to continue much longer to exclude from our representative system that large number of the working classes who, by their knowledge, their character, and their other qualifications, are fitted to exercise the franchise freely and independently. It appears to us, then, that the constitution would derive additional strength from the fact that a certain number of those working men best qualified for the privilege were admitted to the franchise, and that they would thereby be induced to set a greater value on the benefits which the constitution confers. I am aware that it is said there has been no agitation on this subject; that we have seen manifested with respect to it nothing of that eagerness which took possession of all classes of men at the period of the Reform Act, and that we ought not, therefore, until something like a successful agitation is set on foot to proceed to extend the franchise. That, Sir, however, is not the sort of political doctrine which I have been taught. I have, on the contrary, been accustomed to regard the well-known maxim of Mr. Burke with respect to early re-

  2053
  formation as being both deep and wise. I have not failed to perceive that in those instances in which agitation has been carried to a great length, and in which just demands have been refused—as in the case of the Catholic question—the country has been on the eve of having its peace disturbed and brought almost to the brink of insurrection, because Parliament had obstinately refused the concessions that have been asked. The consequence has been that, when those concessions have at length been made, although they were wise and founded on just principles, yet that, coming somewhat too late, and being as it were watered by delay, we have witnessed the land vexed and troubled by agitation arising out of those very measures the object of which was to pacify. I, for one, am, therefore, of opinion that we ought not to wait in the present instance until agitation arises, and those classes which are excluded from the enjoyment of the franchise combine together to enforce their demands upon the consideration of Parliament. On the contrary, I maintain that, if their petition be just, if their claims be founded on a fair appreciation of their own qualifications, and that it would be likely to contribute to the strength and durability of the constitution to accede to their request, we ought not to hesitate to comply because no agitation of the question prevails. I have no wish to see again the flames of Nottingham and of Bristol blaze forth to warn the House of Commons that it must delay no longer to pass a further measure of Parliamentary reform. I much prefer taking advantage of these quiet and tranquil times, when any proposition on the subject can be fairly and calmly discussed, to submit such a measure to Parliament, to deferring its introduction to a moment of greater excitement, when it might be out of our power to fix, as we might deem expedient, the exact limits by which our proposal ought to be defined, and the exact concessions which ought to be made. In dealing with this great question, then, Sir, we have deemed it better, upon the whole, in order to make our measure as simple as possible, to avoid those proposals which we ourselves made in former years, and which were likewise made last year by our predecessors in office—I allude to the introduction into our representative system of franchises hitherto unknown to the constitution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham calls "fancy franchises," and which, although many of them might
  2054
  confer the right of voting on persons well qualified to exercise it, yet are almost every one of them liable to abuse and to result in the creation of fictitious votes. The principle on which we propose to proceed, therefore, is to extend still further the £10 franchise which is now enjoyed; to take that franchise generally with its present conditions; to require the payment of rates, as is now the case; but, at the same time, to extend it to a lower degree than that at which it stands. With that view we have made many inquiries, and carefully considered their results.
  There is, I may here observe, one question which has been frequently discussed, and which formed the foundation of the provisions of the Bills introduced 1852 and 1854,—I allude to the question whether this should be a rating franchise. In examining that subject we found that great variety in the proportions of the rating franchise to the true value of houses existed. We discovered that there were some instances in which there was a difference of 9 per cent between the gross rental and the rated value of a house, while in many instances there was a difference of 28, and in others of 30 per cent. Now it is obvious that it would not be possible in a Reform Bill to make a change based on that mode of valuation; that, in so doing, you would be subject to the discretion of local authorities, and, as a consequence, either through ignorance, custom, or prejudice, in some boroughs many persons would lose their votes, while in others persons possessing the same amount of property would enjoy the franchise. I have stated the practical difficulty which would be involved in making the change; but, there is another objection to its introduction. In striking the poor law rate the rental of a house is calculated according to its true value, subtracting from it, however, not only the rate charged in point of fact, but also the sum necessary for repairs. Now, in taxing property it is quite right to subtract that sum; for, if a house be valued at £10, and £2 are each year laid out for the purposes of repair, it is obvious that the property is not in reality worth more than £8 per annum to the occupier. The question, however, with respect to the meaning of a £10 "clear yearly value"—the phrase used in the Reform Bill of 1832—came before the Court of Common Pleas, and it was then contended that the "clear yearly value" intended by Parliament was the same as was signified by the "net annual

  2055
  value" under the Poor Law Act, and that the Reform Act should, therefore, be construed after that manner. The Court of Common Pleas, however, decided that in the case of the Reform Act the Legislature had proceeded diverso intuitu, and that in that particular case its object was to confer the franchise according to the capacity to pay rent, and not to impose a tax on a man according to the value of his property;—that is to say, that if a man paid £10 a year for his house, it was no matter whether £2 a year were laid out by his landlord for the purposes of repair; that he was the man who paid the £10 a year, and the Legislature declared that the man who paid a rental of £10 a year was entitled to a vote. That being so, we did not think it advisable—indeed, we are of opinion that it would be practically inconvenient, and in point of abstract right unjust, to fix upon a franchise that should be dependent on rating.
  Then, the question next came as to what would be the franchise taking the gross annual rental, or, as it is expressed in the Reform Bill, the "clear yearly value," of the premises. The returns at first showed a very great addition which almost any reduction in the franchise would make to the number of the electors. For instance, reducing it to £8 seemed to add an almost overwhelming number; but, when the question came to be tested and examined, it was found that a very great number of these persons, though holding houses of the value of £8 a year, yet in consequence of living at a distance, of not having paid their rates, and from various other causes, were disabled from having a vote; and that the deductions on these grounds were so large as to amount to 27½ per cent. Now, Sir, having arrived at that conclusion, the next question was to consider what would be the numbers added generally in the whole boroughs in England and Wales by taking any particular sum. It appeared that the whole number of electors on the register was 440,790 in the cities and boroughs. A very considerable number of these 440,790 were freemen, or persons having an old scot and lot right of voting, or in the enjoyment of old rights which are expiring. A deduction ought to be made for the number of freemen and others to the extent of 30,765; the remainder, therefore, only 410,005, may be said to have the right of voting as electors on the register by virtue of the ordinary right of voting—the possesion of a £10
  2056
  qualification. Well, in considering what should be done we found that if we took those who occupied at a gross rental of £9 and over we should get 440,717 electors, being only 30,712 additional voters. If we took those at £8 and over, the number of voters would be 476,004, being an additional number of voters of about 66,000—i. e., 65,999. Sir, it appeared to us, although that is apparently a very considerable lowering of the franchise—namely, not to £8 rated rental, which some persons talk of, but an £8 occupation—that disturbing the arrangements of the Reform Act and introducing a measure which might excite great public expectations, and adding no more than 66,000 to the 440,000 electors now on the register for the cities and boroughs of England and Wales, would not be a satisfactory or a wise proposition. It then became worth while to see what would he the effect of placing the franchise at £7. At £7 and over the total number of voters, subtracting always the 27½ per cent, would be 532,817; giving 122,812 additional voters. Well, but we did not stop at that number. We went down to the £6 rental. We considered what effect would be produced by taking the rental at £6 and over, and we found that the total number of voters for all the cities and boroughs of England and Wales, including the metropolis, and such places as Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, at this franchise would be 604,804, making an addition of 194,199 voters; so that if we add the present number of electors—namely, 440,770—we shall have as the total number of voters for the cities and boroughs in England and Wales 634,969. Sir, it appeared to us that in point of number that was no extravagant amount—that when you have already 440,000, including freemen, to add to them somewhere under 200,000, less than 50 per cent of the present number, was no exorbitant addition. With regard, however, to the character of the persons who would be thus admitted, I must say the accounts from different cities and boroughs have been extremely various. In some places the rental is very low; in others it is high; accordingly, in some places therefore the number of electors added to the present number would be very large, in others very small. In the city of London there would be very few indeed. In Plymouth there would be some 200 or 300. In other places—at Liverpool, for instance—there would be a

  2057
  greater number, perhaps 15,000. But then the question is, what is the character of those who would thus be added to the constituency? I remember asking a gentleman now deceased, Mr. Fletcher, who was inspector under the Poor Law Act, to take the trouble of going through the manufacturing districts and inquiring for me what was the general rent the highest-paid of the working classes gave for their houses; and when he came back he said he thought about £7 a year gross rental, or much about the same sum I have mentioned. Now, it is difficult to lay down any rule or fix any particular amount as regards this class; but I think if we add what I have stated to the present number of electors, we should have a great number of the working classes included; and I think it would be a great benefit to our representation and to our constitution to have this class included; and I repeat, I do not think that would be any very extravagant number to add to the whole body of electors.
  Well, Sir, I come now to another question—a question of a totally different nature, and one on which I think it behoves this House to consider well as to the changes they make now or may hereafter make. When I had the honour, twenty-nine years ago, of introducing a Bill for the Reform of the Representation of the People, the task was so far easy that the general sense of the country condemned places which were mere mounds or ruins, which no persons inhabited, while such places as Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham were allowed no representatives in this House. I remember the last effort I made before the Reform Bill was to endeavour to obtain representatives for these three towns, Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham; and one would scarcely believe, unless he looked back to the proceedings of that day, that a very considerable majority of this House decided against the admission of these great towns to the representation. But when the country once took up the question, the absurdity of the state of things to which I have alluded became evident. There were certain places that continued to have representatives without having the least semblance of population; there were others—among them the great towns which are the chief seats of our staple manufactures—in which Parliamentary representation did not exist. But, Sir, the case at the present day, and the case for future consideration, is a very different
  2058
  one; and I wish to call the attention of this House to what, in my view of this case, are circumstances which must, I think, have the greatest weight in any decision as to what is to be done. There was, more than two centuries ago, before the names of Whig and Tory were ever known, a great dispute between two great parties as to the nature of the functions of the House of Commons. The one party declared and maintained that the persons holding the chief weight in this House should likewise be Ministers of the Crown; that they and those who agreed with them should carry on the business of the House in the name of the Crown, and that thus the connection should he maintained between the Crown and the House of Commons. According to the view of these persons, in the time of Charles I., Mr. Pym was to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would have been called what is now styled leader of this House, and would have conducted, in the name of the Sovereign, the business of the country. But there was another party that said this ought not to be the function of the House of Commons. The function of the House of Commons was to check and control the Crown; let the Ministers of the Crown he disqualified for sitting in the House of Commons, and let their measures be discussed by a perfectly independent House of Commons. That dispute continued till the reign of Queen Anne, when the former party finally prevailed. The only remains of the theory of their opponents is to be found in that provision by which the Members of this House, on accepting offices under the Crown, vacate their seats, but are eligible for re-election. In fact, one of these doctrines expired with Bolingbroke, the other triumphed with Sir Robert Wal-pole; and from that time it has been necessary that this House should not only represent generally the opinion of the people on propositions emanating from the Crown, but it has been necessary that this House should contain within itself persons capable of conducting the business of the country—capable of conducting, as things at present stand, the affairs of a great empire, whether with regard to our colonial dependencies, the affairs of our Exchequer and the taxes to be imposed, or with regard to foreign affairs, representing the Crown, and at the same time having seats in the House of Commons. Now, I very much doubt whether this can be done if you have a representation consisting either of elec-

  2059
  toral districts or divided solely into counties and great towns. With regard to the counties it is obvious that the greater portion of the country gentlemen who represent them would be unwilling to leave their present occupations in the country or to sacrifice their ease in order to undergo the labours of office and the drudgery which in these times office imposes. With respect, again, to the Members for the great cities and great manufacturing towns, we often find that they are gentlemen who are themselves engaged in business, who can indeed give a certain amount of attention to the business of this House and can be present at all it3 principal debates, but who would never be induced to risk their prospects in life that they might attain the precarious position, for six months or a year, of Ministers of the Crown. I hold, therefore, that it is quite necessary, having regard to the great business of government, that besides the counties and the larger cities and manufacturing towns, you should have smaller places returning Members to this House. There is another reason which makes it essential that there should be something of this kind in our representation, and it is this, that you have from time to time seen men of the greatest ability, and fitted to render the greatest service to the country, but who, representing a great popular body, incur the momentary displeasure of their constituents, and are thereby deprived of their seats in Parliament. That, Sir, was what happened to Mr. Burke, because he contended for the great principles of liberty both here and in Ireland, as well as in America. The same was the case in more recent times with a man who was famous in this House and who has lately departed from among us, but who will live for ever in his immortal writings—I mean the late Lord Macaulay. I say, then, that if, according to the system which has now been established for a century and a half, you are to have the government of this country carried on this House, it is necessary that you should have more than these two classes of representatives—the Members for the counties and those for the great cities and towns. Nor has there been any plan of reform proposed of late years which would do away with that kind of representation. The measure brought forward by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) last year made the least change that any one has proposed in this respect; while, perhaps, the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Birming-
  2060
  ham (Mr. Bright) made the greatest. But it is singular enough that my hon. Friend's proposal left us with between forty and fifty Members for towns having from 8,000 to 15,000 inhabitants, and therefore being towns of a moderate size, such as those to which I have referred. I infer from this, then, that however our plans of reform may differ, all those who have taken part in proposing such plans of late years have been of opinion that there should be a certain number of moderate sized towns which should send Members to Parliament, as well as the other larger constituencies that I have mentioned. Having laid down that, Sir, as a general principle, I am far from intending to discuss whether, as an abstract question, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham would be the best—best I mean as an abstract principle—but I wish to deal with this question as one which concerns us practically. For my own part I should be quite satisfied with the proposal which we made in 1854. That proposal was that about sixty seats, or rather more, should be taken from the smaller boroughs and transferred chiefly to the larger counties and some to the large towns. There is another question with which I do not shrink from dealing. It is a question which concerns the present state of this House. When the Reform Bill of 1832 was introduced there were many of those boroughs which, as I have said, contained only a ruined wall or a green mound, and there was no difficulty, when Parliament was once disposed to touch those boroughs, in abolishing their franchises. I remember one hon. Gentleman who, much to his honour, when it was proposed that the borough of Ludgershall should be placed in schedule A, got up and said, "I am the patron of Ludgershall, I am the elector of Ludgershall, I am the Member for Ludgershall, and in all three capacities I vote for the disfranchisement of Ludgershall." But the case at the present time is very different. You have no men who can dispose in that way—even if they were willing to do it—of these small boroughs. If a town has but 250 or 300 voters, these 250 or 300 voters will feel as keenly as the electors of much larger places. They and their representatives would join with those Gentlemen, whatever their numbers might be, who are the most Conservative party in this House, and I have no doubt they would be able to defeat any such measure

  2061
  as I proposed to introduce in 1854. Therefore, without meaning to go into the question, which does not immediately concern us, as to how many small boroughs there ought to be, and how far the growing wealth and population of the country require their seats to be sooner or later transferred to other places, I may state that our proposal goes only a certain length beyond the proposal made last year by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That right hon. Gentleman's proposition was, that fifteen boroughs, now returning two Members each, should henceforth return only one. This I think was to be done by fixing on 6,000 as the limit of population, and taking one Member from each of the boroughs whose population was below that limit. Now we propose to go up to the limit of 7,000 inhabitants, and in the same manner to take away one Member from every borough that falls below that point. It appears to me that it would not be desirable to raise the question of total disfranchisement unless we went to something like the length we proposed to go in 1854. The principle of total disfranchisement is one of very grave importance. It ought not to be adopted without some great and palpable public benefit would accrue from it. I cannot think, therefore, that the abolition of some six, seven, or ten boroughs, leaving eight or ten others of a similar character immediately above them in population, would be a wise or expedient measure. It would evidently create great dissatisfaction among those thus disfranchised, and they would certainly be able to show that other boroughs immediately above thorn were of much the same description. It is a much milder proposition to say that at the bottom of the scale there are a certain number of boroughs which may still continue to be represented, but which are now overweighted in the representation, and some of their seats should be given to the more populous towns and larger counties. We, therefore, propose that those boroughs, whose names I will read, shall no longer send two Members to Parliament. They are:—Honiton, Thetford, Totnes, Harwich, Evesham, Wells, Richmond, Marlborough, Leominster, Lymington, Ludlow, Andover, Knaresborough, Tewkesbury, and Maldon. Thus far, I believe, the list agrees with the list contained in the Bill of last year. We go on; however, to Ripon, Cirencester, Huntingdon, Chippenham, Bodmin, Dorchester, Marlow, Devizes, Hertford, and Guildford.
  2062
  That gives us twenty-five seats, on the whole, which would have to be disposed of by Parliament. Now, we propose that the following counties should return additional Members—namely, the West Riding of Yorkshire two additional Members. All the rest, which I will read, are to return one additional Member—namely, the southern division of Lancashire, the northern division of Lancashire, the county of Middlesex, the western division of Kent, the southern division of Devonshire, the southern division of Staffordshire, the north riding of Yorkshire, the parts of Lindsey (Lincolnshire), the southern division of Essex, the eastern division of Somerset, the western division of Norfolk, the western division of Cornwall, and the northern division of Essex. It will be seen that we do not propose to divide the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the reason is that there is a great repugnance in that vast riding to have its magnificence at all diminished by a partition. There will thus be fifteen seats given to counties, of which, though some are manufacturing, others are essentially agricultural in their character. Coming to boroughs, we propose that Kensington and Chelsea combined shall form one borough to return two Members to Parliament; that Birkenhead, Staleybridge, and Burnley should in future return one Member each; and that Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Leeds should henceforth return three Members each instead of two. The House may remember that upon a former occasion I made a proposition which was not very palatable to the House, and which was certainly not popular in the country—namely, that there should be a division of votes; in other words, that where there were three Members each elector should have only two votes. As that proposition was not very popular, although I think it was a fair and just one, I shall not attempt to renew it upon the present occasion, I have observed that where there are three Members and there is a division of parties, one being the majority but the other comprising a very large number of electors, there is a growing tendency, arising from a sense of fairness and justice, that the minority, though it be the weaker party, shall not be altogether excluded from the representation, but that the third Member shall be given to it. That may not be so in times of great party contests. It did not so occur at the time of the great fight between protection and free trade. For a long time,

  2063
  chiefly because of the questions of protection and free trade in which the agricultural counties felt a deep interest, those counties which now possess three Members generally returned gentlemen all belonging to the same political party—the Conservative; but, on looking at the returns made to the last Parliament, I find that, in five out of the seven counties which enjoy the privilege of electing three Members each, two were of one party and one of the other. I regard it as a great benefit to those counties themselves, as well as to the country at large, that there should exist such a disposition not to exclude altogether a very strong minority, but to allow it to have part of the representation. I know it is said that the vote of the third Member, the representative of a minority, neutralizes the vote of one of the other two. That is not altogether true, because in many instances where the questions at issue are not directly party questions all three Members may, and, we find, often do, vote together, although sitting on different sides of the House. I think, therefore, we shall not do wrong in giving three Members to some of the more populous towns, as we have given three Members to some of the larger counties.
  Sir, I have stated the distribution of seats which we propose to make with respect to counties and boroughs. But there is another seat at our disposal, and we propose to give it to a learned body which contains within it a sort of representation of those who are excluded from the older Universities—I mean the London University.
  Sir, I have already said that we wish to make our measure as simple as possible. We do not propose, in substituting £6 for £10, to change any of the conditions of the franchise except one—namely, that which makes it necessary to pay the assessed taxes. It appears to us that it is sufficient if a householder pays his poor rate, and that it would be a needless restriction to render obligatory the payment of the assessed taxes. The House will also observe that all we propose, with the exception of the twenty-five seats I have mentioned, is in the way of enfranchisement, and enfranchisement with as little novelty as possible. Seeing the objections that have been made and the failures that have occurred in former years, we have sought to confine the attention of Parliament to the question of the franchise, and to such changes as seem absolutely to be
  2064
  required by the number of places which demand and deserve representation, rather than to alter other things which, however objectionable they may be considered, do belong to our ancient customs and our long-established forms of representation. I believe in so doing we are taking the safest and the best course. At all events, we shall enable Parliament to decide upon those questions by themselves, without having its mind disturbed or its time consumed by the discussion of refinements and novelties. Although I have not succeeded in carrying two measures of reform which I have had the honour to introduce of late years, I am by no means discouraged by that fact. For ten years I laboured hard to obtain the assent of Parliament to measures of reform before I introduced the Bill of 1831. I laboured in vain, but that did not prevent the success of the Bill of 1832. I feel sure that if hon. Gentlemen will apply their minds to the present measure, if they will look upon it as a measure bringing, at all events, a considerable portion of the working classes within the temple of the constitution, enabling them to exercise privileges of which they are worthy by their character and acquirements, they will agree with me in thinking that the foundations of the Constitution will be strengthened, and that we shall hereafter rejoice at having passed such a Bill. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales.
  MR. DISRAELI: Will the noble Lord have the goodness to state when he proposes to take the second reading of his Bill?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I am not sure, but certainly not within a fortnight from the present time. I will fix the day tomorrow.
  MR. BRIGHT: May I ask the noble Lord whether he has included the four seats which have been so long vacant in his scheme?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: We hare disposed of all the seats which we propose to take away by the present Bill; and, with respect to the four to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and which have been so long vacant as to be freely at the disposal of Parliament, we think it fair to give them to Scotland and Ireland.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had the honour of a scat in that House when the noble Lord introduced the Re-

  2065
  form Bill of 1831. At that time he felt that there existed a great practical necessity for some change in the representation of the people, and he gave his cordial support to that Bill for the enfranchisement of large towns. He thought it utterly impolitic and unsafe that great towns like Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Leeds, should be unrepresented. But on the present occasion the case was very different. He wished to call the attention of the House for a few moments to a very important question of principle—one on which the House would do well to pause. He had failed to learn from the noble Lord the principle upon which he proposed to seize on half of the rights and privileges of twenty-five towns of this kingdom. The noble Lord had failed to lay down any intelligible principle whatever for this proceeding. It was clear that he might have seized 100 seats as easily as twenty-five. But was it right that the privileges of every town in the kingdom should be placed at the arbitrary will and mercy of the majority of the House of Commons? While a great number of cases in which large places had abused their privileges and which had been brought under the notice of the House and were allowed to pass unpunished, it was now proposed to forfeit one-half the privileges of twenty-five of the smaller towns of England against which no offence had been alleged. The progress of the discussion would show that the noble Lord was creating more anomalies than he was destroying.
  MR. HARDYinquired whether the returns on which the noble Lord had founded his statement with respect to borough voters would be laid on the table, and expressed a hope that plenty of time would be allowed hon. Members for the consideration of the subject.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, some were already on the table, and the others would be laid on the table in a day or two.
  MR. BYNGsaid, as one of the present representatives of the districts which the noble Lord proposed to create into a borough—he meant the districts of Chelsea and Kensington—he could not refrain from thanking the Government for this measure. He wished, however, to ask the Government whether it was intended to continue the county franchise to those who possessed property within boroughs according to the present system; or whether they had adopted the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which took away all county
  2066
  votes for property situate within electoral boroughs.
  MR. VANSITTARTwished to know, whether the noble Lord had it in contemplation to make any alteration in the boundary limits of the present boroughs.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Government did not propose to take the county franchise from the voters referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesex. The question put with respect to the boundaries of boroughs involved an important subject, and raised the ulterior question whether it would be desirable to add to existing boroughs certain other small towns in their neighbourhood. But the Government did not now propose to introduce any provision on the subject.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEwished to ask a question on which considerable interest was felt, and on which important considerations would hinge. He wished to know whether the property which was to confer the franchise in counties was to consist of land and buildings as in boroughs, and in what proportion of each; and whether the property was to be rated in the same manner.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, that though the noble Lord had given an estimate of the addition that would be made by the Bill to the Borough constituency, yet he had not given the slightest estimate as to the probable addition of voters to the county constituency.
  MR. WALPOLEhad understood the noble Lord to intimate that the Returns by which he had computed the number of electors to be added to the boroughs had already been presented or would be laid on the table of the House in the course of that evening or to-morrow. The noble Lord also stated that the payment of rates was to form part of the qualification for boroughs as now; but he wished to know whether the payment of rates must be made by the tenant himself, or whether it might be made by any other person on his behalf? With regard to the general scheme proposed, he thought the House seemed to be of opinion that it would be very desirable to postpone any discussion on the matter until the Bill was laid before it; and the only observation he wished now to make was that, the more he reflected on the subject, the more he was convinced that the old distinction between counties and boroughs ought to be maintained, and he thought that the noble Lord would find, if he wished that property should be fairly

  2067
  represented, that it ought to be maintained to a greater extent than the proposed Bill provided.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he desired to correct what he thought somewhat erroneous views of the past history of reform since the period of the introduction of the measure which the noble Lord had formerly submitted to the House. At the time when the first Reform Bill was brought under the notice of Parliament a franchise of £10 was a real line of demarcation between the working classes and those who were considered the classes above them. A few years after the measure had been passed, the working men of England considered they had been systematically excluded from participating in the representation of the people. Now, the noble Lord had laid before the House a measure which was to enfranchise some 200,000 people in the boroughs and towns of the country; but he had also stated that the working classes in general paid a rent of at least £7. The House knew full well that the population within the towns might be estimated at about 2,000,000 of inhabitants. Was it possible to suppose, that with so large a population as this, if the measure would really enfranchise the respectable working artizans, no more than 200,000 would be added to the register? He believed the solution of the difficulty was this, that a great number of working men occupied not an entire house but a part of a house. He had expected, therefore, that the noble Lord would have told them what were his views with respect to those who occupied only a part of a house within the limits of a borough. Some explanation on the subject was certainly due to the House, and he was anxious it should be given by the noble Lord. He did not desire to express any opinion upon the Bill generally, but he would ask whether it was expedient to pass a very small measure of reform which would only lay the foundation for considerable excitement and great agitation throughout the country, without affording any efficient means for allaying that agitation.
  MAJOR EDWARDSwished to know whether, if this Bill became law, it would be necessary to have recourse to a dissolution of Parliament.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the proposition of the noble Lord would cause great disappointment throughout the country, and complained that there was to be no addition to the Members representing the
  2068
  present Metropolitan boroughs. He contended that the largest of the constituencies to which it was proposed to add one Member was much below any of the metropolitan districts, both in population and property.
  SIR JOHN OGILVYsaid, that the Bill, so far as it related to the re-apportionment of representation, would greatly disappoint the people of Scotland.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the noble Lord had omitted to state what addition would be made to the county constituencies by the measure which he had proposed. He had intimated that the county representation would be increased by a certain number of Members, and that information was necessary in order to complete his statement.
  LORD ROBERT CECILinquired, whether, as in the old Reform Bill, there was anything in the present measure respecting polling places.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there was no provision in the Bill respecting polling places. He did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) did not understand the £10 county franchise. Where the occupation consisted jointly of land and buildings, the noble Lord said that the qualification for counties would be of the same character as that for boroughs, namely, a house or building, held separately or jointly with land. If the building were a dwelling-house no question of value would be raised; but if it were not, and were some building other than a dwelling-house, then it was provided that the building should be of a value equal to half of the qualification—that was to say, it would be required that where the building was not a dwelling-house it should be of the clear yearly value of £5. That proposition, he need not say, was intended to prevent a few boards being run up to meet the requirements of the Act in order to create fictitious votes; but in the case of a dwelling-house no such provision would be required. In reply to the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) he had to state that they could not give the same accurate information as to the increase of votes in counties under the Bill as the noble Lord had done with respect to boroughs, and the difficulty arose principally from the circumstance to which he had just referred. They had obtained accurate information with regard to the number of occupiers of a certain amount of rental in boroughs, and they could do the same in respect of counties;

  2069
  but it was not enough to show the number of persons holding occupations between £10 and £50 in counties. Though that would show the maximum number to be added under any circumstances, it would not show the deduction—and it would probably be a large one—which would have to be made as regarded those qualifications where the occupation consisted partly of land and partly building, and where the building was to be of a certain value. The rate books did not supply that- particular information. Returns already on the table showed the number of persons occupying under the different classes, and further information would be laid before the House on the subject.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBE: Having had the honour of a seat in the Parliament which passed the last Reform Bill, and having heard the noble Lord propose that Bill, I cannot help contrasting his gallant spirit on that occasion with his very subdued tone this evening. I congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite, because no violence can possibly be done to their feelings by the small measure now proposed. When the old Reform Bill was introduced I remember a highly respectable metropolitan banker rising in his place behind the noble Lord and saying that the scheme actually took away his breath. Nobody's breath has been taken away by the present proposal, though some of us seem to be deprived of our powers of speech. We hear none of the Reformers from Birmingham and elsewhere coming forward with the schemes about which they have been agitating the country, and which certainly go far beyond that of the noble Lord. Twenty-eight years have elapsed since the passing of the Reform Bill, and when the noble Lord abandoned the doctrine of finality to which he so obstinately clung, I think we had reason to expect that a real change—a real extension of the franchise—which would have conferred electoral privileges on the working classes generally. What has happened within the last few years? In 1852 the noble Lord brought in a bad Bill, to which nobody listened. In 1854 he brought in another Bill, which was ten times better than the one he has just submitted. The noble Lord, therefore, is not so good a Reformer now, as he was six years ago. The Bill of 1854 proposed wholly to disfranchise 19 rotten and nomination boroughs, and it also took one Member from 33 other boroughs. We have now a mild measure, by which one
  2070
  Member is taken from 25 boroughs, and not a single word is said about disfranchisement. Calne and other pocket boroughs are not included in the scheme, and yet formerly the noble Lord's princiciples were that as long as nomination boroughs existed the seeds of a further and a necessary reform would remain sown. Will not nomination boroughs be left after the passing of this Bill? Of course they will, and the noble Lord's object must therefore be to have the question of Reform mooted every Session in this House. We want a lodger franchise. It is totally impossible that a Bill which adds only 200,000 voters to the borough constituencies can satisfy the working classes of this country. What was the promise—I will say the compact—made with these men in 1831–2? They were disappointed then because they were excluded from the franchise; and they were told, "Keep quiet; your time will come, and we shall then give votes to the working classes." Depending on this promise, they rallied round the Reformers of 1831–2 for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," and have been waiting patiently ever since for something to be done in their behalf. But what will this Bill do for them? I remember that Lord Althorp, who was then the leader of this House, being present at a dinner given by Sir Frances Burdett on the introduction of the Reform Bill, said, "To tell you the truth, I think this Bill but a very poor concern; and the only thing which makes me regard it more favourably is that when the Bill was settled by the Cabinet we sent a copy of it to Lord John Russell and Mr. Stanley"(now Lord Derby), who were not then Members of the Cabinet. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Nothing of the kind.] Does the noble Lord mean to say he was a Member of the Cabinet? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Ellice) was not there, and if so he will remember the circumstance. "The only thing," added Lord Althorp, "which gives me hopes of the Bill is, that when Stanley saw it he wrote to me and said, What a pretty kick-up you are going to make in the country!'" And when he heard that, Lord Althorp did think something of the Bill. Mr. Stanley was quite right; there was a pretty kick-up. The Bill was passed under great pressure. We had 100,000 men threatening us from Birmingham; there was a run upon the Bank for gold; there were fires in different parts of the

  2071
  country; a black flag was hoisted from the steeples of the Glasgow churches; and, amid these scenes, the measure was carried. There will be no such kick-up in favour of the present Bill, I'm sure. Then, I should like to know whether the Government intend this Bill to be a "finality" measure, or whether they mean it shall be amended from year to year? There is certainly one great blemish in it. Not one word has been said by the noble Lord about registration. One great complaint now is the difficulty of registration. We want more frequent registration. The noble Lord said the payment of poor-rates is to be the condition of registration, but I say that the payment of no rate or tax ought to be a condition of the enjoyment of the franchise. Why, at present it sometimes takes two years before a man can get in the register; and I say we ought to have a registration every quarter. As to the proposed redistribution of seats it is impossible to call that anything like a reform Bill. Another blemish in this scheme is, that no notice is taken of lodgers. There are men paying £10 or £15 a year rent, but living in lodgings; they have, and are to have, no vote; those men are respectable mechanics, and educated men, who are quite fit for the franchise. The fact is that in the metropolis and in large cities and towns you cannot find such a thing as a £6 house. A house of £20 or £30 is occupied by two or three families, and the head of each of them is entitled to have the franchise. If you do not give it to them, they will be discontented, and agitation will go on from year to year. What the decision of Parliament will be as to this measure I cannot say, but I am sure, whether it be its adoption or rejection, it will be a matter of perfect indifference to the great body of the people.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he had supported, in common with his hon. Friend who had just addressed the House, all the provisions of the Reform Bill of 1832; but in following his hon. Friend upon the present occasion he felt bound to express his belief that the measure which the noble Lord had just brought under their consideration would be hailed by the people of England as one of a very beneficial character. The £6 franchise would bring within the limits of our electoral system a large number of industrious people, who would, he felt convinced, use their new right justly. He wished to repeat a question which had been already put by an hon. Gentleman oppo-
  2072
  site, and that was whether the measure was to lead to an immediate dissolution of Parliament.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYalso wished to repeat a question which had been put by another Member—namely, what was the number of persons who were likely to be added to the county constituency under the £10 franchise?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had to state, in reply to a question which had been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, that the Government did not propose any alteration in the existing law with regard to the payment of the poor rate. The tenant would be obliged to pay the poor-rate as at present, and he would have the same facilities of having himself put on the rate-book which he now enjoyed. With regard to another question which had been put by two hon. Members, he had to state that he did not think he would be justified in attempting to define what would be the number of £10 voters in counties. From a return which he held in his hand it appeared that the number of persons in England, rated at between £10 and £50 was 381,000, and that the number of persons in England and Wales so rated was 415,000; but that return included many people who were freeholders rated at £10, and others; and therefore it afforded no accurate test of the number of electors. He had also been asked whether it would be necessary that the passing of that Bill should be immediately followed by a dissolution of Parliament; and in reply to that question he had to state that what the Bill proposed was, that at the November registration the claim to the franchise should be made, and, of course, when the November registration was completed it would be competent to the Crown to dissolve Parliament and to summon a new one at any time that might be thought necessary or convenient.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, that in consequence of what had just fallen from the noble Lord, he wished to know whether any change was intended in respect of the Compound Householders Act passed a few years since? That Act gave the franchise to the tenant whose landlord paid the rates, and he wished to know whether it would be applicable to those who would be enfranchised under this Bill.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: We propose to make no change in relation to this matter.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, that in municipal boroughs where the landlord paid the rate, the tenant was entitled to vote. He hoped there would be no change, for a departure from the present arrangement in that respect would falsify all the promises of the present measure as far as the working classes were concerned.
  MR. ROEBUCKwished to direct the attention of the noble Lord to one point in which he (Mr. Roebuck) must confess that he felt a special interest. Among the towns to which the noble Lord would give an additional representative Leeds was included, while Sheffield was excluded from the list. But if the noble Lord would look to the returns upon the subject he would grant that Sheffield at present possessed a larger constituency than Leeds.
  MR. CONINGHAMwould not now enter into the details of the Bill, but he could not view without alarm one of its characteristics, which seemed to be the transference of borough Members to the counties. He doubted whether the liberal party had anything to gain by such a transfer. Looking at the enormous expense of a county election, and the class of persons returned from counties, he doubted whether the representation that would result would be more in consonance with the feelings of the liberal side of the House than at present.
  Leave given.
  Bill further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Viscount PALMERSION, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir GEOROE LEWIS.
  Bill presented and read 1°.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. CARDWELLrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill further to amend the laws relating to the Representation of the People of Ireland, and said: Sir, in moving for leave to introduce the proposals of the Government with respect to Ireland, I shall not enter into any topic which would be likely to give rise to any protracted discussion, and I shall content myself with stating as briefly and as clearly as I can the effect which the change in the existing: laws I have to announce on the part of the Government would be likely to have on the constituencies of Ireland; and I shall leave all questions of argument to be dealt with on a future occasion. We propose to adopt
  2074
  the same general rules for the amendment of the representation of the people in that country which my noble Friend has laid down for the attainment of the same object in England; but the House will easily understand that, as the law which regulates the qualification of electors in Ireland is framed on a different model from that which has been adopted in Great Britain, the two schemes must necessarily vary in some of their details. An Act was passed for Ireland in the year 1850, on the subject of the Parliamentary Franchise, which has put an end to many controversies of long standing, and has, I believe, given general satisfaction in its working. Ireland also enjoys the benefit of one uniform, clear, and intelligible system of valuation, which is now rapidly approaching completion, and that valuation we propose shall form the test of the qualification under the new Irish Reform Bill. Ireland has in this respect a great advantage over England which has no such uniform system of valuation. What we propose to do in Ireland is this:—We propose that the present £12 qualification for a vote in the counties in Ireland shall be reduced to £10, and that the £8 Irish borough qualification shall be reduced to £6. The House will naturally be desirous to know what effect that change will produce on those two classes of constituencies. According to the returns of the last registration—returns which will be immediately laid before the House—the county returns in Ireland give a collective constituency of 174,000; and if we add to that number all those persons who are rated at from £10 to £12 the total addition to the county constituency would be 40,126. But if you apply to that list the correction which I believe is right and necessary, and if you make a due allowance for females, minors, double occupations, and absences, the total increase under the proposed change may be calculated at 30,000; making on the whole a county constituency of 204,000. The borough voters at present amount to 30,700, and the addition which the proposed change would make to that number would, at first sight, appear to be 7557; but, making a correction corresponding with that which I have made for the counties, the real addition would amount to only 6655. The total number of the constituent body at present in the counties and boroughs of Ireland is 204,000 and the Bill would raise that number to about 240,000. That is the way in which the franchises of £10 and £6

  2075
  will operate in extending the county and borough constituencies in Ireland. I now come to a change, perhaps of no great magnitude, which we propose to make with respect to the qualification of freemen in Ireland. At the time of the Reform Bill a different qualification with regard to freemen was adopted in England and Ireland. But we propose that for the future, in the case of freemen qualifying after the passing of this Bill, the English law upon that subject shall operate in Ireland. I will now proceed to state the changes which we intend to introduce in the distribution of the Irish representation. Ireland is a country the population of which is not generally located in large towns; its inhabitants do not, as a general rule, congregate in large towns to anything like the same extent as the people of England and of Scotland. At present 32 Irish counties have 64 seats in this House; 33 Irish boroughs have 39 seats; and I Irish university has two seats—making a total of 105 seats. There is not a single borough in Ireland to which the principle of partial disfranchisement will apply under the rule which it is proposed to adopt in England, that no town with a population of less than 7,000 should return two Members. No town in Ireland returning that number of Members has a population much short of 30,000. Wexford, which is the smallest town on the list, has a population, according to the last census, of 29,000. We cannot, therefore, obtain an additional seat in Ireland for populous places by applying to that country the rule we have adopted with respect to England. Neither, on the other hand, do we find in Ireland unrepresented towns of the size of Birkenhead, Staley bridge, and other English towns, which at present return no Members to Parliament. But there are two constituencies in Ireland—one a county and the other a city constituency—which in population, in the value of their property, and in the number of their electors, stand entirely apart from all the other counties and boroughs in that kingdom. These are the constituencies of the great county of Cork, and of the city of Dublin, and we propose that henceforward the county of Cork and the city of Dublin shall each have three Members, the two new seats thus assigned being taken out of the four formerly belonging to boroughs in England, whose right to return Members has recently been abolished by Act of Parliament. The claim of the Queen's University to return a represent-
  2076
  ative naturally arose for consideration when the claim of the London University to such a privilege was allowed; and I should be extremely glad if it had been in my power to ask the House to express its approbation of the Queen's University in Ireland by assigning to it a Representative in this House. I hope the day may come, and that many years will not elapse before it does come, when Parliament will think it right to grant to the Queen's University in Ireland the privilege of returning a Representative to this House. But at present, looking at the small number of years during which that University has been established, and—what is the governing consideration in such a matter—the number of its members, and the probable weight of opinion which its representative would bring with him into this House, I am afraid it would not be considered right that we should make any such proposal as yet. The total number of the graduates now amounts to only 260, some of whom are not residing in Ireland; and, under those circumstances, I think it would be impossible at the present moment that we should seek to give the right of representation to the Queen's University. There is another subject connected with Ireland on which we propose to legislate upon the present occasion. I had the honour of presenting this evening a petition signed by a large proportion of the Peers of Ireland, who complain of the anomalous condition in which they stand under that clause of the Act of Union which defines their legal and constitutional status. They ask why, if it is thought right that it should be open to them to represent constituencies in Great Britain, with whom it cannot be expected they should have any great community of sympathy or interest, they should be prevented by express enactment, from representing their Friends and neighbours with whom their interests are specially associated, and whose confidence they are most likely to enjoy? We propose to remove that disqualification. We propose that they shall be enabled to stand towards their friends and neighbours, the constituencies of Ireland, in that relation in which they now stand to the constituencies of England. With regard to matters of a purely administrative character—such as the time occupied in county elections, the number of polling places, and all arrangements for diminishing the expense or the excitement of contested elections—the House is aware that those subjects are regulated by a

  2077
  special Act of Parliament, and not by that which determines the qualifications of electors; and I do not, therefore, mean to deal with them in this measure. What we now propose with regard to Ireland is shortly this: to make the county franchise in that country a £10 franchise, to make the borough franchise a £6 franchise, to give an additional Representative to the great county of Cork, and another to the city of Dublin, out of the seats which have been suppressed in England, and to remove the disqualification which at present renders Irish Peers ineligible as the representatives of Irish constituencies. I trust that by such a measure we shall give satisfaction to the people of Ireland and increase the value and the efficiency of the representation of the people in that part of the United Kingdom.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was not disposed to complain either of the general provisions of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, or of the manner in which he had brought it under the consideration of the House. All he doubted was that there was the necessity for the introduction of any such measure at all. This would be the fifth Reform Bill they had had for Ire land. When the Union was carried 200 seats were abolished and some boroughs bought up. In 1827, Sir Robert Peel thought it right to change the whole country franchise into a £10 freehold franchise. They then had the Reform Bill of 1832, and then the Bill proposed by the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman, which gave a £12 occupation franchise for counties and £8 for boroughs. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had given no reason why that law should be changed now. One thing, he thought, had escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The county of Cork was divided; there was a west and an east riding each of which had a separate electoral system. He thought the right hon. Member fell into an error in giving a third Member for the whole county, and he supposed that he meant to give the additional Member to the west riding.
  MR. COGANwanted to know, whether, by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, there was to be any disfranchisement of freemen in Ireland? He was certainly surprised at one part of the project—which on the first blush he regarded with some apprehension—namely, the admission of Irish Peers to that House as representatives of Irish constituencies. That class
  2078
  of the community had already the right of sending representatives to the other House of Parliament, and he believed the proposition to which he had referred would have the effect of increasing a power which at present certainly operated very much to the prejudice of the popular party, and in favour of the great territorial proprietors. He wished to ask a question as to the probable time when the Bill would come into operation. There would be a registry of voters under the Bill, and he presumed it would be effected at the time mentioned by the noble Lord with reference to England—probably about the month of November. What he wanted to know was, how long the voter would require to be on the roll before he could exercise the franchise—six months or a longer period?
  MR. DAWSONwished to know whether the qualification was to he a rating or an occupation one?
  MR. VANCEwished to contradict in the most unqualified terms the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the freeman franchise had a most injurious effect upon the representation of Ireland. He was perfectly sure that the protestant freemen of Dublin, and he might say of Cork also, had always exercised the franchise for the benefit of their country. No case of corruption had been made out against them for the last three-quarters of a century. He regretted, as well as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside), that the light hon. Gentleman should have been advised to make any change in the Irish franchise after the number of Reform Bills that they had already had for that country, and he did not despair of inducing him, after discussion, to retrace his steps. He (Mr.Vance) did not clearly apprehend what was the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's plan with regard to freemen. It was evident that he did not intend to disfranchise them, because he said that he intended to put them on the same footing as freemen in England. Now he believed that the freemen of Ireland acquired their franchise in precisely the same manner as those of England.
  MR. SCULLY, following the example of the hon. Member for Middlesex, begged to return thanks for the additional Member proposed to be given to Cork, of which he (Mr. Scully) was now sole representative. He returned thanks, however, for the county and not for himself, because the additional seat would only increase his chances

  2079
  of having a contest at future elections. He agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that it was quite unjust to retain the modern principle which rendered it necessary for every voter to pay his poor rate before he could be placed upon the register. He had frequently argued the point with persons who began by holding the opposite view, but they had always ended by admitting that the law was untenable. He occupied a house in Dublin for which he had to pay a consolidated rate amounting to about £36, but of that only £6 was for the poor; and why should he be obliged to pay that any more than the other rates as a condition precedent to being registered as a voter? This was a very important point, and he therefore wished to direct attention to it before any final resolution was come to on the subject, either with regard to this or to the English Bill. The late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Justice Fitz-Gerald) had occupied a house in Dublin for four years; but at the last revision it was found (hat his predecessor owed 3s. or 4s. of his poor rates, which had not until lately been discovered; and the result had been that the learned Judge was for the present year disqualified. At the last Sligo revision it had been found that a collector, who happened to be a politician, had neglected to apply for the last rate to persons of the opposite party, while he had actually entered as paid persons on his own side who had not paid for several weeks after the date alleged. A gentleman had likewise told him (Mr. Scully) that out of forty persons on his estate who ought to he voters only four or five actually enjoyed the franchise, and they were all on one side; the custom being to strike a poorrate just before the time came round for revising the list. Such were a few instances illustrating the working of the present law, and he trusted that they would meet with the serious attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. M'EVOYshould not have risen to prolong the discussion had it not been for the strong feeling which he entertained against the right hon. Gentleman's proposition with regard to Irish Peers, a proposition which would render more necessary than ever some means for protecting voters in the exercise of their privilege. It could hardly fail to increase the pressure upon the tenants of the large landed estates which belonged to many of the Irish Peers. The tenant voters had not, at present, free action at elections. Their
  2080
  number was to be increased, and without the ballot the evils they complained of would be increased also. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance) had spoken of the freemen as an immaculate body; but he was authorised to say that within a quarter of a century 1,500 freemen of the city of Dublin had been bought at a particular election for the sum of £3 ahead, so that £4,500 was paid for their votes at that election, and he might state that the Gentleman who had the misfortune to pay the money was now in that House.
  MR. BLACKsaid, that as hon. Gentlemen from the sister country seem to object to have two additional seats which had formerly belonged to England given to Ireland, he should be happy to accept them for Scotland, which he was afraid was not going to get quite her fair share of the representation.
  MR. LONGFIELDstrongly objected to that part of the Bill which empowered Irish Peers to represent Irish constituencies. The Irish people had not asked for such a thing; and he maintained that it was not only a most improper proposal, but contrary to the Treaty of Union.
  COLONEL GREVILLEquite agreed that the proposition to which the hon. Member who had spoken last had alluded, was a most extraordinary one to find its way into a Bill to amend the Representation of the People. He wished, also, to point out that the assumed uniformity between the qualification for the franchise in Ireland and England was more specious than real, owing to the difference in the letting of property.
  LORD ROBERT CECILasked the reason why two seats had been filched from England to be bestowed on Ireland? Was it that Ireland was more populous and wealthy, or because Irish Members were so much more useful in the House than English Members? The claim advanced by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) for an additional Member for that town, had not been answered; and until the claim of that and other large towns in England had been satisfied, the Government had no right to dispose of the four vacant seats in other ways.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that the proposition with regard to the Irish Peers struck him as most extraordinary, and he believed it would give great dissatisfaction in Ireland. An Irish Peer was neither fish nor flesh in his own country; but to give him the power of representing the people when

  2081
  he was represented himself in the House of Peers, was a most absurd proposition, and one which he imagined would not be accepted in that House. He agreed with his hon. Friend near him, that the proposed franchise for Ireland would not establish anything like nominal uniformity between the two countries. The people in Ireland lived so much lower than in England, that the class which in England was rated at £6, would probably not be rated at more than £4 in Ireland.
  MR. MAGUIREcordially joined in the opposition to the proposal with regard to Irish Peers. The reason of that proposal was hard to guess at, though he had some dim notion of it. He had seen visions of Gentlemen called Irish Peers, who had failed, with all their Irish persuasiveness, to secure the confidence of English constituencies, dismally haunting the precincts of the House like ghosts. It was in obedience to the application of gentlemen of this kind, not to the demands of the nation, that the right hon. Gentleman was ready to interfere with the solemn compact made by the Act of Union. If the right hon. Gentleman was so ready to meddle with the Act of Union, he would point out to him a way in which he could provide for these gentlemen. Why did he not send them to what was called, in the cant phrase of the House, "another place"?—to use an argument applied sometimes in favour of purgatory, they "might go further and fare worse." According to the British Constitution Peers had no right to interfere in elections, and he hoped the Government would not proceed with this monstrous and revolutionary proposal. With regard to the county franchise, there was no substantial equality between a £10 franchise in England and a £10 franchise in Ireland. It ought to be reduced in Ireland to £8 or £7 to bring about a complete uniformity. It was unjust to complain of two additional Members being given to Ireland; for even that addition would not do them justice. 105 Members was not a fair proportion for Ireland, taking into account the relative population and wealth of England and Ireland.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that on the mere introduction of the Bill it was not his intention to enter upon a discussion of the proposition for enabling Irish Peers to sit for Irish counties or boroughs, which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) described as a revolutionary measure. But he wished to explain to the
  2082
  House the reasons why the Government made that proposition, leaving the House to judge whether these reasons were not sufficient, and whether the Conservative susceptibilities of the hon. Member for Dungarvan were not prematurely awakened. The Act of Union in the 4th Article contained a provision which declared that any person holding a Peerage in Ireland should not be disqualified from representing any county, city, or borough in Great Britain; but that as long as he so continued a Member of the House of Commons he should not be entitled to the privilege of peerage nor to serve as a Representative Peer for Ireland, nor to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland. Such were the securities which the Act of Union provided against the privilege of the peerage being abused in the case of Irish Peers having seats in that House for English or Scotch counties or boroughs. That House was led for many years by the son of an Irish Peer (Lord Castlereagh) who sat for the county of Down. After the death of his father he succeeded to the Irish peerage, and thus became ineligible to sit for an Irish county; but he sat for an English borough. That was a remarkable instance of an Irish Peer possessing the right to sit and vote in the English House of Commons. During the time he so sat there, neither he nor any other Irish Peer, in a similar position, was entitled to sit as a Representative Peer, nor to vote at their election. The objection therefore as to a confusion of rights was not well founded. By the provision which they proposed to introduce, the Government were merely extending the rule, which now existed with respect to England and Scotland, to Ireland. They deprived no person of his rights. All they did was to say that the disqualification which now attached to Irish voters, of not being allowed, if they thought fit, to elect an Irish Peer as their representative, should be abolished. That was in fact the whole extent of the proposal.
  COLONEL DICKSONthought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had misunderstood the objection which was raised. It was not that an Irish Peer, by being elected to represent an Irish constituency, would in his own person be twice represented, but that a double representation would be thus given to the body of which he was a Member. He regarded this clause of the Bill as having a most mischievous tendency.

  2083
  He had never been opposed to any rational measure of reform, but it seemed to him that the present proposal amounted merely to a reduced, and not a discriminating franchise. There were other classes with qualifications higher than mere property who might be admitted with advantage. A. complaint was often made in Ireland that territorial influence was unduly exercised over the lower orders, and without discussing the justice of that complaint it was evident that the interference of the Irish nobility in elections must greatly tend to increase the power of the landlords.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, there was one objection which applied to both the Bills which had been proposed,—namely, the provision which made the exercise of the right of voting dependent on the payment of rates. He thought that every man who was rated should be entitled to exercise the franchise. Numbers of persons were now disfranchised simply because they happened to be out of town when the rates were payable. Too much power was now placed in the hands of the collectors.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, several Members had mentioned the proposal to reduce the Irish franchise for counties from £12 to £10. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed that any portion of the new Irish franchise should have reference to houses or tenements.
  MR. CARDWELL:—In reply to the question of my hon. Friend I will state that the reduced franchise, as proposed by this Bill, will follow and be based upon that excellent statute which was introduced by my right hon. Friend himself. With regard to the freemen, as to whom I was also interrogated, the law in England limits the power of taking up their freedom to those who have acquired it by birth or servitude. The Irish law includes another element. We propose to limit that franchise to the two conditions imposed by the English Act, and to make it in all respects the same as in England. With regard to the date at which this registration will come into effect, my earnest hope and expectation is that it will receive the Royal Assent in sufficient time to come into operation before the period at which the revision of the voters' lists is made. On that point I shall make exactly the same answer that was given to my noble Friend with regard to the English Bill, I proceed to state the grounds on which the
  2084
  addition has been made to the number of Irish representatives. We found that Cork county, according to the last census, contained a population of 563,000, and by the income tax returns was valued at £834,000, the number of electors on the last registry being 15,895. On comparing these figures with the English counties to which a third Member has been given, I think my noble Friend will find that there was ample reason for adding a third representative to the county of Cork. The city of Dublin contains a population of 254,000, the income tax valuation is £989,000, and the body of registered electors is in number 10,660. If my noble Friend will compare the case of Dublin with that of Birmingham, he will see the reason why a third Member has been given to Dublin. The hon. Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. Maguire) complained that we had not added more largely to the number of representatives for Ireland; and the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) complained that I had withdrawn these two Members from England. One of these objections, I think, affords some facility in answering the other. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the speech of Lord Castlereagh in introducing the Act of Union into the Irish Parliament, he will find that the proposition was based on a comparison of the population and the returns of the revenue for the two kingdoms; and, if he will take into account the relative condition of the countries in the present day, I think he will be satisfied that in our proposals we have endeavoured to do justice to Ireland. As regards the objections taken with respect to the Irish Peers, we shall have an opportunity of discussing that question when the Bill is considered on its merits; I will only say that the proposal was made solely on public grounds and from a desire to remove what is at present an anomaly, and to place this matter on a more natural and reasonable footing. I can understand the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Dickson), that the Members of the Irish peerage should be represented only in the House of Lords. Extremely consoling this must be to the minority, not one of whom has his representative in the House of Peers, but if that argument be carried to its legitimate conclusion it would apply with equal force against their being allowed to sit for English or Scotch as for Irish constituencies. The intention of the proposal which I have the honour to submit

  2085
  is simply to enable the Irish electors to exercise their free choice in the selection of representatives, without being subject to any statutory disqualification. All I now request is permission to introduce the Bill.
  Leave given.
  Bill further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CARDWELL, Viscount PALMERSTON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Sir GEORGE LEWIS.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE:—Sir, in rising to ask permission to introduce a Bill further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation in Parliament of the people of Scotland, I think I had better commence by relieving the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) with regard to the manner in which the two remaining seats are to be disposed of. Those two seats, he will be glad to hear, are to be given to Scotland; and I dare say he will agree with me that one of them could not be better disposed of than by bestowing it on the great and flourishing commercial community of Glasgow. The other Member, it is proposed, shall be given to the Universities of Scotland in the aggregate, to be elected by the four Universities; and I hope the House will entertain the opinion that we have well and justly, and, I trust it may prove in the end, beneficially disposed of the two seats which were within our control. With regard to the general provisions of the measure, they are as identical as circumstances permit with those proposed for England. The Bill proposes an occupation franchise of £10 in counties, and of £6 in boroughs. It proposes also to simplify the system of registration in Scotland. We are in the same fortunate position as Ireland in possessing a complete system of valuation, made up year by year, which shows the number of proprietors, tenants, and occupiers, and the value of all the property in the kingdom. We made an experiment in this direction some years ago, but we now propose to carry it a great deal further. We propose to make the Valuation Rolls the register of the proprietors, occupiers, and the qualifications as the basis of the franchise, dispense altogether with the re-
  2086
  gistration machinery of the Reform Bill, which in practice has been found exceedingly cumbrous. The Valuation Rolls will be the register, and we propose to do away altogether with the Registration Court. All the business of the Registry will be done by the assessors of counties and boroughs, with an appeal from them to the Court that meets in the month of October, and which, as far as the registration cases are concerned, will have very little to do, as every possible objection will be limited to a very few elements indeed. In Scotland the property franchise in counties has been £10 in freehold, or £50 for lands held on long lease. Some efforts have been made to introduce into Scotland the 40 s. freeholds of England; but, on consideration, we have not thought it desirable to do so. In counties we propose to reduce the freehold franchise from £10 to £5, but that £5 must be without any deductions. It is desirable, to prevent the possibility of the franchise being abused, to provide that the value of the holding shall in no case be reduced by the burdens on it below £4. The great danger of the property franchise in Scotland is the creation of fictitious votes. Even the £10 franchise has been largely used for that purpose, and if it is reduced to £5 the facilities for this abuse will be still greater. It is, therefore, proposed that residence shall be enforced to give a right to the franchise, for all freeholds below £10 value. The valuation roll being the basis of the franchise, it will necessarily be a substantial one; and, having with it a clause compelling residence, it will, I hope, effectually prevent the manufacture of votes, for which purpose the small and widely scattered population of parts of Scotland gave greater facilities than existed in the populous counties of England. I do not know that there are any further observations that I need make to the House; and I now move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that great injustice was done to Scotland in the number of Members given to it. Scotland was entitled, on the fair basis of taxation and population combined, to nineteen additional Members; yet all the Government proposed was to give it two—one to the commercial city of Glasgow, the other to the four Universities. Other large cities, like Aberdeen and Dundee, and populous counties like Ayr and Lanark, were entitled on the basis of the English Bill to additional representatives; and he could not understand

  2087
  why, if Dublin was to have an additional representative, Edinburgh should be left out. He felt so strongly on the subject that in the event of the House agreeing to the second reading of the English Bill, he should move an instruction to the Committee to disfranchise at least four or five more English seats, in order to take some steps towards doing justice to Scotland.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, considering these three Bills as one measure, had one objection to make to it as a whole. It appeared to him that the principle on which the Government had proceeded was that of promoting uniformity in the franchise of the three kingdoms. Now, the Irish franchise would continue as hitherto, founded on rating. They had just heard from the Lord Advocate that the Scottish franchise would be founded on the valuation rolls, which was tantamount to a rating franchise—it was, in fact, as nearly as circumstances would admit, a rating franchise. He was sorry that the Government had determined on making the English franchise an exception to this rule of uniformity. He had long felt that the rating franchise, though not in the Bill of last year, would greatly simplify the franchise; and he hoped the Government would think it desirable to reconsider the matter, and adopt it for England as well as for Ireland and Scotland. The noble Lord had given as a reason that the rating was extremely unequal. He admitted the fact, but denied that it was an argument. It only showed that the law was not enforced. The inequality was created in the teeth of the law which required that property should be rated at its full value; and he believed that if the Government were to make the rating the basis of the franchise, it would tend in its result to put an end to the inequality of the rating. He trusted the noble Lord would reconsider this portion of the measure, and see whether it would not be possible to adopt the rating system for England as well as for Ireland and Scotland.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the subject of Reform occupied a much more prominent place in Scotland than in England, and he believed that the proposal of the Government would be considered a very moderate measure indeed by the reformers of Scotland, where there were more thinking men among the lower classes than in England, where education had been in a very advanced state for centuries, and where the labouring population were ac-
  2088
  customed to occupy themselves very much with public affairs. For his own part, however, he considered that the very moderation of the measure proved the sincerity of the Government in their desire to carry through a measure of reform during the present Session. The measure, it must also be admitted, had the merit of simplicity in its provisions. He did not see how the enfranchisement of a large portion of the working classes would be attained by a £10 qualification in counties, and he would like to know the proportion of persons of the working classes who occupied houses of that value. He should not approve of the admission to the franchise of the working classes in a mass, because their greater numbers would give to them an unfair preponderance of political power. He thought that it was not right, as the noble Lord the Member for the City had done, to promise enfranchisement to large portions of the working classes, which, in practice, it was not intended to give. He did not approve of the Government being, to any great extent, in the hands of the working classes, because they were so much more numerous than any other; but he maintained that the principle of admitting those classes to the franchise was not fully carried out by these measures. He held that the intelligent working men should be enfranchised, which was very different from admitting the whole of the working classes, and he believed that object would have been better effected by the Bill of the late Government.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS, in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) as to the bases upon which the Government proposed to form the franchises of England, Ireland, and Scotland respectively, said that the rating franchise had been maturely considered, and the Government were not likely to alter their views. The reason of the distinction between England, and Ireland, and Scotland was this:—In Ireland there was a valuation of all tenements upon uniform principles, and there was therefore no difficulty in adopting it as the foundation of the Parliamentary franchise. It was done some years ago, and it was to be observed that the franchise in Ireland was not only dependent on the payment of the rate, but was defined by the amount at which the tenement was rated. In Scotland that was not the case. The rating there was on the yearly value, as in England; but that yearly value, according

  2089
  to the proposal of the Lord Advocate, was measured by the amount on the valuation roll. The valuation roll was a valuation which was founded to a great extent upon the income-tax assessment, and was tolerably uniform throughout Scotland. Wherever there was such a valuation it was unquestionably a benefit to take it as the foundation of the franchise. But in English parishes such a valuation did not exist. The right hon. Baronet, who was a thorough master of all our rural economy, would not deny this. In England, unfortunately, no such uniformity of valuation existed, [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: But the law requires it.] The law, no doubt, required that the rate should be made up to the full value, but, unfortunately, there was no sufficient control exercised over the parish officers to secure uniformity, and there was a different mode of rating in different places. In some parishes they made a considerable reduction, and in others rated at the full value. If the franchise in England were based upon the unamended practice, the right hon. Gentleman would see that great inequality would remain and great injustice would be done. He would very much wish to see an Amendment in the English law in this respect, and if the House were not already occupied with many more Bills than they had time to consider he would undertake to propose a Bill to effect an uniform valuation. The Bill was already in existence, but if introduced it would not be with any view to the present Reform Bill; it would be with the object to amend the practice with respect to assessment. The reason why the Government followed one course in Ireland and Scotland, and another in England, was that they did not believe that under the existing practice there was such an uniform valuation as could be properly and justly taken as the foundation of the Parliamentary franchise.
  MR. CAIRDagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) that the proportion of Members allotted to Scotland was far less than justice required, though he supposed the Lord Advocate was unable to obtain the proportion which would be proper. He must, however, express his opinion, that the proposed registration of voters was a great improvement on the present system; and that it would be self-acting was also of great importance. He would suggest that there should be a central court to determine the law, because in Scotland the law differed in every part
  2090
  of the country. It gave him unqualified satisfaction to hear the Lord Advocate say he would follow the principle of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), but the promise was not fulfilled when the property franchise in Scotch counties, instead of being lowered to 40 s, as in England, was limited to £5. He also understood that up to £10 there must be occupation as well as ownership, and, as he disapproved of a distinction which would deprive the provident working man of a vote for freehold property without residence, he should endeavour to amend the Bill in Committee. With regard to bribery and the manufacture of fictitious votes, he would suggest that the attempt should be punished as well as the act; because, when a bribe was once accepted, both parties were interested in concealing the whole matter; and, as to fictitious votes, those who created them should be punished by fine and deprivation of franchise for ever afterwards. Bribery in boroughs would never be properly prevented, unless the franchise was accompanied by a distinct provision that it should only be enjoyed by those who occupied the promises in respect of which they voted.
  MR. BLACKBURNthought that Scotland was not so well treated as she ought to be as regarded the additional number of representatives. Adding only two was far below what it ought to be, seeing that their claim was as strong as that of Ireland, and more in proportion to its valuation. He questioned, moreover, whether the Bill of the Lord Advocate had done justice to them in other respects. He did not understand the question of the property vote, and whether it applied to counties or boroughs. He did not mean to give any opinion as to the amount of the property franchise, whether it was too large or too small; but he was of opinion that it ought to be the same as that of Ireland. If the Government, on full consideration, thought the 40 s. franchise should be extended both to Ireland and Scotland, he had no objection; but he questioned whether it might not be a colourable franchise altogether.
  CAPTAIN CARNEGIEsaid, that Scotland would only gain two seats taken from places so notoriously corrupt that they had been disfranchised. If Scotland was only to get seats from the disfranchisement of corrupt places, he thought that one or two other seats might have been gained in that way. The returns of population

  2091
  and property in Scotland showed that there were many constituencies so large as to render an addition to their representatives a mere matter of justice. On that ground and not merely for the purpose of increasing the number of Scotch Members he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.
  MR. STIRLINGsaid, he had no doubt that the scheme which the Lord Advocate had submitted to the House would he received with disappointment in many quarters in Scotland. There were at least three constituencies in that country which might very naturally expect to be provided with additional representatives. The point, however, to which he wished more particularly to refer was the expediency of giving two instead of one representative to the four Scotch Universities. Those institutions were placed at a great distance from one another, and it would be found that when the constituency was made up it would be very large in numbers. In England there would be five university representatives; and it would be admitted that the Members sent by those constituencies were not the least efficient or distinguished. There was no reason to suppose that those sent by the Scotch Universities would be inferior to their colleagues in England.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEwas glad that the Government had undertaken, under favourable circumstances, to settle a long pending question—that of self-acting registration. The proposal was made with regard to England by the late Government; he therefore hoped that they would support it as applied to Scotland. As representative of the largest constituency (Lanarkshire) that was represented by one Member single-handed, he felt some disappointment that another Member had not been given to that important district. The population was about 200,000; exclusive of the boroughs represented, it contained many large towns that were not represented; and the way in which that county was treated would cause much dissatisfaction. Without wishing to say anything which might be deemed invidious, he thought they would have a better chance of getting eligible representatives for the counties than for some of the large towns to which it was proposed to give an increased number of Members. He saw no objection to the proposed property franchise. It was so nearly on a level with that proposed for England that
  2092
  only a microscopic eye could distinguish between them. Upon the whole he thought it a better franchise than the one now enjoyed in England; but it was open to grave doubt whether residence ought to be required to form part of the qualification. As to the claim on the ground of right on the part of the Scotch, he could bear the strongest testimony to that feeling, for he had nearly lost his seat because he supported the Bill of the late Government, which rendered such scant justice to Scotland. But he feared they were about to receive less from the present Government.
  MR. MUREsuggested to the Lord Advocate that, instead of giving Glasgow a third member, the two new representatives to be bestowed on Scotland should both be given to the Universities. It was obvious that the alterations proposed to be made in the representative system in Scotland were much more considerable than those with regard to England and Ireland, and therefore until he saw the precise mode in which his right hon. Friend intended to work out his scheme he would abstain from expressing any opinion on it. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in doing what he could to prevent the creation of fictitious votes he should have his most cordial assistance. He must confess, however, he doubted very much whether the proposal of creating a £5 qualification in the county, and at the same time not dealing with the question of heritable burdens, would be the means of accomplishing that object. Some years ago a Committee of the House investigated the system of fictitious votes which existed in Scotland; and one of the principal remedies which they suggested was that there should be a deduction of heritable debts from the property qualification in Scotland, without which, they said, fictitious votes could never be stopped. For his own part, he quite concurred in that recommendation. As to registration, he was not sure that the plan of the Lord Advocate would work quite so smoothly in all its features as he anticipated; but he thought some such plan as he had described might be beneficially introduced. He would, however, wait until he saw the Bill itself before he offered any opinion on this point.
  MR. BUCHANANwished to remark that upon all the principles which had been announced by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary it seemed perfectly obvious that the Government could have come to no other conclusion than that which they

  2093
  had done, namely, that Glasgow should have another Member. When they were increasing the representatives of Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, he did not see how they could overlook the claims of Glasgow, which was larger than either of them. No doubt Lanarkshire was a large and populous county, but as between Lanarkshire and Glasgow there could be no difference of opinion. As to the Universities of Scotland, he was glad they were at length to be represented in Parliament; he thought it a disgrace that they had not been represented before.
  MR. DUNLOPthanked the learned Lord Advocate for the two additional Members he proposed to give to Scotland, but regretted that there were not more given. He thought the Bill for England would be much improved by taking away some of the double Members given to insignificant boroughs and transferring them to the large constituencies of Scotland. He thought that the adoption of the valuation roll as the test of qualification would tend to prevent the creation of fictitious votes, but did not believe that the residence which the right hon. Gentleman insisted on would have that effect in any degree whatever.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he could not sit tamely by and hear it said that the Bill would not give satisfaction to the people of Scotland. He had no hesitation in stating that it would give satisfaction. Residence, he thought, should be the qualification for being on the register. As to the 40 s. freehold generally throughout Scotland, there was no desire to possess that qualification. He had never heard such a wish expressed in his own county.
  MR. HOPEunderstood that the franchise, as defined by the learned Lord, was a £10 occupancy in counties, and a £6 occupancy in burghs. Then there was to be a deduction of the few duty; that, he understood, was not to be made unless it exceeded one-fifth of the value. There was also to be a £4 proprietorship in counties, but with residence. He wished to know if proprietors at £10, who were non-resident, were to be abolished?
  COLONEL SYKESthought the distribution of Members to Scotland had been very scanty. His own constituency, which equalled that of twelve minor boroughs in England, and was remarkable for intelligence and industry—Aberdeen, the seat of universities for centuries—had a right, and did look forward, to have another Member; and the decision of the learned
  2094
  Lord would be received in the North with disappointment and mortification. He approved of giving one of the two Members available to the Scotch Universities; but with so many small boroughs in England, there should have been no difficulty in finding the means of doing more justice to the claims of the large towns in Scotland.
  MR. E. CRAUFURDpointed out an anomaly which existed in the burgh which be represented, with reference to the interval that must elapse between the issue of the writ by the sheriff and the nomination, a much larger space being required than in any county of Scotland, being not less than ten nor more than sixteen days. He hoped every means would be adopted to prevent the manufacture of fictitious votes in counties. At present the practice was to convey a cottage to a workman, taking at the same time a secret hack bond to return it when called upon.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, there ought to be a further distribution of seats in favour of Scotland. The representation of that country was very pure. Scarcely was there ever a petition presented against the returns from that part of the United Kingdom. He warned the Government against not satisfying Scotland. The Scotch Members were a compact phalanx, under the leadership of the Lord Advocate, and might be very troublesome unless their reasonable demands were complied with.
  MR. H. BAILLIEwished to know, whether the Bill of the Lord Advocate would contain any provision for giving additional polling places in Scotland. In the county he represented the number of electors would be more than doubled and additional polling places would certainly be required.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that there was a provision for increasing the polling places. He did not propose to enforce residence where the property was above £10. To prevent fictitious votes the receipt for feu duty would be produced where the property combined with residence was under £4. He would not go into extraneous matters. It was most desirable to have the benefit of the self-acting principle of the valuation roll. There would have been more justice in the complaints of some of his hon. Friends if this was a real adjustment of the proportion of representatives between the three kingdoms, but it was nothing of the kind; it was merely the distribution of four vacant scats; and he certainly thought, under the

  2095
  circumstances, it was fair enough to give one to Cork, one to Dublin, one to Glasgow, and one to the Scotch Universities.
  LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMurged upon the Government the importance of a new valuation system in Scotland, a measure which would greatly facilitate the carrying out of the franchise.
  Leave given.
  Bill further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation in Parliament of the People of Scotland ordered to be brought in by the LORD ADVOCATE, Viscount PALMERSTON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Sir GEORGE LEWIS.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES.

  COMMITTEE.
  MR. MACKINNON MR. MACKINNON moved for a Select Committee to take into consideration the provisions and practicability of the Masters and Operatives Bill, and whether any improvement could be made in the measure.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Bill not having yet been read the second time, it was contrary to the practice of the House that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The right course for the hon. Gentleman to take would be to move for a Committee to inquire into the subject to which the Bill related, and then, if he thought fit, he might bring the provisions of the measure before the attention of such Committee.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, this subject had been fully investigated by a Select Committee only a year or two ago, and it would now be idle to send it before another Committee. The reference of that particular Bill to a Select Committee was, however, quite a distinct question.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to take into consideration the best means of settling disputes between Masters and Operatives."

THE SERPENTINE.

  NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  MR. COWPER MR. COWPER moved that the Select Committee on the Serpentine should consist of the following Members—namely, Mr. COWPER, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Sir JOHN SHELLEY, Mr. BLACKBURN, Sir MORTON PETO, Mr. JOSEPH LOCKE, Mr. WALTER, Sir JOSEPH PAXTON, Lord FERMOY, Mr. BYNG, Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON, Captain ARCHDALL, Sir FREDERICK SMITH, Mr.
  2096
  BEACH, and Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY; with power to send for persons, papers, and records; five to be the quorum.
  Mr. COWPER and Lord JOHN MANNERS nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Serpentine.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir JOHN SHELLEY be one other Member of the said Committee:—"
  MR. KNIGHTLEYobjected to the composition of the proposed Committee. It would have upon it four metropolitan Members, who, as only five were to constitute a quorum, would obviously be able to exercise an undue preponderance in its deliberations. If those four Members should have the majority in the Committee, its report, judging from past experience, would entail a very liberal, not to say lavish, expenditure of the public money. It might possibly be said that the Members for Westminster and Marylebone ought to sit on the Committee, because the question to come before it materially affected the health and comfort of their constituents. Now, there could not be the smallest objection to the people of Westminster and Marylebone cleaning out what might be called their own cesspool at their own cost; but if, because the Serpentine ran into Hyde Park, which was part of the Royal domains, the clearing out of it was to be regarded not as a local, but as a national undertaking, it was the duty of that House, as the guardian of the public purse, to take care that the Committee should be a thoroughly impartial one. That, however, could not be the case, if so many metropolitan Members, whose constituents were immediately interested in a large and reckless outlay of the public money in this matter, were to form part of the tribunal. Any Member serving on a Committee appointed to examine a group of Private Bills was required to make a solemn declaration that his constituents were neither directly nor indirectly interested in the question on which he was to sit in judgment. The same rule ought to be applied in the present instance. He meant to offer no personal disrespect to the hon. Members for Westminster and Marylebone; but, as it was the manifest interest of those whom they represented that "a thorough good job" should be made of this matter, regardless of expense, he maintained that they could not bring a calm and unbiassed judgment to bear upon it. He must, therefore, take exception to the nomination of those hon. Members,

  2097
  and he should begin by moving the omission of the name of Sir John Shelley.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that in selecting the names his desire had been to place on the Committee all the hon. Gentlemen who had evinced a special interest in the question that was to be referred to them. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had taken part last year in the debates on the subject of the Serpentine, and had directed his attention to the question in various forms; it was, therefore, only natural that he should be put upon the Committee. It was impossible to admit the force of the argument based on the fact that the hon. Baronet was a metropolitan Member. His constituents had no special interest in that matter. The electors of Westminster were not the only people who suffered from the present state of the Serpentine. It would be just as reasonable to say that no metropolitan Member should be allowed to sit on a Committee to inquire into the unwholesome smells arising from the Thames.
  MR. BENTINCKthought the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last deserved great credit for his efforts to mystify a simple question. The question was whether they were to permit the system to continue by which for years past the grossest jobs for the benefit of the metropolis, and against the general interests of the country, had been perpetrated. It was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the four metropolitan Members now nominated had displayed, and very naturally, a deep interest in this question; but for that very reason they ought not to be placed on a Committee of which five Members were to form a quorum. It was, no doubt, the interest of the metropolis that the Serpentine should be cleansed out in the shortest possible time, and entirely at the public expense; and those four hon. Gentlemen could not be blamed if they exerted themselves on behalf of those who elected them to convert a strictly local undertaking into an Imperial one. Such a principle, however, was nothing less than downright spoliation. The metropolitan Members had great facilities for serving their constituents at the cost of the country. They could band themselves together in a compact body any day; and when so united he must say—without intending to offer them the slightest personal disrespect—they were perfectly unscrupulous. The whole object of the metropolitan Members was to obtain a large amount of Impe-
  2098
  rial expenditure for their constituents. Against that principle he would always contend, and he would ask all those hon. Members opposite who were not connected with the metropolis to support him. His hon. Friend objected to a system of most mischievous jobbing, the cost of which it was impossible to calculate. The country had very nearly been saddled with many millions for the purification of the Thames.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhoped the House would not waste any more time over this "bagged fox." Great interests were waiting to know the decision of the House upon the matters proposed to be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he trusted that no more time would be taken up by the present discussion. The whole argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite was a mistake. It was impossible that operations connected with the Royal Parks could be discussed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the expense be thrown upon the metropolis. The expenditure for the Royal Parks stood upon a different footing, and any analogy between the constitution of the present Committee and that of a railway committee, in which the Members interested had no deciding voice, was quite erroneous. The Committee would have to consider what plan would be best adapted for the purification of the Serpentine at the smallest expenditure. Their recommendation, however, would not be binding on the House, which would look to the evidence, and then judge for itself whether the Report of the Committee was borne out. He trusted that this discussion might now close, and the House be allowed to proceed with the important business on the paper.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he had remarked that wherever there was any dirty water to be defended the hon. Member for West Norfolk was always foremost in that cause. The hon. Member was very l0th to part with what Shakspeare called the "ancient and the fish-like smell" of the artificial water in St. James's Park, and now that nuisance was taken from the nose of Her Majesty the hon. Member was miserable that the Serpentine was to be cleansed, and insisted that no one whose duty it was to keep the metropolis healthy should be put upon the Committee.
  LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMheld that the metropolis ought to pay for its own improvements. The country at large was certainly no longer disposed to bear this expenditure.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESthought it the duty of the Members for Marylebone to protect the interests which their constituents had in the purification of the Serpentine. It was highly unfair to say that the metropolitan Members ought not to be upon the Committee.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 36: Majority 86.
  Mr. BLACKBURN, Sir MORTON PETO, Mr. JOSEPH LOCKE, Mr. WALTER, Sir JOSEPH PAXTON, Lord FERMOY, Mr. BYNG, Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON, Captain ARCHDALL, Sir FREDERICK SMITH, Mr. BEACH, and Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, nominated other Members of the said Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

CUSTOMS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee, according to Order.
Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
On Question that the following Articles stand part of the proposed Resolution [28th February]:—
"Cotton Manufactures, as denominated in the Tariff."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he should he obliged if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state the value of the importations of manufactures of hosiery which had hitherto entered into this country under the present duty.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that in 1858 we imported 46,0001b. of cotton fringes, 123,000 pairs of cotton gloves, 187,000 pairs of cotton stockings, 8,000 pairs of cotton socks, and other cotton goods to the value of £36,000. The revenue was about £3,000, and the whole value of the articles could not have been far from £50,000. He should think that we imported something like £1,000 for every £1,000,000 exported.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEhoped that at least some of the articles in the list before the Committee would be expunged. The abolition of the duty upon them would involve a considerable loss to the revenue, and injure a very industrious class of people in this country. He understood that about £20,000 would be lost upon artificial flowers alone.
MR. AYRTONremarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing to admit a great number of articles free of duty without giving any assurance that he had carefully considered the position of persons engaged in small handicrafts in Eng-
2100
land, as compared with those employed in similar branches of industry in foreign countries. It was said that some of our working people were seeking a protection to their industry, which had been given up by the great manufacturers of Lancashire. That was a delusion, because the great manufacturers of Lancashire had very formidable natural protections, and so had the ironmasters and coalowners, who were to be largely benefited by the new commercial system. Where iron stone and coal were found together, an English ironmaster could make iron infinitely cheaper than it could be made in any country where those natural advantages did not exist. Coal alone was a great natural protection to the English manufacturer. The case was very different with respect to small handicrafts, and we might find that a large number of the most industrious of our workpeople would be overborne by persons abroad, who lived at hardly any expense, in a very genial climate, and who paid comparatively few taxes. He should like to know that our embroiderers would not have their wages reduced by the importation of embroidery from abroad. It might be said that they must consent to sacrifice their interests like other people; but that statement involved a fallacy. In the case of the corn laws there was a manifest monopoly, because the country was unable to supply the inhabitants with the food which they required; but no person could say that our smaller handicrafts enjoyed a monopoly, when we knew that our needlewomen, for example, were struggling against one another for a bare subsistence. For his own part, he looked to the practical application of propositions rather than to their abstract expression; and he thought the House had been too often carried away by philosophical flourishes about free trade and protection.
"Embroidery and Needlework, as denominated in the Tariff."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not rise to argue the question on the same grounds as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, although he concurred in all that he had said as to the hardship about to be inflicted upon certain classes of industrious workpeople; but he could not allow the Schedule to pass without recording his protest against the waste of revenue which was involved in the propositions before the Committee. Looking through the whole of the Schedule it was impossible to imagine a more wanton waste of our resources. But

2101
considering what passed at the close of the debate on Tuesday night, it seemed to him that the question was how far it was worth their while to sit there discussing these articles; for on that occasion, after a great deal of pressing, they obtained from the Government on that evening a statement to the effect that the rejection of any one article would vitiate the Treaty. He, therefore, thought that it was a waste of time to discuss the different items, and to consider whether it was wise or desirable to adopt them. On the other hand, he could not help hoping that, without regard to the effect upon the Treaty, the present Schedule would be debated in reference solely to English interests, and to the question how far it was desirable, as a matter of English policy, to abandon a large revenue by remitting the duties on such articles as clocks, corks, embroidery, artificial flowers, leather manufactures, gloves, musical instrument?, oils, silks, and watches. Those ten articles, which were comprehended in the Schedule, yielded upwards of £400,000 a year; and ought we to part with that large sum when we were increasing our direct taxation, and retaining the present duty on tea and sugar? With regard to the Treaty, he confessed he did not see anything in it to induce him for its sake to part with this large and very important amount of revenue. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs admitted in his Despatch that those articles which were not articles of necessity would not be dealt with by the Government in their financial arrangements. The reason urged in favour of the Treaty and the proposed changes, consisted in certain alleged collateral effects. What would be the first of these collateral effects? If he could trust the intelligence which had reached London that day, the first collateral effect was likely to be the seizure of Savoy by the Emperor of the French; and he was disposed to agree with those eminent authorities, both in and out of the House, who declared that another collateral effect of the Treaty would be, instead of its creating good feeling, and encouraging friendly relations between England and France, to strengthen the war party in France. He must add that, viewing these remissions as they affected English interests and English policy, they appeared to him to be a wanton waste of revenue on articles which were not of general consumption, and from which there could be no objection to derive revenue.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was entirely for the right hon. Baronet to judge for himself whether it was a waste of time or not to discuss the articles proposed for remission. The right hon. Baronet and himself might perhaps come to the same conclusion on that subject, though he was afraid on very different grounds. He had thought that the doctrine of unrestricted competition had been conceded by the right hon. Baronet, but now he found it stiffly contested by him. The right hon. Baronet denounced the surrender of the revenue obtained by differential duties as a wasteful proceeding. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think it was convenient now to discuss the general principles upon which the financial scheme of the Government was founded. But he had thought that the doctrine, that differential duties should be maintained—and almost every one of the duties now sought to be charged was a differential duty, and took from the British consumer infinitely more than it brought to the British revenue) had been abandoned. But the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire demurred to the Government proposals on two different points of view. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire complained of their parting with duties levied on articles of luxury, and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets regretted that they were abandoning duties on articles raised by handicraft, and not by the great capital of great establishments. These were two questions totally and absolutely distinct. With respect to articles of luxury, it was a great fallacy to suppose that differential duties levied on such articles were better than other differential duties. It was a proper thing to consider, when they were raising revenue, whether or not they should first select articles of luxury; but when they came to the question of imposing differential duties on articles because they were articles of luxury, they then involved themselves in the same folly and evil as if they were not articles of luxury. Why should the Legislature give to one class the power of obtaining a higher price or profit than they would otherwise get, through the operation of a law? It signified not a rush what the article was, or whether it was one of luxury or not. It was a bad and unjust principle' as between English workers. The true principle was to give to the purchaser perfectly free and unrestricted choice of all

2103
articles of industry. But by differential duties to secure a particular price to a particular class of goods as compared with another class of goods, because they were articles of luxury, they generally failed to accomplish the object they had in view, did positive mischief to the very people they intended to benefit, and did that which was in itself wrong, because they created a monopoly in favour of a particular class. But the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said that we ought to consider the case of handicrafts and of needlewomen. Now, to talk of protection to needlewomen by protective duties was just as rational as to talk of protecting the peasants of Wiltshire and Dorsetshire by the corn laws. The condition of our needlewomen was a melancholy fact in the state of English society; but with respect to competition with foreign labour they had nothing to fear, for, unhappily, their condition was much lower already than that of the foreign labourer through the competition of English labour. He confessed that he would have thought that the hon. Gentleman who represented the Tower Hamlets was well aware by this time of that fact. He must know they were entirely beyond the reach of any legislation. With regard, however, to the class of people who made artificial flowers and embroidery, he hoped the case was different. The wages of those employed in embroidery were not, he trusted, low, and he had no reason to suppose that they would be lower:—he believed that, on the other hand, labour would derive benefit from the proposed changes. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said that the abolition of protection worked in a totally different direction in different cases. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not aware of that diversity of experience, and he had yet to learn in what case within the limits of this country protection had been abolished without a great benefit resulting. They had had paraded before the House the question of corks; and if hon. Gentlemen now revived it, he would undertake to show that it was the most wretched case which had ever been brought upon the floor of the House. And with regard to the nine other articles, not a single voice had reached him either from masters or workmen against the proposed abolition of duties. He might remind the Committee that, besides all the general principles which led them to the conclusion at which they had arrived, they had in view a great reform of the Customs administration, and
2104
a great reduction of establishments. Even where it appeared, on first inspection of the tables of revenue, that £10,000 or £20,000 was realized by one of these articles, that did not show the real profit which it yielded. They were all articles of a nature to require very minute investigation, which entailed a great deal of delay and expense. For these reasons he hoped, and felt perfectly convinced, that these Votes would receive the approval of the Committee.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had quite misunderstood his argument. He did not object to the repeal of these duties on the ground of their being differential duties, but because in the present state of the finances of the country he thought it a wanton waste of our resources to part with £40,000 of revenue derived in such a way.
MR. NEWDEGATEwas glad that this discussion had called forth the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) which did him much credit. The time was coming when the old Tory would join the Radical in demanding that taxation should be levied in the form most convenient to the people. The system now entered upon seemed to him justly comparable to the car of Juggernaut, so recklessly was the Chancellor of the Exchequer crushing the interests of the people of this country. The science of political economy was being fast degraded into a mere system. The Government refused to levy the revenue so as to accommodate the convenience and consult the interests of the people. They would not consider the circumstances of the time with which they had to deal, but showed a blind determination to lower and abolish import duties. He admired the course pursued in the United States on this subject. No aristocratic influence existed there, but taxation and the commercial system of America were adapted, as they ought to be, to the interests of the State. Why was not the same policy followed in England? The true representatives of the people would, he believed in time, revert to a system of taxation which consulted the interests and convenience of the people, and would not consent to be limited to the doctrines of any abstract school or to be made subservient to the demands of a few large interests.
COLONEL TORRENSwished to ask, on behalf of the needle-women of England, whether the duties on French embroidery

2105
were to be remitted immediately, or whether some time was to be allowed to those engaged in that branch of industry at home.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the proposition of the Government was that the abolition of the duties should take effect immediately, and he was not aware that any injury would be suffered by the class the hon. Member alluded to.
"Feathers and Flowers, Artificial."
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he thought this was one of the articles which might be omitted while such extraordinary demands were made from day to day on our revenue. The arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of free trade were all, no doubt, very good, but let them be properly applied. What was the use of remitting duties on artificial flowers and opera-glasses, things of no moment to the public, while they maintained the war duties on tea and sugar which were of the greatest moment to the whole community.
LORD JOHN MANNERSunderstood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contend that these duties were objectionable because they took out of the pockets of the people more than the amount of revenue obtained from them. But did anybody suppose that when this duty was abolished artificial flowers would be one halfpenny cheaper than before? The sole result would be a loss of revenue, which was not just now to be despised, while some of the charges substituted by the right hon. Gentleman would be far more onerous upon trade. He could not help uttering a strong, though, he feared, a vain protest against this most improvident waste of the resources of the country.
MR. STEUARTsaid, his constituents had sent up the longest petition that ever came from Cambridge against this Budget, and, in justice to them, he must add his protest to those which had already been made against this wanton sacrifice of revenue. His constituents had no connection with cotton, coal, or iron; and there was no single article in the tariff that would benefit them; while they were to be saddled with an addition to the income tax, against which, in their name, he must add his firm but he feared his ineffectual protest.
MR. CRAWFORDcould not admit that taking off the duty would have no benecial effect besides reducing the price to the consumer. He thought on the contrary that great benefit would result from the
2106
importation of articles upon which French skill and taste were displayed. They would servo as models for the guidance of our own workmen and manufacturers, and ultimately it would be an advantage to these persons to have been subjected to French competition, for he had great faith in their power to rival any French productions.
LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved that plenty of articles came into this country already to serve as models for imitation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERasked who was to define what was meant by "plenty." Was the law to step in to define and limit the meaning of the word by fixing an artificial price. His proposition was to leave the people to define it for themselves by leaving it to the natural level of supply and demand.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, his proposition was that there were "plenty" for the English workpeople to take example from, and he still adhered to his statement.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it might be very convenient for the merchants of London to import as many commodities as they could; but as regarded the needlewomen of this country, of whom the supply was already greater than the demand, it was clear that they had arrived at the lowest natural level. There might, however, be a still lower level, for in India, where people lived for almost nothing, women skilled in embroidery could be found for £4 a year. Upon abstract principles of free trade no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right, but this was a peculiar case, and should be considered as such.
MR. VANSITTARTcomplained that all their efforts were directed to the protection of foreigners, while they cared nothing for their own workpeople. A gentleman told him that he went over to Paris the other day with £700 in his pocket, but articles were so dear that he could not lay out a single shilling. There was no lack of employment in France, but they were to be still more encouraged here; while the Legislature did not care a single brass farthing for the English workers.
"Gutta Percha," Manufactures of, not moulded.
—Articles, moulded.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, now that the Customs superintendence was to be removed, there would be any inspection of things imported into this country; for, if he was rightly informed, things had been imported into this country which would

2107
greatly shock the modesty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there would he ample power left in the hands of the Customs to prevent the importation of articles such as those to which, no doubt, the noble Lord had alluded.
"Linen, or Linen and Cotton Manufactures, as denominated in the Tariff."
COLONEL TORRENSinquired, whether there was any prospect of linen yarns being admitted into France at a lower rate than 20 or 25 per cent. He was assured that it was impossible to export that article from Ireland to France except at a much lower rate of duty?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in 1842, when there was a considerable trade with France in linen yarns, the duties were from 15 to 20 per cent; but there was no specific convention now upon that point. He understood the intention to be to follow the course which had been pursued in England, and to place the duties upon half-manufactured goods in a subordinate relation to fully manufactured goods. He therefore inferred that, as the duty upon linens would be reduced to a limit between 25 and 30 per cent, the duty upon linen yarns would be still lower, were it only for the sake of the French manufacturer.
"Opera Glasses, single or double."
MR. VANSITTARTasked, whether it was intended to admit, under the Treaty, Berlin opera glasses, which were much superior to the French?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Vote which the Committee were invited to concur in, took no cognizance of origin.
Resolved, That the following articles stand part of the proposed Resolution [28th February.]
Cotton Manufactures, as denominated in the Tariff.
Earthenware, not otherwise enumerated or described.
Embroidery and Needlework, as denominated in the Tariff.
Feathers, as denominated in the Tariff.
Flowers, artificial.
Fruit, raw, not otherwise enumerated.
Grapes.
Gutta Percha, manufactures of, not moulded.—articles moulded.
Hair, manufactures of Hair or Goat's Wool, or of Hair or Goat's Wool and any other material, wholly or in part made up.
Hats or Bonnets, namely,—of Chip, of Bast, Cane, or Horsehair, of Straw—after the 31st of March, 1861.
2108
Of Hair, Wool, or Beaver.
Of Felt.
Hats of Silk or Silk Shag, laid upon felt, linen, or other material.
Iron and Steel, wrought or manufactured, namely,—machinery, wrought castings, tools, cutlery, and other manufactures of Iron or Steel not enumerated.
—fancy ornamental articles of Iron or Steel.
—manufactures of, coated with brass or copper by any galvanic process.
Jewels. Emeralds, and other precious stones, set.
Lace and articles thereof, as denominated in the Tariff.
Lead, manufactures of, not otherwise enumerated.
Leather Manufactures (except gloves), as denominated in the Tariff.
—Gloves, after the 1st of February, 1861.
Linen, or Linen and Cotton manufactures, as denominated in the Tariff.
Lucifers of Wood.
—of Wax.
Medlars.
Morphia and its Salts.
Musical Instruments, as denominated in the Tariff.
Oil of Almonds.
—Bays.
—chemical, essential, or perfumed, as denominated in the Tariff.
Opera Glasses, single or double.
Pears, raw.
Percussion Caps.
Perfumery, not otherwise enumerated.
Quinces.
Quinine, Sulphate of.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That 'Silk, Millinery, or Manufactures of Silk, or of Silk and any other material, as denominated in the Tariff, stand part of the proposed Resolution."
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONin rising to move the Amendment, of which he had given notice, and which he had modified in order to remove certain doubts that had been expressed, said that his constituents were of opinion that the duties upon silk manufactures had been given up in order to carry out the Treaty, and the interests involved were so large that he trusted the Committee would give him their attention for a little while, while he brought their arguments before them as clearly as he was able. He believed that there were about thirty towns and villages employed in the manufacture of silk, but Coventry, Macclesfield, Derby, Spitalfields, and Manchester, were the chief seats of the manufacture. From all these places he believed, except Manchester, there had been petitions to that House against the present proposition; but from Manchester alone his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham had presented a petition for the remission of the duty.

2109
Now, on looking over the duties on silk he found that none had been levied on the particular articles of silk manufacture that were produced at Manchester, and therefore it could be understood why the manufacturers at that place could afford to support the proposition of the Government. Last year the duty on silk amounted to £387,000, and £166,000 of this was levied on articles similar to those manufactured by his constituents at Coventry, and therefore he thought they had a right to be heard on this question. The silk manufacturers at Coventry had been for some time in a depressed condition, and when the intelligence of the conclusion of the Treaty arrived, the effect was completely to paralyze the trade. As soon as the aunouncement was made the Mayor of Coventry and a deputation of the inhabitants waited on him and his Colleague, and the Mayor said that he could hardly be answerable for the safety of his city if the duty were taken off. He did not altogether concur in the dismal forebodings of the Mayor; but still the change would undoubtedly strike a great blow at the prosperity of the town he represented, and that blow was the more felt, that it was believed that the object of the remission of the duty was not to render silk cheaper, but to give an impetus to the French manufacture. Nor must the Committee suppose that Coventry was a place which had not progressed with the times. In 1821 the population of Coventry was 21,000; in 1859 it was 42,000. In 1840 there wore in it 18,000 persons employed in the silk trade; in 1860, there were 28,000. In 1840, there were 4,732 small hand-looms; at the present time there were only 500; but of steam-power looms there were 6,650; and while in the former year the production of silk ribbons was 795,000 yards per week, it was now no less than 2,300,000 yards per week. The tax on silk had never been considered a burdensome one, but to be in fact a tax upon luxury; and even the Liverpool Financial Reform Association, in whose steps the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be treading, had declared that so long as customs duties were levied at all the duty on silk ought to be retained. The tax was 15 per cent. He complained that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sought to conciliate the wine and spirit merchants in the matter of drawback, not the smallest accommodation had been given to his constituents. At present their trade was protected by a
2110
duty of about 16 per cent; and if 8 per cent of that duty had been remitted now, and the remaining 8 per cent some seven or eight years hence, they might have been able to sustain the shock; but what they most complained of was, that they had been bartered away for a French Treaty, without the prospect of receiving any compensation whatever. He himself was a Free-trader, as were also his constituents; and they were prepared to give up the silk duty if an arrangement could be made by which their productions could he admitted into France upon the same terms as those of France would be admitted into this country. But the fact was, the French prohibited the export of dyed silks, and the people of Coventry were thus prevented from competing with them in the finer articles, which were principally made of French dyed silk. A great deal had been said the other night about corks, hut this was exactly the same case. They were about to admit the manufactures of a country which kept a duty on the raw material. In fact this was, he believed, the first time such a proposition had ever been maintained. In 1845, Sir Robert Peel took off the duty on glass in order to give an advantage to the consumers of the article in this country; but France and Belgium made the better kinds of glass at that time, and continue to do so still. He had a letter from Mr. Chance, one of the largest manufacturers in Birmingham, in which that gentleman complained of the severity of the competition he had to sustain, and said:—
"Many houses have sunk under it, and so should we have done if we had not taken every moans to beat the foreign manufacturers."
It was quite true that Mr. Chance's firm had succeeded, but he had one of the largest establishments in the world; and where there were formerly in this country twenty or twenty-five large glassworks, there were not now more than four or five. The silk trade, and that of Coventry in particular, had much reason to complain that their interests had been overlooked in the negotiation of the Treaty. The Chamber of Commerce of St. Etienne had recently voted an address to the Emperor, in which, while expressing their satisfaction at the prospect of ribands, one of their staple trades, being admitted into England free of duty, remarked that they could see no objection to the free importation of ribands into Franco. From that it might be reasonably inferred that, if the treaty had been skilfully negotiated on our side, there might have been an

2111
importation of ribands into France on equal terms with an importation of those of France into this country. The riband trade depended much on fashion, in which we invariably took our cue from the French. In this country we could make all the commoner sorts of ribands better than the French, and it was desirable that no obstacles should be placed in the way of their admission into that country. His constituents, however, believed that the Treaty would tend so seriously to prejudice their trade that they despaired of arresting its declension. He would conclude by moving the following Amendment:—
Amendment proposed,
To insert after the word "Tariff," the words "being the manufactures of and imported directly from any country which permits the free importation of the silk manufactures of the United Kingdom."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted:"
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member had not moved his Amendment in precisely the terms of his notice; but though he had now omitted all specific notice of the Treaty which the Committee were not considering, the Motion had clearly a substantial reference to the engagements of that Treaty. It did not, therefore, appear to him to be one that he could fitly report to the House, and he should therefore decline to accept it.
MR. AYRTONsuggested that the difficulty might be got over by moving the following addition to the original Motion in lieu of the Amendment, "being manufactures of, or imported directly from, any country which permits the free importation of the silk manufactures of the United Kingdom."
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONaccepted this suggestion.
MR. NEWDEGATEwished to know if the Resolution as now put was in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, certainly.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give way to the Motion before the Committee. The constituents of the hon. Member were great Free-traders some fourteen or fifteen years ago; but now, when the course of legislation trenched upon their own interests, they appealed to the House for that consideration which was then refused to others. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth), as an humble Member of the Conservative party, thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for sweeping away those remnants
2112
of protection which had deformed our commercial system for so many years. They had long been led to expect that justice would be done to the agricultural interest; and he agreed with an observation that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the other night, when he said, so far as abstract principle was concerned, the Conservatives, and those who supported the agricultural interest, ought to be among the first to support the proposition of the Government in that respect. As an abstract proposition, they should be very happy to further the introduction of free-trade principles in the tariff. The remission of the silk duties was one of the most important of the propositions of the present scheme. It was one from which many people expected to derive considerable advantages, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give way upon it.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he presumed that the hon. Gentleman, who had just addressed the House, had spoken as a Conservative. Now he (Mr. Newdegate) was an older Conservative than that hon. Gentleman, and he might, therefore, be forgiven, when he observed, that if the hon. Member wished to stand well as a Conservative, he should not promote internecine warfare between the various interests of the country. He (Mr. Newdegate) had made considerable sacrifices to a sense of duty as a Conservative. He had separated himself from old friends, and cast aside the countenance of an eminent statesman; but he had acted in no narrow spirit, but from a conviction that he was serving national interests. It was because he believed it unwise that this country should be made to depend upon foreigners for food that he had adhered to Protectionist opinions in 1846: whether he had been mistaken in his views or not, he had, at all events, not acted from factious motives; he deprecated the idea of a representative of the agricultural interest now turning round upon other interests in a revengeful spirit, and saying, you deprived us of protection, you exposed us wilfully to jeopardy, and, although we have been preserved through an instrumentality beyond human control, by the discovery of gold—though we do not suffer as we did in 1850, we, in our turn, will injure you, the manufacturers of England, in any manner which we can. That was not true Conservatism—if it was, Conservatism was an empty word. He represented a mixed constituency, of

2113
which some 50,000 or 60,000 were engaged in silk manufactures, and he believed that they were fully entitled to the protection that had been reserved to them by Pitt, by Huskisson, and, up to the present time, by the measures of the late Sir Robert Peel. Sir Robert Peel, when revising the tariff on free-trade principles, continued a duty of from 10 to 15 per cent on silk, on account of the special disadvantages under which the English silk trade laboured, owing to the fact that this country could not produce the raw material. France produced the finest silk, and was close to Italy, with which country France was drawing her relations closer; and Italy produced a quality of silk superior to China, India, Turkey, or any other quarter of the world. Mr. Huskisson, who was thought to be a Free-trader, considered there were special difficulties to which the silk trade here was exposed from inferiority of climate and water, which prevented our dyeing with the finest tints. Mr. Pitt's Treaty contained a prohibition of the importation of silk manufactures. Was he who negotiated the Treaty of equivalents in 1786—a treaty of which the present was pretended to be an imitation—an unwise statesman? Mr. Huskisson, like the Emperor, thought a duty of 30 per cent would suffice upon the import of the manufactured articles; but Mr. Huskisson took the duty off raw silk as a compensation for the effect of the abandonment of prohibition, and the chance to a protective duty even of 30 per cent. Sir Robert Peel took steps to put down smuggling, and thus, although he reduced the duty to 15 and 10 per cent, he rendered it valid. Each of these statesmen thought that some amount of protection was necessary to counterbalance the natural advantages of France in respect to silk. Sir Robert Peel was a Free-trader, but with him it was a science and not a system; he thought that the English silk manufactures required protection, and that he, as a Financier, should be the better for a revenue of some £300,000 a year—a revenue raised easily. The late Sir Robert Peel did not, like the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, complain of an ignorant patience of taxation, but feared rather impatience of taxation. He could promise the right hon. Gentleman that there would be impatience enough presently. Was it a matter of no moment to plunge 200,000 of the population into a state of distress and destitution? The
2114
right hon. Gentleman said, he could not remember any step in the progress of free trade which had produced suffering. He (Mr. Newdegate) held in his hand an account of the distress produced in the silk trade by the change made by Mr. Huskisson; from the evidence of Mr. Grout before the Committee of 1832, it appeared that before that change in 1826 the people engaged in the trade were prosperous and happy, but afterwards, in 1832, their condition had miserably deteriorated. Mr. Brockle-hurst also stated, before the same Committee of that House, that in 1826 the workmen engaged in the silk trade lived in comfortably furnished houses, but that after Mr. Huskisson's change distress set in, and they were obliged to part with all their little property and were reduced to such destitution that hundreds were almost without clothing or bed. The evidence of this witness contained this remarkable expression—"They are a miserable and ragged people." He himself could remember the distressing effect of the change in the silk duties, made in 1846 by the late Sir Robert Peel, in Coventry and Nuneaton, two-thirds of the population were for a long period out of work. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been pleased to say that in no instance had free-trade measures produced distress. The silk manufacturers and the operatives whom they employed felt keenly that the injury to which they were about to be exposed did not result from the free deliberations of the representatives of the people; they openly and reasonably expressed their conviction that the House of Commons was not acting freely on their own sense of what English interests required, but that they were contending with two Governments—the Minister of the British Crown and the Government of France—that the House of Commons were in danger of succumbing to, the influence of two Crowns; they hoped that the House would vindicate its independent sense of duty in their favour; and they knew that, even after the first pressure of this Treaty was passed, the great bulk of the articles they produced could not compete with their rivals in France under a duty of 30 per cent. It was unfair at the outset, that under the Treaty the duties on the importation of silk goods from France were to be remitted immediately, while any advantage which the people of Coventry might obtain, chimerical as this was, the change in the French tariff would be delayed till 1861. The hon. Member for Coventry had told

2115
them that the silk trade was a progressive trade. Certainly, he did not represent an idle people. They did not impugn the reduction of duty made by Sir Robert Peel; but it was wise only because it was accompanied with corresponding advantages. If they compared the imports and exports of the three years 1844–5–6 with the imports of the 'three years 1856–7–8, they would find that the import of French goods had trebled, while the export on English silk fabrics had doubled. It had been said that it was beneficial to reduce import duties. Under the legislation of Sir Robert Peel, the imports of these articles had trebled while the exports of this country had doubled. The Government could not deny this fact, nor could they justify their disturbance of an arrangement so obviously beneficial both to the consumers and the producers of this country. Granting that it was worth while to conciliate the goodwill of France, how could they justify the retention of all prohibitions against the introduction of mixed goods into France for the first eighteen months, when the heaviest pressure would fall upon our people, the free imports commencing in the spring, and thus giving the foreigner the command of our domestic markets?—it was a fact which he regretted, that, owing to the weakness of the ladies of England, the manufacturers and milliners of France set the fashions for England. Hon. Members might think that a foolish fact, and beneath their consideration, but it was a fact which vitally affected large portions of the English silk trade. Had the Governments of England and France become joint, that we were about to concede such unfair advantages to that country? It was proposed the arbitrary decrees of that Power should destroy the welfare of his constituents? [Hear, hear!] He was not ashamed of expressing these sentiments. He was addressing a constituent assembly, of which he was a humble Member; some might be, but he was not, too proud to perform the duties of a representative. He spoke, not as Mr. Newdegate, but as one of the Members for North Warwickshire. If the Government did not require the assent of Parliament to this Treaty—if it was a transaction entirely within the prerogative of the Crown—why did they insult the representatives of the people by asking them to consider provisions which they had no power to alter or to reject? If England was about to
2116
carry out free trade with France, then should France likewise adopt free trade in favour of England, and the action of the two Governments ought to be simultaneous It was the duty of the House to insist on fair play for the labour of this country, and if there were any English spirit left in the House of Commons they would demand reciprocity. He appealed to the hon. Member for Birmingham, who claimed to be a friend of the working classes, to protect the interests of those classes by insisting on the adoption of free trade by France, if England was to carry out that system under a treaty with that Power. The hon. Member had said, at a meeting a few days ago at Manchester, which he most erroneously implied was unanimous in their approbation of this Treaty, "As regards silk and other articles, I won't go into those questions. We do not want convincing on all these points. We are agreed, that if we cannot manufacture without protective duties we had better shut up."[Hear, hear!] He (Mr. Newdegate) was not surprised at that cheer, as emanating from certain hon. Members; he knew their blind devotion to what they called free trade; but he would ask if such was their devotion to free trade, why did they not insist upon a free trade on the part of France? How could they reconcile with their system of free imports the retention of prohibition by France for 18 months, and then the imposition of protective duties of 30 and 25 per cent? All the present Motion asked was, that there should be a change in France simultaneous and similar to that in England. Perhaps hon. Members might be afraid of interrupting the friendly relations which, it was said, existed between the Emperor of the French and Mr. Cobden, their negotiator. Mr. Cobden had written about the affairs of Russia and Turkey? And in a pamphlet he published in 1836 on that subject, the hon. Member showed his democratic devotion to despotism, by expressing his opinion that the encroachments of Russia by no means affected the interests of England so vitally as some writers imagined. So enamoured was the hon. Member with the despotism of Russia, that he would have ceded Turkey at once to her possession. Mr. Cobden further said, that he claimed for the Manchester manufacturers the right of putting this matter entirely on a footing of self-interest; that he did not for a moment imagine that they were called

2117
upon to preserve the peace and good order of the world. That Constantinople would be a better customer to them if held by Russia. He commended the Government of Russia, because wealthy merchants were exempted from corporal punishment in that country, to which the less wealthy were liable. Mr. Cobden seemed about as consistent in his attachment to personal freedom as this Treaty was with the system of free trade. The hon. Gentleman was well spoken of at Manchester; but curious reports were current there respecting him. It was said that so complete was the admiration felt by the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden), that advocate of democratic doctrines—so entirely was he épris with the Emperor of the French and his system—that he had declared—notwithstanding the restrictions upon the liberty of the French press, and notwithstanding the fact that the Chambers were what he (Mr. Newdegate) was afraid that House was becoming, mere registration offices for the decrees of the Emperor of the French—that he (Mr. Cobden) could not discover what the people of France had to complain of. Such were the reports, current in Manchester respecting Mr. Cobden, where, if anywhere, that hon. Member was well spoken of. He asked the Government to justify this—that at the commencement of the year, when the fashions were coming in, France should have the sanction of the Government of England for retaining prohibition against the admission into France of the great bulk of English silk goods, while we were to open the ports of this country to the imports of France immediately we were to sanction for eighteen months the retention by France of prohibition against the great body of our goods, and after that the levy by France of double the duty that we were about to abandon, and then a duty of 25 per cent for the remainder of the ten years. This was simply offering up the interests of his (Mr. Newdegate's) constituents as a holocaust to foreign political arrangements. He would remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, that, in reply to a communication from certain working men, he had used strong language with regard to the effects which "the miserable complications of foreign affairs" exercise upon the condition of the industrious classes in this country; and that in his letter of last year to the delegates of the trade of Glasgow, he had stated, that if he were a younger man and in their position he would emigrate either to the United
2118
States or to some of the British colonies, and recommended them to do so. He would ask the hon. Member for Birmingham whether this Treaty did not promise to afford a severe instance of the misery of being mixed up with foreign complications? He would ask the House of Commons whether they would sanction the shutting up of the silk-trade mills as recommended by the hon. Member for Birmingham? and whether the House intended by their conduct to enforce the hon. Member's recommendation, that the working men of this country should be forced to emigrate? This showed how arbitrary might become a system which considered only the consumer, but would be bitter in its effects on interests which had been cared for by statesmen whose policy the Chancellor of the Exchequer pretended to imitate. The legislation of that House would be harsh, if, yielding to the influence of two Governments, they failed to grant to the silk trade that substantial justice which could only be afforded by a fair system of exchange.
MR. TURNERobserved, that the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir Joseph Paxton) had stated that all the silk trade were unanimous against that part of the Treaty which related to silk, with one exception-Manchester. He (Mr. Turner) was proud to say it was so. It might be said that this Treaty or Budget was such a Manchester treaty or budget that the people of Manchester were bound to support it in all its particulars. He was glad to say that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had expressed a unanimous opinion in favour of this Budget. He held in his hand a memorial on the same subject, dated November, 1852, which had been presented to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire from the silk trade of Manchester. The memorial set forth that their trade was in a depressed condition, that the workpeople were not fully employed, and that that branch of manufacture was almost stationary. They went on to say that was owing chiefly to the limited nature of the foreign demand for their goods, and they were of opinion that was attributable to the high protective duty, the effect of which was to create an impression that England is unable to compete with continental silk manufacturers, and thus to throw the trade almost entirely into the hands of the French and Swiss. Now he (Mr. Turner) was of opinion that if the Manchester manufacturers

2119
either of silk, cotton, or any other branch could not maintain their position against competition with foreign nations, it was time for them to turn their attention to Borne other branch of business; and he firmly believed that instead of their being injured by competition, they would be stimulated, as they had always been by competition, to renew exertions in trade.
SIR EDWARD GROGAN, as a representative of a city which still carried on a rather extensive trade in silk, would give his support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Coventry. Without entering into the Treaty, he did say that when he remembered the success which attended the representations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the French Government in respect of the injury that would be inflicted on the spirit trade by the proposition of the French Government, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to bring the claims of the silk trade also under the consideration of the French Government, in order to obtain some modification. One peculiar branch of the silk trade in Dublin was poplin, the manufacture of which was tolerably extensive, and which was a very superior article, but was at present prohibited in France. He had received a communication from a large poplin manufacturer, stating that that branch carried on a considerable trade with Russia, Germany, and Prussia; that they would be able at a moderate duty to carry on a trade with Franco, but that the duty at present levied on its importation into France amounted to all but a prohibition.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he would not long take up the time of the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) laid very heavy charges at their door—he said that they had no principle of justice and no feeling of benevolence towards a portion of the people. That, indeed, was the very least of what he said during a long speech. Another delusion also appeared to occupy his mind, that he (Mr. Bright) and others could influence the Legislature of France. Well, he must say he found it quite hard enough to do his duty towards his constituents in his own country without any reference to France. As for the Amendment before the Committee, its effect, to put it in brief terms, was that we were not to take anything free from France or from any other country, unless France or that other country look something or everything
2120
from us. Suppose we were to apply that principle to corn, what then? As regarded France, now there was a sliding scale on the importation of corn. We have no sliding scale here, but if the hon. Gentleman carried his Resolution he would be quite in order, and it would be a consistent proposition to propose another Resolution that we should take no more cattle or corn from France unless France consented to have corn and cattle from us. He believed the people of Coventry were labouring under a great delusion in thinking that (to use a favourite Protectionist term) they should be "inundated" with French silks; nor could he see why the French people might not suffer themselves to be led away by a similar fallacy that they would be inundated with the silks of Coventry. He could not see how the same articles could be exported from France to England and from England to France at the same time, and leave a profit to the manufacturers in both countries. What wore the facts of the silk manufacture for which the hon. Member for Coventry was so alarmed? The English manufacturers bought their raw silk as cheaply as the French manufacturers bought theirs, for France could not grow all the silk it required, but imported it from China and Italy. Well, in what other element of cost was there such a difference? It could not be said we were not superior to France in respect of machinery. A phantom haunted many of late regarding the sending of our coals to France. Well, at any rate, we had our coals for our manufacturers on the spot, and so considerably cheaper. In cotton and in all other manufactures the machinery producing power was cheaper here than in any other country. Another element in the cost of production was the wages of labour; but here too any one conversant with the condition of France of late years must know that the wages of labour there, as well as here, were on the increase. As to the respective abilities of the French and English workmen, he had never spoken to any gentleman able to form a judgment on the subject who was not of opinion that an English workman in any department of mere labour—not design—was superior to a French workman. As to design and skill, there was no appreciable difference between the two countries. There were many trades in this country which were furnished with French designs by Frenchmen residing in England; and indeed a man might easily bring from

2121
France the best and newest designs, were he so inclined, at little or no cost of carriage, in his carpet-bag or portmanteau. His hon. Friend the Member for Coventry spoke of the increase in prosperity and population of Coventry during late years. Well, but did not this show the great enterprise, industry, skill, and capital of her manufacturers, and their vast command of machinery power—all tending to establish what no one could doubt—their complete success? He ventured to say that if his hon. Friend came here in ten years to come, as he (Mr. Bright) hoped his hon. Friend would, he would admit that the progress of the trade in Coventry was even greater in the interval. Protection not only made arts and manufactures wither and decay, but it also seemed to enfeeble the mind and reasoning powers of those who were subject to its influence. In its advocates there was an utter want of logic, an absence of faith, and a giving way to terror, of which even children ought to be ashamed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had challenged any Member to point out a single class of operatives or capitalists which had been deteriorated during the last ten years by the changes which had taken place in our legislation; and, indeed, it must he admitted that the few who still upheld such principles practically every day of their lives condemned them. He was glad to hear a Member for an agricultural county (Mr. Sclater-Booth) say, that after the principles of free trade had been applied to agriculture, it was fair they should be applied to manufactures. He (Mr. Bright) thought the argument irresistible. They had applied the principles of free trade to agriculture, against the strong opinions of the agricultural class. They, the agricultural class, were mistaken, and so were many of the manufacturing class now. Events had shown how false the prediction of the working of those principles had been in the case of the land, and that they had been not pernicious, but eminently beneficial. Therefore he hoped the right hon. Member for Coventry would take courage, and when he went down to his constituency, tell them that he had great reason to think those dangers had been much over-stated, and he trusted that in future meetings, his hon. Friend would have the satisfaction of telling them that though he had made this final and hopeless effort on their behalf, he must then congratulate them that he had failed, and that they had been compelled to
2122
enter on equal terms with their foreign competitors upon the field of enterprise opened to them by the proposal now laid before the House.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. Member for Birmingham, with all his eloquence, and by all the numerous speeches he had made on Lancashire platforms and in that House, had never been able to persuade the working men of England to adopt the free-trade dogmas he had announced. He had never been able to persuade the people he was fond of calling the most enlightened in the world—the people of the United States—to accept them. The hon. Member must, therefore, excuse him if he pleaded the cause of a people as benighted as those of the United States or of France. The dogmas of free trade, as laid down by the hon. Member for Birmingham, had never been adopted by any people in the world. It deserved some consideration, whether this abstract theory was applicable to all conditions of men. They were told that every one who spoke against free trade gave himself up to an idle fallacy. The memorial from Manchester stated that the English silk manufacturers were not protected, and that French silks were found all over the world. Was that logic? According to the free-trade dogma the manufacture ought to flourish where there was no protection; and where prohibition existed, to go to the dogs. Yet, where prohibition existed it flourished and increased; in France it had increased three-fold in a comparatively short time, while here, with all our free-trade notions, it had scarcely progressed at all. There was not only no logic in the Manchester memorial, but absolute nonsense. He would ask whether the Free-traders were always as correct as they thought themselves? The hon. Member alluded to the importation of food. Here, by thinking their dogma must have an universal application, they were led into the most extraordinary contradictions. The soil of England could not produce enough food for the people; this fact at one placed it in a different position to other imports. Would the hon. Member say there were not weavers enough in the country to supply it with textile manufactures? There might be ploughmen enough, but there was not land enough to grow the food of the people. We had not in food the two things which were necessary to be combined to make unlimited production—the material to work upon and the labour to work with; and therefore the same principle was not appli-

2123
cable to the silk manufacture. In silk there were two different sorts of manufacture—one a commodity manufactured from the French raw silk, which was sought after by the richest classes, to whom it mattered very little what duty was imposed, as it was an article of luxury; the other, a commodity made from China and India silk, a coarse manufacture, which fashionable ladies would call a vulgar manufacture, and which was consumed by the great body of the country. It was carried on largely in England, and as the product from which it was made came from China and India it was in a slight degree cheaper than in France. But the Emperor of the French did not make hurried and secret treaties. With more providence and foresight he had actually built warehouses at Lyons for the reception of China silk, and had advanced money out of the Treasury to enable the French to come into the market against the people of this country, who were not afforded quite the same advantages. There was this difficulty in advocating the claims of the silk trade—this had always been a grumbling trade. They had cried "Wolf!" very often, and, as they were not yet destroyed, now they cried it again, it was erroneously supposed that they were not in much danger. It was said, "If the silk manufacturers cannot live, let them turn their hands to something else." He would like to ask whether they could be suddenly converted into puddlers of iron or potters. Some persons seemed to talk of working people as if they were mechanical entities. No doubt some men at Manchester regarded human beings as merely extensions of a system of engines. And therefore they said of one whose industry was destroyed, "Put him on to another engine; turn him over to something else." But they all knew that practically a man who had served a seven years' apprenticeship could not turn over to a new occupation. Who was to keep him while he learnt his new trade? The answer seemed to be, "Never mind, he is only a working man." But let the Committee consider what the sufferings of a working man might be. When the question affected the friends and relatives of gentlemen of the House of Commons, and there was a talk of getting rid of half-a-dozen clerks in the Foreign Office, great was the burst of indignation at the idea of a man in the Foreign Office being asked to learn some other profession or calling, and an Act was passed providing that if
2124
any protégé of a Member of the House of Commons was deprived of his office he should be entitled to a handsomely devised scale of compensation. But here were people who had lived in holes and corners, if they pleased,—yet in those holes and corners they might suffer an amount of misery which no one in that House could contemplate. And, although their sufferings might not be brought before them in petitions, like the petitions of the civil servants, to induce them to rescind an Act of Parliament, and grant £100,000, those sufferings would permeate through the ranks of the people, and make this transaction a millstone round the necks of those who were so glibly urging it forward. The people would soon begin to consider that there were some things more deserving a struggle than universal suffrage and vote by ballot. He was entitled on this subject to appeal to the judgment and caution of Sir Robert Peel. Sir Robert Peel removed all import duties on raw materials because that advanced the interests of the people; and he withdrew import duties from all those articles of production which were placed on a rock in this country, because they depended on certain natural facilities, but he preserved a just measure of duties on the smaller hand industry of the country. He would illustrate the case by a brief allusion to pottery. Although the clay from which china was made was found only in Cornwall, yet it must go into Staffordshire or Wales, where the coals and other clays were to be found. It was a protection by nature to the amount of 40 or 50 per cent on those commodities. In one sense they had the protection which the silk trade claimed, because localities and natural facilities gave them an especial advantage; but silk had this peculiarity, while a pound of corn was worth, perhaps, a penny, and would cost a halfpenny to be brought from any foreign source of supply, a pound of silk was worth a pound sterling, and could be placed as readily on the Continent, where people were living on 2s. 6d. a week, as in England. The cost of weaving was comparatively nothing where people lived in what we should call misery and degradation; and yet it was proposed to bring them face to face with our own weavers, who, perhaps, paid individually in taxes £5 a year—a sum equal to the whole wages of a man abroad. What he complained of was the heartlessness of a Treaty which, instead of exempting the silk trade, without a minute's notice ex-

2125
pressly left them as their only remedy to adopt the suggestion of the cotton lords of Manchester, and change their occupation. The Manchester Gentlemen, who talked so loudly of the rights of the people, gave at once their willing assent to these propositions; but they would not give the people an hour to consider them, but consented at once to sacrifice their whole interests. The delegate from Manchester did not think of them. His only thought was for the goods of Lancashire, and their cotton lags and woollen cloths. The silk trade had a further peculiarity—that it had not the advantages of factory labour, like the cotton, flax, or woollen manufacturers, but must be carried on to a large extent by handlooms. He was told on the best authority that gentlemen who had erected machinery for the silk manufacture had given it up, because it would not answer for the better class of productions, and there was more loss than gain attendant upon it. He had, however, been assured by a gentleman who was conversant with the subject, and who had been in Prance, that the silk hand-loom weavers in that country could do quite as much as the hand-loom weavers here, and that at a rate of remuneration less by thirty per cent. When, therefore, the hon. Member for Birmingham talked of the superiority of the English to the French workman, his observations must not be supposed to apply to the silk manufacture, which was a trade indigenous to France; and that being so, the Government, he should contend, had entirely lost sight of the interests of our operatives who were engaged in that particular occupation when they had entered into the present Treaty. He was aware that some of those hon. Members whom he saw around him were such frantic Free-traders, that they were opposed to the slightest expression of opinion which was not in accordance with their own. He wished they would read a speech of Mr. Burke, in which, when abandoning to a certain extent the theoretical views of the Whig party, he pointed out to them the true distinction between political theories and practical statesmanship, and he called upon them to devote themselves to the practical good of their country. It was that practical good, as opposed to mere theory, which he sought to effect in the case of a poor branch of traders, who were not in a position to make their voice heard as the spirit-dealers were, and who were about to be subjected to great suffering by the enforcement of hasty and
2126
ill-considered legislation. If the manufacturers of silk were shut up to-morrow, the weavers of silk might go into Lancashire and compete with the weavers there, and whose interests, he should like to know, under those circumstances would be advanced? Viewing the case in the light in which he had endeavoured to put it before the Committee, he, for one, should give his cordial support to the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was anxious, before the Committee went to a division, to say a few words on the important subject under their consideration. It had been asserted that the present proposition had been recommended to the notice of the Committee under the pressure of two Governments—that the vote to which they were asked to come upon it was not to be taken on the merits of the case, but as the result of certain political engagements which had been entered into between England and France. Now, he wished in the most explicit manner to inform the Committee that that statement was one which was the reverse of the fact. The proposition to which he invited hon. Members to assent was made on its own merits—was recommended to them as being in harmony with the legislation of recent years, and calculated in itself to prove highly beneficial to the country. If, therefore, the proposal was one which in itself was good and sound, no sufficient reason, he should contend, for rejecting it was to be found in the circumstance that it was made through the medium of a treaty by means of which other benefits were sought to be attained. Now, the Motion before the Committee, he was prepared to admit, had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Coventry with great moderation, when the peculiarity of his position was taken into account; and he must be greatly astonished at some of the support he had received; but it was one to which, nevertheless, the Government did not deem it consistent with their duty to accede. The Committee was probably aware that as regarded the great article of ribands the duty levied in France was lower than that which we levied on French silks. It was a duty amounting to 7 per cent—or somewhat at the rate of 3s. per lb.—on the value of the goods; while the duty which we imposed, while nominally 15 per cent was in point of fact considerably more upon the silks which we imported. The whole question had, however, been

2127
argued upon the broadest grounds in the course of the discussion, both by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who had taken the Committee back one or two generations into the past, and who had put forward views and opinions which, if they were good for anything, went to the very root of the course of legislation which we had been pursuing for the last eighteen years. It might indeed, after the speech which they had just heard, be very fairly said that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was a Protectionist—nay, something more than a Protectionist, for he seemed to be an advocate of the principle of setting up State warehouses such as those which he had pointed out were established in Lyons, in which by the providence of Government a supply of the raw material was provided for the manufacturer. The original tone of the debates on free trade had, in fact, been revived in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, by whom the hon. Member for Warwickshire, who had himself gone tolerably far in the direction of Protection, had been completely distanced. He was quite sure, if the mind of the hon. Member for Warwickshire was capable of admitting sentiments so ignoble as those of mortification at finding himself outdone in a career which he believed was especially his own, he must now be suffering tortures hardly to be described at seeing himself so completely distanced by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had displayed qualities which would have been invaluable at an earlier day, but he was afraid that now they were completely thrown away, like flowers "wasting their sweetness on the desert air." The hon. Member had caught, he would not say the slang, but the whole vocabulary which belonged to the days when the sanctuaries of protection were assailed by the profane hands of Mr. Huskisson. Free trade, he said, was all theory, and the views he advanced were those of a practical man; and then he talked of the heartlessness of the adherents of free trade. This was exactly the language used in the debates of 1825, when Mr. Huskisson, now pointed to with approval as a model wise legislator, was accused not only of being a hard-hearted metaphysician, but of having the sentiments of the devil in his breast. With the exception of the reference to that particular personage, the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets quite came
2128
up to any of the denunciations previously pronounced. He drew a sad and deplorable picture of the sufferings of those whose labours had been displaced, but naturally forgot to inquire whether any labour had been displaced. The hon. Member spoke of the difficulties incidental to the trade, as if when protection existed in that branch of industry it was a Paradise, and every man was sure of a fair day's wages for a fair day's work. He seemed to think that the silk trade and protection had always existed together. But what was the truth of the matter? The silk manufacture took root in England centuries before the time of protection. It flourished in England in the 17th century, and it was only after it came to be protected, in 1697, that it began to droop, and to depend on legislative aid. Was there suffering then—no displaced labour? Had the hon. Member no compassion for the evil fortune which attended his favourite system? In 1765"the weavers went down to the Houses of Parliament in a body, to make personal application to the Members, representing their wretched condition, and praying for total prohibition of foreign goods. Parliament reduced the duties on raw and thrown silk; dealers in foreign goods countermanded their orders, and the weavers were appeased." In 1766 smuggling was carried on to a greater extent than ever, and 7,072 looms were out of employment—all this at a time when the system recommended by the hon. Gentleman was in the fullest vigour. In the same year the import and sale of foreign silks and velvets were totally prohibited, with the exception of those brought from India; but, in 1769, in that happy state of things when there ought to have been nothing but contentment and peace, the weavers formed combinations to compel their masters to raise their wages, committed various acts of violence on the property of their employers, destroyed their looms, &c, and in the riot several soldiers as well as weavers were killed.
"Constant disputes still continuing between employers and employed, an Act was passed in 1773 which enabled the weavers of Middlesex to demand a fixed price for their labour, which price was to be fixed by the magistrates; masters and men were restricted from giving or receiving more or less than the fixed price; the manufacturers were liable to heavy penalties if they employed weavers out of the district; the weavers also were restricted, under heavy penalties, not to employ, at any one time, more apprentices than two. This law remained in force until 1824. In 1784 additional duties were imposed, and in 1786 the

2129
silk trade was expressly excluded from a treaty with France. In 1793, 4,000 Spitalfield looms were quite idle, and at the end of the war the Spitalfield weavers were again involved in sufferings far more extensive and severe than at any former period, two-thirds being out of employment."
That was the system which prevailed when the principles of the hon. Member were in operation. After that there came a change, and the men who made it were exposed to the same charges of heartlessness as the hon. Gentleman thought himself entitled to pronounce on the vast majority of the House of Commons. He had described the effects of the system the hon. Member patronized; and he asked, had there been 7,000 or 8,000 looms out of work since that period? Had there been any soldiers or weavers killed in carrying out that blessed system of trade regulations he advocated? Look at the facts of the case. In 1820 our imports of raw silk amounted to some 2,000,000 lbs., in 1859 they amounted to 9,920,000 lbs. In 1820 the exports of British manufactured silk goods came to £371,000, in 1859 they had risen to nearly £2,500,000. And in the face of all that the hon. Member came down to the House and claimed for his statements and principles the name of facts, experience, prudence, and wisdom, and dared to charge the majority of the House not only with error, but with heartlessness forsooth! The hon. Gentleman in commencing his speech expressed a hope that the Committee would listen with patience to his remarks, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was glad they had done so, for he believed it was the last dissertation of the kind they would ever have within the walls of the British Parliament. The last of those prohibitive duties was now about to disappear from the tariff, and the opportunity they had just enjoyed was a rare one, and he should have been sorry if any momentary impatience had deprived them of the practical lessons they had just learned. It was not because of the French Treaty that the present Vote should be adopted. It was not a small and insignificant Vole, as comparatively speaking many of the others were—it was a large Vote and a large measure, involving a considerable sacrifice of revenue, and affecting the interests of a great and extensive trade. If the Committee thought it a bad Vote on its merits, let them reject it; but let them remember that if they did they would repudiate all the principles on which they had been acting for the last twenty years, and the
2130
adoption of which, instead of displacing labour and bringing classes and individuals to distress, had multiplied the comforts of the working man, and increased not only his sense of self-respect, but his loyalty as a member of society and a subject of the Queen.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished to state that the vote he was prepared to give on this question did not rest on the ground of protection, and that he had no sympathy with the arguments or views of either the hon. Member for Coventry or the Tower Hamlets. Those two hon. Members gave their vote in support of the Budget of the Government, and now they found that the Budget pressed upon their own constituencies, they came forward and raised their voices in behalf of interests to which he thought they must feel themselves they had put it out of their power to render any real service. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had invited the Committee to discuss this Vote upon its merits, and he had therefore a right to consider whether there did not exist serious financial objections to the proposal of the Government. He must, however, take decided exception to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that they could not reject the proposal to repeal the silk duties without reversing the policy of the last 20 years. He thought they were perfectly entitled to pronounce their opinion whether, in the present state of our finances, they ought to repeal a duty which brought into the Exchequer not less than £300,000 a year without pressing on any interest in the country, and which was fairly derived from taxation upon the rich. He should, therefore, oppose the proposal simply on financial grounds, as most improvident under existing circumstances
MR. BALLsaid, that this question was so important to the inhabitants of Spitalfields and Bethnal-green, that if the Committee had any bowels of compassion they must pause before they agreed in the Vote proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Ball) had listened to the debate till he was fatigued and had fallen asleep; and when he recovered from his repose he found one-half of the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench asleep also; and he thought it was absolute folly to go into the consideration of so important a question at that hour. He moved that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. He was the more disposed to insist on this as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated it was the last time

2131
they would have the opportunity of discussing the subject, and if it was the last, for God's sake let them linger upon it a little longer before they decided upon delivering up the poor silk-weavers to the ruin the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring upon them.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhoped that, as the last speaker had refreshed himself, and was now, he trusted, in full possession of all his faculties, he would be able to state at any length he desired his opinions upon the Motion before the Committee. He further trusted that the question having then been fully discussed, the Committee would not separate without carrying it to a vote. He should oppose the Motion for reporting progress.
Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 233: Majority 205.
Mr. VANCEsaid, that many Gentlemen were anxious to deliver their sentiments on this subject, and, therefore, considering the late hour of the night, he should move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
MR. CRAWFORDappealed to the hon. Gentleman to allow the question of the silk duties to be at once settled. Gentlemen in the silk trade had already been put to great inconvenience, and goods were accumulated at the Custom-house waiting the decision of Parliament. He held in his hand a memorial to that effect signed by a considerable number of the chief dealers in the City of London. If the Committee did not pass the Resolution that night it could not be reported until Monday, and the merchants would not be able to pass their goods through the Customhouse until Tuesday. This would cause great inconvenience to the trade.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERalso pointed out the evil of protracting the stagnation which had already lasted for three weeks, and assured hon. Gentlemen who wished to pursue that discussion that they should have an opportunity of doing so to-morrow, on the bringing up of the Report.
MR. BALLsaid, he had made his Motion entirely upon the solicitation of the Spitalfield weavers and their employers, who had helped to return the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) to that House, and who apprehended perfect ruin from the
2132
measure which their representative now sought to press on.
MR. ELLICE (Coventry)said, he voted with the minority, as he saw that several Members wished to express their opinions on the Resolution, and as he wished also to speak himself upon it; but he quite agreed with the Member for the City of London that it was of great importance that the decision of the House should be arrived at as promptly as possible.
MR. AYRTONwas also in favour of a speedy settlement of the question. The hon. Member also offered an explanation to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but loud cries for a division made his observations inaudible.
MR. NEWDEGATEspoke in favour of an adjournment of the discussion.
MR. VANCEsaid, that in deference to the feelings of the Committee he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment again proposed; Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 68, Noes 190. Majority 122.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Silk, Millinery, or Manufactures of Silk, or of Silk and any other material, as denominated in the Tariff.
Stays, or Corsets, of Linen or of Cotton, or of Linen and Cotton mixed.
Sulphuric Acid.
Toys, namely,—Marbles.
All other Toys.
Turnery.
Watches, as denominated in the Tariff.
Woollens, namely,—manufactures of Wool, or of Wool mixed with Cotton, as denominated in the Tariff.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That 'Goods, being either in part or wholly manufactured, and not being enumerated or described, nor otherwise charged with duty, and not prohibited to be imported into or used in Great Britain or Ireland; but if any such Goods shall be composed of any Article liable to Duty, as a part or ingredient thereof, then such Goods shall be chargeable with the full duty payable on such Article, or if composed of more than one Article liable to Duty, then with the full Duty payable on the Article charged with the highest rate of Duty,' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
MR. AYRTONwished for an explanation also of the next paragraph of the Resolution, which related to some goods unenumerated. He asked whether this included furniture made of wood which, as he believed, paid a duty. The English manufacturer ought not to have to com-

2133
pete with foreign-made furniture whilst the imports of the material which he used were subject to duty.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would look into the list to see whether furniture was included and give the hon. Member an exact answer; but he could state that there was no duty on furniture woods; and that the duty on wood would be only at a nominal rate. The Resolution provided for the case of articles made of materials liable to duty.
MR. AYRTONthen moved "That the Chairman do report Progress."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would withdraw the paragraph of the Resolution, and propose it again at the next sitting of the Committee as a separate Resolution.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
Resolution to be reported.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
House adjourned at half-past One o'clock.