Commons Sitting of 23 March 1866

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Ripon, v. Lord John Hay, Commissioner of the Admiralty; for Honiton, v. Frederic David Goldsmid, esquire, deceased.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir Edmund Anthony Harley Lechmere, baronet, for Tewkesbury.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* [91].

MR. SPEAKER'S ILLNESS.
The House being met, the Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the continued illness and unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, and read the following Letter, which he had this day received:—
Speaker's House, March 23, 1866.
Sir,—I beg you will express to the House my thanks for the indulgence that has been shown me. It has been a great vexation and annoyance to me, to have been kept so long, by an unfortunate accident, from the service of the House.
I have benefitted very much by the complete rest, and I trust that at the end of the Recess I shall be able at once to resume my duties.—I have the honour to be, Sir, pour obedient Servant,
J. EVELYN DENISON.
To Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bt.
Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table as Deputy Speaker; and after prayers, counted the House, and Forty Members being present, took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 20th day of July 1855.

ARMY—ARTILLERY—WHITWORTH GUNS.—QUESTION
MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If it be true that, the War Office has contracted with the Manchester Ordnance Company for two 15-ton 9-inch Whitworth guns, at the rate of £3,000 per gun; and, if so, whether those guns are intended to be used in the armament of the Royal Sovereign and Prince Albert turret-ships, and whether a proper course of experiments or trials have been made prior to such order being given, and why the War Office does not avail itself of the experiments made with the 7-inch 150 cwt. competitive rifle guns during the last two years, as grounds of comparison with the hexagonal bore, and direct that a heavy Whitworth gun, of like dimensions, should be subjected to a similar trial before adopting a system as yet insufficiently tested; and whether the War Office would have any objection to furnish a Return of all the Whitworth guns, brass, iron, or steel, or any combination of those metals, which, up to the present date, have boon tried, with particulars of their weight and dimensions; number of rounds fired from each gun respectively; also under what conditions those rounds have been fired; the nature and composition of the ammunition employed; the whole summarized in a tabular statement with such other information as may be requisite to form a correct judgment of the resisting qualities of the Whitworth system of constructing, rifling, and venting heavy guns?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the two 15-ton guns had been ordered at the request of the Admiralty. The Secretary of the Admiralty would be able to state in what ships they were intended to be used. Lord De Grey and the Duke of Somerset considered that the merits of the Whitworth system of construction and rifling had been sufficiently tested and established in the trials which were made by the Armstrong and Whitworth Committee to justify them in ordering a further practical trial on board Her Majesty's ships, In the present stage of the question fur-

839
ther competitive trials were not in their opinion necessary. There would he no objection to giving the Return asked for by the hon. Gentleman of the guns tried by the War Department, down to the word "fired." The remainder of his Motion was too vague to he complied with.

NAVY—IRON CLAD SHIPS.—QUESTION.
MR. GRAVESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, The names of all the Iron-clad Ships which have had their funnels temporarily lengthened previous to trial, the length so added, and how soon removed after trial; and whether it is intended to try the Bellerophon at the measured mile with funnels reduced to ordinary sea service height, and when such trial may be expected to take place?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that there were three vessels which had had their funnels so lengthened—the Royal Oak, the Warrior, and the Black Prince, the trials being made in order to ascertain whether the funnels would prove satisfactory. He could not say exactly how much they were lengthened. With regard to the Bellerophon, if the funnel used at the trial succeeded it would not be taken away.

NAVY—WHITWORTH GUNS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord, to give him a reply to that part of his Question which his Colleague, the noble Marquess at the head of the War Department, was unable to answer?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied that he could not state the ships on board which it was intended to use the 15-ton 9-inch Whitworth guns.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to put a Question to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the order of business before the House after Easter?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the intention of the Government is to proceed on the 9th of April with the Civil Service Estimates, ns is the usual practice on the first day after the Easter recess. On the 12th, as I have already announced, we are to proceed with the second reading of the Franchise Bill; and after the second reading of that Bill we propose to take the Budget. Probably
840
that will be thought a sufficient bill of fare to satisfy the House.

DRIVERS OF HACKNEY CARRIAGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any, and if so what, steps are taken to insure the fitness and competency of persons applying for licences as drivers of hackney carriages?
  MR. BARING, in reply, said, the measures taken by the Commissioners of Police to inquire into the character and qualifications of persons making application for the licences of drivers of hackney carriages were very strict. The candidate first had to send in an application stating several points respecting his character and qualifications. He had to produce a certificate signed by two ratepayers who had personally known him for three years, stating their opinion of his character and his fitness for such employment. He had also to present a certificate from his last employer, vouching that he was competent to act as the driver of a hackney carriage, and that he knew the town well. All these papers were referred to a sergeant of police, who then made inquiry into the character and qualifications of the applicant; and not until all these inquiries had taken place was the licence given by the Commissioners of Police. Of course, with the enormous number of licences of that description which had to he given from time to time there might be individual cases in which the person appointed might not be completely qualified.

  INTERNATIONAL COINAGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chanceller of the Exchequer, If any discussions have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in reference to the proposal of Mr. Chase to establish an International Coinage between England, France, and the United States of America?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have caused inquiry to be made at the Foreign Office with reference to the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Question, and the answer made to me is that on a careful search of the papers in that Office, no trace can be found of any discussions having been raised on this matter during the time that Mr. Chase

  841
  was in office, as between the two Governments of England and the United States. Speaking from memory, I certainly recollect on one or two occasions to have seen some gentlemen who were in this country, and who, as I understood, were here to ascertain what was the general state of I sentiment and opinion on this subject. I cannot speak positively, but certainly I am not aware that at any period the matter had advanced so far as to be the subject of any official correspondence beween the two Governments. As regards the period of Mr. Chase' tenure of office, I am in formed that there is absolutely no trace whatever of such a correspondence.

BRIGANDAGE IN THE PAPAL STATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, By whose authority the following statement was inserted in the public papers of the 28th December, 1865:—
  "The Earl of Clarendon makes public the following information, which he has received from Her Majesty's Consul at Rome, dated November 28th: 'Various bands of brigands have now descended from the Neapolitan territory into the Papal States in such numbers, that the small amount of Papal troops (in the absence of the French) is evidently unable to contend successfully with them;'"
  whether he is aware that the statement, telegraphed from Paris on the 4th January,
  "It is officially announced that nearly all the brigands on the Roman territories have surrendered to the Papal authorities"
  is correct; and whether he will have any objection to lay upon the table of the House a Copy of all Correspondence during the year 1865, from Her Majesty's Diplomatic or Consular Agents, relative to brigandage in all parts of Italy?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the notice to which the hon. Member referred had been inserted in the newspapers on the authority of Lord Clarendon. It was an extract from a despatch received from Her Majesty's Consul at Rome. The hon. Member was doubtless aware that more than one British subject had fallen into the hands of brigands, and Lord Clarendon thought it desirable on receiving that official communication to make it public, as a warning to those British subjects who might be going abroad. If Lord Clarendon had not done so, he would have been open to just reproach. He was not
  842
  aware that the telegram to which his hon. Friend had referred was correct. On the contrary, he believed that more than one British subject had been despoiled by brigands on Roman territory. In reply to the last Question of his hon. Friend, he thought there would be on objection to publishing the correspondence.

  ARMY—ROYAL ENGINEER DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Sir Hugh Owen), he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When it is likely the re-organization of the Royal Engineer Department, referred to in the foot note on page 158, of the Army Estimates for 1866–7, will take place?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that he was not able to state exactly at what period the re-organization of the Royal Engineer Department would take place. The matter involved two separate questions of great importance—namely, the pay of the Engineer officers and the pay of the officers of the Department of Works. The financial portion of the Question were now under consideration, and he hoped it would be settled before the next year.

NAVY—THE "LORD WARDEN."

  QUESTION,
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to lengthen or alter the bow of Her Majesty's iron-cased frigate the Lord Warden; and, if so, whether, looking to the importance of testing the new description of engines in that vessel, the trials at the measured mile will take place before such alterations (if any are proposed) have been commenced; and, in the event of no alteration being contemplated in the bull of the Lord Warden, how soon the trials of that ship at the measured mile will take place?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that the bow of the Lord Warden was similar to that of the Bellerophon; and that the Lord Warden, and the sister ship, the Lord Clyde, had been tried at the measured mile,

MERCHANT SERVICE—QUALIFICATIONS OF MASTERS AND MATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he would now beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade

  843
  with reference to the 132nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, which empowers the Board of Trade to lay down Rules for the qualifications of Masters and Mates for certificates of competency, Whether any alterations have been made in the Examination Papers, since they were first published in 1851; and, if so, what is the nature of those alterations; whether he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House a Copy of the present Examination Papers, showing the alterations made, if any; and, whether under existing Rules persons can pass, and have passed, for certificates of competency, as Commanders of large full-rigged ships, their former services having only been as seamen on hoard such full-rigged ships, or as Masters or Mates of fishing smacks and small coasting vessels?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: Some alterations, Sir, have been made from time to time in the rules concerning the qualifications of masters and mates. Those alterations have been suggested by experience. The examination papers shall be laid on the table, and in a form which will show the changes and additions that have taken place. In answer to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman as to whether persons having only served in small coasters receive certificates of competency, entitling them to command large full-rigged ships, I have to state that such a practice would be contrary to our rules, and if cases have occurred they have been accidental.

  THE FRANCHISE—INCREASE OF ARTIZAN VOTERS.—QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any investigation has been made as to the rate of increase of the number of artizan £10 voters in Boroughs, relatively to the other Borough voters not of the artizan class, from 1836 to 1846, 1846 to 1856, 1856 to 1866; whether an estimate has been made of the probable rate of increase of the number of artizan £10 voters in Boroughs, relatively to the other Borough voters not of the artizan class, under the existing Law from 1866 to 1876, 1876 to 1886, 1886 to 1896; whether an estimate has been made of the probable rate of increase of the number of artizan voters in Boroughs relatively to the other Borough voters under the proposed Bill, from 1866 to 1876, 1876 to 1886, 1886 to 1896; whether an estimate has been made of the number of artizans in Boroughs that will
  844
  be enfranchised as lodgers, relatively to the other lodgers not of the artizan class, that will be enfranchised under the proposed Bill; whether an estimate has been made of the probable rate of increase of lodgers of the artizan class, relatively to other lodgers not of the artizan class, that will be enfranchised under the proposed Bill, from 1866 to 1876, 1876 to 1886, 1886 to 1896; and, whether Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the event of such estimates having been made, will lay them before Parliament; and whether, should no such estimates exist, he would cause them to be made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, there is no information whatsoever at the command of the Government which would enable them to make an estimate on the subject to which my noble Friend refers. I may add that in our opinion we have prosecuted the investigation with respect to the proportion of the working classes on the register quite far enough, and we think it is not desirable to widen the field of that inquiry. The information which we have got we look upon as of great value, and we consider that the continuance of those inquiries would lead to an entirely wrong estimate of the feelings with which we regard the admission of the working classes to the franchise. There is, however, one element of information which does not touch the artizan voters directly, although I cannot say that we are going to lay, with regard to that, any estimate on the table. It is, at the same time, a matter of some interest, and a calculation in connection with it may be made by any hon. Member for himself or by the Government for the use of Members. It is this, that various Returns having been made at different periods showing the number of the respective classes of borough voters, and that, taking the number of £10 voters that existed at the time when each of those Returns was made, a comparison might be instituted between them and the growth of the population. As to the proportion which those £10 artizan voters bear to the population, that is a matter which any hon. Gentleman may estimate for himself on the basis of the recent Returns. I endeavoured as well as I could to estimate the number, but I had not the necessary means for doing so, because no inquiry with reference to the number of artizan voters was made up to that period. I have heard—I must not pretend to give my noble Friend any official information—

  845
  from a person who has carefully studied these figures, that which will probably rather surprise the House, that the increase in the list of £10 voters was very much more rapid in the first than during the latter portion of the period which followed the Reform Act. I find that taking the nineteen years from 1832 to 1851 the £10 householders increased at the rate of 90 per cent, while the increase of the population was only at the rate of 43 per cent, so that in those nineteen years the £10 householders increased at a rate more than twice that of the increase of the population. In the next fifteen years, that is to say from 1851 to 1865, the £10 householders have been increasing at the rate of 39 per cent, the population at the rate of 25 per cent, so that as compared with the growth of the population the increase in the number of £10 householders appears to have been very much less during the latter of those two periods. I have now pointed out the very narrow limits within which the inquiry may be made. The Government can easily have the figures looked into, and should they think that any result sufficiently important was arrived at, it shall be laid on the table of the House.
  MR. WALPOLE: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman refer to £10 householders generally, embracing those above that amount?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: All £10 householders.

CASE OF EMILY JANE BALLARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SHERRIFFsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to a statement reported in the Birmingham Daily Post, of Tuesday, the 20th instant, to the effect that Emily Jane Ballard, a child said to be about ten years of age, was—on suspicion of having stolen a penny from another child while attending Divine Service at Inkberrow Church, near Redditch—ordered by the Vicar of the parish, the Rev. G. R. Gray, who is also a magistrate for the county of Worcester, to be confined in the lock-up at Redditch, where she remained till the Friday following; and whether bail was offered for the appearance of the child and refused by Mr. Gray?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, he was not aware of the facts of the case; but since the hon. Gentleman had placed
  846
  his Notice on the Paper he had seen the statement referred to in a newspaper, from which it appeared that the case was adjourned until that very day. If the statement were correct—and whether it was or not he had as yet no means of judging—he considered that some explanation of the circumstances by the magistrate was required. That explanation would be called for, and he should on a future occasion be able to state the result,

  CASUAL POOR-CLERKENWELL WORKHOUSE.—QUESTION,
  LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board. Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in one of the public journals of the 6th of March, containing an account of the horrible state of the sleeping places for the Casual Poor, and also of the cellar for the extra Casuals, in the Clerkenwell Workhouse, in which, besides other horrors too shocking to mention, it is stated that on
  "Sunday evening (March 4th), forty men and women were crammed together into wards with nominal accommodation for thirty, and, having been locked up in the dark, were left to scramble or fight for room, as they thought fit;"
  whether it is true that the wards at this Workhouse have never been certified by the Poor Law Board, and that they are inconceivably close, foul, and unwholesome; whether he has seen an article in the same journal, dated the 22nd instant, that the guardians still allow this state of things to go on without attempting to provide a remedy; and whether, if the accounts alluded to are correct, it is his intention to take immediate measures to put a stop to this intolerable evil?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, I have to inform the noble Lord that I have seen the statements to which he has adverted. I have to slate that the casual wards at the Clerkenwell Workhouse have never been certified by the Poor Law Board, because they are inadequate to meet the provisions of the Houseless Poor Act, both as regards their position, their ventilation, and their insufficiency generally. The guardians of the parish of Clerkenwell have attempted to provide a remedy for this state of things, and were, in fact, a few weeks since negotiating for property in St. John Street Road, Clerkenwell, which they purposed converting into casual wards; but eventtually, the owner of the property in question objected to the premises being used for the

  847
  purposes adverted to. I have, however, to add, that men and women are not "crammed together" in these wards, as there are separate wards for each sex. A letter, however, has been received at the Poor Law Board from that parish, stating that they had in prospect a good freehold property in the neighbourhood of the workhouse, and hope to be able to obtain it and complete a building for the purpose in view. The parish of Clerkenwell is under a local Act, and the guardians are elected for life. When it is asked whether the Poor Law Board intend to take immediate measures to remedy the evil complained of, I must remind my noble Friend that the compulsory powers of the Poor Law Board are not sufficient to effect so complete a change as they desire to see in the existing state of things.

IRELAND—PROBATE COURT DUBLIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT ARMSTRONGsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Irish Government have been made aware of the repeated complaints of the Judge of the Probate Court in Dublin, and the Profession and Jurors attending that Court, as to its insufficiency and unwholesome condition; and, whether the Irish Government have considered their complaints, and have taken or recommended, or intend to take or recommend, any steps to remedy these inconveniences?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Lawson)replied that complaints had reached the Irish Government on the subject, and those complaints were, he believed, well founded. He understood that communications had been made to the Commissioners of Public Works on the matter, but beyond that he was not able to give his hon. and learned Friend any definite answer.

  IRELAND—ARMAGH ROMAN CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL.—QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he was that evening in a position to answer the Question which he (The O'Donoghue) had put to him the day before in reference to a search which was said to have been made for arms in the Roman Catholic Cathedral at Armagh?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Lawson)said, he had that very morning received information on the
  848
  subject from Ireland. The facts of the case were that the police had obtained information that a smith, whose forge was near the Roman Catholic cathedral, was engaged in the manufacture of pikes. From the field at the back of the forge it appeared that there was an underground passage leading into the crypt of the cathedral, and the police searched for arms in that passage as well as on the premises belonging to the smith. He was further informed that one of their number, having asked the steward of the works for permission to do so, entered the crypt for the purpose of getting into the passage at the end farthest from the forge, and made there a search for arms—if, indeed, it could be so called. He might add, that what the police had done they did on their own responsibility, without having received any instructions from the Government, and that the resident magistrate, as soon as he had ascertained what had taken place, waited on the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and explained what had occurred, thinking it likely that the circumstances might be misrepresented. The matter in his opinion, therefore, did not require to be further investigated.

  IRELAND—REGISTRY OF DEEDS DUBLIN.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT ARMSTRONGsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any decision has been come to on the Memorial of Clerks in the Registry of Deeds Office in Dublin for an increase of their salaries; and, if such salaries are to be increased, from what time such increase is to be computed and paid, and what is to be the future minimum salary of a clerk in that Office?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, a Commission was appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the establishment and salaries of the Registry of Deeds Office Dublin. This Commission has made a Report, and has recommended a revision of the salaries and a re-classification of the clerks. This Report is under consideration, but the rates of salary to be fixed, and the time at which such salaries are to commence, have not as yet been finally determined.

  THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had received the permission of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to put a Question

  849
  to him with respect to a matter of great interest, especially as the House was that evening about to adjourn for the Easter Recess. The question was, What is the purport of the Orders in Council which are about to be issued on the subject?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, the Orders referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman were very long, and he was, therefore, afraid, as he had only a few minutes before received notice that the Question was about to be put, that he could not give to it so complete an answer as he should desire. He might, however, state that the purport of the new Order was the revocation of all the existing Orders, with the view to the consolidation of the whole of the existing regulations in one document. Many of the conditions contained in the existing Orders would be re-enacted, as for example those having reference to the appointment of inspectors, and to the notice required to be given of the appearance of the disease in any district, and to the disinfection of premises in which diseased cattle had been. It was desirable that a good many regulations of that description now in force should be renewed, and the Order would contain new provisions with regard to the proclamation of infected districts and the prohibition of all markets and fairs, except those held under the licence of the Privy Council. With respect to the removal of cattle, it was intended to extend the provisions of the existing Act until the 16th of April, and after that date to substitute a regulation, authorizing the removal of cattle by railway or by highway under licences, some of which would be left to be framed by the local authorities, and others would be contained in a schedule. There would be other provisions, which he need not now enumerate. It was intended that the greater part of this Order should not come into operation until the 16th of April, but part of it would come into operation immediately in order to enable the requisite arrangements to be made for giving effect to it, and it would be in the possession of the Courts of Quarter Sessions the week after next.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he wished to a9k the right hon. Gentleman, if ho has any objection to state to the House whether the Government have received information that the cattle disease had been re-imported from abroad into this country, and, if the statement is authentic, what measures the Government have taken in consequence?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the day before yesterday information was received that several milch cows had been recently imported from Holland, and not taken to a market, but removed directly from the place of disembarkation to dairy sheds in London, several of which were found to be affected by the disease. Simultaneously with that information the Government received a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at the Hague, stating that the disease wag prevailing to a great extent in Holland, and that it was believed some animals suspected to be affected with the disease were being sent to this country. An Order in Council would be passed prohibiting, unti the Order should be revoked, the importation into this country of cattle from Holland.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if it were possible to lay the Order of Council upon the table of the House that evening, so that it might be placed in the hands of hon. Members?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that it was impossible to place the Orders on the table now, but they would be published in the Gazette and sent to the Courts of Quarter Session. The Orders did not apply to Scotland, a separate Order being required for that country.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to ask, whether Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of the re-importation of the cattle plague, has not under consideration the propriety of prohibiting the removal of imported cattle from the place of debarkation?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that that was prohibited at present. No cattle imported into London could be taken beyond the metropolitan district. That provision would be continued by the Order.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he wished to know, whether the Order applied to sheep as well as to oxen?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that it would only under certain circumstances. With respect to markets, the regulations would not apply to sheep, unless the sheep had been brought into the same market with cattle, and then they would be subject to the same restrictions.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he wished to know whether, as cattle had been introduced into this country from Holland, and taken from the place of importation, not to be slaughtered, but to dairies, the Government will take into consideration the propriety of

  851
  subjecting all store cattle coming from abroad and not intended for immediate slaughter to quarantine?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that that question had been referred to by the Committee moved for by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to ask whether, under the proposed Orders, it would be competent to move cattle from one part of the metropolitan district to another?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied that it would be not competent to move any of them without licence.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to know, whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the particular locality from which the diseased cows came?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied that he could not.

  THE EASTER RECESS—ORDER OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in rising to move that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday, the 9th of April, I think it may be convenient, in reference to the course of business after the Recess, that I should state the view which the Government take of some important notices placed on the paper of the House, and particularly—not for the purpose of argument, but for the purpose of information to the House—particularly with regard to the notice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake). That notice is in the form of a notice of a Question to be put to me—the hon. Member has given notice of his intention to ask me, "Whether in the course of the Easter recess the Government will take into consideration the expediency of proceeding by Resolutions, towards a settlement of the questions relating to the Representation of the People." In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that, the Government having introduced a Bill for the purpose of dealing with the franchise in England and Wales, our intention is to persevere with that Bill, and that we do not intend to proceed by way of Resolution. The next Notice of Motion relates to an Amendment to be proposed on the second reading of the Bill by my noble Friend the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor). With respect to that Motion, I would simply say—speaking of the Mover and the Motion in different senses, for no
  852
  one who knows my noble Friend can speak of him in other terms than of the highest respect and regard, but Motions and Movers are very different things—with respect to the Motion, I have to state that it is the intention of the Government to resist it. They will resist it upon the ground—first, that it is a Motion which, as far as we can judge, says one thing and means another; and secondly, on the ground that it is, in our judgment, a direct vote of want of confidence in the existing Administration. Then there is another Motion to which the hon. Member for Bridgwater has attached his name. The Motion of my noble Friend the Member for Chester has reference to the second reading, but the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater refers to something to be done in the interval between the second reading and the Committee on the Bill, and presumes the second reading to have received the assent of the House of Commons. The hon. Member proposes to move—
  "That it is not expedient to go into Committee on the said Bill, until this House shall have before it the expected Bill for the re-distribution of seats."
  Perhaps I may be permitted to remind the House of what I have already stated, or rather what I have already stated on the authority of the Government, and on their behalf. We consider it part of the obligation we undertook to deal with the question of the re-distribution of seats, and we likewise gave it as our opinion that that question may be properly dealt with by the Parliament which now exists. My hon. Friend, in addition, asks for a specific explanation of our intentions. We are not unwilling to give that explanation. After the second reading and before the Committee we shall be prepared to state distinctly to the House our intentions with respect to the franchise in Scotland and Ireland, and all the questions connected with the re-distribution of seats; and as we wish to convey those intentions in a form most convenient to the House, and to place the House in the fullest manner in possession of them, we shall put them in the form of Bills, and lay those Bills on the table. At the same time, I cannot state too distinctly to the House, as we are desirous, above all things, not to be misunderstood, that our intention in laying the Bills on the table is confined at the present time to the object I have named—that of giving information to the House—and that we propose to proceed with the Bill relat-

  853
  ing to the franchise in England and Wales in the manner we originally announced, and with that Bill exclusively until its fate is determined. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That this House do at its rising adjourn to Monday, the 9th of April."
  EARL GROSVENOR: Sir, I am not in one sense surprised at the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I confess I am so in another. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has referred to my name in connection with the Motion of which I have given notice; but I have no wish or desire to separate myself in any way from that Resolution, The views of many hon. Members with whom I have the honour to act, as well as my own, on this question, are, that before we legislate on any part of the great Question of Parliamentary Reform it is necessary that we should have before us all the other Bills alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, and that we should consider the Question as a whole. I wish, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he still intends to proceed with the second reading of the Franchise Bill before the House shall have an opportunity of considering the other Bills which ho proposes to lay upon the table? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Unquestionably.] The principle of a Bill is generally considered to be dealt with on the second reading. I believe that the principle of that Bill and the principle of the other Bills are so intimately connected that I cannot myself see that it would be possible or statesmanlike to take the sense of the House on the second reading of the Franchise Bill before the House shall have had an opportunity of considering all those measures and the whole of the proposals relating to the subject; neither do I think the House will consent to such a course as that proposed by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. KINGLAKE: The noble Lord has just said that the second reading of a Bill is the occasion which Parliament provides for the consideration of its principle. Now, Sir, it is precisely for that reason that I propose the Motion for carrying to a later period of the existence of the Bill the objection to which I refer. The period when you are considering the principle of the Bill is the very last on which you are entitled to approach it by any objection founded on external circum-
  854
  stances. I entertain quite as strongly as the noble Lord entertains an objection to the idea of separating the question of the franchise from that of the re-distribution of seats; but while I have determined that I will give effect to that objection by my vote in this House, I will choose my own time for submitting the Amendment to the House. It seems to me very clear that the period of the second reading is the very last you could choose for objections of that kind. The Motion for leave to bring in the Bill would, I think, have afforded a proper opportunity; but the most appropriate occasion for my Motion is when, after having expressed our opinion on the Bill, we are invited to go into the consideration of its details. I, for one, am in a situation which I believe to be common to many hon. Gentlemen in this House I am in the situation of having over and over again committed myself to the principle which is to be affirmed in this Bill. Am I to follow the noble Lord so far as to evade the opportunity of declaring ray opinion on the principle of the Bill? I have now to say that I have taken this mode of giving effect to the view I entertain, and I prepare for myself an opportunity of asserting the principle on which the noble Lord has founded his objection quite as efficient as his would be; but I make it consistent with the opportunity of voting on the question of the principle of the Bill. I am also not ashamed to say that I am glad to find I can make my view consistent with a vote which is not hostile to the party with which I have the honour to act.
  MR. OLIPHANT: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wish to be permitted to say a few words with reference to the Motion which stands in my name for the 10th of April next. That Motion is for the purpose of collecting data and statistics on which we may determine the question whether a re-distribution of seats and a rearrangement of boundaries are necessary. I gave that notice not from a desire to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, but to draw forth a clear and distinct assurance that a Bill for the re-distribution of seats is regarded by them as an essential part of a scheme of Reform. After what has fallen from my right hon. Friend I am satisfied that want of time, and want of time alone, is the reason why the other Bills could not be brought in at the same time with the Franchise Bill, as stated in the speech of

  855
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and as I now find that he will, concurrently with the Franchise Bill passing a second reading, lay on the table the data and materials on which the other two Bills are framed, I feel that I am not called on to pursue my Motion further. I now beg to withdraw it, and on the understanding that these further materials are to be collected, and that the other measures are to be proceeded with, I shall give my vote for the second reading of the Franchise Bill.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it is proverbial that to change your front in the face of an enemy is always a very perilous operation; and I cannot say that I think the course adopted by the Chancellor of the Echequer to-night is an exception to the rule. So far as I can learn from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, we are much in the same position as we were before—we are called upon to take a leap in the dark. What is objected to in the Amendment of the noble Lord who has recently addressed the House is, I understand, this—that the Government having indulged in very vague and general allusions to a large scheme or schemes of Parliamentary re-construction have favoured us with a definite measure on one portion of it only, and that one which, in the opinion of the noble Lord, and, as I believe, in the opinion of a majority of the House and the country, cannot properly be dealt with unless we had every information as to the other portions of the subject. Well, now, the right hon. Gentleman does not at all pretend that we are to be in any other position than we were when he made his statement. We are to proceed with the Bill respecting the franchise, and we are to be favoured with what he has called the views of the Government on the other questions. True, he says they are to be put in the form of Bills, but they are Bills that are not to be proceeded with. Sir, I think this is trifling with the House. Sir, it is obvious that this great question has been introduced to us by men who have not well considered it; who have changed their opinions constantly during the time it was preparing for the consideration of the House. There is evidence of great inconsistency, of great want of judgment, of great wavering; and, as always happens, timidity and precipitation are nearly allied. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if he had solved a great difficulty; but the fact is he has not touched it—he has only evaded it—and the House is left in the
  856
  same nebulous state in regard to the policy of the Government as they were before. What security have we if this Franchise Bill pass that any of the other Bills of the Government will ever be passed either during this or any other Session? The House may be betrayed into the most precipitate decision on points connected with the subject which never can be brought to any happy solution except with reference to other topics which the Government will not now deal with; and the country is left in a state of complete mystification. If I might presume to offer any advice to the Government, which their numerous Cabinet Councils, so hurriedly called, show they are in want of, I would say this—that a Government which has to deal with a great Question in the House of Commons, and wishes to treat it successfully, should, above all things, treat the House of Commons with frankness.

ELECTORAL STATISTICS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPE, on rising to call attention to the "Electoral Statistics" presented to the House, and particularly to the absence of all information respecting copyholders and leaseholders whose property is situate within the limits of Parliamentary cities and boroughs, and to the defective character of the information respecting occupiers in counties whose "gross estimated rental is under £50," said, he made this Motion in the persuasion that if it was desirable that any measure on Parliamentary Reform the House might be called on to adopt should be founded on full and accurate information, the subject of electoral statistics must be regarded as one of considerable importance. The contents of the volume which has been placed in the hands of Members were divided in a somewhat unequal manner. The volume purported to contain the electoral statistics of the boroughs, and of the counties of England and Wales. It consisted of 298 pages, of which 274 were devoted to boroughs; 10 contained references to previous Returns, and only 13 pages were given to the counties. Now, the disproportion was so manifest, that when he first saw that 274 pages were occupied with the boroughs, he asked if there was not another volume for the counties. He did not think it possible that the Government could wish them to suppose that sufficiently full information could be given about all the counties in

  857
  13 pages. But beyond that he found the greatest possible difference in the in-formation respecting boroughs and respecting counties; and though his Motion referred more especially to the deficiency of the information respecting the counties, he hoped the House would forgive him for drawing their attention to the borough statistics, as that was in some degree necessary to show how deficient the information was with respect to the counties. The be-rough Returns gave the population in 1831 and in 1861, and the number of electors on the Parliamentary register, these being divided into £10 householders and other franchises, and distinguishing the number of working men as £10 householders and other franchises, as also the number of voters at the last general election. The total number of voters on the borough register was 514,026. Of these, 463,548 were householders, 41,641 were freemen, and 8,837 were scot and lot and other voters. Thus freemen scrip, it seemed, was at a discount, and potwallopers formed a very insignificant element. The information under this head was of a very valuable character, and was very nearly complete, Then they had some further Returns, for which he, for one, sincerely thanked the Government—namely, as to the working class proportion of the constituencies. The £10 artizan occupiers, it appeared, numbered 108,298, the freemen 20,018, and other voters 2,348, making a total of 130,664. One point, however, was left obscure, for it was not shown whether the 22,366 freemen and other electors, not being £10 occupiers, lived in £5 or £9 houses. This was the only unknown quantity which prevented their calculating the present state of things with exactness; but with that exception the borough Returns were as clear and precise as a banker's balance sheet, giving, as they did, the total number of voters, the different qualifications, the number who belonged to the working class, and a statement of all male occupiers above £4, these being described on one page according to the gross estimated rental, and on another according to the rateable value. Now, let them turn to the county Returns, which they would naturally have expected to find equally minute and intelligible. Such Returns, to be worth anything, should show the total number of voters, and these should be classified as owners, occupiers, and other franchises, and should also distinguish the urban from the rural element, by giving
  858
  the number of voters living in boroughs, the number living in large parishes not being boroughs, and the number residing in the rural districts. They ought also to furnish the number of male owners and occupiers above £2, both at a gross estimated rental and at rateable value, and these, for reasons which hon. Gentlemen could easily understand, might advantageously be divided into occupiers under £14, those under £20, those under £50, and those above £50, They should likewise show the number of freeholders, leaseholders, and copyholders, whose qualification, though situate in boroughs, did not give them a vote for such boroughs. County representatives had the same right to expect complete Returns that borough Members had, and had the information respecting counties been worth the paper on which it was printed—which it was not—it would have complied with all the provisions which he had just stated, and would thus have particularized the population in counties, as a preliminary to legislative action respecting them. What, however, was the fact? He found by Return G, page 286, that the total number of voters on the county register was 542,633, and of these 116,860 were specified as occupying tenants above £50. Not a scrap of further information was afforded on this point, so that 425,773 persons out of 542,633 were entirely unaccounted for. A classification of these would have been extremely valuable, for occupiers below £14 might have been taken as cottagers, those below £20 as very small farmers, those below £50 as medium fanners, and those above £50 as large farmers; and a similar distinction might have been made with the resident owners. Another defect was that while there was a Return of male persons assessed on the valuation list as having tenements with or without land between £10 and £50 in value, the Return of those above £50 included occupiers either of laud or tenements, so that the two columns could not be properly compared. Moreover, while the occupiers under £50 were taken according to rateable value, those under £50 were taken at gross estimated rental; and how, again, could these be accurately compared? It reminded him of the problem that used to puzzle him as a schoolboy many years ago—namely, that of telling the affinity between a goose and a gooseberry. He could harmonize the two Returns only by mental arithmetic or by the rule of three, for the gross estimated rental of the counties

  859
  being £70,000,000, and the rateable value £60,000,000, a £12 rateable value might be taken as equivalent to £14 gross rental. If, however, they wanted to ascertain the number of occupiers at £20 gross rental there was no column of rateable value which would give the information. A £15 rateable value answered to an £18 rental, but in no way was a £20 rental to be arrived at. He also desired information upon another important point—namely, as to the number of owners of land occupying their own land of the value of between £14 and £20, between £20 and £50, and above £50. The information given upon this point was of such a character as to mislead, as the number of owners occupying their own land under £10 value was not stated. He was sure hon. Members representing counties would corroborate his statement, that there were an enormous number of this class in counties. It appeared from the statistics which had been given that the Northern Division of Lincolnshire contained 3,848 owners and occupiers above £10; whereas he knew that of the 12,000 voters on the register, 6,000 or 7,000 were owners and occupiers of land. Why should such slender information be supplied as to the counties, and such ample information as to the boroughs? What would be said by borough Members if they were told to find out the number of people under a £6 estimated rental by the rule of three, and if they were told to look at the estimated rental of £10 to find out how many were rated at £8? They would refuse to enter into such a calculation, and he was not prepared to enter into it either. There was another large class as to whom they had received no information whatever—namely, those owners of property in boroughs whose qualification did not entitle them to vote for the borough but gave a vote for the county. Another large class not referred to in any way consisted of the leaseholders and copyholders in boroughs, but whose qualification did not enable them to vote for boroughs, although it might, under certain circumstances, enable them to vote for counties. He should wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give him some information upon this point. It would be found upon inquiry that there was a great difference between the tenure of property in towns and that in the rural districts. In the country districts nearly all the property was freehold, but in the large towns it was almost entirely leasehold. For instance, the whole town of Huddersfield
  860
  was, with the exception of one house, the property of a former Member for the West Riding, who, ho regretted, had at present no seat in that House (Sir John Ramsden). Again, in Birmingham there were 3,000 leaseholders; in that portion of the metropolis where they were then sitting every house was occupied by a leaseholder; and the same was the case in the large district between Vauxhall and Chelsea, in Tyburnia, in Belgravia, Russell Square and Covent Garden, and in the east of London. The Government had not treated hon. Members and their constituents fairly in depriving them of such an enormous amount of information as he had shown had been withheld. What would be the result if a metropolitan railway company were to come before a Private Bill Committee with statistics of this character—if they were to put down all their receipts in English money and their expenses in foreign money, and were to tell the Committee to calculate the difference by the rule of three? Would the Bill be passed under such circumstances? He thought not. Again, if the railway company further informed the Committee that they had borough a lot of freehold houses in the borough, but gave no account of the number of the freeholds or of their value; or told them that they intended to purchase a lot of leaseholds, but that they could not and would not give any information respecting their number and value—would the chances in favour of the Bill passing be improved? Were a Bill brought before a Committee of which he was a member with statistics of this kind, he should not be prepared to pass it. He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted wisely in withholding all information on this point. Omne ignotum pro magnifico. He must acknowledge that there was no danger so great as an unknown one. He would give an illustration of the alarm created by an undefined threat. Fifty or seventy years ago a former Speaker had to deal with a very disturbed House of Commons, and it was with great difficulty he could preserve order; but at the last moment he always put a stop to the disturbances by saying, "If this disorder continues I shall have to put on my cocked hat." Some few years after, when he became a Peer, he was asked by a noble Lord what he would have done after he had put on his cocked hat, whereupon he replied, "That is exactly what I have always wished to know myself." Still,

  861
  the undefined threat kept the House in order. Now, the unknown householders were the Chancellor of the Exchequer's "cocked hat." He did not think it wise in the right hon. Gentleman always to threaten the House with his cocked hat. He was aware that a great number of the leaseholders who had property in boroughs would be entitled to vote for boroughs, but there was an enormous number of owners who did not live in their Houses, lie had no authentic information on this subject, but he was told that in Birmingham alone there were £3,000 leaseholders who would be entitled to vote for Warwickshire. From all the information he could obtain be saw no reason why the number of leaseholders on the county registers should not amount to 100,000. Looking to the importance of the subject, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to lay his own estimate on the table, and to tell the House on what basis it was formed. He felt he was speaking the sentiments of the representatives of counties and of their constituencies when he appealed to the Government to give the House fuller and more accurate information, without unknown quantities, and on their behalf he protested against the Legislature being called upon to decide this question upon what were miscalled the county statistics of the volume, and which as a guide to the future were most dangerous and delusive.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to direct attention to some remarkable facts upon another branch of the question—the statistics relating to the boroughs of England and Wales. He did not wish to anticipate in any way the discussion upon the second reading of the Franchise Bill; but his object was that the country should have all the information necessary for considering the subject in all its bearings. These statistics bad been placed before the House immediately previous to the introduction of the Franchise Bill, when there was little time to consider them, and every day was bringing new surprises to those who searched into the particulars. He held in his hand a table he had prepared from the blue book, and which might be verified by reference to it. He had only gone so far as thirty-nine of the largest boroughs for England, but the results gave serious ground for reflection to all who really desired to inquire into the real bearing of the subject. By taking in each of those thirty-
  862
  nine boroughs the number of persons registered in respect of £10 houses, and the male occupiers at £10 and over, the difference was approximately obtained of those who would be added by the extinction of the rating qualification—that was to say, supposing there was no lowering of the franchise there would be the addition to the existing constituencies, the difference between these two numbers. If to these were added the number of voters in respect to houses between £7 and £10, the increase in the constituency would be pretty clearly seen, He found that in the case of nearly every one of these thirty-nine towns the number of voters would be actually doubled, without counting the freemen or the number of voters claiming under the savings bank franchise. Not to weary the House, he would only give the figures relating to three or four boroughs. In Birmingham, the actual number of electors registered as £10 householders was 14,997; the number of male occupiers at £10 and over was 19,062; making a difference of 4,065. The number of new voters added by reducing the qualification down to £7 was 14,959, making an increase of 19,024 to ho added to the present £10 constituency. The case of Bradford was not quite so strong. The present £10 electors were 5,189; the male occupiers at £10 and upwards were 6,170; and the difference 981. The number of now voters down to £7 was 3,113, and there would be a new additional constituency of 4,094 as against the present constituency of 5,189. In Gateshead the present constituency was 1,165, and the increase would be 1,377. In Leicester the constituency now numbered 3,348, and the new constituency would amount to 3,963. In Manchester the present constituency was 21,542, and the additional new constituency would be 21,494. A similar result appeared in every one of these boroughs, and it was clear that the abolition of the ratepaying clauses, and the number of new voters to be added under the Bill, would double the constituency. He should take care that the result in each case should be published, but he offered these few figures to the House as a bumble contribution to the information it required, and as statistics of which no one could impugn the accuracy.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that, before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) replied to the Question, he wished to say a few words, lie thought that the House

  863
  was very much indebted to his hon. Friend for the careful analysis of the Government Returns which he had just offered, as to the number of new voters for houses above;610. An hon. Member had placed in his hands a letter from a leading manufacturer, which touched upon the probable effect of a £7 Bill on houses now below £7 value. The writer said—
  "I trust you will excuse the liberty I take in writing to you upon the Reform question. My only reason for troubling you is that no speaker or writer upon the Government Bill has yet dealt sufficiently with the statistics below the £7 rental. If this standard becomes law it is morally certain that no £5 or £6 houses will be built in the future, as a £7 rental will pay better interest of money, being in so much greater request. Every present £6 house will be burnished into a seven-pounder without delay. Even those at £5 will either decline into hovels, or be restored into better than new at £7. I know an owner of cottage property in this borough who has already decided to convert all his into £7 rental if this Bill passes. It is a very simple question; in round figures £7 a year is 2s. 8d. per week, and £6 a year is 2s. 4d. per week, and £5 is 2s.; so that, in point of fact, every £5 householder will, by increasing his rent only 8d. per week, be able to place his name on the list of voters, and by taking a lodger at 1s. a week he would even profit by the exchange. It would certainly be cheap at that price, if only to please their employers by voting as they directed. Thus you see that a £7 franchise should be examined in relation to the statistics at £6 and £5 rentals; and if this is done you will find that it gives the working classes an absolute majority of votes in most of the boroughs in England."
  Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it was not the object of the Government to give a preponderance of one class over another, and what he (Lord Elcho) complained of was that information was refused as to the probable effect of these changes on the future distribution of power. He thought that the House ought to look a little beyond the present moment, and when he asked them to look at the effect of this Bill twenty or thirty years ahead he thought he was asking for nothing absurd, since they were dealing with a Constitution of 600 years' standing. But every question put to the Government—and he might refer, for instance, to the Question put by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) with respect to the increase of borough leaseholders giving votes for counties—was met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the reply that he was not aware of any estimate on the subject. That very night he (Lord Elcho) had endeavoured to ascertain certain important facts relative to voters of the ar-
  864
  tizan class; but no data had the Government got. So it was throughout. Nothing had been calculated by the Government prospectively. It was, however, only the more incumbent upon the House to look to those who were to come after them, and to the institutions and interests which they were bound to transmit.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that the noble Lord who had just sat down had given them an additional reason for adopting a £7 Franchise Bill. There were two Bills before the House which aimed at providing comfortable dwellings for the working classes, and if a £7 Franchise Bill would have the effect of converting all bad houses into good houses—of making them comfortable, improving them in a sanitary point of view, and rendering them profitable to their owners—then, in a social point of view, the noble Lord had furnished them with one of the best arguments yet brought forward in favour of the Government Bill. He would next refer to the statement that had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson); and before doing so he must say it was rather a curious fact that all the Members from Scotland who had yet spoken in respect to this Bill had spoken more or less against it. It was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayrshire that in all the large towns to which he had referred the proposed franchise would more than double the number of voters; but he (Mr. M'Laren) took leave to say that the hon. Baronet had made a great mistake in his calculations. He (Mr. M'Laren) represented a city (Edinburgh) with a population of 170,000; and having heard such statements made before, he had moved for a Return to show the effect that this franchise would have in the city of Edinburgh. He had got a copy of that Return, and it showed that while the present number of voters on the electoral roll was 10,350, there would under a £7 franchise be apparently added—only apparently, for there were deductions to be made—3,600 to the roll. Surely the hon. Baronet would not say that 3,600 were equal to 10,350? It appeared from the proceedings at the last registration for the city of Edinburgh that more than 1,200 persons occupying houses of the value of £10 and upwards were not admitted because they had not resided for the statutory period within the city. That was a deduction of about one-eighth for insufficient residence. None of these were excluded because of the ratepay-

  865
  ing clauses, for Scotland fortunately never had ratepaying clauses; but the one-eighth were excluded because they were not for twelve months resident in the city. He thought no person would be more ready to admit than the hon. Member for Ayrshire that the poorer the people the more migratory they were in their habits; and if one-eighth of the occupiers at a £10 rental were now excluded for insufficient residence there would probably be double that proportion excluded in respect of houses under £10. These facts were quite subversive of the argument used by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, who counted up the whole number at the £7 limit, assuming they would all be admitted at once without inquiry of any kind. In towns like those mentioned by the hon. Baronet a very large deduction must be made; and in some of the large manufacturing towns even 20 per cent would be too small a deduction to make from the gross number shown in the Returns, for the reason he (Mr. M'Laren) had stated. There was another source of deduction peculiar to those towns that had a large number of freemen, one-fourth of whom occupy houses above £10. They were told that the other three-fourths of the freemen were a poor and wretched class, speaking generally. He did not know whether they were or not; but if so, the other three-fourths must occupy houses under £10. Now, suppose the apparent increase of the number of electors in a borough, after making proper allowance for insufficient residence amounted to 1,000, was it not quite plain that 1,000 would not be added to the roll of voters, because this number would absorb a large proportion of the freemen, and they could not count the same men twice over on the electoral roll. There must, therefore, be a deduction on that account of a very large number. From all the inquiries he (Mr. M'Laren) had made—though this proposed franchise did not come up to the expectation of many true friends of Reform, nor up to the expectations of the majority of the inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh, who would prefer a £6 franchise in be roughs and a £10 franchise in counties—he had reason to think that the measure would give great and general satisfaction throughout all the towns in Scotland.
  MR. PLATTdesired, as a large employer of labour, to say that he thought the measure of the Government would be-rather too restricted than otherwise as regarded the artizans and the working classes. In his own neighbourhood he em-
  866
  ployed about 5,000 adult males in one of the most important branches of mechanical enterprize, and one in which the best class of artizans in England were engaged. Among those 5,000 adults there were only sixty-nine who had votes; and out of that sixty-nine there were only thirty-five who could be properly described as being of the artizan class. With thirty-five voters out of 5,000 adult males, who were among the most intelligent and best paid workmen in this country, it could hardly be said that the artizan class was over-represented in my own statistics. Taking the borough with which he was connected (Oldham), the results would be found very much the same. The population was 107,000, and the voters upon the register were 2,229. Of the latter, only 150 belonged, properly speaking, to the working or artizan class. That he took to be a fair sample of the modern manufacturing towns in the North of England. Having had an experience of upwards of thirty years of the working class, he could say that, although it was quite true they bad their failings, as well as any other class, ho had no fear whatever of them. He was aware that there was one thing that frightened many employers and manufacturers—namely, the trades unions; hut in regard to that point he took a different view from some persons. They would place more responsibility on the workmen by giving them votes and teaching them political economy in a practical sense and by that means they would reduce the numbers who joined trades' unions. Moreover, during the last fifteen or twenty years an advance had been made by those bodies. Formerly many of them had very restricted laws; but since then some of the most important and most intelligent of them, and among others the Amalgamated Society of; Engineers, had abolished all their restrictive laws, and converted themselves into j simple benefit societies; after which their employers had had no further trouble.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he rose in consequence of the forms of the House; precluding his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer from answering the Questions more directly put to him by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Banks Stanhope). In replying to that hon. Gentleman, he would confine himself strictly to the purpose of his Motion, for he thought the present was not the most convenient occasion for entering into a discussion upon the Reform Bill or into speculations as to its results. He did not think it would be

  867
  difficult to show the hon. Member that he had not so much reason to complain as he seemed to imagine with respect to a portion of the electoral statistics which had been furnished to the House. The hon. Member had been pleased to express his satisfaction with regard to the completeness of the statistics so far as they affected boroughs and cities; of this the credit was entirely due to the gentleman who had had the labour of preparing them, seeing that he deserved all the honour for the admirable manner in which they had been presented to the House. He understood the hon. Member to say that the Returns respecting the number and the value of the occupations which were to confer the qualification for future voters in boroughs and cities to be complete; but that he complained that there were not the same means provided for ascertaining the number of voters in the counties as in the boroughs and cities. It was, then, necessary to look at the Returns that had been presented in respect of the boroughs and cities. Two Returns had been given showing in parallel columns the estimated rental of the occupation which the voters would have, and also the rateable value; but for the counties no rateable value had been given. The reason why both the estimated rental and the rateable value were given for the boroughs and cities was that the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) had moved for a Return on those points, and the House was in possession of it, and therefore it was added to the present statistics. The hon. Member for Lincolnshire, who attended to rural affairs during the recess and officiated as a magistrate, must have been aware of recent legislation affecting assessments of property, and therefore he was surprised that the hon. Member should have expressed any doubt as to the sufficiency of the means afforded for obtaining the estimated rental and the rateable value in counties. Possessing the estimated rental the hon. Member had at once the rateable value, or, having the rateable value, he had, at the same time, the estimated rental; for between the two there was an established proportion. If the hon. Member would only look to the Returns which he already possessed and those moved for by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire last year, he would see the rule regulating the deduction to be made from the estimated rental in order to get at the rateable value. That was, however, enforced only throughout the counties and not in the cities
  868
  and boroughs. The deduction was invariably 15 per cent, or about 3s. in the pound; and, having the rateable value, all the hon. Member had to do was to take off 15 per cent, and he would immediately ascertain what he required without the laborious arithmetical process to which he had referred. Now, these Returns were ordered, in the first place, for the information of the Government for the preparation of the Bill, and they wished to give as little trouble as possible to those persons charged with the collection of them, They were made out by the clerks of unions, in conjunction with other persons. One clerk, indeed, said that he was unable to give the time and the trouble requisite for this purpose; and the Poor Law Board thought it right to summon him before the Court for refusing to comply with its request. The Court, however, sympathized with the clerk of the union, stating that he was appointed for one purpose, and now the Poor Law Board called upon him to make a Return for another. The House was bound to spare as much as possible the people engaged in the collection of statistics, and the delay which would be requisite to obtain the further information desired by the hon. Member would be very considerable. There was, indeed, no necessity for obtaining any further Returns in reference to the increase that would be made in the number of county voters by the Bill which had been introduced to the House, for ample means for obtaining this knowledge was already provided. Some extraordinary conclusions had been drawn from the statistics. The hon. Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) had discovered that in thirty-nine boroughs the constituencies would be doubled; he hoped the hon. Member would publish those statistics, and explain the process by which he had arrived at the conclusion. He was quite sure that the hon. Member was aware that the number of occupiers was no proof of the number of voters. Looking at the present registers, the present occupiers, and the present qualifications, a deduction must be made of at least 28 per cent between the number of occupiers of £10 houses and the persons upon the register. The hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Banks Stanhope), towards the end of his address, dwelt upon the fact that no Returns had been made of the number of copyholders and leaseholders, but did not indicate to the House the way by which they could be obtained. There was no record of

  869
  copyholders and no register of leaseholders qualified at present to vote for the counties, and there was no means that he knew of, except going from house to house, and making inquiries at each house, by which information on these points could be obtained. If the hon. Member, however, were to examine the Returns he already possessed he would, without any great effort, be able to draw a tolerably good inference. There was no register of freeholders in the counties. There was a difference between the city voters and the county voters to be noted; in the counties the electors were obliged to send in their claims, whereas the parochial officers in towns and boroughs were compelled to make out a register of the persons entitled to vote in cities and boroughs. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Platt) had made an objection to the Returns on the ground that the working classes had been entered in too large numbers. He did not doubt that the statement of the hon. Member was correct as respected Oldham. According to the Returns, which were made by a gentleman well known to the hon. Member, the number of working men on the register was 315; and he had intimated his readiness to prove his statement. The hon. Member, however, stated the number at 150 only. The discrepancy probably arose from the Government Returns having taken too comprehensive a view of the term "working men," and so including many whom the hon. Member did not regard as coming under that category. He was not aware of any further objections to the statistics, and the arguments that had been brought against the Bill would be better met on a future occasion. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had shown that one of the tendencies of the Bill would be to improve the character of the dwellings of the working classes. If so, that would be a very beneficial result, and the miserable hovels which now existed would be swept away. Stimulated by a desire to obtain the franchise, they would become more frugal and acquire the means that would enable them to dwell in better houses.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to make one or two remarks in reference to the county voters and the form in which the information respecting them had been presented to the House, What his hon. Friend the Member for North Lin colnshire (Mr. Banks Stanhope) had complained of was, that the county Returns
  870
  were defective, and were not given in so convenient a form as the borough Returns. Instead of giving the number of voters who would come within the Government proposal by a £14 rental, the Returns gave only the rateable value Although it might be easy for persons conversant with the mode of estimating the gross estimated rental to make the deductions necessary to arrive at the rateable value, it was by no means so easy for those who did not happen to be familiar with the matter to make the calculation The Government might, without much difficulty, in his; opinion, have supplied information which; individual Members would have some ! trouble in obtaining as the result of their own inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, for instance, had pointed out certain mistakes winch had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Sir Jame Fergusson) in his calculations; but if it was true that he had fallen into those errors, was it not extremely probable, he would ask, that other Members would be led into similar mistakes, and did not that very fact show that the Government ought to have submitted the statistics on the subject to the House in such a form as to have obviated the difficulty? The whole gist of the case of the Government was that the House was to proceed in the matter of Reform deliberately, and step by step on the information laid before it; and they were informed in the Queen's Speech that Returns were being prepared which were to serve them as a guide. The information thus indicated had been collected, and he admitted that the officers employed in collecting it had done their work extremely well. On that information the Government formed their conclusions, and proposed a particular franchise; but surely it was only natural to suppose that they would, under the circumstances, have placed the House of Commons in possession of the information which was necessary to enable them to form a sound judgment on that question also. The Government must all along have had in their eye the grounds on which they intended to base their proposal. It was an easy matter, therefore, to have set Borne person to make the necessary calculations, instead of leaving I every individual to make it for himself; thus involving the expenditure of a vast amount of time, which the labours of a single skilled person might have saved.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwas surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, who now finds it suits his purpose to pretend to be the friend of the working man, should have repeated the argument which had on a former occasion fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham, and should state that one good thing in the Government Bill was that it would oblige landlords to improve their houses, so that the labouring class would in future have a £10 instead of a £6 house. [Mr. C. P. VILLIERS: I did not say that.] Well, at all events, he seemed to argue that in boroughs there would, after the passing of the Bill, be £7 instead of £6 houses. But that was, he (Lord Robert Montagu) thought, a matter in which the supply would be governed by the demand. But, be that as it might, he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had stated that there were certain ulterior schemes which he proposed to lay, in the shape of dummies, on the table of the House—as to what checks he proposed to place on the increased franchise. By lowering, for instance, the franchise in counties, the present agricultural constituencies would be swamped, but if the various towns were taken out of those counties and grouped with the boroughs by means of a re-distribution of seats, something might be done to mitigate the evils which would thereby be created. The House, therefore, ought, he contended, to be made aware before the second reading of the Franchise Bill in what the whole scheme of the Government really consisted. Because those questions with which they intended to deal will afterwards become really part and parcel of the principle upon which they meant to proceed.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERcontended that there was another Bill which it was expedient should be laid on the table before the House went into Committee on the Franchise Bill, and that was a Boundary Bill, without having which before them it would be impossible to deal with the question of the re-distribution of seats. It was evident that a Boundary Bill might alter the whole question of the re-distribution of seats. Because those places which without a change of boundary might be disfranchised might not be disfranchised, if addition to their boundaries were made. He hoped, therefore, that a complete Boundary Bill as well as a Re-
  872
  distribution of Seats Bill would be laid on the table for the information of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken (Sir George Bowyer) will refer back to the only successful specimen of legislation in regard to Reform to which I need call his attention—the Reform Act of 1832—he will find that no such preliminary Bill was introduced as that which he has mentioned, and that the House then voted on the general question of the re-distribution of seats without having a Boundary Bill before it. I am of opinion that some examination of boundaries would be necessary before the final adjustment of the whole of the details of that question; but the influence of such an investigation would, after all, I think, be a matter of only secondary importance. If, indeed, the observations of the hon. and learned Baronet have any meaning, their practical result would be that nothing should be said on the subject of the re-distribution of seats in the present year.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: That might be the consequence, but it is not the meaning.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I close with my hon. and learned Friend on these terms. And now I may be allowed to refer to what has fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu), who rose in his place, and made some remarks as to my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Villiers) thinking it worth his while to pretend to be the friend of the working man. Would he like, I would ask him, to have such a phrase applied to himself?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Certainly, if it could be done with truth.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then the noble Lord adheres to the expression, and I am very much disposed to appeal to the Chairman as to whether he is justified in speaking of another Member in those terms. In my opinion those working men to whom he alludes would, if admitted within these walls, set the noble Lord an example of courtesy, would set him an example of good breeding, would set him an example of high breeding, which he might do well to follow. I confess I am astonished that the noble Lord should, on reflection, adopt those words, and if I did not appeal to you, Sir, when he uttered them it is because I thought that he would, when reminded

  873
  that he used them, at once say that they had escaped from him by accident. But the noble Lord went on, not conscious that he was all the time replying not to the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers), but to that of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), upon whom in reality he poured forth the vials of his wrath. The hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), however, who preceded the noble Lord, spoke, as he always does, to the purpose, but, notwithstanding what he has said, I confess I do not at all feel that I owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Banks Stanhope) for the course which he has to-night taken The hon. Member for Stamford has entirely misapprehended the matter. He said that certain elaborate calculations are easy to experts, but very difficult to the mass of mankind, and the Members of this House ought not to be called on to go through them. But there are no elaborate calculations involved in the matter—all that is necessary to bear in mind is that a £12 rating is equivalent or very nearly so to a £14 rental. But I object to the whole mode of dealing with this question of statistics, as adopted by hon. Members. That is the reason why I feel no gratitude to them. They seem as if they were engaged in ascertaining the numbers of an invading army; but the persons to whom their remarks apply are our fellow-subjects, our fellow-Christians, our own flesh and blood, who have been lauded to the skies for their good conduct—men who have borne destitution and privation in a manner which might be a lesson to all of us. I cannot accede to the demand for information founded on a principle which I consider mischievous and untrue. [An hon. MEMBER: Untrue!] I speak of the principle as untrue, which means unsound. I deny that mathematical precision is necessary in giving information on this question. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire has recently passed some few days of his life in a state of alarm at the prospects of the country. The noble Lord at the head of his Volunteers would not in the least tremble to meet a French invasion, but the idea of an invasion of his own fellow citizens desirous of obtaining the franchise has entirely frightened him from his propriety. These voters between £14 and £50 will not belong to the labouring class. [Mr. BANKS STANHOPE: That is what I want to know,] There are certain
  874
  facts, at, any rate, which do not require to be made the subject of a statistical Return, and in producing the statistical information already placed before the House, we consider we have complied with the terms used in the Queen's Speech. Occupiers between £14 and £50 in counties do not as a rule belong to the labouring class. They I are substantially of the middle class; though! there may be some exceptions in the case: of holders of small parcels of land, who; may be properly described as belonging to; the labouring class, and who are under the influence—I do not mean the compulsory but the friendly influence—of their landlords. Therefore, it did not enter into our minds that this question of the county franchise would be viewed in the spirit of jealousy and alarm with which it appears; to be regarded by the hon. Gentleman opposite, [Mr. BANKS STANHOPE: In the absence of statistics,] With regard to another class of persons—namely, copyholders and leaseholders—we would have been glad to produce statistics, but it is not possible to do so. It is a matter most proper to be considered and discussed in Committee whether collateral information can be had. If it can, by all means let it be had. We cannot pretend to get the information, though I fully admit that it would be desirable to have it if possible. With respect to the gross estimated rental, I ask what was done in 1859? The House then passed a Bill which established a £10 occupation franchise for the counties, and I am not aware that the information then placed before us was better than, or so good as, the information now placed before the House. I think we have gone to the fullest length of our tether in furnishing information, and I am not prepared to accept the censure of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: The right hon. Gentleman seems to wish to strengthen our moral nature by saying that we ought first to have confidence in the Government passing their Bill, in the hope that after that they will listen to our wishes, I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no use in producing statistics at all if they are not perfect and complete, and such as would really form some reliable ground for estimating the effect of the Government Bill. The right hon. Gentle-| man talked about the class of persons referred to as being our own countrymen and our own flesh and blood, and that, therefore, any measure to enfranchise them must be adopted; but the right hon. Gentleman

  875
  should bear in mind that in producing the blue book he made a pratical admission that investigation of this kind is a necessary foundation for a satisfactory measure of Reform, and therefore he is bound to collect the Returns so that the House may be able to the utmost extent to judge of the effect of the proposed Bill on the various constituencies. The information supplied to the House is defective in two particulars. In the first place, the House is not told by the Statistics how far the agricultural population would be swamped by the urban; and, secondly, how far, in boroughs and counties, the middle and upper classes will be swamped by the working class. I am inclined to adhere to the estimate previously formed—namely, that some 130 Members would be placed in the hands of the working classes, and when the re-distribution of seats comes they will probably have the majority of boroughs. The whole matter is surrounded with uncertainty, in consequence of the defective information with respect to lodgers, compound householders, the effect of the repeal of the ratepaying clauses, of the establishment of the £14 occupation francise in counties, and of the grant of a county vote to copyholders and leaseholders in boroughs. And what reply is given when this defective state of the Returns is noticed? The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells the House that he has gone to the very utmost limit in supplying information with respect to the preponderance of working men in the constituencies; and he now declares that, as a matter of principle, he will refuse to supply any further information in reference to the working men. Putting all the sentimental rant aside about "our own flesh and blood," it is important to inquire whether this Reform Bill is to transfer the tax imposing and the tax expending power from one portion of the community to another. I ask the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) whether, in drawing this Bill of Reform, he would not, as a matter of business, have been influenced by the particular considerations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to disregard? Recalling to mind the calmer and more prosaic atmosphere of the Bank Parlour, the right hon. Member for the City of London will acknowledge that the Bank itself would have been brought into difficulties if matters of business affecting large amounts of money had been treated on the principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a question, not of phrases and sentiment, but
  876
  of facts and figures. The right hon. Gentleman has yielded something—if he should yield a little more, we may find the expression of the Government standing or falling by the Bill will have to be taken in a non-natural sense. If it be that the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should frame a Reform Bill, I would entreat him to re-consider his doctrines about the necessity of full information, and before he again asks the House of Commons to transfer the power over the legislation, the taxation, and the finances of this country from the section of the community which holds it now to another section of the community, I entreat him to let us know who our new masters are to be. In a constitutional country it is at least as important to know who the new governing classes are to be as it is in other countries to know what change will take place in the dynasty. Whether it were great or small, for the better or for the worse, there would, at all events, be an absolute change of the governing power over all the best interests of the country. When such a change is about to take place, surely it is not unreasonable that we should come to the right hon. Gentleman and inquire what manner of men these new rulers of ours are to be—whether they are split up into different sections or united together; whether they are likely to support agricultural interests or not; whether they are in favour of direct or indirect taxation; and, in particular, whethey they were impartially spread over all those interests, or would give an overwhelming preponderance to one end of the balance. I will not discuss the policy to be founded on the information which might be obtained; but I say that if we require information relating to the small matters on which the Legislature has already been engaged, we ought, above all things, to have information on that which, as it were, contains and includes them all. I cannot accept as an excuse what has been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) as to the expense and difficulty of collecting Returns of this kind. Why, in a matter of this kind, we ought to recoil from no trouble and no expense. If the requisite machinery does not exist, it ought to be created. We ought to know, with reference to every constituency in the country, the extent of the change proposed, the number of new electors to be introduced, what class of the community they belong to, and, as far as

  877
  it is possible to ascertain it, how far they would represent the wealth and the numbers of the people. This is information for which we have a right to ask, and I am quite sure that no Government can succeed in carrying a satisfactory Reform Bill till it makes up its mind, in spite of any trouble or expense, to satisfy this legitimate demand. Before I sit down, I wish to correct one error which the right hon. Gentleman fell into with respect to the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho). The argument of the noble Lord was simple and obvious, He said that the probable tendency of any measure of Reform would be to induce per sons who wished for political influence to raise the character and rental of their houses, and that the consequence would be that the number of £7 voters would be greater than could be ascertained at present from the number of £7 houses. Now, that seems to be a very legitimate argument; for it is obvious that in any future purchase you must add a margin, however slight it might be, for the right of claiming the franchise. The argument of the noble Lord, therefore, appeared to be a very legitimate one, and I think he hardly deserved the attack which was made upon him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I quite concur with the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) that the question of boundaries must necessarily precede the question of re-distribution of seats; and 1 think the right hon. Gentleman will find, if he looks to the precedent of 1832, that at that time the boroughs which were to be disfranchised were of a notorious character, and there could be no very great contest, after it was admitted that some disfranchisement should take place, as to the nature and extent of the disfranchisement. At all events, the Reformers of 1832 were not infallible, but that circumstance does not diminish the effect of my hon. Friend's argument, that if you adjust the system of representation you are bound to entertain the question of boundaries.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The noble Lord opposite (Viscount Cranbourne) has asked me very pointedly what the custom is in dealing with large financial transactions in the City. I will tell him one rule which we always follow, and that is never to haggle—never, when large financial matters are in question, to think of the shillings and the halfpence. But I need not refer simply to the practice in the City, but to the maxim of which we were recently reminded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  878
  Calne (Mr. Lowe), De minimis non curat lex. In this matter it is impossible to go so minutely into detail as the noble Lord seems to demand. This discussion is brought on by a Question relating to the, alleged insufficient nature of the statistics in the hands of the House. The whole matter, I suppose, turns on the difference between £15 or £14 or something of that kind. It turns on £1, or 10 s. at the most, for it must turn on this—whether a £12 rating is equivalent to £14 rental, and if not, where the error lies, and how many new voters it would be the means of introducing into the constituencies. If we were to assume that it might admit 20,000, that would be a very large estimate indeed, but probably the calculation is nearly accurate, and a £l2 rating is about equivalent to a £14 rental. If, however, there is a difference, do the hon. Members opposite know the number within a few hundreds? ["Hear, hear!"'] Well, perhaps they would like to know within a few units. Hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to calculate precisely the social standing and power to pay rent of every single constituent in the boroughs. There is a doctrine, which has been applauded by hon. Members opposite, that under our present Constitution it was easy enough to acquire the franchise. Well, we find in the constituencies at the present moment, a large number of working men whom hon. Members opposite did not suspect to be there, and these working men I have so conducted themselves that it is; impossible to tell the difference between a working man and any other. Apart from that, however, hon. Members opposite admit that if the working men pay a little more for their houses, they are able to obtain the franchise, and therefore a system of calculating precisely the number of working men in any borough must break down, because the number changes from day to day and from hour to hour. I have heard it stated that the discovery of gold in Australia raised wages throughout the country, and any such circumstance might affect the number to some extent; but it is only when you are dealing with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands that these statistics can be used at all. However, if I am not much mistaken, the noble Lord will find all the calculations he wishes for in the possession of some of his friends, because, no doubt, when Lord Derby introduced his Bill all these precautions were taken. Those statistics must have been in the possession of many hon. Gentlemen

  879
  opposite, because when they proposed a diminution of the county franchise they must have calculated the additions that would be made in each county. I am sorry that they kept the statistics to themselves, but no doubt the noble Lord will be able to find them. I confess, however, that I do not concur with him in thinking that it is so necessary to make such minute calculations for every county or borough. Indeed, it is impossible as well as undesirable to make such minute calculations. If we are to inquire minutely into the numbers of the working classes, why should we not ascertain how strong the landed interest is, and the military interest, and the commercial interest, and the manufacturing interest? I think it would be a great disadvantage if we should come to discuss among ourselves precisely how many there are belonging to one class or to another. The whole question must rest upon a broader basis than simply how many there are in inhabited houses of £10 and £7. I am sure the statistics go as much into detail as it is possible or desirable that they should. Questions of this kind, if they are right by tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands, ought not to be pursued down to the lowest figures, tens and units. The increase which is taking place in the general prosperity of the country must change the aspect of affairs in any particular locality in the course of a very few months.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had given an admirable argument against those weekly Returns which the Bank of England was so fond of publishing. To be sure those Returns related only to money and to the solvency of the Bank of England. But when the question was who were to be the people to make the House of Commons, who should constitute the hundreds of thousands of additional constituencies, then demanding Returns, forsooth, was haggling. What were all the Supply nights but haggling? What were the Budget nights but haggling? What was the legitimate jealousy which scrutinized Bills, both public and private—what was that, in the language of the Treasury Bench, but haggling? He made the right hon. Gentleman a present of this "haggling." But it sent hon. Members to the country and to their constituents with unpleasant feelings when they found the Government trying to make use of a mighty force by putting on the bonnet rouge, and
  880
  when they found the Chancellor of the Exchequer making sentimental appeals to "flesh and blood," which, if it meant anything, was a direct appeal on behalf of universal suffrage—the second chapter, in fact, of the treatise on the subject of which the right hon. Gentleman had published the first series one Wednesday during the last Parliament. This talk about "flesh and blood," "fellow-Christians," and so on, was either a direct and palpable appeal to the passions of the multitude, and an argument in favour of universal suffrage, or it was mere rubbish and rhapsody; for every adult male, just as much as of the seven-pounders, it stood true that they were "of the same flesh and blood" and "fellow-Christians." Then came the other Chancellor—the Chancellor of the Duchy—who said that the Opposition were inciting the working classes to analyze, to their disadvantage of course, the classes of which that House was composed. He would tell that right hon. Gentleman that if he felt disposed to publish another edition of the Black Book of thirty-five years ago, which came out in the turmoil of the Reform Bill to stir popular passion against the governing classes, it would not be very saleable now-a-days. They had by this time got beyond all that sort of thing—the Reform Bill had done them much good in that respect. They who agreed with him stood upon the Reform Act. They simply wished to preserve the handy-work of Lord Russell in his youthful time, as yet untouched by profane hands. They wished to preserve it against the feeble tampering of its own author, who came forward to meddle with it after so many of those septennial periods had elapsed which as men of science say change the identity of the human body. There was one point on which he differed from his friends. They complained that the statistics were imperfect. In a measure only was that true; for in many cases they were no statistics at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an eloquent appeal to the House not to be alarmed at the admission of the 400,000 of "our flesh and blood" into the suffrage. This meant, or it meant nothing, that there would be no re-distribution of seats, no disenfranchisement, no further enfranchisement, for otherwise that 400,000 must be changed to some other and much higher figure. It might be 500,000, or 600,000 or 700,000. If the £7 was to be accepted in the dark as the first sine quâ non, how were they to know the names and

  881
  boundaries, the number and population of the towns which were to be admitted into the representation under that new franchise? What were the islands in this sea of Utopia which would have to be discovered if they passed the Bill? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that if they were good children, and believed what their political pastors and masters told them, if they swallowed the dose, cried Amen, and said it was all right, the Government would then in its condescension give them data which might prove that all which had been alleged or done was wrong. That was the simple, plain English of the Government policy. But they wanted to know what the Reform Bill was before they passed it in sections. He wished to know whether the re-distribution of seats was to bear a penal character, and hinge upon the way the second reading was treated; whether the right hon. Gentleman was to come down like a school inspector with smiles on his face or anger on his brow, according as they behaved; whether the enfranchisement here and the disfranchisement there was to be a whole or a half proceeding, according to the division list; whether Schedules A and B were fluctuating quantities; whether the cutting off a Member was to beat a line drawn at 5,000, 10,000, or 15,000 of population, according as they were or were not deaf to the sweet syren the noble Member for Chester: Was the balance to be struck between the counties and the boroughs to depend on the subserviency of their Members? These were all questions they were entitled to ask. When so preposterous a system was pursued—a system winch revolted against all ideas of justice and common sense—they had a right to suspect the worst of political dodges—something beyond the honest desire to reform the representation of the people—and that was some device to repair the tottering props of a falling Cabinet Let the right hon. Gentleman rise in his place on Monday fortnight, and state what was the measure that he intended to bring forward, what the re-distribution of seats, and let him lay on the table the statistics they had not yet seen; and then the House could say whether, in their judgment, the measure was good or bad, whether it was to be the salvation of England or the destruction of our old and stable Constitution—at least, that the Government had taken an honest and straightforward course. He wished with all his heart he were able to say so much to
  882
  their credit now, but that was what he could not say.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was glad to have from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Beresford Hope) such a manifestation of loyal attachment to the Reform Bill of 1832. The great complaint which had been made with regard to these statistics was that they did not give exact information about all who were at present excluded, but only of those whom the Government hoped to include. Now, he agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) that if they were to give such exact information about those who were excluded they might expect that class to require similar information about the included. He thought the Government had gone quite as far as they ought, to have gone in this matter; and some measure of injustice had rather been done to the artizan class by representing them to be less entirely excluded than they really were. He could conceive nothing more impolitic, not with reference to the interests of the Government and the Liberal party, but of the country, than an attempt to characterize and distinguish between the included and excluded from the franchise. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to know the individual character of these men? Did they want to know what they would do under any circumstances? Did they want to know not only how much money they earned, but how they spent it? They had no right to go into these questions with regard to any class of their fellow-subjects. Would not the excluded be tempted to make similar inquiries with regard to those who had the elective franchise? Would they not ask how many voters there might be who were under the influence of their landlords? Would it be advantageous to go into questions of that kind: Hon. Members opposite sometimes talked of the impropriety of setting class against class. He could conceive nothing more likely to have the effect than the course which was now being pursued by hon. Gentlemen on the other side—treating the working class as enemies to the Constitution, and prying into the mode in which they would use the franchise if given to them—in fact, forcing them to do what he believed they never would otherwise do—to bind themselves into a class, and as a class act for class purposes. As a class, he believed they were least of all likely to act together for any special purpose; but hon. Gentlemen

  883
  opposite were by their suspicions doing what would, if possible, produce that result. The noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) made use of a remark which, for Conservative interests, might be considered dangerous; he said they wanted this exact information because the Bill proposed a change in the taxing power of the country. Did not this suggest an irresistible inference that the taxing power had hitherto been used with an immediate view to the interests of the represented? If ever there should be any disposition to attack the present possessors of power it could only arise from such remarks and such unfounded suspicions. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope) stated that they were going to the country during the recess with unpleasant feelings. No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite regretted much to find that the debate on the second reading of the Bill would now be put on its true issue—whether or no the time had come when they ought to admit a large number of British citizens to the elective franchise. No doubt they would have preferred if the issue could have been shifted. The hon. Gentleman said he wanted definitely to know what boroughs would be disfranchised; but he would know that in sufficient time to guide his vote before the Bill became law. If he was in favour of lowering the franchise it would be quite within his power to vote for the second reading of the Bill; and if he found that power was likely to be made use of for purposes he could not approve, when the question of re-distribution came up he might reverse his vote without reproach.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORcongratulated the House and the country upon the altered and more frank tone which had characterized the discussion. The atmosphere around the great Reform question had been singularly cleared during this discussion, and the country would fully appreciate the change that had taken place. Hitherto hon. Members opposite, not content with calling themselves the friends of the working man had even professed themselves to be his sole friends; and they had gone so far as to charge the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), who had done so much to procure the repeal of the Corn Laws they had themselves so long upheld, with pretending to take an interest in the labouring classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been blamed for talking
  884
  of those classes as flesh and blood, and as having a common interest with hon. Members in a common country; but he supposed the right hon. Gentleman had lately been reading his Bible. The issue would now go forth with sufficient distinctness to the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, "Here are large numbers of the working classes, intelligent, educated, taxpaying, law-obeying Englishmen. I recognize them as brother Englishmen, who have a right to be brought within the pale of the Constitution. The principles which the right hon. Gentleman had put forward were no new ones; they were the principles of Charles James Fox, of Edmund Burke, and of Sir William Blackstone. But hon. Gentlemen opposite declared that all the doctrines about human rights were mere sentimentalism, and said, "We have ruled over the country for many years—we, the aristocracy, have taxed the people, and made laws for our advantage, and we will not admit the people unless we retain sufficient power in our own hands to answer our own purposes." The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) cheered, but he (Mr. Taylor) was glad that the issue had at last been so clearly raised, for it would be now discussed at meetings too numerous to be put into a cigar-case, however large. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had made a speech which, like moat of the noble Lord's, was fuller of dogmatism and personal assertion than of argument. It reminded him a great deal of the Irishman's account of the weather—"There was very little wind, but what little there was was tremendously high!" He regarded the doctrine which had been propounded that night—namely, that the working classes formed a separate class—as altogether novel, unsafe, unfounded, and dangerous. The people would understand the issue that had gone forth, and the discussion which had taken place would do more to show who were their real friends and those who had no care for their interest than anything that had before occurred. He rejoiced to think that the issue between the people and the aristocracy had been placed on so clear a basis.
  MR. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to make a few observations on the subject that had occupied the attention of the House during the greater part of the evening. Her Majesty's Government had brought in a Bill for the reduction of the franchise, but had withheld certain inform-

  885
  ation which it was absolutely necessary the House should obtain before they could properly come to a decision upon the important constitutional change which it was proposed to make. Her Majesty's Government, in proposing to overthrow the balance of the political power and to place the larger share in the hands of the working classes, were bound to furnish the House and the country with such information as would justify the acceptance of that proposal. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Banks Stanhope) had asked for a Return of the number of leaseholders and copyholders in boroughs who have votes for the counties, and this information the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declined to give. It almost appeared that Her Majesty's Government, in refusing to give these Returns, were afraid that they would not tell in their favour—as if they were afraid of the House knowing the full extent of the proposed change. The House should not accept the Government proposal unless, at the same time, a Bill for the redistribution of seats was introduced. Her Majesty's Government had not pursued a straightforward, frank, and statesmanlike course with reference to this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the leader of the House, in answering the observations of the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire, had shown a considerable amount of reluctance, and he must confess that ho was rather surprised at the general tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He trusted that the House would decline to proceed with the Government Bill until the information asked for had been furnished

WATER WORKS RESERVOIRS

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. FERRANDcalled the attention of the House to the continued dangerous state of existing Public Waterworks Reservoirs; to the fact that no provision has hitherto been made by Parliament to retain a future supply of spring water for the in habitants of the districts from which the watersprings have been taken away; that the rights of landowners and farmers have been entirely disregarded, and the public health injured by the sources of rivers being withdrawn without sufficient compensating Reservoirs. The hon. Member was understood to say that since these waterworks reservoirs were first constructed upwards of 400 lives had been
  886
  sacrificed, and property of the value of more than £1,000,000 had been destroyed. He had been charged with having made exaggerated statements as to the danger of the reservoirs in his own neighbourhood, but his statements had been borne out by facts, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had pledged himself to introduce clauses in future Bills for the protection of life and property, but those clauses had never been embodied in an Act of Parliament. The Bill which had been introduced by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade was altogether inadequate to meet the requirements of the public, for under one of the clauses, which set forth that when any reservoir was in a dangerous state and it was necessary for the authorities to order it to be emptied, the millowners were not entitled to receive compensation, even although their mills might remain inactive for two or three years. And besides, the Bill authorized the construction of new reservoirs on the same principle on which the old ones had been constructed. The hon. Member had adverted to the case of the Holmforth reservoir, and the disaster which had occurred at Sheffield, stating that the waterworks company were re-constructing a reservoir on the same principle as that which had caused such a lamentable destruction of life and property in 1864, He had called the attention of the Home Secretary to the state of the Doe Reservoir, in his own neighbourhood, and the right hon. Gentleman, on the authority of the Mayor of Bradford, had denied that it was in a dangerous state, but the statement which he (Mr. Ferrand) had made was fully borne out by the manager of the Edinburgh Water Company and several gentlemen connected with that company. He had intended to refer the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the report of those gentlemen; but as he found it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to prevent a full discussion of the question, and considered the conduct of the Government offensive to himself and insulting to the people whose lives were in jeopardy, lie would no longer address the House, but at once move that it be counted.
  [At this time not more than three or four Members were in the House; but the Motion having been made that the House be counted, hon. Members returned to their seats in sufficient numbers to make a

  887
  House; and then immediately withdrew. The hon. Member's speech was, consequently, almost unheard.]
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that he thought the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ferrand) was not justified in using the language with which he had concluded his speech. He had not the slightest intention to be disrespectful to the hon. Member. He had himself sat and listened to him, but it was not in his power to command the attendance of other hon. Members. In reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, he begged to state that the Government were as much alive to the importance of the question as he could be, but it was admitted on all sides that considerable difficulties existed in framing clauses in an Act which should be applicable in all cases. They had, however, introduced a Bill referring all existing reservoirs in which power was given to the Board of Trade to cause inspection to take place either with or without complaint being made, and to order repairs when necessary. The Bill also contained other provisions which it was believed would render the reservoirs of the country more secure than they now were. The best course would be for the hon. Member to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and then to introduce in Committee such clauses as he should think would render the operation of the Bill more perfect.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday, the 9th day April next.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till Monday, 9th April.