CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 12 July 1867 vol 188 cc1439-82

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. BERKELEY

said, he had a clause to move which was originally intended as an Amendment to a clause which was brought in by the Government for enabling electors to vote by means of voting papers but which was rejected in Committee. The proposal he now had to make was taken from a Bill introduced by Lord Fermoy and himself in 1862, was now in force, as an Act, in the Australian Colonies, and was tantamount to the ballot pure and simple. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer should approve the proposal, as he almost hoped he might, the right hon. Gentleman would then place himself in the front rank of Reformers. The right hon. Gentleman had taken a great many steps in that direction. If he would take this step, though the last, it would not be the least important. By open voting men were liable to be cudgelled, bribed, and ruined. It used to be contended that the voter should take the responsibility of the vote which he gave upon his own shoulders; but the meaning of that was that he should submit to these inflictions because he happened to discharge his duty faithfully to his country. Although he had voted against the Government proposal for voting papers, he rejoiced that it had been made, because it showed the change that had come over the Conservative mind. Lord Derby, who in 1865 had described the ballot as "the skulking hole of political cowards," informed, in 1867, a deputation who had waited on him that he approved of voting papers, because their secrecy gave confidence to the timid voter and tended to protect the elector from the violence of the mob. Now, nothing could be so diametrically opposed to one another as those two declarations, and he congratulated the supporters of the ballot upon so complete a surrender of the principle on which the ballot had been mainly opposed. He had, he might add, lately read with great attention the speeches of no less distinguished a man than the right hon. Robert Lowe, published by himself. To those speeches there was a preface, and he would venture to say that no more dishonest statement, as regards the ballot, had ever been published. ["Order!"] He would alter the phraseology, and call it a most disingenuous statement, for it was full of what lawyers termed avoidance, and suppressio veri. It commenced by setting forth that when a man was willing to sell his vote and another to buy it, no machinery which Parliament could invent could prevent the carrying out of a secret bargain between them. The ballot alone could do that, and the right hon. Gentleman knew that the ballot had done it. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to contend that the ballot did not secure secret voting in America, and that in large constituencies bribery prevailed as well as in small. Now, it struck him as somewhat odd that the right hon. Gentleman who owed his rise in the world to the colony of Australia, should find it necessary to go so far westward as America in order to make out a case against the ballot. He must be aware that in Australia it had been perfectly successful in every respect. Why, then, go to America, where it was true the adoption of the ballot did not compel secrecy of voting, but where, nevertheless, under its operation that object could be attained by all who desired its protection? Those who chose might vote secretly. He had, indeed, seen voters in America carrying their voting papers in their hats; but then it should be borne in mind that intimidation was unknown, that no law of primogeniture nor overgrown properties prevailed, nor any of those other circumstances which contributed to the malversation of the franchise in this country. As to bribery, he denied that it existed in America with respect to voting at elections, and he might refer in support of that view to the correspondence of The Times, in which it was stated that although large sums of money were sometimes collected, they were not spent in buying votes, but on the proceedings preliminary to the elections. He therefore defied the right hon. Gentleman to get up in that House and prove that the ballot tended to produce such a low tone of morality as he had described. The great constituencies of the country, such as London, Middlesex, Birmingham, Manchester, and Bristol, were in favour of its adoption. If one went back to the time of Charles I. it would be found that in the case of Saville and Wentworth, in a great contested election in Yorkshire, the Parliament allowed votes to be taken anonymously. In the reign of Queen Anne the question of the ballot was brought forward by Wharton and carried in the Commons. That decision might have been influenced by the writings of Defoe, who stated that, though many Acts had lately passed to prevent bribery and corruption, yet treating and other corrupt practices were as openly prevalent as before, and that the only way to stop them was to take the votes by way of ballot. He would now come down to 1832. At that time there were a number of distinguished men who believed that the machinery of the Reform Bill of that day was not perfect, because the measure didnot provide protection for the voter. Among them was Lord Durham, who advocated triennial Parliaments, household suffrage, and vote by ballot. Another was George Grote, a third Lord Macaulay, and a fourth was Benjamin Disraeli the younger. In 1833 the right hon. Gentleman, in an address to the electors of Marylebone, declared that he desired to complete the machinery of the Reform Act by two measures—one for the establishment of triennial Parliaments, and the other providing that in elections the votes should be taken by ballot, so as to invest the people with what was once their birthright, and to bring the Government into harmony with the feeling of the people. The right hon. Gentleman now supported household suffrage pure and simple. He (Mr. Berkeley) trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would yield that last point, the ballot, which was emphatically declared by Jeremy Bentham to be the pole star of Reform, without which all measures of Reform must be useless. He would be the last to say that poverty and corruption were synonymous terms, but all knew that the tempter could work on poor persons more than on those in comfortable circumstances, and he asked the House whether it supposed that there would be more purity in the electoral body, when so much extended, than in the present electoral body? They knew that when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to go to the country the Tory organs of the press urged that public morality forbade such a speedy recurrence of the proceedings of the last election, and spoke of the demoralizing effects of unlimited beer and uncounted bank notes, By the extension of the suffrage which was about to take place, they would increase intimidation and bribery, and he should not be surprised if hon. Gentlemen opposite were to ask for the ballot as a resting place for Reform. He viewed the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a great missionary. He had thrown himself into the wilds of Toryism, had converted the natives and brought them within the pale of civilization. Let him make one more step forward, and he would live the greatest man of the age. He moved the following clause:— At the time of polling at any contested election, each elector having first, according to law, satisfied the returning officer or his deputy that he is entitled to vote, shall receive from such returning officer, or his deputy, a paper on which shall be printed the names of the candidates, and the elector shall take such paper to a separate compartment of the place where the poll may be taken and there strike out the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom he does not vote, and shall immediately afterwards place into glass urn or box the paper folded so as not a show the manner in which he has voted, and immediately after the close of the poll and not before the returning officer shall proceed to examine the said papers and ascertain what candidate or candidates shall have been chosen at such election, and every returning officer shall provide such glass urns or boxes as aforesaid, and shall cause all places at which votes shall be taken to be arranged in such manner as to him shall seem best for carrying out the mode of voting hereby established, and his expenses of so doing shall be included in the expenses legally recoverable by him from the candidates.

Clause (Voting to be by printed papers placed in a glass urn or box) — Mr. Berkeley)—brought up and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

MR. OSBORNE

said, that often and ably as this subject had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Bristol, and often as he had listened to his hon. Friend's arguments, and swelled the minority as far as he could by his single vote, he had never taken part in any discussion upon the ballot. He had listened to the usual stock arguments in its favour and against it. He had heard the similitudes drawn from the case of the clubs, and the answer that it would Americanize our institutions, and that it was un-English. But though he had been up to the present moment a supporter of the ballot, he had been but a lukewarm supporter, because he had always looked upon it more as a matter of detail than as a principle. He had thought it perfectly open to change his views on the question. Nor did he think the hon. Gentleman could fairly twit the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having issued an address in favour of the ballot in 1833, and having altered his views now. That was ancient history. He might point to an hon. Member near him who was formerly in favour of the ballot—the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill)—but who had now changed his views upon the subject. Therefore neither the one side nor the other had any right to twit their opponents or friends. But whatever desirability there might have been for the ballot under the old system, the arguments formerly used in its favour came with redoubled force now. They were creating an entirely new state of things, and no one could predicate what would happen, or what sort of a House would be returned to those benches. He would be a bold man who would venture to prophesy anything as to the effect of this Reform Bill. But there seemed one thing which all parties were agreed upon, that one effect would certainly be to raise what were called the legitimate expenses of elections. The only way in which they could endeavour to restrain those expenses was to make use of this method of taking votes. It would have the advantage not merely of putting some check upon bribery; but with the enormous numbers upon whom they were about to confer the franchise, there must be some other means more than those which at present existed to give facility of voting. Therefore merely as an expedient to create greater facilities of voting he thought the ballot was inevitable in this country. But there were graver considerations connected with this question. He was prepared to argue, in view of the great tendency which there was in elections in this country to increased expenses, whether Parliamentary, municipal, or for Coroners, that the only way they could put a restraint upon bribery was by taking the votes by ballot. He was not speaking at all in a party view, because he was prepared to prove that this would in the end be a Conservative measure. There was some very curious evidence as to what a venal constituency thought of bribery. There was once a place called Sudbury, which returned two Members to that House. It was before his time, but he had read the very curious history which was to be found in the Report of a Select Committee on the Handloom Weavers. It appeared that every man in Sudbury with the exception of twenty sold his vote. Some got £60, but the market price was £35 a piece. On the occasion of the great election of 1835 an aspiring candidate went down to Sudbury full of the ballot, triennial Parliaments, and all those cries which were then so fashionable, and made a great speech for the ballot. Dr. Mitchell, who was one of the Commissioners who reported upon the state of Sudbury and the means of preventing bribery, was asked "Are the Sudbury voters favourable to the vote by ballot?" and his answer was, "Not at all;" and he mentioned that this supporter of the ballot in 1835 met with a very bad reception, and was obliged to leave the town. These people were not more corrupt than some who were to be found in the present day. He knew a constituency where £35 would go a very little way with a voter. But this case was an indirect proof that those who took bribes knew very well that the ballot would have an effect in checking that great evil, which had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. The only way in which they could check or diminish it was by putting the ballot in operation at every election. There was also something to be said upon the ground of intimidation. He was not going to urge the old stock argument of the poor man being oppressed by the rich, or poor shopkeepers being exclusively dealt with by the rich, according as they voted. That argument had had its day; but there was a very important argument to be derived from the disclosures lately made in regard to trades unions, as to the position the poor voter was in from the tyranny that might be exercised upon him by his own class. They had heard something of the ballot in America; but if any one wanted instruction upon the ballot, he could not do better than turn to the Select Committee on Bribery at Elections, which reported in 1855, and which examined all the great election agents of the day, including Mr. Parkes and Mr. Coppock. Amongst the witnesses examined before the Committee was M. de Tocqueville, who was asked, from his experience in America, what was the effect of the ballot there? The reply was— The effect is to protect the poor voter from the tyranny of his own class. Secret voting in America is a protection against the tyranny of the majority, which is the greatest evil that attends a purely democratic form of Government. There could be no doubt that a great stride had now been made here, not possibly towards a democratic form of government, but in erecting a democracy so far as that House was concerned. They were bound, if they did not wish to bestow a damnosa hereditas in the shape of household suffrage upon the poor man, to give him some protection for his vote; for it was not only the rich who were powerful to command votes, but the poorer classes associated together had a strong power in their bands to exercise upon those who went against their opinions. He was to impressed with the necessity of giving protection to the poor voter, that he urged upon the Government to consider the evidence given in 1860 by Mr. Sidney Smith, who was Secretary to the Liberal Registration Association for the City of London—a man not of extreme opinions, but of great experience, who foresaw the state of things that had resulted from these trades unions. That gentleman, before the Lords' Committee, expressed the opinion that if the suffrage was liberally extended to the working classes, they must be protected by secret voting, for the ballot was the only protection against trades unions and other societies, both for them and for shopkeepers, who required protection against exclusive dealing. If the House was going to confer the franchise so largely upon these people, let it not be a mockery. Give them the protection of secret voting, whereby they would be able to record their honest opinion without being subjected to the pressure of people in their own station of life. There were once 200 Gentlemen who voted for the ballot; he should like to see some of these Gentlemen come forward to support it now that it was a matter of much greater importance. He did not argue this from what was called the Liberal point of view, but from the Conservative point of view. He called upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had canted and re-canted so many opinions, to give this protection to the poorer classes of their fellow-subjects. They might depend upon it that the thing was inevitable. There would not be two Parliaments elected under the present Bill before they came to the ballot. He urged the Conservative party to place the top stone on the edifice they had raised to the honour of democracy by making the concession with a good grace now.

MR. MARSH

said, he would not have spoken on this subject but for the reference which his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol had made to Australia. As he had been there more recently than, he believed, any other Member, he might be allowed to say a few words as to what the state of things there really was. The fact was, there was no ballot at all in Australia, in the sense in which the term was used by the hon. Members for Bristol and Nottingham, The ballot, according to them, meant secret voting. There was no such thing as secret voting. They went to the poll with colours in their hands. There could be no secret voting where there were Englishmen. He might give one illustration to show that in Australia there was no secret voting; and he thought it did credit to Australia. It was the system there to have a great number of polling-places. There were two polling-places on his brother's property. His brother asked eighty to vote for his personal friends, and they did so. At the other polling-place there were sixty voters, and with the exception of six he knew exactly how they would vote. Everybody knew how men voted, notwithstanding every effort used by the Government to have secret voting.

Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 161: Majority 49.

MR. CLAY

moved to insert after Clause 30 the following clause:— (Definition of "Expenses of Registration.") The word 'expenses' contained in the Sections fifty-four and fifty-five of the said Registration Act of the Session of the sixth year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighteen, shall be deemed to and shall include and apply to all proper and reasonable fees and charges of any clerk of the peace of any County, or of any town clerk of any City or Borough, to be hereafter made or charged by him, in any year for his trouble, care, and attention in the performance of the services and duties imposed upon him by the same Act, or by this Act, in addition to any money actually paid or disbursed by him for or in respect of any such services or duties as aforesaid. He was only asking for a return to the old practice, which had been not entirely abandoned, but only in some of the counties and boroughs.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had no objection to the clause. It was already partly provided for by the interpretation of the term "returning officer."

MR. AYRTON

said, he thought it would be necessary to alter the language of the clause, so as to provide for places having no town council.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

, in the absence of Mr. Russell Gurney, moved after Clause 43, to insert the following clause:— (Copy of Reports of Commissioners to be evidence.) Any Copy of any of the said Reports by the said Commissioners appointed for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices in any of the said Boroughs of Totnes, Great Yarmouth, Lancaster, or Reigate, with the Schedules thereof annexed, and purporting to be printed by the Queen's printer, shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be sufficient evidence of any such Report of the said Commissioners and of the Schedules annexed thereto.

Clause agreed to and added to the Bill.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

moved to insert the following clause:— (Convictions for felony and certain other offences to disqualify persons from voting.) That any person who has, when of full age, been convicted of any offence for which he has been sentenced to penal servitude, and who has not received a full pardon for the same, shall be incapable of voting at any Election for Members of Parliament. He said that he had endeavoured to meet the objections which had been urged against the proposal when he made it on a former occasion. He had struck out the word "larceny" in accordance with the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley); and he had met the case of a person who had been pardoned, which had been brought before the House by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge). He hoped therefore that the House would now agree to the clause.

Clause brought up and read the first time.

Moved, "That the Clause be now read the second time."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that no doubt the noble Lord had fulfilled his pledge in amending the clause. Still he (Mr. Gladstone) confessed that the more he looked at the clause the less he liked it. It would add something to the sentence in certain classes of crime; and he thought that such an addition should not be made in connection with the Reform Bill. The object of punishment was to deter from crime, but a man would not be deterred by a disqualification such as this. Moreover, it was a punishment which would last for life, and no punishment of that kind should ever be inflicted, except for a strong reason. If a man left prison with a sincere desire to fulfil his duties as a citizen he ought not to bear for life the brand of electoral disqualification.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, that he should support the clause as consistent with the principle on which certain boroughs had been disfranchised. The franchise was not conferred upon a constituency or an individual as a private right, but as something to be exercised for the good of the country, and where a man or a borough had exhibited an incapacity of so exercising it Parliament ought with an unsparing hand to take away the privilege.

MR. OSBORNE

said, he cordially supported the clause. He thought it highly creditable to the noble Lord, and could not understand why his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) should object to it. A vote ought to be an object of ambition, and a sort of poet of honour. It ought, to a certain degree, to be a mark of moral excellence. He should like to see every man who was brought to a police office for flagellating his wife or committing any other atrocity deprived of the franchise. He had none of this mock sympathy with the criminal class, and looked upon it as a "Joseph Surface" hypocrisy. Would anybody undertake to say that Mr. Broadhead, Mr. Crookes, and other respectable gentlemen of that sort were entitled to a vote? If four entire constituencies had been extinguished for bribery, the same punishment should be inflicted on such persons. He hoped the noble Lord would not be deterred from pressing the clause by the scruples of over-enthusiastic Gentlemen.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he could not vote for the clause, which would in effect amount to a sentence of outlawry, imposed in addition to the sentence which the criminal had already undergone for his crime. When a criminal had expiated his offence by undergoing his punishment he ought to be clear for the future. It was now, however, proposed that the sentence pronounced by the Judge should be exceeded, and the effect would be to convert, in some sense, every sentence into a punishment for life.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, he wished to reform a criminal, if possible, and therefore he objected to his being disqualified for ever from this right of voting. The clause was, in his mind, most objectionable, because it attached a disqualification, not so much for any actual crime committed by him, but for a particular sentence passed by a particular Judge upon him. A man, for example, who had been sentenced some years ago for an offence committed, might now, on the approaching termination of his ten years' penal servitude, be looking forward to the enjoyment of that enfranchisement which might be considered the birthright of every British citizen.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, there were two questions involved in the clause—first, whether it was desirable and expedient to attach this permanent disqualification to persons convicted of crime, and, in the next place, whether this clause carried out that object? He did not see why they should attach this peculiar disqualification to persons after they had served out their period of punishment. They did not disqualify such persons under similar circumstances from the exercise of any other civil right when they had purged their offence. With regard to the electors for Lancaster and the other three disfranchised boroughs, they were only disqualified in the borough and county in which they lived, and there was nothing to prevent them from exercising the franchise and acquiring votes anywhere else. He was opposed to the clause.

MR. LEVESON-GOWER

said, he did not like to impose a stigma for life upon a man, however criminal he might have been, who might afterwards occupy a respectable position. The clause was objectionable so far as it would tend to discourage persons from regaining their former position in society.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he felt great difficulty in acceding to the clause, inasmuch as persons who had fulfilled their terms of punishment might serve as jurors, overseers, and in other offices. [An hon. MEMBER: And become Members of Parliament?] Yes, they might become Members of Parliament. This clause would also in effect repeal the existing law, because under the 9th Geo. IV., when persons had served out their sentences they were to be treated as if they had received a free pardon. In many cases a free pardon was granted, not because a man had not committed the offence; but because there were strong circumstances of mitigation, as in cases of manslaughter, perhaps, where a man who had committed an offence in the heat of passion might be afterwards restored to society and even occupy a high position. It had been said that a "ticket-of-leave man could vote," but this was a mistake, as he was still under sentence and could not vote. In former times convicts who had served their terms of servitude abroad not unfrequently rose to high offices in the colonies, without detriment to the public service.

MR. BARROW

said, he opposed the clause, because he objected to retrospective legislation. Criminals ought to know, when they committed a crime, what punishment they would have to suffer.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DILLWYN

said, that he had given notice of a clause providing that each elector shall vote for only one Member. Not wishing to throw any impediment in the passing of this important measure through its last and final stage, he would withdraw his clause.

MR. KEKEWICH

said, he had given notice of a clause that non-resident electors in counties might vote by voting papers. As an hon. Member had given notice of his intention early next Session to bring the subject before the House, he would not press the clause.

MR. JASPER MORE

moved the following clause:— (No under sheriff, acting under sheriff, &c., to act as agent in the election of any Member for a City or Borough.) No under sheriff, acting under sheriff, his partner, deputy, or clerk, shall act as agent in the election of any knight of the shire; and no partner, deputy, or clerk of a returning officer shall act as agent in the election of any Member for a City or Borough; and if he shall so act, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Moved, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the clause would lead to great inconvenience. If the principle were good, which he could not admit, the wording of the clause would have to be altered, because under it no under sheriff would be allowed to act as agent in any other county. As the clause would cause great inconvenience and personal injustice he could not assent to it.

MR. JASPER MORE

said, he was willing to alter the clause so as to limit the disqualification to the county in which the under sheriff exercised the functions of his office.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 168: Majority 41.

MR. PEASE

moved the following clause:— That the Municipal Borough of Hartlepool, the Township of Hart, the Township of Throston, and the Parish of Stranton (including the Town of West Hartlepool), shall constitute the Borough of The Hartlepools.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Moved, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the more important point raised by the Amendment was clearly a matter which should be left to the Boundary Commissioners. With regard to the desire that the borough should be called "the Hartlepools," and not the borough of Hartlepool, he had since received communications from the locality on the subject, and he should very cheerfully assent to that part of the Amendment.

MR. MILBANK

said, he wished to say a word on the subject, as the whole property in Hartlepool, which consisted of two parishes, belonged to himself. He thought it was a hardship that Old Hartlepool, which was in the township of Hart, should not have a vote.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was sorry to hear that there was a chance of Hartlepool being a nomination borough.

Question put, and negatived.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

moved the following clause:— That the writs for Elections within the County Palatine of Lancaster shall be issued direct to the Sheriff.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who, until his accession to office, had been Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, proposed himself now to violate those Orders, in moving a clause of which notice had not been given. The Bill made no provision for returning officers in boroughs which were not municipal boroughs.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, that the clause was not his own, and the Notice had been given, though not in the terms in which he moved it.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that, if the clause were passed in its then shape, the effect would be that hereafter it would be sufficient on Report to give notice of, and move a clause without stating its substance beforehand.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, he would move the clause in the terms of the Notice, and then add, as an Amendment, the words now proposed.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. TREEBY

moved the following clause, to come immediately after that with respect to persons in arrear of rates:— The overseers of every parish, wholly or partly within a borough, shall, on or before the 22nd day of July in every year, make out a list containing the name and place of abode of every person who shall not have paid, on or before the 20th day of the same month, all poor rates which shall have become payable from him in respect of any premises within the said parish, before the 5th day of January then last past, and the overseers shall keep the said list, to be perused by any person without payment of any fee, at any time between the hours of ten of the clock in the forenoon and four of the clock in the afternoon of any day except Sunday during the first fourteen days after the said 22nd day of July; any overseer wilfully neglecting or refusing to make out such list, or to allow the same to be perused as aforesaid, shall be deemed guilty of a breach of duty in the execution of the Registration Acts.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the clause seemed to him unobjectionable, and likely to be advantageous.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. LOWTHER

moved that all the words after "nor" in the 2nd clause, line 10, be left out, and the following words inserted:— In anywise affect the election of Members to serve in Parliament for the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. POWELL

said, he moved, in page 1, Clause 3, line 14, to leave out "man," and insert "male person," He thought the Amendment necessary, owing to a provision in an Act passed in the 13th and 14th of the present reign, to the effect that the word "masculine" should be taken to include females. His object was that ambiguity might be avoided in the construction of the present Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, he moved to insert in page 1, Clause 3, line 14, the words "in and after the year 1868," The object of the Amendment was to prevent all possibility of confusion arising from this Bill in the ensuing registry in the possible contingency of the Bill receiving the Royal Assent before the end of the present month. Unless it were done, some of the franchises might be registered before the time intended by the Bill. That being so, he thought it was highly desirable that the words he proposed should be inserted, in order to make the matter clear. It would be necessary to introduce the same words in other clauses of the Bill, in order to make it uniform.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he assented to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that, by Clause 3, it was provided, in order to qualify him, that every voter shall have paid his rates before the 20th of July. He proposed to follow the precedent of the Reform Act, and he moved an Amendment requiring payment "on or before" that day.

Amendment agreed, to.

MR. LOCKE

moved the omission of the words at the end of paragraph 4, in Clause 3, And which have been demanded of him in manner hereinafter mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

moved in page 2, line 17, the insertion of the following paragraph:— Provided, That no man shall, under this section, be entitled to be registered as a voter by reason of his being a joint occupier of any dwelling-house," and leave out the same words at lines 26, 27, and 28.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, it would be necessary in that part of the clause referring to lodgers to insert, after "has," the words "in and after the year 1868," occupied in the same borough, &c.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

moved in Clause 3, line 18, to leave out "or," and insert— ("Lodger Franchise in Boroughs).—Every man shall be entitled to be registered as a voter, and, when registered, to vote for a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for a Borough, who is qualified as follows (that is to say)—(1.) Is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity; and (2.) [The above, with the remainder of Clause 3 to "voters," in line 26, to form a separate Clause.]

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that, before the Amendments were agreed to, he wished to make a few remarks on this part of the Bill. A Gentleman of great experience in that House, now deceased, once said to him that the result of his observation of the mode of transacting business in that House was that the worst part of the measures passed by Parliament were those which were agreed to by what was understood to be general consent—his explanation being that, from their not being discussed, truth was not elicited. The remark applied, to a considerable extent, to the proposal of a lodger franchise. The franchise did not originally form part of the Bill; but it was assented to and introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in consequence of the criticism of the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, one of his points being the omission of the lodger franchise. The clause, he believed, was passed without a word being said for or against it. He was old-fashioned enough to be sceptical of the merits and advantages of the lodger franchise. It was true that there was a very numerous and respectable class of lodgers who were in every way qualified by education, intelligence, respectability, and independence to have votes. But they must regard them in a more practical manner rather than in that abstract point of view. He regarded with dismay the difficulty which would attend an accurate register of lodgers. Hitherto there had been certain public documents to guide the revising barristers as to the owners and occupiers of property; and, if a man was not on the rate book, there was an accurate and ready means of ascertaining whether he was what he claimed to be. There would be great difficulty in ascertaining the value of the lodgings, and in identifying the person claiming the vote. It would be next to impossible to ascertain whether claimants as lodgers had really a good claim or not—and how, he asked, was the value, as unfurnished lodgings, of furnished lodgings to be arrived at? His impression was that in practice every one who claimed to be put on the register as lodgers would be able to get on it; and a large number would be so put on who it would be almost impossible to identify at the time of a contested election. He believed it would open the door to enormous personation and fraud. A lodger was a person without "a local habitation or a name." It might be that a man, at the time of a contested election, would come forward and personate John Jones, who was on the register. There would be no means of identifying him at the time, and it would only be some quarter of an hour afterwards, when the real John Jones came forward, that the imposition would be discovered. Unless some checks were adopted, the result would be the introduction, at contested elections, of an amount of personation never yet known, and an amount of evil never yet calculated. This franchise went a great deal farther back than was ever contemplated under the old Constitution. Lodgers were persons who had no permanent home; the mere fact of their being lodgers showed that. He was afraid that, when this franchise came to be worked, it would open the door to personation and improper returns, such as, at present, we knew nothing of.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he agreed with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman that household suffrage, supplemented by the lodger franchise, was a suffrage which had never existed since the reign of Henry VI. He held in his hand a petition to the House of Commons, showing the confusion that arose in those days under the household and lodger franchise, as now proposed. It was then found absolutely necessary to adopt the restriction of not allowing any but 40s. freeholders to vote, the 40s. freehold being equal to £17 at the present day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other night that the lodger franchise would add 350,000 persons to the constituencies. But it seemed to him that the lodger franchise was an unknown quantity. In the reign of Henry VI. the electors in counties were so few that it was found impossible to obtain anything like a fair return. It had been said that the scot and lot voters and pot-wallopers were householders, but had any hon. Member satisfied himself as to the number of scot and lot voters and potwallopers? He had not been able to get an exact return of the numbers; but he would quote a remarkable document showing how totally different it was from the franchise they were now creating. That document was an abstract from the petition of the "Friends of the People" which was presented by Mr. Grey in 1793. They wished to show how wonderfully restricted the franchise was made under the circumstances of the old boroughs. The document was as follows:— They affirm that, in addition to the 70 honourable Members so chosen, 90 more of your honourable Members are elected by 46 places, in none of which the number of voters exceeds 50. They affirm that, in addition to the 160 so elected, 37 more of your honourable Members are elected by 19 places, in none of which the number of voters exceeds 100. They affirm that, in addition to the 167 honourable Members so chosen, 52 more are returned to serve in Parliament by 26 places, in none of which the number of voters exceeds 200. They affirm that, in addition to the 249 so elected, 20 more are returned to serve in Parliament for counties in Scotland by less than 100 electors each, and 10 for counties in Scotland by less than 250 each; and this your petitioners are ready to prove, even admitting the validity of fictitious votes, They affirm that, in addition to the 279 so elected, 13 districts of burghs in Scotland not containing 100 voters each, and two districts of burghs not containing 125 each, return 15 more hon. Members; and in this manner, according to the present state of the representation, 294 of your hon. Members are chosen, and being a majority of the entire House of Commons, are enabled to decide in all questions in the name of the whole people of England and Scotland. Thus it appeared that about 16,000 electors returned a majority of the House. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the addition of these lodgers to the householders would create confusion at elections; and he was anxious to elicit from the Government what would be the additional number of voters of that class. This had a bearing on the question which had been raised by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. The addition of the lodger voters to the household voters would create a constituency such as has never before been known in England.

MR. M'LAREN

said, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock seemed not to be aware that he was himself returned to the House by a lodger franchise. That franchise existed in Kilmarnock and all the other burghs in Scotland; and if the right hon. Member called a meeting of his constituency he would find that a majority of the electors were lodgers. Who were the lodgers? Young men in public offices, bankers' clerks, writers' clerks, schoolmasters, schoolmasters' assistants, young men who were prudent and did not marry rapidly, who took lodgings and waited till they got a fixed position before taking wives. He had never heard that lodgers were more difficult to find than other persons; on the contrary, those who paid £10 a year for unfurnished rooms were better known than householders who paid a rent of from 30s. to 60s. a year. They were a very respectable class.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

moved in Clause 3, line 20, after "same lodgings," to insert "or different lodgings in succession." He said his object was to do away with the defect which for a time deprived of the franchise, lodgers who changed their residence. The Amendment involved a question whether the lodger franchise was to be a reality or a sham? His attention was called to the subject by a gentleman who paid £150 a year rent, and who asked whether the House of Commons would act so absurdly as to disfranchise him simply because he was going to remove to a place three doors off?

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after the words "same lodgings," to insert the words "or different lodgings in succession."—(Mr. Taylor.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that any objections there might be to the lodger franchise would be greatly increased were the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman to be agreed to, seeing that it would throw open the door to manifold abuses.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that while he admitted that the lodger franchise ought to be placed on the same footing as the occupation franchise, and succession allowed in each case, such a decision would upset what had already been agreed to. After the strong objection taken to the lodger franchise by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate), and by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie), he would have been better pleased if the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had indicated in more distinct terms his adhesion to that franchise. They were not the only persons who had to deal with this Bill, and he was not disposed to see the question raised again. Still less was he disposed to see any question in an adverse sense raised by the lodger franchise. If they were to have a lodger franchise at all it was impossible to have taken a narrower basis. He indeed thought it was somewhat too narrow. He hoped they would not conclude from the concise manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had replied that he had lost any of that paternal affection for a lodger franchise which he had expressed on a former occasion.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he hoped that after the settlement of this question in Committee there would be no further attempt at alteration.

MR. NEATE

said, he moved an Amendment, the object of which was to place the freeholder in the same position as the copyholder in regard to occupation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that there was no objection to the principle of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 (the Occupier to be rated in Boroughs and not the Owner).

MR. AYRTON

said, he rose to propose an addition, providing that where premises are let for less than a year, or the rent of which is payable at any shorter period than three months, the owner as well as the occupier shall be liable to the rates, without prejudice to any contract between them as to their payment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must appeal to the Speaker whether a proposal affecting the incidence of rating could be brought forward on the Report?

MR. SPEAKER

said, the proposal imposing a charge not at present existing, should have been submitted in Committee.

MR. AYRTON

said, he hoped he should be in order in raising the question, it not being his intention to revive the subject of composition. He accepted the decision of the Committee on that point; but if the matter was left in its present shape the effect would be that a landlord letting a house from week to week, and obtaining the entire profits of the property, including the rates, would not be responsible if the tenant quitted the premises, and the rates would thus be lost to the parish. In small places persons' movements were known and it was easy to trace them, but in the metropolis and large towns the case was different, and a considerable amount of rates might be lost. In some places there was an agreement that landlords should pay the rates for such property, but in the metropolis a legal obligation on them was necessary. He hoped, therefore, the Government would agree to the proposition.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6, 7, 8, and 9, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Persons reported guilty of Bribery in Lancaster disqualified as Voters for County of Lancaster in respect of Qualification arising in said Borough).

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, that when the case of the four boroughs was before the House it was generally believed that the certificate given by the Commissioners to persons who had given evidence before them would protect them from disfranchisement. Such, however, was not the case, and the clause disfranchising these boroughs was passed under a mistaken impression. He believed that many Members would have been disposed to stop short of total disfranchisement, and would have limited the penalty to a temporary suspension of the writ and the disqualification of persons who had been actually guilty of bribery, if they had not been informed at the time that the certificate of the Commissioners would have protected them against disfranchisement. It was also argued, and equally erroneously, that although these persons might lose their votes for the boroughs, they would retain them for the counties. He did not propose to make any Motion to reinstate the boroughs in question, because the public were well aware that they were disfranchised, not from any great zeal for purity, but because it presented an easy way of obtaining seven seats for re-distribution. He desired to enter his protest against their disfranchisement, and to express a hope that in any future Distribution Bill—which would not long be delayed—the claims of these boroughs to re-enfranchisement would be taken into consideration.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21 (Electors for Members of the University of London).

MR. GOLDSMID

said, he moved an Amendment, to the effect that the Members of the Senate as well as of the Convocation of the London University should have a vote. The Members of the Senate were not necessarily members of the Convocation.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 5, at the commencement of Clause 21, to insert the words "every Member of the Senate and"—(Mr. Goldsmid.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there was no reason why the members of Senate should have votes. The members of Senate were, he believed, appointed by the Government. [SIR GEORGE GREY: Some of them.] He could not recommend the House to accede to this Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. POWELL

moved to insert the word "man" instead of "person."

MR. CARDWELL

said, he thought there was some force in the objection of the hon. Member in these days of advanced female education.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23 (Joint Occupation in Counties).

SIR ROBERT COLLIER (on the part of Mr. HUGESSEN)

moved a proviso, that the joint occupiers on the register for any premises should not exceed two voters, derived by marriage, descent, or as bonâ fide partners in trade.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27 (Provision for Increased Polling-Places).

MR. DODSON

moved an Amendment to leave out all the words which made it imperative on country Justices to proceed at the first court held after the passing of the Act to appoint polling-places in counties. These arrangements might, and probably would, be upset by the proceedings of the Boundary Commissioners, and then the counties would be put to the increased trouble and expense of a second arrangement of polling-places.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he would suggest that the difficulty would be met by altering the words, to "their first meeting in the next Session of Parliament." The Boundary Commissioners would make their Report in the course of next Session.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must remind the House that the Bill was so framed as to be complete in itself, and that was the reason why temporary boundaries were fixed. It might happen that a general election would take place before the Boundary Commissioners made their Report. The difficulty would be got over by inserting the word "may," instead of "shall," leaving it to the justices to exercise their discretion in the matter.

Another Amendment proposed, in page 10, to leave out from the beginning of Clause 27 to the word "Districts," inclusive, in line 24.—(Mr. Dodson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Motion altered to, "shall if they shall find convenience requires."

Clause amended, and agreed to.

Clause 29 (Payment of Expenses of conveying Voters to the Poll illegal).

COLONEL HERBERT

said, he moved, after the word "Cricklade," to insert "Much Wenlock"—an extensive borough which had been enfranchised since the time of Edward IV., and whose population had increased from 7,000, to 21,000. He thought that from its great extent it should be placed in respect of the payment of voters' travelling expenses on the same footing as counties.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he should not oppose the Motion. The borough of Much Wenlock was fifty-seven square miles in extent, and was one of the most ancient boroughs in the kingdom.

MR. BOUVERIE

said,; that other boroughs possessed as good a claim to be placed in the same position as counties as Much Wenlock—the borough, for instance, of Walton, which was fifty square miles in extent. He thought they ought not to make one rule for one set of boroughs and another rule for another set.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he should oppose the Motion.

GENERAL FORESTER

said, that Much Wenlock possessed a much larger area than the other boroughs described as being in the same category.

Another Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 22, after the word "Cricklade," to insert the words "Much Wenlock."—(Colonel Herbert.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 103: Majority 40.

Clause further amended, and agreed to.

Clause 42 (Corrupt Payment of Rates to be punishable as Bribery).

MR. REBOW

moved the insertion, after the words "inducing him to vote," of the words, "or refrain from voting."

Amendment agreed to.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that at Nine o'clock he should propose the suspension of the Standing Orders, in order to continue the discussion on the Report. He hoped that this would not trench on the opportunities of hon. Members having Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and trusted he might have the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) on the subject he was about to bring under the notice of the House.

Further Proceeding on Consideration of the said Bill adjourned till this day, at Nine of the clock.

Ordered, That the Order of the Day for the Committee of Supply, and the other Orders of the Day, be postponed until after the Order of the Day for the further proceeding on Consideration of the Representation of the People Bill, as amended.

Clause 46 (General Saving Clause).

MR. LOWTHER

said, he rose to move an Amendment of which he had given notice. When the subject was brought before the Committee, on the former discussion, it was raised somewhat unexpectedly, and arguments were used which, on reflection and consideration, he thought would be seen to be devoid of foundation. The words he proposed to omit from the clause were these— And nothing in this Act contained shall entitle any person to vote on the election of Members to serve in Parliament for the City of Oxford or town of Cambridge in respect of the occupation of any chambers or premises in any of the colleges or halls of the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge. When the question was submitted to the Committee the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) were adopted, after an animated discussion, which took the greater portion of the House by surprise. In the course of it, the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague (Mr. Neate) stated in the belief, no doubt, that he was within the hounds of truth, that it would be found on inquiry that the opinions of members of both Universities were decidedly adverse to the proposal he (Mr. Lowther) made. [Mr. NEATE said, that he did not go quite so far.] At least what the hon. Member said was taken in that general sense by the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when pressed for an opinion, said he had been led to understand that the opinion of the Members for the Universities was against the proposal he (Mr. Lowther) made in Committee. By that time one of the hon. Members for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn) had spoken strongly in favour of the proposal, and, therefore, it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman had been misinformed. He should be able to show that the hon. Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Neate) was somewhat premature in the statement he ventured to make. The University of Cambridge, through the only body that had the power to speak in its name, had expressed a most decided opinion against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford. He would show first that the members of the Universities were justified in making the claim he now submitted to the House. It was true, that as members of the Universities, they had their own able representatives. But that fact was wholly foreign to the subject of the claim made. Those members of the Universities who lived in other parts of England had votes for the places where they resided. When they made a claim before the revising barrister their votes were not objected to upon the ground that they possessed a vote for one of the Universities. It was said, however, that those Members of the Universities who resided in the colleges and halls had an especial interest in returning to Parliament the Members who represented the Universities. But was that really the fact? These were days, not only of railways, but, so far as the Universities were concerned, also of voting papers, by means of which the residents who only formed one twentieth portion of the University constituencies found their previously preponderating influence at an end, and he ventured to assert that as a Cambridge graduate, he possessed precisely the same electoral rights as the Master or the Principal of one of the first colleges in that University. The difference was that, whereas he was also an elector for the metropolis, in which he resided, a member of the University who, in following his profession, resided in one of the colleges, was denied his local representation in addition to his academical representation. A University vote was based upon a strictly academical qualification. In illustration of this statement, he might remark that when he was resident at Cambridge as an undergraduate, and paid rent for his rooms, he had no vote for Members of Parliament for the University, although after he had graduated M.A., and had ceased to reside in the University, he had such a vote. This clearly showed that the academic and the borough vote were totally distinct. In the former discussion an argument had been adduced to the effect that it would be unwise on the part of the Members of the University, and inimical to their interests, to enter upon this question, lest, in the course of so doing, they should interfere with and put into confusion the much vexed question of the rates to be levied upon the colleges. Nothing could be further from his desire than to embarrass the University and town property by any interference with the relative proportion of rates to be paid by each, but he believed that this matter had been satisfactorily arranged both at Oxford and Cambridge. He was told, however, that by the Act of 1832, as in the clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), it was enacted that the occupiers of rooms in the colleges and halls should not be entitled to vote in the elections of Members of Parliament for the city of Oxford or borough of Cambridge. It should, however, be remembered that at the time the colleges were extra-parochial and free from all liabilities to pay rates, and that since then they had been included in the parish boundaries, and had become liable to the payment of rates. At Oxford he believed the Vice Chancellor distributed the rate among the bursars of the various colleges in some manner which suited the arrangements both of the town and the University, while at Cambridge the question of rating was set at rest in 1856 by the Cambridge Award Act, founded on the award of Sir John Patteson. The 35th section of that Act had been quoted as cutting away the ground from under his feet. It provided that no Member of the University or of any college should by reason of any rate on the property occupied by the University or by such college be entitled to be registered as an elector of the borough, or to be enrolled as a burgess thereof, or be compellable to serve in any municipal office, or to serve or be empannelled on any jury, or to do any other service imposed upon ratepayers. He wished to point out that in 1856 there was no idea that a lodger franchise would be introduced or seriously contemplated, neither was personal payment of rates the law of the land. Then, again, before the year 1856, the University of Cambridge paid no rates whatever, and therefore it was only fair that they should be exempted from serving in municipal offices. At the present time they paid, as they thought, more than they ought towards the support of the municipality, and therefore the exemption was no very great concession. Since the former discussion he had had an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the views of a considerable number of the members of the University of Oxford which he found to be favourable to his proposal. It might, perhaps, be said, that the resident members of that University had taken no steps to make their opinions on this question known. In the first place that could be accounted for by the fact that the long vacation set in before attention had been called to the subject then under discussion, but it should further be remembered that, under the Bill as it originally stood previously to the introduction of the the occupiers of college rooms would have been qualified to vote, and thus the old adage, "Let a sleeping dog lie," would naturally have suggested a policy of inaction. It had also been presumed that the University of Cambridge was opposed to his proposal, but the Council of the Senate passed Resolutions in favour of it on the 16th May, last, as follows:— 1. It is desirable that no provision be introduced into the Representation of the People Bill, excluding a graduate of Cambridge whose name is on the University Register, from the operation of any one of the enfranchising clauses of that Bill, and thereby preventing him from being registered as an elector of the city or borough in which he resides, whether he resides within the precincts of a college or not. 2. It is also desirable that provision be made, if necessary, that such graduate shall have the same privilege of being registered as an elector of the city or borough in which he resides, by reason of any such enfranchising clause, as if his name were not on the University Register, and he were not resident within the precincts of a college. 3. Since under the 24th section of the Cambridge Award Act, the whole college property is deemed to be in the occupation of the college, and the college is assessed for the same in its corporate name, it is further desirable that individual members thereof, or students, occupying parts of it exclusively, shall be regarded either as compound householders or as lodgers, so that they may be entitled to be registered as electors of the borough of Cambridge, by reason of such exclusive occupation, anything in the said Cambridge Award Act or in any other Act notwithstanding. With regard to the town of Oxford he confessed that he had only had an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the opinions of a limited number of its inhabitants. With the exception of the Town Council he believed that the inhabitants had not publicly expressed their opinions upon this point. With regard to Cambridge, an hon. Gentleman opposite had presented a Petition purporting to come from the Mayor and inhabitants of Cambridge against the proposal. He would not occupy the time of hon. Gentlemen by reading this document, but would merely direct their attention to one sentence which he must own tended considerably to diminish any value which might have been attached to the Petition. The petitioners actually stated that in their opinion the Amendment he (Mr. Lowther) proposed "would virtually confer dual votes in respect of one and the same qualification." Now they must either have believed what they said, or, they did not; he would would the House be disposed to attach to the opinions of those who showed themselves to be so grossly ignorant of the subject upon which they undertook to afford information? He happened to be in Cambridge when the meeting was held, and had ascertained that the meeting was only attended by about 250 persons, who put themselves forward as representing a population of 26,000. The resolutions which were embodied in the Petition were not carried without discussion, and the meeting was not by any means unanimously in their favour. As the House was determined to confer the privilege of the franchise upon every ratepaying householder and upon lodgers, he could not see on what principle they could withhold a similar privilege from those whose case he now submitted to their consideration. He would only detain the House with a very few words in conclusion respecting the claim of a class of voters who stood upon an entirely different footing from the Masters of Arts and whose case was, if possible, more unanswerable than theirs, and this was the class of Bachelors and adult undergraduates who possessed no vote for the University and who thus were to be marked out as the only persons in the United Kingdom who were unfit for the franchise. On what grounds of justice he would like to know—while the franchise was being conferred upon every householder and £10 lodger throughout the boroughs of the Kingdom—did they act? Under what pretext was it proposed to disfranchise these intelligent persons? Was it because they were resident for purposes of education and belonged to an educated class? If so, all he could say was that never since the growth of free institutions had a more monstrous proposition been submitted to the consideration of any Legislative chamber in the world.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, Clause 46, line 16, to leave out from the word "Conferred" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Lowther.)

MR. CARDWELL

said, he would promise to be brief, because of the anxiety of the House to proceed to the other Questions about to be brought forward. The proposal before the House was not that residents in academical buildings at Oxford and Cambridge should bear all the burdens as well as possess the privileges of citizens of those places; if it were so, there would be some force in the argument of the hon. Member. It was not consistent to propose to alter the existing law regulating the two Universities so that in one respect they should be parts of towns, while in others they were distinct. Our principle had always been that if a man was invested with the privileges of a citizen he should also discharge the duties and bear the responsibilities of a citizen. When the present Bill was introduced there did not appear to be any intention on the part of the Government to disturb the question as it stood. A change of this kind, if made at all, should be made on a more extended scale, dealing equally with the franchises and the duties and responsibilities of citizens. If they invested a body of men with the privileges of another class without at the same time throwing upon them a share in their responsibilities they would inevitably be sowing the seeds of discord. In opposing the Amendment before the House he hoped he should not be told that he was contending for disfranchisement. He disclaimed any such intention. The question before the House was whether or no they should disturb the existing relations between the Universities and the towns. From time immemorial the interests of the Universities and the towns or boroughs had been kept separate and distinct. That which represented learning should not be fused with that which represented trade. The House ought not to disturb by any Amendment in the Reform Bill the present system of rating, which had been settled for many years, with regard both to Oxford and Cambridge. By a clause in the Cambridge Act expressly, and by the general scope and effect of the Oxford Act, members of Universities and colleges, although liable to be rated, were exempted from the discharge of all municipal and parochial offices, the serving on juries, &c.; and anything which would alter or change that settlement would disturb the harmony which now prevailed both in Oxford and Cambridge. It was doubtful whether, as the clause then stood, the residents in colleges would not come in under the lodger clause. If so, it was contrary to the intention of the Bill. The object of the lodger clause was to introduce into the franchise men who by their special occupations were connected with commercial communities, and who it was considered were entitled to vote for Members for those particular localities; but it was never intended by the lodger franchise to give a vote to those who did not participate in the general interests of the community, in the midst of which they resided as lodgers. As it was doubtful what the effect of the law in respect to this question would be under the present Bill it would be better for the House to decide it rather than leave it to the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. He had presented Petitions from the city of Oxford, under the corporate seal, and from the borough of Cambridge, at a meeting presided over and signed by the Mayor, in favour of the clause. He had believed at the time that the Amendment which he had proposed, and which had been adopted by the Committee, expressed the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and he trusted that they would not encourage the House to agree to the Motion of the hon. Member.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he trusted that the House, in consideration of the peculiar position in which he was placed with regard to this question, would permit him to say a few words as to the conrse which he proposed to take. When the clause was in Committee he was placed in a difficulty in consequence of what passed between his right hon. Friend and himself. His right hon. Friend came to him and asked whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to offer opposition to the Amendment which he proposed. Having ascertained that such opposition was not intended, he informed his right hon. Friend of the fact and consequently felt bound to vote in its favour. He must confess that he had laboured under a great misapprehension as to the views taken of this matter. The Universities had been to a great extent in recess; but communications had been made to him entirely adverse to the course adopted by the Committee, and the representations which had been made to him were to the effect that they did not dread the collision which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was scarcely consistent, because lodgers were not called upon to perform those duties of citizenship to which householders were liable; and if the members of colleges and Universities residing in colleges came upon the register as lodgers they would not be called upon any more than other lodgers to discharge parochial offices and duties, The right hon. Gentleman, in support of his views with regard to Oxford, had quoted from the Cambridge Act, which excluded the residents in Colleges who paid rates from the discharge of parochial duties and offices; but in the city of Oxford, the University was represented on the local board and among the guardians of the poor. The rating was put upon the bursars, and though each separate room was not rated by the overseers of the poor in each college, the proportion of rating was ascertained and the occupiers of rooms had to pay their proportion, in addition to their rent. Therefore they were placed in a peculiar position. He admitted that, so long as they remained in that position, they could not come upon the register as rated-householders; but the question before the Committee was whether, by putting into the Bill that which was not there before, they would exclude from the register such intelligent lodgers as these. It was said that they had already a vote for the University; but they did not vote on the ground of their residence, but as members of the University. The residents of the Universities did not vote as residents; they voted in virtue of their degrees. They did not vote as residents in colleges, but as members of Convocation. In the new state of things the colleges must be considered part of the town, and when a new franchise was introduced, that of lodgers who did not take part in the local government, and did not pay rates, on what principle were these lodgers to be admitted, and the residents of colleges excluded, who did take part in the local government, and who did pay the rates through the bursars? What were the objections to the proposal? It was said that they would be brought into collision with the corporation of Oxford. But the hon. Member for Oxford was a member of the local board, and was one of the guardians of that city, and had he found that any of those dreadful collisions had occurred? He quite agreed, that as long as the University and colleges of Oxford were kept perfectly distinct from the corporation, a good deal might be said for his view; but when a new state of things was to be established, by which lodgers were to be admitted to the franchise, he did not see how they could exclude persons who performed all the duties of lodgers, and who, although they were not rated personally, paid rates through the bursar of their college. Under these circumstances he felt bound to support the Amendment.

MR. NEATE

said, he was anxious, as one who had been mixed up both with the city and the University of Oxford for a long time, to say a word on this subject. As a Liberal and a Radical he had no objection to the Amendment; but if it passed it would be quite useless for a Conservative to show himself in the University of Oxford for the next twenty years. He (Mr. Neate) felt quite sure that to agree to the Amendment would be to strike a blow at the root of that confidence and affection which existed between the University and the city. The University had taken care to maintain its existence entirely apart from that of the corporation; and the great body of the colleges knew nothing about the affairs of the town, and took no interest whatever in them. He trusted that the House would not give its sanction to what he felt to be an outrage on the inhabitants of Oxford and Cambridge.

MR. BEACH

said, that the question was not whether they were by this proposal to advance the interests of the Conservative or Liberal party; but simply whether they were to do an act of justice, and enable those who bore the burdens of the place to exercise its constitutional privileges. Seeing that a franchise had been introduced for lodgers who bore no part of the burdens of the community among whom they lived, he maintained that no answer but an affirmative one could be given to the question.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that if the hon. Gentleman had studied the Act of Parliament founded on the Cambridge Award, which related to the subject, he would probably have come to a different conclusion. It was distinctly laid down that, although liable to contribute to the rates for the relief of the poor to a considerable extent, the members of the University were not to be liable to the other municipal and parochial burdens. Lodgers were admitted to the franchise as householders in the second degree; but when the household franchise was in question at the time of the Reform Act, the Universities were expressly excluded from that franchise in the towns in which they were situated. The members of the Colleges resided within them simply for academical purposes, and not from any connection with the town. To give members of the Universities votes for the towns would be simply introducing the ascendancy of the University over the local element at the town elections. It was said that the numbers introduced would not be very great; but the supremacy of the Universities would not depend on numbers only. The University electors, though not numerically preponderant, were persons of great social position. If they took away from the towns the right to say "This is our franchise; you have your own," they might depend upon it that the University influence would be exercised in a manner galling to the inhabitants. They would be giving a boon of no great value to the Universities and would be doing a great injury to the towns. They had heard much of University but little of town opinion. A petition bearing the corporate seal had been presented from Oxford against the proposal, and from Cambridge there had been a similar petition. [Mr. POWELL: Not similar.] He did not mean that it had the corporate seal affixed, but its prayer was the same; while there had been none from either of these towns in favour of the clause.

MR. LOWTHER

There has been one from Cambridge bearing 500 signatures.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

He had not heard of that till this moment; nor, he suspected, had the hon. Member himself, for if he had been aware of it at the time, he would certainly have mentioned it in his speech. If such was the fact it appeared, no doubt, to show that there were 500 persons in Cambridge favourable to the proposal, but he was much surprised to hear it. One thing was quite clear, that if the Amendments were carried they would be giving to the towns of Oxford and Cambridge a right to call on the House in its future legislation to equalize the Members of the Universities and the citizens for all purposes whatsoever — for municipal as well as for political puposes, and in that case the whole local government of those towns would have to be re-modelled. He hoped that the House would not now reverse the decision which they had come to by a considerable majority when the question was before them on a former occasion.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he was rather surprised at the argument of his hon. and learned Friend that a constituency would be injured by having a variety of elements contained in it. He could not understand how the introduction of a number of educated gentlemen living at Oxford could have a deleterious effect. There was fallacy in the argument of his hon. and learned Friend that the influence of the members of the University as customers and employers would be in any way materially increased by their admission as voters into the town constituency All those influences which they would then have they possessed at present. When this question was before the Committee a short time ago, he was unwilling to disturb the rating arrangements between the Universities and the towns. He had before his eyes the way the compound-householder had been dealt with, and he was unwilling to expose the amicable relations between the Universities and the towns to any derangement. But no one could say that the inhabitant of a room was a rated householder, and therefore the only question which remained was, whether the Members of the Universities could be introduced as lodgers? He had considerable doubts upon the subject, but he could not understand how the proposal was to lead to the lamentable consequences which his hon. and learned Friend apprehended. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford and the hon. and learned Member for Richmond enlarged upon the different duties and rights of the Universities and the towns, they left out of sight the fact that the giving of a vote to the members of the Universities would not interfere with either the one or the other. They would remain just as they were. He did not see on what principle the objection to this Amendment could now rest, and therefore, though he did not attach so much importance to the Amendment as some hon. Friends of his did, he should vote in its favour.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 145: Majority 61.

AYES.
Acland, T. D.	Holden, I.
Adam, W. P.	Howes, E.
Allen, W. S.	Hughes, T.
Ayrton, A. S.	Hughes, W. B.
Baines, E.	Ingham, R.
Barnett, H.	Kennedy, T.
Bazley, T.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Buller, Sir E. M.	Kinglake, A. W.
Butler, C. S.	Lawrence, W.
Buxton, Sir T. F.	Leatham, W. H.
Candlish, J.	Leeman, G.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	M'Laren, D.
Cavendish, Lord F. C.	Martin, C. W.
Cheetham, J.	Martin, P. W.
Clinton, Lord E. P.	Mill, J. S.
Collier, Sir R. P.	Morris, W.
Cowen, J.	Murphy, N. D.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Norwood, C. M.
Crawford, R. W.	O'Brien, Sir P.
Denman, hon. G.	O'Donoghue, The
Dodson, J. G.	O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.
Duff, M. E. G.	Onslow, G.
Esmonde, J.	Palmer, Sir R.
Evans, T. W.	Pelham, Lord
Ewing, H. E. Crum-	Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Forster, C.	Potter, E.
Forster, W. E.	Rebow, J. G.
Fortescue, hon. D. F.	Robertson, D.
Gilpin, C.	Rothschild, N. M. de
Gladstone, W. H.	Salomons, Alderman
Glyn, G. G.	Samuda, J. D'A.
Goldsmid, Sir F. H.	Seely, C.
Gregory, W. H.	Sherriff, A. C.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Smith, J. A.
Hadfield, G.	Smith, J. B.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Stansfeld, J.
Harris, J. D.	Synan, E. J.
Hay, Lord J.	Trevelyan, G. O.
Hayter, A. D.	Vanderbyl, P.
Headlam, rt. hn. T. E.	Western, Sir T. B.
Henderson, J.	Wyvill, M.

Young, G.	TELLERS.
Young, R.	Neate, C.
	Simeon, Sir J.

NOES.
Adderley, rt. hn. C. B.	Huddleston, J. W.
Amberley, Viscount	Jervis, Major
Anson, hon. Major	Jolliffe, hon. H. H.
Arkwright, R.	Jones, D.
Aytoun, R. S.	Karslake, Sir J. B.
Baggallay, R.	Karslake, E. K.
Bagge, Sir W.	Kavanagh, A.
Barrington, Viscount	Knight, F. W.
Bathurst, A. A.	Knightley, Sir R.
Beach, W. W. B.	Knox, hon. Col. S.
Beaumont, H. F.	Labouchere, H.
Beecroft, G. S.	Lacon, Sir E.
Bentinck, G. C.	Langton, W. G.
Bowen, J. B.	Lefroy, A.
Brett, W. B.	Lennox, Lord G. G.
Bridges, Sir B. W.	Lennox, Lord H. G.
Brooks, R.	Leslie, C. P.
Bruce, Lord E.	Lewis, H.
Bruce, C.	Liddell, hon. H. G.
Bruce, Sir H. H.	Lindsay, hon. Col. C.
Burrell, Sir P.	Lusk, A.
Capper, C.	M'Lagan, P.
Cartwright, Colonel	Mainwaring, T.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.	Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Chatterton, rt. hn. H. E.	Manners, Lord G. J.
Clinton, Lord A. P.	Mitchell, A.
Cobbold, J. C.	Monk, C. J.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.	Montagu, rt. hn. Lord R.
Cox, W. T.	Montgomery, Sir G.
Crossley, Sir F.	Morgan, O.
Curzon, Viscount	Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Dawson, R. P.	Naas, Lord
Dickson, Major A. G.	Neville-Grenville, R.
Dimsdale, R.	Noel, hon. G. J.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Packe, C. W.
Du Cane, C.	Parker, Major W.
Dyott, Colonel R.	Patten, rt. hon. Col. W.
Eckersley, N.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Egerton, Sir P. G.	Peel, rt. hon. General
Egerton, E. C.	Platt, J.
Egerton, hon. W.	Powell, F. S.
Elcho, Lord	Pugh, D.
Fawcett, H.	Repton, G. W. J.
Fergusson, Sir J.	Robertson, P. F.
Gallwey, Sir W. P.	Roebuck, J. A.
Galway, Viscount	Rolt, Sir J.
Goldney, G.	Royston, Viscount
Gooch, Sir D.	Sandford, G. M. W.
Goodson, J.	Selwyn, C. J.
Gore, J. R. O.	Severne, J. E.
Gray, Lieut.-Colonel	Seymour, G. H.
Greenall, G.	Seymour, H. D.
Griffith, C. D.	Simonds, W. B.
Gurney, rt. hon. R.	Stanhope, J. B.
Hamilton, rt. hn. Lord C.	Stanley, Lord
Hamilton, Lord C. J.	Stronge, Sir J. M.
Hardy, rt. hon. G.	Sturt, H. G.
Hardy, J.	Sturt, Lt.-Col. N.
Hartley, J.	Taylor, Colonel T. E.
Hay, Sir J. C. D.	Thorold, Sir J. H.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Thynne, Lord H. F.
Hervey, Lord A. H. C.	Torrens, R.
Herbert, hon. Col. P.	Treeby, J. W.
Hibbert, J. T.	Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill-
Hildyard, T. B. T.	Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Hodgson, W. N.	Turner, C.
Hope, A. J. B. B.	Vance, J.
Hotham, Lord	Walker, Major G. G.

Walpole, rt. hn. S. H.	Wynne, W. R. M.
Walsh, A.	Yorke, J. R.
Whitmore, H.
Wise, H. C.	TELLERS.
Woodd, B. T.	Lowther, J.
Wyld, J.	Gorst, J. E.
Wynn, C. W. W.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

moved the adoption of the Schedule containing the following list of "Offices of Profit," the interchange of which by Ministers of the Crown might henceforward be made without any vacating of seats:— Lord High Treasurer, Commissioner for executing the Offices of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland, President of the Privy Council, Vice President of the Committee of Council for Education, Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, Vice Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, Equerry or Groom in Waiting on Her Majesty, Any Principal Secretary of State, Chancellor and Under Treasurer of Her Majesty's Exchequer, Paymaster General, Postmaster General, Lord High Admiral, Commissioner for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral, Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, First Church Estates Commissioner, President of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Plantations, Chief Secretary for Ireland, Commissioner for Administering the Laws for the Relief of the Poor in England, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Master of the Rolls, Judge Advocate General, Attorney General for England, Solicitor General for England, Lord Advocate for Scotland, Solicitor General for Scotland, Attorney General for Ireland, Solicitor General for Ireland.

New Schedule (F) brought up, and read the first and second time.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, the list ought to be confined to those officers of the Crown who, in the ordinary course of things, vacated office upon a change of Government. But "the first Church Estates Commissioner" and the "Master of the Rolls" were entirely outside that category, and he was at a loss to understand on what principle either office was introduced. It was certainly possible that "the first Church Estates Commissioner" might afterwards be appointed to some political office in the Government; the office itself, however, was not a political, but a permanent office, Such a change would not therefore be from one office to another ejusdem generis, but would be a change from a non-political to a political office. This was not the sort of change which the House meant to facilitate without loss of seat. The case of the Master of the Rolls was more extraordinary still. Although a very eloquent speech was made by Lord Macaulay which induced the House to allow the Master of the Rolls to retain his seat there, he was unable to see why one Judge alone should be able to sit in this House. That, however, was not now the question. It was not likely, although it was possible, that the Master of the Rolls should ever be chosen to fill a political office. But the Attorney General might be made Master of the Rolls. Was his constituency to have no choice but to retain him as their representative, although by becoming a Judge he had ceased to be a politician? He moved the omission of those two offices from the Schedule.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had felt great doubt from the first as to the introduction of these two cases, and agreed that the principle on which the list was based would not apply to them.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he did not believe the country knew or would approve the changes involved. He moved the omission of the Paymaster General.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule, as amended, added.

Schedule (B.)

MR. AYRTON

said, he rose to move that, instead of conferring a Member on Darlington, one should be given to Wands-worth. The county of Durham, with 540,000 inhabitants, already sent tea Members to Parliament, and it was proposed to give it three more. What were Darlington's claims to representation? It was populated, for the most part, by an ignorant community, while Wandsworth was a suburb increasing in intelligence and wealth; and Surrey, the county in which it stood, with a much larger population of highly educated people than Durham, returned only eleven Members to Parliament. He was not asking the House to create a new constituency; Wandsworth was already a municipal borough incorporated for all the purposes of local government, and was quite fit for representation. Darlington had a population of some 13,000, which, by going to surrounding districts, might be raised to 16,000. Wandsworth had a population of 70,000, and a rateable value of £360,000. In relative valuation the difference between the two towns was most marked. That of Darlington was insignificant. He did not know that Darlington was distinguished for anything, except that it had more public-houses according to the population than any other place. He saw no reason why Stockton should be selected as well as Darlington. It appeared the only reason was that the two towns were connected by a railway. Between them it was impossible to make up such a population as would do more than justify the grouping them together into one borough. The Judge Advocate appeased to have been consulted on the claims of the county of Durham as he had been previously on the claims of the University of Durham, and the right hon. Gentleman had been equally successful in urging that these three dusty, dingy, dirty towns should enjoy a peculiar and exclusive privilege which had not been conferred by this Bill upon any other county in England. Either the solicitations of his Colleague on the Treasury Bench or the extreme activity displayed by the Members from the North in pressing upon the Government the claims of these small places had caused the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fall into the error of not giving due attention to the boroughs in the South. In his opinion this was a matter which the House ought to consider before it parted with the Bill, and he therefore moved that Wandsworth be substituted for Darlington.

Another Amendment proposed in Schedule (B), to leave out the words

Durham

Darlington

Townships of—Darlington Haughton-le-Skerne Cockerton

In order to insert the words

Surrey

Wandsworth

Wandsworth, Clapham, Tooting, Streatham, Saint Mary Battersea, Putney, and so much of the parish of Lambeth as is not included in the Borough of Lambeth

—(Mr. Ayrton,)

—instead thereof.

MR. HENDERSON

said, it was obvious that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had never passed beyond the Tees and gone into the county of Durham, or he would not have ventured to make the extraordinary statements which he had just laid before the House. In the present instance his hon. and learned Friend had satisfactorily proved his entire want of knowledge of the population which he had attempted to disparage. Those who resided within eighteen or twenty miles of Darlington were accustomed to regard it as a borough which was distinguished by its industry and commercial activity. In order to show that the spirit of the people was very different from what it had been represented to be by his hon. and learned Friend, it was only necessary to remark that Darlington was the first town which adopted the great railway system, and which availed itself of the services of the great engineer, George Stephenson. In 1851 the population was 11,512, but in 1866 it had increased to 27,000, and the rateable value had increased from £39,000 to £79,000. It had the largest cattle market in the North of England. Then it was the coaling town of the southern division, and the seat of a considerable textile manufacture, besides which it had, perhaps, a more perfect railway communication than any other town in the kingdom. It possessed all those elements of success which would, at no distant day, make it the great centre of the iron district. Darlington was pre-eminently qualified to be represented in the House of Commons. A short time ago the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had favoured the House with a strong philippic as to the necessity of making progress with this Bill. He therefore hoped he would not now delay that progress by re-opening the Schedules. At all events, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not assent to such a course even in order to enable the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets to say that he had created the new borough of Wandsworth.

MR. LOCKE KING

said, he thought he was somewhat better acquainted than his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ayrton) with the county of Surrey, The population of East Surrey was about 800,000 altogether, but when the boroughs were excluded it was not much over 200,000. They were divided into districts of about 100,000 each. If the 70,000 in Wands worth and the neighbourhood were taken from Mid Surrey, there would scarcely be any population left. Of all the towns in Surrey, Croydon had the best claim to be represented. It numbered between 40,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, and had been introduced into almost every Reform Bill, though eventually it had been invariably omitted; but with regard to giving Parliamentary representation to Wandsworth there had been no agitation whatever. He had not felt it his duty to press for a Member for Croydon, because the population of the new division of East Surrey was so reduced that if Croydon were subtracted from it only a comparatively small population would be left. Under all the circumstances, however, he must either move some Amendment in favour of Croydon or else vote against the Amendment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he hoped the House would not be seduced into re-opening the Schedules. He wished to make one remark on this subject without entering at all into the variety of, considerations which must be attended to in deciding upon such a question as the re-distribution of seats. He would merely recall to the recollection of hon. Members the circumstance that no additional representative had been given to the county of Durham. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government there were in that portion of the kingdom more signs of rapid development and increasing industry than in any part of the country which was not represented. In the southern division of the county there was not a single Parliamentary borough.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.

MR. CHEETHAM

moved an alteration of the temporary boundaries of the new borough of Staleybridge, by the omission of the words— Remaining portion of the township of Dukinfield, township of Stayley, and the district of the local board of health of Mossley.

Another Amendment proposed, In Schedule (B), page 19, line 8, to leave out the words "remaining portion of Township of Dukinfield, Township of Stayley, and District of the Local Board of Health of Mossley."—(Mr. Cheetham.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as the proposed boundaries were temporary, and must be determined by the Boundary Commissioners.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule (C).

MR. SANDFORD

moved that the parish of West Ham should be added to the borough of Hackney. At the last census the population of the parish was 38,000 and now it was 50,000. As the parish was large enough for independent representation, and the population was more borough than county, it was not right that it should be merged in the county. He trusted he should receive the support of Her Majesty's Government, as the proposal formed part of their original proposition.

Another Amendment proposed in Schedule (C), after the words "Borough of Hackney," to add the words "the parish of West Ham."—(Mr. Sandford.)

MR. BUTLER

I cannot understand, Sir, upon what principle the hon. Member for Maldon thinks it desirable to add the large parish of West Ham to the enormous borough of Hackney. The proposed borough of Hackney already contains a population of 400,000, and the present number of electors exceeds 21,000. Under this Bill the number of voters must exceed 30,000, and will probably approach 40,000. This being the case, is it desirable to extend the size of such a borough—ought we not rather to reduce it? Again, is it wise to take a parish from a county and introduce it into the metropolitan area? It is not in the same county. It is not even within the limits of the metropolitan Board of Works. The parish of West Ham contains 50,000 inhabitants—large enough for separate representation—and if the hon. Member is anxious that it should be severed from Essex, perhaps he will consider the propriety of moving that it should have one Member, but I am sure on reflection he will not press the House to add it to a large borough already numbering 400,000 inhabitants. Sir, West Ham is not desirous of being disconnected from the county of Essex, nor is the borough of Hackney desirous of the union. I trust, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Motion to avoid the necessity of dividing the House, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having himself withdrawn West Ham from the Schedule, will not consent to its being again added.

SIR T. F. BUXTON

said, this proposal had been made before, but it had been withdrawn because it was unpopular in West Ham itself.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the addition of West Ham to Hackney would lead to a total reconstruction of the representation of the county of Essex. The Committee would not have made a third division of the county if West Ham had been taken out, and the House would hardly sanction such a re-construction of the representation as was now proposed.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

said, it would be better for the county and for West Ham if it could be formed into a borough.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

Schedule (D).

MR. SANDFORD

said, he had another Amendment on the subject of Essex, which had been badly treated. The divisions displayed ignorance of its geography. He moved that Colchester should be inserted instead of Braintree as the place for holding the elections for North-East Essex, Colchester was nearer the centre of the division than Braintree, it was the capital of the county, and it was on the main line of railway.

Another Amendment proposed in Schedule (D), to leave out the word "Braintree" and insert the word "Colchester,"—(Mr. Sandford.)

SIR THOMAS WESTERN

said, he thought the question peculiarly one for the Boundary Commissioners.

THE CHANCELLOR OF FOR EXCHEQUER

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Maldon was labouring under an erroneous impression. The names in the Schedule were merely temporary, and the Boundary Commissioners were to decide in what places the elections should be held.

Question, "That the word 'Braintree' stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to,

MR. AYRTON

moved the recommittel of the Bill in order to add to Clause 5 words, the effect of which would be, in cases where the rent of a house was paid at shorter periods than three months, to make the owner as well as the occupier liable for the payment of rates.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he hoped the House would not assent to the proposal. The Amendment would throw upon the landlord of all these tenements an obligation for which at present he was not liable, without any compensation whatever. There would arise all the questions which had led to the system of compounding—namely, whether houses were occupied or not at the time the rate was made. Having now gone through Committee and come to the end of the Amendments, he did not think the House would be prepared to enter upon the immense question of the compound-householders.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, he might mention that the loss of rates in the metropolitan parishes, occasioned by the Amendments in the Bill, would be very great.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill here committed in respect of Clause 5,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)—put, and negatived.

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next. [Bill 250.]