§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee)
§ Clause 15 (University of London to Return One Member).
§ Amendment again proposed, after the word "the," to insert the word "Universities."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ MR. LOWELast night I made an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a little time for the consideration of this question, which bus come so suddenly upon the London University. The appeal, I am sorrry to say, was unsuccessful. Since then I have presented a petition not signed, as I wish it had been, by the Senate or by Convocation—for time did not permit of that—but signed by Mr. Grote, the Vice Chancellor, and by the Chairman of Committees of Convocation — a Gentleman who may be considered to represent Convocation when it is not sitting—setting forth arguments against the proposal of the Government to unite these two Universities in one electoral body, and stating that there has not been time since this matter was first proposed by the Government to take the sense either of the Senate or of Convocation on the subject. To that I may add, from my own knowledge, that the Senate will meet to-morrow to consider this question, that a requisition has been presented for a meeting of Convocation which will be held in a few days, and that there is no doubt that the feelings of both those bodies are very much against the proposal of the Government. Under these circumstances, I wish I could persuade myself that there was the least use in renewing the appeal to the Government to give the University an opportunity 19 of being heard before the change takes place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last night that the University of London has had dangling before its eyes for many years the prospect of Parliamentary representation. If it has not obtained this representation, it has not arisen from the unwillingness of any Government to concede it, but because the Reform Bills in which their recommendations have been embodied have never become law. But observe the natural inference from that. The natural inference is that when the present Government included a similar proposal in its Bill the University of London considered itself safe, and, believing that the Government would fulfil their understanding, was lulled into a false security, took no measures to stimulate the Government or express its opinion, and showed a trust and confidence which now appear to have been very ill bestowed. It has therefore been rather confining itself to try and find out who is the Member who should represent it in the representation which it made sure it would have, than to assure that representation. For these reasons it is only equitable and reasonable to ask the Government even now, after they have carried the first word of the Amendment, to pause and allow the University to be heard before they deprive it of the privilege and honour which it has for some time considered virtually its own. I cannot say that I make the appeal with confidence. Perhaps, after the rather scornful way in which I was met last night, when my appeal was treated with badinage and ridicule, I am not consulting the dignity of the University — I do not care about my own—in now renewing the appeal. On such an occasion I must not be particular. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have done well to remember that, though it is easy to get up a laugh, these are matters of serious moment, deeply touching the interests and feelings of men as intelligent and as able to form opinions on public affairs as the best of us. I cannot part from the subject without adding one or two words to correct what was said last. We heard much of the improvements in Durham, which, it was said, had quite changed the state of things there. When were those improvements made? In October, 1865. Magical indeed must have been their effect if in the short time which has since elapsed they have reversed a slate of things which everybody 20 spoke of as miserable and distressing into efficiency and prosperity. Against these improvements I am the last to speak, for they were chiefly made in consequence of the Report of the University Commission, but it is impossible that they can have already had the effect attributed to them. No one has been more urgent than the right hon. Gentleman in impressing upon us that every Member should represent a homogeneous constituency. If one might venture to judge of a mind so versatile and capable of embracing so many aims and feelings, that is the object in all this question of Reform which appears to lie nearest to his heart. He is always telling us of the necessity of drawing a sharp line of division between towns and counties, and he wishes to arm with more than Imperial authority certain Boundary Commissioners in order to carry out this principle to its fullest extent. Apply the principle here. The right hon. Gentleman is about to group these two Universities. The only defence of grouping is that the communities thus joined are much the some, that they are in the same neighbourhood, have the same feelings and the same ideas, and that being divided only by a small space they may without much inconvenience be regarded as the same community. Is that the case with Universities? A University is the most complicated of immaterial things. It has an artificial origin, it has a head and members, and it is a being created, organized, and worked out by the law. Totus, teres atque rotundus. To unite two of these beings together, each having a complete organization of its own, would be a strange and wonderful union, different indeed from the union of a number of inhabitants who may happen to live in different towns and villages without any organization at all. But the case goes much further. These two Universities are as distinct from each other a3 possible. Durham is local and provincial; London is metropolitan and cosmopolitan, extending its influence more and more every day all over the world. The University of Durham has its origin in religious feeling, is intended for the purpose of religious instruction, and is under the auspices of a Dean and Chapter—an ecclesiastical body. The University of London in its domain is as free as the boundless range of intellect itself. It confines its Members to no particular study, but extends its aid to any subject which may be fitly studied by youth. The one University is ecclesiastical, the 21 other pre-eminently and entirely secular. You are about to unite these two bodies. What must be the effect of that? It must be that the man who is a fit representative for the one is an unfit representative for the other. You cannot have any human being so plastic, so various—I had almost said so double-faced and hypocritical—as to give satisfaction to these two bodies, both perhaps excellent and admirable—I will say nothing of that—but formed with different ends, upon different principles, and for different purposes. Durham may, and I dare say will, do good as a, College. A University it ought never to have been. It is too narrow for a University. The making of a College into a University means that you trust to those who teach the function of examining the people whom they teach. The result is that they are naturally too lenient, examiners. They are testing their own work, which ought to be tested by other people. That is the difficulty and defect in Durham which, in my opinion, will militate against its success as a University. The University of London, being free from any such trammels, being nothing but an examining and directing body, and having no functions for instruction, is able to do for Colleges and for places of instruction all over the world that which it is impossible they can do for themselves. The University of Durham will, I doubt not, continue to run its limited, unambitious, and humble career of usefulness in teaching, but it can never be a great tester of the teaching of others. I put it, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman whether he will insist on welding two most opposite bodies into one constituency. What will be the effect if he does? It will be that if the University of Durham appoint the Member, he will be an unfit and unsatisfactory representative for the University of London. If the University of London appoint the Member he will be an unfit and unsatisfactory representative for the University of Durham. That will not be a satisfactory state of things. I say, then—though I have no authority to make the statement—that the boon which it is proposed to confer will hardly be considered a boon, and that this, like other things we have heard of, will be only the beginning of jealousies, heart-burnings, and attempts to get rid of the connection. If my application to the right hon. Gentleman fails, as I suppose it will, I should be disposed to make a Motion to postpone the clause; but that, I believe, I cannot do, as an Amendment has been 22 made in it already. I hope the light hon. Gentleman will give an answer to my appeal, will consider the just, moderate, and reasonable claim we make, and forbear to join in this unholy wedlock those whom every motive of policy and wisdom should keep asunder.
§ SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, he would not have risen to take part in the discussion, were it not for the somewhat invidious comparison which had been made as to the efficiency of the two Universities. The right hon. Gentleman had made use of the word "homogeneous," and proceeded to argue that the entire dissimilarity of the two bodies ought for ever to keep them asunder. That dissimilarity was not what the Committee might be led to infer from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, There were no tests required for admission to the privileges of the University of Durham, and no forms to be undergone which were objected to by students. The right hon. Gentleman bad spoken of the number of graduates, but it was not right to make the point of numbers an element in the consideration. It should be borne in mind that the University of London offered no education. It only conferred degrees, perhaps upon a high standard. The sufficiency of the standard he did not dispute. But it merited consideration that it had no system of domestic education and discipline, no curriculum of instruction. It must be in the nature of things that a University like that of Durham, which had these things, and which was nearly of the same age as that of London, must take a longer time in making way and increasing the number of its graduates in the district with which it was more immediately connected. The right hon. Gentleman had made an appeal in favour of the London University on the ground of its cosmopolitan character. But he would ask the Committee whether an institution in a district teeming with population and embracing within it the most important interests, was not quite as much for the advancement of the commonweal, and quite as proper for consideration at the hands of Parliament. The University of Durham had, under the present arrangements, the means of educating students at a much less cost than could be done by Oxford or Cambridge. £80 or £85 was the limit of the expense that need to be incurred. The right hon. Gentleman had remarked that the examiners at the Durham University and the teachers were the 23 same, and that thus no test was applied to the education given in the schools. What were the facts? Examiners were brought down from Cambridge or Oxford to test the students at the taking of degrees. [Mr. LOWE: Hear, hear!] It was not to be supposed that those gentlemen would adopt an insufficient standard. Therefore the test of merit in those examined was as good in the one case as in the other. It was hardly consistent with the position of the University of London in its cosmopolitan character to maintain that a conjunction with the University of Durham would militate against its privileges. In the debate of last night the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid) objected to the grouping of the two Universities on the ground of distance. But Glasgow was not situate close to Aberdeen nor Edinburgh to St. Andrews. Railways now annihilated space. If the proposal to employ voting papers, which were now in use in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and which was contained in the Bill, was adopted, the question of neighbourhood ought to form no element in the consideration of the question. In 1858, the Durham University originated a system of middle-class examinations, approaching the system which was now so much lauded and advocated in connection with the other Universities as of the greatest possible advantage to the public interest. The hon. Member for Honiton had spoken last night of the distinguished men who had proceeded from the medical school of the London University. He seemed not to be aware that there was an excellent medical and surgical school in Newcastle-on-Tyne, which was in connection with the University of Durham. No district in England gave more scope for the ability of men of eminent medical and surgical attainments than the part of England where collieries abounded, which was inhabited by so dense a population. The hon. Member had said that the University of Durham was not growing, and that the standard was not kept up. The hon. Gentleman was not correct in that assertion. The medical examination at Durham University was at this moment working in the most advantageous and successful manner. Why, under these circumstances, should a slur be cast upon the University of Durham, and why were its claims to be disregarded, when in its own time and way it was doing infinitely more in promoting education by really teaching students than could be done 24 by a body which simply conferred degrees, however high its standard? Within the last thirty years the population of Northumberland and Durham had increased about 64 per cent. The district contained many employers of labour, who were deterred from sending their sons to Oxford or Cambridge by reason of the length of time and the expense it involved, whereas at Durham University as high a standard could be reached in less time and at less expense. He hoped these considerations would weigh with the Committee, and that Durham would not be excluded from the Parliamentary privileges which were enjoyed by other Universities.
MR. BRIGHTI think the Committee, during the speech of the hon. Baronet, has come to the conclusion that, with all the interesting facts he has laid before us, it was not a speech in favour of the union of the University of Durham with the University of London. If the speech had any value at all — and I am not about to contest that point—its value consisted in showing that the University of Durham ought to be represented in this House. I see the hon. Baronet is willing to admit what I say is true. He sees that which is nearest to him when at home, and the University of Durham looks to him a very grand institution. [Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY: I desire its representation in conjunction with the London University, as proposed.] I shall not say a word to depreciate the University of Durham. But the speech of the hon. Baronet has nothing to do with the proposal before the Committee. The University of Durham may be all that he says it is. At the same time, it maybe a very unwise thing, both with regard to the past promises of the Government and the just claims of the University of London, that the two Universities should be united in sending one Member to this House. The University of London is an institution which was needed, and created for purposes somewhat peculiar. It was founded to enable persons to take advantage of a high University education, who from a variety of reasons were not able to avail themselves of the benefits offered to other persons by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The University of London has none of that grand antiquity which attaches to the two ancient Universities, nor has it the great endowments they have. But it stands before the country having done up to this time, and doing still, a great work. The 25 House on all occasions, when this proposal of enfranchising the London University has been before us, has met it without objection, and generally with approval. The object of the House and of successive Governments in making this proposal has been to give the University of London a certain position in the nation — to elevate its status — and to place it more nearly on a par in public estimation with the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, I am not in favour of the representation of Universities. The representation of the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was created in times about the worst in our history. The Members they have sent to this House, learned as some of them have been, and amiable as many of them have been, have not been representatives such as it would be wise—I speak of their political views—for the House of Commons to follow. I am glad to see that that view is cordially accepted. ["No!"] I am quite sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will not say they are now walking in the foot-steps of any previous representative of Oxford. I therefore say I am not in favour of the representation of Universities. If I had bad the making of a Reform Bill for introduction to this House, I should have done violence to my own views with regard to the subject, and should have condescended to the weakness, or it may be the; greater wisdom of the House, if I had proposed to give a representative to the University of London. At the same time, seeing that other Universities have representatives in this House, I think that is a strong argument in its favour. Therefore I shall be willing to vote for conferring a representative on the University of London. But what can be more preposterous than the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He himself can hardly regard it with gravity. It was obvious yesterday that the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench did not wish to have a division. If some Gentlemen who always liked going into the lobby better than remaining in the House had not called for a division, I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid), and that the London University would have had its Member assured to it without this discussion, The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) stated, in the most forcible and convincing language, many of the objections to this scheme. I should like to see what sort of electioneering cam- 26 paign would be carried on by these two Universities. I know the Dean of Durham is a most admirable, accomplished, and liberal man. When I was a candidate for Durham in 1843, and was returned for that city, I had the satisfaction of having the support of the Dean of Durham. Some other dignitaries of the Cathedral—three I believe—were among my supporters. I shall therefore say nothing against them — it would be untrue if did so It would be most impertinent in me to reflect upon them in any way. But if a committee were formed to conduct an election for those joint Universities what a puzzle the Committee would be in. I saw an account this week in the newspapers of a committee formed in connection with the University of London. A discussion arose as to whether the candidate should be a Liberal-Conservative or a Conservative-Liberal, I have no doubt there is, and will be, the greatest possible difficulty in determining whether he shall be a Radical of the ancient type sitting on this Bench, or whether he shall be a Radical of the modern type sitting behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There can be doubt that the candidate who would be selected in Durham would be wholly different in his political views from the candidate selected by the University of London. If the University of London had a large majority, the result would be that the University of Durham would be practically and permanently disfranchised. If there was a minority in the London University, that would conspire — I do not mean it in an unpleasant sense — but that would unite in action with the solid body of the University of Durham, then the great majority of the University of London might be disfranchised. It would have been as rational for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose that the University of Edinburgh, with its high Protestant feeling, should be associated with the College of Maynooth, as that the University of Durham should be associated in political representation with the University of London. I do not know a man among my acquaintances, political or otherwise, who would be likely to offer himself with a fair face to those two Universities, unless it be the right hon. Gentleman who has made this proposal to the House. I am not strenuously arguing for the representation of Universities. I disapprove of it. At the same time the House is in favour of it. The House has conceded, or is willing to concede it to the Scotch Universities, as I 27 think, in great excess. It is willing to concede it to the University of London, and has been so since 1854. The House has made a promise so specific that not one in the University, or even in the City of London, has doubted for a moment that the original proposal of the Government would be accepted without contest or division. But at the last moment, the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons behind the screen, which we cannot fathom, has made a proposal the most unwise and least to be defended of all the proposals he has submitted to the House during the Session. I say, give to the University of London what you have promised, and what you say it has claim to. Give it fairly and in such a manner as that it will be clearly understood where the power rests. Do not, for purposes, apparently, of party, add to the University of London another body which you think will thwart the general objects of that body. Deal with the University of London in a frank manner as with men of, perhaps, the highest intelligence and cultivation in this country. Then, in all probability, you will have some man returned who will be worthy of his constituents, and worthy of taking part in the deliberations of this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has exhorted us in almost pathetic tones to banish party. Well, let us banish party. I have had no party feeling in this matter during this Session. I feel as sure as I am standing here? and speaking to the Committee, that there is not one man in ten in this House who believes on pure public grounds that it would be a judicious arrangement to unite these two Universities in one representation. The right hon. Gentleman will, I believe, be just as much obliged to you if you give him leave to make this change as he has been deeply obliged to you for your liberality on many previous occasions.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, he had always thought that the great basis of the argument for increased representation was that they ought to give representation in proportion to the increase of public intelligence. It seemed, therefore, anything but consistent to deny representation to the most intelligent bodies in this country. Surely the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) did not wish the House to believe that he was afraid of bringing intelligence into that House. If so, the hon. Gentleman seemed open to the charge of political insincerity [Mr. BRIGHT: I would give the members votes.] 28 The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) began his argument by making an ad misericordiam appeal to that House, and said that they ought to respect the feelings of the learned and intelligent persons connected with the University of London. He adopted the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Though the body whose claims he (Mr. Liddell) advocated was small, they were as much entitled to have their feelings respected and to avoid the stigma and odium of being the only unrepresented University, as the larger body which the right hon. Gentleman represented. The right hon. Gentleman forbade the banns between London and Durham because, he said, there was an incongruity of character in the persons to be united, and he admitted that the objection was better raised before, than after marriage, but was this true? A sound theological education was no doubt bestowed at Durham. But it had also the freest and most liberal constitution of any of our Universities. There was not one of the endowments that was not thrown open without distinction of class or religion, with the exception of one small scholarship. To object to unite two bodies on the ground of difference of opinion in the constituencies would be to disfranchise half the county constituencies. Could any one represent a greater diversity of opinion and interest than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire? The effect of representing such a diversity of interest made a man more liberal, enlarged his mind, and made him fit for the great work of Imperial legislation. They were told that the University of London was distinguished by its cosmopolitan views. If so, a little fixity of tone might be usefully engrafted upon it. What possible harm would it be to the University of London to allow a small body like Durham to be affiliated to it. If the London University were superior in some respects the effect would be to improve the smaller body. If the effect of the union were to introduce sound religious feeling into the larger body the advantage would be mutual. The House had sanctioned the principle of affiliation for representative purposes in the case of the Scotch Universities. The onus now rested on the other side to show what possible harm would result from the proposed union. Until that was done he hoped the Committee would record its sanction to the proposal of the Government.
§ MR. OSBORNEI shall not be suspected, at least on this occasion, of expressing any party feeling on this subject. Hitherto I have never voted on this enormous question, which has suddenly assumed such tremendous proportions. I share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, that we are already overstocked with University Members. I do not see that there is any good in giving Members to Universities. Should we have had this Bill if it had depended on the votes of the Members for the Universities? I have as little love for the University of London as for that of Durham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northumberland, and especially the hon. Member for Durham, who appears to be the author of this little project, and who has poured his venomous distilment into the ears of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I congratulate them upon having achieved one I thing. They have let the world know that there is such an institution as the University of Durham. I was ignorant that there was a University of Durham; so I believe were the great body of my fellow-countrymen. They connect Durham with "short-horns," not with scholars. At all events, Durham University has had a capital advertisement in these debates. We have heard a great statistical maiden speech from the Member for Northumberland; but the question is whether the University of London is content to be joked with Durham. What is the University of Durham? Its influence is insignificant, and the University of London will ride over it in every instance. The Reform Bill, when-ever it is re-printed, and whatever good there may be in it, appears ridiculous enough in many instances. What are we about to do? The vengeance, I may say, of that terrible Neptune, the hon. Member for Durham, is about to create a hybrid constituency—
Semibovemque virum, semivirumque bovem.It would be neither one thing nor the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his secret heart, though incumbered by the prejudices of hon. Members behind him, which he is slowly shaking off, will say if we negative this Motion, that the secret inclinations of the Government have thereby been gratified. There is a middle course. Why is it necessary to bestow this Member on these two Universities that are already beginning to quarrel with each other? There appears to be an incompatibility of temper that ought to 30 prevent this union. Instead of filling up the clause with the word "University" at all, I would suggest that the word "Liverpool" be substituted, and thus give an additional Member to that great commercial community. We have heard much of the increase of the counties of Durham find Northumberland. But the increase of Liverpool in population and rental would throw Durham and Northumberland into the shade. In ten years the population of Liverpool has enormously increased, while the rental has increased by £1,250,000. Yet there it is with two miserable Members. [Laughter.] I do not mean miserable Member in that sense, because there are not two more efficient Members in the House than the Members for Liverpool. What sort of a Member are we likely to get from these Universities? Heaven knows what kind of a creation will come out of this maladroitly-formed constituency, I would therefore suggest that the words "town of Liverpool" be inserted instead of "University." The rental if that town is upwards of £2,500,000. The population is nearly 500,000. I call on all good Radical Reformers to come to the relief of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is at present bound, like Prometheus, by the insidious Member for Durham, or rather he is like Captain Macheath with the "Polly" of Durham University on one side, and the "Lucy" of London University on the other. Let us come to his assistance. No doubt he would say with that great hero—Since you both tease me together,To neither a word will I say.I beg to move that the word "Liverpool" be inserted.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne stated that we had not treated the University of London with sufficient consideration. Having from this Bench proposed, at different periods, that that University should be represented in Parliament, it is scarcely necessary to vindicate myself from that charge, It was not "the grand antiquity" of that institution—to adopt the phrase of the hon. Member for Birmingham—nor its great endowments which induced me to take that course. I am of opinion that it would be well that the University should be represented in Parliament, because it would give us a constituency of learned and enlightened men. I am favourable to an intellectual element being introduced into this House 31 purposely and professedly as such. We should not in all cases be merely the representatives of material interests. I think therefore the right hon. Gentleman has no foundation for the charge he made against me. When I first submitted this question to the consideration of the House, I gave the House to understand that Her Majesty's Government would be very much influenced by their feeling on the subject. I have not obtruded myself therefore upon the Committee in this debate, but have listened with interest and patience to all that has been said. It is clear that our proposal is favoured by the Committee. The divisions taken upon it show that. I am not surprised at the conclusion arrived at after discussion. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne to-day and yesterday is an argument of prejudice. He commences by associating one of these rival institutions with qualities which, in his estimation, are of an exceptional character, and on that assumption he argues that it would be most unwise to unite the two together. We have no evidence that there is any foundation for the charges he makes against Durham University. As far as we can form an opinion, the University of Durham is a University now distinguished by the learning of its professors and the high character of its students. With regard to the imputation cast upon it of narrowness of religious feeling, there is no foundation whatever for it. There are few institution in the portion of the kingdom much wanting the inspiring presence of a University—if it has during the last few years greatly advanced and already possesses not a numerous but a respectable body of graduates fit to form a constituency, we have to ask ourselves what is the reason why it should not be joined in respect to Parliamentary privileges with the University of London? The University of London itself cannot furnish a very large constituent body. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his observations this afternoon by correcting a statement I heard with some surprise yesterday as to the number of that constituency, and informed us that it was of more moderate dimensions. I confess that in considering the policy of giving the 32 London University representation in this House, my opinion would not be much influenced by the exact amount of the constituency. I look at the principles on which the institution is founded, the progress it has made, and the future which I hope is before it. These are the considerations that would influence me. They influence me also with respect to the University of Durham. If the principle be admitted that Universities may be united for purposes of representation, though at a distance from each other—and that principle seems to be admitted in regard to the Scotch Universities—I am at a loss to understand why it should not be extended to the Universities of London and Durham. We are told that the great reason why that union should not take place is because London University is a "cosmopolitan" institution. I am unable to cope with an argument consisting of an epithet of which, it is difficult to form a precise idea. We know that there are in London certain "cosmopolitan" institutions; and being in some degree responsible for the proposal to give Parliamentary representation to the London University, it might rather alarm me to hear that institution characterized as cosmopolitan. I do not see in what respect it materially varies from the University of Durham. Each of those Universities has a distinctive character. But I do not see that any argument against their union can rest on that foundation. Distinctive character gives variety to a common aim. They are both learned institutions. They are designed to bring up young men with the common aims which a high education naturally induces. Variety of character in a learned constituency should be regarded as an advantage rather than otherwise. What is the character of the constituency of London University? It is itself composed of most dissimilar elements. Its graduates come from educational institutions in various parts of the kingdom. A Roman Catholic College in Durham already sends its pupils to graduate at the London University, where, if this Bill passes, they will become University electors, and be represented as such in Parliament. When, therefore, the religious prejudice is attempted to be raised against this proposal—when we are told that London University is a "cosmopolitan" institution, and that there is danger 33 from its being connected with the University of Durham, because the latter is an ecclesiastical institution, it seems to be hard on the graduates of Durham University that they should be deprived of the to extend its influence and be coming to a advantages to be enjoyed by the pupils from Ushaw. The cosmopolitan argument has in reality no force. The hon. Member for Birmingham spoke in an impressive manner, and one that is always interesting; but all I could gather from his speech in the shape of material objection to the proposal before us is that there would be endless squabbles when election time came, and endless difficulties in the way of candidates who had to appeal to the franchises of the Universities of Durham and London. In order to illustrate this position, on which he founded his conclusion that their union would be most objectionable, the hon. Member, with extraordinary inconsistency, gave us a detail of the manner in which at the present moment a canvass is conducted in the University of London. Nothing, according to the hon. Member for Birmingham, can be more absurd than the mode in which a canvass for the representation of London University is going on. How much more ridiculous, he says, it would be if the candidates had to solicit the suffrages of Durham University as well! I do not see that these discussions have established one solid argument against our proposal. All the objections taken to it appear to be animated merely by prejudice. If the University of London has hoped that it would enjoy the sole privilege of being represented in this House, it may remember that its existence is so novel that it ought not to be too curious and too critical as to the conditions on which it is offered this privilege. There are many claimants for this honour. For a considerable period there have been praiseworthy attempts made to obtain representation for that and other learned bodies. I do not think it is for public men to found the whole argument against the admission of Durham on a most invidious description of the respective characters and qualities of the two Universities. I hope the Committee will take a liberal view of the question, that they will bear in mind that the University of Durham is probably destined to exercise a considerable and a beneficial influence on the population of the Northern part of the kingdom, and that the opportunity may not again present itself in our generation of conferring on that learned body 34 the privilege of being represented in this House. By adopting the proposal of the Government, we shall be giving weight to this institution, we shall be contributing to extend its influence and be coming to a resolution which will be advantageous to the country.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that if the University of Durham were an institution of an exclusive character, he should object to allowing it to participate in the enjoyment of the electoral franchise. He understood, however, that it admitted Dissenters and Roman Catholics, as well as members of the Church of England, to share its distinctions. If the proposal to allow it to have a voice in returning a Member to that House were rejected, it would, in the event of a Member being given to the University of London, be the only University in the kingdom which would be unrepresented, inasmuch as the Universities of Scotland were about to be grouped. He did not think it right that it should be left in that anomalous position, and he should under those circumstances vote in favour of the proposal of the Government.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that those who advocated the cause of the London University rested their case on an invidious comparison between it and the University of Durham, and had thereby prejudiced their own argument His right hon. Friend the Member for Calne, who was, as well as himself, a member of the Senate of the London University, having stated his experience in his capacity as a Commissioner, appointed to inquire into the University of Durham, had been answered by hon. Members who represented that part of the country, who informed the Committee that the advice given by his right hon. Friend had been taken by the University, and that the abuses he had pointed out no longer existed. He had no wish in the smallest degree to disparage the University of Durham, or to maintain that it did not perform in the most admirable manner the duties it was designed to discharge. But those duties were entirely different from the duties which the London University so successfully fulfilled. The Durham University was founded on the principles of the ancient Universities, with the view that it might furnish a more economical and convenient means of giving a similar education, and the examiners were chosen from the ancient Universities. 35 [Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY: Not all.] The London University was* established for the express purpose of giving a broad academic education to those who were excluded from the ancient Universities. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) was under a complete delusion if he supposed that the University of Durham, like that of London, was open to the members of all religious persuasions. If the Committee were to grant to that University the privilege of voting for a candidate to represent it in Parliament, that privilege would be confined exclusively to the members of the Church. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared himself to be in favour of conferring representation on an intellectual community; but was it not desirable that when a Member was returned by such a community, the principles which he was likely to advocate, and the general sentiments of his constituents, should be capable of being clearly indicated? What sort of a representative must he be who could not speak on behalf of that which was universal, as in the case of the University of London, nor of that which was confined to the Church of England, as in the case of the Durham University, but who would be, as it were, the result of the accident which of those two sets of opinions happened to command the most numerous adherence at the time? The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed somewhat alarmed at the use of the word "cosmopolitan" in the argument of his right hon. Friend; but whether he meant what he said on that point as a joke or as a serious observation was open to doubt. What his right hon. Friend meant by the use of the word "cosmopolitan" was that the London University, while maintaining a high standard of examination, admitted to that examination men from all ports of Her Majesty's dominions. Learned men from Calcutta or Australia might come there, obtain their degree, and thus become members of that which his right hon. Friend had justly characterized as a cosmopolitan University. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that the members of the London University were by themselves not sufficiently numerous to form a constituency. They already, however, numbered 2,000, and if that number, produced in a period of twenty years, were compared with the constituency of the University of Oxford, it would be seen that it furnished a remarkable instance of success which was every year growing greater. 36 Entertaining the views which he now did as to the insufficiency of its numbers, how was it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to give a Member to the University of London in 1859, and that during the eight years since elapsed he had never shown himself to be so conscious of the merits of the University of Durham as to propose that it should be admitted into partnership with the former. It appeared that it was owing to some sudden inspiration during the Whitsuntide holydays that the new light had dawned upon him, and that he was induced to make a proposal supported by no solid argument. The right hon. Gentleman went on to advert to the case of the Scotch Universities; but it was quite a different thing to unite institutions which, though distant in space, were for the most part identical in sentiment, and to make a similar proposal with regard to institutions which were founded on entirely different principles. He trusted, therefore, that the proposal made by the Government would be rejected by the Committee.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he wished to remark, in reply to what had fallen from the last speaker, that in the Durham University no religious test was exacted on entrance or taking the degree of Bachelor or Master of Arts or the degree in medicine, only from those about to take Orders.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that he had the highest authority for stating that the members of the Convocation of the University of Durham must be members of the Church of England.
§ MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, he could not anticipate a favourable result from joining two incongruous bodies of different characters. He thought that any Member returned who might please the University of London would be disagreeable to that of Durham.
§ Question put, "That the word 'Universities' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 225: Majority 1.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had now to propose to insert after "London" the words "and Durham."
§ Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the word "London," to insert the words "and Durham."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
37§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had an Amendment to move which took precedence of the right hon. Gentleman's. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mainly been supported by North-country Members, who had done much to swell the majority, though he, as a North-country Member, had, in spite of local pressure, voted for keeping London and Durham distinct. It was evident that the members of London University had a great objection to being joined with Durham University. This arose probably merely from an instinctive feeling that they had very little in common. If these two Universities were forced into conjunction, a fitting representative would not be forthcoming. He would be some neutral-tinted, colourless nobody, who would represent nothing but a, compromise between two rival and hostile bodies. Oxford and Cambridge were not BO narrow-minded, and were willing, he thought, to have St. Bee's and all the other Church of England Colleges united with them. There was evidently much more sympathy between Oxford and Durham than between London and Durham. He, as a Cambridge man, would therefore move in line 1 to omit "London" in order to insert the words "Oxford and Durham," so as to make Oxford and Durham one constituent body.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he believed he was now in order in suggesting that all graduates of Durham University should have the franchise. This, he thought, would remove all difficulty.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he apprehended there would be no objection to electoral privileges being extended to graduates of Durham of a certain standing. The University was open to all comers without any test, and degrees could be taken in all subjects—except in theology—by students of all persuasions. At present an M.A. was obliged before he could become a member of Convocation, to declare himself a bonâ fide member of the Church of England. But although he could not pledge Convocation, and was only prepared to make a general statement, he might say that for years past every change had been in a liberal direction, and he believed it was in contemplation by the authorities to get rid of that restriction. He believed he could state with confidence that if Parliament extended electoral privileges to all graduates the test respecting Convocation to members of the Church of England would be removed, and with it the only 38 objection to this proposal. As regarded the question of introducing a clause, there would be no difficulty in acceding to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and enabling all graduates of a certain standing to vote for the University.
MR. GLADSTONEThe important announcement just made on the part of Her Majesty's Government appears to me to call for a remark. The right hon. Gentleman assures us that if the House will enfranchise the University of Durham, the Convocation and authorities of that University will alter its constitution, and will admit persons not belonging to the Church of England to be members of Convocation. I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman can possibly have been authorized or empowered by the Convocation of the University to give that assurance?
§ MR. MOWBRAYI said it was in contemplation by the authorities. I said, also, that it was impossible for me to pledge Convocation; but that from the nature of the changes already sanctioned, and from those changes having been in one direction, I expressed my belief that it would be done.
MR. GLADSTONEIt appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman does not relieve himself from the dilemma. He says it is in contemplation on the part of the authorities. Who are "the authorities?" It is either a pledge on behalf of the University, which the right hon. Gentleman is evidently not authorized to give, or it is a mere expression of opinion, based on his communications with some one or more of its members. Of course, if it be the mere expression of such an opinion he is perfectly justified in conveying it to the Committee; but nobody can be so weak as to take it for more than it is worth. What, however, I think more important is the singular and highly-inconvenient innovation, if I understand it aright, to which at a moment's notice, and under the pressure of the recent division, Her Majesty's Government appear to be ready to accede with regard to the basis of the University franchise. Is there to be one basis for Durham and another for all the other Universities of the country? That seems to follow from the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that all persons who take a M.A. degree, which would enable them ordinarily to enter the governing body, shall be qualified to vote for a Parliamentary representative. Are they also to be qualified to enter into the governing body of the University? If so, 39 that reform or change in the constitution of the University ought evidently to precede and not to follow this discussion. If the judgment of the House is to be materially affected by the state of things in Durham on that point, it is impossible to ask the House to accede to the proposal of the Government on the stipulation that a change of this kind may be hereafter effected. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned nothing about the governing body, and gave no pledge to alter it. But if he means, as he said on the part of the Government, that all persons who have taken degrees in the University shall have votes, that is an entire innovation in the nature of the University representation. How many thousands of persons in Oxford and Cambridge have taken degrees, but have possessed no votes? If the House determine that University Members shall be elected by men who have taken degrees, but have lost all connection with the University, and have taken their names off the books, that will be a change of great importance in the University representation. At Oxford it would involve changes of a serious nature. Gentlemen not admitted into Convocation on account of having changed their religious professions since they took their degrees would, under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, become voters. I do not say whether that is desirable or undesirable; but it is not a change which should be made without any previous intimation on the part of the Government, involving, as it does, a total change in the character of the University representation. I may say that I look with sincere interest on the University of Durham. I believe firmly that it is beginning to enjoy an efficient and even a vigorous life. I trust that at a future period its condition may be such that it may fairly come to Parliament and ask for representation. But the University of London differs from it in this vital respect—that it is already in that condition. It has a considerably larger constituency than either of the pairs of Scotch Universities to which you profess to give a separate representation. If that be so, let the House deal with the case of London now, because it is ripe for representation, reserving the case of Durham until it may be considered on its own merits. After the University of London has for fifteen years been expecting representation, let us not do the most odious of all things—give that which professes to be a boon subject to conditions 40 which convert it, if not into an injury, yet into a slight and a disparagement.
MR. GRANT DUFFI subscribe to every word that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire. I think the policy proposed by him would be far the wisest for the University of Durham to pursue; but I would entreat hon. Members from the North of England to understand that I and others who are taking an active part in resisting the union of Durham with the London University, have not the slightest ill-will towards the institution in which they are interested. Individually, my feelings are altogether of an opposite kind, as the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) is quite aware. It so happens that, although a graduate of Oxford and London, I was at one time of my life very well acquainted with the University of Durham, and have nothing but the pleasantest associations with it. I quite understand and appreciate the feeling of North of England Members towards Durham. Those who only know the South are not aware of the amount of sentiment that gathers round that ancient cathedral city, and, besides, since the recent reforms, I really believe the University is doing very useful work. Let it go on maturing itself, and its good deeds, and then come to Parliament for representation. But if it really requires immediate representation, I say, in all seriousness, and as a Member of the Oxford Convocation, I accept, as the less bad alternative of the two before us, the proposition of the hon. Member for Tynemouth to join the University of Durham to the Oxford constituency. Do not spoil the constituency of the London University. People talk of the omnipotence of Parliament, but I defy, not only Parliament, but any power in heaven or earth to spoil any thing so bad as the constituency of Oxford.
§ MR. DENMANsaid, he was acquainted with many highly respectable members of the University of London, and he knew that this proposal was most unpalatable to them. He did not know whether it would be equally so to Members of the University of Oxford. There was much more diversity between the Universities of London and Durham than between those of Oxford and Durham. He had been blamed for using, on the previous evening, respecting the University of Durham, disparaging expressions. He had called it a small and miserable University. He was sorry he had used the word "miserable," and 41 begged to express his regret openly; but he would not retract the word "small." It was not a University at all in the proper sense of the term. It was simply a College, about as large as one of the small Colleges of Oxford or Cambridge. It was something like St. Bee's, and not to be compared with the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, or with the University of London. He had great respect for the University of Durham as a small struggling place of education, and when it had grown into larger dimensions he should be prepared to consider its claim to representation. He should support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he found, on reference to Dod, that there were 1,700 electors in the University of Dublin. In the University of London there would be 2,600. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite, who came from Ireland, and who voted in favour of attaching the small University of Durham to London, be prepared in Ireland to attach the Queen's University to Trinity College? The one proposal would be at least as just as the other, the Dublin University having two Members, while the University of London would have only one.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray) whether he meant to convey to the House that persons being on the register of graduates, whatever their religious persuasion, were to be members of Convocation for all purposes, or whether it was only meant that they were to have electoral privileges. Having fought a long time along with Her Majesty's Government to prevent the admission of Dissenters and Roman Catholics to the governing body of the University, he should feel that if the Government had now, without deliberation or debate, given up the principle, they had betrayed the confidence of their supporters.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, it was not in the contemplation of the Government, nor had it been suggested by him, to alter the constitution of Convocation. Such a change must be a matter to be considered and determined by the authorities of the University. He had merely stated his impression from communications with some of the University authorities and from his own knowledge of what had taken place in recent years, that if this House gave electoral privileges to the Durham University changes would be made by the University authorities, It was never in 42 his contemplation to interfere by legislation with the free action of the University authorities. All he meant was to express his belief that if left to themselves they would do what he said.
§ MR. OSBORNEsaid, he could hardly have imagined that the question of Universities would have produced so much consternation among hon. Gentlemen, One could not help commiserating the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), who in his excitement had almost run himself out of breath, and was actually about to denounce the Government of which he was a supporter. Now, the right hon. Member for Durham, whom he looked upon as the author of this project—for he knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not like it—the right hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray), supported by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), the godfathers of this University scheme, had given a sort of pledge that Convocation, or some members of Convocation, were going to do something. But in what position were the Committee? They were called upon to legislate on a subject about which they did not know whether Convocation would coincide in opinion with the right hon. Member for Durham. There might be in Convocation spirits like the hon. Member for Cambridge. The most sensible thing under the circumstances would be to postpone the question. He would therefore move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again. He would not press the Motion unless it appeared to be generally acceptable.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI think the best thing we can do is to proceed with the clause. I do not understand that these communications which have been made respecting the Convocation of the University of Durham have anything to do with the question before the Committee. They did not at all affect the course the Government have taken. I wish to proceed and to bring this question to a conclusion as soon as possible.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he made last night a very respectful appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to delay proceeding with the question until the University of London had time to express an opinion upon it. He thought after what had occurred to-day that that suggestion was of some value. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they ought not to report 43 Progress, but to come to some decision. He would like, however, to know what they were about. They were going to put into this 15th clause "the graduates of the Universities of London and Durham," and immediately followed the 16th clause, defining the voters, the words being "every person whose name is for the time being on the register of graduates constituting the Convocation of the University of London." The proposal now was that "every person whose name was on the register of graduates constituting the Convocation of the Universities of London and Durham" should be a voter. But every person not a member of the Church of England was excluded from the Convocation of the University of Durham. Therefore, whatever might be the value of that ambiguous information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had disregarded, and which the Committee also were entitled to disregard, if they were to vote, they must do so upon the question submitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the graduates of the two Universities as now constituted were to form one constituency.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trevelyan) would also withdraw his Amendment and not make their proceedings a laughingstock to the public. It seemed to him that the Committee would best arrive at a decision if they left the Government to amend the clause as they liked, and then divide upon the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if they inserted the words "and Durham," and then rejected the clause as amended, they would get rid not only of Durham, but of London too.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that in deference to the opinion of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment. He had effected his object by the expression of opinion he had elicited.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the intention of the hon. Gentleman, so far as he could gather it, was that in order to get the Committee out of a difficulty he proposed to add Durham to Oxford. But, as he did not intend evidently to leave London unrepresented, he would, no doubt, afterwards move to add London to Cambridge.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to know, before they went to a division, 44 whether he understood the right hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray) aright. That right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to state that if this clause were carried with the words "and Durham" inserted, it was intended by the Government to open the franchise to those who had taken degrees there ["No, no!"], irrespective of the question whether the University of Durham did or did not alter its constitution.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) that this is an occasion on which we may really decide upon Clause 16. In answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I may say that we have no intention of proposing any change in the manner of constituting the Convocation of Durham University. It is entirely open to the University of Durham to alter its constitution or not. I had never any intention of proposing to alter it. The observations made by my right hon. Friend near me were, as he himself stated, founded upon local authority.
§ MR. CARDWELLWould the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask, what it was the Judge Advocate, sitting next to him, stated on behalf of the Government?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMy right hon. Friend had no communication with me on the subject. He spoke, as he said at the time, from conversations with persons of authority out of the House. He was appealed to individually, and he expressed his conviction.
§ MR. LOWEThen we are to gather from what has passed this moral—that when a Member of the Government, sitting next the right hon. Gentleman, makes a most important statement in the name of the Government, which the right hon. Gentleman, sitting by, does not contradict, that does not bind the Government to what he says.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that in the language he used be certainly did not intend to commit his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What he said respecting the University had reference to the members of Convocation.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 234: Majority 8.
48| AYES. | |
| Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. | Archdall, Captain M. |
| Andover, Viscount | Arkwright, R. |
| Baggallay, R. | Goldney, G. |
| Bagge, Sir W. | Goodson, T. |
| Bagnall, C. | Gore, J. R. O. |
| Baillie, rt. hon. H. J. | Gore, W. R. O. |
| Baring, H. B. | Gorst, J. E. |
| Barnett, H. | Graves, S. R. |
| Barrington, Viscount | Greenall, G. |
| Barrow, W. H. | Greene, E. |
| Beach, Sir M. H. | Grosvenor, Lord R. |
| Beecroft, G. S. | Gurney, rt. hon. R. |
| Bentinck, G. C. | * Gwyn, H. |
| Benyon, R. | Hamilton, rt. hn. Lord C. |
| Beresford, Capt. D. W. Pack- | Hamilton, Lord C. J. |
| Hamilton, I. T. | |
| Bernard, hn. Col. H. B. | Hardy, rt. hon. G. |
| Booth, Sir R. G. | Hardy, J. |
| Bourne, Colonel | Hartley, J. |
| Bowen, J. B. | Harvey, R. B. |
| Brett, W. B. | Harvey, R. J. H. |
| Bridges, Sir B. W. | Hervey, Lord A. H. C. |
| Brooks, R. | Hay, Sir J. C. D. |
| Browne, Lord J. T. | Heathcote, hon. G. H. |
| Bruen, H. | Henderson, J. |
| Buckley, E. | Henley, rt. hn. J. W. |
| Burrell, Sir P. | Henniker-Major, hn. J. M. |
| * Campbell, A. H. | |
| Candlish, J. | Herbert, hon. Col. P. |
| Capper, C. | Hesketh, Sir T. G. |
| Cartwright, Colonel | Heygate, Sir F. W. |
| Cave, rt. hon. S. | Hildyard, T. B. T. |
| * Clinton, Lord A. P. | Hodgkinson, G. |
| Clive, Capt. hon. G. W. | Hodgson, W. N. |
| Cobbold, J. C. | Hogg, Lieut.-Col. J. M. |
| * Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. | Hood, Sir A. A. |
| Cole, hon. H. | Hornby, W. H. |
| Cole, hon. J. L. | Hotham, Lord |
| Conolly, T. | Howes, E. |
| Corry, rt. hon. H. L. | Huddleston, J. W. |
| Courtenay, Lord | Hunt, G. W. |
| Cowen, J. | Hutt, rt. hon. Sir W. |
| Cooper, E. H. | Ingham, R. |
| Cox, W. T. | Jervis, Major |
| Cubitt, G. | Jones, D. |
| Curzon, Viscount | Karslake, Sir J. B. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kavanagh, A. |
| Dawson, R. P. | Kelk, J. |
| Dick, F. | Kendall, N. |
| Dickson, Major A. G. | King, J. K. |
| Dimsdale, R. | King, J. G. |
| Disraeli, rt. hon. B. | Knight, F. W. |
| * Dowdeswell, W. E. | Knox, Colonel |
| Du Cane, C. | Knox, hon. Col. S. |
| Duncombe, hon. Col. | Lacon, Sir E. |
| Du Pre, C. G. | Laird, J. |
| Dyke, W. H. | * Langton, W. G. |
| Dyott, Colonel R. | Lascelles, hon. E. W. |
| Eckersley, N. | Lefroy, A. |
| Edwards, Sir H. | Lennox, Lord G. G. |
| Egerton, hon. A. F. | Lennox, Lord H. G. |
| Egerton, E. C. | Liddell, hon. H. G. |
| Egerton, hon. W. | Lindsay, hon. Col. C. |
| Fane, Lt.-Col. H. H. | Lloyd, Sir T. D. |
| Fane, Colonel J. W. | Lopes, Sir M. |
| Feilden, J. | * Lowther, hon. Col. |
| Fellowes, E. | Lowther, Captain |
| Fergusson, Sir J. | Lowther, J. |
| Floyer, J. | * M'Lagan, P. |
| Forester, rt. hon. Gen. | Malcolm, J. W. |
| Freshfield, C. K. | Manners, rt. hn. Lord J. |
| Gallwey, Sir W. P. | Manners, Lord G. J. |
| Galway, Viscount | Meller, Colonel |
| Garth, R. | Mitford, W. T. |
| Goddard, A. L. | Montagu, rt. hn. Lord R. |
| Montgomery, Sir G. | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir W. |
| Morgan, O. | Stock, O. |
| Morgan, hon. Major | Stronge, Sir J. M. |
| * Morris, G. | Stuart, Lieut.-Col. W. |
| Mowbray, rt. hn. J. R. | Stucley, Sir G. S. |
| Naas, Lord | Sturt, H. G. |
| Neeld, Sir J. | Sturt, Lieut.-Col. N. |
| Neville-Grenville, R. | Surtees, C. F. |
| * Newport, Viscount | Surtees, H. E. |
| North, Colonel | Sykes, C. |
| Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H. | Talbot, C. R. M. |
| O'Neill, E. | Thorold, Sir J. H. |
| Packe, C. W. | Thynne, Lord H. F. |
| Paget, R. H. | Torrens, R. |
| Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J. | Tottenham, Lt.-Col. C. G. |
| Parker, Major W. | Treeby, J. W. |
| Patten, Colonel W. | Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill- |
| Paull, H. | Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J. |
| Pease, J. W. | Turner, C. |
| Percy, Major-Gen. Lord H. | Vance, J. |
| Vandeleur, Colonel | |
| * Pryse, E. L. | Verner, E. W. |
| * Pugh, D. | Verner, Sir W. |
| Repton, G. W. J. | Walcott, Admiral |
| Ridley, Sir M. W. | * Walker, Major G. G. |
| Robertson, P. F. | Walpole, rt. hon. S. H. |
| Rolt, Sir J. | Walsh, A. |
| Royston, Viscount | Walsh, Sir J. |
| Russell, Sir C. | Waterhouse, S. |
| Sandford, G. M. W. | * Whitmore, H. |
| Schreiber, C. | * Williamson, Sir H. |
| Sclater-Booth, G. | Wise, H. C. |
| Selwin, H. J. | Woodd, B. T. |
| Selwyn, C. J. | Wyndham, hon. H. |
| * Severne, T. E. | Wyndham, hon. P. |
| Seymour, G. H. | Wynn, C. W. W. |
| Simonds, W. B. | Wynn, W. R. M. |
| Smith, A. | Yorke, J. R. |
| * Smith, S. G. | |
| Smollett, P. B. | TELLERS. |
| Stanhope, J. B. | Taylor, Colonel T. E. |
| Stanley, Lord | Noel, hon. G. J. |
| [Members marked* did not vote in the previous division. | |
| Barttelot, Colonel, Bateson, Sir T., Bruce, Sir H. H., Corrance, F. S., Dalglish, R., Duncombe hon. Admiral, Dunne, General, Gilpin, Colonel Headlam, rt. hon. T. E., Innes, A. C. Jolliffe hon. H. H., Mackinnon. W. A., Noel, hon. G. J. Powell, F. S., Read, C. S., Scott, Lord H. Shafto, R. D., Welby, W. E., voted with the "Ayes" in the previous division.] |
| NOES. | |
| Acland, T. D. | Bass, A. |
| Adair, H. E. | Baxter, W. E. |
| Adam, W. P. | Bazley, T. |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Beaumont, H. F. |
| Akroyd, E. | Berkeley, hon. H. F. |
| Allen, W. S. | Biddulph, Col. R. M. |
| Amberley, Viscount | Biddulph, M. |
| Annesley, hon. Col. H. | Bowyer, Sir G. |
| Anstruther, Sir R. | Bright, J. |
| Antrobus, E. | * Brown, J. |
| Ayrton, A. S. | Bruce, Lord C. |
| Aytoun, R. S. | Bruce, rt. hon. H. A. |
| Bagwell, J. | Buller, Sir A. W. |
| Baines, E. | Buller, Sir E. M. |
| Baring, hon. A. H. | Butler, C. S. |
| Barnes, T. | Butler-Johnstone, H. A. |
| Barry, A. H. S. | Buxton, Sir T. F. |
| Calcraft, J. H. M. | Henley, Lord |
| Calthorpe, hn. F. H. W. G. | Herbert, H. A. |
| Cardwell, rt. hon. E. | Hibbert, J. T. |
| Carnegie, hon. C. | Hodgson, K. D. |
| Cavendish, Lord E. | Holden, I. |
| Cavendish, Lord F. C. | Holland, E. |
| Cavendish, Lord G. | Hope, A. J. B. B. |
| * Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G. | Howard, hon. C. W. G. |
| Chambers, M. | * Hughes, T. |
| Chambers, T. | Hurst, R. H. |
| Cheetham, J. | * Jardine, R. |
| Childers, H. C. E. | Jervoise, Sir J. C. |
| Clay, J. | Johnstone, Sir J. |
| Clinton, Lord E. P. | Kearsley, Captain R. |
| Cogan, rt. hn. W. H. F. | Kekewich, S. T. |
| Colebrooke, Sir T. E. | Kennedy, T. |
| Collier, Sir R. P. | King, hon. P. J. L. |
| * Colthurst, Sir G. C. | Kinglake, A. W. |
| Colvile, C. R. | Kinglake, J. A. |
| Corbally, M. E. | Kingscote, Colonel |
| Cowper, hon. H. F. | Kinnaird, hon. A. F. |
| Cowper, rt. hon. W. F. | Knatchbull-Hugessen, E. |
| Craufurd, E. H. J. | |
| Crawford, R. W. | Laing, S. |
| Cremorne, Lord | Layard, A. H. |
| Crossley, Sir F. | Lawrence, W. |
| Davey, R. | Lawson, rt. hon. J. A. |
| Davie, Sir H. R. F. | Leatham, W. H. |
| Denman, hon. G. | Lee, W. |
| Dent, J. D. | Leeman, G. |
| Dundas, F. | Lefevre, G. J. S. |
| Earle, R. A. | Lewis, H. |
| Edwards, C. | Locke, J. |
| Edwards, H. | Lowe, rt. hon. R. |
| Enfield, Viscount | * MacEvoy, E. |
| Erskine, Vice-Adm. J. E. | Mackinnon, Capt. L. B. |
| Ewart, W. | M'Laren, D. |
| Ewing, H. E. Crum- | Marjoribanks, Sir D. C. |
| * Eykyn, R. | Marsh, M. H. |
| * Fildes, J. | Martin, C. W. |
| * Finlay, A. S. | Martin, P. W. |
| Foljambe, F. J. S. | Matheson, A. |
| Forster, C. | Mill, J. S. |
| Forster, W. E. | Miller, W. |
| Fortescue, rt. hn. C. S. | Mills, J. R. |
| Fortescue, hon. D. F. | Mitchell, A. |
| Foster, W. O. | Mitchell, T. A. |
| Gaselee, Serjeant S. | Moffatt, G. |
| Gaskell, J. M. | Monsell, rt. hon. W. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. | Moore, C. |
| Gilpin, C. | More, R. J. |
| Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. | Morrison, W. |
| Gladstone, W. H. | Nicol, J. D. |
| Glyn, G. C. | Norwood, C. M. |
| Glyn, G. G. | O'Beirne, J. L. |
| Goldsmid, Sir F. H. | O'Conor Don, The |
| Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. | Ogilvy, Sir J. |
| Gower, hon. F. L. | Oliphant, L. |
| * Gower, Lord R. | Onslow, G. |
| Graham, W. | * Osborne, R. B. |
| Grenfell, H. R. | Owen, Sir H. O. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Packe, Colonel |
| Griffith, C. D. | Padmore, R. |
| * Grosvenor, Capt. R. W. | * Palmer, Sir R. |
| Gurney, S. | * Peel, A. W. |
| Hadfield, G. | * Peel, J. |
| Hanmer, Sir J. | Pelham, Lord |
| Hardcastle, J. A. | Philips, R. N. |
| Harris, J. D. | Platt, J. |
| Harrington, Marquess of | Portman, hn. W. H. B. |
| Hay, Lord J. | Potter, E. |
| Hayter, A. D. | Potter, T. B. |
| * Heneage, E. | Price, R. G. |
| Price, W. P. | Sykes, Colonel W. H. |
| Pritchard, J. | Taylor, P. A. |
| * Proby, Lord | Tite, W. |
| Rawlinson, Sir H. | Torrens, W. T. M'C. |
| Rearden, D. J. | Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury- |
| Rebow, J. G. | |
| Robertson, D. | Trevelyan, G. O. |
| Roebuck, J. A. | Vanderbyl, P. |
| Rothschild, N. M. de | * Verney, Sir H. |
| Russell, A. | Vernon, H. F. |
| St. Aubyn, J. | Villiers, rt. hon. C. P. |
| Salomons, Alderman | Vivian, H. H. |
| Samuda, J. D'A. | Vivian, Capt. hn. J. C. W. |
| Samuelson, B. | Waldegrave-Leslie, hn. G. |
| Saunderson, E. | * Warner, E. |
| Scholefield, W. | Weguelin, T. M. |
| Scott, Sir W. | Western, Sir T. B. |
| Scourfield, J. H. | Whalley, G. H. |
| Scrope, G. P. | Whatman, J. |
| Seely, C. | * White, hon. Capt. C. |
| Sherriff, A. C. | White, J. |
| Simeon, Sir J. | Wickham, H. W. |
| Smith, J. | Winnington, Sir T. E. |
| * Smith, J. A. | Wyld, J. |
| Smith, J. B. | Wyvill, M. |
| Speirs, A. A. | Young, R. |
| Stacpoole, W. | |
| Stansfeld, J. | TELLERS. |
| Stone, W. H. | Goldsmid, J. |
| Sullivan, E. | Duff, M. E. G. |
| [Members marked * did not vote in the previous division. | |
| Agar-Ellis, hon. L. G. F., Barclay, A. C. Bass, M. T., Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P., Briscoe, J. I., Doulton, F., Goldsmid, J., Hay, Lord W. M., Lusk, A., Monk, C. J., Sheridan, H. B., Waring, C., voted with the "Noes" in the previous division.] |
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it would be better to complete the clause, and alter it on the Report.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 16 agreed to.
§ Clause 17 (Successive Occupation).
§ MR. POWELLsaid, he moved to insert after the word "shall" the words "unless and except as herein otherwise provided." The object of the Amendment was to correct what would otherwise be an ambiguity, consequent on the adoption of the lodger franchise.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that he should propose to add the words "or lodger," which alteration was necessary to put lodgers upon the same footing as owners and tenants in reference to retaining the franchise, notwithstanding a succession of occupations.
§ MR. DENMANsaid, the Amendment should run thus:—"as owner or tenant shall, or as lodger shall."
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that this was a matter of which notice ought to have been given. The Amendment would virtually repeal some words in the lodger clause.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think that when the lodger franchise was discussed the question of a parity of dealing with the different classes of persons having votes was brought into view. He agreed that it would be better that the question should be raised after notice.
§ SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, and that he would at a future period move a new clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 18 (Joint occupation in Counties).
§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, he would suggest that there should be the same power of limiting the joint occupation as in the case of boroughs.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that in the boroughs where household suffrage would prevail there was no value set forth, but in the present clause the words were, "so" far as the value is concerned."
§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENmoved that the words "Provided also that in no case shall more than two such joint occupiers be registered as voters in respect of the same occupation" be added to the clause.
§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, this was a subject which well deserved the attention of the Committee. On former occasions there had been several close divisions on the question whether faggot voting should be checked by requiring a house to be upon the land. The Committee, by several narrow divisions, determined that they would not adopt that mode of checking faggot votes. It was all the more necessary, therefore, that the practice should be checked in the direction now proposed by his hon. Friend. The evidence that was taken before the Committee on the Totnes election was full of useful instruction on this subject. It appeared there that when the £10 borough franchise was in question—and he need not say that £12 was not far re moved from the old £10 qualification—two methods were resorted to for the purpose of creating faggot votes. One was to let a single field with a hut upon it for £10 to a single tenant, the other was to let a large parcel of land to a limited company5 of occupiers, none of whom had any real 50 interest in the land. Since they had refused to require a house with occupation franchise for counties it was the more important that they should take precautions against the multiplication of votes of persons who had no rent interest in the land.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to refer to what took place last year on this subject. Many hon. Members sheltered their refusal to require a house for the occupation franchise on his giving up that point in the Bill of last year. What he did last year was this. In deference to the opinions of the other side, Her Majesty's then Government agreed to give up their clause requiring a house, upon the understanding that there should be a limitation to the power of multiplying votes in joint occupancy in the mode proposed by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman in 1859. The 6th clause of that Bill did not refer to the occupation franchise, but it provided that in nil freehold, leasehold, and copyhold interests—he apprehended there would be no difficulty in making it apply to an occupation interest also—not more than two persons should be allowed to vote on joint occupancy, unless it had been acquired by marriage or devise, or unless the persons were associated together in the occupation for the purposes of trade.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had opposed a proposal which he had made on a former occasion with the view of preventing the creation of fictitious votes. He congratulated him on his conversion.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought the number "two" would be somewhat restrictive. Three or four brothers might have an interest in the property. He would suggest the substitution for it of "three."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was willing to agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the clause in the Bill of 1859, with its exceptions, should be introduced. He suggested that the clause be allowed to stand over with a view to incorporate the clause referred to.
§ SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he was glad this course would be adopted, as it would prevent any but bonâ fide voters from getting upon the register, and so carry out the wishes of both sides of the House.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, he had introduced the Amendment 51 in no hostile spirit, and would withdraw it on the undertaking given by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be necessary to include in the clause those occupations that were not under a lease. He cordially supported the clause, which he regarded as even more important than the one he unsuccessfully proposed the other evening.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had no doubt it was the general wish of the House to prevent faggot voting, but he begged to point out that hon. Gentlemen were taking a great deal of trouble to teach people to make faggots. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), and his allusions to the doings at Totnes, was just an ingenious way of showing people how the thing was to be done—it was really calling people's attention to the subject who otherwise would never have thought of it. There was nothing he disliked more than these votes, but what was to prevent a man who had 100 acres of land dividing it among ten or twelve persons?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 19 (Registration of Voters).
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that considerable omissions would have to be made in the clause on account of the rejection of the special franchises. It would be necessary to make provisions applicable to the lodger registration, but the hon. Member for Finsbury had an Amendment on the Paper with respect to it, and he would not touch on that part of the question. He would now simply move in line 28, after the word "vote" to insert "for a county." By this it was intended to provide the county constituencies with the same privileges as occupiers of ground as were enjoyed by occupiers of houses in boroughs as to registration.
§ SIR EDWARD BULLERsaid, there was no provision for the registration of freeholds, where there was no occupation. He did not see how any freeholder, living out of the parish, could get on the register.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the clause was only supplementary to the existing law on the same subject, which provided for the registration of freeholds.
§ Amendment agreed to.
52MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, that when the principle of the lodger franchise was adopted, it was understood that the lodger should be put on the same footing as a householder with respect to making his claim to be registered as a voter. The Amendment he now moved was intended to carry out that object. He begged to move in Clause 19, page 7, line 3, after "admit," to insert the following subsection:—
2 a, The claim of every person desirous of being registered as a voter for a Member or Members to serve for any borough in respect of the occupation of lodgings, shall be in the Form numbered 5 in Schedule E, or to the like effect, and shall have annexed thereto a declaration in the form, and be certified in the manner in the said Schedule mentioned, or as near thereto as circumstances admit; and every such claim shall, after the last day of July, and on or before the twenty-fifth day of August in any year be delivered to the overseers of the parish in which such lodgings shall be situate, and the particulars of such claim shall be duly published by such overseers on or before the first day of September next ensuing, in a separate list according to the Form No. 6 in the said Schedule E.And the following provisions shall, with the necessary variations, apply to every such claim and list, viz.:—So much of section eighteen of the Act of the Session of the sixth year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighteen, as relates to the manner of publishing lists of claimants, and to the delivery of copies thereof to persons requiring the same.And the whole of the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth sections of the same Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he proposed to omit the latter sections of the clause relating to the special votes. He moved the omission of the 5th, 6th, and 7th.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he had no objection to offer to the Amendment, as it followed the provisions of the 15th Vict., and contained precautions against unqualified persons being placed on the register.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, that no provision had been made in respect to the registration in boroughs. In municipal boroughs he thought that the registration should be made out in wards, and not, as at present, by the overseers. This would be a great convenience in large towns.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the clause referred only to registration in counties. It had nothing to do with the general registration. He was aware that the great increase of the constituencies, and other circumstances, would require some attention to the registration, 53 and he proposed to deal with them. He should introduce provisions respecting the time of registration and the remuneration of the local authorities, in Clause 42.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to bring forward a fresh registration clause, so as to give the required facilities to the increased number of voters. He hoped that the proposed clause would be brought forward as early as possible.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not intend to deal extensively with the question of registration. That was a great question, which it might be necessary hereafter to consider in extenso, All he now wished to do in regard to this Bill was to frame a provision which would deal with the subject of registration in such a manner as to make the measure in itself complete and to work completely.
§ MR. SCHREIBERsaid, that if there were to be a registration in October next, and another in spring, they would practically be doing the work twice over.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if there were to be a general registration it should of course be provided for.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 20 and 21 omitted.
§ Clause 22 agreed to.
§ Clause 23 (Provision for increasing Polling Places in Counties).
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he proposed to strike out this clause, and to bring in a new clause at the end of the Bill in its place.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, he wished to ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into consideration the desirability of drawing up the new clause in such a manner as to include pollin-gplaces in boroughs as well as in counties.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, some provision should be made for providing additional polling-places in large boroughs.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Member had been misled by the expression "polling-place." What was really meant was "polling-booth." In boroughs there was power by the law, as it at present stood, to 54 provide any increased number of polling-places that might be required.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that under the 68th section of the Reform Act this matter was left entirely to the discretion of the returning officer, and persons living at a distance of several miles from each other might be obliged by the returning officer to resort to the same spot.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the question of the law of polling-places. The returning officer was not bound to do anything until a poll had been demanded, and if he waited until that time inconvenience would ensue. He charged anything he liked, and gross abuses were practised, unless strong-minded Members resisted the demands that were made. It would be a convenience if there were an alphabetical list of voters for each polling district. The returning officer ought to prepare this from the parochial lists furnished by the overseers. It was unnecessary to incur the expense of building booths when suitable rooms could be hired, and a few pounds for the use of a school-room would often be acceptable to the managers.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he sympathized with what had been said as to the demands of returning officers. At the same time, the returning officer was subject to uncertainty as to the number of candidates who would require hustings accommodation. He might be held criminally or civilly responsible for accident resulting from the insecurity of the structure provided. Sometimes he would stand no chance of re-payment unless he secured the money beforehand.
§ MR. SCHREIBERsaid, a returning officer might provide booths and have to pay for them himself if there were no contest.
§ MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, the returning officer was entitled to ask for a guarantee from all candidates, whether there was a contest or not, and that in his borough rooms were used as polling-places.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, it was the same in Stoke, and that in Stafford and Derby rooms were used at the county elections.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought there ought to be a clause providing for polling-places in boroughs as well as in counties. He would therefore withdraw the clause.
§ Clause negatived.
55§ Clause 24 (Rooms to be hired wherever they can be obtained).
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that as the county rate was payable by inhabitants of boroughs that were not counties of themselves, the boroughs ought to have their polling-places provided out of the same rate.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they had arrived at the clause which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had proposed to amend by providing that the costs of the county and borough elections should be borne by the county and borough rates. The hon. Member was absent, probably thinking it unlikely that the clause could come on so early, and as it was within half an hour of the time for suspending the sitting, it was not unreasonable to expect the Committee to report Progress, which he moved it should do.
§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that in the City of London there were nineteen polling-places, the expenses of which candidates had to bear. The largest counties had not a greater number.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.