Commons Sitting of 28 June 1867

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — On House of Commons (Arrangements) nominated; on Paris Exhibition Mr. Marsh added.
PUBLIC BILLS — Resolution in Committee—Poor Law Board [Salaries and Superannuations.]
First Reading—Naval Stores* [214].
Second Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)* [206].
Committee—Representation of the People [79] [R.P.]; Vice Admiralty Courts Act Amendment* [155]; Public Records (Ireland)* (re-comm.) [185]; Edinburgh Provisional Order Confirmation* [205].
Report—Vice Admiralty Courts Act Amendment* [155]; Public Records (Ireland)* (re-comm.) [185]; Edinburgh Provisional Order Confirmation* [205].
Considered as amended—Railways (Guards' and Passengers' Communication)* [39].
Withdrawn—Representation of the People (Ireland)* [115].
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PARLIAMENT—MORNING SITTINGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he proposed to continue the Morning Sittings at Two o'clock and the Evening at Nine o'clock after the month of June? The result of this arrangement had been most satisfactory in the morning, but in the evening the House had often been very thin indeed. It was understood at the time the arrangement was entered into that these Morning Sittings would not continue after one month.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This is a question which I should wish to leave to be decided entirely by the wish of the House. It was not proposed as a general arrangement; and I should not recommend the House to adopt it as a general arrangement. I asked the House to agree to try this new plan for the better progress of a Measure of great importance, in which both sides of the House felt equally interested; and I think I may presume to say that, as regards that Measure, the arrangement has been eminently successful. I am not at all prepared to say that, under ordinary circumstances, such an arrangement would be the best which the House could make. Under any circumstances I should wish to consult the feeling of the House. But my impression is that, in the position in which we find ourselves, it would be wise on the part of the House not entirely to withdraw from the arrangement. I should be inclined to propose, if it meets with general approval, that for another month the power of meeting at Two and at Nine o'clock should be continued, but in a modified form; so that it would not be a matter of necessity, but the Government would be able to avail themselves

  665
  of the privilege until they see the Reform Bill fairly out of the House, After that we may perhaps find it necessary to recur to our normal state of Morning Sittings, if we have Morning Sittings at all. But if the House should wish to meet at Two o'clock, my desire would be to comply with that wish, in order that there might be discussion upon some questions of great importance which of late have been unfortunately neglected.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would place a Notice on the Paper, so as to afford the House an opportunity of expressing their views on the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had already done so.
  SIR EDWARD BULLERsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of the House meeting at Two o'clock on Wednesdays? ["No, no."]

THE VICEROY OF EGYPT—QUESTION.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement contained in the public papers, to the effect that his Highness the Viceroy of Egypt is to be lodged at Mr. Larkins's private house during his residence in this country, is correct? This was a most important Question, and Egypt was a most important country, as far as this kingdom was concerned. He did trust that when the Ruler of that country came here we should be able to give him a reception suited to his rank.
LORD STANLEY: The statement, Sir, which has appeared in the newspapers, is so far correct that, as I understand, it was the original intention of the Viceroy to take up his quarters in the manner described. But upon hearing of his intended visit, sympathizing entirely in the opinion which my noble Friend has expressed, I thought it my duty to communicate with the Viceroy, and, on behalf of the Government, I addressed to him an invitation to take up his residence in London during the few days he passes in England, and be received as the guest of the State. That invitation, I am happy to say, he has accepted. Rooms have been prepared at Claridge's Hotel—rooms, I may remark, which have been occupied on former occasions by other crowned heads who have visited here—and we will take care that all
666
due honour shall be paid him both at his landing, upon his journey, and his arrival in London. I am sure it will be the general feeling, both in this House and out of it, that we ought to do what is in our power to show proper courtesy and respect to a Ruler who has always shown great goodwill and readiness to oblige where we have been concerned—a goodwill which is very important to us.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. PEASEsaid, there was a rumour that the Government had accepted or would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) with regard to Schedule D, and he would therefore ask, Whether, if so, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes any alteration in the enfranchising portion of the Schedule which the right hon. Gentleman has given notice to amend with regard to the boroughs?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, if the Government consent to alter the Schedule they will propose any changes in it which may be necessary; but I must decline to answer these contingent inquiries of the hon. Gentleman.

IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE STUCLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Vice-President of the Council, Whether it is not expedient that enclosed markets, provided with lairs and slaughterhouses, should be established at the Ports where the entry of Foreign Cattle is permitted; that markets should be held there; that buyers should buy as at other markets; that cattle should not he removed alive, but killed or detained alive in lairs; and that importers not selling on one market day might hold the cattle over to the next?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, in reply that the Privy Council, some days ago, gave directions for the preparation of an Order exactly in accordance with the views of the hon. Baronet. That Order had been passed that day. Any port in future might obtain a licence for an enclosed market for the sale of foreign cattle. The cattle must be killed within six days, and in no case might the cattle leave the enclosed market alive.

THE BOARD OF WORKS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home

667
Department, Why a Return ordered by the House on the 26th of March, relating to the Board of Works, has not yet been laid upon the table, and when it will be?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he had received, from the Board of Works, an explanation of the delay which had occurred in the production of certain returns. The fact was that the analysis required was so difficult that it would be at least two months before it would be ready.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.—THE LODGER FRANCHISE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in the judgment of the Law Officers of the Crown, an occupier of furnished lodgings will be admissible to the franchise under the Reform Bill, provided such lodgings are of the clear annual value, if unfurnished, of ten pounds or upwards?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, the occupiers of furnished lodgings will be admissible to the franchise under the Reform Bill in the case supposed by the Question. The words used are the words of the right hon. Gentleman, taken from the measure of last Session, and they appear sufficient to express the object desired.

BRITISH COMMERCE AND THE COLUMBIAN STATES.—QUESTION.
MR. GRAVESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the compulsory discharge of the cargo of the steamer Caribbean at Santa Martha, on her way to Carthagena; and whether any steps have been taken for recovering possession of the cargo, or insuring due protection to British commerce during the revolution in the Columbian States?
LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that, in consequence of a private communication he had received that morning from his hon. Friend, he had carefully examined the despatches from that part of the world to see whether he could find any allusion to the transaction referred to but he could not find any. The story would probably reach him by the next mail. He was not surprised to hear of such a case in the state of civil war and revolution which now existed in those States. Of course it was impossible to say what action
668
or whether any action could be taken on an ex parte statement, but his hon. Friend might be sure that all that was proper would be done to protect the rights and interests of British subjects.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL— [BILL 79.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Secretary Lord Stanley.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL— [BILL 79.]

  COMMITTEE. [PROGRESS JUNE 27.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause (Mode of demanding Rates).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that, on a former occasion, it appeared to be the general feeling of the House that some provision of this kind should be introduced, and the Government had therefore consented to bring up a clause on the subject, the effect of which would be that no elector would be disqualified for not having paid the rate unless the rate had been duly demanded of him:—
  "Every poor rate payable from an occupier in respect of any premises capable of conferring upon him the Parliamentary Franchise under this or any other Act, shall be demanded of him by a requisition or demand note wholly or partly in writing or print, which requisition or note shall be deemed to be duly served if the same is delivered to the occupier, or left at his last or usual place of abode, or with some person on the premises in respect of which the rate is demanded; and no rate shall be deemed to be payable within the meaning of this or any other Act as aforesaid, until the expiration of seven clear days from the service of such requisition or note,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)
  —brought up, and read the first and second time.
  MR. DENMANremarked that when he brought the subject forward the other night the Committee were of opinion that some such clause should be introduced, and the Attorney General undertook to prepare one. This clause fairly meets the object of the Committee.
  MR. MARSHopposed the clause, contending that one effect of it would be that the overseer could enfranchise if he liked the very residuum of the population. The Committee ought also to take into account the inconvenience and expense of the proposed proceeding. There were in most places six rates a year, and the sending of a letter by post in each case would therefore cost 6d. If a man had money to receive he would gladly go for it; was it not

  669
  the duty of a man who had money to pay to go and pay it? Another inconvenience would be that electioneering agents would ferret out those who had not paid the rates; and the revising barrister, who in ordinary cases had only to decide whether a man had paid his rate or not, would have now to inquire also whether the rate had been properly demanded?
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the consideration of the Committee ought to be directed to this point—namely, what class of persons would be admitted by this clause? Why, they would be persons who did not pay their rates; for if the overseer favoured a particular party he would not call upon them to pay. They could say then that they paid all the rates demanded of them, and would therefore be entitled to vote. But what happened under the present system? The only persons kept out were unworthy. When hon. Gentlemen said that this was an enfranchising clause he accepted that statement. It was a clause that would enfranchise the worst part of the population.
  SIR EDWARD BULLERthought that the clause was improperly worded. He did not see how it was possible that a rate should not be payable until seven days after the demand, and yet that the demand could not be made until the rate was payable.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONobserved that there were a considerable number of small occupiers upon whom it had had not been the practice to serve any notices, inasmuch as the rate was paid by the owner. He believed that whatever arrangement they might make in that House, some such system would be continued from the facilities it afforded parishes to collect the rates. There would be many people from whom it would be idle for the overseers to expect payment, and whom they would not therefore serve with any demand; and yet those persons would obtain the franchise under the clause—not by reason of payment of rates, but from their inability to pay. That would be inconsistent with what was said to be the principle of the Bill, which made the personal payment of rates the qualification for the franchise.
  MR. VANCEremembered that this clause had been forced on the Government, against their wish, at a moment of considerable excitement in the House, and when hon. Members were not allowed to give their opinion. He looked upon the clause as most mischievous.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he believed that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) was responsible merely for the principle of the clause, and not for the mode in which it was proposed that that principle should be carried into effect. It seemed to him that there was great force in the objections which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson) had stated to the clause as it stood; while, at the same time, he could not help thinking that it was only fair to recognize the general principle that a man should not be disfranchised for the non-payment of a rate which had never been demanded of him. They might get rid of that difficulty, either by omitting in the Report the words in the previous clause which declared that the demand should be mode in the manner afterwards to be provided, or else by framing the present clause in the mode which had been originally proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton.
  MR. ROEBUCKsuggested that it should be provided that the posting of the notice of a rate on the church door should be deemed a sufficient demand of it. He candidly confessed that he was not prepared to afford special facilities for the attainment of the franchise by the class of voters to whom the clause, as it then stood, would mainly apply. There existed, he thought, some danger in that respect, and he wished to see every possible safeguard established against that danger.
  MR. MARSHsaid, that every ratepayer would have six clear months for ascertaining that he was liable to the payment of rates, and that was as much as could reasonably be required.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that the objections which had been made to the clause had not occurred to him in reading it over, neither had they occurred to those among his constituents whom he had consulted upon the subject. He should, however, be prepared to adopt any modification of a proposal which might be thought necessary for the attainment of the object for which it had been made.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause, for otherwise overseers might intentionally disfranchise persons by omitting to demand the rate.
  MR. ROEBUCKpointed out that if a notice on the church door was declared a

  671
  sufficient demand, nothing would be left to the nonfeasance or malfeasance of the overseers, since they were bound to put up such a notice. Insolvent persons might thereby be disfranchised, but no solvent person would; for, knowing that the parish wanted the rate, he would take care to pay it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the posting of a notice on the church door could hardly be considered a legal demand, and he would therefore suggest either that the words in the former clause, which declared that the demand should be made in the manner to be afterwards provided, should be struck out on the Report, or else that the demand should be clearly defined in some such manner as that proposed by the present clause. He should rather for his part see the former course adopted, and compel every person who claimed the franchise to pay the rates.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, believed the best course would be to amend the previous clause on the Report, there being much force in the objections which had been taken to this clause by Members opposite. Hitherto no demand had been required, and this had worked exceedingly well, ["No."] At the beginning of the Session it was not thought an extravagant demand upon the compound-householder that he should go and make his claim, that he should sustain it at a considerable loss to himself before the revising barrister, and that he should obtain the vote at a pecuniary sacrifice. Now, however, it was thought too much to expect him to go and find out whether he had to pay a few shillings or not. He certainly thought that the sacrifices demanded from the compound householder were unreasonable, but, now, they were about to be unreasonable in the other direction. The Bill would only disfranchise those who would not take the very little trouble required to obtain the votes, while, under the clause, the class who would retain their votes would be precisely those whom the Government did not want on their rating principle, and who would defeat it, for they would be the men whose rates the overseers knew it would be perfectly useless to ask for.
  MR. M'LARENremarked that he had occasion to know a good deal about the collection of rates on the system described in this clause, and he held that the clause was one of the very best clauses which any man could frame for a Bill of this kind. If the overseers went to make a demand
  672
  for rates from the very poorest classes they might go ten times and always find the house shut. They would find nobody at home unless a call was made at six o'clock in the morning or eight o'clock in the evening. A personal demand was therefore out of the question. If, however, they left a slip of paper of this kind, containing the amount of poor rates that was due, it could be slipped under the door or given to one of the children. Causing a notice to be affixed on the church door would be only a notice to those persons who went to church; and it was a notorious fact that a large number of the poor people did not go to any place of worship at all; while a large proportion of those who did attend worship on Sunday, went to other places of worship than the parish Church. It would be necessary, therefore, to provide that the notice should be affixed upon the doors of all places of worship. The system of sending slips was a good deal better for this among other reasons, that the overseers would collect a good deal more money by it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was not his duty to defend the policy of the clause. To that policy he had on a previous occasion offered his opposition. It was not supported by Her Majesty's Government; but there was a general feeling that there should be a demand of the rate, since it was proposed to make the payment of rates the qualification of the voter. The Government undertook to prepare a clause, and he had done so. He was glad to hear an hon. Member opposite express his belief that it was an honest clause. He believed, also, that it was accurate, and it provided that rates referred to in Clause 6 should not be deemed payable within the meaning of the Act unless after a certain notice. He took upon himself the responsibility of the clause, and he did not think hon. Members would mend it. However, he left the clause in the hands of the Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONEhoped the Committee would not re-open the discussion as to whether there should be a demand or not for the payment of the rates, as that matter had been disposed of, and they ought to adhere to that principle.
  SIR PERCY BURRELLthought the clause was objectionable.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if the principle of demand were admitted, then came the question, what sort of demand? If they said a demand should be that which

  673
  was published upon every church and chapel door—["No, no!"]—then that might be considered a legal demand, and it would get rid of all the difficulties which had been suggested.
  MR. WATKINsaid, it was the right of every man to know what he was assessed, and what his rate would be. Notice on a church door was simply a notice that a rate had been made.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that the principle upon which they had hitherto gone was enfranchisement by payment of rates. They were now about to introduce a new principle of enfranchisement by neglect of the overseer. If the overseer did not choose to leave this paper upon people whom he knew would never pay the rates, they would have men who could never pay their rates put in shoals upon the register. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for South Lancashire that notice ought to be given; but let them not say that everybody whom the overseer should neglect to visit should ipso facto become a voter.
  MR. HENLEYwished to know whether the noble Lord had considered what they had already enacted. The Committee had already agreed that the rate should be demanded. Now, he should like to ask the Attorney General, whether the notice of the rate on the church door would be a demand; because, if it be not, then they ought to define what should be a demand.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if the Act declared that the publication of the rate on the church door should be a demand, it would become a legal demand.
  MR. MITFORDsuggested that notice should be sent through the Post Office.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that notice on a church door was not a demand; but they make that Act say it should be, or if it were sent through the Post Office.
  MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, it was the rarest thing in the world for a person entering or coming out of the church to stop to read the publication of the rate. It was but fair that the persons whom this Bill would enfranchise should receive notice that they were assessed at a certain rate, and that there was a certain time within which it should be paid. If then they did not pay the rate, they themselves would Buffer.
  MR. VANCEsaid, his objection to the clause was that it would enable overseers or collectors of rates, without any limit,
  674
  to enfranchise those who would have no right to be upon the register.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the consequence of passing this clause would be that overseers would be able to make arrangements with landlords for the payment of the rates, and thus the system of compounding would be indirectly continued, and yet every householder would be upon the register.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, that the objections raised to the clause would be removed if they were to enact that, in the event of the overseer not demanding the rate from the householder within a certain specified time, he should incur a penalty. Unless that were done, great political power would be placed in the hands of the overseer, who might qualify a great number of the most wretched class of the community, who never had any intention of paying their rates.
  MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKEsaid, the difficulty in which the Committee was placed arose from their having altered one of the clauses already passed by inserting the words "which have been demanded of him in manner hereinafter mentioned." That involved them in the necessity of defining some specific mode in which the demand must be made. He thought the suggestion that the overseer should be liable to a penalty for not making a demand was a very good one, and, if adopted, the vote of the elector would not depend on the caprice of the overseer, or on whether he chose to make a demand or not. The words "in the manner hereinafter mentioned" should be struck out of the clause to which he had referred on the Report.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought every facility ought to be afforded the voters in that matter, and that there should not be a mere notice posted on the church door, but that the overseer should inform each person what he had to pay.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that the Committee were greatly indebted to the Government for having brought forward this clause, and he hoped that they would not be induced to withdraw it. A notice on a church or chapel door did not mean that the rate book, with the amount due from each ratepayer written against his name, was hung up for anybody to read it, but it was simply a notification that a rate had been made.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not help thinking they were in some danger of re-opening the most important part

  675
  of the Bill, making the franchise dependent upon the personal payment of rates on demand for them being made. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) seemed now to propose a perfectly fresh interpretation for the word "demand," by making second notice equivalent to demand. This was contrary to the common-sense view of the matter, and, if adopted by the Government, would be no better than breaking faith with the public and the Opposition, which had supported the measure on the contrary understanding.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had correctly interpreted the effect of the clause; but he doubted whether the Government were aware of what they were doing. Consciously or unconsciously, they were giving up the whole question of the personal payment of rates, and were, in fact, placing the question in precisely the same position as if they had accepted the Motion of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire. It was important that the House should know the view they really took of the question; but it looked very much as if they were throwing dust in the eyes of their supporters.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, he did not think the Government had done anything to render themselves liable to the construction put upon their conduct by the hon. Member for Devizes, and was of opinion that they had taken the simplest way of effecting the object in view.
  MR. HENDERSONthought the clause a very good one, and suggested that, in order to make its operation complete, the overseer should be liable to a penalty of 40 s. if he did not make the demand within a month.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he could not support the clause without the addition of words imposing a fine on the overseer in the event of his omitting to make the demand.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEmoved the omission of the last portion of the clause—
  "No rate shall be deemed to be payable within the meaning of this Act, or any other Act as aforesaid, until the expiration of seven clear days from the serving of such requisition or notice."
  He said he was perfectly ready to accede to any machinery that could be devised for securing that due notice should reach the individual of any rate to which he was liable; but he wished that this should be effected by a penalty on the overseer in
  676
  case of his failing to send notice, and not by the loss of the franchise to the voter in case of his failing to pay the rate. His object was that the franchise should not be made dependent upon the failure to give notice.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the word "demanded," in line 7.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the objection taken to the clause as it stood was that the overseer might have an illegitimate power of enfranchising; but if the words now proposed to be omitted were left out, the overseer would have an illegitimate power of disfranchisement, subject to a penalty. Why not rather leave him the illegitimate power of enfranchisement, subject to a penalty?
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought that the House was entitled to have the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the questions that had been raised in the course of the discussion.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEthen moved an Amendment to the effect that the overseer should be bound to make the demand of the rate within one month after the publication of the rate; and should be liable, in the event of neglect to do so, to a penalty of £1 in each case.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "it shall be the duty of the overseer or collector to make such demand within one month of the publication of the rate, and, if he should neglect to do so, he shall incur a penalty of one pound in each case."—(Lord John Browne.)
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEthought it would be hard to fine the overseer £1 if he forgot to demand the rate within a month. He recommended that the whole clause should be got rid of.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested that the overseer should only be subject to a fine in case of "wilful" neglect.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that it was quite clear that bribery would now be the simplest thing in the world. Candidates disposed to bribe needed no longer to bribe the constituency, but only the overseer.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the House had been got into a difficulty by the Amendment

  677
  of the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton, and perhaps the best thing they could do would be to retrace their steps altogether.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 327: Majority 279.
  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the last division showed the result of hon. Members voting upon a question which they had not heard discussed — but he wished to make another appeal to the Committee to consider the importance of the matter they were now discussing. What this clause enacted was, that every overseer in the country should have the power, by the simple act of neglecting to send the papers round, of enfranchising persons who could not pay their own rates, and who therefore according to the principle of the Bill, were ineligible for the franchise. There was no motive of a local or pecuniary kind to induce the overseer to send round the papers, because the very people who would be enfranchised by his neglect were the people who could not pay their rates; to whom, therefore, for the purposes of the parish, it would be utterly useless to send the papers. The passing of this clause would therefore be the establishment of household suffrage without the personal payment of rates. Nothing in the late debate had surprised him more than the absolute silence of the Government on the proposal. Not a single Cabinet Minister had spoken. The intentions of the Government had varied so much from week to week and from month to month—or perhaps, to speak more accurately, their plan had been unfolded so gradually—that he wanted to know whether this was a consecutive part of it, and whether the Committee was now to learn that household suffrage without personal payment of rates, was really their original plan—but that they did not like to load the ship containing such valuable cargo, with that which might have sunk it at the first. The Session began with a Bill which seemed to promise a very limited addition to the number of electors. Compound householders, they were informed, were erected into a barrier, in which he never believed, but which was to limit the number of admissions to the franchise. A great division
  678
  was taken on the question, whether the compound householder should be admitted or not. Suddenly, however, the compound householder disappeared, on a Motion from the opposite side of the House, and all who personally paid rates were admitted. They were now taking another step in the same direction. A clause had been accepted, apparently in conformity with a suggestion by the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman), of which the inevitable tendency must be, and the effect would be, in a great number of places, to admit precisely that residuum which so many Members on both sides of the House had deprecated—those who could not pay their rates, and to whom the overseer would never care to go. He was perfectly willing to concur in any arrangement for bringing home to the knowledge of the ratepayers the amount of the rate for which he was liable; but he would entreat the House to pause before sanctioning the plan of giving to every overseer the power of putting upon the register those who, occording to the principle of the Bill, were ineligible for the franchise.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, it appeared that there was a great deal of difficulty with regard to legislating upon this clause, and he thought the best course for them to pursue was to leave the electors, enfranchised under this Bill, in the same position as the £10 householder occupied under the present law. If they negatived this clause no very great inconvenience would result. The only thing that would occur would be that the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton would be shown to be a false prophet, he having introduced into a preceding clause certain words to the effect that a demand should be made upon the voter "as hereinafter mentioned." But suppose they mentioned nothing at all hereafter? In that case things would stand very much as they were; but if it were desired that the Bill should look well, and should not contain unnecessary words, they might strike out the hon. Member's words on bringing up the Report.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I will make a very serious appeal to the Government; I think I have never taunted them in any way for their changes or their difficulties, for they have had great difficulties to contend with, and I think that the conduct of this Bill does the highest honour to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore he will get no taunt from me; but I must warn him now that I find no standing place in this

  679
  Bill between the £10 franchise and the point at which we have arrived. We have surrounded that point with certain safeguards, those of residence and payment of rates. By these means you will eliminate from the constituencies those whom I desired to see eliminated. I make no pretence about the matter. I have never talked as if I meant to "palaver" the people, and then turned round in a fright and become a prophet of evil. That has been done by many persons. Now, if we do away with these safeguards what will occur? In the first place we throw a large, important, and terrible power into the hands of uneducated men. In their hands we shall place the determination of many important elections in this country. That is the first thing. But what will be the second? Why, that we shall expose those men to the greatest possible temptation. There is the greatest difficulty at present in bribing. There will be no difficulty, then for when you get this power concentrated in the hands of one man, and that power is open to temptation, you know what will happen. What would be to one man a fortune would not be able to bribe a constituency. That is no fanciful supposition; it is only too likely to be the fact. I appeal then to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I appeal to the right hon. Member for South Lancashire—I may really make an appeal to the Gentlemen on both sides. We are a great people, and have lived a long life as a nation, and we are now taking an important, and, as some think, a very dangerous step. I am and have been prepared to take that step, and to support the Bill; but upon this occasion I must confess that the matter is so serious that I am terrified at the prospect before us. I do not want to live to see the greatness of my country ruined. I do not want to hand over the reins to ignorance and vice; and ignorance and vice will rule if the rabble are let in, as they will be if this clause is carried.
  MR. DENMANwas little prepared, when he made his proposition, to be afterwards told by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that it would be ruinous to the country; but as they had been told so, of course they must all bow to the ipse dixit of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) took a narrow and disfranchising view of a question with respect to which he had always entertained Liberal opinions. How did the matter stand now?
  680
  It was well known that in many parishes the overseers were purely political partizans, and were frequently in the habit of letting the day go by without any notice to those who happened to disagree with them, and those persons, of course, were disfranchised, while due notice was given to those who were of their own political opinions, and they were put on the register. It was under that state of circumstances that he proposed that the voter should not lose his vote unless the rate had been previously demanded of him. If the Government now shrunk from supporting the clause, they would have deceived him, and have deceived the country; and, if this clause were rejected, he should feel it his duty to bring up a clause upon the Report to carry out the object.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYthought that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark was not quite right, for the fact was that if they rejected this clause and did nothinig more, then everybody would be entitled to vote, whether he had paid his rates or not. The provision was that a man should have his vote when he had paid the rates which were due and had been demanded; and if they had not been demanded he would be entitled to be put upon the register whether he had paid them or not.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that this question is one of a very serious character as affecting the principle of the Bill. So much, indeed, do I feel that to be the case, that even if I had had a strong feeling in favour of the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman), and had been convinced in the course of the debate that I was wrong, I should have no hesitation in avowing my change of opinion. We did not, however, on a former occasion, accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman further than this—that the Attorney General undertook to put the clause in shape and bring it before the Committee, and in introducing it this afternoon he said he left entirely in their hands. For my own part, I very much prefer the plan which is adopted under the present state of law, and I am fortified in that opinion when I look at the Act of 6 Vict. Not only is there the original publication of the rate, but a precept is sent by the clerk of the peace to the overseers requiring them, on or before the 20th of June, to affix a notice

  681
  on the outer door or wall of every church and chapel, whether belonging to the Established Church or not, and in case of there being no such building, in some public or conspicuous place in the parish. That notice is to remain there during a period including two Sundays at least, and it is to this effect:—That no person shall be entitled to have his name inserted in any list of voters, in respect of the occupation of any premises, unless he shall pay on or before the 20th of July all poor rates which have become due in respect of such premises during the twelve calendar months next before the 6th of April last.—This warning is given just before the registration comes on and is well known in every parish, and ample publicity therefore is given. Under these circumstances, I do not hesitate to say that this clause is not required, and that it would not have a beneficial effect.
  MR. LOCKEcontended that if no manner was thereafter mentioned, no demand would be necessary. It would, however, no doubt be better, if this clause were rejected, to strike out those words on the Report.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I only wish to make a remark in consequence of the silence which has been imputed to me during this discussion. It seems to me the position of the Government with regard to the clause has been altogether mistaken. There can be no doubt that some time ago when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tiverton was before the Committee, the influence of the Government with the Committee was at that time somewhat slight. There is no doubt, on that occasion, the opinion of the great majority of the House was in favour of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, though the opinion of the Government was not in its favour. The Attorney General and others expressed an opinion against the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman; but there is no doubt the predominant opinion of the Committee was, to a very great extent, in favour of the suggestion; and had the opinion of the Committee been called for on that occasion, a very large majority would no doubt have sanctioned the proposal. Under these circumstances, there was no division, and there was an understanding that the clause should be brought forward, and we were asked that the Attorney General should undertake the duty of bringing it forward. We considered ourselves bound in honour
  682
  to bring forward this clause, and not only to bring it forward merely to fulfill the letter of our engagement, but so as to place the hon. and learned Gentlemen (Mr. Denman) in the position he would have been in if the division had taken place that night. I myself have the same objection now to the policy of the clause which I felt on the previous night; but I think that a Parliamentary engagement ought always to be sacredly kept. Having taken that course, we hold ourselves at perfect liberty on a future occasion, such as the Report or some future opportunity, to ask the opinion of the House on the subject. The opinion of the Committee is now very different from what it was when the hon. and learned Gentleman first called our attention to the matter. The Committee will have an opportunity hereafter of discussing this question, but I hope they will admit that the Government have fulfilled the public engagement into which they entered.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I understand it to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to vote for the clause which is now in your hands. That is a very important declaration, and the speech in which it was conveyed is much more satisfactory, and, as I think, more consistent with the spirit of the engagement entered into on a former occasion, than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There are involved in this discussion principles of the utmost importance, not with regard to this Bill merely, but with respect to the terms on which the Executive Government, when in charge of important measures, deal with Members of this House. If I may trust to my recollection of what took place on the previous debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confined himself to criticising the language of the proposal, and said he thought that some difficulty might arise out of the word "duly," and the Solicitor General objected that we ought not to place the voter under £10 in a more favourable position than the voter above £10. This objection was met on this side of the House by the reply that it was very easy to provide for both, and that the demand should be a condition before the obligation of paying the rate. Perceiving the sense of the Committee on that occasion, the Government, not having committed themselves in opposition to the principle of the clause, and having only expressed doubts with regard to accepting it, did, notwithstanding,

  683
  accede to the principle of the Motion, and made that Motion their own by promising that a proper clause should be drawn to give it effect. That promise the Attorney General has carefully and honourably fullfilled; but it was doubtful whether it was consistent with the spirit of that promise, that when the clause was under discussion the Secretary for the Home Department should rise in his place, and say, he was perfectly indifferent whether the clause was accepted or not. On all such occasions it is, as far as I know, the practice of Members to trust implicitly to such an acceptance on the part of the Government. I am far from saying that it is a binding acceptance under all circumstances whatever, but it is a binding acceptance—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so recognized it—to the extent of giving a bonâ fide support to the proposal when it is made in their own terms; and it is not compatible with that engagement that a Cabinet Minister should say he viewed its acceptance or rejection with perfect indifference. I have, I must say, heard with surprise the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, because, in this matter, there is involved the question whether there shall be a demand for rates, and whether that demand shall be the absolute condition before the voter forfeits his privilege of the franchise for the non-payment of rates, and also the question of the form in which the demand should be made. With regard to the form, it is not for me to give a strong opinion, but I do venture to give a strong opinion on the principle of demand, and, whether the Committee be favourable to the form of proceeding or not, I give notice that I shall regard no vote of the Committee as having the slightest effect with respect to those words, which, at the most critical period of this Bill, were inserted in the 3rd clause, and in which the principle of demand was solemnly asserted. The Committee may retrace their steps, and may efface the principle of demand from the 3rd clause; but do not let it be supposed by the hon. Member for Southwark that this will be accepted as a matter of form, or regarded as other than a matter of the gravest moment. For, if that principle of demand be struck out, in my opinion the whole question of personal rating is re-opened, and this Bill will have to be fought over again.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to explain the position in which he stood. He felt bound to place his hon.
  684
  and learned Friend (Mr. Denman) in the same position in which he would have been if he had carried his Motion on the previous occasion. Beyond that he regarded himself as in no way bound. If his hon. and learned Friend had carried his Amendment on the previous night, he should have felt at liberty to oppose the proposition upon the Report, and even if the clause were carried on the present occasion with his vote, he should still feel at perfect liberty to oppose it upon the Report. The principle of the proposal had been acceded to by the House; and all that he had undertaken was to put it into more accurate language than had previously been used, and certainly he had not expressed any approbation of the clause.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he had no doubt that the Attorney General would consult his own feelings and those of other persons in every step which he took in reference to this Bill. If the Attorney General had not consented to the course he had undertaken to take on the 3rd clause, he (Mr. Denman) would never have permitted that clause to stand part of the Bill without a division; and in many things which he had done or left undone in the course of this Bill, he had been guided by the belief that the Attorney General would take the course which he had now taken.
  Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 205; Noes 207: Majority 2.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to move, Sir, that you report Progress. ["Oh, oh!"] I do this, Sir, not for the purpose of cutting off what remains of this day's sitting from the prosecution of its business when the usual time for resuming it arrives, but in order to enable me to make the remarks for which, I think, the occasion calls. We heard, in the discussion which, preceded the last division, three speeches from Members of Her Majesty's Government. On the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department I have already taken the liberty to comment. The speech delivered by the hon. and learned Attorney General went further even than the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I wish to call attention to the character of the learned Gentleman's declaration, as affecting the relation between the Executive Government and the House of Commons. The hon. and learned

  685
  Gentleman stated that when the Government had accepted a Motion made in this House, and had undertaken to give it effect, the obligation which he felt to be incumbent on him, as the organ of the Government for the purpose of giving it effect, was to sustain it with his personal vote on the first occasion, and to do no more. I wish to know, Sir, whether it is to be established as a rule, for all times and all subjects, that this is the extent of the significance which is to be attached to the proceedings of a Government when, after debate, and for the purpose of avoiding defeat, the Government accept a suggestion from an opponent; because I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in the declaration which he has made, he strikes a deadly blow at all those principles of confidence between the Executive Government and the various portions of this House, by which alone, amidst all our controversies and all our differences, it becomes practicable to carry on the public business. Sir, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was susceptible of a very different interpretation, and I certainly thought it my duty to give that speech a fair and candid interpretation. I understood that speech to imply not that the Government, by accepting any proposition, bound itself for all times and all circumstances, because changes might take place in the whole body of the House with regard to a proposition of that kind, and it would be absurd to strain the obligation to such a point; but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say—and I took his words as I believe them to be meant—that it was the duty of the Government to give a bonâ fide support to a proposition so adopted, and to recommend it by the use of its fair and legitimate influence to the acceptance of the House, I wish to know, Sir, whether that pledge has been fulfilled; I wish to know whether that influence was used; I wish to know whether the Members of the Government itself who were present in the House during the discussion voted for the clause which they, as a Government, promised to propose, and by the promise to propose which they escaped from defeat on a former occasion. I wish to know what I course was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly inform us, with regard to his Colleagues in office, whether he, and whether they, without exception, set that example to their party
  686
  —which was the very smallest thing that we had a right to expect and demand—that they should vote uniformly in support of that clause. For the purpose of obtaining those explanations it is that I make the Motion which I have just submitted to the Committee. With respect to the subject of the division itself, I need not enter upon it at this moment, because there are there mixed up the question with regard to the principle of making a demand on the ratepayer for the payment of his rate, and the question of the particular form of giving effect to that principle. It is quite plain that if the majority of two which has just been declared intend to give effect to their views, it must be by ulterior steps. With respect to those ulterior steps, I have already taken the liberty of giving fair notice that I, for one, regard them as re-opening every question relating to the principle of the borough franchise. ["Oh, oh!"] Those who think fit to unsettle decisions solemnly arrived at by the Committee—arrived at, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer very fairly stated, with an evident and general concurrence—on the most vital clause of the Bill—those who feel themselves at liberty to unsettle such decisions set an example which other Members are at liberty to follow. It is not in the exercise of an abstract right that I should think of following an example which I conceive to be so mischievous and injurious; but it is because my apprehension is, that the effect of such a proposal as that of simply erasing the condition of a demand for payment from the 3rd clause of this Bill would be to convert the household suffrage which you have given into little better than a mockery as regards the great majority of the boroughs of this country; and to such a delusion being practised on the people of England, I, for one, will be no party.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: While Sir, I desire not to lay down any general rule for the guidance of this House in the matter of arrangement between opposite parties, I claim the right of vindicating the course which I took on a former occasion, and which I have taken to-day; and I say it is consistent with every principle of honour and every principle of fair action. Sir, we did not accept the vote, or rather we did not obtain the vote, of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton on the 3rd clause by offering to make a concession to him in return on the question as to the demand of payment of rates. [Mr. DENMAN:

  687
  I beg my hon. and learned Friend's pardon.] As far as my recollection goes, and as far as I have taken part in the transaction, it was simply this, that there was a proposal made for demanding rates as a separate and independent question, and the feeling of the majority of the Committee was that such a demand should be rendered necessary. The Government acceded to that as being the view of the Committee on that point, but that was not a concession by the Government in order to obtain something in return. It stood as a simple, independent question whether there should be a demand for payment or not. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton introduced words for the purpose of requiring that there should be such a demand. It was thought by the Committee that his words were not satisfactory; and I was willing merely as the Minister of the House in reference to this matter, to draw up a clause. It was in that spirit that I undertook to draw up the clause, and in that spirit it was drawn up accordingly. Having done that I did all I was bound to do; I did what was necessary to enable my hon. and learned Friend to put himself in the position he would have occupied if he had carried his proposal on the former evening; and I say that the only position he could then have been in if he had carried his proposal would have been this—that a demand of payment would have been required. That I sought to effect by additional words making it clear to my hon. and learned Friend's satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of the Committee, and I believe I have done it. Therefore, I have discharged every obligation into which I entered, and I feel free to act in regard to the rest of this Bill, as I think fit. It is as open to me as to every other Member of the House to take what course I may deem right in the further discussion of this measure. In so doing I am not affected by the circumstance that I did offer to be the instrument of the Committee in drawing up that clause. Not having taken such an active part in the business of the House as some of my Colleagues, I will not speak as to the ordinary mode of proceeding; but the course I have taken in this matter is, I maintain, consistent with every principle of personal honour and of just proceeding. I have taken the course which I think is fully justified, and I do not mean for one moment to recede from it.
  MR. DENMANdid not wish to enter into any question regarding the personal honour or conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman. With that he had nothing to do, for every Member of this House was the guardian of his own character and honour. But when his hon. and learned Friend said that he (Mr. Denman) was not influenced in his conduct in reference to the 3rd clause by what took place in the discussion on his proposed Amendment, he entirely joined issue with his learned Friend. It seemed to him that this principle of personal payment of rates, as adopted by Parliament, with the existing law in force, was a cruel mockery of many of the poorer class of voters, who, sometimes living a long distance from the overseer, had often to hunt him up, in order to pay their rates, and go to the church door from time to time, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was a rate due or not. Seeing that the result would be wholesale disfranchisement of the best and most industrious of the new voters, he insisted upon the insertion of the words referred to. It appeared to him that the whole value of the 3rd clause—waiving all other questions as to whether he could regard it as acceptable or not—turned upon the insertion of those words, and it was obvious that they would have been carried upon a division had not the hon. and learned Gentleman interposed on behalf of the Government by undertaking to frame a clause which would have the same effect he (Mr. Denman), by his proposal, wished the 3rd clause to have. He (Mr. Denman) sincerely declared that if his hon. and learned Friend had not then accepted the Amendment or given a promise to frame a clause to carry out the object he had in view, he should have felt it his bounden duty to divide the Committee on the question whether the 3rd clause should be accepted or not. The Government agreed to the principle of the Amendment, and it was a matter of compromise from the first to the last, the main element of which was that his proposal was accepted by the Government. ["No!"] To his mind it was a most important compromise, tending favourably to the views he entertained. Therefore let not the hon. and learned Gentleman go away under the impression that he (Mr. Denman) did not hold both him and the Government to the Amendment. If the Government now retracted the compromise by which they had been

  689
  enabled to carry their 3rd clause, they could not expect the Committee to abstain from opposing the Bill in every way, and in every stage, by delay or otherwise, so as to prevent its becoming law, for the withdrawal of this Amendment would materially alter the rights which the Committee had, by the 3rd clause, intended to confer on their fellow-citizens.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton is perfectly at liberty to take whatever course he may deem proper to prevent the passing of this Bill. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, who has thought fit to challenge and to ask me what course I took in reference to the clause on which the Committee has just divided, I will tell him that I have done that which anybody who heard me speak in the House might have imagined I should have done. I did not rote in favour of a clause which I condemned, and which was contrary to my opinions. Had it not been, I may add, for the peculiar circumstance that the clause was proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General I should undoubtedly have voted against it. The right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that the question of adherence to implied engagements is one of degree; and that he did not wish to strain the point so far as to contend that we are always, and under all circumstances, bound to give effect to understandings which may be supposed to have been arrived at, and I would confidently ask whether an hon. Member is to yield everything to the opinion of the House and nothing to his own? For my own part, I must confess that had I formed no idea of this clause before I came down to the House this morning, I should have been convinced by what has taken place in the course of the discussion that it was one of a prejudicial character. Having come to that conclusion, I should, had it not been framed by my hon. and learned Friend, have said "no" to it; as it was, I retired from the House, and did not vote at all. I should be deeply grieved if I thought that, in acting as I have done, I violated any confidence between myself and the House, or any individual Member of it; but I do not think that any stipulation was made with the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton, further than this, that, when the point again came before the Committee, words should be introduced that would be calculated to carry out and deal with the
  690
  question as the Committee thought fit. I consider that the hon. and learned Gentleman was, at the time when that stipulation was made, perfectly free to oppose the 3rd clause, and that he is perfectly free to do so now. If I have erred in the view which I have taken of the matter, I am not conscious that I have done so. What I have done has been done in accordance with my own convictions, and thus far I maintain no apology is due from me to the Committee.
  COLONEL GILPINfelt, as an independent Member of the House, and one not in the habit of often trespassing upon its attention, anxious to say a few words on the present occasion, especially after the lecture from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, to which the Committee had just listened. The right hon. Gentleman had commented upon the circumstance that the Committee had reversed a decision at which it had previously arrived. ["No, no!"] But was that, he would ask, a circumstance of very unusual occurrence? If he was not mistaken, decisions of that House had very recently been reversed on the Motion of hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves; and when the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government had used its influence or example to induce their party to support the views which he took upon the point at issue, he, as an independent Member, begged to reply that he had come down to the House with the intention to support the Government as far as he could. He listened with great attention to the debate, and it appeared to him that the Amendments were not satisfactory; but he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark did get the Committee into a considerable difficulty. There could be no difficulty in negativing this clause, and of introducing another on the Report which should carry out the wishes of the Committee. He did not regret that the House had shown itself sufficiently independent to put into a minority the two front benches. He, at all events, had taken the course which he thought right in the matter; and he did not hesitate to say, without wishing to give offence to the right hon. Gentleman, that he believed he had been left in a minority owing to the tone which he adopted, and the threat of re-opening the whole question of borough franchise which he held out.
  MR. CARDWELL: I wish to say that in my judgment this is not a question of

  691
  whether the Committee in one stage of a Bill can reverse a decision at which it has arrived at another stage: nor is it a question as to the votes which independent Members are at liberty to give at any stage of a Bill. I wish to say to my right hon. Friend opposite, and to the Attorney General that I shall not make it a question bearing personally on their conduct—of that they will best judge for themselves; but there is, I think, no question more important, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly admitted it to be so in the course of these discussions, that we should have a distinct understanding between the Government and the House of Commons as to what is meant by the assent of the Government to any proposition which may come under our notice. I have, since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, been under the impression that if the Government proposed a clause and an hon. Member moved an Amendment to it, they might take either of two courses. They might oppose the Amendment, whatever may be the consequence, and, if unsuccessful, they would be perfectly at liberty to oppose it again at a future stage; or they might, on the other hand, assent to it and undertake to give it effect on a subsequent occasion. If they took the latter course, it would, I apprehend, not be open to them to treat it as a proposal other than their own—they must treat it, not, indeed, as their begotten, but their adopted child to which they were bound to extend all the protection in their power. How stands the present case? Into the 3rd clause of this Bill, which is the principle clause, the clause regulating the borough franchise, and the adoption of which has, I venture to say, carried the Bill to the stage at which we have now arrived, the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton proposed to introduce an Amendment. At the time the hon. and learned Gentleman might, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, have commanded a majority if his proposal were pressed to a division; but the right hon. Gentleman, as I find from the record which has been put into my hands, on that occasion said—
  "If, however, the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton would frame a clause applicable alike to the old and the new constituencies, the Government might be able to assent to it without difficulty."
  The Attorney General thereupon undertook to prepare a clause to give effect to that
  692
  statement; and my object in rising now is not to make any personal statement, but to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the leader of this House, and to ask him whether, under these circumstances, the Government having adopted the proposal of an independent Member, and undertaken to carry it into effect, they are not bound to give it their cordial support when the time comes for putting the proposal to the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If the circumstances of this case were exactly as the right hon. Gentleman has represented them to be, I should certainly concur in the opinion which he entertains. I am sure the Committee will do me the justice, if they will condescend to remember the particulars of the several divisions which have taken place on the measure before us, to say that I have endeavoured scrupulously to fulfil any engagements into which I may have entered with the House. It was only a few nights ago that a division was taken in which the right hon. Gentleman himself was particularly interested. I am not bound to give my opinion upon the subject of his Motion; but I can truly say that no sooner was I acquainted that an engagement had been entered into with him than I immediately, under the circumstances, gave him my support. I have always sought scrupulously to carry out such engagements, because I look upon that as being the only satisfactory way of conducting the business of the House. I feel, at the same time, bound to say — though I supported the clause brought forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; and, as far as I could, used my influence with those around me, requesting the four or five Gentlemen with whom I could communicate to support the clause also—that there was not, in my opinion, that complete understanding which the right hon. Gentleman assumes to have existed between the Government and the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton with regard to this matter. It is some time ago since the circumstance occurred, and I cannot speak so confidently with respect to it as about that which happened yesterday or only a few days previously; but it seems to me that the engagement entered into with the hon. and learned Gentleman was of a somewhat vague character. I cannot concur, too, with those who appear to think that the important clause in the Bill to which the Motion of

  693
  the hon. and learned Member related depended on the success of that Motion. That I look upon as a perfectly preposterous view to take of the question. But the point was certainly mentioned at the time, and to facilitate the progress of the Bill the Attorney General did undertake to prepare the clause which has just been rejected. There was, however, as far as my memory serves me, no formal and full engagement made that we were, under all circumstances, to support the policy which the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton indicated. I cannot say, therefore, that I was surprised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, especially after the frank manner in which he stated his views to the Committee before the division took place, should decline to vote for the clause. I do not think it was an instance of that clear and full engagement which has been very often entered into by both sides of the House. To my mind it was a very imperfect understanding. When I first rose this evening, I felt it to be my duty not to hesitate in the course I should take, because I would rather err on the side of scrupulosity on this matter. There certainly was not that clear understanding from which no misconception could arise, which is necessary to facilitate public business by mutual understandings. The understanding was that the Attorney General should produce a clause that would express the feeling of the Committee, not so much in the capacity of a Minister bringing forward a policy, but as a public officer who, under all the circumstances, would have the best opportunity, from his learning and acquirements, and be best qualified to offer a clause that would express the feeling of the Committee. I do not think that Gentlemen on this side of the House are bound to a complete and absolute adhesion to the policy of the clause. I very much regret there should be any misconception upon a subject of this kind; for it is of great importance that any understanding which might be arrived at should be kept. At the same time, it would be a very great evil if, from a misconception or misunderstanding, right hon. or hon. Gentlemen should be supposed to be bound to support a principle or policy which they do not really approve. I am sure no one will desire it; and it is not for a moment to be encouraged that because some arrangement was made four months ago that the party on this side of the House is bound to support the consequences
  694
  of such an arrangement, which many of them could not have foreseen, and of which many did not clearly understand. I consider that I have personally fulfilled the engagement into which I entered; and with regard to what I will not call the insinuation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, but the delicate inquiry which he has made, I can most sincerely and truly answer that such influence as I could exercise in the hurried moments of an impending division I exercised in favour of the Motion.
  MR. BRIGHT: I wish simply to say that I think great inconvenience will arise to the Committee from the unfortunate incident which has just taken place, and especially after the kind of explanation which we have had from three Members on the Treasury Bench. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford read a paragraph from a report of what I presume was said on the night in question. I have here what appeared in the paper, the reports of which, I believe, are generally considered to be most reliable — The Times newspaper, which gives what was heard and understood by a Gentleman who had a very favourable opportunity of hearing everything which went on. ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is contrary to the rules of the House to read the reports of debates from the newspapers.
  MR. BRIGHT: I shall state to the Committee what I understood was said, and what I believe the House understood was said, on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department did not vote in the division. He stated that if the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton would frame a clause applicable both to the old and new constituencies, the Government might be able to assent to it without difficulty; but that if he insisted on pressing the Amendment then before the Committee, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. There is nothing, I submit, that anybody can find fault with in that. Then the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton, after that, expressed his willingness in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, to bring up a clause applicable both to the old and the new constituencies—that is, those above £10 and those below £10—but he said it would be necessary to add to the clause under discussion

  695
  the words "in manner hereinafter mentioned," and the manner in which the object was to be attained might be inserted in the next clause. Well, what did the Attorney General say then? It will be in the recollection of the Committee that he actually suggested the addition to the clause of the words "and which have been demanded of him in manner hereinafter mentioned" — and he recommended that other words should be omitted—namely, the words, "by the overseer, collector, or other officer." Now, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton, the Attorney General stated that the Government would undertake to bring up the necessary clause. To this arrangement the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton assented, and withdrew his Amendment. I do not know much about the importance of this question; but I do hold it to be very important — and hon. Gentlemen opposite may not always be on that side of the House—that when a distinct arrangement of this kind is made—and one more distinct I think I have never heard made in this House—it should at least be fairly and honourably adhered to by the Government, because the Government has always, as we know, great influence in the House; many Members are anxious to support it; and somehow or other they seem to find out what is the view of the leading Members of the Government; and though nothing is said, men often find themselves in the lobby which is agreeable to the Members of the Government. Now, on this occasion, I understand that two Members of the Government and of the Cabinet absented themselves on the division, and if they had voted, probably the decision of the Committee would have been different. I do not know what is to be done in the matter now; I have merely risen for the purpose of saying that there is a question even more important than that of this particular clause, and that is, that there should not be that scrupulousness in words which the right hon. Gentleman has dwelt on so long in his recent observations, but that there should be a fair and frank adherence to every agreement that is made of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he spoke to four or five Members near him. Well, if he had spoken to two of those nearest him, and with whom certainly his influence could not have been less than with those to whom he did address himself, perhaps the result of the division might have been different, and a very unpleasant
  696
  altercation or contention might have been avoided. A short while ago there was an unpleasantness on the Treasury Bench between the Judge Advocate General and the right hon. Gentleman. I should be very sorry if, during the progress of this Bill, there should be any dislocation and enfeebling of the Government which might in any degree endanger the passing of so great a measure as that which is now before the House.
  MR. DENMANsaid, the course which the discussion had taken had brought back to his mind the exact words which he used, and which produced that answer of the Attorney General to which reference had been made. The Attorney General, he was sure, would recollect that he (Mr. Denman) asked him whether he intended to throw upon him the onus of proposing a clause, or whether he would himself bring up a clause, and the Attorney General gave that answer which had just now been read by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. He (Mr. Denman) put it to the Committee whether, under the circumstances, he could have had any other notion than that the Government intended to propose a clause in the sense agreed upon, and to try to carry it? It was, indeed, only by accident that he (Mr. Denman) had come to the House that afternoon, as he had fancied the matter was so thoroughly agreed upon that there could be no question about it, and that the clause, being in the sense he had understood, would be supported by the Government, and agreed to without a division.
  MR. HIBBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the clause of the Attorney General had been lost, it was possible for the Government to bring up a new clause to carry out the understanding into which the Government had entered? He thought it must be the desire on both sides that the understanding should, as far as possible, be carried out.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he should be very willing, and, indeed, it would be his duty, after what had occurred that day, to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member; but in his present position he must make it a first object to see whether, in bringing forward a new proposition on the subject, he had any chance of success. From what had reached his ears since he last addressed the Committee, he feared the opposition to the proposal was so decided on the other side of the House as, with

  697
  the assistance of Gentlemen on the Ministerial side, to afford little hope of bringing forward anything of the kind with success. The right hon. Member for South Lancashire was wrong in supposing that the clause was solely defeated by the action of Members on the Ministerial side, for there were many Members on the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House who sympathized with them. At the first blush this must seem manifest; for if the majority of the House sitting on the other side had resolved to support the policy of the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton, the late division could not have resulted in the manner it actually had. If the hon. Member for Oldham appealed to his own friends, the result in future would probably be different.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the fate of this Bill, and the earnest desire manifested on both sides of the House that it should become law, were of far greater importance than how the Government should carry out an understanding. But he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, considering how important this clause was, had not sufficiently inquired into it before it came on for discussion to find out that his opinion was against it. But what was of more importance was that the House should not on account of the recent decision endanger the progress of the Bill. It certainly was the understanding on both sides of the House—at least, so he felt, that the borough franchise was settled on these two conditions—the payment of rates, and that payment should be demanded. He was by no means anxious that the special mode expressed in the clause should be carried out, but he hoped the Government would not be misled by the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark did not think it of importance that demand should be made a condition of payment. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the condition of demand was not felt very strongly by many Members on that side of the House, and he believed by the country. No one was more anxious than he was—very few so anxious—that this Bill should pass, particularly as regarded the borough franchise; but undoubtedly the settlement was accepted on the condition that the vast numbers of poor ratepayers should not have, as the sole condition of their franchise, the payment of rates without means to insure that demand was made by the officer to
  698
  whom that was intrusted. In the interest of the Bill, and in their own interest as the Government that would have the credit of passing this great measure, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Colleagues would take the opportunity of seeing whether they could not carry out the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham.
  MR. LOCKEwas really not aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) did feel such very great anxiety for the passing of this Bill. He did not say that demand was of no importance; what he did say was, that it would be impossible to agree upon this clause. Amendment after Amendment was moved in the sense of the hon. Member's for Oldham — namely, that the overseer should be compelled to make a demand, and that he should be liable to a penalty of £1 for neglecting to make it. He thought that was harsh. So did his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman thought it was wrong, for he went into the same lobby with him and voted against it. There was great difficulty in coming to a conclusion upon this clause, because it left the overseers to do precisely what they chose with the electors, putting some on the register and leaving others off. The clause seemed to give no satisfaction to either side of the House, and therefore he had suggested that it should be negatived. He thought if a clause could be prepared that would be satisfactory to the Mouse and workable, it would be a great advantage.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman to any that it would be better that the new voters should be put in the same position as the present £10 householders. Now, in looking at the Reform Bill, he found that no demand in that case was required; therefore he naturally concluded that his object was to take out of the Bill the necessity of a demand being made.
  MR. LOCKEbegged to state that what he did say was, that rather than pass this clause the old plan should be adopted.
  MR. HENRY BAILLIErecommended the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton to bring up a clause of his own on the Report. He would then be supported by those who entertained the same opinions, and not run the risk of having a clause introduced by those who were not favourable to his views. The clause was thrown out because it was absolutely impracticable

  699
  and unworkable; and because they would not place so much power in the hands of the overseer as would leave him complete master of the situation in all the boroughs of the kingdom.
  MR. DENMANwas very much obliged for the advice which had been given him. He would look into the matter and try to draw a better clause than that of the Attorney General, although he thought that a very honest and well-framed clause, and doubted whether it could be improved. He did not know that he should be able to do better. He would rather, however, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark should undertake the duty, to show that he was really in earnest in this matter, for he was quite sure that his hon. and learned Friend would find that great mischief would result in the direction of wholesale disfranchisement if some similar provision were not inserted. He suggested that his hon. and learned Friend should prepare a clause, which he would be happy to consider; and that the clause should be settled with the Attorney General so as to carry out the original undertaking of the Government.
  MR. LOCKEquite confessed that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton had caused a great many discussions on this Bill, and he did not mean to say that he had not done great good service to the Bill, but he was at a loss to know exactly what that good was. At the same time, he should be most happy to ask his assistance or to tender his own with a view to draw such a clause as might give satisfaction to everybody.
  MR. GLADSTONEwished to apologize to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark, because he was very glad to find that he was favourable to demand on the voter. That demand on the voter he thought most important; and, as far as he could judge, it appeared very intimately associated with the practicability of the system of personal rating, As to the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the votes on that side of the House, they were delivered in great good humour, and they were received entirely in the same spirit. They might be perfectly justifiable under the circumstances; but quite independent of that, he begged the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Bedfordshire (Colonel Gilpin) to observe that he never said a word as to the votes of independent Members. All he did was
  700
  to impugn and challenge the conduct of the Government unless they had used such influence as they could—and he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had done so—to obtain for the clause the votes of his own supporters, and in regard to that he spoke of no personal honour as involved in the engagement of the Government not being fulfilled when he said he understood that a Member of the Government had voted in the majority.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he received a "whip" to be present and support the Government to-day, and he had reason to know that hon. Gentlemen opposite had received a "whip" to oppose the Government. ["No!" from the Opposition.] He had seen it. He should have supported the Government if he had thought them right; but, as he did not think them right, he had voted against them.
  MR. HENLEYhoped that whoever drew up the clause would meet the difficulty which had come strongly upon them in the course of that debate—how they were to take the power of enfranchising and disfranchising out of the hands of the overseers. He could fairly say that this was what turned his vote. Hearing no answer to this question he had thought it better to vote against the clause and leave the whole thing open rather than leave enfranchisement or disfranchisement to the caprice of the overseer or to accident. He thought it well worthy of consideration, whether the framers of the Bill of 1832 had not foreseen the difficulty, and therefore left the question of demand out of sight altogether. If you had a demand, you left it absolutely in the hands of the overseer to enfranchise A and disfranchise B at his pleasure.
  Motion negatived.
  COLONEL DYOTTthen moved to insert, after Clause 3, a clause giving to freeholders, copyholders, and leaseholders within Parliamentary boundaries of boroughs, or residing within seven miles thereof, a vote for such boroughs. The clause was similar to, if not identical with, a clause in the Reform Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced in 1859, and which led to the break up of the Government at that period. Household suffrage under the present Bill would confer the franchise on a vast number of the lowest class of occupiers; in the opinion of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire it would be double the present number of borough voters.

  701
  The hon. Member for Stockport, by way of limiting the franchise, proposed that the occupation should be at least an occupation of two rooms, and another hon. Member proposed that these rooms should be of a certain size; but these remedies did not meet the approval of the Committee, he therefore proposed to introduce upon the register the freeholders, copyholders, and leaseholders, as the case might be, residing in boroughs as an independent class of electors, to balance the more dependent class that this Bill proposed to introduce; for there would be no more independent class of voters than the men who voted in respect of their own property. It was said that this would be a measure of disfranchisement, but it was really nothing of the kind; it was only a transfer of their names from one borough to the other. Then it was said that it would deprive the borough freeholder of his ancient rights. Now, there was no man who had a greater respect for ancient rights, or would bow with more reverence for prescriptive authority than himself; but if the argument were to be carried to its farthest extent it would be impossible to pass any Reform Bill. They proposed partially to disfranchise several of the small boroughs, whose rights were as ancient as those of the freeholders. His object was to put every class of voters upon an equality. They heard much of the evils of class legislation, but surely this plan of giving a vote for freehold property, both for the town and the country, was to make the owners a privileged class. It was not exactly giving them a dual vote, though it was something analogous; it was exactly the same as the proposition to give undergraduate votes for the University towns, which the whole Liberal party had opposed. Then it was said that these votes ought not to be taken from the counties, because the counties represented property, That was so at one period, no doubt, but it had long ceased to be the case; and now that the occupation franchise had been reduced so low as £12 it had become less so than ever. He begged further to remind the House that the total number of county electors qualified by property within the borough boundaries was 91,000, while the total number of county electors was 540,000; so that the county voters within boroughs amounted to one-sixth of the whole. He did not bring this question forward from any personal motive, because he represented a borough where the freeholders
  702
  already voted in the borough, so that the change would not affect him; but he believed that the change would improve the borough register, would do no harm to the county register, and would carry out the object which every man professed to have at heart—to improve and amend the representation of the people. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the following clause:—
  "That any person, possessing a freehold, copyhold, or leasehold qualification within the Parliamentary boundary of any borough, and residing within seven miles thereof, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter for such borough, and to vote at the election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for such borough in respect of such qualification, and not for the county in which such borough is situate."
  MR. VANCEsaid that the proposition was a very reasonable one. He had represented for thirteen years a constituency in which such a franchise existed. Anyone could have a freehold or leasehold qualification and vote for the city of Dublin, without the necessity even of residence; and he could assure the Committee that that constituency was very much improved, not only in intelligence, but in rank and station, by the existence of such a franchise. In Dublin the franchise was limited to freeholders who possessed a freehold of £10—there being no freehold of less value in that city. He was satisfied that the proposed clause would be an improvement and therefore he gave it his hearty support.
  MR. LOWTHERmoved that the Chairman report Progress. The question involved by the clause was one of considerable importance, and should be fairly discussed.
  MR. BRIGHT: Perhaps the Committee might dispose of the clause now. It would facilitate our progress when we meet again to discuss this Bill, and it would be the wisest course to take.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, it was a broad and important question, and was recommended to them by the consideration that it formed part of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill in 1859. It ought therefore to be fairly discussed and argued which it could not be at that hour.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am perfectly convinced that it will be utterly impossible for the Committee to dispose of this clause in three minutes; if any hon. Member is desirous of moving that Progress be reported, I shall not therefore resist the Motion. I wish to

  703
  correct the misstatement that there is a principle involved in the clause which was fatal to the Conservative Government of 1859.
  MR. GLADSTONEdid not know whether it was an overstatement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancel-of the Exchequer that the principle of the clause had been fatal to the Government of 1859. All he could say was that the proposition fatal to them was made on the part of the Government of 1859, and was received with uniform hostility by their political opponents and by very widely spread opposition on the part of their friends.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Indeed! I was not aware of it.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

REPRESENTATION OF IRELAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUErose to move a Resolution, of which he said notice had been given, owing to the surprising announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer shortly after the Whitsuntide recess, notwithstanding a promise to the contrary, that it was not intended to introduce a Reform Bill for Ireland this Session. The subject had excited much interest among Irish Reformers both in and out of the House. Hon. Members who took special interest in the question of Reform in Ireland were filled with astonishment and indignation when, after assurance had been given that Ireland would not be excluded from the general plan of Reform for the United Kingdom, the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that the Government had changed their minds, and that their promises were to come to nothing.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  MR. CHICHESTER PORTESCUEproceeded to state that, under the circumstances
  704
  he had narrated, the Irish Members took counsel, formally and informally, and, after a time, they held a meeting of those who expected and desired a Reform Bill for Ireland; and it was that meeting which called upon him to take charge of the Resolution. There was no desire to seek an opportunity for making a party attack on the Government. Irish Members only sought to fulfil a bounden duty, which they could not neglect without disgrace, without loss of self respect, and without betrayal of trust. He would briefly detail the occurrences of the present Session with regard to the question of Irish Parliamentary Reform. At the commencement of the Session everybody naturally took it for granted, both from the nature of the subject and from invariable precedent, that the Government would deal simultaneously with the three kingdoms in the matter of Reform. It had invariably happened that before an English Bill had made progress the Bills for Scotland and Ireland had been laid on the table and discussed. Last year the then Government professed at first to deal only with the English franchise; but when, in compliance with the wish of the House, they had undertaken to deal with the whole question, they framed and laid on the table on the same night the Bills for Scotland and Ireland, and that was before the House had gone into Committee on the English Bill. A Scotch Baronet, the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), had specially called upon the Government to take care that a Bill for Scotland should be introduced, because it would be impossible that justice could be done unless the Bills for England, Scotland, and Ireland proceeded pari passû. Everybody expected that that view would be acted upon this Session. On the 21st of March in the present Session, following the hon. Member for Edinburgh, he (Mr. C. Fortescue) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intended to introduce a Reform Bill for Ireland; and the reply was in the affirmative. A few days afterwards the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Esmonde) asked another question upon the subject, and the answer was that the Government intended to introduce the Irish Bill immediately after the Easter recess. The Easter holydays passed, however, and the Scotch Bill was introduced, but not the Irish one. He therefore thought it his duty when the Whitsuntide recess was approaching to

  705
  make a statement to the House respecting the delay, and to ask what were the intentions of the Government. That was on the 24th of May, more than two months after the first promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said that the Government had given every attention to the subject, but that the pressure of the English Bill had made it impossible for them to introduce the Irish Bill sooner, and the right hon. Gentleman added—
  "Though there will be some further delay, it will not be a very great delay. Hon. Gentlemen may rely on it that I shall not hurry them to a decision on the second reading. They shall have ample time to consider the Bill, and I think they will have no cause to complain that they have been badly treated. I hope the provisions of the Bill will be such as to be satisfactory to the Irish Members; but I must confess that the criticisms which we have just heard are not encouraging. One hon. Gentleman expresses a hope that the three Reform Bills will be all alike; another, referring to a particular provision in the English Bill, says that should it be contained in the Irish Bill he should prefer to have no Bill at all. I do not want the House to come to any decision now as to the merits of voting papers; but, as papers have been proposed for England and Scotland, I am afraid that if they were not in the Irish Bill some hon. Gentleman might rise and state that we were not disposed to treat Ireland with a fairness equal to that shown to England and Scotland, though I can assure them that we are anxious to do so. I throw myself on the indulgence of hon Gentlemen, and promise them that the Irish Bill will be brought in immediately after Whitsuntide. Before any hon. Gentleman from Ireland decides that this is a case of hardship, I would observe that I do not think anyone would like to spend the short vacation we are to have at Whitsuntide in the consideration of the suffrage. Irish Members may rely upon it that I shall endeavour to make up for the delay. I alone am responsible for it, and I hope they will extend their indulgence to me till immediately after Whitsuntide."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvii. 1091.]
  Before the Whitsuntide recess arrived the question was again asked by the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne), and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then replied—
  "Ardently as I long for the day when the English Bill shall be read a third time, I shall gladly defer it in order to introduce the Irish Bill."
  Soon after the re-assembling of the House the hon. Member for Ennis (Captain Stacpoole) asked the Government when the Bill was to be introduced, and the reply to that question had given rise to the present Motion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "There is no subject which has caused the Government more anxiety than the Reform Bill for Ireland. I can Bay this for the Government collectively, and I can say it for myself and ray noble
  706
  Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that we have at all times been anxious to deal with that question in a spirit of the utmost confidence, and we have prepared the details of the measure entirely in that spirit. But it is impossible to conceal from ourselves that the circumstances of the time are exceedingly unpropitious. There is no doubt that, owing to a foreign and external agency acting upon sentiments of a morbid character in a portion of the population, there is in Ireland at the present moment a very general feeling of distrust, and—I cannot conceal it from myself—a considerable sense of danger. It is very difficult to deal with questions involving the re-distribution of electoral rights among a people under circumstances of that description, although I am glad to think that whatever discontent or distrust may exist in Ireland does not arise from the present state of their electoral privileges. Under these circumstances we feel that it is not possible for us to deal with the question of Parliamentary Reform in Ireland in the spirit in which we could have wished to deal with it, and, therefore, it is the determination of Her Majesty's Government to postpone until a more favourable opportunity any legislation on this question."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvii. 1936.]
  In the whole of that answer there was but one topic of consolation, and that was that the details had been discussed, and that the measure, if not in a perfect form, was in a very advanced state of preparation. In every other respect the answer was most unsatisfactory and most unfortunate. The reasons assigned did not in themselves, without further explanation, furnish any ground for the sudden abandonment of the expectations and the pledges held out to the Irish Members and the Irish people. The alleged reason for postponement was that there was danger, in the present condition of Ireland, in mooting the question of Irish Parliamentary Reform. But what now circumstances had arisen? The promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was first given in March, immediately after the important Fenian rising in the South of Ireland. What circumstance had arisen during the Whitsuntide recess to make it the duty of the Government to refuse to Ireland that which they themselves had previously pronounced necessary? As at present informed, his belief was that no such circumstances had occurred. There was, indeed, one occurrence which he could not overlook. During the recess the Government had been waited upon by a deputation of influential Irish supporters of the Government, who made certain representations on the subject of Reform in Ireland, and, unless he was totally wrong in his conjecture, such statements were made with regard to the condition of the

  707
  country as to change completely the view of the Cabinet, and induce them to refuse that which they had shortly before informed the House that it was their intention to do. His opinion was that they were totally misinformed; and he should like to know what proof there was that the Irish constituencies were disposed either to reject with scorn, or to make a bad use of the privileges which Parliament might confer upon them? Take the most recent elections which had occurred in Ireland; in the course of the autumn, elections occurred in the two important, constituencies of Tipperary and Waterford, and, no doubt, those elections were marked by a certain amount of excitement on the one side, occasioned by the excessive and unreasonable exercise of landlord power. On the other side, they were characterized by popular excitement, which he regretted to say, occasionally degenerated into violence. But no hon. Gentleman could say that the results of those elections were not in accordance with the genuine feelings of the constituencies. For his own part, he felt convinced that the two Gentlemen who were returned, one of them a Protestant and the other a Catholic, were the real choice of the electors, and that they were both well worthy to occupy seats in that House. To him these events were matters of great consolation and satisfaction; because they proved that in those large constituencies, deeply imbued with the most intense Irish feelings, it was possible for the great mass of the humble electors to exert themselves for the purpose of returning popular representatives to Parliament, rather than exhibit an indifference to Imperial legislation—rather than turn their thoughts in another direction. The House might depend upon it that the people who were capable of acting in that way had not wholly given themselves up to lawless and Utopian schemes. It was the duty of the House to take care the feelings and hopes of such a people were not disappointed by Parliament. As to their being danger from extending the franchise in Ireland, or even discussing the subject, he totally denied that any danger could arise in that direction. On the contrary, his opinion was that the danger was all the other way. By not discussing a measure of Reform for Ireland they ran the risk of lessening the confidence the Irish people had in the favourable disposition of Parliament, and in its inclination to treat their country in a spirit of fairness and equality. Perhaps he might be told that the Fenians did not care
  708
  about Parliamentary Reform. He never heard in that House, nor read in the papers—as one did too often—statements of that kind, without feeling how dangerous it was to govern Ireland under such a feeling. Those who were acquainted with Ireland knew that the Fenians did not care about a Reform Bill, or about the Church and the land questions; but it should be remembered that for one Fenian in Ireland there were ten discontented and suspicious spirits not Fenians. It was no answer to them to say that the Fenians did not care for Reform; but it was dangerous that a sensitive, and, at present, suspicious people should be led to believe that Parliament treated them with something like a slight, and not with that confidence and equality which would conciliate them and make them good and loyal subjects. His Motion consisted of two parts. The first was—
  "That this House considers it essential to the satisfactory settlement of the Question of Parliamentary Reform that there should be an amendment of the Law relating to the Representation of the People in Ireland as well as in the other portions of the United Kingdom."
  At first sight it would not seem necessary to ask the House to affirm that; but, considering the tone taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his reference to "the most favourable opportunity"—which was the right hon. Gentleman's only definition of the time at which the Irish Members might hope for a Reform Bill—and his reply to the hon. Member for Devizes, who had thought it necessary to try and extract something more from him, he had thought it necessary to put that Notice on the Paper. He was bound at present to take it for granted that the Government had adjourned the question of Parliamentary Reform for Ireland sine die. He hoped, however, that a further explanation might show him that he was wrong. At all events, he trusted that the House would not sanction such a determination on the part of the Government. The conclusion of his Motion stated that the House
  "Considers it desirable that, in accordance with the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Government should introduce their Bill upon that subject during the present Session."
  What he asked appeared to him to be most reasonable. He did not prejudge the question whether it would be practicable to carry out Reform legislation for Ireland during the present Session. He asked the Government merely to say what their intentions as regarded the matter were by placing their Bill on the table. The hon.

  709
  Member for Ayrshire last Session required that the Scotch Bill should proceed pari passû with the English Bill. The Irish Members were more moderate their demands. They only asked that the Irish Bill should proceed pari passû with the Scotch Bill. As no Reformers in that House had been more faithful to the Reform cause than the Irish Reformers had been, he now asked the Reformers of the other parts of the United Kingdom—and he made the same appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House—to join in protesting against Ireland being treated with neglect and with what he could not help calling some thing like indignity.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House considers it essential to the satisfactory settlement of the Question of Parliamentary Reform that there should be an amendment of the Law relating to the Representation of the People in Ireland as well as in the other portions of the United Kingdom; and considers it desirable that, in accordance with the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government should introduce their Bill upon that subject during the present Session,"—(Mr. Chichester Fortescue,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL FRENCHseconded the Motion. He complimented his right hon. Friend the Member for Louth on the temperate and judicious manner in which he had introduced his Motion, He was very glad his right hon. Friend had abandoned a part of the Motion as it was originally framed; because, under no circumstances could he have considered himself justified in opposing the third reading of the English Reform Bill on the ground that Ireland had not been fairly treated. He felt it difficult to add anything to the arguments of his right hon. Friend; but he must remind the House that, from time to time, he had postponed proceeding with his own scheme of Reform out of deference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had promised a Government Reform Bill for Ireland. Knowing that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland had devoted a great deal of attention to the subject, he heard without any suspicion of the frequent postponements of the Irish Reform Bill; and he was sure that no single Member, and no individual in Ireland
  710
  who had followed the proceedings in Parliament, hesitated to believe that immediately after the expiration of the Whitsuntide recess the Bill would be laid on the table. They had been disappointed in this expectation, and in a manner which gave them ground of complaint. Every promise made to Scotland had been fulfilled, and there was no reason to suppose that a different course would be pursued towards the two countries. As far as actual legislation was concerned, there was no more chance of the Irish Reform Bill becoming law this Session than there was of the Scotch Bill being adopted. But Irish Members had a right to know the Ministerial intentions towards them, so that they might consult their fellow-countrymen during the recess. No cause ought to be given to any portion of the Irish people to suppose that they were slighted or lightly esteemed, or that they were treated differently from people in other parts of the United Kingdom. He trusted the Ministry would re-consider their decision.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, that he and those who felt with him, had reason to express their complete satisfaction with the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion when he last addressed himself to the question of the Irish Reform Bill. That decision afforded the greatest gratification to all right thinking men in Ireland, and to a large portion of those in Great Britain as well, for it was in accordance with the principles of prudence and common sense. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue) declared that there was an acknowledged want of Reform in Ireland, the non-recognition of which by the Government was most displeasing to the Irish Members—meaning, he presumed, those sitting near the right hon. Gentleman, who always arrogated to themselves the title of "Irish Members." [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Irish Reformers.] The right hon. Gentleman represented those gentlemen as highly indignant, and he spoke with authority and influence on that and most other subjects. But when, last year, he was called upon officially to deal with the subject himself, be brought forward a measure which was utterly insignificant as regards the changes which it would have accomplished. The condition of the counties, the right hon. Gentleman stated, was perfectly satisfactory, and he did not propose to alter those; in the boroughs the principal alterations proposed was the introduction

  711
  of an extraordinary conjunction called "grouping," which was received with little favour on either side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had no right to arrogate to himself the character of the only benefactor of Ireland in the House. Certainly the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to England had given the right hon. Gentleman no right to suppose that in dealing with Ireland he would act in any niggard spirit, On the contrary the probabilities were that when he did come forward with the measure it would be much ampler, and applicable in ten thousand times a greater degree to the condition of Ireland than the measure of the right hon. Gentleman; a more contemptible measure than was offered last year it would be difficult to conceive. The new grown zeal of the right hon. Gentleman for Reform was very marked now, but his own Bill last year was conceived in the narrowest and most prejudiced spirit of the old Tories. It was not because he objected to Reform that he opposed the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. Indeed, be had given his cordial support to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's magnificent measure for England. He was quite willing to give the Irish people any extension of the suffrage that might be deemed wise and necessary. The very instance of Tipperary which the right hon. Gentleman had advanced told against him. The late contest at Tipperary was of a very peculiar nature; it was between a Roman Catholic gentleman, a resident in the county—["No, no!"]—who had before gained a majority for the county on the one side, and on the other a gentleman of very considerable abilities, but a total stranger to the constituency, who would certainly not have been elected had it not been for the very exceptional circumstances prevailing at the time. Tipperary was on that occasion violently and even dangerously excited by the Fenians; and had it not been so the hon. and gallant Member would have had no more chance of being returned for the county than an Alderman of the City of London. If Tipperary should be divided into two ridings, he believed that the much derided landlord influonce would in one at laast prevail. But this gentleman who was boasted of as the choice ef the people, was threatened with a contest under the Reform Act. Mr. Butt, the distinguished Fenian advocate, had been invited to turn him out, and the published grounds for offering Tipperary to Mr. Butt
  712
  were that he had defended the Fenians so admirably. Yet, notwithstanding this, the right hon. Gentleman had protested that the Government was not justified in postponing the Irish Reform Bill in consequence of the state of the country. Had Fenianism subsided in the South of Ireland? What had happened in Waterford but the other day, when life and property was in imminent peril for the best part of a day? It was easy for the right hon. Gentleman, in an exuberant feeling of irresponsibility, to lay down precepts for the guidance of the Government; but he contended that it was not only the duty of Ministers to abstain from giving Reform to Ireland, but that for them to do so would be positively unjustifiable. Consider the anomalous position the right hon. Gentleman would place the House in. Throughout the Session Parliament had from stern necessity been almost unanimous in curtailing the liberties of the people of Ireland, for the sake of their own peace and security, by suspending the Habeas Corpus Act; and now the right hon. Gentleman proposed, with all the solemnity imaginable, to offer those identical people fresh privileges and a more extensive influence over the Government of the country. He begged the House to be consistent and support the Government in its wise resolve by rejecting the Motion of the right hon. Member for Louth.
  THE O'DONOGHUErejoiced very much that this question had been raised that evening, and more especially that it had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth, whose speech had created more hopeful anticipations of the future Parliamentary representation of Ireland than any speech that had been delivered during a long period. From some personal knowledge of the county of Tipperary, he could assure the hon. Member who had just sat down that he was greatly mistaken in supposing that there was the slightest danger of the hon. Member who sat for that county losing his seat at the next election. Not the slightest reason could be urged in justification of no progress being made this Session with the Irish Reform Bill. It might be that, owing to causes with the nature of which they were all well acquainted, Her Majesty's Government were unable to adhere to their original determination to introduce an Irish Reform Bill this Session; but the majority of the House were in favour of some progress being made at once with the Irish Reform Bill. Personally, he had no apprehension

  713
  whatever as to the future of Irish Reform, because he knew that Her Majesty's Government had not the power, whatever their inclination might be, to withhold an Irish Reform Bill, or even to postpone its introduction for any length of time; and because he felt confident that the Liberal party, which constituted a majority in the House, and an overwhelming majority in the country, would unite with those who really represented the Irish people in securing for Ireland before the dissolution of the present Parliament a measure of Reform, the same in principle, and in every respect as comprehensive as the measures adopted in the case of England and Scotland. But although the condnct of Her Majesty's Government furnished no just ground for any apprehension as to the future of Irish Reform, still it did very plainly indicate what the Government would do if it were able—as all other Governments hitherto had been able—to give effect to its wishes, and carry out the principles which were in accordance with its political convictions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew as well as he did that he could not hope to withhold from the people of Ireland the electoral rights and privileges which had been accorded to the people of England and Scotland. But the position of the right hon. Gentleman was one of extraordinary difficulty, and he was obliged to have recourse to every land of expedient in order to preserve even the semblance of unanimity among his party. Among the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman were, he regretted to say, a number of Irish Members who were the bitterest enemies of Reform. As long as the English and Scotch Bills were before the House these Gentlemen followed silently and obsequiously at the heels of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but when they felt that their own time was approaching—and come it undoubtedly very soon would—they could no longer be kept within bounds. These Gentlemen gathered round the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and after reminding him of what they bad done and suffered, in order to keep him in his place, succeeded in extorting from him a promise that he would postpone the Irish Reform Bill. Although he was certain that the progress of Irish Reform would not be practically retarded by the concession which the Government had made to the Irish Tory Members, that concession enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show his Irish friends what his feelings
  714
  really were, and to prove his gratitude to them for a sacrifice of opinion and principle without parallel in Parliamentary history. It would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at no very distant day, to say to the Irish Tory Members—
  "If I could, I would have permitted you to govern Ireland as in times past, and have upheld your monopoly of power and patronage by the assistance of the armies of Great Britain, but times have altogether changed. Your opinions and principles are as odious to the people of England and Scotland as they long have been to the Irish people; and, disagreeable as it, may be, you must make up your minds not only to forego every kind of ascendancy, but to depend on the future for your influence and power upon the proofs which you give of your devotion to the interests of your countrymen."
  The anomalies in the Irish representative system were so outrageously glaring that it was almost an insult to the understanding of the House to descant upon them at all; and it was almost impossible to do so at that moment, without exposing oneself to the charge of having borrowed from an admirable letter which appeared in the Morning Star of yesterday. It was a system by which apparently the popular sanction was obtained to a most exclusive form of class Government. In the counties the electors were almost exclusively at the disposal of one class of landlords or another; while the borough constituencies were, for the most part, so small that the only thing that could be said in their favour was that they had been smaller previous to the Reform Bill of 1832. The present political state of Ireland be attributed greatly to the fact that the Irish people thought that it was useless to expect justice from the Imperial parliament. It rarely happened in a borough or a county that the candidate returned could be said to represent the free choice of the electors. The popular notion of the functions of a Member of Parliament was that he was selected for the purpose of providing appointments for the sons, relatives, and friends of those who returned him, and that his next object was to procure an appointment for himself. If there had been no past history at all to appeal to, the present state of the Irish constituencies would be a perfect justification for the want of faith in the Imperial Parliament which undoubtedly did exist in Ireland. There were about 170,000 country electors, almost every one of whom was obliged to do exactly as his landlord told him; and there were 30,000 electors, 8,000 of whom returned twenty-seven Members to that

  715
  House, while the remaining 22,000 returned only twelve Members. Notwithstanding this anomaly, however, the borough electors of Ireland returned a majority of Members in favour of Reform, and, in refusing to lay upon the table the Irish Reform Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the Irish Members. He would only add that he had no apprehension whatever for the future of Irish Reform. The Irish Liberal Members had unflinchingly and invariably supported the measure of Parliamentary reform for England; and he was perfectly certain that under no circumstances would they be abandoned by the party of Reform who constituted a majority in that House and the country.
  MR. PEEL DAWSONconcurred with the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) in thinking that the manner of the right hon. Member for Louth, in dealing with Irish Reform, was not so successful as to entitle him to find fault with the Government scheme, or to dictate to Her Majesty's Government the precise terms or the exact mode in which they should discharge their duty of legislating upon this important question. In his opinion Her Majesty's Ministers had judged very wisely in postponing for the present the introduction of a measure of Reform for Ireland. It would be better to allow the political atmosphere of that country to become calm before introducing a measure which would be certain to cause considerable excitement and turmoil, but which it would be impossible to pass during the short remainder of the Session. He could see no reason why there should be any untimely haste in the settlement of this question. At the end of June, in the present state of public opinion, and having regard to the necessity of completing the English measure, it was not probable that they would get beyond the introduction of the measure. What had occurred with reference to the Bill for Scotland? Why even in that cautious and temperate country there had been complaints about incomplete justice and unsatisfactory arrangements, notwithstanding that a complete addition to the representation of Scotland formed a part of the Government proposition. What would be likely to be the result in Ireland at the present time if opportunities were constantly occurring for bringing up every imaginary grievance for inquiry and discussion? Could they safely discuss now how
  716
  much the franchise should to be lowered and how many persons should be admitted? Was this a time for admitting a number of new electors within the pale of the constitution, when the palladium of liberty was suppressed by the concurrence and desire of all friends of the British Constitution? He trusted that the Government would still pause in pressing forward a very comprehensive change, though, when the time came, he should be glad to see a proper extension of rights to those who had maintained their loyalty. He regarded the measure of last year as very unsatisfactory. At the Census of 1861 the whole population of Ireland was 5,790,000, and the population of Ulster was 1,915,000, or about one-third of the whole; but of 105 Members for Ireland, Ulster returned only 29, while its population and wealth would entitle it to one-third; Munster, with a population of 1,500,000, had 27 Members; and Leinster, with a population of 1,457,000, had 34 Members. He might compare the province of Ulster, again, with Scotland. The latter had a population of 3,062,000, and 53 Members, while Ulster with a population of 1,915,000, had only 29 Members. This being so, the representation of Ulster should amount to 40 Members; and there were several growing towns there of from 7,000 to 10,000 inhabitants, which were now wholly unrepresented. In England they were taking Members from the South and transferring them to the North, and the same thing should be done in Ireland. The opinion in the North of Ireland was in favour of any measure being a well-considered one; and he believed that the proposition of the Government would afford the best opportunity for full investigation and for the framing of an impartial measure. The hon. Member for Tralee said the Irish Reform Bill must be passed before a dissolution took place; but that might easily be done, seeing that the hon. Member for Nottingham had stated that there need not be a dissolution for the next two years.
  MR. COGANwished to know whether the reasons assigned by the hon. Member who last spoke were those which had actuated the Government. If the postponement of the Bill was consequent on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, it was strange that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, up to Whitsuntide, have repeatedly promised to introduce the measure, and should only have woke up during the short recess, like a political

  717
  Rip Van Winkle, to the consciousness that exceptional circumstances existed in Ireland. On the very night before the recess the right hon. Gentleman stated his readiness even to postpone the third reading of the English Reform Bill in order to secure the introduction of the Irish measure. Was the promise thus solemnly made to be kept or not? The character of our Statesmen was part of the inheritance of the country, and the public would expect the fulfilment of this engagement. It might be found, too, that it would have been wiser to allow the measure to be introduced and dealt with in the present Parliament, than by one elected under what the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) styled this magnificent measure, for such an assembly was likely to be a good deal more democratic in its character and feeling, and consequently the policy it formed would probably be more Radical. He trusted that re-consideration might induce the Government to place their measure on the table, and by so doing show that they were not afraid to develope their Irish policy. It was clear that the postponment of the measure was not ascribable to the lateness of the period at which the Session had arrived, because the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) with one of those searching and inconvenient questions which his ingenuity devises, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the postponement were on account of the lateness of the Session, and the answer was that there was no intention of introducing a Reform Bill relating to Ireland. He appealed to all the true Reformers in the House to say whether they were prepared to acquiesce in the postponement of the measure, and to accept what, in fact, would be a slight and insult to one third of the United Kingdom.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The right hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion to-night appeared to consider that there were two causes for the postponement of the Irish Reform Bill by the Government, and the first is the occurrence of some elections that took place last autumn in Ireland, in the county of Tipperary particularly, where the election was, I believe, such as elections in the county of Tipperary generally are, and which I certainly think could not be alleged as any valid reason for the administration postponing a measure of Reform for the sister isle. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: I said nothing of that kind.] There was, I believe, another election for
  718
  another county, and that occurred in the last autumn. It is certainly remarkable that we should be influenced by these occurrence; and that I should have, on the part of the Government, made a declaration as to our policy with regard to Ireland and Parliamentary Reform at a subsequent day, and that I should afterwards, and much more recently, have repeated it. I think that the House will agree, upon candid consideration, that whatever were the motives for our conduct, we certainly could not have adopted the course which we have done with regard to the Irish Bill in consequence of the elections of last autumn. Hardly anybody, I should think, except the right hon. Gentleman who made that the chief foundation of his argument, can seriously think that that is the reason for the course we have pursued.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I made no use of that argument. I referred to those elections for a totally different purpose.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then I will come to the next, which I will, in courtesy, call the stronger argument. It may not have been the autumnal elections, which, though we have heard a great deal of, seem not to have been attended by any extraordinary circumstances. It was the deputation of Irish Members that I had the honour of seeing. [Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: Hear, hear!] I am glad to hear that cheer from the hon. and learned Baronet, who has been more constant in his cheering to-night than any other Member of the House; but whose cheers have not, except in this single instance, been given to any remark from this side of the House. I gather from this cheer that the deputation is the recognized cause of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Well, Sir, it is quite true that I had the honour of receiving a deputation of various Members for Ireland, who wished to confer with me on the subject of the Irish Reform Bill, In the first place, however, may be allowed to say that that deputation, if I recollect right, was received by me before I made that last statement to the House with respect to the intentions of the Government, which has been so often referred to in the course of this discussion; and I hardly think that the most implacable foes of the Government would think that they could be so absurd and short-sighted as to make a statement of that kind after receiving the

  719
  deputation, if the representations of that deputation were the real cause of our policy. Well, I had the honour of receiving that deputation, composed of a considerable number of Gentlemen connected with the representation of Ireland—I receive a great many deputations, and I can assure the House that, as a general rule, I prefer Irish deputations to any other. There is something so genial about Irish Gentlemen, their conversation is so agreeable to those who have the anxieties of public life, there is something so inspiriting in their presence, that an Irish deputation is the exception to all other deputations, and I look forward to it with pleasurable anticipations which are seldom disappointed. My recollection of this deputation is peculiarly genial. The interview, though short, was most agreeable and animated; but when the deputation had left me, my mind recurred to the alleged principal cause of our most agreeable meeting, and then I remembered it was probably my own fault that we had never touched upon the real subject of the interview. Therefore I assure hon. Members on both sides that there is no foundation whatever for that principal alleged cause of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which has been the principal theme of this evening's discussion. Our policy has not been caused either by the elections of the autumn, or by the representations of the deputation to me. Then what has caused it? I will very frankly and distinctly state how the case really stands. We were very anxious to deal with the question of the Irish representation in the same spirit generally as we have dealt with that of England and Scotland. We made no promise of passing the Irish Bill this year; but it would have been satisfactory to us to have introduced the Bill, and, perhaps, to have been enabled to read it a second time. I need not inform the House that we have had to deal with circumstances in Ireland very different from those with which our predecessors have had to deal in treating the same subject. Everyone will acknowledge that the circumstances of Ireland, since we have been in office, have been of peculiar difficulty and anxiety; but I think that no one can accuse the present Government of being alarmists on the subject. We have not come down to the House of Commons unnecessarily to preach terror at the state of public affairs. If we can be charged with justice of any default of conduct in that respect I think, it may be by
  720
  those who are not so intimately acquainted with all the details of business as ourselves. We may be charged by such persons, and with apparent justice, with taking too sanguine a view of the state, and temper, and general condition of the affairs of Ireland. When Parliament met, the House will recollect that, in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, under our advice Her Majesty did not ask for a renewal of those extraordinary powers intrusted to us, and which none of our greatest opponents can for a moment pretend to have been used in a spirit unworthy of us. I hope we may say for our ourselves that we have, so far as we could in our general system of Irish Government, evinced a spirit not distinguished by illiberality or by a spirit of tyranny. We had to deal with circumstances of great public perplexity, and involving great responsibility and no slight danger to the state; but they have been encountered in a spirit, I hope, of firmness and moderation, and on no occasion have we come down to this House and endeavoured to excite the feeling of exaggerated alarm. And although the Cabinet were unanimous in desiring that a measure of Parliamentary Reform for Ireland should be placed upon the table this year, and that a general outline of their policy should be made known, yet circumstances have occurred, to which I need not more particularly allude, because they must be fresh in the minds and memories of all, which would have retarded and affected the general character of the measure if we, at that moment, persisted in introducing it. Notwithstanding the grave occurrences which took place, we had reason to believe that, on the whole, we might have pursued with safety the policy we originally indicated. One speaks of such subjects with great reserve, and one ought to do so; but the Government of this country, so far as Ireland is concerned, have had to deal with external influences, so that the freedom of the Government to act in anything affecting the rights and liberties of the people of Ireland ought not to be decided on by a judgment drawn from a careful observation of the mere internal circumstances of the country, which may be deceptive; but that judgment may be modified, changed, and arrested in a moment by information of an external character, which must exercise considerable influence on the course of the Government. Until Whitsuntide there were moments when I certainly looked with some anxiety

  721
  on this question of Parliamentary Reform. The Cabinet, although sharing this anxiety, were still constant in their policy to bring forward a measure for the reform of the Irish representation, characterized by that spirit of confidence in which they wished originally the measure to be distinguished. The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us has said that until Whitsuntide we felt ourselves justified in holding this language, and that something must have happened very suddenly, because when Parliament met again we changed our course. Well, something did happen, and it was necessary for the Cabinet to re-consider its course. I may be permitted to say that the first question before we met Parliament again which engaged the attention of the Cabinet was this question of Parliamentary Reform for Ireland. It was then the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet that it was not the duty of the Cabinet to bring forward the measure of Parliamentary Reform that was due to Ireland and due to themselves; for they could not, with the information they then possessed, and with the general views and conditions of what I may call the impending circumstances at that time—they could not bring forward such a measure as they had originally intended. Let us look, irrespective of those circumstances, to after Whitsuntide—what was the position of the Government in respect to this measure of Parliamentary Reform, so far as being able to proceed with it and make any great progress this year? That was quite impossible. Everyone knows that if the state of Ireland had been as serene as the state of Scotland; and if none of those circumstances to which I have been enabled only darkly to allude did exist, it was still quite impossible, with the immense labour then entailed upon the Government by the measure of Parliamentary Reform for England, and the time it required in this House, to suppose that we could make any progress with the Irish Reform Bill in this House. All that we could have done would have been to have had the satisfaction of putting on the table a Bill. And in quiet times, if we could have put that Bill upon the table, as we had hoped to be able to do, it would have been a great satisfaction to the Government, and, perhaps, a source of strength to us. But circumstances occurring which did not authorize us to put the Bill on the table, was it not better to wait six or eight months, that must have elapsed without any progress being made in that
  722
  Bill, and then, when Parliament met again, and when, perhaps, the cloud was dispelled, to come forward with a Bill such as we originally contemplated, for the improvement of the representation of Ireland? ["Oh, oh!" from the Irish Members.] Well, in such a case, we must decide on our own judgment. It was no slight responsibility, and we did not shrink from it. What should we have done—what progress could we have made if we had forced on some scheme of Irish Parliamentary Reform which would not have represented our original intentions, and which must have been modified and changed by the state of affairs in Ireland, or which might occur in Ireland? There are other exceptional circumstances in regard to this country which ought not to be forgotten, and which, allow me to impress upon you, had not been experienced by our predecessors. No Government have had to deal of late years with the circumstances which we have lately had to encounter, and which had mainly influenced our conduct. Let us look to the position of Ireland with regard to this question of Reform. No one will contend that the claims of Ireland for Parliamentary Reform are greater than those of Scotland. No Irishman even will pretend that they are so great. The wants and requirements of Ireland in respect to Parliamentary representation have, since 1832, once or twice occupied the attention of Parliament. Ireland has for a long time been in the enjoyment of that very county franchise which it is now only projected that England should enjoy. The claims of Scotland to our attention, we must acknowledge, are much greater than those of Ireland. The claims of Scotland were not, perhaps, sufficiently considered in 1832; but certainly nothing since then has been done to improve the representation of Scotland, Something, however, has been done to improve the representation of England. We have disfranchised more than one corrupt borough in England, and transferred the seats to other communities; but, so far as I know, nothing has been done to improve the representation of Scotland, either by the extension of the franchise or the increase of her representatives. Every one knows, although we have introduced a Reform Bill for Scotland, that our chance of passing it this Session is very slight. Many of those Scotch Members, even though they be our political opponents, will do us the justice of believing that we are acting with sincerity, and doing our duty in

  723
  that respect. I wish I could induce the Irish Members to extend to us their indulgence and confidence in their own case. Whatever the faults of the Government may be, we can assure those Members that they are not influenced by the elections that have occurred in Ireland, nor by the representations of deputations of Irish gentlemen. The Government have had from the very first a desire to introduce a Bill for the representation of Ireland that would do justice to that country and give general satisfaction. Under any circumstances it was not possible this Session to have made any advance on that question. The Government could only have placed on the table of the House a general indication of their policy. I have now expressed, frankly and truly, the reasons which influenced us in the course we have taken, and which ultimately led us to think that it was not consistent with our duty to our Sovereign, our country, and ourselves, to place any measure for the improvement of the representation of Ireland on the table of the House this year. We know that by the course we have taken no substantial injury has been done to Ireland, because no real delay has taken place; and we look forward with confidence and hope—if we occupy these seats next year—that when Parliament meets, one of our first and one of our most agreeable duties will be to bring forward a Bill to improve the representation of Ireland.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I hope that this debate will not continue to be a debate divided exclusively between the official Members of the House and the Irish Members. I certainly, for one, feel the force of the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue). He spoke, and spoke with truth, of the loyal support which a large number of the Members from Ireland have yielded, under circumstances not the most favourable, to the cause of Parliamentary Reform; and, so far as I may presume to give an answer to that appeal, I should say it must be a primary duty on the part of those who are interested in the question of Reform on behalf of England, and also on behalf of Scotland, to prosecute their work until the just claims of Ireland have also been satisfied. Now, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in some respects, I think, throws light upon this subject. I think we are justified in inferring from that speech that Her Majesty's Government intend at the commencement of the
  724
  next Session to prosecute a measure of Parliamentary Reform for Ireland. And so far I have no doubt his declaration will have given satisfaction, in comparison with the far more vague and general terms which on at least one former occasion, possibly without intending it, he appeared to use; and therefore, Sir, I hope that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), having the prospect of a measure of Parliamentary Reform for Ireland at the commencement of the next Session, will not deem it necessary to challenge the judgment of the House on the Motion which he has now made. It would, I think, be passing beyond that line of duty which he has so carefully observed, were he to attempt to force Her Majesty's Government on a point such as that which now alone remains for discussion. But, having said that, I cannot but still adhere to the opinion that Her Majesty's Government have judged and have acted unwisely in not producing a measure of Parliamentary Reform for Ireland. I do not care to inquire minutely whether the necessity for such a reform was precisely the same in the three countries. It is quite enough to say that in each of the three countries it was necessary; and the Bill which was passed for Ireland some sixteen years ago was a Bill not so much intended to advance Ireland to a position more advantageous than that of England and Scotland, as to remove the special disadvantages under which, up to that moment, the Irish people had laboured. Undoubtedly the operation of that Bill has not been to place Ireland in a greatly better position with regard to popular representation than either of those two countries. But it is quite enough—perhaps I might even say it is more than enough—to say that for all the three countries Reform is necessary, and being for all three a subject necessary to be entertertained, it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to produce, during the discussions on the English Bill, their plans for Ireland. It was due, I venture to say, to Ireland in point of feeling that she should be convinced that she was to receive equality of treatment. It was due to England, and to those who were engaged in considering the English Bill, that they should know the views of the Government in regard to Scotland and Ireland; and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and those who sit behind him, what they think would have been said in the

  725
  year 1866, when we were in office, had we endeavoured to escape from the obligation to produce an Irish Bill at the same time that we were dealing with the question for Scotland and England? It is true that an hon. Member has declared that my right hon. Friend was not entitled to arbitrate on this matter because his Bill was so bad a measure. But if it was so bad a measure for Ireland, that was an additional reason why the present Government should produce a good measure on the subject. If my right hon. Friend introduced a bad measure, Ireland was wronged by it, and the redress of that wrong ought to have been an additional motive with the present Government to bring forward their measure. Sir, the promise of Her Majesty's Government was a promise on which we bad implicitly relied. No disposition was shown to force them forward with undue haste; but, undoubtedly, had we been aware that, at a late period of the Session, the Government would announce their intention not to produce a Bill, I think much earlier notice would have been taken of the matter in a distinct and substantive form, and the principle would have been asserted that on every ground the views of the Executive with regard to Reform in Ireland were essential to be known, in order to place this House in a position of due advantage with reference to the settlement of this great question for England and Scotland. But while I think the determination of the Government was greatly to be regretted, much more do I regret the reason on which the right hon. Gentleman founded that determination. The right hon. Gentleman says he has had to deal with Ireland under circumstances very different from those encountered by his predecessors. I do not care to enter into the amount of that difference. The Government may perhaps be in a condition fairly to urge that they feel their tongues are tied, and it is not in their power consistently with public duty to explain it, But undoubtedly, as far as the public are aware, they will not recognize the difference which the right hon. Gentleman supposes to exist, We have had to bring forward the subject of Reform at the moment when we were proposing for the first time the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has had to bring it forward at the moment when he was proposing to continue that suspension. If he says, "Yes; but there have been partial outbreaks in Ireland this year which did
  726
  not occur last year," the answer is obvious; that it was during those partial outbreaks that he assured us he would bring in a measure of Reform for Ireland. But I wish frankly to grapple with this question in a broader shape, and I say at once that, in my opinion, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the consequence of those unhappy though slight outbreaks in Ireland, and the indications of disaffection among the people there, were not a reason why a measure of Reform should not have been produced, but were the very strongest reason why it should. For how is it to be supposed that we are to deal with Ireland? Are we to trust to holding Ireland by an external force and pressure, or to trust to holding it by the free conviction and the warm affection of the people? If it is by the conviction and the affection of the people that we are to hold Ireland, then I say that to propose for Ireland an improvement in its system of popular representation was of itself a means of assisting the Government in maintaining order in that country. One hon. Gentleman has, I think, said that it would have been most imprudent to offer a measure which would have been regarded by discontented persons as a theme of new dissatisfaction. But what does it matter, Sir, what views persons who are obstinately discontented may take? What we wish to do is to offer satisfaction to those who are reasonable and loyal. We admit that the representation of Ireland is in an unsatisfactory condition; and surely it is the strangest of all anomalies and paradoxes to say, when the people of Ireland generally have cause to complain if we show Blackness in regard to applying a remedy to a state of things confessedly defective, that on account of the discontent of those persons against whom your measure of repression has been directed the reasonable expectations of good and loyal citizens are to be frustrated, or their fulfilment postponed. I confess I am quite at a loss to know what reasoning can be urged in answer to this. Undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman has urged no reesoning whatever in answer to it. He appears to have assumed that the very fact that there has been discontent among a portion of the people was a reason for the withdrawal or the postponement of his Bill. If there was a meaning in the declations of the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that that was their meaning. I admit to him at once that we cannot suppose

  727
  that during the present Session he would have been able to make progress with that Bill. That is an admission which I think fairness and justice demand. But I think, independently of the other reasons that have been pointed out, the production of a measure of Reform for Ireland would have been an engagement on the part of the Government towards that country, which would not only have been a fulfilment of the just expectations of the people, but would have actually tended to strengthen the hands of the Government in what I acknowledge to have been the arduous task of administering the affairs of Ireland in the present year. I cannot but think, therefore, that Her Majesty's Ministers have misjudged both the true exigencies of the case and also their duties under these circumstances. But, at any rate, the question having been reduced within narrow bounds, it ought not to be exaggerated; avid least of all at a time like this should any step be taken that would appear to have the slightest tendency to connect it with our ordinary distinctions of party in this House. Therefore, passing on from that which relates to past times, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance he has given us with respect to the future. I hope that this measure of Reform for Ireland, when it appears, will be found to have been conceived in a just and liberal spirit. We must look not to this part of the country or to that. I think there might be some reason to question the expression of one hon. Member opposite, who said he did not think there was any great anxiety for Reform in Ireland, but trusted that when the Reform Bill for Ireland did appear it would be satisfactory to the loyal and contented portion of that country—a portion, as I understood him, rather geographically defined. Sir, I know of no geographical distinctions in Ireland whatever having reference to the loyalty and contentment of the people. I think we must decline to accept any such geographical distinction. I trust the measure of Her Majesty's Government, when it is presented to us, will be found to have been framed on broader and more impartial views, and to aim at giving a full and fair development to popular influences in the representation of Ireland, and, above all, will be free from that most odious of all imputations of favour to this or that interest or class or sect in a country whose unhappy divisions can never be cured except by the firm
  728
  and impartial application of considerations of liberality and justice.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEthought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman furnished a most remarkable instance of misapprehension of the state of Ireland. For his own part he could see no reason to suppose that the disloyalty or the want of prosperity which prevailed in that country were in any way to be attributed to the absence of a Reform Bill. Indeed, the greater portion of the speech which the late Chief Secretary for Ireland had made last year on the subject went to show that, whatever might be the case with regard to England and Scotland, Ireland hardly stood in need of a measure of Reform at all; and when the right hon. Member for South Lancashire contended that she required additional popular representation, he should like to know whether he referred to the counties or the boroughs. As to the borough franchise, he could not for a moment suppose that so small an alteration as that which had been proposed in it last year would make much difference in the happiness and prosperity of Ireland; while, in the South, the reduction of the county franchise would only tend to throw additional power into the hands of the landlords. The allocation of seats, he might add, was a question of much less importance in Ireland than in England, because there there was no large town unrepresented, and when it was borne in mind that the habeas corpus was suspended in Ireland, he could not help thinking that it would be admitted no more improper time than the present for the introduction of an Irish Reform Bill could be selected. No blame was therefore, he maintained, to be attributed to the Government for not having brought in such a measure this Session.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE VOLUNTEERS.—RESOLUTION.
CAPTAIN VIVIANrose to call the attention of the House to the Circular lately issued by the War Department defining the duties of Volunteers in case of riot. Before introducing the subject, he observed that no doubt the alteration of the hour of sitting on Tuesdays and Fridays had been beneficial to the discharge of public business; but its effect on private Members had been to extinguish them, on account of the late hour before they could bring forward their Motions at the Evening Sittings.

729
Although the hour was late he hoped the House would give him its attention for a short time whilst he brought before it the Motion of which he had given notice. He did not mean to condemn the whole of the Circular, and if it had been confined to the first four paragraphs and the last, no objection could have been taken to it, Taking, however, the first paragraph in connection with the answer given by the Secretary of State for War to a question put to him on a former occasion, it would appear that he either had no confidence in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, or in the interpretation which he (the Secretary of State for War) had given to it. The five paragraphs to which he had alluded contained all that was necessary for the Volunteer corps. The fifth paragraph was, comparatively speaking, harmless; but he thought it contained more than was required. In it he thought the Secretary of State for War had trenched on the duties of the Home Office, because it was not usual for the War Office to lay down duties, conditions, and circumstances under which special constables might be called on to act. He now came to the serious part of the document; and he complained of it in the interests of the Volunteer corps, because it would destroy the popularity of that force. The sixth paragraph of the Circular stated—
"In cases of dangerous riots and disturbances, for instance, in case of insurrection or of riots having for their object the commission of felonious acts or the subversion of the civil Government, the civil authority may call upon and require Her Majesty's subjects generally, including Volunteers, to arm themselves with and use such other weapons of defence or attack as may be in their power and may be suitable to the occasion, and such other weapons may be used accordingly by Her Majesty's subjects, including Volunteers, according to the necessity of the occasion."
Now, he wanted to know who was to define to the Volunteers what was a "dangerous" riot as distinguished from a common riot, and who was to say whether a riot or insurrection had for its object the commission of felonious acts before the felonious acts were committed? He wanted to know what the Attorney General considered a felonious act? Did he think that the breaking into a house and gutting it constituted a felonious act? It was his misfortune to be a member of an Election Committee appointed to try a petition from Nottingham. The petition contained a charge of riot, which was not proved to the satisfaction of the Committee; but it was
730
proved that in more than one instance mobs broke into houses, entirely destroyed the furniture, and broke all the windows. They so frightened the inhabitants that, in one instance, a committee were obliged to escape from a hole in the roof of the house. Was that a felonious act, and would the Volunteers have been justified in interfering in the election riots of Nottingham? The Circular went on to state that—
"Fire arms should be the last weapon called into action, and should only be resorted to in cases when, without their use, it would be practically impossible to quell the disturbance."
But this Instruction did not stand alone. The eighth paragraph of the Circular stated that Volunteers, in acting as special constables or otherwise for suppressing and quelling riots were entitled to use and put in action such knowledge and practice of military discipline and organization as they might possess, for the purpose of making their combined strength and the use of such weapons as the occasion might justify more effectual. The climax of the Circular was the ninth paragraph, which stated—
"Her Majesty's subjects, including Volunteers, in cases in which it is proper for them to act for the suppression of riots, should act, if it be practicable, under the direction of the civil authority; but they will not be released from the obligation to use their reasonable endeavours for the suppression of riots and disturbances, according to the necessities of the occasion, if magistrates should not be present, or not within the roach of immediate communication when any such occasion arises."
Now, there never was a more dangerous doctrine than that which was contained in this paragraph, and if it were suffered to remain without explanation or Amendment, it would strike a death-blow at the Volunteer force. He had already pointed out the complete ignorance in which this instruction left the Volunteers of how they were to act in cases of emergency. But in this last paragraph it was laid down that the Volunteers might be called upon to use their arms against the people without the orders of the civil authority, and he mustadd that this was attempted to be laid down by as Jesuitical a piece of special pleading—he did not use the word offensively—as he had ever seen in any public document. The Circular, moreover, stated distinctly that the Volunteer officers were to be the judges of what was and was not insurrection. Now, he had always thought that in domestic disturbances in this country the military were absolutely subservient to the civil authority. The statement in the Circular

731
was interpreted by a large body of Volunteers—rank and file as well as officers—to mean that the Volunteer force might be called out and employed independently of the civil power, and that Volunteer officers, although no civil authority was near, might be called on to judge what was or was not an insurrection, and might tell their troops to fire on the people. Such a document as the Circular was calculated to create a war of classes. The Volunteer force had hitherto been considered the defenders of the people against foreign invasion; but, henceforth, they might well be looked on as the possible enemies of the people, and as possible instruments in the hands of an unscrupulous Government. He only spoke in reference to the way in which the document might be interpreted, not supposing that the Government, when they framed it, had any such idea in their mind. If once the belief was destroyed that the Volunteer corps was only a force against foreign invasion their popularity would be gone, and he should not be surprised if the document he had been commenting on caused a large retirement of men from the Volunteer force. He had a great admiration of the force, knowing how valuable it was, and he therefore hoped that it was only from inadvertence that such a mischievous document had been circulated. He trusted that the Government would withdraw it, or that the House, at any rate, would, by adopting his Resolution, show that it differed from the Government in its view respecting the duties of the Volunteer force.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Volunteer Force was established solely for the purpose of security against Foreign Invasion, and that the Members of that force, in cases of domestic tumult or disturbance, have no obligations or duties distinct from those of other Citizens, and are in such cases no more than any other Citizen liable to orders or instructions from the Military or Civil Authorities,"—(Captain Vivian,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it appeared to him that the hon. and gallant Member had not read the Circular with sufficient attention. The hon. and gallant Member had stated that the Volunteer officers might, according to the Circular,
732
be called on in cases of riot to command the Volunteers to act without the authority of the civil power, and that the Volunteers might be called on to act as Volunteers in case of riot. This was a most singular interpretation of the document. It was emphatically stated in one of the earlier parts of the Circular that the civil authority was not in any case entitled to call upon or order the Volunteers to act as a military body, with or without arms, in the preservation of the peace. This was not repeated in every paragraph, but it governed the whole of the document. But they were also told that they were not released from the ordinary duties of Her Majesty's subjects; and the Circular pointed out the duties which in the preservation of the peace were incumbent on all Her Majesty's subjects. It pointed to extreme cases that might arise, which must be handled with delicacy, and showed that Volunteers were not exonerated from the discharge of those duties that necessity might impose, and which must be performed with the same responsibility by them as by other of Her Majesty's subjects. Great care was taken upon this point. That was the view of Her Majesty's Government and of the Law Officers. And so with the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member. Every word of it might be adopted. It appeared, indeed, as if it had been borrowed from, the terms of the Circular itself. The Circular was in entire harmony with it. The first four paragraphs were not objected to, and the only objection to the fifth paragraph was that it was not issued by the Home Secretary. He thought the fifth paragraph must also be approved, always bearing in mind that what governed the whole was this—that, as a military body, the Volunteers could not be called on to act under any circumstances, however extreme. The Circular went on to point out what was their duty, not as a military body, but as a portion of Her Majesty's subjects; and it particularized what, in case of riot, would be the duties of special constables, whether they were Volunteers or not. The hon. Member asked for a definition of a felonious act. Did he suppose that the Circular could point out instances?
CAPTAIN VIVIANhad asked how any one could tell before an act was committed whether it would be felonious or not.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: That must be judged from the animus which was seen to prevail at the moment, If a

733
number of men complained of some common being enclosed to which they thought they had a right, and assembled round the paling threatening to pull it down, it did not want any great insight to determine from their motive that they were not about to commit a felonious act; but if they evinced a design with a view to plunder, or to the subversion of civil authority, to pull down houses and commit acts of that kind, these were felonious acts. He did not think it possible in a Circular to do more than point out that in certain extreme cases measures would be justifiable which in less extreme cases would not. The nature of the proceedings would teach them under responsibility to the law what course was to be taken, and necessity would justify what they did. The Volunteers were not exempted from those duties which all Her Majesty's subjects were bound to fulfil. There could he no other directions or instructions. Volunteers could not be called upon, under any circumstances, to act as a military force; but they were not exempted from the duties generally of Her Majesty's subjects. He said there was nothing more than that in this Circular, and it was right. He would take the sixth paragraph—
"In cases of serious and dangerous riots and disturbances, for instance, in case of insurrection or riots having for their object the commission of felonious acts or the subversion of the civil government, the civil authority may call upon and require"—
What?—
"Her Majesty's subjects generally, including Volunteers, to arm themselves with and use such other weapons of defence or attack as may be in their power and may be suitable to the occasion, and such other weapons may be used accordingly by Her Majesty's subjects," again "including Volunteers, according to the necessity of the occasion."
Then the seventh paragraph—
"Firearms should be the last weapons so to be called into action, and should be resorted to only in cases when, without their use, it would be practically impossible to quell the disturbance."
These paragraphs were addressed not more to one than the other; they applied not to Volunteers only, but to all Her Majesty's subjects called on to assist in preserving the peace. So with regard to the ninth paragraph, the governing idea was that—
"Her Majesty's subjects, including Volunteers, in cases in which it is proper for them to act for the suppression of riots, should act, if it be practicable, under the direction of the civil authority; but they will not be released from the obligation to use their reasonable endeavour for the suppression
734
of riots and disturbances according to the necessities of the occasion, if magistrates should not be present or not within reach of immediate communication when any such occasion arises."
The Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member, though borrowed from the Circular, merely said what the duties of the force were not; it did not go on to say what the duties of Her Majesty's subjects were; but it was necessary to say that. It was quite right to say that the Volunteers had no obligations as a military force except in case of invasion; but it was necessary to say that Her Majesty's subjects had certain duties to discharge from which Volunteers were not exempted.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the hon. and learned Attorney General had certainly succeeded in explaining away many of the objections to the Instructions issued from the War Office; and if the Volunteers were to read the Instructions, with his comments, and possessed sufficient legal knowledge to understand them, possibly any objection to the Instructions might be removed. But the explanation of the instructions left on his mind the impression that the Secretary for War had somewhat forgotten his position in the matter. What the commanding officers of the Volunteer forces wanted was, not a merely legal opinion as to what Her Majesty's subjects, Volunteers or others, might do in certain cases, but definite orders from the Secretary for War as to what they were to do under difficult and possible eventualities. The Secretary for War could not release himself from the responsibility of being the commanding officer of the Volunteers. Their position was a difficult one. The force was formed on the understanding that it was not to be used except to resist invasion, and that it was not to put down riots, and that was the understanding on winch the force was legalized and supported by Parliament. On the other hand, they feel that if any appeal is made to them in case of a disturbance, and in the absence of any definite instructions from the Secretary at War, they refuse to accede to the appeal, they will stand in a position which honourable men and men of spirit were not to be expected to bear. That being the case, what was wanted were definite orders from the Secretary for War. He would defy any commanding officer to make out from the Instructions what he was to do in case of riot. An hon. Friend of his had most pertinently asked how was a commanding officer to know whether a riot or

735
a disturbance was serious or dangerous? According to the Attorney General a commanding officer was not to see a house pulled down; but if he was to interfere in every case in which a house might be pulled down, the arrangement on which the Volunteer vote was granted was at an end. The Circular said the Volunteers were not to act as a military body, a phrase which betrayed its legal origin; and yet it said—
"All Her Majesty's subjects, including Volunteers, in acting either as special constables, or otherwise, for suppressing and quelling riots, are entitled to use and put in action such knowledge and practice of military discipline and organization as they may possess, for the purpose of making their combined strength, and the use of such weapons as the occasion may justify, more effectual."
The Attorney General passed lightly over this, speaking of such knowledge as the Volunteers possessed, and not of their knowledge of military discipline. What was the meaning of military discipline, if it did not imply the giving of orders? When the Volunteers were placed in such a difficult position it was not fair, and scarcely generous of the War Office to send them out such Instructions, stating on the one hand that they could not act as a military body, and that officers had no power over their men, and, on the other, that they might use such knowledge of military discipline as they possessed. How was an unfortunate man to know what to do? Placed in this position he might use tremendous force and fire volleys with destructive effect. He fancied the Secretary for War had not considered all that this instruction might imply. If Volunteers were to be used as an armed force under any circumstances let an Act be brought in to to provide for their acting under officers. He could not conceive anything more dangerous than a body of Volunteers being used in the way that these Instructions contemplated, not as a military body, but as a force armed with dangerous weapons, acting as neighbours against neighbours, and that with the knowledge of, but without the power to put in practice, military discipline. Firing might begin and nobody have the power to stop it. The House might think that dangerous circumstances were unlikely to arise; but they had arisen at Sheffield, after the Chester raid. On an alarm occasioned by an anonymous letter, which might have been a hoax, Volunteer officers met, kept men under arms all night, and caused musketry and field ammunition
736
to be served out to them. Suppose the matter had gone further, what might have happened? Something much more definite than this legal opinion was required to guide men under these circumstances. The Instructions might have been shorter and clearer. If the Secretary for War had informed the Volunteers that the Act of Parliament gave them no power over other men in case of civil disturbance; and that he therefore confirmed the Instructions issued by his predecessor, Lord Herbert, which states that the Volunteer force is not intended to be used on the occurrence of local disturbances, that might have been sufficient. Perhaps it might have been added that Volunteers were not released from their duties as citizens. What they required to know exactly was what they were to do with their arms. They were responsible to the Secretary for War for use of them, and he was responsible to the country for the use they made of them. They ought to have been told that they were not to use their arms for any purpose not contemplated by the Volunteer Act without the authority of the Secretary for War. We were, perhaps, too apprehensive of such an emergency as a Fenian attack; but in such a case it should be impossible for the Volunteers to use their arms except upon a special order from the central Government, which Parliament would afterwards indemnify. While he would not let it be said we should not make use of Volunteers on extraordinary occasions, he would not neutralize and destroy the value of the force by making it ordinarily available. The feeling of the House, of the country, and of Volunteer officers would convince the Government they had better withdraw the instructions, and issue short and precise rules which could be understood.
COLONEL NORTH, referring to the Chester raid, said, that if it was not an invasion it was like one, because the town was visited by American and Irish strangers, whose object was understood to be the capture of the castle, and the appropriation of the arms stored there. He quite agreed that, as a rule, the Volunteer force should not be employed to act as a military body in cases of common disturbance; but, for his own part, if he had had the command of a body of Volunteers on such an occasion as that of the threatened attack on Chester Castle, he should certainly have felt it his bounden duty to call upon them to act as a military body. It

737
might be advisable that, where it was possible, the Secretary of State should issue an order; but surely, on a sudden emergency, it would become the duty of the officer of the Volunteers to determine whether it was his duty to call on his men to act. Many years ago, in 1829, 1830, and 1831, during a state of things which never happened now, and which he trusted would never recur, the military were in constant collision with the people in the manufacturing districts. The interpretation which he put upon this Circular was, that if a body of Volunteers in plain clothes and armed with constables' staves were found together it would be for the public benefit that they should take advantage of their military knowledge, as far as drill went, and act against the mob. He had never left his barrack square on that most painful of all duties to a British officer to act against his fellow-countrymen that he did not feel conscious of the great responsibility which rested on the soldiers. Notwithstanding the reproach too often cast upon English soldiers respecting their anxiety to shoot at their fellow-countrymen—["No, no!"]—Well, was not that constantly stated in the House? His own opinion was that, except in cases like that of Bristol, where it became necessary that the military should act with vigour, a battalion of Volunteers armed with staves would be more effective than regular soldiers, because the latter were always most reluctant to fire upon the people, even when called upon to do so. As to the present Circular, he thought that, as far as the Volunteers were concerned, the first four clauses and the last clause were very safe. He might remark that most of the commanders of Volunteer battalions were also magistrates; and therefore the question was, whether under certain circumstances they could act as magistrates or simply as officers in such cases, and whether they would or would not have to call in the aid of the civil magistrates to direct them? With regard to questions of this nature some further explanation was needed; but he must state that these regulations had been drawn up for the purpose of conveying general and not definite information. As a rule, Volunteers ought not to be employed, in his opinion; under any circumstances in a common riot; but in extreme cases, such as that of the Bristol riot, it became necessary that every citizen should exert himself to the utmost, and that the Volunteers should be called
738
out as an armed body. In such a case, if he were in command of a battalion of Volunteers, he should act in a military point of view, and then take his chance as to whether his conduct was subsequently approved or not.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were very difficult to satisfy on this subject. The other night the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had addressed to him some questions which he answered as fully as he could, and in a manner which he believed was satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman himself. He would only add that questions of law were mixed up with the subject, and it consequently became necessary that the regulations should be examined from a legal point of view. Afterwards the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) gave notice of a Motion relating to this matter, and the moment he saw it he stated that he did not see the slightest objection to it, because he thought it was in accordance with the spirit and intention of these regulations, and because, not being a lawyer, he thought it was also in accordance with the letter of the regulations. His hon. and gallant Friend had now brought forward his Motion, which had been met by a very clear and able statement on the part of the hon. and learned Attorney General, The hon. Member for Bradford appeared to have listened with great surprise to the statement, and had expressed his opinion that it was very clear in regard to the law on the subject. Indeed, it appeared to dispose so entirely of the imaginary difficulties which had been raised that the hon. Member for Bradford, in order to escape from his own difficulties, said—"I must turn to the Secretary of State for War. I must turn to somebody who is not a lawyer, and therefore I will ask the Secretary of State for War why he does not draw up some plain regulations for the guidance of the Volunteer force?" He would remind the hon. Member and the House of the origin of these regulations. The demand on the part of the House that Volunteers should not in cases of emergency be left in doubt as to their duties, arose, he believed, out of the occurrences at Chester, It thereupon became necessary for the War Department to frame some regulations on the subject, and the regulations which were drawn up were, very naturally, submitted to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The consequence was that the

739
original regulations were considerably altered, and assumed their present shape. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro had no objection to the first four or five regulations, and, consequently, the only question which could possibly arise was whether it would be politic to introduce the other regulations respecting the extreme cases which might arise? On the grounds which had been most ably stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he thought that in such a document the Volunteers ought to be told what it was their duty to do, not as soldiers, but as citizens, whenever extreme cases arose. The hon. Member for Bradford had asserted that the Volunteers were told in these regulations that they might act as an armed force; but he (Sir John Pakington) begged to deny that they were told they might do so. They were only told under what circumstances they might, as citizens, use their arms, and that was all. The hon. Gentleman said they should be told when and on what occasions they might use their arms; but the answer to that was that it was impossible beforehand to tell what might be the circumstances under which it might be the duty of Volunteers, as Englishmen and citizens, to use them. He maintained that the regulations were in exact accordance with the language of the present Resolution, and he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would agree that they were no more than ought to have been issued, and that if they had stated less, they would have been incomplete and inadequate to convey that instruction which Englishmen would require when extreme circumstances arose.
LORD ELCHOsaid, the feeling of uncertainty, and even of dissatisfaction, created by the Instructions under discussion was not confined to hon. Members of that House; for, at a meeting of the commanding officers of Volunteers in the metropolis held the other day, the question was incidentally raised, and a desire was then expressed that if possible something more definite should be laid down with regard to the position in which they were placed. No doubt it would be difficult to issue clear and definite Instructions that would apply to all cases which might arise; but he learnt from what had been said that night that the Government seemed inclined to follow the principle lain down in the Circular issued by Lord Herbert in June 1861, in which this paragraph appeared—
"I have also learned that in some cases Volunteer
740
corps have been called out in aid of the civil power on the occurrence of local disturbances; and I have to point out to you that the Volunteer Force is not intended to be employed in that manner, and it is inexpedient that they should be assembled on any such occasions."
It appeared to him, therefore, that the best course to adopt, under existing circumstances, would be to strike out passages 6, 7, 8, and 9 from the Instructions, and leave in passages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10. He recollected that when the Bill under which the Volunteers were embodied was under discussion in that House his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) stated that a case might arise of some great national emergency in which the Secretary of State might feel it to be his duty to stretch the law in order to preserve order. He did not think the discussion of to-night left any doubt that if such an emergency should arise, and that the Secretary of State did exercise extraordinary powers in the case of the Volunteers, the House would at once grant him an indemnity. Under these circumstances, he thought that if the paragraphs to which he referred were omitted the position of matters would be perfectly satisfactory.
MR. THOMAS HUGHESconcurred in the remarks made by the noble Lord who had just preceded him as to the omission of paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9. It appeared that a certain amount of responsibility rested upon the Volunteer officers, but that the law as it now stood gave them no power over their men in cases where that responsibility would be felt. He thought it would be better to return to the old law, and to give the Secretary of State power to call out the Volunteers in cases of emergency when they might be required to act as a military body.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that the Circular had been issued in consequence of applications from the Volunteers after the occurrence at Chester. He thought that as regarded the Volunteers, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 would be sufficient, because paragraphs 6, 7, and 9 did not apply to Volunteers particularly. They were Instructions to the civil authorities and Her Majesty's subjects generally.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALcould not but think that the Circular would be defective if the paragraphs which had been objected to were struck out. Would it be expedient in such a Circular only to tell the Volunteers a part of their duty? He

741
could not but think that a Circular issued to Volunteers should lay down general instructions as to the cases in which Volunteers or other persons were authorized to use the constable's staff or to use arms. Every one who wanted to know the opinion of high judicial authorities on this point would look to what was said by Chief Justice Tindal, who pointed out what was the duty of the soldier and what that of the citizen. Chief Justice Tindal said—
"But if the occasion demands immediate action, and no opportunity is given for procuring the advice or sanction of the magistrate, it is the duty of every subject to act for himself and upon his own responsibility in suppressing a riotous and tumultuous assembly; and he may be assured that whatever is honestly done by him in the execution of that object will be supported and justified by the common law. And while I am stating the obligation imposed by the law on every subject of the realm, I wish to observe that the law acknowledges no distinction in this respect between the soldier and the private individual. The soldier is still a citizen, lying under the same obligation and invested with the same authority to preserve the peace of the King as any other subject. If the one is bound to attend the call of the civil magistrate, so also is the other; if the one may interfere for that purpose when the occasion demands it without the requisition of a magistrate, so may the other too; if the one may employ arms for that purpose, when arms are necessary, the soldier may do the same. Undoubtedly the same exercise of discretion which requires the private subject to act in subordination to and in aid of the magistrate, rather than upon his own authority, before recourse is had to arms, ought to operate in a still stronger degree with a military force."
It had been proposed, in consequence of a discussion in that House, that some general instruction should be given to Volunteers as to what was their duty in case of riot and disturbance. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Truro that Volunteers were to do what other subjects of Her Majesty were to do. But would it have been satisfactory to lay down in a single line—"The Volunteers are to act in the same way as the other subjects of Her Majesty?" [Cries of "Yes!"] Would it not have been said that the Instruction was so meagre as to give no information. The Circular stated that, as a military body, the Volunteers could not be called out, and then it went on, in accordance with the language of the Judges, to lay down that in cases of serious and dangerous riots and disturbances the civil authority might call upon Her Majesty's subjects generally, including the Volunteers, to arm themselves and use such weapons of defence or attack as might be in
742
their power, and might be suitable to the occasion. Should the Circular have stopped short and not said a word about those serious riots, and what was the duty of the Volunteers in common with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, in case such disturbances took place? It was stated in the strongest manner that in no case were arms to be resorted to, except where it was impossible by other means to suppress the riot. It further stated that it was quite right and proper that the Volunteers should use and put in action such knowledge and practice of military discipline and organization as they might possess. He maintained that if called on to aid in suppressing a riot Volunteers were bound to make use of such knowledge at the earliest possible moment, because by that means serious consequences might be averted. Could it be said that if twenty soldiers happened to be on leave of absence in a place where a riot was taking place, and they were called on to aid in suppressing it, they would not be right in making use of their knowledge of discipline? And if twenty, why not forty or any greater number? [An hon. MEMBER: With arms?] He was not saying with arms. In the paragraph which conveyed the instruction relative to the use of the knowledge and practice of military discipline not a word was said about arms. If Volunteers did not read those Instructions carefully, that was not the fault of the law officers, or of those who issued the Instructions. If 500 persons with a knowledge of discipline were engaged in quelling a riot it would be absurd to say that they were to forget that discipline, when a knowledge of it would have a beneficial effect in the suppression of the riot. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether the Volunteers were to use their arms. They were told in the instructions that they were not to do so unless the necessity of the case required it, and, in that case, the law distinctly was not only that they ought, but were bound to do so. Would any one tell him that if a man's house were attacked and he had arms, that he ought not to use them to defend it? He profoundly objected to the term "calling out the Volunteers." There was no such thing as calling out the Volunteers; and anybody who read the instructions candidly must see that it was expressly stated that there was no such thing. But if men joined a Volunteer corps they were not by reason of so doing exempted from their liabilities and

743
duties as citizens; and if called upon to act they should have the same general knowledge of what their duties under certain circumstances would be as in the case of special constables. He ventured to think that if the Instructions objected to were left out the Circular would not be exhaustive, and by inserting them there was not a single word in them which rendered the Resolution which the hon. Member wished the House to come to more needful, because the points laid down in the instructions were entirely in accordance with the principles of the Constitution and with those laid down by the common law of the land.
SIR GEORGE GREYhad entertained a hope when the hon. and learned Gentleman rose that he was about to concur with the very reasonable proposal made by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and endorsed by the right hon. and gallant General opposite (General Peel), with all the knowledge of the subject which he possessed. He much regretted to find that such was not the case. The intention of the Government in issuing these Instructions was plain enough; but it would have been sufficient to explain in the clearest and most explicit terms what was actually the law. The Instructions had failed in their object, which was to explain to commanding officers what were their duties under certain special circumstances; for these officers now complained that the four paragraphs in the Instructions, the omission of which was now suggested, threw upon them a degree of responsibility, and left a certain amount of doubt which really defeated the object of the Instructions. As it appeared to the ordinary reader, the only effect of retaining these paragraphs in the Instructions was to keep up a distinction between Volunteers and the rest of Her Majesty's subjects and the duties which they had to perform under certain circumstances. It was quite right that Volunteers should be informed that they could not be called on to act as a body for the repression of civil disturbances, yet that they retained all their liability in common with all other persons to aid the civil power; but if instructions were necessary for the guidance of Volunteers in common with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, these ought not to come from the War Department, but from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In extreme cases which had
744
been referred to any Government which knew its duty would not shrink from the responsibility of taking all the means at its command for the repression of serious disturbances. But responsibility ought not to be left upon the commanders of Volunteer corps, and the right hon. Gentleman, with a view of satisfying these officers, and in deference to the general opinion which had been expressed by the House, would consent, he hoped, to omit the four paragraphs from the Instructions. Having done that, the Government would have fulfilled its obligations in a satisfactory manner, and in entire accordance with the general feeling.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend, and the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he certainly should take into consideration how far it might be desirable to omit from the copies of the regulations issued to Volunteer officers one or all of the paragraphs objected to. But he must guard himself, after the opinions which had been expressed by the highest legal authorities, from giving any pledge or promise on the subject, and must take some time to consider, under all the circumstances, the course most advisable to be taken.
CAPTAIN VIVIANhoped the right hon. Baronet would lay upon the table copies of the amended Circular before it was issued to the Volunteers.
Question put, and negatived.
Question proposed,
"That the words 'the Volunteer Force was established solely for the purpose of security against Foreign Invasion, and that the Members of that Force, in cases of domestic tumult or disturbance, have no obligations or duties distinct from those of other Citizens, and are in such cases no more than any other Citizen liable to orders or instructions from the Military or Civil Authorities,' be added, instead thereof."
MR. AYRTONtook exception to the concluding words of the Motion, which, by implication, asserted that in case of disturbance Her Majesty's subjects passed under the control of the military authorities. He moved the omission of all the words after the word "citizens."
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out from the word "Citizens," to the end of the proposed Amendment."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
CAPTAIN VIVIANconsented to omit all the words after "those of other citizens."
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
Question,
"That the words 'the Volunteer Force was established solely for the purpose of security against Foreign Invasion, and that the Members of that Force, in cases of domestic tumult or disturbance, have no obligations or duties distinct from those of other Citizens,' be added to the word 'That' in the Original Question,"
—put, and agreed, to.
Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Volunteer Force was established solely for the purpose of security against Foreign Invasion, and that the Members of that Force, in cases of domestic tumult or disturbance, have no obligations or duties distinct from those of other Citizens.
House adjourned at Two o'clock, till Monday next.