Commons Sitting of 8 June 1868

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir Arthur Edward Guinness, baronet, for the City of Dublin.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Admiralty Monies and Accounts, Mr. Du Cane added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Prisons (Scotland) Administration Acts Amendment *; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) *; Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)*; New Zealand Company*; Larceny and Embezzlement.*
First Reading—Prisons (Scotland) Administration Acts Amendment* [155]; New Zealand Company *[156]; Larceny and Embezzlement * [157]; Courts of Law Fees, &c. (Scotland * [158]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) * [159]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)* [160].
Second Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance* [149]; Courts of Chancery and Exchequer (Ireland) Fee Funds* [146]; Regulation of Railways[142]; Consecration of Churchyards Act [1867] Amendment* [152]; Alkali Act (1863) Perpetuation [153].
Committee—Representation of the People (Scotland) [29]; Boundary [78]—R.P.; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * [181]; Endowed Schools* [143].
Report—Representation of the People (Scotland) [29–154]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No.2)* [148]; Endowed Schools *[143].
Considered as amended—Lee River Conservancy * [144].

METROPOLITAN POLICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to lay upon the Table of the House, Copy of the Evidence taken by, and of any Report made to, the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Committee appointed by him to conduct certain inquiries into the management of the Metropolitan Police?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that it was not his intention to lay on the table the Evidence or Report referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, for the reason that the witnesses were informed that their evidence would not be made public. He did not intend that evening to proceed with the Metropolitan Police Funds Bill, which was down fur second reading.

ARMY—FLOATING OBSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
MAJOR ANSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Floating Obstruction Committee on "Passive Obstructions for the Defence of Harbours and Channels;" and, when the Report of the same Committee on Active Obstructions will be ready?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,in reply, said, it was not his intention to lay the Report on the table, as it contained matter which it would be inexpedient to make public. In reply to the latter part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, he begged to say that the Report of the same Committee on Active Obstructions was nearly complete.

NAVY—THE F. G. CAPTAINS' RESERVED LIST.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN MACKINNONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If the statement contained in an article in the Army and Navy Gazette of May 16th, 1868, that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in 1862 on the F. G. Captains' Reserved List was formed from a falsified Copy of the Order in Council of 1851 which governed that List, and that such alteration in the wording of the Order in Council mis-stated the case as laid before the Law Officers of the Crown and caused an adverse judgment to their claims, is

1223
true; and, if so, does he intend to persist in refusing the claims of those Officers?
MR. CORRY: Sir, I have myself examined the Papers laid before the Law Officers in 1862, and I can say that there is not the slightest foundation for the statement that the opinion of the Law Officers was formed on a falsified copy of the Order in Council of 1851. On the contrary, the Order in Council of 1851 was laid in extenso before the Law Officers verbatim et literatim, and I cannot but express my surprise that any body of officers could have imagined that the Admiralty would have resorted to so unworthy an expedient as that referred to in the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, 1868.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is not the duty of the Clerks of the Peace, on or before the 10th instant, to issue their Precepts to the Overseers of their respective districts, with general instructions for the proceedings of the Overseers in reference to Registration; and whether it is possible to stop the issue of such Precepts, or whether such Precepts will have to be hereafter cancelled by the subsequent issue of fresh Precepts containing different instructions to the various Overseers?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, in answer to my hon. Friend, I can only say that there is no power to suspend the existing law, and that the overseers will have to act in conformity with the law.

SUPPLY—THE DISSOLUTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, For how many months of the present financial year it is intended to take the remaining Votes in Supply, including those to be reported this day?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Since my hon. Friend put the Question the other night we have had full opportunity of considering the matter, and we have come to the conclusion that it will be our duty to propose to the House to vote the Supplies for the whole year, And I think that I shall be able to show that if this course be not adopted considerable inconvenience—I will not say to the Government, but to the House and the public
  1224
  service—if not embarrassment, will arise My hon. Friend when he put the Question the other night quoted what he deemed, the precedent of 1841. Now, I think, after hearing the observations which I have to make, he will be bound to admit, first of all, that the supposed precedent I is not applicable; and secondly, that if it were, it would not point to the conclusion which he has suggested—namely, to take the Votes for nine months. Now, what was the case in 1841? It was this—the Government proposed to take Supplies for six months, and the Leader of the Opposition acquiesced in that course, though at first he suggested that they should be taken for three months. Early in June the Supplies were granted for four months from the time when a dissolution was possible, and to last for two months after the new Parliament could meet again. Now, supposing the suggestion made from the opposite Bench were adopted—namely, that Supply should be granted for nine months—that would not be granting Supply until four months from the time a dissolution could occur, or two months after the new Parliament could properly assemble. Therefore, if the precedent were applicable, it would not point to the: conclusion of my hon. Friend and others; but, further, I would submit that the precedent is not applicable. What was the case in 1841? The House of Commons passed, by a majority of 1, the following Resolution:—
  "That Her Majesty's Ministers do not sufficiently possess the confidence of the House of Commons to enable them to carry through the House measures which they deem of essential I importance to the public welfare; and that their continuance in office, under such circumstances, is at variance with the spirit of the Constitution."I—[See 3 Hansard, lviii.]
  No such Resolution, or anything approaching to it, has been passed by the present House of Commons. It is true the Government has been defeated on a very important question of policy by a large majority; but, so far from the House of Commons having in consequence of that proceeding thought fit to pass a Vote of Want of Confidence, it has been with the acquiescence of the House that the Government has proceeded with other measures of importance in order to enable it to appeal to the new constituencies as soon as possible. Now, what has been the result of our proceeding on that understanding? Why, that it has been impossible for us to have an immediate dissolution, unless we were to

  1225
  cause a great amount of inconvenience, and without being able to appeal to the new constituencies as we wish, Therefore, we have deferred recommending the Crown to dissolve the present Parliament until the appeal could be made to the new constituencies. The state of things is this. A Reform Bill has been passed for England, but the sequel to it, the Boundary Bill, has not yet been passed, and measures for amending the representation in Scotland and Ireland are still in progress. Now, with regard to England alone, it is clear that there can be no complete registration of the new constituencies until the; passing of the Boundary Bill, for persons will not know for what constituency they, are to claim. I do not know whether hon. Members have studied the subject of registration as much as it has been my lot to do. Three years ago I succeeded in carrying a measure amending county registration, and I therefore paid considerable attention to the matter. I was in communication with gentlemen in all parts of the country as to the alterations which were required, and the chief demand that was made was that more time should be allowed for the different processes of registration. Under the existing law the 20th of July is the day for sending in claims for county votes. Now, until the Boundary Bill is passed persons living in counties which have been subdivided by the Bill of last year will not know for which division they should claim. Moreover, I think it will be universally admitted that the process of registration is one which ought not to be unduly hurried, for it would be a farce to extend electoral privileges so widely as we have done and then not to allow persons a sufficient opportunity of claiming those privileges. It is of the greatest importance that there should be ample time for making claims, and on the other hand there ought to be a full opportunity for criticizing those claims, so that persons not duly qualified may be objected to. There is first the action of the parish officers to be brought into operation, next the action of the Revising Barristers, and lastly there is the printing. Now, it is evident to those acquainted with the subject that, whatever effort may be made to expedite the registration, it can only be done to a very limited extent. I can assure the House that it is the earnest desire of the Government that it should be expedited as much as is consistent with the convenience of
  1226
  the electors and of those concerned in the registration; but there seems to me no reasonable probability of the new Parliament being able to meet, except for a very short period, before Christmas. Now, hon. Members are aware that, owing to the forms of the House, a good many days must elapse after the assembling of Parliament before we can go into Committee of Supply, and I think that, supposing everything favourable—supposing the Boundary Bill and the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills passed without any undue delay, and supposing the House to accept the Registration Bill which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) is to introduce on Thursday—I may say, without fear of contradiction, that it would be what in common parlance is called rather fine steering to find time before Christmas, after the Members had been sworn in, and after the debate, which may be expected to be a rather lengthy one, on the Address, to go into Committee and vote the rest of the Supplies. But suppose, unfortunately, we are not able to pass these, supplementary measures in sufficient time to allow the registration to commence on the 20th of July, it is obvious that, in order to allow persons proper time for sending in claims, the date for their doing so must be postponed, and, even though there should be no considerable postponement, I am inclined to think—though I give no decided opinion on the point—that the new Parliament could not meet before Christmas. In that event, which I sincerely hope may not occur, it; might be necessary for the present Parliament to be called together before Christmas for a supplementary Session in order to vote the rest of the Supplies. Now, let me put another case. Suppose that, as I have no doubt is confidently anticipated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the meeting of the now Parliament a Vote of Want of Confidence or something tantamount to it should be passed leading to a change of Government, considerable time I must obviously elapse before the new arrangements were completed, and much embarrassment might arise if the Supplies had been voted only up to the end of the third quarter. Moreover, I would ask with reference to the hon. Member's suggestion, Cui bono? In 1841 Sir Robert Peel expressed himself perfectly satisfied I with the assurance of Lord John Russell that the new Parliament would be called together as early as possible, and inter-

  1227
  posed no difficulty in the granting of the Supplies for the time asked for by the Ministry; and why, I would ask, should the frank and honourable course taken on that occasion be departed from now? I do not know whether it is suggested that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to postpone the meeting of the new Parliament. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that there exists on this Bench a longing—I may say a burning desire—to ask for the verdict of the new Parliament and of the country upon our conduct and policy. The position that we have occupied on these Benches has been one rather too much for human nature to bear; and everything that can be done will be done by the Government in order to expedite the elections and the meeting of the new Parliament, so that we may be either confirmed in our tenure of Office, and may feel that we carry on the administration of public affairs with the confidence of Parliament and the country, or else that we may retire from a position which, as I have said, has been almost intolerable. With regard to the Votes of Supply already taken, the Government have no wish to press the Report, but think it fair that the House should thoroughly understand our proposals as to the registration. I would therefore propose that the Report should be postponed for a week, that in the meantime the House may have an opportunity of judging the proposals of my right hon. friend (the Home Secretary) with regard to the registration.

STAMP DUTY ON THE TRANSFER OF DEBENTURE STOCK.—QUESTION.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the Stamp Duty on the transfer of the Debenture Stock of some of the principal Railway Companies is 6d. per cent, and in other cases 10 s. per cent; and whether, considering the large amount of such Stock now being created, he will propose to Parliament the imposition of a uniform Transfer Duty?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have only become acquainted since the Question of my hon. Friend was put that there has been inserted a provision in two private Acts of Parliament passed in 1856 and 1861, by which the companies interested escaped the 10 s. duty for a duty of 6d. The matter has
1228
been contested by the Inland Revenue in a third case, that of the South Western Railway, and that company has given up the claim. The provision crept into these Acts, as provisions will sometimes creep into Acts that are not public Acts, because they have not been overlooked by the public authorities. I am glad my attention has been called to the matter, for these provisions ought to be repealed. As to the alteration of the duty, I should wish to have further time to consider it, and if I make a proposition I will do so in the general measure passed every Session regulating the affairs of railways.

REGISTRATION—THE SMALL TENEMENTS ACT—MORNING SITTINGS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the case of a Borough of which the Boundary has been extended into an adjoining parish where the Small Tenements Act is now in force, and in which many of the persons about to be enfranchised under the Bill of 1867 have not been separately rated on account of the Small Tenements Act being in force, the Government will introduce a provision to enable such persons to be placed on the register so as to vote at the next Election?
  He also wished to know, Whether, a morning sitting having been fixed for tomorrow at twelve o'clock, the arrangement made last year, by which the sitting commenced at two and was suspended from seven till nine, has been abandoned?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the arrangement for the morning sitting to-morrow is one which stands apart, and I will give the House an opportunity, if we have further morning sittings, of deciding whether the course pursued last year should be adhered to. With regard to the other Question of the hon. Gentleman, I recently stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Schreiber), that I would bring up a clause on the Report of the Boundary Bill. It has been drawn, and I will place it on the table, so that it may be adopted at the earliest period.

PARTY PROCESSIONS ACT (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  LORD EDWIN HILL-TREVORsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for

  1229
  Londonderry County, Whether he intends, to proceed this Session with the Bill of which he has given notice for the repeal of the Party Processions Act (Ireland)?
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEreplied, that in consequence of the pressure of public Business he did not intend to persevere with the measure.

IRELAND—ALLEGED BRIBE TO A FENIAN.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether there is any troth in the statements, copied from the Weekly News newspaper by the Irish correspondent of The Times of the 1st of June to the effect that the Crown Solicitor, Mr. S. L. Anderson, offered John P. Murray £100 sterling with a Government situation in Ireland or the Colonies, provided that he would give such information as would convict Colonel Nagle and the other prisoners of the so-called Jackmel Expedition?
THE EARL OF MAYOreplied, that there was no truth in the statement referred to. It having, however, been made upon oath before a public functionary at New York, he wished in justice to Mr. Anderson to read a letter which that gentleman had addressed to him. It was as; follows:—
"Law Department, Dublin Castle, May 30, 1868.
"My Lord,—Referring to the article in this days's Nation newspaper, in which appears a copy of an alleged affidavit of one John P. Murray, alias John Cade, recently a prisoner in Kilmainham Gaol, stating that previously to his release I offered him £100, with a Government situation, provided he gave such information as would convict Colonel Nagle and others, I beg leave to acquaint you, for the information of his Excellency, that one of those 'Jackmel' prisoners who were arrested in Dungarvan gave his name as John Cade, and was discharged on the 3rd of March last, having signed a paper expressing his regret for having been engaged ' in the treasonable expedition commonly known as the Jackmel Expedition,' and undertaking not to join in future in any treasonable proceedings against the Queen; that I never had an interview with this prisoner, that I never to my knowledge spoke to him, that I never directly or indirectly made any proposal to him to become a witness, and that I never offered any prisoner or any other person £100 or any other sum, or any inducement whatever, provided he gave such information as would convict. Colonel Nagle or any other prisoner, or provided he would give evidence against any person.
"I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient Servant,
SAMUEL LEE ANDERSON,
"The Right Hon. the Chief Secretary, &c., Dublin Castle."
1230
Appended to that was a declaration signed by the prisoner, wherein he entered into a solemn engagement not to take part in any treasonable proceedings in future against the Queen, and also admitted that he did engage in that piratical enterprise known as the Jackmel Expedition. He could only add that in this instance the clemency of the Crown had been very ill-requited by a pardoned prisoner, who immediately upon his arrival in Now York had engaged in so gross an act of perjury.

AMENDED BOUNDARY PLANS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will consider the propriety of giving directions for amended plans of the Boundaries of those boroughs of which the Select Committee of this House have advised the modification being placed in the Library of this House for the convenience of Members?
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, in reply, that he would consider whether amended plans of the boundaries of those boroughs of which the Select Committee had advised the modification should not be placed in the Library of the House.

ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH.—QUESTION.
MR. VERNERsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has seen a statement in the newspaper of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) to the effect that the British Government had ample knowledge of the fact that the unfortunate man who had attempted to assassinate the Duke of Edinburgh was not only insane at the time, but had been insane for a considerable period previously; and, whether any steps will be taken to guard the peasantry of Ireland against the circulation of such scandalous libels?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I have not seen the statement in the paper of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), but I have seen some newspaper statements of that kind. No information of that description has been transmitted to us at any time. Had we received information of that kind, if we had thought it authentic, of course it would have been our duty to act upon it; but the Government have no reason to believe that the assassin of thy Duke of Edinburgh was insane.

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will lay upon the Table to-morrow the information ordered to be furnished as to the length of Telegraph and number of Stations connected with the Railways in this country?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that no Notice having been given of the Question, he was unable to answer it.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, that in the Report by Mr. Scudamore, which had been laid upon the table, a good deal was said about the telegraphs in Belgium and Switzerland. He should like to know whether the Government had any information regarding the telegraphs in the United States, which were on a much more extensive scale than in those small countries, and regarding which a great deal of experience might be obtained, enabling the House to determine the questions raised in the Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had seen no statement on the subject of the telegraphs in the United States.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 29.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir James Fergusson.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 29.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 28th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 6 (Restriction on Number of Votes in City of Glasgow).
  MR. GRAHAM: Sir, I cannot allow this clause to pass without renewing my earnest protest against the principle which it embodies. It was, however, not to be expected that the Government would treat a constituency so thoroughly Liberal as Glasgow with any great favour—scarcely even with fairness. The City of Glasgow has, in reality, been denied its legitimate share in the increased representation given to Scotland. In proportion to the whole representation of Scotland, Glasgow was fully entitled to nine Members; and in view of the burgh population of Scotland alone, it might claim ten. With reference to the representation of the large boroughs of England, Glasgow is at least entitled to five Members. Rela-
  1232
  tively to Manchester and Salford we might claim five Members. In proportion to Leeds, with less than half our population, we are entitled to at least six. The only cases of an opposite nature which can be found are those of the metropolis and of I Liverpool—if Liverpool be indeed to be regarded as wholly apart from Birken head. It must be remembered, moreover, that the proportion of borough representation in England is very much greater than in Scotland; and therefore, if any difference at all was to be made in the representation, it ought to have been in the way of giving the boroughs a larger rather than a smaller share. But I do not blame the Government too severely for having treated this matter from a party point of view. There can be no doubt that this ingenious arrangement of three-cornered constituencies was introduced into the Bill of last year as a last desperate expedient to resist the progress of those Liberal opinions which hon. Gentlemen opposite regard with an alarm so unworthy of their intelligence. I believe that it is likely to be entirely a failure. The general opinion, so far as I can hear, is that it will lead to great confusion. Those who introduced this ingenious scheme have left out a very important element in the calculation—namely, that there are in all these important constituencies, not, as they assume, one minority, but two or more minorities; and it is to the most energetic and resolute of those minorities that the share of the representation provided by such a clause as this will fall. Toryism, as a political creed, hardly exists in Glasgow; but there are men holding the most extreme opinions in the opposite direction. There are many members of trades unions who will make their influence subservient to the interests of their society. There are also a large number of Roman Catholics—upwards of 100,000—in Glasgow, and less than 10,000 Conservatives. Instead of a Conservative candidate being returned for Glasgow, we may therefore have a man of extreme political opinions, with the support of the trades unions; or, not improbably, one selected by the Irish Roman Catholics. My personal knowledge of Manchester leads me to the opinion that something of the same kind will occur there also; for trades union opinions and the Irish element are both very strong in that constituency. Such a result would be indeed a strange comment on the efforts of the noble

  1233
  Lord who introduced this Amendment, himself a Conservative and an Orangeman, if this debated principle should be the mentis of introducing into this House a minority representation on the one hand of nominees of trades unions, and on the other hand of Roman Catholics, As, however, from what has occurred in this House, know it is hopeless to attempt to strike out the clause, I shall content myself with protesting against it, and with appealing to the Parliament of the future.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Places for the Election and Returning Officers for new Constituencies).
  THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved to insert at page 10, Clause 23, line 4, after "thereof," the words—
  "And the Writ for the Election of the Member for the counties of Peebles and Selkirk shall he addressed to the Sheriff of the county of Peebles, and, until otherwise directed by Parliament, shall be proclaimed at the burgh of Peebles."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 41 (Appointment of Boundary Commissioners.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not know whether it would be necessary to have Boundary Commissioners for Scotland; and if it were regular he should wish to have that clause still further postponed until the Committee had gone through the schedule.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he had on several occasions drawn the attention of the Government to this important subject. His own opinion had been that these Commissioners might have been appointed and might have proceeded with their labours pending the passing of the Reform Bill through Parliament. This had not been done; but he thought the subject too important to be lost sight of altogether. He gave the learned Lord Advocate notice that when they came to the question of Glasgow he should certainly desire to lay before the House the reasons why he thought the boundaries of that borough would require mature consideration. He would, however, in the meantime acquiesce in the proposal of the Government.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was no wish on the part of the Government to avoid having recourse to a Boundary Commission; and if it were deemed requisite he should be prepared to nominate certain gentlemen as Commissioners. It might, however, be the best course to
  1234
  strike out that clause in the meantime, reserving the liberty of bringing up a new clause on the Report.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that some of the boundaries in Scotland required rectification.
  Clause struck out.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEnext moved to insert the following clause after Clause 1:—
  (Application of Act.)
  "2. This Act shall apply to Scotland only, except in so far as it provides that certain boroughs in England shall cease to return Members to serve in Parliament,"
  As originally drawn, the Bill applied to Scotland only; but in consequence of a Resolution to which the House had come, it was necessary to make the alteration which he now moved,
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEbrought up a clause (Lodger Franchise for voters in Burghs) which he proposed to insert after Clause 3—
  (Lodger franchise for voters in burghs.)
  4. Every man shall in and after the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and, when registered, to vote for a member or members to serve in Parliament for a burgh, who is qualified as follows (that is to say):—

  1. Is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity; and

  2. As a lodger has occupied in the same burgh separately, and as sole tenant for the twelve months preceding the last day of July in any year the same lodgings, such lodgings being part of one and the same dwelling-house, and of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of ten pounds or upwards; and

  3. Has resided in such lodgings during the twelve months immediately preceding the last day of July, and has claimed to be registered as a voter at the next ensuing registration of voters.

  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the clause would have the effect of restricting the existing lodger franchise in Scotland, as lodgers occupying premises at £10 a year had, in the majority of cases, been held to be entitled to a vote.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had stated his own opinion to be favourable to the view adopted by the majority of the sheriffs—namely, that lodgers occupying premises which, without reference to furniture, brought £10 rent per annum, were at present entitled to be put upon the register. He had taken this clause from the very words of the English Act, with the view, not of excluding from the franchise any

  1235
  persons whom the Scotch Reform Act of 1832 intended should have it, but of removing any doubt which might exist.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought the words requiring a continuous residence "in the same lodgings," would have a disfranchising effect.
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, that if it was not the intention of the Government to interfere with the lodger franchise existing under the old law, that intention should he more clearly expressed than it was in the clause.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, he hoped that the operation of the clause would not he to disfranchise persons who, as matters now stood, were entitled to vote.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEpointed out that it would have no such effect, inasmuch as in the 48th section of the Bill (General Saving Clause) it was distinctly declared that the new franchises to be conferred by it were not in substitution for, but in addition to, the old franchises.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  On Motion, "That the Clause be read the second time,"
  MR. M'LAREN MR. M'LAREN moved to omit the words "the same," with the view of inserting other words in the clause expressly entitling a lodger otherwise duly qualified to vote, although he might have occupied not the same, but different lodgings during the prescribed period.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the clause would have the effect of disfranchising persons who had a vote, because in Scotland lodgers were treated as householders. Some of the sheriffs had held that lodgers were not included in the Reform Act of 1832, but the majority held that they were.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that in the English Bill the lodger franchise was made to be dependent on the occupation of the same lodgings, and he did not know any reason why that principle should not apply to Scotland. There would be a difficulty in identifying a lodger for the purposes of the franchise unless he occupied the same lodgings.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that if some such; Amendment as that which he had moved were not adopted the result would be the disfranchisement in many cases of persons in Scotland who now enjoyed the right of voting. The case of England was entirely different, because in England no lodger
  1236
  franchise existed previous to the passing of the Act of laat Session.
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, that according to the present law in Scotland, a lodger occupying premises of the required value successively was entitled to vote. It was proposed by the clause under discussion, however, that in order to be so entitled a man must occupy the "same" premises; and he should like to know which of those two regulations was to prevail in the future.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the two provisions clearly clashed.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was afraid that he had been the means of leading the Lord Advocate into the labyrinth in which he found himself; but he would suggest, as a solution of the difficulty, the bringing up on the Report of a declaratory clause providing that the law under the old Act should apply to the new £10 lodgers.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that as the Government had no intention to disfranchise any of those electors who had hitherto enjoyed the right to vote, he had no objection to any alteration in the clause being made which might be deemed necessary to secure that right.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought the Lord Advocate would feel that the matter was so trifling as not to be worth wasting time about.
  Words, "The same lodgings, such," struck out.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved to insert a new clause, Clause C (Provision for claims by persons improperly or erroneously exempted from the payment of poor rates) to follow Clause 17.
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, he wished to know whether persons who were exempted by the parochial Boards would be placed in a position of disadvantage as compared with others in having to recover their privilege of voting through a process of appeal, which he presumed would be somewhat expensive.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the clause gave the only remedy possible. Under the Poor Law Act, the parochial Boards had power to exempt persons from the payment of poor rates on the ground of poverty only; but it was too often the practice of the Boards to exempt whole classes under a certain rental for the pur-

  1237
  pose of saving the cost of collection, Under the proposed clause if any persons were excluded from the franchise by an erroneous decision on that point they would have the power of claiming to be entered on the register of voter?.
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he thought that great confusion would arise from the proposed clause. Many nice and difficult questions would crop up immediately after the first registration, and every sheriff might vary in his decision on these points, If the parochial Boards had not the power to exempt from payment of rates all occupiers under a certain low rental they ought to have it, for the amount collected would not be worth the cost and trouble of collection.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the clause was useful as far as it went, but he was of opinion that parochial Boards should not have the power to exempt whole classes. The Poor Law Guardians who were assessed at a high figure could not be expected to have much sympathy with the poorer classes. He would suggest the expediency of withdrawing the proposed clause and bringing up a new one on the Report, for the rule with regard to the exemption from the payment of rates varied in the Scotch burghs.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEproposed a new clause to follow Clause 20 (Alteration of Dates respecting Register) the object of which was to alter certain dates in the preparation of the Register of Voters in burghs as provided by the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 58. The alteration was rendered necessary by the increase in the number of voters provided by this Bill?
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he wished to know how it would be possible to do all the work in the time which was to be allotted?
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to know why they could not let the registration commence on the 15th of August, and finish so much earlier?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he anticipated that the register would be completed before the sheriff by the 31st of October. The arrangement had been made not on his own responsibility, but after consulting the parties who would be engaged in the completion of the register for Glasgow and Edinburgh. They could not undertake to complete it earlier than the day named. He had heard from Edin-
  1238
  burgh that if they had not proceeded in the work for the last two months as if the new Reform Act had passed, they would not have been able to complete it even by that time. He had done everything in his power to bring about an earlier completion of the registration, but it had been found impossible.
  MR. MONCREIFFsuggested that the appeal should be dispensed with altogether for this year, to enable registration to occur more rapidly.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought the process might have been still further expedited by requiring the Judges of the Supreme Court to sit on the 16th of October as an appeal court. There would be very few appeals.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that a clause had been introduced expressly with the view, if necessary, of the court appointing Judges to meet during the vacation for the purpose of disposing of registration appeals.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he proposed to insert a series of new clauses having reference to elections for the Universities. He moved that Clause A (Franchise for Universities) be inserted before Clause 37 as follows:—
  "Every person whose name is for the time being on the register, made up in terms of the provisions hereinafter set forth, of the General Council of any one of the Universities of Scotland shall, if of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, be entitled to vote in the election of a Member to serve in any future Parliament for such University in terms of this Act."
  He did not anticipate that there would be much objection to the clause. One or two objections had been intimated, to which he would give attention as they arose.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE moved an Amendment requiring that every person whose name was on the register should be furnished with a certificate to entitle him to vote. The certificate should state his name at full length, designation, qualification, and ordinary place of residence.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not think this at all necessary, and it would interpose considerable difficulties in the way of the University franchise. It would require that they should furnish to each elector a diploma—[Mr. WALDERGRAVELESLIE: Certificate.] Well, a certificate, stating his name and residence. I hardly think that is required. It will be enough to know the voter's residence at the time

  1239
  he comes to vote. The plan suggested would diminish the number of voters and cause considerable expense to the University, and I think the clause is better without it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEproposed a new clause (Clause B, Qualifications for Members of General Councils).
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he wished to have some general explanation of these clauses.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought his right hon. and learned Friend was pretty well in possession of the terms of the clauses, of which he had given him a copy some days before placing them on the Notice Paper. The clauses had also been adjusted with the approval of the Universities. The only point on which he thought any question could arise was that as to the delivery of voting papers.
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he did not intend to make any complaint as to want of notice; but the clauses were considerably involved. Did his right hon. and learned Friend intend to adhere to the whole of these clauses, or would he adopt the Amendment of which he (Mr. Moncreiff) had given notice?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that although the practice was to take Amendments on each clause as they arose, he had no objection to say he would adopt the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend. The time provided for the completion of registration in all other cases was the 31st of October; but it so happened that an election of some interest—namely, that of the Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, would occur on the 30th of October. The Statutory Council would meet on that day, and the proposition of his right hon. and learned Friend was that the register should for that purpose be completed by the 25th of October. Now this was certainly going a little out of the way from the ordinary course; but he had no objection to adopt the Amendment that the registration should be completed by the 21st of October, instead of the 28th, and be authenticated by the Vice Chancellor on the 25th instead of the 31st of October. It had been suggested that this postponement should be continued in future years; but from communications he had received, he was led to believe that such an alteration would be extremely inconvenient to the University authorities.
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he could sea no reason at all why an election, which did not depend upon the same framework or machinery, should he obliged to follow the same practice as others. There could be no difficulty in making up the register at any period.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause C (Registration Book to be kept), and D (Registrar to enter names I therein), agreed to.
  Clause E (Preparation of first Register under this Act—Revision by Registrar and Assistant Registrars—Authentication by the Vice Chancellor—Register to be conclusive).
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the University elections took place in October, whereas the register would not be completed till November. He thought it desirable that the election should take place when the register was fresh, rather than when it was exhausted, or about to expire. It would be better either that the registration should be completed earlier, or that the elections should be delayed till November.
  MR. MONCREIFFthanked the Lord Advocate for having accepted part of his suggestion, but was at a loss to know why, in future years also, the register could not be made up in October instead of November.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had received a communication that day from a gentleman who took an interest in these matters; and he was led to infer that there would be some difficulty in the preparation in October for elections in the month of November. The registrar would be employed in making up the register in the month of October; and his attention would be disturbed if a poll was demanded, and he had to issue circulars. There were different dates for the meetings of the Councils. In Aberdeen and in Edinburgh those meetings were held at any period in October; in Glasgow, in the last week in October, or the first in November; and in St. Andrews, in November. This, however, was a matter which might be allowed to remain over until the Report of the Committee was brought up, which would give time for further consideration.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses down to Clause N, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 0 (Polling at University Elections).
  MR. J. STUART MILL MR. J. STUART MILL moved to insert the following words after "Voting papers," in Article 4, line 4—
  "Except so much of the said Act as requires that the voting paper shall be personally delivered by a Member of Council who shall make attestation of his personal acquaintance with the voter and his knowledge of the signature."
  If the terms of the English Act upon this point were adopted in the Scotch Reform Bill, half, if not more than half, of those who formed the University constituency would be disfranchised. There was always a large number of residents at the English Universities who could authenticate the signatures to the voting papers; but in the, Scotch Universities undergraduates did not form such intimate acquaintance with each other as in this country, and in most instances towards the end of the year they were scattered all over the British Empire. The voters would be virtually confined to a small number of residents, unless some such alteration as be proposed were made.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the Bill, as originally framed, contained no such provision as the one under consideration. It was, however, thought better to assimilate the system of voting in the Scotch Universities to that which prevailed in the English Universities, and the provisions existing in England with regard to voting papers were adopted in the lump. He would remind the Committee that last year the principle embodied in the clause. He now proposed was applied to the London University, which has no resident students, and where the constituency is, perhaps, less; connected with the University than the students of the Scotch Universities are with their Universities; but he was inclined to think that, probably, it would not be necessary to require that the Member of the Council presenting the voting paper should be personally acquainted with the voter by whom it had been signed. As there was no desire to cause any inconvenience to the voter, he was willing to alter the clause to that effect. He thought it, however, desirable that the wording of the clause should be retained so far as it required that the voting paper should be personally delivered and attested by a Member of the Council.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE,while accepting as sufficient the Amendment offered by the learned Lord, wished, from his personal experience, to support the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill.) The system of voting by proxy papers for the Universities
  1242
  was of very recent introduction, having owed its origin to the Act carried during the last Parliament by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, and only two contested elections bad taken place under it—the one for Oxford at the General Election, and his own for Cambridge during the present year. He was entitled to speak from that practical acquaintance with the interior of his committee-room, which was accorded to the candidate for Cambridge, and refused to the one for Oxford, and his experience was that the actual system worked well for those Universities, But it worked well in consequence of the Collegiate system, with the acquaintances contracted in the College, and the relations created between the College tutor and his pupils. He believed that a more lax Collegiate system existed in Scotland, and that residence was practically objected to, and he was accordingly convinced that the stringency of the English requirements would be found to result in the disfranchisement of many of the voters for constituencies distributed, as those of the Scotch Universities were, over all quarters of the world.
  MR. J. STUART MILLasked, whether the delivery of the voting paper by a Member of Council would not involve a considerable additional expense?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEassured the hon. Gentleman that be had learned from persons of experience that this was the best arrangement that could be adopted.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he could see no security against the presentation of fraudulent voting papers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Member of the Council who presented the voting paper would have to sign his name at the back and express his belief in the authenticity of the voter's signature.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he considered that that was really no security.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYobserved that, the voting paper would be signed before a justice of the peace. That would be an additional security.
  MR. LOWEsaid, there might be no such justice of the peace as the one whose name was on the voting paper. A man might take the list and set to work to manufacture votes without the knowledge of the voters.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I hope no candidate for a University will demean himself by having recourse to such pro-

  1243
  ceedings. Persons entitled to such a position will not make themselves parties to such criminal proceedings, and if they do so they will be treated as they deserve.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was desirable to have perfect security, but we could not always get that, and must be content with an approximate system. The punishment for the personation of voters was found on the whole to be sufficient.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that the question was not one of candidates or electors, but of entire strangers, whose forgery it would be impossible to punish because it would be impossible to detect it, so that the mere fact that the person, if discovered, could be prosecuted was no security whatever.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the paper was to be signed by another voter pledging himself to its genuineness. It was to be supposed that a person tendering a voting paper would inquire where it came from, because if he did not, and it was fraudulent, he would first of all be exposed to the obloquy that would attach to the Act, and next to a legal penalty.
  MR. MONCREIFFremarked that the fabrication of votes would be a very dangerous game to play, for how was the fabricator to know that the real voter would not send in his paper also?
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, that many operations took place on the same security—namely, that if persons committed frauds they would be prosecuted.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following words were added to the clause:—
  "Except so much of the said Act as requires that the person delivering the voting paper shall make attestation of his personal acquaintance with the voter."
  Clauses P and Q agreed to.
  Clause R negatived.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he had now to discharge an extremely painful duty—namely, to propose that seven of the smallest English boroughs should be disfranchised, in order to provide additional seats for Scotland. As his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate felt somewhat unwilling to move the extinction of the borough which had sent him to Parliament, that duty had fallen upon him (Sir James Fergusson). It was absolutely necessary that additional seats should be provided for Scotland; and he thought the Committee would admit that seven was the smallest number that could be given. As a
  1244
  Scotch Member, he very much regretted that the additional representation of Scotland was to be limited to that number, and he could not refrain from saying that had the Scotch Members been united in support of the proposal of the Government, they might have fared better. [Mr. KINNAIRD: The original proposition gave us only seven Members.] The Government had the greatest difficulty in procuring seven additional seats for Scotland. As it was necessary to find seven victims some choice was forced upon the Government, and as the House had resolved to guide itself in this matter by population, the Government proposed to take the seven towns of least population and leave the remaining three still enfranchised. He therefore moved the addition of the following clause:—
  (Certain boroughs in England to cease to return Members.)
  "Whereas, in order to provide for the seats hereinbefore distributed, it is expedient that certain boroughs in England having small populations should cease to return Members to serve in Parliament, Be it therefore Enacted, That from and after the end of this present Parliament the boroughs of Arundel, Ashburton, Dartmouth, Honiton, Lyme Regis, Thetford, and Wells shall respectively cease to return any Member to serve in Parliament."
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, that it had never before been proposed to disfranchise a county town, and he contended that an exception from that rule should not be made in the case of Wells, where, without wishing to exaggerate its importance as a city, the business of the county was transacted, and the sessions and assizes are held. He would fain have stopped here; but as it had been resolved to rob the English Peter to pay the Scotch Paul, he was bound to point out a substitute for Wells. He accordingly pointed to Evesham. The population of Evesham exceeded that of Wells by only thirty-two, and did so only because Wells constituted a small area of 700 acres, while Evesham extended over 2,338 acres. Again, if Wells were disfranchised the new division of mid-Somersetshire would be the only county constituency in England possessing no represented town within it; although Somersetshire had 1,000,000 more in population than Worcestershire, which boasted of three represented boroughs in each division. He would also remark that the rental of Wells's small area was £40,000, and of Evesham's large area but £21,000. Under these circumstances, he moved that Evesham be substituted for Wells.
  CAPTAIN HAYTERsaid, he should not have felt warranted in interfering in this discussion had it not been for the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), and endorsed by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), that representation ought to be taken from the over-represented and not from under-represented counties. The proportion of representation to population was already loss in Somersetshire than in Worcestershire, and if Wells were disfranchised the disparity would he still further increased. The Customs Returns of Wells, moreover, were nearly double those of Evesham. The proposal was of necessity an invidious one to make; but if any borough were to be sacrificed, it ought not to be a county town like Wells.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he could not allow this clause to pass without entering his solemn protest against the whole proceeding. It was his opinion that a greater breach of faith had never been committed.
  THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Baronet to Order, and reminded him that the question before the Committee was to omit Wells and insert Evesham.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that as it had pleased the House to condone that breach of faith, it was the business of the Committee to select the boroughs to be disfranchised. Wells had been selected because it happened that by the last Census it fell short of the number required. That was a most unfair line to draw. The importance of a town did not depend on the number of the inhabitants within it, but on its wealth and position, and whether it was surrounded by a large and wealthy neighbourhood. Wells was the centre of a large agricultural district; it was a cathedral town of great antiquity, and held a very prominent place in history. In fact, Wells was amongst the last towns that ought to have been disfranchised. The whole proposal was so unjust to England that he was not sorry that it was to be consummated by selecting a borough which had the greatest claim to preserve and retain its representation.
  COLONEL BOURNEsaid, that Evesham was not a decreasing borough. The population of the borough had greatly increased of late years. Another fact that had not been laid before the Committee was that, out of the ten boroughs originally named to be disfranchised, Evesham was one of the few that was really an increasing bo-
  1246
  rough. Much as he regretted they should decrease the representation of England to increase that of Scotland, he was afraid they must submit to it.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, there was so little to choose between the two boroughs that the Committee ought not only to refuse to strike Wells out, bul also ought to add Evesham to the list.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, they were in so much hurry last year to carry a Reform Bill, that they refused to consider many of the details connected with the subject. In disfranchising boroughs regard ought to be had to the character of the constituency, the associations and intellectual and moral condition of the town, and the number of the electors, and not to the number of the population alone. The principle of selecting boroughs for disfranchisement because they happened to have below 5,000 inhabitants was shamefully unjust. It was unjust to take the last Census Returns. The borough of Calne escaped disfranchisement by the mere fact of the nominal extension of the bounds of the borough, whereby the population just exceeded the hard and fast line that had been drawn. The constituency of Calne was the smallest of any borough in England except Arundel, and was inadequate to entitle the borough to be represented in that House. It could not he contended that Calne, with 175 electors, had an equal claim to representation with an ancient cathedral town and county town like Well, with 274. There was no reason why Scotland should rob England to increase her representation, and he complained that what was proposed was unjust towards England. The representation of Ireland could ba made to show an equal demand for increased representation. There was no reason why the right hon. Gentleman, who had been an obsequious imitator of the right hon. Gentleman on the other side, should support the present proposal. With that sublime facility with which he answered questions, the right hon. Gentleman told him (Mr. Darby Griffith) last year that he looked to Providence to supply the new scats for Scotland. [Mr. DISRAELI: No!] The right hon. Gentleman's subsequent memory certainly did modify many of his expressions as understood at the time they were uttered. He hoped the sense of the Committee would be taken on the question.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he thought the Committee had got into a very unpleasant

  1247
  discussion. They could not decide the question on the mere accident of one borough having a little more property and the other having a slightly larger number of electors. It would be better to adopt the principle of the Government and disfranchise the seven boroughs which by accident were smallest.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it appeared from statistics that Evesham had increased since 1861, and Wells had not.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, that with reference to a remark of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Neville-Grenville) he would remind the Committee that a county town, Lancaster, was disfranchised last Session.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he thought that in getting seven seats Scotland got quite enough; but as the House had passed an Instruction to disfranchise ten boroughs, he would be for carrying out that Resolution and keeping three of the seats in reserve for allocation hereafter. He would vote for the disfranchisement of Evesham, if possible. He wished to ask whether it was not out of Order to disfranchise a less number of boroughs than was named in the Instruction to the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Instruction as worded gave the Committee a discretionary power to deal with boroughs under a certain population. The Committee had therefore power to disfranchise all, some, or none of them.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he would not have spoken a word on this subject had it not been for the remarks made by Gentlemen on the other side, who had spoken in a very harsh way of Scotland. He protested against the word "robbery." Scotland had been badly used in having got so few Members. He might tell hon. Members that Scotland felt no gratitude whatever for this concession, because she felt she had received no favour.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Neville-Grenville) had naturally raised this question, and as he had put it forward they must endeavour to form an opinion upon it. The hon. Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) had truly observed that hitherto the House had dealt with population; but he must allow him (Mr. Gladstone) to observe, what materially qualified the force of his argument, that they had adopted population in dealing with a class of boroughs, and never, that he recollected, in the case of one borough
  1248
  against another. In dealing with classes of boroughs there was good reason for taking population as the test, for it would be impossible to weigh the different circumstances of all towns. The case, however, was different when they came to judge between two towns. It was fair to look at all the circumstances of both. There was some weight in what had been stated with reference to Wells, because it was a county town, which gave a degree of importance to it greater than it would otherwise possess with its limited population. Wells was a true and real town, having a population of over 4,000, living within the real limits of the town; whilst the population of Evesham was dispersed over a considerable district. He had never been there, but he believed that Evesham might with as much propriety be called a village as a town. Looking from these two points, he was disposed rather to wish that Evesham was included in the clause and Wells removed from it. But there was another consideration of greater importance which would prevent his voting with his hon. Friend, except upon a clear understanding that the question was between Wells and Evesham. It might possibly happen that they might drop Wells and fail to insert Evesham. He, for one, must first consider whether he would run the risk of such an alternative. He was one of those who undoubtedly thought that when they passed the Instruction to the Committee it definitely secured ten Members to Scotland, by the disfranchisement of ten small boroughs in England. He was sorry the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Sir James Fergusson) had chosen to enter into a retrospective and political consideration in making this Motion. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought that was unnecessary, and consequently he should not protract the controversy. He was sorry the ten were not to be given to Scotland, and he only accepted the proposal of seven, because he took it to be at the present moment the most favourable proposal that the House would entertain. The three towns saved had been saved for the privilege of returning one more Member, but the odds were 100 to one that they would not take part in more than for one General Election. If he was satisfied that Evesham would be inserted, should Wells be struck out, he was ready to vote for it; but looking to the scant justice that Scotland had received, he should not like to run the slightest risk of seeing the seven reduced to six.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that from his knowledge of Evesham, and his connection with the county, he was able to correct what the right hon. Gentleman had stated with regard to that borough, and to inform him that Evesham had not a scattered rural population, but that it was a regularly built town, with numerous streets; and houses. Although Evesham had not, like Wells, a cathedral, it possessed one of the most beautiful abbey-churches in England.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, we have arrived at a stage on this great question of Parliamentary Reform when I think a final decision is absolutely necessary. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) is of opinion that this business of the reconstruction of our electoral system has been hurried over; but I must remind the Committee that we are now at nearly the end of the second Session during which this question has been constantly under discussion. We have considered it for two years, and I think the whole subject has been as well considered as a practical nation could consider a question on which legislation could not be indefinitely postponed. No doubt if we were to spend fifty years in devising a new electoral system we should arrive at a more perfect system than the one before us; but we; must remember that we have the advantage of the practical enjoyment of the results we have achieved, which otherwise we should not have. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) complains of the manner in which Scotland has been treated. I am under a very different impression on that point. I am not conscious that I have; considered with any want of feeling the claims of Scotland; I must say that I am surprised, and, on the whole, gratified at the results which, in the interests of Scotland, have been achieved; and I think that Scotch Members must be unreasonable if they are not satisfied too. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) is not only dissatisfied—he is indignant; and the fact that the Bill only proposes to give seven additional Members to Scotland is one which almost exhausts his powers in giving sufficient expression to his discontent. Considering, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was once in a very responsible position in this House and then brought forward a Reform Bill in which he only proposed an addition of seven Members to the representation of Scotland, I think the
  1250
  right hon. Gentleman might, at least, consider our proposal with some mercy and indulgence. With regard to the question now before the Committee, a certain principle has guided us, and to that I think we ought to adhere. It would not be expedient to enter into the comparative claims of Evesham and Wells. Wells has been described as a city and Evesham as a large village. I have reason to believe that that description is not at all justified; and I would remind the Committee that Evesham is one of the most ancient towns of England, and has been the scene of some remarkable historical incidents, if those give any claim in this matter. On the whole, I trust we shall adhere to the principle which we have laid down, and by supporting the Motion of the Under Secretary of State shall bring this long-vexed question to a happy conclusion.
  Motion, "That the word Wells stand part of the clause," agreed to.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he hoped that, after all, Arundel would be excluded from the list of towns to be disfranchised. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) that the question ought not to be determined entirely by numbers. There was a maxim in law, De minimus non curat lex—that was to say, that the law was sometimes in favour of small towns. On what reason, then, were they to exclude Arundel from the representation? He was not going to state for how many centuries Arundel had been represented. When the Assistant Commissioners visited Arundel they were evidently impressed with the suggestion of adding to Arundel for the purpose of representation the town of Littlehampton, a rising watering place, and growing port. The conjoined borough would contain a population of 7,000. A similar addition had been recommended in other cases. He moved that Arundel be excluded from the list of boroughs to be disfranchised.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the part of the Resolution in which Arundel appeared had already been passed.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  COLONEL SYKES COLONEL SYKES moved, after Clause 40, the insertion of a clause (Remuneration of Sheriff's Clerks).
  Clause negatived.
  MR. GRANT DUFF MR. GRANT DUFF moved to insert the following clause:—

  1251
  "In all cities, burghs, or towns, or districts of cities, burghs, or towns in Scotland, except in the districts comprehending Kirkwall, Wick, Dornoch, Dingwall, Tain, Cromarty, Ayr, Irwin, Carapbelltown, Inverary, and Oban, commonly called the Wick and Ayr Burghs, the officer to whom the duty of giving notice of the Election of any Member or Members to serve in Parliament belongs shall proceed to election within six days after the receipt of the writ or precept, giving three clear days' notice at least of the day of Election, exclusive of the day of proclamation and the day of Election."
  Clause ordered to be added to the Bill.
  Schedule (A) (Extended Boundaries of the City of Glasgow).
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that the plans of the Government had been altered in an extraordinary way, and that only two days' notice bad been given to Members. He must ask that the Schedule might be postponed till the Report, to enable him to communicate with his constituents in Lanarkshire, and to give them an opportunity of considering the matter.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, on the Thursday before the Recess, he gave a distinct intimation that it was his intention to include in the Parliamentary limits of Glasgow, a district which belonged to the municipality of Glasgow. He hoped a decision would be at once come to with regard to this question.
  MR. MONCREIFFappealed to the Government not to proceed with this Schedule until the general question of the extension of boundaries, which had been referred to the Select Committee, should come on for decision by the House. If the boundaries of Birmingham and other large towns in England were not to be extended, there was no reason why those of Glasgow should.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the cases were not similar, because the Select Committee had considered only the boundaries of the particular boroughs that had been referred to them. The magistrates and town council of Glasgow were desirous of having the boundaries extended.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, that it was all very well to say that the city of Glasgow was in favour of the extension. The reason of that was because the town council wanted to extend the area of taxation. No doubt, they would gladly bring the whole county within the borough. If the Committee were to consent to the Motion they would do not only a great injustice, but would perpetrate a monstrous job. By taking away so many voters from the county and
  1252
  putting them into the city they would materially affect the representation of the county. He thought the question ought to be deferred till the English Boundary Bill had been settled, and he, therefore, hoped the Schedule would be postponed.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he should vote for the proposal of the Government on the ground that it would enfranchise 7,000 or 8,000 persons who would not otherwise have a vote. Partick and Govan were really part of Glasgow.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought the question should he decided without regard to the treatment of boundaries in England.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he hoped the Government would deal with them on the principle that what was good for England was good for Scotland. Crowded meetings of the inhabitants of Partick and Govan had unanimously petitioned against incorporation with Glasgow. Unless constituted a separate constituency they preferred remaining in the counties. Against the petitions on the table they had only the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), the authorities of which cared only for having more people to tax.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he hoped the Government would consent to postponement.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he could understand opposition to the proposal on the part of owners and persons having county votes; but he believed the working men, who were small householders, of Partick and Govan were anxious to be annexed to Glasgow, and would be much disappointed if the boon were denied them. In had been stated that the border towns were indifferent to their formation into a group of burghs; but enthusiastic meetings had been held since the adoption of the proposal in order to express their gratitude to Parliament for the privilege conferred upon them.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, that if this argument was correct the suburbs of Glasgow ought to have a representative to themselves. But because they did not choose to give to the population of these considerable places a representative in this House, to which they were justly entitled, were they to deprive those who were county electors of a vote which they valued in order to give to others a vote which would scarcely be of any value.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I wish to refer in the first instance to what has been said by the hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson). He

  1253
  knows perfectly well that if the municipality of Glasgow shall use the argument that they propose to add this population, because they are anxious to give the franchise to the people, it is a very dishonest argument. And the Committee know perfectly well that, if the hon. Baronet and his Colleagues profess to support it on the tame ground, in their months it is equally a dishonest argument. It is not a question of the franchise at all. The hon. Baronet does not mean to say that he find his Colleagues are in favour of extending household suffrage throughout the counties of Scotland. Surely, if it would he a right thing to do it in this particular district, it would he equally right to do it throughout all the districts of Scotland. I protest against arguments being used in which hon. Members obviously do not believe. This is an argument which the hon. Baronet has no right to use, though may be successful for his case, and that of the right hon. Gentleman who sits nest him. The real question is this—What is the opinion of the people who are to be affected? On a former occasion I used an argument to the Committee which I think cannot be answered. It is this that whenever the Queen in Council proposes to give a municipal corporation to any borough, it is absolutely necessary that the district wishing to be incorporated should show that a majority of its population is in favour of it, and an officer should be sent down from the Council to the district to ascertain if such majority can he I found in favour of the proposed charter, and if it he not so then the charter should in no case he given. It is proposed to bring 40,000 or 50,000 persons within the municipal government of the city who do; not wish to be brought there, whose franchise will be made of less value, whose taxation will be enormously increased, and who have not come to this House to petition for this favour to be conferred on them. Dealing thus with large populations in regard to their Parliamentary or I municipal rights is contrary to the ordinary practice of this House, and calculated to lessen the confidence which the people of all parts of the country should have in Parliament. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the strong and logical and repeated remonstrances which have proceeded from this, side of the House.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that the argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham was a false one, because it proceeded upon the
  1254
  assumption that the municipal and Parliamentary boundary would always be conterminous.
  MR. BRIGHT: The hon. Member has stated that my argument is a false one. I should like him to prove it.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he had used the term in no offensive sense, but he desired to point out that hon. Members opposite assumed that the municipal boundaries of boroughs should in all cases follow the Parliamentary boundaries; and they seemed very anxious, for purposes of their own, to make the country believe that generally his was the case. He would mention two instances which would show that this was far from being invariably so. The first was that of Manchester, which was incorporated since this Reform Act of 1832. The people of that city, in choosing their municipal boundary, chose one considerably within the Parliamentary boundary, and including only about two-thirds of the area. The other was that of the large borough of Darlington, incorporated since the passing of the Reform Act of last year. So little had the inhabitants been impressed with the necessity of having their Parliamentary and municipal boundaries conterminous, that, having before them the boundary settled last year by the Reform Act, they chose for the municipal boundary one of only half that area.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, he believed that the real object of the Government was not to give the franchise to the artizans in these districts, but to take this Liberal portion of the constituency out of the comity and to attach it to Glasgow. The object of the corporation of Glasgow, on the other hand, was to get these people assessed to the municipal taxes.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought that the question ought to be left to be decided by the locality.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, the question appeared to him to be whether the Members for Glasgow should represent the city as it now existed, or a portion of it, which had been the nucleus of the present city? He wished to ask the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who contended that it would be no boon to these people to be included within the Parliamentary boundary, whether he could deny that by being enclosed many hundreds would obtain votes for Members of Parliament who would otherwise have no voice in the election of a representative?
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) was by no

  1255
  means justified in the statement which he had made regarding Darlington. The fact was, that the Parliamentary boundaries of that town, so far from being settled by the Act of last year, were still undefined, and would be so until the Boundary Bill passed. By the Report of the Commissioners now before the House, they were made co-extensive with the municipal boundaries. If the precedent of the English Bill was to govern their decision upon the Scotch Bill, the boundaries of the English boroughs were not yet defined. The English Bill was passed last year, and the Parliamentary borough of Darlington remained undefined the Scotch Bill was not yet passed, and yet the Committee were urged to define the boundary of Glasgow.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there were two questions involved in the Schedule. The first was whether the boundary of Glasgow should remain to a certain extent co-extensive with the Royal or municipal borough. As to that, he understood there could he no opposition from the other side of the House, because he believed it was an axiom with them that Parliamentary and municipal boundaries ought to be co-extensive. Yet the effect of negativing the Schedule would be to preclude the extension of the existing Parliamentary boundary to the existing municipal boundary; for there was a portion of the Royalty not included within the present Parliamentary boundary. The second question was, whether the boundary should be extended so as to include the submits of Partick and Govan; which, though each of them had a police government of its own, were really parts of Glasgow. [''No, no!"] Practically speaking they were. He could quite understand the sensitiveness of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) with reference to the proposed enlargement; because the borough of Birmingham was in a similar position, and the hon. Member wished the decision of the Committee upon this question to influence the decision upon the case of Birmingham. With regard to the imputations the hon. Member had thrown upon the Government, they were accustomed to such imputations. He thought, however, they might have been spared. The hon. Member constantly made the assumption that he was actuated by the purest motives. He (the Lord Advocate) had yet to learn that imputations could be launched indiscriminately against the Ministerial side of the House; certainly the hon. Member was about the
  1256
  last person who should make them. When the question was raised whether there ought to be protection against excessive labour for the British workman and the factory operative, the hon. Member opposed the granting of it; and he did so—according to a statement he made within the last two or three years in addressing his constituents—not because he disapproved of the measure, or that he thought it wrong in itself—the hon. Member never would admit that he ever was in the wrong—but only because the measure was supported by the Conservative or country side of the House. [Mr. BRIGHT: The right hon. and learned Member is quite wrong.] He did not think he was wrong. He recollected the matter well, for it made a great impression on him at the time. But the House ought to have been spared the reference to motives made by the hon. Member for Birmingham; for it was much better to discuss these matters on their own merits. The objection to extending the boundary of Glasgow was that Partick land Govan might be involved in the municipal taxation of Glasgow; but because that might be probable in England, it by no means followed it would be so in Scotland, in a case in which the Parliamentary boundary extended beyond the municipal boundary. From 1832 till 1862 the municipal taxation had nut been extended to the Parliamentary limit of 1832 in Glasgow. Recently arrangements were made for extending the municipal boundary of Perth; I but it was not extended to the Parliamentary limits. It in the case of Glasgow it was ultimately proposed to extend municipal taxation to the Parliamentary limits that could not be done without the consent of this House. In the case of Birmingham the municipal authorities and those without the existing boundary objected to its extension. In the case of Glasgow the municipal authorities favoured the proposed extension. Under any circumstances, the Committee ought to agree to the Schedule; for by rejecting it they would negative the proposition that even the municipal boundaries or Royalty should be included within the Parliamentary boundaries.
  Question put, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 91: Majority 5.
  On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, Schedules B, C, E, G, H, I, and K struck out.
  Schedules D, F, and L agreed to.
  New Schedules added.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; ns amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed [Bill 154.]

  BOUNDARY BILL— [BILL 78]
  (Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir J. Fergusson.)
  BOUNDARY BILL— [BILL 78]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    On Question "That the Preamble be postponed,"
    MR. GORSTsaid, he would ask the Committee not to postpone the Preamble until there had been some discussion on the different principles of the Bill, and on the position in which the House now stood with regard to it. He knew he was taking a somewhat unusual course; but then the Committee were not going to be asked to take into consideration the clauses of the measure in the ordinary way, and to vote on any particular clause after duly hearing the arguments for and against it. They were invited to come to a decision as a matter of faith in some authority, and they were, moreover, in the awkward predicament of having two authorities claiming their faith and reliance in that matter. There was, in the first place, the Report of the Commission which had been appointed last summer; and, in the second place, that of the Committee which had just concluded its labours upstairs, and which had come to conclusions in some cases confirmatory of, but in others antagonistic to, those at which the Commissioners had arrived. Under those circumstances the House might pursue one of three courses. It might follow out the recommendations of the Commission and give effect to its Report, or it might disregard that Report and adopt the clauses as embodied in the Report of the Committee. Then came the third course, which was that in those points on which the Commission and the Committee were at issue the House itself might examine the reasons for and against the proposals made, and stamp the ultimate form of the Bill with its own authority. In dealing with the subject, he should not attempt to say a single word in praise of the conscientious manner in which the Members of the Commission discharged their duties,
    1258
    for they were far above any praise or censure in which he might indulge. There was one feature, however, by which the Commission was distinguished which he must mention, and that was that it was of an eminently judicial character. The gentlemen who composed it were not remarkable for their zeal as partisans in political warfare, but rather for calm judicial habits of mind, and they had set about the performance of their task with powers which might have been too limited and Instructions which might have been bad. It did not, at all events, he in the mouth of the House to blame them if such were the case because those powers and Instructions were given almost unanimously by itself. The Commissioners having been thus appointed performed their task carefully and laboriously, and presented a Report full of interesting details, and in which they assigned their reasons for the conclusions at which they had arrived. The House might have adopted the course—he did not know that it would have been an undignified course to take—of accepting in the main the recommendations contained in that Report, impugning the decision of the Commissioners in any case in which malâ fides on their part might have been suggested, while it would also have been open to the House to remedy any mistake as to a matter of fact into which they might be shown to have fallen. But where there was no suggestion of bias or prejudice, or no ground for supposing that the Commissioners had made a mistake with respect to a matter of fact, it appeared to him that the House having appointed a judicial tribunal of that character would have acted in a manner not altogether inconsistent with its dignity in following its recommendations. The House, however, had not thought fit to pursue that course. Hon. Members on both sides of it, it was true, vied with one another in their praises of the mode in which the Commissioners had discharged their duties, and, instead of blaming them for neglect of their duties, threw blame on the insufficient Instructions which they had received, and the limited powers which had been conferred upon them. The House then appointed a Select Committee to revise the decision of the Commissioners, and to that Committee they gave additional powers, which were, however, to be used only in the case of a very few boroughs. The House might have given the Commission last year bad Instructions; but in the present year it

    1259
    appointed a Committee upstairs without any Instructions whatever. Of course, it was for the House to consider whether the decision of the Committee was entitled to greater respect than the decision of the Commissioners. As it would be impertinent for him to criticize the characters of the Members of the Commission so it would be unbecoming on his part to criticize the characters of the Members of the Committee. He admitted that in eminence of station the latter were on a par with the Commissioners of last year; but this he would observe, that some Members of the Committee had earned their distinction by party warfare. He would not be so invidious as to mention names; but, while some of the Members of the Committee were distinguished by impartial and judicial minds, others had earned distinction by zeal and ability displayed in party warfare. [Cries of "Name."] Well, he would name as an illustration the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). There was no man of whose ability and integrity he had a higher opinion; but it would be idle to say that he accepted that hon. Member as one possessing an entirely impartial and judicial mind. In recent debates the hon. Gentleman had raised his reputation with his own party by the vigour of his attacks on the Ministers. All he was endeavouring to make out was that the Committee upstairs could not be regarded as a fitting tribunal to revise and, if necessary, to reverse the decision of the Commissioners. Did the Committee upstairs possess any such advantages as should induce the House to accept their decision in preference to that of the Commission? In the first place, the hearing upstairs was secret. ["No, no"] It was a hearing with closed doors, whereas I the bearings on which the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners were founded were held in public places and within the localities affected. There was something in the Report of the Committee about their having had additional evidence. But what was that evidence? It consisted of I memorials and petitions from the localities affected, and the same Committee had also the advantage of conferring with the Members of the boroughs and counties affected, who stated what they believed to be true, no doubt, but who still spoke in a strong partizan sense. Could anyone say that evidence such as that should induce the House to prefer the Report of the Committee to the Report of the Commission?
    1260
    Now that the Committee had reported, he asked whether there was anything in their Report to lead the House to accept without examination the opinion of the Committee in preference to the judgment of the Commissioners? The Report of the Committee began by stating eleven different objections to the extension of the boundaries of boroughs; but the Committee did not state whether these objections were valid or not. Looking at the Report of the Committee, the only shadow of a principle that he could find for their decision was that where the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries were co-incident, it was inexpedient that there should be any alteration of the boundaries; for in fifteen cases they recommended that no alteration should be made, and in ten of those cases the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries were co-extensive. He was confirmed in this idea by what was done with respect to Darlington. The Parliamentary boundaries of Darlington were temporarily defined in the Reform Act of last year; but since that period it had been incorporated, and the municipal boundaries included a smaller area than the temporary Parliamentary boundaries. The Committee upstairs curtailed the Parliamentary boundary in order to bring the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries into unison, and had thus disfranchised many persons who would otherwise, under the Reform Act, have been electors. Yet, with great inconsistency, in some cases the Committee had actually recommended the extension of the Parliamentary boundaries beyond the municipal. In forty-two cases in England and Wales the Commissioners last year recommended the extension of the Parliamentary boundaries. Only eighteen or nineteen of those cases had been challenged before the Committee; and in no less than eight of them the Committee had departed from the principle of making the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries conterminous, and had recommended the extension of the Parliamentary beyond the municipal boundaries. He believed that the objection which existing Parliamentary boroughs felt to be extended had great weight with the Committee. It appeared to him that this objection was confined to large boroughs; and it was a fact that when the Commissioners went down to Birmingham, and held a public meeting, the corporation and town clerk appeared before them and opposed the

    1261
    extension of the boundaries on the remarkably Liberal ground that in 1867 Parliament had conferred certain privileges on the existing electors, and they objected to share them with others. That was a singular argument to be used by a Liberal corporation. Let the House contrast the conduct of Birmingham with that of the large and important be rough of Liverpool, which did not object to see the privileges it enjoyed conferred on the people around. Another principle which seemed to have actuated the Committee was based on the objection of outlying districts to be brought within the limits of boroughs, he confessed that he had not the slightest sympathy with such an objection. He thought it most gross injustice and selfishness on the part of people who lived in the neighbourhood of a borough and enjoyed all the advantages which that vicinity gave them to endeavour to escape from the payment of borough rates. Some of the adjoining townships of Liverpool actually shared in all the municipal advantages of that town having water and gas supplied to them, but objected to be joined, to it, lest they should be rated. The case of Gateshead was still more flagrant. There was every reason in that case for adding a large district to the borough; but the people living in the district which it was desirable to add to the borough did not wish to be included in it. The House had not the opportunity of seeing the Assistant Commissioners' Report with reference to this case, but he had enjoyed that advantage. ["Order."] He hoped he was not offending against any Parliamentary Rule.
    MR. SERJEANT GASELEErose to Order. He had asked that these Reports should be produced. The Prime Minister declined to give them. They were not on the table. It was not, therefore, regular for the hon. and learned Member to refer to them.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he had moved that the Reports be laid on the table, and he believed they were produced ["No!"] Then, if he could not refer to the Report of the Assistant Commissioners, he would state what he was about to mention on his own responsibility. He was informed that in the case of the district which objected to be added to Gateshead there was no local Board of Health, as they objected to be washed and to hare any sanitary rate. Would the House sanction such selfish and unworthy objections in the arrangement of a great question like this? The Tyne
    1262
    boroughs were all marvellously alike—there was a large manufacturing population and an excrescence of docks and shipyards. In the case of South Shields and Gates" head the Committee upstairs refused to add these excrescences along the river bank to the existing borough, whereas in Middlesborough they had actually extended the municipality for the purpose of taking in the outlying district. He did not say this was conclusive against the Report of the Committee; but he thought it was conclusive against adopting it without examination in detail. He would only mention one more anomaly in the proceedings of the Committee upstairs. They appeared to have a great horror of extending the system of grouping adopted by Parliament. They seemed to forget that groups of boroughs were not at all unknown to British representation. Wales abounded in groups of boroughs; but the Committee was so much afraid of grouping boroughs that they even refused to carry out the Report of the Commissioners in the case of Portsmouth by annexing to it Gosport although the parish of Alverstoke, in which the town of Gosport lay, extended as far as the middle of Portsmouth harbour, the two places being identical in interest and connected by a large floating bridge which traversed back and forward every half-hour. The opposition did not proceed from the inhabitants of the town of Gosport, but from the squirearchy of Alverstoke. It was extremely distasteful to the working men of Gosport, who wished the two should become one borough, and who said that she squirearchy of Alverstoke and the gentlemen of the town of Portsmouth—he did not know whether the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Serjeant Gasclee) was to be included—he did not mean anything offensive to the hon. Member—did not understand their wishes. The Committee thought fit to reverse the decision of the Commissioners in that case, and yet, with the most marvellous inconsistency, they grouped the boroughs of Windsor and Eton, which had no real affinity. The House, then, should examine for itself before deciding in favour of the Committee and against the Commissioners. They might give their sanction to the Report of the Commissioners—but he was afraid that after all that had passed they would be stultifying themselves by pursuing such a course. He thought that where the decision of the Commissioners was unchallenged, and where the decision of the Com-

    1263
    mittee was virtually in accord with their recommendations, effect should be given to them; but in those cases where the Commissioners recommended one thing and the Select Committee another, he did not see how the House could avoid entering on a discussion. They must hear the facts and arguments urged upon both sides with patience, and stamp their final determination with their own judgment and authority.
    MR. WALPOLE: After the observations of my hon. and learned Friend the House will probably expect from me, as one of the Committee—and having been elected Chairman I look upon myself as the servant of the House—to inform them of all which the Committee did in order that the House may be enabled to arrive at a proper judgment of the whole of this matter. In doing so I shall avoid all controversy on one side or the other, staling only what the Committee have done, and their reasons, as far as I can briefly do it, for arriving at the conclusions they did, and I hope any Member of the Committee will correct me if I should state anything inaccurately. Two observations only would I make of a prefatory character. First, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend as to the courses which are open to us; and the other observation is this—I think my hon. and learned Friend, had he been present in the Committee, would not have charged any Member with acting from party motives. The difficulties of this case grow upon us as we reflect on them more and more. They have arisen from the imperfect manner in which the directions and Instructions were given to enable either the Commissioners or the Committee to arrive at a clear and satisfactory conclusion. I do not know that I can better point out the difficulties of the case than by reminding them of the course which it was proposed the House should take last year with reference to making new and enlarged boundaries in boroughs. The House will remember that, at the commencement of last Session certain Resolutions were laid on the table, and one of them—the 11th or 13th I think—related to the enlargement of borough boundaries, and for the sake of clearness I hope the House will permit me to point out the course that has been adopted from time to time by the House and by the Boundary Commissioners with regard to this subject. The original Resolution proposed a scheme—
    1264
    "For new and enlarged boundaries of the existing Parliamentary boroughs where the population extends beyond the limits now assigned to such boroughs."
    That was a very general and a very large Resolution, When the Bill was introduced it contained a Clause to the following effect:—
    "The Inclosure Commissioners shall report to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State whether any enlargement of the boundaries of such boroughs is necessary in order to include within the area thereof the population properly belonging to such boroughs respectively."
    These were such vague and general phrases that it was hardly possible to assign any definite and practical meaning to them without at the same time authorizing the Commissioners to go much further than the House intended, and accordingly, in the amended Bill, the clause took the following shape:—
    "They shall also inquire into the boundaries of every other borough in England and Wales, with a view to ascertain whether the boundaries should be enlarged, so as to include within the limits of the borough all premises which ought, due regard being had to situation or other local circumstances, to be included therein for the purpose of conferring upon the occupiers thereof the Parliamentary franchise for such borough."
    This was an indication that it was the intention of the House that the Commissioners were to have regard to two things—first, the situation of the outlying districts; and, secondly, the other local circumstances by which their decision as to the enlargement of the boroughs might be influenced. When the Bill was in Committee an Amendment was proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), to the effect that the Commissioners should have regard to the municipal boundaries; but that Amendment was not adopted because it was pointed out, very properly, by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the Commissioners would of course have the power of looking to the municipal boundaries as well as to any other circumstances affecting the question. Such being the only Instructions given to the Commissioners they soon discovered how difficult it was to act upon them. Before the Assistant Commissioners were sent down to the different boroughs the Commissioners, I think most wisely, put an interpretation upon the words, "situation and other local circumstances," which, if it had been acted upon, would have removed most of the difficulties which have since been met with. That

    1265
    interpretation will be found in the introduction to their Report. The Commissioners instructed the Assistant Commissioners to ascertain whether there was such community of interests between the outlying districts and the borough as would lead them to believe that such outlying districts should form part of the borough. A wiser interpretation than that could not have been put upon the words of the Act. And now let us see how far the Assistant Commissioners were able to act upon it. One of the ablest of the Assistant Commissioners (Mr. Cumin) came before the Committee upstairs, and, speaking of the boroughs of the great county of South Lancashire, he said that the expression "community of interests" could not mean merely identity of pursuit, because in reference to that county it was impossible to say where the community of pursuits began or ended. When he came to deal with Manchester, for instance, two propositions were made to the Assistant Commissioners—one by an able Conservative, barrister, and the other by the Conservative Association. By the first proposition the Assistant Commissioners were asked to draw a circle with a radius of three miles, which was to include the borough; while by the second proposition they were asked to include all the outlying districts in the, neighbourhood of the town, up to Ashton in one direction and Oldham in another. It was evident, therefore, that it was impossible to lay down any definite and clear rule which could be applied to all cases that arose in the manufacturing districts. The only rule that Mr. Cumin could lay down, therefore, was to disregard the mere circumstance of there being a community; of pursuits, and to ascertain whether there, was a great mass of continuous houses inhabited by those who belonged to the great mass of the population of the town. That was a sensible rule to lay down, so fur as it could be acted upon; but it was soon found that it was impossible to apply it to Liverpool or to Birmingham without including enormous districts which I could not properly be regarded as belonging to those boroughs. The final conclusion at which the Commissioners, arrived under those circumstances was to determine each case in accordance with its own special circumstances; in short, to decide without any rule at all. I have, alluded to these facts in order to show the House that this question is not such an easy one as might be supposed at first sight
    1266
    The beet boundary line, in my opinion, that can be drawn is to include the outlying districts whore they have a distinct community of interests with the borough, and to exclude them where their interests are independent of those of the borough. These being the difficulties the Commissioners had to encounter, what did they do? They had two classes of cases to deal with—the new and the old boroughs. With regard to the former they possessed large discretionary powers; and I do not think that there has been any dispute between the Commissioners and the Committee with regard to the minor differences that have arisen with respect to them. There were 197 old boroughs in England with which the Commissioners had to deal—116 of which they left without proposing any extension of their boundaries. Of the remaining eighty-one, forty-eight would receive the addition determined by the Commissioners, if the House adopted the Report of the Committee, as he trusted it would; the other thirty-three cases were referred to the Committee to adjudicate upon them. Now, in eighteen of these cases the Committee practically agreed with the recommendations of the Commissioners; but they thought that it was not advisable that any alteration should be made in the boundaries of the remaining fifteen boroughs. The objections raised to annexation were eleven in number. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) said that he could not find out the exact reason which had induced the Committee to come to the determination at which they had arrived. What we did was this—we sat for four days consecutively, de die in diem, examining into every case in order to see what all the objections were that could be raised by all parties, and then we proceeded to deliberate upon the cases to see how far we could arrive at a conclusion with regard to them. We stated in our Report the various objections raised to the enlargement of the boroughs, and to the annexation of the outlying districts, and as hon. Members have had an opportunity of reading that Report I will not refer to them in detail, but I will proceed to lay such information before the House as I think will explain the reasons which induced the Committee to arrive at a different conclusion with regard to the fifteen boroughs from that come to by the Commissioners. I think you may divide these fifteen boroughs into four classes, placing five in one, six in another, two in a third, and two in a fourth, Now, in the

    1267
    first class I would place those very large boroughs to which annexations were recommended by the Commissioners, but in which those annexations have not been approved by the Committee. Those boroughs are Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Lambeth, and Marylebone. Now, in all these cases, with the exception of Liverpool, you will find that the annexation was equally objected to by the boroughs themselves and the outlying districts, and in all the cases without any exception you must, if you had adopted the principles upon which the Commissioners had proceeded, have annexed a great number of other places. Again, in most, if not all the cases, the outlying districts proposed to be annexed possessed some kind of interest distinct from that of the borough to which they were to be annexed, either in the shape of a local Board or some other form of local self-government. Again, in most, if not all, these cases there was a strong desire on the part of those possessing county votes to retain that privilege; and it was not to be lost sight of, that while the annexations would have swelled the populations of these boroughs to over 400,000 each, the remaining populations of the respective counties, or divisions of counties, in which they were situated would in most cases be very little more than, and in some cases actually less than 100,000. I submit to the House, therefore, that we were perfectly justified in the conclusions at which we arrived with regard to boroughs which would become so unwieldy and so disproportionately large. I now come to the next class of cases—those in which the districts proposed to be annexed possessed interests entirely distinct from those of the boroughs to which they were to be joined. In this class I may place Tynemouth, South Shields, Gateshead, Birkenhead, Warwick, and Portsmouth. Well, now as to Tynemouth, the Commissioners proposed to add Willington Quay to it, but the Assistant Commissioners themselves admitted that the two had no connection whatever, and the evidence adduced before the Committee showed that Willington Quay, if connected with any borough at all, was more connected with Newcastle-upon-Tyne than it was with Tynemouth. To South Shields the Commissioners proposed to annex the town of Jarrow, which is an old town, distinct from South Shields, and not the overflow of the population of that place, but independent of it. There was no reason for annexing
    1268
    Jarrow to South Shields, unless a system of grouping were adopted, any more than there was in the cases of many of the places the annexation of which was rejected. The next case, that of Gateshead, is a very striking one. From what appeared in the Report of the Commissioners I should have myself favoured the proposed annexation of the outlying districts; but the facts as brought out before us showed that the population of Gateshead was increasing in a southerly, but not in an easterly direction. The Commissioners, however, have added three ecclesiastical districts lying in an easterly direction, while between the borough and these districts lies a space of agricultural country of about a mile with very few houses. In this case nobody can pretend that the places proposed to be annexed are connected with the borough as affording accommodation for an overflowing population. The annexations proposed to be made to Birkenhead on the north side of the town would appear at first sight to be justifiable; but all the evidence adduced before the Committee went to show that the interests of the borough and the districts proposed to be added were not only not identical, but were absolutely conflicting, the fact being evident from the continual opposition offered by the neighbourhood to the passage of local Bills through this House; and the district north of Wallasey Pool, if connected with any borough, was rather connected with Liverpool than with Birkenhond. Then, with respect to Warwick, my own individual opinion is that it would have been a very good thing if Leamington and Warwick had been linked together some time ago; but I do not think that under their Instructions the Commissioners could properly include Leamington in Warwick, since that would be grouping two towns which were distinct from each other. It would be simply ridiculous to urge that the places proposed to be annexed were inhabited by the overflow of the Warwick population. Then comes the case of Portsmouth, to which the Commissioners proposed to annex part of the parish of Alverstoke, and upon that case my learned Friend was very severe. My brother being the rector of that parish I requested the Committee on that ground not to call upon me to take part in their decision; but, having heard the evidence, I must say that to my mind it was distinctly shown not only that Alverstoke possessed a separate Bench of Magistrate and belonged to a

    1269
    distinct Poor Law union, but that it was also neither socially nor municipally connected with Portsmouth. In the next class—the cases of Bristol and Nottingham—the House will, I think, see the difficulty with which we had to deal. Many of the objections which apply to the first class of cases apply also to these two boroughs, but there was, in addition, the extreme difficulty—as the Commissioners themselves pointed out—arising from the fact that as these towns are counties of themselves, we had to deal with a large number of freeholders whose rights of voting either in the county or in the borough would have previously to be determined. That question has never been fairly brought before Parliament since the time of the Reform Act, and my own individual opinion is that, independently of the other objections, you were bound to determine that question before, by annexing the outlying districts to the town, you deprived certain voters of rights which they now possess, and which for the most part they are anxious to retain. The cases of Wigan and Reading are the last, Now, in the case of Wigan, the districts proposed to be added being inhabited by a population unconnected with the borough by sympathy or interest, and which was not an overflow from the town itself they (the Committee) thought it would not be wise to annex them; and in the case of Reading everyone seemed to be agreed that the district proposed to be annexed was inhabited by persons who had selected residences with the special view of separating themselves from the town, and who were in fact much more identified with the county interests. These are the reasons which guided us in our decisions, and I have only to add a few words upon the course which we ought now to pursue. I must say that I agree with what my learned Friend said with reference to the Report of the Commissioners. If that Report had not been challenged, I, for one, should have been prepared, from the high respect which I entertain for the Commissioners, and the confidence I repose in their judgment, to accept the decision at which they had arrived. But when that Report was challenged, and referred moreover to a Select Committee, it would have been a gross dereliction of their duty if that Committee had not exercised their judgment in respect to the proposals recommended by the Commissioners. Now, something has been said as to the Report
    1270
    being regarded as final. I have always felt that any Report to the framing of which I have been a party ought to be submitted to the judgment of the House; but I must at the same time remark that if it is the I intention of the House not to accept our Report, though I should not in the slightest degree find fault with that decision, yet I cannot disguise from myself we have lost a great deal of valuable time in determining this question. If such be the case, day after day has been spent in fruitless and superfluous labour; and I, for one, should have thought twice before I would have allowed my name to be placed on the Committee. At the same time, I do not in the least degree object to our Report being questioned, and with reference to the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend that we should deal with the particular cases one after another I can only say that we shall feel it our duty to give such information as may lay in our power, leaving it to the House to decide on each case as it conies under discussion. As a Member, not of the Committee but of the House, I may take leave to express one opinion which I entertain very strongly—namely, that where the point is in doubt as to whether you should annex outlying districts to a borough or not, it is very desirable that considerable weight should be given to the circumstance that the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries are conterminous. I have always contended for that principle in the House, as the only means whereby we can insure community of interests, inasmuch as that is the only means by which community of interests, duties, and burdens—in fact, the obligations of a common citizenship, can be obtained. I have one other general remark to make. I own I entertain very considerable doubt whether in cases where you have large borough constituencies, numbering four times as many electors as the constituency of the county in which they stand, you should proceed to take electors from those counties and add them to the towns. I am well aware it is felt that the counties are, ordinarily speaking, agricultural, and the towns commercial or manufacturing constituencies; but I think it by no means a bad point in our Constitution that we have some constituencies composed of both elements of population, and such constituencies can only be secured by preserving commercial and manufacturing counties as distinguished from those which are purely agricultural.
    MR. STOPFORDsaid, he regretted the Committee had to deal with two rival Reports from bodies of undoubted authority. He would confess he had been somewhat dismayed and disappointed by the Report of the Committee, because it re-opened the whole question of boundaries, and had not shrunk from raising points unanimously settled by the House last year. One would have thought that respecting the general principle of the extension of boundaries the House and the Government, the Commissioners and the Committee, would all have been in accord; but the Report of the Commissioners, which had been based in every case upon careful local inquiry, was entirely upset by the Report of the Committee, as far as the boroughs were concerned. Much stress had of late been laid on the value of local inquiry in the matter of bribery, and so highly did some hon. Members esteem it that they were prepared to relinquish control over cases of contested elections, if by that sacrifice local inquiry could be secured. Notwithstanding this, however, the Committee threw the whole of those patient local inquiries to the winds, and came to entirely different conclusions. As far as he understood it, the Committee's Report was based on these grounds, that municipal and Parliamentary boroughs should be conterminous; that boroughs should not be unduly extended so as to consist of an overwhelming number of Members; and that there should be a community of interest between the boroughs as at present constituted and the suburbs it was proposed to add to them. With respect to the first point, he contended that inasmuch as Parliament had not expressed an opinion on the subject last year it was now too late for the Committee to lay down any such principle. But, setting this aside, he at least expected of the Members of the Committee that they would be consistent, but he found they recommended the extension of the boundaries of several boroughs, and among these was Northampton, the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries of which would not be conterminous if the Report were adopted. The Committee also endorsed the recommendations of the Commissioners respecting Bolton, Chester, and Windsor, that the area of these boroughs should be extended by the addition of certain of their suburbs; so that in these cases the Parliamentary and municipal borough would no longer be conterminous. The objection that boroughs would become unwieldy by the addition of
    1272
    suburbs was quite untenable, even if it did not arise out of a question which the Committee was incompetent to inquire into—namely, whether boroughs, the population of which had outgrown their Parliamentary limits, should be added to by that population. This question had already been discussed and decided on in the affirmative by Parliament last year. It struck him as somewhat extraordinary that every one who differed from the Commissioners, including the Committee, were most profuse in complimenting them on their industry and care. The Committee had made much of the point that people in the suburbs of towns had objected to being brought within the boroughs because they would lose the privilege of compounding; but he could not regard that as a greater hardship to those at present without the Parliamentary boundary than it was to those within. It was of the greatest importance that counties should retain their representation in their own hands, but if large manufacturing towns went on increasing at their present rate the House would have the hon. Member for Birmingham sitting in the seat of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, than which a more extraordinary metamorphosis could not be imagined. As for the alleged necessity of responding to the wishes of the inhabitants of disputed districts he denied that local opinion had any right to be consulted in cases of Imperial policy. In the case of divisions on a great question recently before the House, Ulster had expressed a most unmistakable opinion, but the House had entirely disregarded Ulster's voice. Upon questions of Imperial policy, where the House had made up its mind, it had been broadly declared that local opinions ought not to prevail. But that was exactly the case of persons outside the boroughs. Parliament had adopted certain principles of extending the franchise as desirable, and now it was sought to reverse these in deference to the opinions held by persons outside the boroughs. The secret of the great objection felt by persons outside the boroughs to be included for Parliamentary purposes he believed to be the dread that they would some day be included for purposes of taxation. And he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) that persons who enjoyed every advantage derivable from living in close proximity to a town might not unfairly be asked to partake of the burden of local taxation. He could not help thinking that, as to Bristol, Wigan,

    1273
    Nottingham, Birmingham, and Liverpool, the Commissioners had made out a very good case for extending the Parliamentary limits. He did not profess to have any intimate acquaintance with the special details but he might at least claim the advantage of being perfectly impartial on the subject of boundaries, as in the county which he had the honour to represent no question had arisen with respect to its extension. It had been a great disappointment to him and to many Members on the same side of the House to find that one great anomaly of the representative system was not proposed to be redressed. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had often called attention to the great discrepancy existing between the representation of boroughs and counties While the boroughs had not so large a population as the counties, they had twice as many Members to represent them; and last year it was supposed that this anomaly was being to a certain extent redressed, by the absorption into the borough constituencies of large numbers of persons who, as long as they remained outside, swelled the county population, and rendered the county representation so very disproportionate. But if the population which the Commissioners proposed to include in the boroughs was thrown back into the counties they would be no better off than before the Reform Bill was passed. It was not for him to say what course the Government or the House should take on this important question; but he could not help thinking that it would be necessary for the Committee to go into every case again. It had been said that the Government were pledged to adopt the Report of the Committee, appointed on their own Motion; but he confessed that according to the view he took, the Committee had gone in some degree beyond their instructions in proposing the sweeping changes which they had recommended. He hoped that the House would agree with the Commissioners rather than the Committee.
    MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I think that the preliminary discussion now taking place—though it may appear to occupy more time than is desirable—will be very advantageous. The Committee is at a very great disadvantage in not having the privilege of hearing the opinion of the Government, and especially the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, for on him will depend probably the decision whether we must go through the whole of
    1274
    the Schedule of eighty-one boroughs, and have discussion and division on a great many of them, or whether we can confine ourselves to the question whether we shall accept the determination of the Committee in regard to the fifteen boroughs to which reference has been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) has made as dear a statement of the case of the Committee as it is possible to submit to the House. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Department on a former occasion when he proposed the appointment of the Select Committee, and proposed that the decision of the Committee would be final.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I beg pardon; that is not the case. I did not know that my right hon. Friend alluded to me; but it has been stated that such is the case, and I see that the words appear in The Times newspaper. But the way the question arose was this. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) asked me whether, if the Committee were appointed, they would have the power of reserving questions for the consideration of a future Parliament, or whether they would give a final opinion ns to the boroughs submitted to them? I said, "The Committee would report to the House their final decision," and in The Times report the statement is added, "and the House would be bound by that decision." I felt confident that I had not made use of those words, and I requested a friend to look at the passage as it was reported in other newspapers. The Daily News puts it thus—
    "Mr. Hardy said, it would be final so far as the Committee was concerned, but it would be for the House to ratify it or not, as they determined. If there was documentary evidence on one side, there ought to be documentary evidence on the other."
    In another paper it is stated in the same; way—
    "The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the decision of the Committee would be final, or only to postpone the question for the further consideration of Parliament; for, if it were to be final, they certainly ought to have evidence on both sides."
    The right hon. Gentleman here referred to is the Member for South Lancashire. [Mr. GLADSTONE interposed a remark.] I am only reading the newspaper extract. It goes on to say—

    1275
    "Mr. Hardy said, it would be final, as far as the Committee was concerned, but it would be for the House to ratify it or not, as they determined. If there were documentary evidence on one side, there ought to be documentary evidence on the other, but there would be no opportunity of calling witnesses on either."
    The question, therefore, to which my attention was directed, and to which my answer was pointed, was whether the Committee ought to reserve these cases for a future Parliament, or whether they ought to decide upon them at once.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not in Order in reading newspaper extracts from reports of debates in the House during the present Session.
    MR. BRIGHT: I do not in the least contest the explanation the right hon. Gentleman has offered; but I appeal to the House, and I may even appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether the impression conveyed to the House at the time the Committee was appointed was not that the Government would be disposed to receive with confidence, and as a final decision, that which should be determined upon by the Committee? In all cases of this kind, the House does not absolutely part with its power when it appoints its Committee; and perhaps on no former occasion was a Committee appointed more entirely worthy of the confidence of the House. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) spoke of party men. Why, if you were to shut from due deliberation on grave matters all those who take an active part in the discussions of this House, the course of Business in this House would be greatly impeded. I was about to say just now that I thought the Government should step forward, on this occasion, and guide the House to the conclusion at which it should arrive. I think no men ever occupied the Treasury Bench who would not, under the circumstances, have come to the conclusion that it was their duty to accept the decision of the Committee. There are fifteen boroughs to which some hon. Members are disposed to take exception; and it would be most unfortunate if the House in Committee should go into a discussion and division with regard to every one of them. The hon. and learned Member opposite—I did not know before that the hon. Gentleman had been learned—made a speech to night which went at great length into these matters. But let me ask, why was the Commission appointed last year? Clearly because the House felt itself not
    1276
    equal to dealing with the details of a great number of boroughs, and the Commission was appointed for the sole purpose of offering, with these details before it, such advice, and of giving such decisions, as might guide the House. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) has shown what we now all feel, that the clause in the Bill was hastily drawn, and not judiciously for its purpose; and the result is that the Report of the Commissioners—without any blame to them—has not been so satisfactory in some respects as the House had hoped for and as we all could wish. And the reason the Report was not entirely satisfactory was that the Commissioners were compelled apparently, or thought they were compelled, to exclude from view certain considerations which should not be lost sight of when a question like this, affecting so many boroughs, was to be considered. The question of convenience—the public opinion of the boroughs as they exist now, and of the population of the districts to be brought in—all these are matters that ought to be considered. And because that had not been done there was some disatisfaction felt, and how great it was Members on both sides of the House know. The hon. Member for Liverpool on that side, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham expressed dissatisfaction with the Report, and there was a prevalent feeling when the Committee was appointed, that the appointment of the Committee was the best solution of the difficulty in which the House found itself. Now what happened? As Members for Birmingham, my hon. Colleague and myself appeared before the Committee. The Committee heard first of all the Assistant Commissioner, a gentleman who evidently knew very well what he was talking about, and had paid great attention to the matter; and after he had made a statement going very much into detail, Mr. Walter, one of the Commissioners, was also permitted to make a speech to the Committee. Mr. Walter, like hon. Gentlemen opposite, appeared to have an intense interest in the borough which I am permitted to represent, for he told the Committee that he had taken upon himself to go down to Birmingham and stay there some time, to make himself acquainted with the geography of the place. Well, he made a speech to the Committee. After that my hon. Colleague was permitted to state facts which we thought very important, and which doubtless the

    1277
    Committee thought important. And after him I was allowed to add a few arguments that presented themselves to my mind. They were very kindly, and very impartially listened to. Now, not only were we heard, but the hon. Member who represents East Worcestershire (Mr. Vernon) was heard; and not only was he heard, but also the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) who, no doubt, with an idea of the approaching meeting of the Social Science Association, said that he had prepared a paper for the Committee. I have not seen that paper, but no doubt he said everything that could be said on the side of the view which he entertained. When the Committee had heard all that they had to hear they deliberated. Now look at the dates. On the 22nd May my hon. Colleague and myself were before the Committee. On the 28th of May the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was before the Committee. On the 29th of May the Committee appears to have decided. I believe the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Kirkman Hodgson) made a particular Motion, but that is nothing, because it is stated in the Report that the Members of the Committee and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) will admit that at least some of them had judicial minds—were absolutely unanimous in all these cases. The hon. Member says that there was no principle laid down by the Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) does not say that there was any principle; and I do not Bee that there is any principle that can be accurately defined that would affect equally all the boroughs which were referred to the Committee. The question of municipal and Parliamentary boundaries is one which was mooted long since last Session. The right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government objected to an Amendment which, at my request, was moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey); but in his answer he made use of a few words which led inevitably to the conclusion that it would be impossible for the Commission wholly to keep out of view the question of the municipal boundaries of boroughs. Now, as I am on my feet, I will state a fact which the right hon. Gentleman referred to generally, but which affects the borough with which I am more immediately connected. North Warwickshire contains a population of about 116,000 outside the boroughs, and it was proposed
    1278
    to take 25,000 from the 116,000 of the population, and add them to a borough which, was now about 350,000. East Worcestershire has about 130,000, and it was proposed to take from them 10,000, and add them to that borough, which, if the former addition had been made, would have had 375,000. Well, in the face of the hon. Gentleman, I say that is a preposterous proposition which the House, in nn impartial, judicial state of mind, would not for a moment consent to. Now, the right hon. Gentleman said there were three courses, which were these—that you should take the Report of the Commission, or take the Report of the Committee, or disregard them both; the House going into a confused discussion and voting upon the case of each separate borough. But I take for granted that that last course is what the House rejected when it first of all appointed the Commission. The House declared by appointing the Commission that it was not competent wisely and impartially to go into the question of these various boroughs. Well, a Commission was appointed, and when it reported the House discovered that the Instructions to the Commission had not been sufficiently broad and distinct, and there was so much dissatisfaction with a portion of the Report, that the House determined to have the case tried again by a Committee, which would have the advantage of the information which the Commission had had, and of the information which had subsequently been offered to the House, And the Committee sat, and I will undertake to say that whether you take the three Gentlemen on this side of the House or the two Gentleman on that side, you would not be able to find in the House five men to whom you would more freely leave the determination of any matter in which your personal interests were concerned. They sat from day to day; they heard everybody whom, by the Instruction of the House, they were permitted to hear. They heard them fully. It was not a secret Committee as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) says. There was no secret about it. It was much more open than the Commission that made the other Report, I do not allude to the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners, but to the Report of the Commission itself. The Committee having heard everyone, they deliberated undisturbed by party influence of any kind, and they came unanimously to a certain conclusion. Well, I ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government

    1279
    —I do not believe I shall ask him in vain—whether he will sanction, and I ask the House whether it will sanction, the course that is proposed in opposition to the decisions of this Committee, which were so satisfactory—not possibly to some hon. Gentlemen who feel no interest but a party interest in this matter, but entirely satisfactory to the populations that are most concerned. Because, what has happened? So far as I have heard, there has not been a single petition or memorial offered to the House since this Report was published; nor, so far as I know, has any Member of the House proposed to disturb any of the decisions to which the Committee hns come. Well, now, have not I made out a fair case for the course I am about to suggest? What I suggest is that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and his Friends on that side of the House, being as anxious as we are on this side to get forward with the Business of the Session, we should accept without contest the decisions to which this Committee has come. If there be any case in which it can be shown that a positive error has been committed by the Committee—which is possible, as there were some errors on the part of the Commission—then, of course, the House will be willing to make such alterations as may be necessary. But I think, if hon. Gentlemen will get out of their minds the notion that there is any great gain to be secured for party in this matter, they will agree with hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House that we should accept the determination to which the Committee has come. I speak on behalf of the great constituency which I am permitted in part to represent, and of the population outside the borough, who by the decision of this Committee are to be left outside of it, which decision, I believe, meets with their entire approbation. If that be so, I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to the Government, whether it can be to their interest, or whether it can be to the interest of anybody in this country that that which is satisfactory to the large masses concerned should be disturbed after the repeated and solemn judgment has been given upon it by so eminent and influential a Committee as that to which it has been referred?
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member for Birmingham seemed to assume that what was satisfactory to him and his Friends must of necessity be satisfactory to the House. What had the hon. Member pro-
    1280
    posed? That because the House had appointed a Committee, therefore the House should abandon its function of review. The hon. Member proposed that the decision of the Committee should be final with reference to the circumstances of the boroughs into which it had been appointed to inquire? It appeared to him that the House would not be justified in adopting the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The right, hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Walpole)—the Chairman of the Select Committee—had argued the question entirely as a borough Member, and, like other hon. Members who had previously addressed the House, did not understand the position of county Members with respect to representation. As Member for North Warwickshire, he now represented 120,000 people outside the boroughs of Tamworth, Coventry, and Birmingham. But his constituency was composed of 7,000 electors, of whom fully 3,000 were freeholders or persons otherwise qualified in Birmingham, Coventry, and Tamworth. The hon. Member asked where would be the justice in bringing into the Parliamentary borough of Birmingham the number of persons now outside the boundary whom the Commissioners proposed to bring in. Now, the county electors of Birmingham amounted to one-sixth of the constituency of North Warwickshire, and therefore the borough population had a Parliamentary power outside the borough, while the population outside the borough had no electoral power whatever within the borough boundary. From this the House would see that the argument of the hon. Gentleman founded on the numbers in the county and the numbers in the borough, as though distinct in their representation, had no weight. In this respect the Committee had been less well-informed than the Commission. According to the admission of the Committee themselves, no two cases of boroughs whose boundaries the Commissioners proposed to enlarge had been decided upon the same principle. Each case had been decided on its own merits. How, then, could the House abdicate its function of review? he had not heard what the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) or Mr. Walter had said before the Committee, but his belief was that there was no case so strongly to the credit of the decision of the Commissioners, and so doubtful, even in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) himself—the Chairman of the Committee—as the case of Birmingham. When that case

    1281
    came on for discussion, he hoped to show that the Manor of Aston—the district which the Commissioners proposed to include in the borough of Birmingham—contained the Park and Manor House of Aston, which were the property of the Corporation of Birmingham. This constituted a case which was open to doubt, even in the opinion of tome of the Committee, and he believed that the Members of the Commission would be found strong in the maintenance of their decision. The Park and Manor of Aston were opened in 1858 as a Park for the benefit of the people of Birmingham; the Commission recommended; that it should be included within the borough, but the Committee dissented from thier recommendation. The Park and Manor had been purchased by the Corporation of Birmingham, and if it were decided to be outside the Parliamentary borough, it might as well he decided that Hyde Park and the Green Park ought not to be within the boroughs of Westminster and Marylebone. There had been no English county Member upon the Committee, and apparently no one who properly appreciated the position of county Members and constituencies; and he thought he had adduced sufficient reasons for inducing the House not to accede to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and adopt the Report of the Select Committee without review.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he thought that before they decided between the rival claims of the Commissioners and the Select Committee they should know more correctly the actual facts of the case. In a short but important conversation which preceded the appointment of the Committee it was stated that the Commissioners had no power to inquire into the opinions of persons locally interested. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had now fallen into the same error; but the fact was that the Assistant Commissioners were instructed to appoint a time; for the reception of statements from inhabitants in favour of enlarging the boundary; and in their Report the Commissioners expressly stated that all persons desirous of making such statements were permitted to do so. Moreover, he knew in two cases that the Assistant Commissioners invited statements and evidence, and in one case counsel were heard for and against extension. It was not, therefore, comet to say that the Commissioners had not regarded the wishes of inhabitants. The
    1282
    hon. Member (Mr. Bright) said that local wishes should be almost conclusive; but, if you were to ask people's opinion as to the constituency in which they would prefer to vote, you might almost as well ask them how much income tax they would wish to pay. A matter of this kind was not to be decided by the convenience or inconvenience of Members who canvassed a constituency, or by the wishes of the constituency itself. He felt that he was almost stating a truism when he stated that boroughs like Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester should include for electoral purposes the towns as they existed in the present day, and not a mere section or nucleus of those towns as they might have existed some time during the last century. If the House carried the Bill with the recommendations of the Committee, he had rather that the proposal of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had been adopted, nod the boundaries of these boroughs had been left as they were at present. It might be said that they were going to do the same thing; but it was one thing to allow these boroughs to continue an anomaly admitted by every one, and it was quite another thing to stereotype these old errors, as was now proposed—to reiterate in the face of the facts that these towns had not increased, when every body knew that a large population connected by community of interest with the borough population had grown up just outside. If the Bill passed as amended by the Select Committee, it was a Bill which no Liberal Government in Office could have carried. He denied that the House which had discarded the recommendations of a Commission which nobody mentioned without praise had not the power also to review the recommendations of the Committee, The recommendations of the Select Committee in each case must stand or fall upon their own merits, The House had not before it the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners or the memorials presented to the Committee; and he thought it would be only fair to report Progress and wait for that information before proceeding further with the Bill.
    SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: Sir, I do not with to detain the Committee by any very long observations on this question, but important conditions have been touched upon in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) which ought not; to be overlooked in determining this ques-

    1283
    tion. I understood him to say that one thing which had weight with the Committee was this—that it could not be for the benefit either of the counties or the towns, either of the rural or the urban population, to attempt to draw too "hard and fast a line" between these two different populations. I take the liberty to say that I am more and more impressed with that conviction as we approach the consideration of the question what is to be done in the way of increasing the representation of our larger communities. We feel it necessary to give them more Members, and then difficulties arise at every step. Are we to subdivide, as has been suggested in the case of Glasgow? That is a proposal the difficulties of which are felt by many, and it is therefore objected to. Are we, on the other hand, to give them three Members, and then, by means of the minority vote, practically neutralize the majority, or, at all events, diminish the power which they possessed when they had only two Members? I cannot but think that we shall get more and more into difficulties of that kind if we insist upon aggregating more than is done at present those portions of the adjoining population which have hitherto belonged to counties. And here I wish to point out what strikes me as having a most material bearing on this question. There is a converse question also. You have got no inconsiderable number of boroughs which are, in fact, parts of counties—such as Shoreham, Aylesbury, East Retford, and others. Neither your Committee nor your Commission has considered that question. No power of contracting such boroughs was conceded to them. And are you going to say that where you find a considerable urban population you will separate it from the counties, its connection with which now enables those counties to be represented in sympathy with the preponderating interest of the general population; while, on the other hand, you will take out of the counties a purely rural population and convert them into boroughs. Hitherto you have not proceeded on the principle of separating the rural from the urban population, and I do not think it desirable that you should.
    MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I will strive, as far as I can, to bring the Committee to some practical point. The hon. Member for Birmingham made an appeal to me to announce the part which the Government would take, and argued that of course we could not oppose the Report of the Com-
    1284
    mittee. That view is founded on an assumption which I think a most singular one—namely, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had announced to this House that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to receive the Report of the Select Committee as conclusive. Now such an announcement was never made by my right hon. Friend; it never could he made, because no Minister would ever presume to make such an announcement; and I am surprised that it could be thought possible by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, generally speaking, is be jealous of the privileges of Parliament and of the rights of every Member. But I will tell the Committee what we are prepared to do. We are prepared to give to the Report of the Select Committee the same consideration and respect as we would have given to the Report of the Commission. We were not prepared to receive the Report of the Commission without criticism and without that fair Parliamentary scrutiny to which all such documents ought to be liable. We believed if we had gone into Committee originally on the Bill we might have considered as we proceeded the Report of the Commission, and if in various instances the justice and propriety of their recommendations had been admitted the good sense of the House would, after duly considering the objections, have arrived at a satisfactory conclusion at a much earlier period than apparently we shall now. The hon. Gentleman asks what I propose that we shall do? What I propose is indicated by the order of Business that has been prepared for this evening. The moment we concluded the Scotch Bill we proposed to go into Committee on the Boundary Bill, and I can see no other way of making progress than by going on with the Bill. We shall have before us as we proceed the Schedule, with the conflicting recommendations of the Commission and the Select Committee, and the good sense of the House will come to a conclusion. I know no other mode by which we can arrive at a result more speedily or satisfactorily. The hon. Gentleman cannot wish that the views of any powerful interest represented in this House should be entirely silenced. I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that the views of hon. Gentlemen should be put before the Committee. In no other way can we arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to the country. If we go into the subject in Committee, we shall find no greater diffi-

    1285
    culties than we have found in similar cases, and we shall overcome them as we proceed. That is the course which I recommend to the Committee. So far as I can collect the opinions of the Committee, though there are some points of considerable importance on which we are not all agreed, they are not numerous, and I cannot recommend a better course than that we should now proceed with the Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown has stated that there was a mistaken idea as to the declaration of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I wish to confirm, as far as I can, what fell from the right hon. Gentleman. The question that I put to the right hon. Gentleman on the occasion referred to, was whether the Committee was to recommend—what I confess appeared to me a much wiser course than that which was adopted—that the consideration of the boundaries of certain boroughs should stand over, rather than that the particular mode of adjusting those boundaries should be at once determined, and it was with reference to that question that the right hon. Gentleman answered, if my memory serves me right, that the Committee were to make a final determination. Not, of course, that their recommendations should be absolutely final, for it would be impossible that any person should have stated to this House that the recommendations of the Select Committee should be final as against the House itself. Therefore there can be no doubt of the meaning of the language of the right hon. Gentleman. But while the House reserves in its own hands the power of dealing absolutely, according to its own discretion, with the recommendations of every Select Committee, there is to be kept in view by the other side this consideration, that the appointment of a Select Committee dues mean something, and that a definite character of authority is to be assigned to the recommendations which it makes. Now, the right hon. Gentleman says, "Let us proceed to consider the Schedules, and we shall get through the difficulties us we have done in other cases," But our position in other cases has not been at all what it is now; nor does the right hon. Gentleman propose, in the speech he has made, to give any primâ facie authority whatever to the recommendations of the Committee proposed by the Government itself. This is a case in which, as ray hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham has said, the
    1286
    House admitted its own incompetency in discussion of detail. Why did we appoint a Commission and hand over our duties to that body, if we have here in the House itself the best means of disposing of the difficulties one by one us they arise? We did, by the very appointment of the Commission, acknowledge our own limited capacity for the adjustment of such matters. It seems to me that we have arrived at this point, that, except in some cases of great failure on our own part or that of the Commission, we should accept the results of its labours as final. Well, has there been a failure, and what was it? We appointed a Commission composed of persons of all opinions to obtain all possible knowledge and information in each case from persons of all opinions on the spot, with regard to the extension of boundaries, but we never authorized that Commission to allow the wishes of the population to weigh as an element in their decision. That is an omission which no doubt we made, and in reading the Report of the Commission it appears to me that they no where speak of the wishes of the population as an element which guided their judgment. I am bound to say that in no way could they exclude that element if they acted in accordance with the opinions of Parliament; but I do not think that the Instructions given by us would have justified the Commissioners in founding their I decisions in any degree on the wishes of the population. Well, then, when we came to deal with the subject this year, we found in a certain number of instances, not very numerous, but important, the wishes of the inhabitants very strongly stated, and we found, too, that it was impossible for us to overlook the wishes of the inhabitants without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The House therefore appointed a Committee to consider the subject. And now it is said the Committee had not the same means of judging that the Commission had. I contend on the contrary, that it had much better means of judgment and larger powers, because, while we never gave the Commission the slightest intimation that they were to take into account the wishes of the inhabitants, every Member of the Committee knew that they bad been appointed with that special object, and therefore they were enabled to include in their judgment elements which the Commission could not entertain at all. The Committee was appointed by the House as a tribunal

    1287
    of review on the Report of the Commissioners, armed with better means of information and larger powers of judgment, than the Commissioners. That was done by the Government itself, yet now we stand, according to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in this position—he is aware of the fact that the Committee have made Reports recommending another course, but he has a Bill on the table and that Bill contains the whole of the recommendations of the Commissioners, and consequently passes by in every case the recommendations of the Committee. And the right hon. Gentleman says simply, "Let us go on with our Bill." That is to say, the Committee may come and be heard, of course, just as any other party may be heard, aginst the Bill of the Government; but no weight whatever is to be given by the Government to the recommendations of its own Committee. [Mr. DISRAELI: No!] The right hon. Gentleman, I must beg his pardon, has said so; for he is going on with his Bill, which embodies in every case the recommendations of the Commissioners; and in no case the recommendations of the Committee. So that he gives no weight to the recommendations of the Committee, or if I have not adopted the most accurate expression let me say this—that in every case the right hon. Gentleman passes by the recommendations of the Committee. He tells the Committee he is quite ready to hear their reasons. Of course he is, and so he is ready to hear the reasons of the hon. Member for Birmingham, or the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, or anyone else who has reasons to allege; but to his own Committee he denies the authority which must say I think he is in reason bound to accord to their decisions. I own it appears to me that if this be the position in which we stand; if the Government are not able to find that the labours of this Committee have issued in any fruit whatever; if in each case, as we must infer from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Government mean to proceed with the Bill as it stands, not abandoning any portion of the Schedule on which this discussion will turn, but are merely ready to have the subject discussed just as it must have been if no Committee had been I appointed, then I must say this—in the first place, just respect has not been paid either to the decision of the House and of the Government itself in appointing the Committee, or to the Gentlemen who undertook to serve upon it; and, in the se-
    1288
    cond place we have adopted a most inexpedient course in the loss of two or three weeks for the purpose of pitting one authority against another, and then being left to begin afresh and find our way through the mazes of a long controversy, which, according to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, we have done nothing whatever to simplify, but a great deal to complicate.
    MR. PAULLsaid, that seeing so much more deference shown by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), for the decision of one tribunal than or the decision of another, he was disposed to view with considerable suspicion the motives for that deference. The facts of the case were these—a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the state of these boroughs and the advisability of extending their boundaries, and in order to take evidence, and get information which the House could not itself obtain. Such information had been obtained by a body of men who were unanimously admitted to have been impartial, and to have done their work, as a rule, well. Now, surely, had there not been some object to serve, due respect would have been paid to the Report of that Commission. There were, however, objects to be served, and ends to be gained, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed a Committee. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli), desirous, as he had always been, of conciliating the House, and assisting them to arrive at the best conclusion possible, acceded to the suggestion, though it was contrary to all the usual modes of procedure, for it was always understood that a Committee had not the same means of obtaining information that a Commission had, since the latter could visit the places interested, and make the necessary inquiries on the spot. It had been said, indeed, that the inquiry of the Commission had been limited, since they had not been deputed to inquire into the feelings and wishes of the inhabitants, while the Committee had been appointed expressly for that purpose. What, then was the position of the House? They had before them on the one hand the recommendations of impartial men who had visited the boroughs, and on the other the recommendations of a Committee that had inquired into the wishes expressed by the Members for those boroughs influenced by party, or, all events, by partial sympathies. Having before them the recommendations of two tribunals based on different princi-

    1289
    pies, what could be more fair than the suggestion of his right hon. Friend to proceed with the Bill, and weigh the recommendations of both tribunals, so as to come to a just decision? To ask the House to adopt en masse the recommendations either of the Commission or of the Committee was to ask them to abdicate their privileges. It appeared to him that this was part and parcel of the reiterated attempts which were being made to place the Government in a difficulty. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be above such attempts. The Commissioners had had every opportunity of obtaining evidence, whereas the Committee had had but very limited opportunities, and to throw over the recommendations of the former would be to depart from all the principles by which the House was usually guided.
    SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYsaid, that as one of the Commissioners he had not hesitated, finding their recommendations called in question, to agree to the appointment of a Committee, and, their powers being larger than those of the Commissioners, the House had, he thought, derived great advantage from their labours, in narrowing the field of the differences that existed. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had, he thought, rather misunderstood the First Minister of the Crown when he had represented him as attaching no importance to the Report of the Committee, for the Government, it seemed to him, were disposed to attach great importance to that Report, though not to adopt it without question and examination. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), when in his able speech he referred to the large size of these boroughs end to their immense number of inhabitants in comparison with the counties, left entirely out of view the great number of 40 s. freeholders and of leaseholders in these boroughs who had votes for the county. Now, the difficulty which presented itself to him in accepting the Report of the Committee was that some of the boroughs which they recommended should not be extended at all were just the boroughs that had increased the most. Indeed, if the boundaries of these boroughs were not extended it did not seem advisable to extend any. As to the argument that they would become unwieldy, he had had a little experience of an unwieldy constituency, for he bad had the honour of representing the whole of the West Riding, ninety miles long by forty wide, and containing a population
    1290
    of 1,500,000, or almost half that of Scotland. Well, what had been done with it? It had first been divided into two, and latterly into three constituencies. Then again the Tower Hamlets had been divided. The House surely could not shut its eyes to the vast increase of these places. He had been surprised to hear it stated that in the case of a Northern borough the Commissioners had recommended an addition a mile in length without any buildings, for he was not aware of any such case. It had been said that the Commissioners left everything to the Assistant Commissioners, who visited the boroughs, adopting everything recommended by them. Now, the fact was that the Assistant Commissioners were not empowered to report any opinion at all; what they had to do being to visit the towns, and take evidence, and report what the facts were. The Commissioners, having them at their beck and call, had endeavoured to arrive at a thorough knowledge of the facts of each case, and in no instance had they proposed an extension of boundary unless the suggested addition joined the borough and had really become part of the town. They had not recommended the addition of u strangling line of houses, or of a detached village, but only of what had become part and parcel of the town. If they had not proposed extensions under such circumstances they might as I well, it seemed to him, not have been appointed at all. He thought the House should adopt the advice of the First Minister of the Crown and proceed to consider the Bill, dealing with each case on; its own merits, and duly weighing the recommendations both of the Commissioners and of the Committee.
    MR. OSBORNE: Sir, it appears to me, after the speech of the late Commissioner, who has not proved, at least to my satisfaction, that he gave to the subject the consideration it demanded, that we have arrived at the supreme point of stultification. In the first instance. Her Majesty's Government threw over the Report of the Commissioners. They acknowledge the justice of the memorials which were presented to them from several towns, and they appointed a Select Committee, which appointment was, in fact, a compromise with a party in this House in order to put aside the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). I altogether objected to the Report of the Commissioners; I objected to the constitution of the Commission, but I was not supported at the

    1291
    time. I did so, because when I saw an acute Member, of judicial experience, on the other side of the House appointed, and when I saw appointed another Member on this side of the House, excellent in all the relations of life, but unable to cope with the judicial ability of that hon. Gentleman, I knew well what the Report of that Commission would be. I am not going at this hour of the night to criticize the Report, although I could do so at considerable length; but I am not going to pay fulsome compliments to the Members of that Commission. I think it was defective from the first, and the Instructions were still more defective. What is the point we have arrived at in this House? These disputed cases were referred to a Select Committee, the impartiality of which I challenge any man to impugn. Even the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst), who to-night has impugned the impartiality of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), has nothing to say in answer to that mild, moderate, and judicious speech made by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole). No man can have listened to it and not acknowledge it was made in the purest and most moderate spirit. How has it been met by the Government? Why, Sir, I really felt a little ashamed for the Government that they should meet it so. Yes, I felt ashamed of the Government and of its supporters, not excepting the outspoken Member for St. Ives (Mr. Paull), that they should meet it in such a spirit. What is the position of the House now? We have pretended that we want to expedite a dissolution of this House, and we have positively thrown this question back three weeks. It will come to this—that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) or somebody else must move the omission of Clause 4. As Her Majesty's Government are not disposed to treat the Select Committee of their own appointment in a proper and Parliamentary spirit, I move, Sir, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, he entirely and totally dissented from the doctrine that if the House adopted the Report of the Select Committee that would be tantamount to passing a censure on the Commission. His respect for the Commission and his intimate personal relations with one of its members would have prevented him joining the Committee if he had imagined it was to sit in judgment on the Commission. He believed one thing was
    1292
    referred to the Commission, and quite another to the Committee. The Commission, honestly and faithfully carrying out its Instructions, threw a wide net and embraced everything that came into its meshes. They told the House the greatest possible annexation that could be made to these boroughs, and the House, having heard them, appointed the Select Committee to consider and report what was the wisest thing to do under the circumstances. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Paull) said the Committee never would have been appointed if there had not been objects to serve, What did he mean by "objects to serve?" What did he mean by such language? The hon. Member went on to say the Committee had listened to the party views and party interests of the people who were affected by the recommendations of the Commission. He (Mr. Whitbread) told the hon. Member the Committee did no such thing.
    MR. PAULL: I said there were party objects to serve in the appointment of the Committee, but I never made any imputations on the Members of the Committee.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, the hon. Member stated that there were party objects to serve, and he implied that they had been served. So far from the Committee having listened to party views, when anybody opened the question of party interests the Chairman promptly desired him to desist from referring to them. As to his own impartiality, which had been questioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst), all he would say was, he had sat for sixteen years in the House, and had adhered with tolerable fidelity to the party which represented his views, and the views of those who elected him, and if other hon. Members had done the same it would have been better for the House and the country; but although a party man, he could not charge himself with having voted or spoken in a way which would justify anyone in saying he would not give a fair verdict on a question like this. A man might perhaps be a bad judge of his own impartiality; but he should have thought that the legal experience of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) would have taught him that the time to question the impartiality of your umpire was before he was appointed, and not after he had given his decision. He had little to add to the able statement of the Chairman of the Committee. A cry had been raised, "We will have the counties, and

    1293
    we will have them only as counties;" but this was a dangerous cry, and might provoke the cry, "Let the towns be towns." He advised the other side, before they raised the former cry, to consider how many boroughs were really fragments of counties. He was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government had taken the course he had done. The right hon. Gentleman wisely said some nights ago he could not discover any party gain which could be obtained by adopting the recommendations of the Commission. He had been unable to detect any gain to be obtained from adopting the recommendations of the Select Committee. The present state of things would be unjustifiable if the Government did not believe that the country, when it was appealed to, would reverse the balance in that House; but the Government might rest assured that if the balance were turned it would be by a change in the sentiments and feelings of the whole country, and not by a miserable and paltry gain of a few thousands more or less of votes transferred in the settlement of boundaries.
    MR. DISRAELI: It is vain to attempt to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) at this hour of the night. At the same time, I must express my opinion that the time has come when the House ought really to act in as practical a manner as possible upon this subject. If any plan more practical than that I have proposed can he suggested I am perfectly ready to adopt it. The right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) spoke as if this Bill were framed in a spirit totally contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee; but he forgets that three-fourths of the recommendations of the Commission were adopted by the Committee. I know no more convenient way of showing every possible respect to the Report of the Committee and to the recommendations of the Commission, and of expediting this measure, than proceeding with the Bill as it is before us, and discussing the few cases in which there may be differences of opinion. It is only by making progress with the Bill that, we can bring these questions to a speedy solution; and, I will not say in one night, but in two nights, we might conclude this business. I shall put the Bill on the Paper for Thursday night, to follow the Registration Bill, the introduction of which will not lead to a long discussion. If we go on in Committee we
    1294
    may, by eliciting the expression of the opinions in disputed cases, arrive at some conclusion respecting them; but if any more convenient way can be suggested I shall be happy to hear of it. If the House wants to proceed with the Bill, it will do so in the regular course; and we shall hear and settle all these points of difference.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday,

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.—

    [Lords.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. STEPHEN CAVE,in rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, said, that this measure had undergone very careful scrutiny and consideration in the other House of Parliament, and the Board of Trade had received frequent deputations and much correspondence on the subject-matter of it. Many of the provisions were in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and he hoped that, while it contained much that was valuable, there was very little in it to which either the public or the railway companies could fairly object. The first subdivision of the Bill, dealing with accounts and audit, was designed to meet a requirement which had very generally been felt, and for which the Bill of the right hon. Member for Gateshead (Sir William Hutt), introduced last Session and again this year, was intended to provide, he must here acknowledge the obligation the Board of Trade had been under to his right hon. Friend. They had adopted many provisions of his Bill, and had received from him in addition several valuable suggestions. In one respect he ventured to think that their measure was preferable. It contained ill the Schedule the exact form in which it was proposed that railway companies should keep their accounts. The companies had objected, with some reason, that they might be put to inconvenience and expense if the form were altered from time to time at the discretion of the Board of Trade. The Board had, therefore, after conferring with the accountants of the principal railway companies, settled a form for general adoption. This would not, of course, preclude companies from adding in their half-yearly Reports to their shareholders such further information on matters of detail, such comparative statements with previous years

    1295
    and proposals of future policy, as the peculiar circumstances of each railway might render desirable. The 13th section related to sea risk. There could be no doubt of the convenience to the public of through booking for delivery beyond sea; and it seemed reasonable that companies should not be placed, by the impracticability of obtaining a bill of lading in each case, in a worse position as regarded their liability than a shipowner receiving goods at the port. It would be open to any consignor who objected to such provisions to make his own arrangements for sea transit. Section 14, requiring that tables of fares should he posted in booking offices, was one of which he gave Notice himself in 1866, and which would much facilitate the payment for tickets, and save time both to the ticket clerk and the traveller. He placed on the Notice Paper at the same time a provision for printing the fares on the tickets, as was generally done on the Continent and sometimes in England, but perhaps the clause now adopted was sufficient for the purpose. The 15th section provided for the separation on demand of terminal charges from the whole rate charged. This was recommended by the Royal Commission, and communications to the same effect had been forwarded to the Board of Trade by the Chairman of Committees and other high authorities. Section 16 proposed to supply a defect in an enactment in the Railways Clauses Act, which was intended to compel the consumption of smoke by railway engines, but which had proved comparatively inoperative. The 17th section dealt with the subject so often brought forward by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) and was the form in which the Board of Trade, after causing experiments to be made on some of the chief railways, considered the question of communication between passengers and guards could best be dealt with. The 23rd section gave shareholders an opportunity of determining at an early stage whether they would proceed with a Bill, instead of, as in what was called the Wharncliffe meetings, expressing their opinion after a much more considerable expense had been incurred. The 28th section, which was introduced on the recommendation of the Attorney General, supplied an accidental omission by prescribing a moderate fee for duties to be performed by a Master of the Court of Queen's Bench under the Act of last Session. These were the chief provisions of the Bill. Some important sug-
    1296
    gestions had been made by a deputation from the Manchester conference of shareholders too late for the insertion of clauses in the Bill to give effect to such of them as were approved by the Board of Trade while in the other House of Parliament. He proposed, however, to put the Committee on the Bill for that clay fortnight, in order to give ample time for the consideration of these and other suggestions which hon. Members had made or might wish to make on these important subjects.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Stephen Cave.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 22nd June.

  ALKALI ACT (1863) PERPETUATION BILL— [Lords.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. STEPHEN CAVE,in rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, said, the Alkali Act had now been in force for four years and a half. It was passed in 1863 in order to restrain the escape of muriatic or hydrochloric acid gas during the process of manufacture of alkali—or sulphate of soda or potash by the decomposition of common salt. To show how valuable had been its results, he need only say that, before the passing of the Act, in some cases the escape of that most deleterious gas amounted to 50 percent; that doubts were expressed by manufacturers whether that quantity could be reduced lower than 10 per cent; that by the Act it was obligatory to reduce it to 5 per cent, and that practically last year, owing to improvements which had been made, chiefly in consequence of the suggestions of the inspector, the average quantity of escaping gas was less than 1 per cent—namely, 0·88—and this year he understood it was still further lessened. He need hardly say that this result had proved profitable to the manufacturers as well as advantageous to the public. No complaints of hardship had been made by manufacturers; indeed, only one prosecution had been necessary. There had, therefore, been abundant proof of the salutary nature of the Act, which, unless renewed, would expire during the present year. It was proposed to re-enact it without alteration, but to request the inspector—who had performed his duty with intelligence, industry, and judgment, as

    1297
    the Reports presented to Parliament proved—to report on many other gases produced by various manufactures, some of which were represented to be even more dangerous than those which occasioned the passing of that Act.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Stephen Cave.)
    MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that the expense of carrying out the Act was thrown upon the public, instead of being borne by those who received the benefit from it. He hoped that a clause would, be introduced to remedy that state of things.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ADMINISTRATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Bill to amend the Acts for the Administration of Prisons in Scotland, in so far as regards the county of Lanark, ordered to be brought in by Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE and Mr. DALGLISH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 155.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 4) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Bill to confirm a certain Provisional Order under "The Local Government Act, 1858," relating to the district of Tormoham (Devonshire), ordered to be brought in by Sir JAMES FERGUSSON and Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 159.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 5) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Local Government Act, 1858," relating to the districts of Malvern, Cowpen, Bristol, Sheffield, Margate, Bognor, and Otley; and for other purposes relating to certain districts under the said Act, ordered to be brought in by Sir JAMES FERGUSSON and Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 160.]

    NEW ZEALAND COMPANY BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ADDERLEY, Bill to remove doubts respecting the operation of the New Zealand Company's Act of the ninth and tenth years of Victoria, chapter three hundred and eighty-two (Local and Personal), ordered to be brought in, by Mr. ADDERLEY and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 156.]

    LARCENY AND EMBEZZLEMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to Larceny and Embezzlement, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY and Mr. COLERIDGE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 157.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.