HC Deb 08 June 1868 vol 192 cc1231-57

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- 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 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 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 COLEBROOKE

said, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 strike out that clause in the meantime, reserving the liberty of bringing up a new clause on the Report.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that some of the boundaries in Scotland required rectification.

Clause struck out.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

next 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 ADVOCATE

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

said, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 persons whom the Scotch Reform Act of 1832 intended should have it, but of removing any doubt which might exist.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he thought the words requiring a continuous residence "in the same lodgings," would have a disfranchising effect.

MR. MONCREIFF

said, 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. ELLICE

said, 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 ADVOCATE

pointed 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 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. CRAUFURD

said, 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. GOLDNEY

said, 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'LAREN

said, 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 franchise existed previous to the passing of the Act of laat Session.

MR. MONCREIFF

said, 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. CRAUFURD

said, the two provisions clearly clashed.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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'LAREN

said, 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 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. AYTOUN

said, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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- 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. MONCREIFF

said, 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'LAREN

said, 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 ADVOCATE

proposed 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 COLEBROOKE

said, he wished to know how it would be possible to do all the work in the time which was to be allotted?

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he wished to know why they could not let the registration commence on the 15th of August, and finish so much earlier?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, 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- 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. MONCREIFF

suggested that the appeal should be dispensed with altogether for this year, to enable registration to occur more rapidly.

MR. M'LAREN

said, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 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 ADVOCATE

proposed a new clause (Clause B, Qualifications for Members of General Councils).

MR. MONCREIFF

said, he wished to have some general explanation of these clauses.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, 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. MONCREIFF

said, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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. MONCREIFF

said, 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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. MONCREIFF

thanked 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 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 MILL

asked, whether the delivery of the voting paper by a Member of Council would not involve a considerable additional expense?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

assured the hon. Gentleman that be had learned from persons of experience that this was the best arrangement that could be adopted.

MR. LOWE

said, he could see no security against the presentation of fraudulent voting papers.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

reminded 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. LOWE

said, he considered that that was really no security.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

observed that, the voting paper would be signed before a justice of the peace. That would be an additional security.

MR. LOWE

said, 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- 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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. LOWE

said, 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 EXCHEQUER

said, 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. MONCREIFF

remarked 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 MILL

said, 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 FERGUSSON

said, 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 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-GRENVILLE

said, 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 HAYTER

said, 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 PALK

said, 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 CHAIRMAN

called the hon. Baronet to Order, and reminded him that the question before the Committee was to omit Wells and insert Evesham.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

said, 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 BOURNE

said, 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- 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. CRAUFURD

said, 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 GRIFFITH

said, 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. GRAVES

said, he thought the Committee had got into a very unpleasant 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 SYKES

said, it appeared from statistics that Evesham had increased since 1861, and Wells had not.

SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEY

said, 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 GASELEE

said, 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 CHAIRMAN

said, 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'LAREN

said, 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 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 PAKINGTON

said, 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 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 HOWARD

said, 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 CHAIRMAN

said, the part of the Resolution in which Arundel appeared had already been passed.

Clause added to the Bill.

COLONEL SYKES moved, after Clause 40, the insertion of a clause (Remuneration of Sheriff's Clerks).

Clause negatived.

MR. GRANT DUFF moved to insert the following clause:— 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 COLEBROOKE

said, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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. MONCREIFF

appealed 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 FERGUSSON

said, 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. ELLICE

said, 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 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. DALGLISH

said, 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. GOLDNEY

said, he thought the question should he decided without regard to the treatment of boundaries in England.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, 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. KINNAIRD

said, he hoped the Government would consent to postponement.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, 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 MILL

said, 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 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. GORST

said, that the argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham was a false one, because it proceeded upon the 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. GORST

said, 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-EWING

said, 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 COLEBROOKE

said, he thought that the question ought to be left to be decided by the locality.

MR. PERCY WYNDHAM

said, 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. CANDLISH

said, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) was by no 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 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.]