Commons Sitting of 19 March 1868

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Coventry, v. Henry Mather Jackson, esquire, void Election.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Army (India and the Colonies) nominated; on Extradition appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Petit Juries (Ireland)*; Representation of the People (Ireland).
First Reading—Petit Juries (Ireland)* [70]; Representation of the People (Ireland) [71].
Second Reading—(£362,398 19 s. 9 d.) Consolidated Fund.*
Third Reading—Sea Fisheries* [42]; Fairs (Ireland)* [48], and passed.

RAILWAYS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. TREEBYsaid, the Resolution he wished to propose had been rendered necessary by the Railway Act passed in 1867, which gave to insolvent railway companies the power of applying to the Court of Chancery for a scheme of arrangement with their creditors, which had all the effect of an Act of Parliament. This was done without giving any notice to the outside creditors and landowners, and without even making them aware of what was being done. If the Resolution he had submitted to the House were adopted he believed it would be the means of preventing dishonest railway companies from again preying upon the public, and he hoped the House would co-operate with him in the achievement of so desirable an object. He might be permitted to explain that the scheme in Chancery was obtained by an ex parte statement, no notice, as he had already said, being given to the creditors or others forming part of the company. It was true that they were obliged to make known their intentions by publication in The Gazette; but this was not a sufficient protection, as comparatively few people read that newspaper. Insolvent companies had thus power virtually given to them to confiscate the property of all outside creditors—a privilege which was granted to no other debtor in England. Granted that the creditors could apply to Parliament by petition, it did not decrease the evil, for the expenses of such a proceeding were almost ruinous. He held that it was the interest of all legitimate companies to defeat the schemes of dishonest companies, which entailed both loss and discredit upon the community. People had very little idea of how some of the companies he was complaining of were got up. For instance, a meeting would be called of Parliamentary agents, contractors, and engineers. One of these gentlemen was probably acquainted with some rich landowner who possessed an estate through which it was proposed to carry the line. It might be of the greatest importance to the landowner that the pro-

1885
jected railway should be made, and upon solicitation he was easily induced to become chairman of the company. Upon the guarantee of the respectable name of this landowner the public were tempted to purchase shares, and the scheme by this means was put into operation. He felt assured that procedures of such a character would not obtain the sanction of the House. He would not have troubled the House with his Resolution had it not been for the great importance of the subject, the deep interest taken in it by a large number of persons, and the conviction that its adoption by Parliament would remedy the evils of which he complained.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That in case of an Insolvent Railway Company applying for an extension of time or for any other power, and where such Railway Company have applied to the Court of Chancery for a scheme of arrangement under the Railway Act of 1867, such Railway Company shall on or before the 30th of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, deposit in the Private Bill Office a Schedule setting forth the full detailed particulars disclosing all transactions of such Company, and to answer all and every question or questions hereunder set out:—

1. The name and address of the directors of the Company, together with the shareholders and others forming the said Company.

2. The number of shares or debentures or other stock held by each of the above persons.

3. The money paid to the said Company for such share or shares, debenture, or stock.

4. The amount of stock, shares, or other securities of the Company issued or upon which money has been raised by the said Company.

5. The name of each of the landowners.

6. The quantity of land taken or agreed to be taken by the said Company.

7. The parish in which the land belonging to each of the said landowners is situated, together with the sum paid or agreed to be paid to each of the said landowners; stating separately the names of those paid and those remaining unpaid, and from which of the said owners the Company have obtained possession of the land.

8. The name of the engineer and contractor to the Company.

9. Copy of the specification, contract, or con tracts, for making the said Railway.

10. The amount paid on account of the said contract in shares, debentures, or other stock of the said Company.

11. The amount paid in cash to the said contractor.

12. The nature and cost of the work done in the actual construction of the said Railway in each parish through which it is permitted to pass.

13. All other costs incurred by the said Company or contractor on account of the said Railway, with detailed particulars by which the said cost has been incurred.

1886

14. Full particulars of all payments made by the said Company, whether in cash, or in shares, debentures, or other stock of the said Company, to whom and for what the said payments have been made, the cash payments to be kept separate.

15. The amount of deposit, and in whose name or names it now stands.

16. The length of the line for which the Act or Acts of the said Company was obtained.

17. The number of Acts which have been applied for or obtained, with the date of the Acts so obtained, and of the application."—(Mr. Treeby.)

SIR LAWRENCE PALKthought the new Standing Order submitted by the hon. Member was one that would not hold water. The greater part of the information which he desiderated could be easily obtained under the law as it at present stood. There was really no necessity for such a Resolution as that now under discussion. The explanation of the matter was, that the hon. Member had bought property in his (Sir Lawrence Palk's) county close to where a railway was about to pass, and there were certain arrangements with the railway company which had been acquiesced in by the hon. Member's predecessor, which the hon. Member declined to accept.
MR. TREEBYrose to order. The hon. Baronet was not speaking to the question.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKmaintained that the hon. Member had no right to come to that House to defeat arrangements which his predecessor in the property had acquiesced in. The hon. Member complained of resident county gentlemen for giving the sanction of their names to speculative railway schemes. Perhaps, when the hon. Member had been as long a resident county gentleman as he (Sir Lawrence Palk) had been, he would speak more charitably of his neighbours. He did not think that the hon. Member had offered the slightest grounds for the change he proposed.
LORD HOTHAMsuggested that the hon. Member for Lyme Regis should postpone his Motion. Even if the proposal were adopted, it was too late in the Session for any action to be taken upon it. Moreover, it was probable that before the present Session closed some further alteration would be made in the Standing Orders.
MR. TREEBYsaid, he had no objection to postpone his Resolution.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POOR LAWS—PAUPER IDIOTS AND LUNATICS.—QUESTION.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session, any measure relating to Pauper Idiots and Lunatics in Workhouses?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, in reply, that there were clauses relating to pauper idiots and lunatics in workhouses in the Bill introduced by his noble Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, and on Monday next, when the Bill was proceeded with, the noble Lord would state fully the effect of those Clauses.

ARMY PROMOTION.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the extraordinary supercession of the Colonels of the Imperial Army by Colonels of the Indian Army; whether he is aware that Colonels of 1864 on the Indian list will, in all probability, be promoted to the rank of Major-Generals, while Colonels of the Imperial Army of 1854 remain still unpromoted; and, whether it is proposed to take any steps to remedy this great injustice, which is keenly felt by officers of the Imperial Army?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he was quite aware that Indian Colonels were being promoted over the heads of Colonels in the Imperial Army, but he was afraid the case was an exceptional one with which he could not deal. These promotions were taking place under the Royal Warrant of 1864, which had been prepared with very great care, and had been confirmed by the then Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief. At present the Warrant operated in favour of the Indian Army; but there was reason to believe that, in a short time, the advantage would be on the side of the Imperial Army.

ENGLISH PORCELAIN AT BOW.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been called to recent discoveries on the site (hitherto lost) of the Manufactory of English Porcelain at Bow; whether
  1888
  he will direct that steps be taken to acquire a selection from the specimens already found for the Science and Art Department of the South Kensington Museum; and, whether he will enter into communication with Messrs. Bell and Black, with a view to the further prosecution, on their property at Bow, of discoveries so important and interesting in the History of English Art?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, in reply, that some fragments of porcelain which had been dug up at Stratford-le-Bow were sent to the Museum of Practical Geology, and Mr. Trenham Reeks wrote concerning them as follows:—
  "I immediately identified in these fragments patterns which exist on some perfect specimens in our collections, but of hitherto unknown manufacture. I subsequently visited the locality and found that many very interesting specimens had been collected by the engineer of Messrs. Bell and Black's new Patent Safety Match Manufactory. … On Monday I called on Mr. Bell, who most liberally offered to open out the 'diggings' again if any good is likely to result to the history of British art."
  Directions have been given to enter into communications with Messrs. Bell and Black.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1867—PAYMENT OF RATES—THE COMPOUNDING SYSTEM.—QUESTION.
MR. EVANSsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown has been directed to certain arrangements alleged to have been concluded, or to be in process of being made, in several Metropolitan and other parishes, under which the owners of small tenements are to collect and pay over the Poor Rates on behalf of their tenants, and are to be remunerated for their trouble by a money compensation; whether these arrangements are in accordance with the provisions of the Reform Act of 1867; whether the right of any occupier, on whose behalf payment of the Poor Rates is made under any such arrangements, to be registered as a Voter is thereby in any way affected; and, whether, in the event of any one Rate, between the 5th day of January and the 20th day of June in the present year, being made or collected contrary to the provisions of the Reform Act of last year, the right of such occupier to be registered as a Voter will not be vitiated?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that the attention of the Law

1889
Officers of the Crown had not been drawn to any such arrangements as were referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, nor did they know that any such arrangements were in progress. It was obvious that, without knowing the details of such arrangements, if they exist, it would be impossible to hazard an opinion as to the effect that would be produced by them.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS:

  QUESTION.
  SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, Parliament having been prorogued on August 21st, a document purporting to be an Act of Parliament, Contagious Diseases (Animals) 30 & 31 Vict., c. 125), was delivered August 27th, 1867; that another document was substituted September 5th, 1867; and, whether both, either, or neither of these Acts went through the regular forms required to constitute the Law of the Land?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, in reply, that, owing to a clerical omission which occurred in the proceedings with respect to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, the print of the Act as at first issued did not contain certain Amendments made by the Commons, although they were agreed to by the House of Lords and sanctioned by the Crown. As soon as the mistake was discovered, it was corrected by issuing a reprint of the Act comprising these Amendments.

  SCOTLAND—MINISTERS' STIPENDS IN EDINBURGH.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Select Committee on the Annuity Tax (Edinburgh) 1851, which—
  "Recommended the transference of the teinds, now appropriated to the Deans of the Chapel Royal, towards the payment of the stipends of the Ministers of Edinburgh, considering that these funds have always been applied to ecclesiastical purposes;"
  and, seeing that a vacancy has now occurred in one of those deaneries, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to carry that Report into effect as far as can be done under present circumstances?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, said, he had made inquiry, and found that
  1890
  in 1846 a third of the teinds was taken for the endowment of a Professorship in the University of Edinburgh. In 1860 and 1863 four additional Chairs were established in that and other Universities, and payments from these teinds, exhausting the whole amount, were provided, in favour of these Professors and their successors in office.

NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps have been taken to put the men of the New Zealand Defence Corps into possession of the land to which they are entitled for their services, and what is the reason of the delay which has taken place in giving the men the portions of land to which they are entitled?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that the Imperial Government had nothing to do with the arrangement referred to. The Provincial Legislature of New Zealand passed an Act giving grants of land to the New Zealand Defence Corps, and complaints had been made of the grants not having yet taken effect. Inquiries had been made as to the reason of the delay, but all that he could state, from replies received on the subject, was that the necessary allotments had not yet been settled; but that the claim was not disputed, but would be made good.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, On what day the Reform Bill for Scotland will be proceeded with?
MR. DISRAELI: I cannot give any answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman till I have secured a second reading for the Irish Reform Bill. I think it necessary that that should take place without delay, and afterwards I shall be able to state what course we propose to take.
MR. BOUVERIE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill till the Irish Reform Bill has been read a second time?
MR. DISRAELI: I wish the Irish Bill to be read a second time, and I shall lose no time in asking the opinion of the House upon its principle.

IRELAND—POLITICAL PRISONERS—SULLIVAN AND PIGOTT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. REARDENsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend the like pardon to Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott to that offered by the Viceroy of Ireland to Mr. Johnston of Ballykilbeg; and, whether Mr. Johnston is confined in a cell and subject to the like treatment as to lodging, diet, and prison discipline as Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott?
  THE EARL OF MAYO, in reply, said, the offence for which Mr. Johnston was convicted entirely differed from that of Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott, and there was no analogy between the two cases. No pardon was offered to Mr. Johnston; but he was informed that if he chose to enter into recognizances to keep the peace and
  give an undertaking that he would refrain for the future from taking part in such proceedings as those on account of which he had been convicted, he would be released. He was not aware that any suggestion of that kind had been made on behalf of Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott, and therefore no steps had been taken in the matter. With regard to the treatment of Mr. Johnston, the Board of Superintendence of Downpatrick Gaol had made a considerable relaxation of their Rules in his favour.
  MR. REARDEN: Will the same treatment be extended to Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he had stated the day before yesterday that very extensive relaxations of the Rules of Richmond Bridewell had been made with regard to them, and he should be prepared at any moment to state what those relaxations were.

  IRELAND—ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY CHARTER.—QUESTION.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When and in what manner it is the intention of the Government to give the House the opportunity promised by him of considering the proposed issue of a Charter for a Roman Catholic University in Ireland?
  THE EARL OF MAYOreplied, that in this matter the Government were very much in the hands of the House. The desire of the Government was to take the mode most convenient for enabling the
  1892
  House to express an opinion upon their proposal. He could not of course state exactly at what time he should be prepared to invite the House to consider the subject, but either by Motion for Papers, by laying Correspondence on the table of the House, or by some means of that kind, he should certainly take an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER VACATION—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House on what day the House will adjourn for the Easter Recess?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am very anxious to consult the convenience of the House, but the progress of Public Business must not be forgotten. That progress at present is not in so satisfactory a state as I could desire, and I fear I must ask the House to sit in Passion Week, which I much regret. ["No, no!"] I do not see how it is to be avoided; but I will ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his inquiry on a subsequent occasion.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to make his Financial Statement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, as at present advised, I propose to make it on the first Thursday after the Easter Recess.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Minister of the Crown, If the Irish Reform Bill is certain of coming on that night?
MR. DISRAELI: The Motion of my noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland for leave to introduce the Irish Reform Bill stands on the Paper for this evening. There is an important Amendment on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and it is impossible to say how long the debate will last. The wish of the Government is to introduce the Bill if possible to-night; but they are in the hands of the House. If the debate lasts long, the introduction of the Irish Reform Bill must

1893
be postponed, but it shall be brought on upon the first day at their command.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1867—THE RATEPAYING CLAUSES.

  PETITION.
  MR. BRIGHTpresented a petition from Birmingham, agreed to at a public meeting, and signed by the Mayor.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to a point of order. He did not like to interrupt the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham whilst he was presenting the petition they had just heard, but he would ask as a matter of practice, whether petitions could be presented after the proper time, and after the Questions on the Paper had been asked?
  MR. SPEAKER: The time for presenting petitions is before five o'clock, and up to that hour, at any moment when there is no business before the House, a Member is perfectly in order in presenting petitions.

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

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1867—COMPOUNDING FOR RATES.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. WHITE, in rising to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, said, he had taken that course in accordance with the old constitutional maxim, that it is meet and fitting before granting any Supply the grievances of the people should first find utterance. He did not bring the subject forward in the spirit of party. The matter was too grave, and the interests of his constituents were too deeply involved; and he would not forego the support he expected to receive from the other side of the House by treating the question in a party spirit. He wished the House, if possible, to emerge for a time from the murky region of mere party politics into a serener and purer atmosphere, and impartially to consider what could best be done in this case for the public good. His constituents justly complained that the rash and inconsiderate legislation of last Session had been productive of great inconvenience, much discomfort, and positive
  1894
  loss to them; and at a public meeting the Members were called upon at the earliest possible opportunity to procure the abolition of the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act. This was no question of mere local interests; it was one of Imperial importance. Public meetings were held and protests made in every direction—north, south, east, and west. Meetings were held at Manchester, Birmingham, Macclesfield, Leeds, Wigan, Walsall, Sunderland, Salisbury, Ashton, Norwich, and many other places. The hon. Member read extracts from the resolutions adopted at several of these meetings. They were all strongly condemnatory of the abrogation of the compounding system, pointing out the cruel and disastrous consequences to occupiers, and the incalculable trouble now entailed on guardians, as well as on overseers and collectors, by the rating and rate-paying clauses in "The Representation of the People Act, 1867." According to the Official Returns he found that there were 192 Parliamentary cities and boroughs where, under the Small Tenements Act, or by special local Acts, the owners had compounded for and paid the rates instead of the occupiers. The total number of male occupiers under £10 in those 192 cities and boroughs who were injuriously affected by the fourth section of the third clause of the new Reform Act was 476,593, and there were besides in Parliamentary boroughs dwelling-houses to the number of 98,598, of which the owners, by agreement with the parochial authorities and the occupiers, paid the Poor-rate without any commutation or deduction. In Brighton there were 1,236 dwelling-houses for which no composition was made but by agreement with the parochial authorities, and for the convenience of the occupiers, the owners paid the rates. Such houses were generally let at from 8s. to 8s. 6d. per week—that was to say, from £20 16 s. to £23 8s. per annum. According to the latest return of the Poor Law Board, the total number of male occupiers in the Parliamentary cities and boroughs of England and Wales was 1,367,025. The practical deduction he drew from these figures was that more than one-third of the borough electors of England and Wales were most vexatiously disturbed in their social arrangements by this new statute with regard to rating. In fact, including female occupiers, quite 700,000 of his fellow-countrymen and countrywomen, because they chanced to live in Parliamentary cities

  1895
  and boroughs, were either mulcted, grievously inconvenienced, or injured to suit the supposed exigencies of a political and party struggle. At the same time he could not disguise from himself that the very multitude of that number was the best evidence of their power to compel—of course by constitutional means—the speedy removal of the obnoxious clauses in the last Reform Act. The fitness of a man to vote at the election of a Member of Parliament should depend, not upon the personal payment of rates, but upon the registered residence and settled occupancy of the voter. The best part of the ill-fated Bill of 1866 was that which proposed to abolish the rate-paying clauses of the old Reform Act, and Parliament ought not to have limited the rights of the people by imposing such restrictions upon their voting as were contained in the Bill of last year. Nothing, he knew, was so utterly unfashionable as to speak of the ancient rights of the people; and in the People's House the practice was well nigh obsolete. It was not always so. He ventured to think Parliament had no more right to require as a qualification to vote that an elector should have paid his poor-rate than to insist that he should have first paid his butcher's or baker's bill. Upon this point a former Prime Minister—the first Marquess of Lansdowne—had well said that—
  "The people of England have, and always had, an unalienable, indefeasible right to equal representation in their fullest extent, and upon a stronger ground than any Act or Acts of Parliament."
  It had been said by the Prime Minister that it was premature to impugn the arrangements which were unanimously agreed to by Parliament so recently as last year; but he denied that there was any approach to unanimity upon the question at the time that the obnoxious clauses were passed. Had hon. Members already forgotten the confused and entangled condition in which that House had become involved when the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Hodgkinson) appeared upon the scene as the Deus ex machinâ, and brought forward his Amendment for the purpose of solving the perplexing problem? The House should recollect that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, declaring that the occupier should be entitled to vote, whether the occupier or the landlord were rated for the relief of the poor, was rejected by 310 against 289, and that the
  1896
  Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham, affirming that the compound-householder should be allowed to pay the commuted instead of the full rate, was rejected by a majority of 66. Therefore, instead of there having been anything like unanimity of feeling upon this question, there was the greatest divergence of opinion expressed upon it, and it was only because it was supposed to be utterly hopeless to induce the Committee to reverse those decisions which fixed, as an indispensable qualification for the borough franchise, the "personal payment of full rates" by every voter. And thus it happened that the clauses were allowed to pass without a division. The borough he represented had been peculiarly affected by those clauses, for, out of a total population of 100,000, only fourteen of the persons enfranchised under them had previously been personally rated. Anticipating an objection that had already been taken by the Prime Minister, in his reply to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton)—namely, that no complaints as to the hardships resulting from those clauses had reached the Government, he reminded the House that a petition had been presented at the commencement of the Session by the Colleague of that right hon. Gentleman, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Stanley), complaining that in his own borough the collectors of poor rates had experienced the utmost difficulty in collecting the rates levied on the small occupiers, and had, in fact, found it wholly impossible to obtain payment in numerous instances where they would be absolutely irrecoverable, and that that portion of the parochial expenditure which should in fairness be contributed by cottage property as hitherto, would ultimately fall upon the tenants of larger occupations in the parish, and praying for a repeal of the rating clauses in the Reform Act of last year and a return to the system of compounding which had worked so well for the last forty-three years at King's Lynn. Although the members of the official hierarchy—the dwellers in the Olympian regions, as they had been called by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)—might not take cognizance of what appeared in the ordinary sources of information—the metropolitan and provincial journals—he could not overlook the fact that, from the information that was always received by the Poor Law Board, they must have become aware of the inconvenience and oppression which

  1897
  had resulted from the policy they had pursued. He would now refer to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister at Edinburgh. He heard a hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Roebuck) exclaim, "Oh, Lord!" He could assure the House that he had not the most remote intention of alluding to what had been discussed in "another place," where the extra-Parliamentary utterance of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had infused unwonted liveliness and vivacity into proceedings generally dignified, but ordinarily very, very slow. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I speak of an animal not known in Scotland, and, thank God, no longer known in England—the compound-householder. The compound-householder is a being who wants to vote without paying rates."
  That expression of pious thankfulness happened unluckily not to be justified by the fact, because the compound-householder still existed in some Parliamentary boroughs, and was still in full possession of his rights. He held in his hand a letter in which the writer stated that in some metropolitan and country parishes it had been the custom to make an annual rate, and to divide it into four collections. All compound-householders had to pay the rates comprised in the same yearly assessment, and compounding would extend in some cases to Midsummer, and in others even to next Michaelmas. It appeared, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) entirely forgot that the poor rates were prospectively assessed. He could scarcely account for the aversion—he felt almost disposed to say the rancour—which the right hon. Gentleman exhibited towards the unfortunate compound-householder. The compound-householder was not responsible for his own existence; he was the legitimate offspring of Parliament, and it was only when his parent became very fantastic and very prejudiced—some even went the length of saying very tyrannical or stupid—and turned him out-of-doors, that his cry went forth. He, for one, thought that the hapless compounder had much to complain of in the conduct of his hard-hearted and pitiless parent. Like the whipping boy who, in mediæval times, bore the punishment which was merited by children "born in the purple," this unhappy individual was made to suffer for the blunders and the ignorance of his unnatural parent. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not even original
  1898
  in his abuse, nor the first to characterize the compounder as an animal, for Mr. Dudley Baxter, in a communication to the leading journal about this time last year, wrote—
  "I would endeavour to throw some light upon the natural history of that anomalous and portentous animal the compound-householder."
  Mr. Baxter had treated the compounder as a social leper, and had, he was afraid, inoculated his patron, the Prime Minister, with his own rabid hatred of that class of householders. The House well knew that Mr. Baxter was a partner in the legal firm which, in preference to the highly efficient and well - remunerated servants of the Crown, was employed in the concoction of the abortive Reform Bill of 1859, as well as that of last year by the present Prime Minister. Last Session he (Mr. J. White) pointed out that in 1859, Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Co. were paid £3,608 17 s. 2d. for collecting Electoral Statistics, not one figure of which was ever laid on the table of the House. He trusted such exceptional—if not exceptionable—expenditure would never again be sanctioned by Parliament. Mr. Baxter attributed the birth of the compounder to an Act passed in 1819, but there was abundant evidence to show that he existed in many large parishes long prior to that date. Now, he would read the following passage from the excellent pamphlet published by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre), entitled The Personal Payment of Rates, in explanation of the origin and in justification of the enactment and general adoption of the statute known as the "Small Tenements Act:"—
  "In 1843, in the Report on Local Taxation by the Poor Law Commissioners, who were then Sir George Nicholls, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Sir Edmund Head, it was stated that a very large amount of property escaped the poor rate, causing a great loss to the parish, and throwing a greatly increased burden upon the owners of other property. 'The owners of small properties in towns universally understand the interest they have in making the tenancy such that the rate cannot be with any degree of certainty obtained from the occupiers, for the uncertainty in obtaining the rate generally begets a practice of omitting the property altogether, or at least not enforcing the liability with strictness. The practical exemption from rates, which is more or less the result, is immediately converted into a means of obtaining an increase of rent equivalent to the exemption, a process, which, in fact, amounts to this, that the real taxpayers, in respect to one class of property, pay, besides their own contributions, an additional tax for the purpose of adding exactly the amount of that additional tax to the rent

  1899
  taken by the owners of the other class of property.' They add that weekly tenants never can be made to pay the rates."
  In consequence of that Report the Small Tenements Act was passed. No exception was taken to it in either House of Parliament; but the regret was expressed that it should not have been made compulsory instead of permissive. He found there were 11,677 parishes in England and Wales, and the compounding system had been adopted by more than one-half that number. The right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Treasury) had told them, on an interesting occasion lately, that he had been a Member of that House thirty-one years, nearly half his life, and with all respect he would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) whether during that long period he had ever raised his potential voice against this detestable system of compounding, whether he had ever done anything to prevent the increase of that dangerous class whose continued existence was now discovered to be fatal to the British Constitution? In spite of the abhorrence with which the compounder was regarded by some in high places, he could say on the authority of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) that several parishes had, even since it was so recently abolished in Parliamentary boroughs, adopted a system of compounding. On the authority of the very intelligent and thoroughly practical Clerk of the Guardians at Brighton, Mr. Alfred Morris, he was able to state that the system had worked well there; and, speaking generally, the whole of his experience tended to strengthen his conviction that compounding had proved singularly advantageous to the parishes, and he believed to the people also. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had further remarked at Edinburgh that the compounder was a being who wished to vote without paying his rates. On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had described the compounding system as a device of Old Nick to extort money from the Poor. How could these two views be reconciled? One made out that the compounder paid nothing, the other that he paid more than was due. Lord Ellenborough had ruled on this very question of compounding in the case of "Rex v. Bradford," in the Court of King's Bench—
  "That we must judge of things as they really are, and not as they appear to be; therefore, we are to consider whether this be not one entire rent
  1900
  of one entire subject, though artificially divided into several payments."
  He commended this decision to the present Prime Minister, in the hope that it would lead him to revise the judgment of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer at Edinburgh. So much obloquy had been cast upon the compounder, that anyone would think composition was foreign to English law. As a matter of fact, however, it was a long recognized practice. The Act 1 & 2 Vict., c. 169 (The Irish Tithe Composition Act) is an instance in point, recited that it was—
  "A reasonable allowance for the greater facility and security of collection arising out of the transfer from occupiers to owners."
  That Act, which substituted rent-charges in lieu of previous compositions of tithe in Ireland, allowed—
  "A rebate or reduction of 25 per cent, id est, a rent-charge equal to three-fourths of the amount of previous composition for tithes;"
  so that it was a reduction of 25 per cent after commutation had already been made. In fact, the Irish landlords were but great compounders. Then, in the case of the income tax, as everyone knew, an abatement of £60 was allowed before calculating the tax on incomes below £200. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) had told them on a previous occasion that, under the 133rd clause of the Income Tax Act, persons with fluctuating incomes might pay three-eighths less than they might otherwise be called on to pay, while rich merchants might escape half the amount ordinarily paid. It would seem that the tendency of our legislation was strongly in favour of compositions. Now he would put it to the House whether this was the right time to single out and insist that the working classes who paid a commuted rate should be deprived of the rights of citizenship, especially as the working classes paid so much more taxation than any other class of Her Majesty's subjects, while the luxuries of the rich remained comparatively exempt from taxation. He felt warmly on this point, because he believed the working classes paid very much more than their fair share of the total taxation, on account of their home comforts and little luxuries being so highly taxed. In this he felt sure he would be borne out by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone). The lower classes were amerced to the extent of more than a 10 per cent income tax; and the clauses in the Reform Act of which he complained would

  1901
  operate so hardly on the working classes that, if annoyance were taken into account, the infliction would be quite equal to the direct imposition exclusively upon them of £1,000,000 of taxation. They had been told by apologists for the rating clauses that the tenant was at liberty to deduct the full amount of rate from his rent; but what would be the consequence if he attempted to do so? Notice to quit. Dr. Franklin had said truly, three removals were as bad as a fire. [Mr. SANDFORD: Hear!] It was a proved fact that a tenant, whose landlord had formerly compounded, now paid much more in rent and taxes than he did formerly in rent and compounded rates. It was undeniable that he did now pay more than the legitimate increase of charge against him consequent on the abolition of compounding. The change bore especially hard on widows and other females, who had not even the privilege of voting as compensation for the trouble and expense. He could give heart-rending instances of the cruel way in which the Act operated as regarded poor women, especially those who earned their livelihoods by keeping small shops. Nothing more intolerably vexatious, annoying, and oppressive to 600,000 or 700,000 male and female occupiers could be conceived, than that they should be hampered, incommoded, and deprived of their rights unless they submitted to be mulcted according to law. It was outrageous that the domestic interests of such a vast mass of their fellow-countrymen and countrywomen should thus be sacrificed to preserve the fanciful consistency of a section of the governing classes. Would not our new masters, who, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) had yet to learn their letters, feel dissatisfied when they found that the same Parliament which had stopped a great metropolitan improvement at the behest of a noble Duke, had not hesitated, without inquiry or consideration, to pass an Act entailing upon so many of their own class annoyance and misery? Would not the new voters think that those who had hitherto dealt in legislation for the working classes, knew very little of, or cared still less for, their interests? Upon the register at Brighton there were 500 compounders who, if they wished to exercise their privilege of voting, it might be, once in four years, for a Member of Parliament, would have to pay annually from 30 s. to £2 each. But that was far from being the only hardship. The population
  1902
  of Brighton was 100,000, and of these the inhabitants rated numbered 15,000, those who were fully rated being 8,500 in number, and the residue of compounders 6,500. Some 500 compounders, now on the register, would have to pay, as he had already stated, 30 s. to £2 per annum if they continued as voters, and some 2,560 (barring lodgers) who might become voters, were all compounders, except about a score, and they would have to pay 6d. per week for the privilege of a vote. The last poor rate in Brighton was at the rate of 2s. in the pound; under the old system this would have produced £2,000 from compounders alone, but under the new system, while double that amount—namely, £4,000—would be demanded, only £1,000 was expected to be realized; that was to say, half the amount obtained under the old system. The result, therefore, must be to impose upon all who could pay an additional rate of 2d. in the pound. The Reform Act of last year declared that the franchises thereby created were to be in addition to, and not in substitution of, those previously existing. But it would be a very unpleasant surprise to the 500 Brighton compounders to discover that this so-called addition to their privileges involved an addition to their annual taxation of 30 s. to £2 a head. It had been said by a noble Lord in "another place" that the taxes must be collected weekly with the rent, inasmuch as the working classes were not provident enough to lay by money to meet the quarter or half-year's rate. But he wished to ask in what way the governing classes had trained or educated the humbler classes to habits of foresight in meeting taxation. Instead of accustoming them to direct payment of taxes, our fiscal policy had consisted in a kind of stealthy abstraction of revenue by taxing beer, tea, sugar, and other articles of daily consumption. The working classes had been taught to mix up the cost of food and drink, and Government, moreover, had been compelled to pay the excessive cost of that bad mixture; indeed, the habit of not putting by had been engendered and fostered in them by our fiscal policy and the spirit of our own absurd legislation. The poor rate had been chosen by Government as the basis of the franchise, probably because it had been also adopted in the first Reform Bill; but he did not accept that as a sufficient reason, for it was a tax grossly unequal in its incidence. He had read a complaint in a Conservative journal from a

  1903
  country clergyman, who had to pay, upon an income of £210, poor rate to the amount of £30 6s. annually, while a neighbour of his, the happy possessor of £20,000 a year, renting a house and grounds, did not pay any greater amount of poor rate. The modern operation of the poor rate was certainly at variance with the spirit of the statute of Elizabeth, which assessed every inhabitant according to his ability to pay. True it was that by our modern legislation it had come to pass that it was not the rich, but mainly the poor, who now supported the poor. Look at the poor rates in the metropolis alone. In the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, they were only 6¼d. in the pound; in St. Georges-in-the-East they were 3s. 2¼d; in the rich district of Paddington they were only 4d. in the pound, while in the poor district of Bethnal Green they were close upon 3s. The number of summonses for non-payment of poor rates which it had been found necessary to issue in a single district of the metropolis under the late Act amounted to 6,000. At Brighton the guardians had determined not to apply to the magistrates to issue summonses till they had inquired into every individual case; but he need not point out to the House what enormous labour and difficulty were involved in such a proceeding. He might be told that Government, recognizing this emergency, had consented to the appointment of a Committee; but he had no superstitious reverence for Parliamentary Committees, for generally speaking, if he knew the names of the Members, he could tell what decision they were likely to arrive at. In the present case inquiry was altogether unnecessary; they had enough and to spare of overwhelming facts. As had been observed by a noble Lord in "another place"—
  "The Act undoubtedly had not been long enough in force to enable them to judge of its full effect; but, from what they had seen already of its vexatious operation, God forbid that they should ever witness its full effect."
  After the discussions which had taken place upon the Reform Bill last year, it certainly was surprising that it did not include any provision requiring personal payment of rates; and, further, that the object for which the Liberal party had striven so hard—namely, to protect the new voters from having a fine levied upon them—remained wholly unaccomplished. He hoped the Government would take that fact into their consideration, and accede to the Resolution with which he meant to conclude.
  1904
  The Parliamentary experience of the Prime Minister must have long since taught and consoled him that legislators, like the rest of mankind, according to Fontenelle, only settle into the right course after passing through and exhausting all the varieties of error. If in the inevitable and early revision of their Act, the Government would consent to incorporate his Amendment, he rightly interpreted the sentiments of his constituents, and he believed the generous feelings of a vast mass of his fellow-countrymen when he said that they would in that case gladly consent to forgive and forget the enormous blunder committed last Session in making a great political measure become the means of interfering with the home comforts, the social and economical arrangements, of a struggling, a loyal, and a patriotic people.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that so much of the Reform Act of 1867 as makes occupiers liable for Poor Rates instead of owners, in respect of premises to which the system of compounding had been applied, ought to be repealed; that the name of every occupier ought to be put on the rate book, and that payment of rates by the owner, under the compounding system, ought to be deemed payment by the occupier and entitle him to the Franchise,"—(Mr. James White,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHARLES FORSTER, in seconding the Amendment, expressed a hope that it would be carried to a division, in order that they might be able to ascertain the real opinion of the House upon the question with which it dealt. In a single evening last Session, and without previous discussion, the House had abrogated a system of compounding which had been the growth of many years of careful legislation, under which property had been made to bear its fair burden, and which, without oppression to the poorer classes, had provided the parochial authorities with a convenient and economical mode of collection. The change thus suddenly introduced had created a spirit of bitter antagonism between landlord and tenant, had entailed additional burdens upon the class least able to bear them, and had also involved the parochial authorities in endless difficulty and increased expense. The case of Brighton,

  1905
  which the hon. Member for that borough (Mr. White) had so lucidly described to the House, was the case of East London, of Leicester, of Norwich, and, indeed, of most places affected by the late alteration of the law. He had only the other day called upon the rate collector of the borough with which he was connected (Walsall), and had learnt from him with dismay that in the case of 2,000 of the inhabitants they must either be excused on the ground of poverty, or proceeded against by law—many of these sufferers were already little above the level of pauperism themselves. The system tended to increase pauperism—many of those humble people who by great sacrifices had managed to pay the first rate being now in the receipt of parish relief. Numbers of the poorer ratepayers, in their distress, were seen carrying their small bundles to the pawnbrokers, to obtain in exchange for them the means of satisfying the claim of the collector. Magistrates had, no doubt, shown great consideration in dealing with the cases of non-payment brought before them; but they could not excuse the parties except on the ground of absolute poverty, and where that did not exist they could only grant an extension of time. Small occupiers, who had heretofore been accustomed to pay rates in the form of a slight addition to their weekly rent, were wholly unable to meet the demand now made directly on them for the full amount of the rates in one sum. Under the old system the authorities could calculate with accuracy the amount that would be realized by the rates; but that certainty now no longer existed, and the result was that in many places much higher rates were levied than were really wanted. The cost of collection had materially increased, and it was stated that in Salford, where under the compounding system 97½ per cent of the rates used to be collected, it was expected that only 85 per cent could be realized in future, while in the same place the increased cost of collection under the new system was £500. Hitherto the parochial authorities had confined their action to the issuing of summonses; but when they began to distrain the goods of these poor ratepayers, as must speedily be the case, the agitation and excitement caused by the grievous wrong and cruelty inflicted on them would far exceed anything that had yet been witnessed. It was his belief that the propositions which were made in previous Sessions for a £6 rental would have been an
  1906
  infinitely more acceptable franchise to the working classes than household suffrage, accompanied by the present vexatious and irritating restrictions.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that anyone who had listened to the remarks of the hon. Members for Brighton and Walsall (Mr. White and Mr. C. Forster) must feel that they were fully justified in bringing the grievances of their constituents under the consideration of the House before the House was allowed to go into Committee of Supply. If therefore he did not entirely concur in the conclusions which those hon. Members had invited the House to, it was not because he did not sympathize with the object they had in view; for, indeed, his own constituents were undergoing sufferings, vexations, and annoyances greater, perhaps, than those of the constituencies of Brighton and Walsall. Before the commencement of this Session he, (Mr. Ayrton) had been compelled to consider what he ought to do in order to redress the grievances of which his constituents complained. Now, he wished to remind the House that the propositions made last Session were not two only, but several. One emanated in the first instance from the Government. Then came the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and another from his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). He also made a proposition himself, and one or two more were brought before the House. All these propositions, however, met with an untimely fate. Even the Government proposal was in the end withdrawn, and after the subject had been very much bandied about and canvassed in the House, the Government at last made a proposition, which was finally adopted, and to which he only succeeded in adding one slight Amendment. All these matters were forced upon the consideration of the House by the extreme difficulty of super-adding to a system of household suffrage a household ratepaying suffrage. Eventually it was unanimously agreed to abolish a system of composition in boroughs, though it was certainly true that the House did not arrive at the conclusion by the ordinary road of unanimity of opinion. That conclusion was owing, in the first instance, to the simple proposition of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire being rejected by a considerable majority—a proceeding which drove those who held the same views as the right hon. Gentleman to fall back upon the total abolition of

  1907
  composition as the only mode of extricating the Reform Bill from the difficulties into which it was then plunged. The right hon. Gentleman the Lender of the House met the proposal for total abolition by a statement to the effect that he not only approved such a course, but had always been of opinion that it was the right way of treating the question, though he had not himself proposed it because he was not sure it would meet the approval of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to him. When this determination was arrived at the difficulties attendant upon the sudden abolition of the system were not foreseen in all their magnitude. Hence arose various experiments and suggestions to meet those difficulties; and he thought everyone must admit that the House did deal with the subject in a somewhat hasty manner and on imperfect information. He felt, however, that it was quite impossible for an individual Member to undertake the task of proposing a measure which would in any way interfere with the Act of last Session; and therefore it appeared to him that, as the Government were not prepared to take up the subject, the only course open to an individual Member was to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the effect of the Act. Accordingly, he moved for a Committee in the most general terms, in order that they might be at liberty to inquire into any difficulty that might arise. The Committee had met to-day, and had agreed to take up, as its first topic of investigation, the operation of the Act of last Session. Having taken this practical step to obtain redress for the constituents of many boroughs, he thought it would be rather premature to come at once to a Resolution pledging the House to the exact mode of dealing with so difficult a question. The only satisfactory mode of presenting the subject ultimately for the vote of the House would be by introducing a Bill containing definite provisions for the amendment of the law. People very often spoke of the justice of rating the owner instead of the occupier under the Compounding Acts; but he wished to point out that in the language of those Acts the "owner" was not the "owner" as popularly understood, but a personage extremely difficult to define. He believed indeed, that all the special Composition Acts and also the General Acts on the subject contained different definitions of the word "owner." In some cases he was a mere agent for the collection of the rates; in another he was
  1908
  not the owner at all, but the real occupier. The whole question of composition resolved itself into two distinct elements. One was the element of simply rating the person called the owner, in order to insure the collection of the rates; and to this was superadded another not necessarily connected with it—namely, whether the person called the owner should be allowed to pay a different rate, either in amount or quality, from that which is paid by the person who is called the occupier. In the end, perhaps the conclusion may be arrived at, that the people called "owners" should be rated; but it by no means follows that because they are put on the rate book they ought to pay a different kind of rate from that paid by the ordinary occupiers of property. If they stood in the place of the occupiers, it might, perhaps, be thought that they ought to pay the same quota as the occupiers. Then this complication was not limited to the poor rate; but in the metropolis, Brighton, and other towns, it extended to other rates, such as those for paving, lighting, and cleansing. He believed that, by considering the subject in a Committee upstairs, they might arrive at a conclusion which would maintain the fundamental principles of the Act of last Session, whilst providing for the fair and honest collection of the rates. As Chairman of the Committee which had been appointed, he would not say anything as to the course they were likely to take; but he thought the best plan to be adopted would be not to pass the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton, but to examine the question fully, and then the duty of the Government would be to propose to Parliament such measures as would relieve the community of the difficulties and embarrassments which arose out of the clause in the Reform Act that formed the basis of complaint. He wished to say one word in defence of the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton said that the moment he had read the names of the Committee, he knew the conclusion at which they would arrive. [Mr. WHITE: I spoke generally.] He presumed that when a Gentleman made a particular remark, he had some particular object, however rapidly he might slide into the universal. His hon. Friend saw much further than he could pretend to do. The Committee was composed of what he might call all the elements of discord, in order that there might be no objection on the part of the House to accept the conclusion

  1909
  at which they might arrive. He confessed he was unable to say what that conclusion would be. He believed the Committee had been fairly selected from both sides of the House; and, under these circumstances, he would not commit himself to any Resolution pending the inquiry by the Committee.
  MR. DIXONsaid, he did not think it was necessary to await the result of the inquiry by the Select Committee before coming to a decision with reference to the principle involved in the Resolution. He believed that there were hon. Members who could give the Government and the House information that would enable them to form a decided opinion on the matter. He hoped the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) would go to a division, in order to test the feeling of the House on this rating question. If hon. Members connected with compounding boroughs were to give to the House the information they had received upon the subject, detailed information before a Committee would be unnecessary. He would himself state some facts with respect to Birmingham. That town comprised two whole parishes and a portion of a third, in all of which compounding Acts had existed. The parish of Birmingham contained about two-thirds of the population of the whole town. In that parish there were last year about 16,000 ratepayers, including compounding landlords; but by the operation of the Act of last year that number had been increased by 38,000, making a total of 54,000. The rate was made last October, and should have been collected by the commencement of this year; but he was informed about ten days ago by some of the parish officials that 4,000 of the ratepayers would apply by circulars furnished to them to be excused from the payment of the rate. Besides those a large number would have to be summoned before the magistrates, who would also have to be excused wholly or partially the payment of the rate. The change had involved such an amount of work that six additional assistant overseers were required to do the work; but owing to a difference of opinion among the law officers of the different authorities who were consulted, the parish was unable to appoint a sufficient staff of officers, and consequently the collection of the rate was delayed. A further difficulty would result from this. When a succeeding rate was granted it was usual to close the books of the preceding rate, and the uncollected amounts
  1910
  were treated as arrears; but the trouble that would be involved under the new law, would be such as the officers were unable to calculate. And seeing that the parish officers had not been able from want of sufficient collectors to collect the rate it was doubtful whether legally the second rate could be collected. The additional expense to the town of Birmingham for the present year was estimated at £3,000, which sum capitalized represents a fine of £80,000—a rather large payment to inflict on one borough as the additional cost of collecting the rate, merely because the Imperial Parliament had chosen to make this question of rating a political question. Soon after the difficulties of collecting the rate became apparent the overseers called a meeting of landlords, and suggested that they should pay the usual compounding amount, and that the balance should be collected from the tenants, but the former declined to accede to that proposition, though they made another—namely, that they would allow it to those tenants who punctually paid their rents, but not to those who were in arrears; an arrangement by which the landlords would be the gainers. There were in Birmingham 400 policemen and a large number of letter carriers, and these being civil servants were not allowed to vote, yet the rate was claimed from them the same as from the voters. The compounding in the borough amounted on an average to 50 per cent of the rate, and therefore that additional amount of burden had been thrown on a very industrious class of the public service. Besides these, several thousand widows and female occupiers in Birmingham would have to bear these additional burdens without any corresponding beneficial result. Many of them let lodgings, and so occupied larger houses and paid heavier rates than would otherwise have been necessary, and as they presented a respectable appearance, the parish authorities did not consider themselves justified in excusing them the rate. In Birmingham, notwithstanding all deductions and all the distress, these rates would be remarkably well paid, and 30,000 or 40,000 voters would probably be added to the constituency there. But what would be the position of those voters? He believed that the rate imposed on them would amount to about 15 s. each, which would be equivalent to additional taxation on these men of about £25,000 per annum; and taking the average duration of a Parliament at four years, the cost to the borough of Birmingham of

  1911
  a single exercise of the elective franchise would be £100,000. The Compound Householder Act and Small Tenements Act had worked beneficially, and being permissive Acts their operations were being greatly extended previous to the passing of the Reform Act of last Session. He contended that the small occupiers in the large boroughs would be unfairly and unjustly treated, and taxed much more in proportion than the richer voters, unless the rating provisions in the Act of last year were repealed. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), speaking the other night respecting the inequality of local taxation, stated that the smaller occupiers, when they paid the same rate as the larger occupiers, did in reality pay, in proportion to their incomes, double the amount of the larger occupiers. If that be true, the compounding system—the effect of which was to reduce the proportion of the rate paid by the smaller occupiers—would restore the working-man to a level with the rich man in that respect, and would remove a great injustice. There were no doubt difficulties in the case; but that was no reason why justice should not be done to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and especially the poorer classes. If this were made a party question the feeling against those who voted against the Resolution would be strong, deep, and lasting, and would by no means be of advantage to them at the next election. He appealed to the justice, and, if necessary, to the fears of the House, not to separate without giving the poorer ratepayers some assurance that this very serious grievance under which they were labouring should be redressed.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Brighton's allusion to some remarks of his made in a former Session were founded on a total misconception of what he said. He trusted that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White), and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), who dwelt on the inequality of assessment, would take an active part in trying to repeal the exemptions from rate enjoyed by stock in trade, so that the burden should not be left, as at present, on real property solely. If that were done, if the House returned to the just and equitable principle of the Act of Elizabeth, the means and substance both of Birmingham and of Brighton would be made to bear their share of taxation. The hon. Member had informed the House that
  1912
  4,000 of the poorer inhabitants of Birmingham were to be excused payment of their rates. [Mr. DIXON: It was expected they would be.] That was quite the same thing so far as his argument was concerned. The hon. Member said, the whole number rated was 54,000; so that was pretty nearly 12 per cent of the ratepayers. The system of compounding, then, made 12 per cent of the very poorest people pay rates, when otherwise they would not pay anything at all. Well, if they did not pay the rates, the burden must fall upon people immediately above them, whether under the system of compounding or not. He (Mr. Henley) never hinted that people should pay double, as the hon. Member seemed to think; but he said those who were living on parochial relief were excused, and payment was thrown upon the owners of that species of property. Did they think that would encourage the building of houses for that class of persons? He did not think it would; for if the burden were put upon them, it would infallibly discourage them. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) said, naturally enough, that if all those people were struck off, there would be, with the additional expense of collection, a heavier rate from the richer people. That was precisely what he thought would be right—namely, that the rich ought to pay, and not the poor. But they could not cut off those persons who came for the franchise because it bore hard on them, for they bore the hardship in common with everybody in the district. The hon. Member for Brighton spoke of a blunder having been committed, and advised them to forget and forgive; but how was it that the difficulty came about? The House would recollect that this was no proposal of the Government. They proposed something quite different; but everybody on the opposite side of the House with open mouth said, "Oh, you are not sincere; you don't mean the people to have household suffrage." Well, then, the Government naturally enough said, "You have no right to suspect our sincerity. Do away with compounding if you like, and let everybody have a vote." Well, that was done; and now those who taunted the Government with insincerity could not be loud enough in denouncing that which was absolutely necessary in consequence of the course they themselves took in charging the Government with insincerity. He recollected the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge)

  1913
  in particular saying that he was quite sure that nobody would claim the vote under the old system of compounding. Before the passing of the Reform Bill those who wanted a vote claimed to be rated. If they liked to vote they paid the rate, and if they did not they left it to the landlord to pay. What they ought to do now was to see what remedy could be applied. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) took a very sensible course when he pointed out to the House the difficulties that surrounded this question, and he proposed to examine the whole matter in Committee, in order if possible to remedy the inconvenience, while they maintained the principle of last year. But the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton would, if adopted, place it in the power of a landlord to disfranchise the whole of his tenants by omitting to pay the rate. Very queer things were attributed to landlords, and surely it could not be the intention of the hon. Member to place in the hands of a landlord, who perhaps had a thousand voters on his property, the power of disfranchising them or retaining them on the register by simply paying or withholding the payment of the rates. He had never himself been able to say that a man who had paid £6 or £7 was more fitted to vote than a man who paid £5 a year; and therefore he agreed in the principle so distinctly laid down in the Bill of last year, that a man who paid rates should vote, and the man who did not pay should not vote. If the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets could find out any method by which any inconvenience could be remedied, while the principle of the Bill was maintained, he would find no Member of the House more ready to give him assistance in remedying such inconvenience. He had pointed out one blot in the propositions of the hon. Member for Brighton, and there might be twenty others. So far as the very poor people were concerned, the fact was that the rates could not be collected from them at all; and if they could, the expense of collecting would be such as to render it not worth while to make the attempt. He also pointed out that the incidence of the rate did not fall upon the owners of any property except that which came within the Compounding Act, consequently only upon the owners of the poorest description of property. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division, for if he did he must vote against it.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he wished to say a few words in reply to the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last. He had said if they repealed the clause in the Reform Act which abolished composition they would give the landlords power, by the non-payment of rates, to disfranchise occupiers by the thousand; but the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that under the law as it stood, if an agreement were made between the tenant and the landlord, the latter could, under the existing law, do just as the right hon. Gentleman said he would be able to do—although he doubted that—if this clause were repealed. Now, a long discussion had taken place last Session on the subject of notice, and it was shown that it would be incumbent on the overseer to give ample notice to the occupier as to any pending claims for rates. That being so, the occupiers could keep themselves on the register by paying the rates. He had himself put the question to the Attorney General whether occupiers would in this respect be in a worse position than they were before, and he informed the House they would not be placed in a worse position; they might claim to be rated as before. So that they need be under no apprehension that if this clause were repealed voters would be at the mercy of their landlords. Then, as regarded the system of composition as a means for securing the payments of rates by the poorest portion of the occupiers, it appeared to him that if they desired that the poorest occupiers should be relieved it ought to be done by Act of Parliament, and not be left to the discretion of magistrates or overseers. The present system ought not to be encouraged. He had a strong inclination to think that it would be wise to pass some measure by which the poorest might be relieved from the payment of rates; but they ought not to leave the matter to the discretion of parish officers. If that was so, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to the impolicy of composition fell to the ground. There was another kind of composition to which he desired to direct the attention of the House, under which the owner paid the rates where no composition existed. This system had also been abolished by the late Act, and he trusted that it would form one of the subjects of inquiry before the Committee presided over by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). Formerly under this system an owner of a block of buildings would pay the rates

  1915
  for all his tenants; but under the existing law he was unable to do so except as agent for his tenants, every one of whom must be separately rated, by which the difficulty of collecting the rate was considerably increased. He did not wish to go into the whole subject of composition at the present time; but should prefer to wait before doing so until the Report of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets' Committee had been presented to the House.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought that it would be better for the subject to be inquired into in Committee than that the present Resolution should be agreed to. A question so deeply affecting the interests of one-third of the male occupiers of the country should not be left to the discretion of the vestries, who might use their power for political purposes. In 1850, before persons could vote it was requisite that they should be personally rated, and have paid their rates; but when the system of composition was introduced it was found that many persons who had previously paid rates and possessed votes were disfranchised by it. The following year, therefore, an Act was passed which enacted that payment by the landlord should be the same as payment by the tenant, and enabling the tenant, if he thought fit, to pay the rates himself. It was found, however, that the landlord might disenfranchise the tenant by neglecting to pay the rates. He trusted that the Report which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets' Committee would present would be satisfactory, and that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) would not now press his Resolution, but would consent to refer the subject of it to that Committee.
  LORD HENLEYsaid, he also hoped the hon. Member for Brighton would not press his Resolution to a division, seeing that such a course would put many hon. Members into a position of considerably difficulty. In the first place, they had not yet had sufficient experience of the working of the new system, and therefore it would be premature for them to retrace the step taken last year by simply replacing the compound-householder in the position he occupied before the passing of the Reform Act of 1867. In towns where the rates were collected every half-year they had had no experience at all of the working of the new system, and in those places where they were collected every quarter they had only had that one quarter's experience.
  1916
  The small experience, however, that had been obtained from that one quarter showed that, although the difficulty of collecting the rates appeared very great at first, yet that now things were quieting down the new system was actually working better than the old one. He was willing to admit that Northampton was not a very large town; still it numbered 40,000 in habitants, and might be taken as a fair specimen of the working of the new system in a Parliamentary borough, in which compounding had existed to some extent before it was abolished by the Reform Act, and in which a considerable number of the inhabitants were small householders. The result of one quarter's experience of the working of the new system in Northampton was stated by the rate collectors to be that there was no difficulty in collecting the rates in full in two out of the four parishes into which the town was divided, and that in the other two parishes the arrears at the close of the rate were less than when compounding existed. That was a very remarkable fact—especially as the rate was made in October and ran into the following January, a period when it was difficult for the poorer classes to pay their rates. His correspondent, in order to test the question, had taken as examples 808 houses in the worst streets of the four parishes, upon which a full assessment of 1s. in the pound would produce £176 6s. 6d., while under the compound system (with its deduction of 50 per cent.) the value of the rate was £88 3s. 3d.; and last quarter the amount virtually received—compounding having been abolished—was £127 4s. 9d. That was a very remarkable fact. Then there was still owing, £23 16 s.; excused, £18 13 s. 3d.; and empty houses, £6 12 s. 6d.: in all, £49 1s. 9d. As regarded the houses themselves, 586 had paid, 101 were in arrear, 88 were excused, and 33 were empty. Thus it appeared that under the new system the advantage to the parish was represented by the difference between £88 3s. 3d. and £127 4s. 9d., which was equal to £39 1s. 6d., or more than 40 per cent of the whole amount realized under the old system. He admitted that some drawback must be allowed for the cost of summonses to non-payers and for extra salaries to collectors; but against those expenses might be put the £23 16 s. of arrears, some of which would, no doubt, be collected. What was wanted was some further experience, and he, for one, was not ready to affirm so strong a Resolution

  1917
  as that of the hon. Member for Brighton. If, as time went on, it was found that in the large populous towns the evil continued, he should be one of the first to come forward and vote for such a Motion. But the Act of last Session ought, he thought, to have a further trial.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he hoped some Member of Her Majesty's Government would rise and tell the House what course they intended to take upon this question—whether they would adhere to the declaration which the Prime Minister made to him (Mr. Sandford) the other day, that he would resist any alteration, or whether the experience they had since obtained had induced the right hon. Gentleman to modify his opinion? The right hon. Gentleman was a great stickler for verbal accuracy; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite accurate in the account he gave of the proceedings with regard to this matter last year, when he stated that the abolition of the compounding system was unanimously agreed to. To that statement he must give his humble contradiction, because he himself and a number of other Gentlemen refused their assent. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would hardly say that he was to be held as agreeing to every Motion upon which he did not divide the House. But he must remind the House that they on that (the Ministerial) side were summoned to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Hodgkinson); that they went to dinner at seven o'clock, and when they came back at nine they found that the whole case was given up. In all his experience, which was now not short, he had never seen the House so surprised—he might say so stunned—as it was on that occasion. It was hardly fair, therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Motion was unanimously agreed to, when it was well known in the Lobbies that if a division had been taken the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newark would have been rejected. The noble Lord who had just spoken said that the Act worked well in Northampton. The accounts he received from his constituents at Maldon were very different. The money could not be collected at all, and the expenses were every day going on. This was a state of things which demanded the immediate action of the Government. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who seemed to have a paternal affection for his Committee, said, "Wait
  1918
  till we have made our Report;" but he (Mr. Sandford) objected to the whole legislation being handed over, as the Government seemed inclined to do, to the action of Committees. The Committee of the hon. and learned Member would not be likely to report until the end of the Session, and if the dissolution of Parliament took place in February the General Election would be under the existing state of things. There had been two remedies proposed—one recommended by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) and supported by Lord Cairns in the other House. The other was made in the course of last Session by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), though the House did not think proper to listen to it. Thus after the 5th of July, when there could no longer be a question of the vote, the landlords should be made to pay the compound rate upon all those houses on which the rates remained unpaid. But he only asked for immediate action, and if it was to be a question whether the present state of things was to be continued, or the Motion now before the House to be adopted, he should certainly vote with the hon. Member for Brighton.
  MR. EVANSsaid, he had asked a question the other evening of the Attorney General on this subject, and from the answer he received he supposed the hon. and learned Member fancied that he (Mr. Evans) had some sinister object in view; but he could assure him such was not the case. He had reason to believe that there were parishes in the metropolis where the system of compound-householding was re-established, and he wanted to know from the Attorney General what would be the effect upon the political rights of the voters. The system, which he believed existed in Poplar and Bromley-le-Bow, was this—the landlord paid the rates as agent for the tenant, of course getting a receipt for the full rate; but then he was paid a percentage for his trouble, which went under the name of Commission. Now, the House had a right to know whether this was legal or not; whether it was in accordance with the Reform Act, and, whether the tenants who came under that system would be deprived of their votes? With regard to the general question, he thought the whole mischief had been caused by placing the elector's vote on the ground of rating instead of rental. In the present state of the question, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Northampton (Lord

  1919
  Henley) that it was undesirable to pass this Resolution before the Committee had reported.
  MR. WARNERsaid, that the hon. Members who had addressed the House had not exaggerated the evils of the present arrangement—evils so intolerable that a remedy must be found without delay. His constituents were among the greatest sufferers, and the burden was more than they could bear. The country could not afford to wait for the Report of the Committee. Sufficient light had already been thrown upon the matter to call for action. He was, however, unable to vote for the Resolution, because although the hon. Member for Brighton had fully made out the grievance, he was, he thought, mistaken in the remedy. He was unwilling to place in jeopardy the benefits which he anticipated from the Act of last year, and he advocated a larger and more liberal system of excusal, which it would hardly be possible to abuse for political purposes.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he did not intend to enter upon any lengthened discussion on the principles of the Reform Act which became law last year. But as the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) had asked the Government to state what their views were—which he thought were well ascertained already—he had only risen to give the information that as this Motion would not only repeal the compounding clauses of the Reform Act, but the whole principle of the Bill, it would, of course, be resisted by the Government. With respect to what took place last year, it was clear that the proposition of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Hodgkinson) was accepted—he would not say by every one—but, at any rate, there was no division upon it; and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader on the other side of the House, said that if this proposition were adopted by the Government all serious opposition to the Bill on the part of himself and his Friends would at once cease. The principle of the Bill for which the Government had always contended was the payment of rates for which the tenant was personally liable, not that he should pay them with his own hand, but that he should be personally liable for them, and make them good if they were not paid. Now what was asked by the hon. Member for Brighton? He complained that there was great inconvenience in many of the large towns from the system adopted. That might be the case. It was impossible that such an in-
  1920
  terference should take place with the former habits of the people without causing some inconvenience. But it could be done in very populous places, for the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) said that in Stockport, and it was the same also in Sheffield, they had always gone upon the principle of excusing those who were unable to pay the rates, but of collecting the rates from each occupier and making them personally liable. [Mr. J. B. SMITH: Hear, hear!] He was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Maldon, who had hitherto been in favour of checks with regard to the suffrage, say that he was prepared to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton, unless the Government undertook some remedy. The Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton was household suffrage pure and simple, without any rating at all. [Mr. SANDFORD: I said I would vote for it in preference to the existing state of things.] The Government had never accepted that principle. And all this was because some little inconvenience had been experienced at the first working of the system, without waiting to see whether or not further experience would remove it. The noble Lord the Member for Northampton was more reasonable; he acknowledged that in his town the working of the plan had been easier than was anticipated. But the House had lately appointed a Committee to consider the whole question. Now, could anything be more unreasonable than to say that a system which they had sanctioned only a year before should be repealed, altering the whole character of the Act; but without any further experience of the Act than had been gathered in one or two large towns, and while a Committee was still in deliberation on its working? He thought the House would not stultify itself by the adoption of such a Motion as this, which, though very vague in some respects, would nullify the principle contained in the Bill of last year without any proved necessity.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that whatever need might arise at some period of the Session for a conflict between the various opinions upon this question, there was, in his opinion, no such necessity at present. He could not entirely agree to the retrospective part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but at present he would trouble the House with no remarks either upon that or with reference to the manner in which his share and that of others in the events of last year had been misunderstood

  1921
  and misrepresented by a very impartial and distinguished, though not a very well informed person in "another place." Judging from the position of affairs in many parts of the country, the present Session could not be allowed to pass without some legislation on the matter. The old compounding system, he freely admitted, had many faults, and in some cases was made the vehicle of jobbery and corruption. Northampton, it was possible, had been one of those boroughs in which the system was so ill-constructed and so defectively applied that the change which had taken place had been an improvement. Be that as it might, he was convinced that the time must come when Parliament must take measures to restore the benefits, while avoiding the inconveniences of the compounding system. He accepted the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hodgkinson) last year, not as a good one in itself, but as a much smaller evil than that which otherwise impended; but it should be remembered that he recommended the House to turn its attention to the best means of retaining the advantages of the old system, and the matter could now be dealt with, apart from all political considerations, as a social and economical question. He was glad the subject had been brought forward, for he was anxious that the facts of the case should be represented by representatives of the different boroughs of the country, so that the House might arrive at an impartial decision upon it. The present discussion had shown that the matter was by no means a simple one; and while thinking it natural that the hon. Member for Brighton should have made a proposition aiming directly at the removal of the grievance, he thought the object in view would not be promoted by its being pressed at this moment. The House having only last year abolished compounding, the Government were entitled to know what was the general feeling on the subject, without being pressed for an immediate decision as to what course they would pursue. He trusted, however, that his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, who had not introduced the subject in any spirit of controversy, would not bring the question to an issue prematurely. It must have been apparent that the House was anxious to have the matter dealt with at as early a period as possible. In fact, it would not bear delay. Not a week ought to be wasted in the consideration of the subject; but it was not wasting
  1922
  a week to sanction a delay which would place the House in a position to decide as to the best remedy which could be applied. There was every reason to believe that the Committee which had been appointed would shortly bring that portion of its labours which referred to this subject to a conclusion, and the hon. Member for Brighton would, therefore, in his opinion, be serving his own cause by adjourning the consideration of the question for the present. He trusted that when the matter came fully before them they would deal with it solely with the view to securing to the people of this country as much convenience as possible, and to relieve them as far as they could from what was a great trouble; and in so doing they would cast aside all feelings of self-love or complacency connected with anything that might have occurred last year.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that after what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire, it would be the worst possible taste for him not to defer to the right hon. Gentleman's judgment. He therefore begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY—FORTIFICATIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD ELCHO, in rising to move for certain Returns of which he had given notice, said, that he had adopted the course which he was now pursuing because, from experience, he had found that to bring forward in Committee of Supply a question affecting our expenditure would result in its becoming so involved and mixed up with other details, as to preclude it from receiving the just consideration to which it might be entitled. The question to which he desired to call the attention of the House was one which involved three questions of considerable importance—the rightful or wrongful expenditure of a very large amount of public money, the efficiency of the fortifications which had been made to protect the keys of our maritime ports and of our supremacy, and, finally, the system and responsibility under which large sums of public money were expended and certain results obtained. Under the old system, if he was rightly informed, forts were constructed at haphazard—one placed here and another there—without any relation to any definite system or view to any ultimate plan. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) at length moved the appointment of a Com-

1923
mittee on the subject, and that Committee recommended the expenditure of about £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 in fortifications. Something like £7,000,000 out of that sum had been expended. The question they had then to consider was, whether that large sum had been properly expended, and whether the balance of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 was likely also to be properly expended? The works already constructed consisted chiefly of earthworks, fortifications of granite, masonry, and so on; but latterly money had been expended upon shields for embrasures and batteries, the object, of course, being to counteract the improved power of artillery. Public attention had recently been directed to the subject, and it was doubted whether the country had been getting their money's worth for the expenditure which had been made, and whether the works constructed were as efficient as they ought to be. He held in his hand an article from St. Paul's Magazine, and in that article, which was evidently written by some one well acquainted with the subject, the writer said—
"Nor can it be denied that nothing is more to be deprecated than that either Southwick, Widley, or Nelson (the three central forts on Portsdown Hill), or Brockhurst, Rowner, or Grange (the three principal works of the second line) should ever be tested by the rough and unmasking experience of war. No one can gaze into the deep chalk ditches which surround the Portsdown Hill forts without seeing that the scarp walls are already gliding in great slices into the ditch, and without imagining what would be the fate of the whole structure if a rapid and angry fire were sustained from 600-pounder guns standing upon the elevated terreplein of Forts Widley or Nelson. As to the miserably weak caponniers which flank these deep-cut chalk ditches, it will be sufficient to say that they belong to a system already as obsolete as the 68-pounder smooth-bore guns which these forts were originally intended to carry. But coming next to Forts Brockhurst, Rowner, and Grange, it should never be forgotten that Sir Roderick Murchison warned our military engineers, many years ago, that it would be impossible to build forts in the spongy soil which has here been selected for their foundation. Neglecting any precautionary measures, disregarding the condition of the site on which their forts were to be raised, our military engineers set to work to pile earth and brickwork upon the top of a quaking morass, and with what result it is not difficult to imagine. These forts—for which, by-the-by, Colonel Jervois is not responsible—carry guns which, although too small in calibre to be of serious annoyance to an enemy, would be quite big enough, if fired, to lay Forts Brockhurst and Rowner prostrate upon the ground."
He then goes on to speak of the Hilsea lines, of which he says—
"These lines, nearly 3,000 yards in length, and mounting embrasures for ninety guns, are, in sub-
1924
stance, long curtains of earth, with casemated batteries on the flank of each curtain. It has now been discovered that the embrasures have been placed so close together that the guns cannot be worked, and every alternate embrasure will have to be built up. Not that even thus would these embrasures, although reduced from ninety to forty-five, be rendered available for use in their present condition. The falling earth, intended to cushion the brick face of the casemates, has choked up the mouths of the embrasures, and, viewed in conjunction with the great fissures which have already rent the casemates, leaves upon the mind of the spectator an appalling impression of waste, folly, and decay."
To that statement, if uncorroborated, much weight might not, perhaps, have been attached. But a Question upon the subject was asked by some hon. Member, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave the usual official Answer—an answer which was of course put into his hands by those who were responsible for the manner in which the money was expended—that there might be some defects, but that the thing would be all right. But The Times' correspondent, who had written a description very much like that which appeared in a magazine, stated that he adhered to all that he had written, and that every word of it was literally and practically true. What, however, he more particularly wished to call the attention of the House to, were the iron shields and iron forts which had been constructed, and which were in course of construction, and in reference to these he had something more reliable to bring forward than statements which had been made in magazines and newspapers. Thirty - five iron shields, mostly designed for Gibraltar and Bermuda—the latter a place which, if we ever had unhappily a difference with the United States, would be a naval station of the greatest importance—had been constructed during the last year, and to these shields the attention of the public had been directed. It was stated that they were not well constructed, that they had been constructed without sufficient experiment, that they had never been tried, and it was impossible to say whether they would stand fire or not. Subsequently, however, the attention of Parliament was called to the subject, and experiments were made under the supervision of the officers who were responsible for the construction of the shields. These, which were called inductive experiments, were tolerably satisfactory; but the Minister for War thought that further experiments were necessary, and one of the shields was handed over to

1925
the Ordnance Select Committee for trial. Perhaps two shots, or at the outside three, were fired at it from a gun of moderate size, and the result was that nineteen out of the twenty bolts on the face of the shield gave way, showing that, if the shield had been fired at by an enemy, its bolts would have become so many additional missiles cast at the men for whose protection it had been set up. The Secretary for War had shown great judgment and courage, for, had he listened to the advice of those who were responsible for the shields, no such experiment would have taken place. Guided by the result of the Ordnance Committee experiment, his right hon. Friend desired that the shield should be tested more thoroughly, and he appointed a Special Committee for the purpose, headed by the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), who was also a Lord of the Admiralty, than whom he could not have chosen a better man. The hon. Member for Stamford, it would be remembered, was at the head of the Iron Plate Committee which sat in 1863, and having conducted a series of careful experiments, laid down a general principle applicable to everything in the shape of armour constructed either wholly or in part of iron. Referring to the shield designed by Colonel Inglis, that Committee reported as follows:—
"It appears that even the 15-inch (Inglis) shield, if constructed with three layers of 5 inches thick each, could not long resist such a gun as the 300-pounder, with large charges of powder, the initial velocity of the shot and the work done being so great that nothing less than 7½-inch iron would resist it. Probably, therefore, plates or planks 8 inches thick are the least that should be used for a coast battery."
It happened that a coast battery was the very thing he was referring to. That Report was issued in 1863; in 1867 the subject was brought before the House, and objection was taken to the method of construction of those shields; and he wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, whether the officers responsible for the construction of the Gibraltar and Malta shields had read the Report of the Iron Plate Committee? If they had read it, why had they not acted on it? The simple fact appeared to be this. An able Committee, after a series of careful experiments decided that 8-inch plates were necessary for a coast battery; but, in the face of this, certain officials set to work constructing the Gibraltar shield of plates 5½-inch, 5-inch, and 1½-inch thick re-
1926
spectively, without having made any experiments of their own. Surely, that was the moat extraordinary proceeding ever presented for the consideration of a Secretary for War. But this Gibraltar shield had been submitted to further trial by the specially appointed Committee, and the House now waited its Report. The Ordnance Committee's experiment had been conducted in secret, and the battered shield covered by tarpaulin; but as everything became public now-a-days, a full account of the experiment appeared in the papers next morning. Some scientific men who had examined the shield had concluded that, even if it were strengthened by the use of a different kind of bolt, as it was on the last experiment, it was a complete failure; it had been battered completely out of time, and the Committee, properly speaking, had nothing to do but certify to its failure. The public would, therefore, regret to learn that the Committee had recommended further experiments with the shield at the country's expense. However, the blue book recounting the results of the trials already made would, no doubt, soon be in the hands of Members, when they and the public could form an independent judgment on the points he had raised. His Question specially referred to a fort to be erected at Devonport, and a similar fort to be erected at Bermuda. Last Session chance had shown him a drawing of these intended forts, and a person pointed out to him at the time what appeared to him to be defects in construction. The criticism the gentleman offered accorded with a common sense view of the case, and he accordingly brought the matter before Parliament. He asked his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, whether, before these works were further prosecuted, a section of one of them might not be made and tested. After a little discussion, the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) assented to the proposition. He (Lord Elcho) then proposed—
"That a complete section be made, full size, of Devonport Breakwater, giving one embrasure, granite base, concrete roof, with two supporting pillars, girders, brickwork, granite, &c., as per drawing, signed by Colonel Jervois, January 19, 1867, and issued to contractors—that this section should be submitted to the following tests:—Six shots of Palliser's projectiles from the 9-inch rifled gun; six shots of Palliser's projectiles from the 600-pounder rifled gun; both guns to be placed at 600 yards."—[3 Hansard, clxxxix, 1300.]
It was understood at the time that the Government accepted that proposition in

1927
substance; but whatever might have been the intentions of the Government, the necessary sections had not been constructed, nor were they in course of construction in accordance with the understanding he had quoted. He did not in the least blame the Secretary for War, because on a professional question such as this he was manifestly obliged to be more or less in the hands of departmental officers interested in the construction of the works. Knowing that his right hon. Friend had insisted as far as possible that the section should be constructed precisely in accordance with the understanding come to with him, that it should, in fact, be a section of the actual fort to be erected at Devonport, he wished to show the House how materially the target differed from the armour of the fort. If the House would bear with him he would read a description of the plan of Plymouth fort, as sent out by the War Office for tenders to various contractors, and side by side with it he would also read a description of the target, supposed to represent the Plymouth fort, now being erected at Shoeburyness, The House and his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War would then admit he was more than justified in the course he had taken. The statement he read was as follows:—
"In the original plan the distance from centre to centre of piers is 21 feet 9 inches; in the target it is between 1 and 2 feet less to give greater strength. In the plan the piers are proposed to be filled with brick laid in cement, and to receive no support whatever from the floor—that is to say, to resist forward strains from impact of shot; in the target the left-hand pier of this is laid upon granite, and bars of iron, 12 inches by 5 inches, are put in vertically to support it. In the plan the straight or transverse girders are, as it were, loose on the top of the piers and box-girders (without being connected to each other), and are held in their places by a few rivets only; in the target they are riveted to the piers and to the box-girders with extra plates, and brackets are fastened on the top of each girder for connecting the 3-inch bolts (which go through the front armour-plates), instead of screwing them up in the concrete only, as shown in the plan of the Plymouth Fort, and not only have they a greater number of rivets at each end and plates to secure them, but arch-plates, extending from one girder to the other, riveted fast. In the plan the back box-girders which carry the straight girders are 1 foot 6 inches deep; in the target they are 1 foot 11 inches deep, and are bedded into the masonry of the old casemate with which they are connected at rear. In the plan the bolts are 3 inches in diameter, reduced in the body, on Palliser's principle, to about 2¾ inches diameter, and the holes for these are proposed to be only a trifle over 3 inches for the bolt to pass through; in the target the bolts are of the same size, but the holes are 4 inches in diameter, for the purpose of
1928
receiving wooden pads ½-inch thick, and are double countersunk on both sides. In the plan the intermediate port-plates are cut short, and 16½-inch bars, about 3 feet long, are used to make up the deficiency on the top; the target has a port-plate of the full height, thereby strengthening the structure very considerably. In the plan, in the 21 feet 9 inches centre to centre of piers there are two joints, or "butts;" in the target the three plates are in one length each, and the target is therefore much stronger. In the plan there is no base-plate, the 12-inch by 5-inch vertical beams are merely sunk into the granite foundation about 6 inches; the target has a base-plate about 2½ feet wide and 2½ inches thick, the whole extent of the target, and slots are formed in it, through which the 12-inch by 5-inch bars pass and fasten into the granite about 10 inches deep. In the plan no port-stiffeners are shown, and the inner and middle bars are, as it were, cut through by a series of bolt-holes; these have been put to the target by bolting another 12-inch by 5-inch bar to those already shown in fort drawings. In the plan the size of porthole is 4 feet by 2 feet 4 inches; in the target it is diminished to 3 feet by 2 feet 5 inches. In the plan the arch-plate just over the guns, which communicates with the front plate, is about 1 foot 8 inches wide; in the target it is 6 feet wide. In the plan the bars and plates are shown in contact and no elastic medium between; in the target oak, 1 inch thick, is intended to be placed between the armour-plates and the 16½-inch bars. Since this was written several important alterations have been suggested and are being carried out in the target, and since the inquiry in Parliament many of the modifications have been made to the Plymouth Fort itself."
These details were too technical for the House, but they would be published to-morrow, and then those who took an interest in the matter would see that there had been a distinct departure from the understanding which had been come to in that House, and that the section in question was no more a section of the Plymouth Fort than it was a section of Sebastopol, Gibraltar, or any other fort constructed in any part of the world. He was prepared and the House, also, must be prepared for the right hon. Gentleman getting up, giving an official answer, and finding some reasons satisfactory to him and no doubt to the officers concerned, but probably not to the House, for this manifest and clear departure from the original understanding. He had been told that a gentleman at the War Office had said that it was very like a rabbit warren. Now, a rabbit warren had what were called "bolt-holes," and he wished as far as possible to anticipate the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and thus to stop up the "bolt-holes" by which he might attempt to escape. It might be said that the fort as originally constructed was intended only to meet the artillery of

1929
the time. His answer to that was that the date of the contract for the fort was signed the 19th of January, 1867, and the President of the Iron Plate Committee (Sir John Hay), who was sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman, would bear him out when he said that the artillery of 1868 and 1867 was identical. Therefore, this fort ought to have been able to resist the artillery which might be brought to bear upon it in 1868. What did English artillery consist of? Of a 600-pounder Armstrong muzzle-loader 12-inch gun, a 10-inch gun rifled, a 9-inch gun rifled, and a gun of smaller description to which he need not refer. This fort, therefore, if meant to resist the artillery of England, ought to have been constructed to resist the guns of 1868. The second "bolt-hole" might be this, that it had been intended to resist attack from guns carried by our own navy. Now, our own navy was not as yet armed with the 600-pounder 12-inch gun; it was armed with the 9-inch gun, and the Hercules was intended to carry the 12-inch gun. But, though the English guns were supposed to be the best, the guns of other nations should be taken into account, and these forts ought to be able to resist American guns also. He had been informed that experiments had been made with the 15-inch Rodman American gun, which would astonish the artillerists of this country. But, beyond the 15-inch gun, the Americans had, he believed, got actually afloat a 20-inch gun, and he was told they were constructing guns of 30 inches, and even larger. He ventured to think, therefore, that money spent in the erection of forts ought to be so laid out that the forts would be calculated to resist, not only the shot of English but of foreign guns, and that they should look not only to the present but also to the future. The third "bolt-hole" might be that the forts were so constructed as to be capable of being strengthened should artillery increase in power. But he had every reason to believe that, in the opinion of scientific men, the construction of this section of a fort was so defective that it would not admit of such strengthening, and that, if an attempt were made to do so, it would virtually amount to an entirely new structure. Another point was this, that the fort was not intended to be constructed according to the design proposed to be contracted for; but when the contracts were sent in, it was suggested that the contractors should make any propositions they thought desirable with a
1930
view to strengthen it. Now, he had read a letter in a public print, from which he thought it not impossible that the contractors were desired to send in within a given time suggestions for improving the construction. But, if such a thing was done, the contractors, at the time the works were begun, had sent in no suggestions; and therefore he was in a position to state as a fact that the tender was issued, the contract accepted, and no change in the construction of the fort was commenced until the attention of Parliament was called to the subject. He did not apprehend it could be said that the changes which had been made were necessary in order to give this section a stability equal to that which it would have had if it had been a section of the actual fort in situ. But then it might be urged that the money voted by Parliament was insufficient, and therefore more could not be spent on these shields. His answer was that people might differ in opinion as to whether these forts were or were not necessary; but if it was once decided to erect them there could not be two opinions but that they ought to be made really effective for the purpose for which they were required. If you wanted a bullock fence to keep cattle out of your garden, it would not be of much use to put up a sheep fence; but this was just what we were doing in adopting ineffectual means of keeping out heavy shot and shell. He did hope that his right hon. Friend would see that the experiment was fully and fairly carried on. Happily, public attention having been called to the subject, there was now a chance of erecting efficient, instead of inefficient, forts. If attention had not been so directed to the subject the £11,000,000 might have been spent in the erection of inefficient forts; and the first intimation that Parliament and the country would have had of the way in which the public money had been wasted would, perhaps, have been the crumbling down of these forts under an enemy's fire in a place which might be the key of English maritime supremacy. There was something wrong in a system which admitted of such a state of things, and what Parliament and the country ought to insist upon was the bringing home of these things to individual responsibility. If the forts were well-constructed, give all credit to the constructors; if they were ill-constructed, let the responsibility be brought home to the proper persons. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Secretary of State for War, Whether

1931
he will lay upon the table of the House Copies of the original plan and specification of Plymouth Breakwater Fort, as contracted for and signed by Colonel Jervois on the 19th day of January 1867; of the plan and specification of the so-called section of the Plymouth Breakwater Fort, now being erected at Shoeburyness for trial, marking and colouring any alterations that may have been made; and, whether he will cause further progress with the Plymouth and Bermuda Forts to be stopped, until the section of the Plymouth Breakwater Fort shall have been fully tested by actual experiment. He would also ask, whether his right hon. Friend would attach to the plan an estimate in detail of the relative cost of the original design as contracted for, and of the section now being constructed at Shoeburyness?
GENERAL DUNNEtook that opportunity of asking the Secretary of State for War, If the Artillery authorities have been sufficiently consulted as to the arrangements and details of the new Defences in this Kingdom, and if they have made any Observations, or if there be any Correspondence upon the subject either with the War Department or the Commander-in-Chief, and whether he will lay such Correspondence upon the table of the House; whether the Inspector of Artillery has been directed to report or has reported on the state of efficiency and armament of these Defences, and if he will lay such Report upon the table of the House; and, whether any Officers besides those engaged in their construction have been employed to make a similar Report as to construction, efficiency, and armament of such Defences, and if he will lay such Report upon the table of the House? A sum of £5,000,000 having been voted for the defence of the country, and it having been said that there was a prospect of the expenditure of £15,000,000 the question could not but be interesting to the country. When accusations were made out of doors that the public money was being wasted in the construction of these forts, the House had a right to know on official authority what the facts were. In a recent publication it was stated "that we have no single reliable land defences, and that we have a great many which are worse than useless." Was this true? No doubt, the locality, and the form, site, and purpose of these forts had been decided upon by several Committees of scientific and military men, of experience and rank
1932
in the service; but these officers had nothing to do with their construction, and the construction of these forts was condemned by men qualified to give an opinion. It was alleged, among other things, that the defences had not been constructed in accordance with the plans, and that the experiments had been made with sections purporting to be the same, but really stronger than those of the actual forts. He supposed there was hardly a Gentleman in this House who had not read a letter in The Times, giving a detailed account of each of the new defences in course of construction, pointing out that almost all the forts were inefficient. For himself, he did not pretend to give an opinion; but these statements had made a deep impression upon the country. Had not only the engineer officers, who were themselves constructing these forts, but others, and artillery and naval officers been sufficiently consulted on these questions? He wished the right hon. Baronet would give the House an assurance that the works were being carried out in accordance with the recommendations from time to time made by different Committees upon the subject. It was asserted they were not. For instance, one of the points reported upon by the Iron Plate Committee—of which the hon. and gallant Baronet, just below him (Sir John Hay), was President—had been as to the thickness of iron which ought to be used. 7 inches to 7½ inches, it was supposed, would be the least required to oppose with success shot thrown from guns of the calibre now employed. The Committee even proposed 10 inches. It had been suggested that, in some cases, the thickness of the iron had been reduced to 5 inches, and it was important that the grounds for such a change, if made, should be investigated. He had every confidence in the professional skill of the officers who were superintending the execution of the works; but it ought to be satisfactory, and really was due, to those officers themselves, as well as to the public, to feel that the progress of the works should be tested and approved by others. It was but fair towards the War Department to acquaint his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the statements which were current, leaving it to him to give such explanation of the points involved in those statements, or to take such action upon them as he thought necessary. Again, it was said that sections of the defensive works were being erected with

1933
a view to be experimented upon at Shoeburyness, and that those sections would be of greater strength than those which were in course of erection in the actual works, and hence that the experiments made upon them would not test the real strength of the fortifications. Moreover, it was known that six weeks must elapse after the concrete had been put in before the sections were sufficiently advanced to be experimented upon; and, accordingly, the end of April or the beginning of May would have arrived before any results were placed in their hands. Meanwhile, the works at Bermuda would have been completed, and those at Plymouth so far advanced that the experiments would be valueless for any practical influence which they would exercise upon the character of the works. In fulfilling the contracts it was believed that the specifications in some cases had been departed from; for the contractors stated that after they had made their contracts on certain specifications, changes were subsequently made in them, and even contrary to their own advice. For this there were doubtless good and valid reasons; but it would certainly be satisfactory that able officers not connected in any way with the works, and therefore competent to take an independent and impartial view, should inquire and give the Government the benefit of their testimony. Again, there were preparations for testing what were called the War Office and the Gibraltar shields—it must be in the recollection of the House that some months since several of these latter shields had been sent out without being tested, and after they were gone, it was found that a few shots knocked them to pieces. They were now preparing a section of the War Office shield for trial, strengthened by stringers and 5½-inch bars at the back, and it was said they had actually proposed to fill the interstices with Trinidad pitch, which was nothing else than bitumen. Had they found out that shells would not set bitumen on fire? The country was perfectly prepared to bear the expenses of constructing any defences which were considered absolutely necessary; but it wished to be assured that these would be so constructed as not to fly to pieces before the enemy's cannon. The hon. and gallant General concluded by urging upon the right hon. Baronet the importance of giving detailed information upon all these points, with a view of satisfying the public mind.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: My noble Friend, in the observations he made in
1934
introducing this question, expressed confidence that he would have from me an official answer. In a certain sense, no doubt, any answer I may give must be an official one; but my answer will not be official in the sense in which he used the term—that is to say, it will not be dictated by official persons in the War Office. It is entirely out of my power to meet his statements, for the best of all reasons. I have never heard a speech with more surprise than I heard that of my noble Friend; because I had not the slightest expectation, from the form of the Questions put by the noble Lord, that he intended to enter, as he has done, into the whole question of the system of fortifications now being constructed for the defence of our arsenals. I admit as readily as anyone the immense importance of that subject. I cannot complain of any hon. Member who thinks it his duty to come down and ask for explanations upon a matter involving an immense expenditure of public money, and exciting, as it naturally does, a very great amount of public interest. At the same time, I cannot shut my eves to the fact that in all observations made in this House with reference to works of fortification, there always is, more or less, an attack on the officials whose duty it is to carry out the plans, and this renders it more desirable that I should be able to speak with exactness in dealing with this subject, and that with that view I should have an opportunity of conferring with those upon whom these special duties are imposed. No man can stand in a more unprejudiced and unbiassed position than I do. This system of fortifications was begun in 1860, under the Government of Lord Palmerston, and they have been going on since that time, and I am perfectly free from any interest in it until I took the office I now hold. I am not, therefore, interested in the defence of any individual; I have no motive to screen any wrong doer, if wrong doer there be; and the only feeling I can have is a sincere desire that what is done shall be done as well as possible. If money is being wasted, it is of course being wasted on a large scale; and if there are hon. Members who think it is being wasted, or that the works are being carried forward on too large a scale, or that the expenditure will not produce results corresponding to its magnitude, I invite them not to do what has been done to-night—not to give a Notice relating to one subject and make a speech upon another—but to give fair

1935
notice of a Motion; and, if they mean to assail individuals, let us know who they are, so that they may be put upon their defence, and a proper answer may be given by the Member of the Government whose duty it may be to reply. But when my noble Friend comes down and says he has read an article in St. Paul's Magazine, and when my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (General Dunne) refers to a well-known print, I really think the House will not quarrel with me as to my Answer. A very large and important work, involving a very great expenditure of public money, has been carried on for eight years, under the sanction and the supervision of the most eminent scientific persons in the country. Notwithstanding that, there may have been mistakes committed, and the works may not have been constructed in the most desirable manner; but if that be the case, let us know the authority upon which they are assailed, and, as I said, do not let us go upon what may have been said by the St. Paul's Magazine or even a well-known print. [General DUNNE: The Times.] My hon. and gallant Friend has only confirmed the expression I used. No one can have any doubt that that most eminent journal may be fairly called a well-known print. I take no exception to that; but I do think, and I say it in no official sense, hon. Members, when they proceed, not only to criticize what has been done, but to throw censure upon the individuals who have done it, are bound, in common fairness between man and man, to recollect the extraordinary progress that has been made in the course of eight years in the scientific matters involved in the construction of these works. Whatever the comments now made as to the manner in which those works were carried out, it must be remembered that when they were designed and their construction was first commenced, no human being had the slightest idea or expectation of that artillery by which, if unfortunately we were now involved in war, those forts would be assailed. I think that in justice to those who are carrying out the works, that fact ought to be home in mind. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to meet my noble Friend on a subject of which he has given no Notice. My noble Friend has given Notice of a specific question, and that I am quite prepared to answer; but I had no idea that my noble Friend had any intention of involving me in a discussion of so large a subject as that to which he has
1936
addressed himself. I think that such a subject should be brought forward on Notice, in order that the Government and independent Members might come down prepared to discuss it. My noble Friend alluded to the trial of the Malta and Gibralta shields. He is aware that those shields were subjected to a fair trial, and he knows the course I adopted. [Lord ELCHO: Hear!] As soon as the trial took place, and it became apparent that those shields would not resist the artillery of the present day, I immediately advised the Iron Plate Committee, of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) is Chairman, of the result of the experiments. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of reading the Report of that Committee. My noble Friend put a Question to me in reference to the Plymouth Fort and the Bermuda Fort, and the target which will very completely represent a section of the Plymouth Breakwater Fort. The target will, I believe, be ready for trial in the course of about three weeks. As much progress as possible is being made in its preparation. I must confess that I do not think any blame is to be attached to a public officer who profits by experience; but my noble Friend seems to be very angry because a public officer has not adhered to something which he believes to be defective. The House will be enabled to judge of the course taken by Colonel Jervois in the matter. I intend to produce an accurate and bonâ fide copy on a small scale of the section now being erected at Shoeburyness; but I am afraid it would not be convenient to lay upon the table a full-sized copy. With respect to the suspension of the works a difficulty arises, owing to the distance between this country and Bermuda; but directions have been sent out to suspend them as far as possible, until the trials shall have taken place, and we shall have been enabled to decide to what extent the plans ought to be altered. With regard to Plymouth the contractors are proceeding with the work; but we have given directions, which I have every reason to believe will be carried out, that no such progress shall be made as would prevent us in that case also of availing ourselves of any results which may follow from the experiments. I trust what I have stated will be satisfactory to my noble Friend, and that he will see that we wish to do what is right in this matter.
LORD ELCHOinquired, whether there

1937
would be any objection to marking and colouring any alteration that might have been made in the section of the Plymouth Breakwater Fort now being executed at Shoeburyness for trial; and, whether his right hon. Friend would produce the estimates for which he had asked?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the alterations would be indicated. He should make inquiry as to the estimates, of an intention to ask for which his noble Friend had given no notice.
CAPTAIN VIVIANappealed to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War not to make his general Statement on the Army Estimates to-night. The right hon. Baronet had told them in the early part of the evening that he would not commence that Statement after ten o'clock, and as it then only wanted about a quarter of an hour of that time, and, as many Members who felt a strong interest in the subject were not present, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take at once, if it should be necessary, a Vote on Account, and to postpone his address until another evening.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, with the indulgence of the House, begged to say that as it was so near ten o'clock, and as he had promised not to make the statement after ten, he would act on the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend.
COLONEL NORTHregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had given way, because he considered the House was sufficiently full to give due attention to the subject.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, towards defraying the Army Services, for the year ending the 31st day of March 1869."
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the plan of taking Votes before the explanatory statement was made was most objectionable, and that it would be better to adhere to the old practice.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreminded the hon. Gentleman, that it was only intended to take a certain proportion of the sums required.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he could see no objection to their agreeing to the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman had treated them very fairly by deferring his Statement, and they need not, in consequence of his having done so, refuse him the money which he asked for on account.
MR. AYRTONwished to know, whether it was regular to proceed with a Vote of £6,000,000 without a preliminary Statement on the subject?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONremarked that if his hon. and learned Friend persisted in his objection he would agree to the Vote being postponed.
MR. AYRTONstill thought that the Motion was one of a very unusual character.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
(1.) 67,120 Men and Boys, Sea and Coast Guard Services, including 14,700 Royal Marines.
MR. CORRYsaid, it was somewhat unusual to pass a Vote for the men required for the Navy before hearing the general explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates; but in the present state of public business this course was inevitable, because it was necessary that the new Mutiny Bill should receive the Royal Assent before the Easter holydays, which would probably commence at an earlier period than had been stated at the commencement of the evening.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was contrary to general practice to submit such a Vote to a Committee of Supply before any explanatory Statement had been made on the part of the Board of Admiralty. But if it were to be understood that the Vote was taken merely for the purpose of securing time for the passing of the Mutiny Act before the Easter holydays, and that they were not hereafter to be precluded from discussing the details of the Navy Estimates, he would not oppose the Motion.
MR. CORRYpointed out that this was not a money Vote, but simply had reference to the number of men. There was a precedent in 1846 for the course now adopted.
MR. O'REILLYpresumed that it was simply a conditional Vote as to the number of men, and would be subject to any Amendment which might be proposed hereafter.
MR. OTWAYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether any directions had been given by the Board of Admiralty to remove the ship Wellesley, which had been so long stationed at Chatham; and whether any determination had been come to by the Admiralty to fit out, or pay off, any more ships at Chatham?
MR. CORRYsaid, he had an important statement to make on the subject when he formally brought forward the Navy Estimates. It would be inconvenient, therefore, to answer the question at the present time.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £2,000,000, on account for Navy Services, agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACTS, &c. (IRELAND.)

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. REARDENsaid, he rose to move for a Return of the number of times the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended in Ireland since the passing of the Act of Union; the number of Arms Acts, White-boy and other Acts of repression in Ireland passed since the said Act of Union; the number of persons sentenced to death, transportation, and imprisonment in each year for political offences; and a Statement of the Act under which each person has been so sentenced.
  MR. J. STUART MILLseconded the Motion.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he was sorry he could not consent to the production of that Return. The information sought by the first part of the Motion could be easily obtained by a reference to the statute book; but it was impossible to give the particulars required by the second part, as political offences, as far as he was aware, were not defined as such by the law. He apprehended that the prisoners to whom the hon. Member referred had been sentenced in accordance either with the statute or the common law; but it would be difficult to state the particular Acts under which they had been so sentenced. He must add that he thought no possible good would be derived from the production of those painful records of the past.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of times the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended in Ireland since the passing of the Act of Union; the number of Arms Acts, Whiteboy and other Acts of repression in Ireland passed since the said Act of Union; the number of Persons sentenced to death, transportation, and imprisonment in each year for political offences; and a Statement of the Acts under which each person has been so sentenced,"—(Mr. Rearden,)
  —put, and negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Sir, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People in Ireland, I shall endeavour, as briefly as possible, to explain to the House the provisions of the measure which it is proposed to introduce. In the year 1850 an Act was passed which very materially affected the representation of the people in Ireland. The immediate effect of that Act was to add to all the former franchises which existed in respect to the counties in Ireland an occupation franchise based on the value of £12; that is to say, every person who was rated to the relief of the poor at the sum of £12 and upwards should have a vote. In addition to the franchises already existing in the boroughs, an occupation franchise at the value of £8 was likewise created. The effect of the Bill was to make a very large addition to the number of electors in Ireland. The entire number of electors before the Act of 1850 passed amounted to about 72,000; there having been 31,000 in counties, and about 40,000 in boroughs. In 1866—the last year for which we have any authentic information—the total number of electors in the counties and boroughs of Ireland was 204,000; of whom 174,000 were found in the counties, and 30,700 in the boroughs. Well, I propose to dismiss at once the consideration of the county franchise in Ireland by announcing to the House that it is not the intention of the Government to make any alteration in that respect. The county franchise in Ireland stands now at precisely the same point at which it is fixed in England by the operation of the Bill which was passed last year, and therefore the Government do not intend to effect any change in it. With regard to

  1941
  the borough franchise we do propose to make a considerable alteration. The House is probably aware that poor rates in Ireland, as a rule, are levied in this way:—The occupier pays the whole of the poor rate in the first instance; but, as a general rule, he is enabled by law to deduct from his rent one-half of the poor rate which he has paid. Therefore, in fact, the poor rate is divided substantially between the landlord and the tenant; but with this exception, that in respect of all hereditaments valued at and below £4 the immediate lessor is liable for the whole rate, and in fact the rate is paid by him. This state of the law exists, I may say generally, over the whole country, both in the town and in the agricultural districts, with the exception of the five following towns:—Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick, and Belfast, in which towns the immediate lessor is liable to the payment of all the poor rate at and below £8. Well, we have proposed, in the first instance, to assimilate the law in that respect, and to place those five towns on the same footing as the rest of the country,—that is to say, that the poor rate above £4 should be paid in equal shares between the landlord and the tenant, and that below £4 the immediate lessor shall be liable for the whole rate. That being the case, then, and keeping in view the principle of the payment of rates as a basis of the franchise, we propose to fix the borough franchise at £4. We believe that is a proposal which is likely to be lasting, and to prove satisfactory. The effect of it will be that every male occupier in Ireland, who is now liable to pay any portion of the poor-rates, will have a vote for the borough in which he resides. It is proposed to attach to this franchise precisely the same conditions, with regard to residence, registration, and all other matters connected with the suffrage, as now attach to the borough franchise. No alteration will be made in that respect. Further than this I do not think that it is at all desirable to go, and, in fact, it would be impossible to do so. The payment of the rates by the immediate lessor for all tenements below £4 is accepted as, and has become for many years, the law of the country; and I believe there is no class, no body of persons in Ireland who wish to see any alteration whatever made in the law in this particular. Therefore, we propose, as I have said, to fix the borough franchise at £4. We are able to inform the House of the precise effect which this extension of the franchise will have in in-
  1942
  creasing the constituency. The present number of borough electors in Ireland is altogether somewhere about 30,700. I have not the Returns for 1867, which have not yet been made up; but I have ascertained that there is no substantial difference between the Returns for 1867 and those for 1866, which were quoted by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. C. Fortescue) when he introduced his Reform Bill in that year. Well, the addition to those 30,700 borough electors in Ireland, which will be made by our proposal, will be about 9,313. We also propose to extend to Ireland the same provisions with regard to the lodger franchise as are contained in the Act of last year. There are likewise some alterations necessary which will effect a great improvement in the mode of registration in the City of Dublin, whereby the duties now performed by the clerk of the Union will hereafter be performed by the collector general of the rates. Very great convenience will arise from these alterations. We also propose to make the same provision with respect to inquiries into the boundaries of boroughs as was made in the English Reform Bill. We propose that, as soon as possible, a Boundary Commission for Ireland shall be constituted in the same way as the English Boundary Commission was constituted. These are the simple proposals I have to make to the House with respect to the borough franchise. I think that the House will easily understand them, and from what I have heard of the general expression of opinion in Ireland, I believe that, on the whole, they are likely to give satisfaction to that country. I now come to the next portion of the Bill, which, perhaps, will be more interesting to the House than the question of the franchise, and that is the portion having reference to the mode in which we propose to make an alteration in the distribution of seats. I hope the House will allow me to make a short comparative statement in respect to the representation of the boroughs and counties in Ireland. There are 33 boroughs in Ireland, returning 39 Members. Their population amounts to 797,467 persons, and their valuation to £1,592,365. The number of electors is 30,758. With respect to these 33 boroughs, it is remarkable that the three cities of Dublin, Cork, and Belfast absorb more than half the borough population of the country; they absorb two-thirds of the valuation, and more than half the number of electors, leaving only for the

  1943
  remaining 30 boroughs 352,846 of population, £482,013 of the valuation, and 13,214 electors. The population of Ireland, I need not remind the House, is in round numbers 5,500,000, and the valuation £13,000,000. It will be seen, therefore, how small a portion of the wealth and the population of the country these 30 boroughs represent. I would also point out to the House that there are really no unrepresented towns in Ireland which have any strong claim for representation. The four largest unrepresented towns are Kingstown, with a population of 11,584, which is composed very much of the suburban population of the city of Dublin; Queenstown, with a population of 8,653; Newtownards, with a population of 9,521; and Ballymena, with a population of 6,739. I should like the House to observe, also, how the counties stand as compared with the boroughs with regard to population, electors, and valuation. There are 32 counties in Ireland with 64 Members, and a population in 1861 of 5,001,097. Their valuation is £11,327,397, and the number of electors in 1866 was 174,183; so that compared with the state of things in the boroughs, there is an enormous difference, as the House will see, between the counties and the boroughs in regard to all those points which materially affect the question of representation. If you take the case of four of the largest counties in Ireland—Cork, Tyrone, Down, and Tipperary; and I do not allude to Antrim, because it is already represented by six Members, and therefore it is not necessary to interfere with its representation—what do you observe? In those four counties there is only one Member for 5,625 electors. In the other 28 there is a Member for 2,320 electors. In these four counties there is one Member only for 156,243 of the population. In the other 28 counties there is one Member for 66,970 of the population. In the four counties I have named there is one Member for £360,379 of valuation. In the other 28 counties there is one Member for £150,792 of valuation. I state this to show how strong a claim these four counties have for increased representation; and we propose in this Bill to submit a plan for the purpose of giving to them that increased representation. The question is, How is this to be done? There are six towns in Ireland which return two Members each—namely, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Belfast, and Galway. Of these Galway is the smallest, and has a popula-
  1944
  tion of 25,000. Therefore it would be most unjust, and, indeed, impossible, to withdraw from any of those towns returning two Members one of its representatives. So there are no means of getting additional county representation from that source. It has often been suggested, and, indeed, proposed in many Bills that have been introduced into this House, that some of the towns in Ireland should be grouped for the purposes of representation. That would be a system altogether new in Ireland, and we have come to the conclusion that there are no materials in Ireland whereby a satisfactory system of grouping could be established. I have shown that there are no new towns which deserve representation; and in all the schemes, which have exhausted the ingenuity both of my right hon. Friend the late Secretary for Ireland, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), and of several other Gentlemen, I think no system of grouping was proposed for Ireland which appeared to give the slightest satisfaction to any party. The fact is, that grouping in Ireland would bind together in each group a constituency having no common interest, and which, therefore, instead of adding to, would rather detract from the independence and influence of the borough representation. Therefore we do not conceive it to be our duty to submit to the House any plan for grouping boroughs. That being the case, and there being a great demand for increased representation in the four counties I have referred to, it seems to me that there is only one way in which a result so much to be desired can be obtained, and that is by requesting a certain number of boroughs to make a sacrifice in favour of those large constituencies that I think deserve additional representation. In framing this Bill we have turned our attention altogether to the circumstances of Ireland, and I do not believe there is any force in the argument that in dealing with the representation of Ireland we are bound to follow implicitly either the rule adopted for England or the rule adopted for Scotland. I believe that the plan I have to submit to the House for a re-distribution of seats for Ireland is a plan eminently suited to the circumstances of that country and, considering all things, the best that can be adopted. We propose, then to deal with the question on the principle that in no case, excepting one, shall existing representation be removed from the locality in

  1945
  which it now is, and we shall be able without the removal of representation from its locality to create healthy, good, and influential constituencies. We propose that Downpatrick shall yield its seat to a division of the county of Down, to be called East Down, which shall include the baronies of Ards Lower, Ards Upper, Castlereagh Lower, Dufferin, Lecale Lower, and Lecale Upper. This division will contain a population of 97,659, have a valuation of £286,716, and 4,110 electors. We propose going to another Northern borough. We propose that Dungannon should relinquish its Member in favour of the East division of the county of Tyrone, in which the borough of Dungannon is situated. That will represent a population of 96,827, a rateable valuation of £174,542, and 3,373 electors. The division of the county of Tyrone that will then return one Member will comprise three baronies, namely—those of Lower, Middle, and Upper Dungannon. Then we come to the South, and we propose that the two boroughs of Bandon and Kinsale should relinquish their seats, and that they should be given to the West Riding of the county of Cork. That will create a constituency of 178,296, with a rateable valuation of £296,634, and 6,196 electors. We then propose to go to Tipperary, and that the borough of Cashel shall relinquish its seat in favour of the Northern division of the county of Tipperary, which will have a population of 71,690, a rateable valuation of £188,037, and 2,675 electors. That division will comprise the baronies of Ikerrin, Lower Ormond, Owney, and Arra, and Upper Ormond. That is the way in which we propose to give additional representation to those four counties. We think that proposal just; that the boroughs in the district should relinguish their seats in order to create a large county constituency in the immediate locality. We only propose to make one exception to that rule, and that is in the case of Portarlington. We make it stand by itself, and we propose that it should make a greater sacrifice than the other boroughs. We propose that the seat now enjoyed by Portarlington should be transferred to the City of Dublin with its 260,000 constituents. These are the propositions which will be found in this Bill. I believe they will be found to be propositions most likely to improve the representation of the people of Ireland. We have endeavoured to devise the measure on a plan by which great improvements will be
  1946
  effected with the least possible derangement. There can be no uncertainty as to the effect it will produce. It is perfectly apparent from the statement I have made to the House what the exact number of persons will be to be added to the constituency. That is accurately known. No one can say that any party object is sought to be accomplished, because it so happens, by the merest chance, no doubt, but it is still true, that the six boroughs affected are represented by hon. Gentlemen of whom three sit on one side, and three on the other. As I said before, except in one instance, the representation is not moved from its present locality, and the seats are transferred to large and important constituencies with as little change as possible. Perhaps I may look with a somewhat too favourable eye on this proposal. It varies from the proposals adopted with regard to England and those made with regard to Scotland; but I confidently submit it to the consideration of the House, and feel certain it will bear criticism as well as any scheme ever submitted in regard to Ireland, as well as that adopted in regard to England, or that proposed in regard to Scotland. I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKERput the Question in the usual form, and declared "The ayes have it;" whereupon
  COLONEL FRENCH, who rose amid cries of "Order, order!" said, he would move that the House do now adjourn, in order to give him the opportunity of saying a few words in regard to the Bill of the noble Lord, although he did not wish to occupy much of the attention of the House. The noble Lord spoke of the addition that would be made to the constituency, but he forgot the disfranchisement which had taken place. The addition to the borough franchise would be only about 9,000 electors; whereas the addition in England and Scotland would be by hundreds of thousands. With regard to the franchise there was no real reduction.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel French.)
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEwished to ask two questions—first, he wished the noble Lord to inform the House when it was intended to appoint the Boundary Commission to revise the boundaries of the Irish boroughs. It was of the

  1947
  greatest importance that the Commission should set to work at once. He should like to know when the noble Lord would be prepared to lay the names of the Commission before the House. His second question was this, how the noble Lord proposed to give the additional Member to Dublin; did he intend to divide the constituency or to give the additional Member as a minority representative?
  THE EARL OF MAYO: It is proposed to add the third Member to the City of Dublin in the same way as had been done in the larger boroughs in England—by a representation of the minority. In regard to the Boundary Commission we cannot insert the names of the Commissioners in the Bill until its second reading, which it is intended to fix for as early a day as possible. I, of course, shall give due notice of the day. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable this Bill, if it pass at all, should pass through its stages as quickly as possible. It would be a great public advantage to pass it as early as possible this year, in order to afford time and opportunity for the registration under it to be effected. If, however, it should be considered necessary, we should make special provision in regard to the registration, so as to enable the measure to come into full operation with the English Act.
  MR. BRADYexpressed his strong objection to the principle of the Bill. He should like to know what would be the feeling of the people of Scotland, if such a measure had been introduced for their country? Its principles were different from those laid down by the English and Scotch Bills. He could not comprehend why, in the 19th century, the Government should continue to legislate for Ireland in a manner totally different from that in which they legislated for the other portions of the British Empire. It was true that the county franchise for Ireland was to be the same as that for England; but £12 in Ireland was equal to £20 in England. ["Oh!"] He believed that the Bill would not only not satisfy the people of Ireland; but would show them that there was no intention on the part of the Government to do them justice, and that they were sought to be placed in a degraded position. Considering the persecutions which the tenantry of Ireland had to undergo at elections, he believed that they could never be effectually protected in the exercise of the franchise, except by the
  1948
  ballot. ["Oh!"] In one county alone he knew of 1,500 notices to quit having been served on the tenants as a kind of blister to keep them in subjection, and the expenses of those notices had been cast upon the poor people themselves.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he was unwilling, at this stage of the Bill, to intrude upon the House by any prolonged discussion; but as he represented one of the boroughs which the noble Lord stated it to be his intention to disfranchise, they would, no doubt, permit him to express his dissent to the measure just intrusted to them. He was not one of those who would unreasonably object to a just measure of re-distribution of seats, even although it might affect him personally, if he could discover any approach to a principle in the arrangement of such a re-distribution. But in the very meagre and unsatisfactory statement just made by the noble Lord, he could not see any principle whatever, except that of altering the representation for the purpose of increasing the dominant influence of the Conservative party. What was the plan of the noble Lord based upon? He (Mr. O'Beirne) could not find any answer to the question. The noble Lord seemed to be governed by a standard of valuation; yet if his (Mr. O'Beirne's) recollection served him, no such standard had been adopted or even alluded to in the English or Scotch Bills. In the case of these measures population was taken as the basis, and yet, in this Bill, boroughs were disfranchised which were greater in population than eleven of the English boroughs which were still entitled, under the English Bill, to send Members to Parliament. This seemed to him (Mr. O'Beirne) to be a singular and most unjust mode of proceeding, and one which he would feel it to be his duty strenuously to oppose. The disfranchisement of small boroughs should not be precipitately resolved upon. In the case of the borough he had the honour—perhaps very inefficiently—to represent, he thought he might remind the House that there was a very exceptional circumstance which entitled it to their consideration when treating this part of the question, and that was that it had special claim to the favourable recollection of the House from the fact that it had sent as its Representative one of the greatest statesmen of the many whose names were enrolled on its records. He meant the late Sir Robert Peel, who first entered Parliament as Member for Cashel. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh

  1949
  at that statement of his; but he would remind them that at a moment such as this, when great changes in the representative system were about to take place, when the character of that House might largely alter, it was well worth remembering whence their greatest statesmen came; and it could not be otherwise than useful, both now and in the future, to bear in mind the distinguished names by which they had been preceded. If anything could surprise him which came from the Treasury Bench, he admitted the outline of the Bill now laid before them would have done so; but as he had little faith in the professions of the present Ministry he was not quite unprepared even for this. The right hon. Gentleman who now held the high office of First Minister of the Crown should not forget the doctrines he recently expressed in Edinburgh. If his position at present is still more exalted and responsible than when he uttered those words, it gave him (Mr. O'Beirne) a much stronger right to claim from him, in dealing with Ireland, the observance of those doctrines. However, the right hon. Gentleman had very lately deliberately repeated them in the public Press, and had declared that he was against any abrogation of existing representation, and why, therefore, should he, in dealing with Ireland, overlook that pledge? It was difficult to him (Mr. O'Beirne) to understand the course contemplated to be adopted, unless, indeed, it was read by the light of those who desired, at any and every risk, and any and every means, to increase the dominant power of the Tory party, and to relinquish boroughs and cut up counties in such a manner as they considered best suited their most unconstitutional and unjustifiable purpose. However, for his part he had only to repeat that he would resist the progress of the Bill so far as he could, unless its objectionable features were altered; and he then gave notice that he would move as an Amendment on the second reading of the Bill, that all that part of it which provided for the disfranchising of boroughs should be omitted, and upon that discussion the noble Lord would have an opportunity of more fully explaining and defending the principles of his measure, if indeed he had any principles to sustain in it.
  MR. REARDENsaid, the people of Ireland were entitled to an equal number of Members with England in proportion to the population. There were fifty-four Members in Ireland representing a popu-
  1950
  lation of 800,000, whilst 5,000,000 of Roman Catholics were represented by only fifty-one Members. That was a monstrous injustice. The people of England had a Member for every 40,000, and Ireland ought to be represented in the same proportion. The whole of the other House was anti-Catholic and anti-Irish. Out of 658 Members of that House, there only fifty-one Members who represented the Catholic feeling of Ireland. He was of opinion that if the people of Ireland did not demand a system of representation similar to that of Australia, which has household suffrage and the ballot, her people would deserve all the misery entailed by the injustice of the English Parment. He gave the noble Lord credit for his good intentions; but disapproved of his Bill, and should certainly move Amendments to it in Committee.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that the scheme of the noble Lord was to increase the county representation by five, and to take away those five from the boroughs. He also proposed to give three seats instead of two to Dublin. Assuming that these five borough seats should be transferred to the counties, the House would expect that the noble Lord would have given these seats to the counties with the largest population and the most inadequate representation. But that had not been done. There were thirty-two Irish counties, which each returned two Members, and Cork, with a population of 429,000, only returned two Members, while Carlow, with a population of only 49,000, also returned two Members. It was proposed that Carlow should still return two Members; but the noble Lord left out Galway and Mayo, which were both larger than Tyrone, and gave an additional Member to Tyrone. Was there, however, any reason why he should give that seat to a county in which a disfranchised borough was locally situated? The noble Earl gave an additional Member each to Tyrone and Down; but had he applied the principle of the three-cornered constituency to those counties or to Cork? No; he gave a Member to a particular district, and isolated a number of baronies in Tyrone and Down, leaving the rest of these counties to enjoy their two Members. The object clearly was to perpetuate the territorial influence that ruled over the representation of those counties, and to prevent the application of the representation of minorities scheme which the noble Lord had applied to Dublin. There were

  1951
  many other parts of the scheme which, on close examination, would be found to bear the marks of design. ["Oh, oh!"] He would not go minutely into the proposals which had been made for the reduction of the franchise; but simply make the observation that when the Bill came to be read a second time, it would deserve, as he was sure it would receive, the fullest consideration.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, that the scheme was far more important than it appeared to be on the first blush. The proposal was to take away the urban representation for the purpose of uniting it with the counties. To give additional Members to Tyrone and Tipperary would be simply to give two additional Members to the Conservative side of the House ["No, no!"]; but if the tenantry of Ireland could freely exercise the franchise, the result would be an addition of at least a dozen Liberal Members. He hoped the Leaders of the Liberal party would not allow this Bill to pass without thorough investigation; and endeavour to prevent the representation of Ireland being entirely in the hands of territorial proprietors.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should be glad to know, whether the noble Lord would lay on the table before the second reading any statement explanatory of the speech he had made, and the reasons which had guided the measures of the Government. There were two principles in the Bill worthy of remark—first, the additional Members for Irish counties; and secondly, the disfranchisement or merging of the franchise of certain small boroughs. He was not prepared to object to either of those principles in limine. At the same time, if the representation in Ireland was to be taken from the boroughs and given to counties, it was impossible not to take into consideration the state of the franchise, both in the boroughs and the counties. So far as he could learn from the statement of the noble Lord the Government had not discovered the means of making a larger addition to the Irish constituency than that represented by the moderate figure of 9,000. He quite understood the principle on which the Government had acted, and attributed no blame to them or any disposition to depart from that principle. With respect to the question of the county franchise he would not at present express any opinion, but reserve to himself perfect freedom on that point. There were two new principles in the Bill,
  1952
  and there was the general idea which was found in all Reform Bills of the enlargement of the basis of our institutions, with a view to strengthen them, by an addition to the constituency, though the addition proposed was certainly very small, especially when they took into consideration the proposition of the Government of Lord Russell, though it was afterwards receded from, to reduce the county franchise to £8. All that he was anxious to do now was to keep these matters open, and he hoped to discuss them in detail when he saw the plans of the noble Lord in print, together with the statement which he had promised, trusting that they would arrive at some satisfactory conclusion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to amend the Representation of the People in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Earl of MAYO, Mr. DISRAELI, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 71.]

NAVY—WOODEN SHIPS.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  CAPTAIN MACKINNON CAPTAIN MACKINNON moved that there be laid before this House—
  "A List of all the wooden Line-of-battle Ships and Frigates, together with amount of their tonnage and horse-power; their original value per ton, and price of engines:
  "Statement of the number of such Vessels which have been sold within the last five years, and the price which the Hulls and Engines sold for in the public market:
  "Estimate of the number which might be made efficient as Naval Transports, and the number of troops or horses that each Vessel might conveniently carry, with quantity of coals each can stow:
  "Return of the strength of the Transport Fleet employed during the last five years, specifying whether Steamers or Sailing Vessels, or Government or Hired Vessels, with full particulars of tonnage, horse-power, and capacity for conveyance of troops, and the number of troops conveyed by them during the above period:
  "Table showing the comparative length of the voyages of Sailing and Steam Transports:
  "Return of the annual expense of the conveyance of troops:
  "Copies of Reports of the Officers in command of the troops as to the general efficiency of the Hired Transports that conveyed them:
  "And, of any Reports which have been, or can be obtained, through our Naval Attaché in Paris, as to the number of French Line-of-battle Ships and Frigates which have been converted into Transports, and an estimate of their efficiency in the Mediterranean, and the number of cavalry, infantry, and munitions of war each Line-of-battle Ship may be expected to carry."
  The hon. Member explained that the view he had in moving for these Returns

  1953
  was to ascertain whether our wooden fleet could not be made serviceable, at all events for the transport service, instead of the vessels being sold, as they were now, for a mere song. In case of declaration of war, this country would have to advertise for a fleet. We had now 283 transports employed in Abyssinia, and what they would cost no one could tell. We ought to turn into transports our old wooden ships that were now rotting away—being sold at £2 16 s. a ton, which was a great sacrifice.
  MR. CORRYexplained that the question had been under the consideration of various Boards of Admiralty, and they thought the adoption of the plan would not lead to a good result. The estimated cost of fitting these ships as transports would be £22,000 each, and that would hardly be a wise appropriation of the public money. They could stow so small a quantity of coal that it would be necessary to provide them with masts and yards and canvas, to enable them to make long passages under sail, and they would thus require a complement of 400 men to handle them. This would leave very little accommodation available for troops, and the ships would be deficient in the speed necessary to the performance of quick passages. If such vessels had been employed in the Abyssinian expedition, it was hard to say when they would have arrived at their destination. It was true that the French had converted some of their line-of-battle ships into transports, but their transport service was of a very different character from ours. It was one thing to send troops from Toulon and Marseilles to Civita Vecchia and Algiers, and another to send them on long voyages in stormy seas, across the Atlantic, round the Cape, and to the most distant parts of the world. The preparation of the Returns would cause great labour to the Department, and interfere with the current work of the office most materially. At present the Controller's office could scarcely discharge the calls upon it. The ships sold were useless, and required a staff of officers and men to take care of them; and it was a good bargain to get rid of them, at almost any price. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.
  MR. CHILDERSappealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PETIT JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Petit Juries in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and The Earl of MAYO.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 70.]

  EXTRADITION.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the state of our Treaty relations with Foreign Governments regarding Extradition, with a view to the adoption of a more permanent and uniform, policy on the subject."—(Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens.)
  And, on March 27, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. M'CULLAGH TORRENS, Mr. BOUVERIE, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Sir FRANCIS GOLDSMID, Mr. GORST, Mr. MILL, Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM, Mr. LAYARD, Mr. EDWARD EGERTON, Mr. NEATE, Mr. THOMAS BARING, Sir ROBERT COLLIER, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. BAXTER, and Mr. SCHREIBER:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.