Commons Sitting of 15 July 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS 3.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Canada Copyright [246]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* [237]; Chelsea Bridge * [249]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment * [250]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * [251].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Registration of Trade Marks [242].
Committee—Report—Public Works Loan (Money) * [243]; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) [189]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation * [227]; Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment * [230]; Entail Amendment (Scotland) (re-comn.) * [248]; County Surveyors Superannuation (Ireland) * [65].
Considered as amended—Pharmacy * [215].
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order * [231]; Local Government Board -(Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* [232], and passed.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT COMMISSION—THE CANAL POPULATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that the Royal Commissioners on the Factory and Workshop Acts have been inquiring into and taking evidence upon the condition of the Canal population in certain places; and, whether the general condition of this branch of the population has been referred to the Royal Commission as a special object of inquiry, or whether the inquiry has been merely a local one?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, the general condition of this branch of the population was not referred to the Royal Commissioners on the Factory and Workshop Acts as a special subject of inquiry; but the Commissioners were directed to consider whether any provisions of the
  1474
  Factory and Workshop Acts might properly be extended to other trades, industries, and occupations not included therein. The Commissioners having been informed that many women and children are employed in the management of canal boats, and that the children are receiving no education whatever, are endeavouring, in the course of their general inquiry, to obtain accurate information respecting the employment and position of these women and children.

ARMY—THE JERSEY MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PRICEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in "The Pall Mall Gazette" of the 10th instant, reporting the insubordinate behaviour of a portion of the St. Helier's Regiment of Jersey Militia when called up for drill on St. Clement's Sands on Wednesday afternoon; and, whether this Report is substantially true; and, if so, whether the circumstances will be made the subject of investigation?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I have had my attention called' to this Report, and in consequence have called upon the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey for information respecting it, but up to the present time I have received no information.

ARMY—THE PURCHASE SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House the number of officers who have died since the 31st October 1871 to the end of June 1875, and whose money has been lost to their families and retained by the Government; and, if he can state to what purpose that money has been applied?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, on the abolition of Purchase, as I understand it, the House granted a certain sum of money to be appropriated to the officers who had purchased their commissions upon the same terms as they would have received under the system of Purchase. Under the Purchase system an officer dying lost the money which otherwise his representatives would have obtained, and the circumstances, therefore, remain entirely

  1475
  unchanged, for the Army Purchase Commissioners are not entitled to pay any portion of the money in respect of commissions except in cases where the officer is living six weeks after his application. I believe that 183 officers have died between October 31, 1871, and the end of June, 1875, and of these 170 held saleable commissions. The outside regulation value of their commissions was £243,600; and this—or a smaller—sum of money, was lost to the families who would have been entitled to the money had the officers survived the six weeks. The money, however, has not been "retained by the Government." It was not voted by Parliament, for it was calculated that a certain number of claims would lapse owing to the deaths of officers within the six weeks. In a few cases in which the officers have survived the six weeks their families have received the value of their commissions.

TREASON-FELONY ACT—CASE OF PATRICK WALSHE.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the case of Patrick Walshe, who is imprisoned on a charge of having violated the condition of his pardon from the fulfilment of the sentence of fifteen years penal servitude, passed upon him at the Special Commission held in Limerick in 1867, for complicity in the Fenian insurrection, by having returned from America to this country in December last; and, if it is true that medical evidence has been given to the effect that Walshe's life would be endangered by residence in America or continued imprisonment; and, if so, whether the Executive has considered the advisability of ordering his release from custody?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: In 1867 Patrick Walshe was sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude for treason-felony, having led an armed attack upon a police barrack. In 1871 he was pardoned on condition of remaining out of Ireland for the remainder of his sentence, which will expire in 1883. He recently returned to Ireland, in open violation of the condition of his pardon, and took up his residence near his old house. in the very part of the country where he had committed the offence for which he was sentenced to penal servi-
1476
tude. He was arrested, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced the other day at the Limerick Assizes. I have no official report of this last trial; but from a newspaper report it appears that medical evidence was then given that his health would be endangered if sent back to penal servitude or if he returned to America. I have received a telegram to-day to the effect that a memorial on his behalf has this morning reached Dublin Castle. It will, of course, be considered by the Executive, with every regard to the special circumstances of the alleged ill health; but I should say that the condition of his pardon was not that he should live in America, but that he should live out of Ireland, and if his health prevented him from continuing in America he might have changed his residence without returning to Ireland.

IRELAND—CALLAN SCHOOLS—FATHER O'KEEFFE.—QUESTIONS.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to a letter published in the "Hour" of the 13th, purporting to have been written by Father O'Keeffe to the Under Secretary, Dublin Castle, describing himself as a prisoner in his own house under the protection of six policeman, the mob holding forcible possession of his entrance gates, and admitting no friend or parishioner to visit him; and, whether such a letter has really been received, and what action has been taken, or is proposed to be taken, about it?
MR. HOLThad also given Notice to ask, with reference to the state of affairs in Callan, Whether it is true that, in Reply to Mr. O'Keeffe, the Lords Justices have informed him that it is open to him to take proceedings by way of information against the persons who have taken possession of his chapel; whether it is true that two justices of the Peace have refused to take such information; whether the taking of such an information is not a purely ministerial act; and, whether, if such a refusal has been given, he can satisfactorily explain or justify the conduct of the magistrates?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I believe a letter similar to one which has appeared in the public Press has been addressed by Father O'Keeffe to the Governrnent, and has been re-

1477
ceived by the Under Secretary for Ireland. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity of answering the Question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt) on the same subject. There has been, I think, considerable exaggeration in the statements made by Father O'Keeffe. The House is aware of the unfortunate circumstances of the case and of the differences which have arisen among the inhabitants of Callan respecting Father O'Keeffe's position. There has recently been a demonstration against Father O'Keeffe on the part of those who have taken the opposite view to his own, and that demonstration culminated in a riot, for which some prisoners were indicted at the Kilkenny Assizes. The Constabulary have had instructions to do their utmost to preserve the peace and protect Father O'Keeffe from any violence on the part of his opponents. That is all the Government can do in the matter. The question really at issue is a question of disputed title, which must be tried in the ordinary Courts of Law. It is not the fact, as I am informed, that Justices of the Peace have refused to take any information laid by Father O'Keeffe; and I need hardly say that if any magistrates had failed in any degree in their duty their conduct might be brought in the ordinary way before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

NAVY—COMPETITIVE DESIGNS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in view of the recorded official statements of the late Senior Sea Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Sidney Dacres), that he did not think "they (the ironclads) could cruize in company with safety;" of the Admiral lately in command of the Channel Fleet (Sir Thomas Symonds), that "they (the ironclads) are unable to save themselves under the commonest circumstances;" of the Admiral of the Fleet (Sir George Sartorius), that "they (the iron-clads) are equally unfit for the exigencies of coast or distant warfare, and for the blockading of an enemy's ports impracticable; "and, of the late Chief Constructor of the Navy, that he did" not see why an ironclad should not be just as efficient a sailing ship as the best of our wooden frigates," he will, before
  1478
  laying down more ironclads of any of the present classes, especially those of the "Inflexible" type, to again solicit, as in 1859 and in 1867, competitive designs from the most eminent Naval architects, and refer such designs for examination to a Select Committee?
  MR. HUNT: It would be almost impossible, within the proper limits of an answer on such an occasion as the present, to deal with so argumentative a Question as that of my hon. and gallant Friend. He has given certain quotations from the evidence put before the Committee on Designs of Ships of War; but they are scarcely intelligible without their context. In the case of the extract from the evidence of the late Chief Constructor of the Navy, the omission of certain qualifying words in previous answers makes a most important difference in the sense in which the evidence is to be understood. None of the competitive designs submitted to the Admiralty in 1859 and 1867 were adopted, and I do not propose to follow the course taken in those years.

METROPOLIS—THE PATENT MUSEUM AND NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.—QUESTIONS.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the First Commissioner of Works, When arrangements will be made to allow the Patent Office Museum to occupy the South Block of the International Exhibition Buildings at South Kensington?
MR. BERESFORD HOPEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can state to the House the arrangements which the Government propose to make to increase the insufficient accommodation at present enjoyed by the National Portrait Gallery in the south block of the International Exhibition Buildings at South Kensington?
LORD HENRY LENNOX: I am happy to say I have been authorized by Her Majesty's Government to enter into negotiations with the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, with a view to acquire part of the buildings belonging to them at South Kensington. I fear I cannot, at this time, gratify my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University by giving him in detail the manner in which the space so obtained

1479
will be allotted. But I may say generally that my first object will be to provide suitable accommodation for the Patent Museum; and after that is arranged, I am not without hope that I may be able to offer to my hon. Friend suitable accommodation for that national collection of pictures of which my hon. Friend is a distinguished trustee.

METROPOLIS—TEMPLE BAR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEY (for Mr. WHITWELL)asked the honourable and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro, Whether he is able to announce to the House, that by the co-operation of the Corporation of London, there is any chance of the removal of Temple Bar from its present position?
  SIR JAMES HOGG, in reply, said, that although Temple Bar marked the limit of the jurisdiction between the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, it was entirely under the control of the Corporation of the City of Loudon, the Board of Works having no authority over it. He believed the City had appointed a committee to inquire what was best to be done with that ancient monument. He might add that there had been a proposition from the City of London about certain improvements in that locality. That proposition was under the consideration of the Metropolitan Board; but he was not, as yet, prepared to state the result of their deliberations.

BOARD OF TRADE—DUTIES AND SALARY OF THE SURVEYOR OF WORKS.—QUESTION.
MR. LOWEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has had an opportunity of inquiring into the charges recently brought against Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of Works in his Department?
LORD HENRY LENNOX: The House, I am sure, will feel that it is never my wish in answering the not unfrequent Questions put to me that my replies should be of undue length. But I hope the House will bear with me—seeing that there are personal charges affecting the character of a public servant—if for obvious reasons I enter into details with
1480
respect to those charges made a fortnight ago by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) against the Surveyor of Works. The first of those charges was that Mr. Hunt had, in his capacity of Surveyor of Works, recommended me to buy at Liverpool a site for a County Court; that the space required was 2,000 square yards, but that he had recommended me to buy a site of 3,600 square yards, in order that I might be enabled to sell it again; so that the Surveyor of Works would first of all receive his fee for the purchase of this land, and secondly, his fee for selling it. It is strange, seeing how well informed the hon. Member was as to the quantity of land required at Liverpool, that nothing could be more erroneous than his conclusions. The reasons which influenced me in the purchase of the ground were these:—In the first place, seeing it was doubtful how much land would be required until we had the Report of the Judicature Commission, and having been informed that an available site could be obtained, I decided on buying the whole of it. I did so likewise because in case there was more space than requisite I thought it advisable the Government should have a control over any buildings which might ultimately be built so near Government offices. And, lastly, because the land in that part of Liverpool was rising in price, so that the Government would be insured against any ultimate loss. The House will see at once that there is a wide difference between buying land in order to sell it at a profit, and buying land for public objects with the conviction that if you wish to part with it you will be able to do so without loss. Nor was my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea more fortunate in the selection of the second part of his attack. He said that, on the purchase of the ground near Westminster Bridge—now rendered of historical importance by its having been built on by the body known as St. Stephen's Club—the transaction was one between the Office of Works and the Metropolitan District Railway, and that Mr. Hunt, who was in the employment of both, disappeared from the transaction, and thus the Government lost the great advantage of his services. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that he is entirely in error. This transaction occurred in 1866, and at that

1481
time it was no part of the Surveyor of Works' duty to give any opinion upon questions of compensation for property taken as this was, under Act of Parliament. That duty rested with the late Sir James Pennethorne, who did give his advice on the subject. The hon. Gentleman said that the result was to give great dissatisfaction to both parties; but it was quite the contrary, and the money was paid without any evidence being taken or any arbitration. The third charge was with regard to the Mint site. Some years ago, according to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Hunt recommended the purchase of a site on the Embankment, and he did so because it belonged partly to the Government and partly to the Metropolitan District Railway, so that he would receive fees from both. Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, here also he was mistaken. Mr. Hunt thought it his duty to give his services to the senior client of the two. On this particular occasion the Bill was thrown out; but it was re-introduced in the following year. By that time the land passed from the District Railway into the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The House will see that on neither occasion could Mr. Hunt receive the double fees alluded to by the hon. Member for Swansea. Mr. Hunt has sent a letter to the Board of Works requesting that an inquiry might be made into these various charges; but I think the House will agree with me when I say that I shall refuse to listen to such a proposal, having satisfied myself in every case that the charges are of the most flimsy character.
MR. DILLWYNwished to explain, in justice to himself, that he had not imputed motives to Mr. Hunt, in any case, but merely stated the facts which had come to his knowledge, and he still believed they were substantially correct.

THE CIVIL SERVICE—APPOINTMENTS BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOWEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will explain to the House how it has happened that since the passing of the Act 36 Vic. c. 23, many persons have been appointed by the Postmaster General to situations in his office without a certificate from the
  1482
  Civil Service Commissioners, or if such persons were appointed before that Act, why it has become necessary to introduce another Bill on the subject; and, whether he will lay upon the Table before proceeding with the Bill, a statement showing the names, ages, nature, and date of first appointments, and nature and salaries of appointments now held by the persons to whom the Bill is intended to apply?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the Act 36 Vict. c. 23, was passed to remedy the absence of Civil Service Certificates in the case of persons appointed to situations in the public service between the year 1859 and the 4th of June, 1870. In all the cases dealt with under the Act—a list of which will be found in Parliamentary Paper 49 of 1874—the omission to procure a certificate was due to accident or inadvertence. The mischief which the present Bill is intended to cure is of a different kind, and arises as follows:—When the telegraphs were taken over by the State it became necessary to arrange a scheme of admission to the new service. There was, however, considerable delay in doing this, as the question was a difficult one and the pressure of other business was great, and it was not until September, 1874, that a settlement was made. Most of the correspondence will be found in the Appendix to the Report of the Controller and Auditor General on the Appropriation Account for 1872–73. In the interval it was necessary to keep the service recruited, and appointments were made by the Postmaster General without the intervention of the Civil Service Commissioners. These are the appointments the Bill is intended to validate. Their number is about 5,000; but I fear it would be impossible to give accurately all the particulars mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman during the present Session. Such a Return would take a long time to prepare, as the persons concerned are scattered all over the United Kingdom. The Bill, however, provides that the names of all the persons affected by it shall eventually be laid before Parliament. A Schedule of the names of persons appointed to offices on the London establishment is being prepared, and could be laid on the Table in the course of a few days.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—UNSEA-WORTHY SHIPS—THE "DARENT."

  QUESTION.
  MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the fact that the "Darent" sailed from North Shields recently for Palermo with deficient freeboard, and also list upon her, her freeboard being eight inches only on the starboard side, and three feet one inch on the port side; and, whether any officers are stationed at the ports on the Tyne and the Wear and the Tees competent to act on their own discretion in stopping vessels in a dangerous condition?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Darent was reported to have been ready to leave the port of North Shields with freeboard and list of the amount stated in the Question. Whether she went to sea with the list unadjusted I cannot say. To stop a steamship on the score of list alone is hazardous, as the list is frequently adjusted at the last moment. It is quite possible that the adjustment of list may correct an otherwise deficient freeboard. In my opinion the Act of Parliament does not empower the Board of Trade to delegate to an officer stationed at the port authority to stop a ship.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS—THE "ESTELLA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that the owner of a merchant steamer, which was ordered to be detained as unseaworthy, overloaded, and in a condition dangerous to human life, defied the officers of the Government; and whether, when a Custom House officer was put on board to enforce her detention, he was not forcibly carried to sea to a Russian port; and, if these facts are as stated, what means the Government mean to take to strengthen and enforce their authority?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: It is true, Sir, that the master of the Estella, which was ordered to be detained for survey as overloaded, carried to sea the officer who was placed on board by the Customs for the purpose of detaining her. [Laughter.] I cannot see any cause for laughter—I think it a most
  1484
  serious matter. The master has been convicted under the Act of 1873 for preventing the survey, and it appears that the Court considered there were special reasons for inflicting a light penalty—£5 and costs. But I am in communication with the Customs on the question whether further proceedings should not be taken to punish the very grave offence of carrying to sea a Government officer placed on board by lawful authority for the purpose of detaining a ship.

METROPOLIS—THE DOGS' HOME.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that under the Metropolis Local Management Act the owner of a dog taken or decoyed to a certain "dogs' home," and sold after three days, has no legal status against the purchaser; whether it is with the sanction of Government that the police are the principal recruiting officers for this dogs' home; and whether the constables, receive any part of the £600 or £800 per annum realized by the sale of dogs captured through their agency?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that under the Metropolis Police Act of 1867 stray dogs were seized by the police, and were taken to the police station, where the inspector on duty obtained a description for circulation. The dogs were then sent to the home for lost and stray dogs at Battersea, where they were kept three clear days as required by law, and then destroyed or otherwise disposed of. When a dog was disposed of after the lapse of time allowed by law the owner had, he believed, no legal status against the seizure. All dogs who had collars with addresses on were returned to their owners by the police. The police did not recruit for the Dogs' Home, and seizing stray dogs was a very unpleasant and dangerous duty—in which the police very often came out the greater sufferers of the two. The police were strictly forbidden to accept any reward or gratuity whatever for finding or restoring such dogs.

THE SEYYID OF ZANZIBAR—TREATY OF 1873.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications

1485
have lately passed between Her Majesty's Government and His Highness the Sultan of Zanzibar, with respect to the suppression of the Slave Trade within his dominions; and, if so, whether he has any objection to communicate the substance of them to the House?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that communications had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Seyyid of Zanzibar since he had been in this country. The House was aware that, under the Treaty of 1873, certain doubts had arisen which the Law Officers of both Her Majesty's present and late Government considered would impair the efficiency of the Treaty. Another Treaty had been signed by the Sultan since he had been in this country; and he (Mr. Bourke) trusted that the result of that would be that the object of the Treaty of 1873 would now be carried out in its full force. There would be no objection to lay the Treaty before the House in a few days as soon as necessary formalities had been gone through.

ARMY—PROMOTION IN CAVALRY REGIMENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take any steps to secure a proper flow of promotion in those regiments of cavalry and battalions of infantry which are commanded by officers appointed prior to November, 1871, and not subject to the five years rule; and, whether such oases will come under the consideration of the Royal Commission now sitting upon Army Promotion?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the whole question of promotion and retirement in the Army had been referred to the Commission now sitting on the subject; and he thought it would be disrespectful to them if he interfered in the matter before they had made their Report.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES AT ALDERSHOT.—QUESTION.
MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state to the House the grounds which have induced him to dispense for the first time with the services of the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Force at the summer drills held in substitution of the autumn manœuvres during the present year in
1486
the neighbourhood of Aldershot, from the 24th of June to the 24th of July; and, whether such exclusion had been dictated solely by regard for the public purse, or by any considerations touching the efficiency as military bodies of these different branches of the Auxiliary Forces?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the reason why the Militia had not gone to Aldershot on the present occasion was that a great number of the Commanding Officers had reported that encamping at Aldershot was very unpopular with Militia Regiments, and would lead to desertion. With respect to the Volunteers and Yeomanry it was thought better that they should be attached to brigades at Aldershot when the summer drills were not taking place.

UNWORKED OYSTER BEDS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'CLERYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have taken steps to ascertain whether there exists off the southeast coast of Ireland the unworked oyster beds to which attention was called last Session, and which are referred to in the 7th page of the Report for 1874, just issued; and, if he will be good enough to state the result of the investigations that may have been made?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the Inspectors of the Irish Fisheries have taken steps to investigate the subject of the alleged existence of unworked oyster beds off the South East Coast of Ireland, and the services of Her Majecty's gunboat Goshawk were granted by the Government for the purpose. A series of experiments have been made but without success up to the present time, so far as regards the South East Coast of Ireland.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Committee of Supply be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the Representation of the People.—(Mr. Disraeli.)

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

VISIT OF H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES TO INDIA.—RESOLUTION.
MR. FAWCETT, in rising to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that any part of the expenses of the personal entertainment of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, on the occasion of his proposed visit to India, should he charged on the revenues of India,"
said, he believed it would be admitted by-Members of the most opposite opinions that the statement made this day week by the Prime Minister would have been received with more cordial acceptance if none of the three items to which he referred had been thrown on the finances of India. He was aware that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had said it was not unjust to the people of India, and that the item of £30,000, which, as the Prime Minister had stated, was associated with the rites of hospitality, ought to be borne by the revenues of India. He, however, ventured to submit that the present was a case in which they were bound to consider not so much the justice as the expediency of such a course. If the right hon. Gentleman had not particularly alluded to this item there would not have been occasion to refer to it now. But when it was remembered that this item only represented a small portion of the expenses which would fall upon India, and which would be incurred for movements of troops and other matters in connection with the visit of the Prince of Wales, and, taking these matters into consideration, he could not help thinking the right hon. Gentleman made direct allusion to the item in order that the House might have the opportunity of expressing their opinion that with regard to the visit of the Prince of Wales they were anxious to deal generously in reference to the people of India, and were prepared not to burden her finances with a shilling more than was necessary. In speaking on this subject it was almost impossible to dissociate the present from the past, and he thought no one who had paid any attention to Indian finance could help arriving at this conclusion—that in our financial transactions with India we had displayed a spirit of parsimony which was not creditable to a wealthy nation. He ventured to say there was not an Englishman who was not heartily ashamed that
1488
when we entertained an Egyptian Potentate we threw the cost of that entertainment on the heavily-burdened people of India; and he believed there was not a Member of that House—there was not a person in the country, whether belonging to the working classes or not—who did not now heartily regret that for the saving of some paltry £12,000 to the English Exchequer, we actually threw the burden of the travelling expenses of the companions of the Duke of Edinburgh, and the cost of his presents when he visited India, upon the people of that country. If this was the fitting occasion he might refer to graver instances which would prove that that House ought to lose no opportunity for making amends for the past. He could prove that in regard to many financial transactions of great amounts we unjustly cast burdens upon India, we threw a heavy restraint on her crippled finances, and caused unnecessary and vexatious taxation to be imposed on that country. Lord Northbrook, who was the present Viceroy, the Duke of Argyll, the former Secretary of State, and the present Secretary of State (the Marquess of Salisbury) had, with a courage which did them the highest honour, denounced the injustice with which England had often treated India with regard to her financial interests. He had never been one of those who thought it would be advantageous to the people of India that the House of Commons should constantly be meddling with the details of Indian administration; but there was one service, and that of priceless value, which the House could render to that country, which was to become the guardian an protector of her financial interests. Lord Salisbury, in memorable words which should never be forgotten, said last Session that if the House of Commons would keep a sharp eye upon Indian finance there would be no danger that the people of that country would be oppressed. One consideration which induced him to propose the Resolution was that some hon. Friends near him were about to oppose the grant, and he thought it important to deprive anyone of the objection that there was anxiety to save English money at the expense of India. It would be presumptuous in him to say what was likely to be the direct result of the visit of the Prince of Wales to India; but he ventured to assert, with no little confidence, that great indirect

1489
advantage would result from that visit if the House of Commons and the English nation should avail themselves of an opportunity of proving to the people of India that what had happened in the past would not recur in the future, and that henceforth they would be anxious in their dealings with India, not only to avoid injustice, but, if possible, to display a spirit of generous magnanimity. He begged, in conclusion, to move the Resolution of which he bad given Notice.
MR. HANKEY: Sir, I rise to second the Motion, and I do so because I think this is a fitting opportunity for us to join in expressing opinions in consonance with those which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Hackney. We ought on all occasions to avoid being parties in any way to easing ourselves of any expenditure by throwing it unnecessarily upon the revenues of India. The question proposed to us by the Prime Minister a few days ago was, that this House should consider the expenditure for the visit of the Prince of Wales as one of an abnormal character, and one which required interference on the part of this House. What was the proposal which was made to us? The Prime Minister, as far as I understood, gave us a sort of estimate of the possible expenditure which might be required, and I think he said that, after making provision for the cost of sending out his Royal Highness and his suite to India and bringing them back, there would still be an outlay required of something like £90,000. To meet that he said he should propose a grant of £60,000, and that the remainder would be left to be found in India. Now, I think that the speech of the Prime Minister the other night certainly did show good grounds for the interference of this House on such an occasion, and that we, as Representatives of the taxpayers of England, were fully justified in supporting the Government in their proposal to make this special grant. But, if the expenditure of £90,000 is necessary, why should an application be made for only £60,000? I contend there was no ground given to us for making that distinction in regard to any portion of the expenditure. The hon. Member for Hackney has alluded to other very great expenses which undoubtedly must be incurred, and knowing that perfectly well, I hesitated at acceding to his re-
1490
quest to second his proposal. It will be impossible for us to measure in a money Vote the expenses which must be incurred. But this particular expenditure of £90,000 was one to which no objection, as far as I could understand, was taken by the House, except by some hon. Members who objected to pay a shilling, and thought it unwise that any expense should be incurred. We all know that the Secretary of State for India is responsible for the political affairs and the policy of this country towards India; but we heard a great deal at the time of the passing the India Councils Bill, that the purse-strings would be controlled by the Council of India. I very much regret that the Members of that Council are prohibited from being Members of this House, because we have no opportunity of hearing their opinions on this subject. If they are the controllers of the purse-strings, they have not properly looked after their trust. The hon. Member for Hackney has alluded to the expenditure for the entertainment of the Sultan, and thinking that was a discredit at the time, I asked the House to refuse to pay it, but I had no support. Another charge has been alluded to, and that is the payment of £1,555 to an officer on the staff of the Duke of Edinburgh for bringing home the presents made to the Duke of Edinburgh in India. Now, I do not think that was fair, and I should be surprised if any hon. Member was to get up and defend it. If the Duke of Edinburgh was able to pay the money, he ought to have paid it for himself; and if it was a national charge, it ought to have been borne by the revenues of this country. Then there was a distinguished officer—Sir Herbert Edwards—who died in this country from injuries received in the Indian Mutiny. We all remember how proud the country was of that distinguished offcer's services, and a monument was placed to his memory in Westminster Abbey. I find that a fee of £400 was paid to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for allowing the monument to be put up, and that was charged to the revenue of India. That sum, in my opinion, ought to have been borne by this country. Sir Herbert Edwards was a very distinguished officer, and the country was proud of him, and the cost of the monument in Westminster Abbey ought to have been borne by

1491
this country, and not by India. Care ought always to be taken not to saddle India with more than was absolutely necessary. As regards the Prince of Wales, I think the House will admit that a more popular Prince has never been born, and he has been popular from his earliest youth, because he has taken up every pursuit which the people of this country are fond of, and he is consequently much beloved and esteemed. Therefore, what I should like would be to see the Prince of Wales equally popular in India; but it would not add to his popularity in that country if any charge in connection with the visit which could fairly be borne by England was put upon the revenues of India. If the Prime Minister, instead of asking for £60,000, had asked for £100,000, there would not have been a single dissentient voice, except from those who object to any grant at all. I am extremely sorry there should be any division of opinion with regard to the Motion, and I think it will be the wiser course to leave the matter in the hands of the Government for their consideration.
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 inexpedient that any part of the expenses of the personal entertainment of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, on the occasion of his proposed visit to India, should be charged on the revenues of India,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
—instead thereof.
MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, there are two modes in which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales may visit India. He may go as the proclaimed Representative of the Sovereign; his journey then would be a Royal progress; he would be attended with a military array, and with a retinue of Princes and Chieftains; he would hold Durbars; he might if he chose, and probably would be expected to, institute an Order of Chivalry; he would pay regal visits to those who possess regal power; he would not only experience, but he would exercise, a magnificent hospitality; he would not only be present at feasts, but he would preside at festivals; he would exchange the presents of Europe for those of Ormus and Ind; and I have no doubt that, on the whole, a display would be made and an excitement created which had not been equalled in India
1492
since the days of the great Mogul Sovereigns. It must be obvious to the House that such an undertaking could not but be costly. Its amount might probably be calculated even by millions, and it would be met probably in this manner. The Imperial Treasury of India would contribute, no doubt, a considerable sum. The Native Princes, who will not for a moment rank inferior to any human beings in magnificence, and who would have made extraordinary efforts on this occasion, would levy fresh taxes on their subjects. I am bound to admit that in the present state of the English revenues my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly come forward to ask for £1,000,000 or £500,000 even—the sum most modestly suggested by those who seem in favour of this system—without at the same time indicating to the House the ways and means by which that money was to be raised.
There is another way in which His Royal Highness might visit India. He might go there as the guest of Her Majesty's Viceroy. Under his Excellency's guidance and influence he might have an admirable opportunity of largely, if not completely, visiting that great peninsula; becoming acquainted with its splendid scenery, with its ancient and teeming cities, and the vast variety of its nations and its races. He would visit some of the principal Chieftains of the land; enjoy their hospitality; share in their exciting pastimes; and have an opportunity of displaying that liberality which I and you all know is natural to his amiable and generous disposition. After that he would return to this country unquestionably with an enlarged and matured experience, and, let us hope and believe, not only with a sustained, but a renovated health.
Now, I will not stop here to offer any preference between these two systems. All I wish to state, and most distinctly to state, and which I wish to impress upon the House, is this—that when the visit to India of His Royal Highness was submitted to Her Majesty's Ministers the programme was the second programme which I have described; and it was with reference to that programme that Her Majesty's Government arrived at the conclusions which they have submitted to the House, and made their calculations and esti-

1493
mates accordingly. Now, we are told that the view which I gave to the House was one which would not be the right one to adopt. I offered to the House an accurate estimate of what the expenses would be for carrying His Royal Highness and suite to the land of India. I offered no estimate of what the expenses in India would be of his entertainment by the Viceroy. It was not in my power to do so, and it would have been presumptuous and impertinent for us to have offered an estimate on such a subject. But I mentioned incidentally a sum which casually had reached my ear, and which was founded upon documentary evidence—now, I believe, in our library—in the possession, of course, of every hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), who has introduced this Motion to-night, has spoken of it as if there was an abstract reason why India should not in any way contribute to the expenses of a Royal visit from England. But I must say that on abstract grounds I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think there is any principle on which he can establish his conclusion. It, in fact, rests only upon a basis of sentiment; but a basis of sentiment, in my opinion, not at all advantageous to India, and by no means calculated' to increase its self-respect. I know no reason whatever why India should not contribute on an occasion like the present to the expense which may be incurred. Why, the Dominion of Canada—a country the difference of which, as compared with India, both as to wealth and population, need hardly be dwelt upon—Canada largely contributed to the expense of His Royal Highness when he visited that Dominion. I believe a sum of not less than £40,000 was cheerfully contributed by the people of Canada on that occasion, and they were proud of that contribution. I do not know any reason why India should not contribute towards the fulfilment of this event. The Prince is the Prince of India as well as of England, and why should we draw this distinction—and one I think not agreeable to the inhabitants of India themselves—whenever occasions like the present occur. I really think—although I am not on this occasion anxious to bring forward the wrongs of the British taxpayer—I really think the time has come when we should, on an occasion like the present, get rid of
1494
this unfounded sentimentalism, and not lay it down as a principle that the British taxpayers should alone be the persons who should contribute to public duties, which I believe, on the whole, are always cheerfully fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion (Mr. Hankey) seemed to think this was an attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to diminish the expenditure of the Empire, and that, in fact, the Indian Council had never been consulted on the subject. And he seemed to think that it was only owing to the Parliamentary decisions which prevents the Members of that Council being in this House that we have not an indignant protest against this conclusion. I think the hon. Gentleman will be surprised when I tell him that at a meeting of the Council of India, held on Tuesday the 16th of March, 1875—the Marquess of Salisbury presiding—the noble Marquess informed the Council of the intention of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to visit India, and it was resolved—
"That the charges in connection with the proposed visit of His Royal Highness be borne by the revenue of India."
Therefore, it was evidently the case that the Council were acquainted with the matter. But the Council, on Tuesday, the 27th of April, more than one month afterwards, met, and a question having been asked by Sir Frederick Halliday, as to the interpretation to be placed on the Council Resolution of the 16th of March, with regard to the expenditure on the occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales to India, it was resolved—
"That the Resolution above referred to is not to be understood as pledging the Council to any expenditure on this account, beyond that which may be incurred on the soil of India."
That must satisfy the hon. Gentleman that the Council of India were perfectly aware of the arrangement proposed, if they did not, indeed, originate it. With regard to the illustration dwelt upon by the hon. Member for Hackney and the hon. Member for Peterborough as to the visit of the Sultan, I do not think it is a felicitous one. Then it was objected that the country which entertained the Sultan did not pay for that expenditure. But the case of India is the reverse. We are discussing whether India should provide a portion of the expenditure for the Prince's entertainment in

1495
India, and therefore the cases are exactly the reverse. I will call attention to the Report of the East India Finance Committee of 1874, on which the hon. Members have founded themselves. The Committee state—
"Your Committee cannot lay down too strongly the position that the English Estimates ought not to be relieved at the expense of the Indian revenue, but that the Secretary of Sate for India in Council has the constitutional right of refusing to pay for objects in which he considered that India has no interest. At the same time India, as a component part of the Empire, must be prepared to share in the cost of a system the expense of which may be enhanced for Imperial purposes."
That principle is perfectly sound, and instead of the fact being, as the hon. Member for Peterborough supposes, that we are calling upon India to supply a a deficit in our own resources, the truth is that all the arrangements were made in India by the Indian authorities before we had either the power or the opportunity of clearly seeing what it was our duty to recommend to the House. It happened in this way. It was made known to us that the Prince of Wales wished to visit India if the assent of Her Majesty could be obtained, and that it was intended to make no charge on the Exchequer of Great Britain, as the revenues of India would discharge the whole cost of the visit. That being the case, we had to consider the circumstances of the proposed arrangement. We believed ourselves—and it was also the opinion of the Viceroy—that the visit of of His Royal Highness might be productive of much advantage; everyone must feel that the visit of the Prince of Wales to the proudest Dominion of the Queen of Great Britain must be productive of results and influences of a beneficial character. We had no Estimate ever offered to us by the Indian Government of what the cost of entertaining the Prince would be, and it was not our business to present such an estimate; but we took the first opportunity which occurred of expressing our opinion that it would be well that the expenditure in India should be confined to the rites of hospitality; and that it would be our duty to propose to Parliament a sum which we believed would enable the Prince, among other sources of expenditure, to act in a manner becoming his station, and in accordance with his
1496
generous disposition. We took the advice of men of the greatest experience and intelligence upon these matters; and upon their advice we offered the estimate to the House, which I hope, in a short time, will be placed in the hands of the Chairman. I do not know that we could have acted in a manner more prudent or more proper than in taking the course we have adopted. We believe that the advice we have given the House upon this subject, and the proposals which we have made, are adequate and proper. We believe that they will fulfil their purpose. It is not our intention—nor was it ever our intention—to propose that a regal progress should be made in India, as I stated when I first addressed the House. I desired to explain to the House—fully, completely, and accurately—what was the proposal that was submitted for our consideration. It was a visit to India such as I have described under the second head at the commencement of my observations, which was submitted for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. We considered that proposal with reference to all the needs and requirements of which it is susceptible. We have submitted to the House two estimates which fall within our duty. We have informed the House that, with regard to the expenditure in India, it will be borne by the Indian revenue; and we trust the House will sanction the course which we have recommended. As regards the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett), I oppose it upon abstract principles, and I oppose it upon particular policy. I think it is one not agreeable or advantageous to India. I think it unjust in a financial point of view. I think it highly desirable that every part of Her Majesty's dominions, when so placed with reference to the illustrious individual whose future progress we are now discussing, should act as Canada has acted, and as other portions of Her Majesty's dominions have acted, and, therefore I call upon the House to support Her Majesty's Government in the proposals which we have made. They are proposals which were well considered. They are proposals which are made with a real knowledge of the necessities of the case. I call upon the House not to confuse their judgment and their purpose by contemplating results which never were antici-

1497
pated, and a course which it would be most impolitic and ruinous to pursue. The Prince's visit to India will be an event highly advantageous, in my mind, to India, to himself, and to the United Kingdom. It can be fulfilled, and will be fulfilled, with adequate lustre and liberality, if the course recommended by Her Majesty's Government is pursued, and with confidence I call upon the House to adopt it.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government, in opposing the Motion which has been made and seconded by my hon. Friends, are espousing a cause which may, perhaps, be considered unpopular. Undoubtedly my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney founds himself upon sentiment, which is respectable in itself, respectable for the character of those who have recommended to us this Motion, and respectable for its association with some of our recollections of of the history of India that, perhaps, are not so entirely honourable to this country as we could wish; and a vague idea that something should be done to make up for the wrongs of past times has probably, without their being conscious of it, formed in the minds of my hon. Friends, and is at the root of the feeling that India ought to make no contribution to the expenses of the visit of the Prince of Wales. Now, Sir, believing that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are manly and judicious, I am willing and desirous of taking my own share—whatever it may be, and small as it may be—in any unpopularity attaching to his proposal. I am convinced the right hon. Gentleman would have fallen distinctly into error on the question now before us if he had taken any other course. With respect to this Vote in general, I am bound to say that I accept it on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government as to its amount. It is Her Majesty's Government alone, in my opinion, that have had adequate means of judging of what would be the necessary expense. It belongs to Her Majesty's Government to ask Parliament for a sum which they think adequate. If we thought the demand extravagant, it might have been our duty on that account to object to it; but no one is disposed, I think, to found any objection to the Vote on such a ground as that, viewing all the circumstances of the case.
1498
But as respects the question now before us, which involves a matter of policy, my hon. Friends are entirely in the right in stating their opinion—if they entertain that opinion—that the finances of India should be subjected to no charge whatever with respect to the approaching visit of the Prince. But will that opinion bear examination? The right hon. Gentleman has stated the case of Canda. Canada has a large and popular representation. [Cheers.] It appears to be thought, from that cheer, that because India has not a large and popular representation, therefore India ought not to be placed in the case in which Canada was placed. Is that the meaning of the cheer? [Cheers.] Well, then, Sir, I must beg to tell those hon. Gentlemen who cheer that if that is the principle and ground on which they cheer, they must be prepared to give effect to that cheer in a very different mode and on a very different scale, and on much graver occasions than the present. For if India ought not to be charged because she has not popular representation in matters where Canada charges herself, I think the millions of which the right hon. Gentleman has significantly spoken will hardly enable those generous legislators adequately to fix the balance between the two countries unless, indeed, they are consistently prepared to apply the sentiments they seem to entertain. But India has representation—the best representation we can give her; not representation in a formal or strict sense; but, at all events, India has in this country a body of gentlemen appointed for the special purpose of defending Indian interests, and particularly for the purpose of protecting Indian financial interests. That is the special purpose for which the Indian Council exists, and the right hon. Gentleman has to-night given us the interesting information that the Council of India—which all who had had any practical experience of Indian affairs know to be the vigilant guardians of Indian interests—has considered the subject, dealt with it, and expressed its opinion that, with respect to the expenses on the Government of India, some charge should be properly made on the finances of that country. But is it the amount or proportion of the charge that is thought unreasonable? As far as the figures which the right hon. Gentleman

1499
has given, he has told us that two sums, amounting together to £112,000, are proposed to be borne by the people of this country, and he has told us that about £30,000 is the probable amount of the charge to be imposed upon the finances of India. It will be agreed, I think, that, if any charge is to be imposed, the proportion is not excessive. Now, I venture to add something to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman on the proportion observed in the case of Canada. I was myself, I believe, Chancellor of the Exchequer at the period, and, unless I am much mistaken, the amount borne by this country in respect of the visit of the Prince of Wales to Canada was £16,000, while the amount borne by Canada in the first year was £40,000 to which is to be added a sum, voted in the following year, of £12,000 or £13,000, making £53,000 voted by Canada as compared with £16,000 provided by England. Now, viewing the relation in the case of Canada, established by the free-will of the people of Canada, and considering that we perforce have to act on the part of the people of India, can it be said that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman has been ungenerous so far as regards the financial interests of India? I must also point out that considerable difficulty might arise, not merely on the matter of amount, but on a matter of principle—namely, whether the House of Commons is prepared to vote the money of the people of England and to hand it over to persons holding office in India or to the Indian Council, to be expended with no responsibility to us and with responsibility to the Indian authorities alone. I only, however, glance at that in passing. But now I ask what really lies at the root of this objection? It comes to this—Have the people of India an interest in this visit or not; and will it tend to promote the interest of India? [Mr. BIGGAR: No.] The hon. Gentleman says "No," and no doubt he is prepared with adequate copiousness to support that opinion. But this I say—that unless our presence in India is beneficial to the people of India we have no business there at all. If our presence in India is beneficial to the people of India, then an arrangement like this, which we think to be advantageous to both countries, is one in which the people of India have a real,
1500
legitimate, and general interest; and if they have such an interest in the visit of the Prince of Wales there can be no ground, when we examine the matter in the light of reason, for saying that they ought not to be called upon to bear any part of the expenses. I wish with regard to this Vote to say that we have now had from the right hon. Gentleman, even more specifically than on the former occasions, a frank assumption of the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. It belongs to the Government to make this proposal, and to exercise every legitimate control in regard to the expedition. It belongs to the Government to see that the arrangements of the expedition are such, and that all the measures to be taken for giving it effect are such, as shall be most conducive to the attainment of the purposes it has in view, and most for the credit and honour of the connection between this country and India. But, leaving upon the Government the responsibility, I readily accede to the proposal that they make with respect to the question now before us. I am sure we should commit a serious error, and should, in fact, be hardly aware of the dangerous nature of the principles we were adopting, perhaps in disguise, if, because we think that India ought to be generously treated, we were to push a sentiment, laudable in itself, beyond the bounds of reason and justice, and to adopt as a doctrine the somewhat vague idea that India should not be called upon to pay any share of expenditure for purposes evidently very beneficial to herself, and for purposes which in other and analogous cases have been acknowledged by the free voice of popular Legislatures as perfectly fit and proper to be borne, even in a much larger measure, by the people of those countries whom the Heir Apparent to the British Throne may have been advised or may have thought proper to visit.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he was glad that, before going into Committee, a discussion had been raised on the general policy of the proposal made by the Government. This visit of the Prince of Wales to India had now been made a State affair. The House was not called upon at the present moment to say whether that was a wise thing or not; but as it was decided that Parliament should pay the expenses of the visit, any ex-

1501
pression of a difference of opinion on the subject would be an unfortunate occurrence, and if that expression took the form of a series of divisions it would be unseemly. At the same time, he must express his opinion that the Government had not, by their proposal, done justice to the loyal feelings either of the House of Commons or of the country. By loyal feelings he meant not loyalty to this or that accidental Member of the Royal Family, but loyalty to the Monarchy, which was maintained not for the advantage of the reigning Family, but which in its dignity was supported by the nation for the nation—that was to say, for the national welfare, for its well-being, its peace, and its prosperity, which were bound up with our form of Government. In his opinion, the Government had laid themselves open to the charge of undue parsimony. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the Prince did not go to India as the Representative of the Sovereign; but who or what he would represent there did not depend on the opinion of any Minister. Representation when the Prince was once in India would become a matter of feeling, of opinion, and even of imagination. The hundreds of thousands who would swarm to see the Prince would not feel interested in him except as the Representative of a long line of Monarchs historically associated with the power and greatness of England. It was impossible at this moment to say how far the visit might be of public advantage. He was willing to take the view of the right hon. Gentleman on that point, and he was certain it was impossible for the Prince of Wales to pay that visit without deriving an advantage which must ultimately benefit us. At the same time, he could not help expressing his own opinion that a larger grant would be more acceptable to the great majority of the House and the country.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot quite agree with the eloquent speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, for with all his eloquence I do not think he persuaded the House that there was much resemblance between the Indian Council and the Canadian Parliament—and although he said very truly that this Vote came before us on the respon-
1502
sibility of the Government, and on no other person's responsibility, yet I cannot agree with him in considering that Government was so implicitly worthy of our support. One thing that I complain of is that important Votes of this nature are not brought on earlier in the Session, and that we have not more time to consider them. It must have been known at an early period that this visit was in prospect, because the Prime Minister alludes to Correspondence with the Viceroy on the subject; but, knowing that, he comes down at the end of the Session, and gives a week's Notice for the country to consider his proposals. I do not altogether believe that the Motion which the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) has adopted to meet this question is the best that could have been devised; but still, as he has thought right, being well acquainted with India, to deal with it in that way, there can be no harm in another independent Member attempting, in the phrase of the day, "to improve the occasion." Neither do I agree with the course taken last week by the hon. Members for Leicester, Morpeth, and Stafford (Messrs. P. A. Taylor, Burt, and Macdonald), who said the working men took a very great interest in this question. Sir, I think we have reduced ourselves in this House to the condition that few people out-of-doors take much interest in what we do. Moreover, I am not sure that they estimate rightly the opinion of the outside public in this matter. I think that with the outside public expeditions are very popular. Let only an expedition be vague, mysterious, and incomprehensible, and it is sure to be very popular. Immediately newspaper writers go into ecstasies and everybody is delighted. So it was with the North Pole expedition. No one ever knew what it was to do, and everybody took delight in it. So it is with this expedition, which I have no doubt will be popular and fill the newspapers during the Recess; and if the Government will go on inventing expeditions—there has been one this year to the North, now there is this one to the East; let there be one next Session to the South, and the following Session one to the West—then by the and of these popular expeditions they will be able to go on until the Conservative re-action has expended itself. I object to people getting up in

1503
this House and assuming to speak as special representatives of the working man. I am quite ready to believe that if it can be proved that the expenditure of this money is for the honour and interest and welfare of England, the working men will be quite as ready to support it as anyone else. But that is the point we want to know. When any Vote is brought before this House we, as Representatives of the nation, must inquire whether it is for the good of the nation. That is the only question we have to consider; and surely my right hon. Friend who spoke just now (Mr. Horsman) must have been mistaken in characterizing divisions on this question as unseemly. What do we sit in this House for. The power of criticizing Votes is the vital power of this House. I should be sorry if we were in any way to abandon the right of scrutiny. This matter might have been put before the House in a manner that few could object to. The Prime Minister might have come down and said the Prince of Wales desired to make an expedition for his own proper amusement to the Indian frontier. We should not have made much objection to that. I am one of those who admire and commiserate Princes. They are people who deserve our sympathy in the position they hold in this country. We know they are debarred from entering into political life. It would be looked upon as a matter of jealousy if they did so. If they go into the Army everyone says they are promoted simply because they are Princes, and disregard the real merits they possess. What hard lives they lead—bound day after day to provide vapid amusement for stupid people! They cannot go out-of-doors without being surrounded by "snobs" rushing and crushing upon them; and next day the "penny-a-liners" devote columns describing how those unfortunate individuals looked, spoke, and acted. They do all this at our bidding, and the duties are very ably and properly fulfilled. I, for one, am truly and sincerely grateful to them for what they do, and I do not wonder at all at a Prince of the Blood getting very tired of the daily monotony of laying foundation stones, opening institutions, uncovering statues, and eating charity dinners. If the Prime Minister had come down and put it on the ground that the Prince wanted relaxation and wanted to go and share the
1504
pastimes of the Kings he had met here, I should have felt some difficulty in opposing the Motion. But that is not the ground on which we are called upon to vote this money. On Thursday last the Prime Minister brought the matter forward as a kind of Supplementary Education Vote. He said travel educated Princes, that the Prince was to be sent out to be educated, and that was not only the opinion of the Prime Minister. An hon. Friend of mine on the front Opposition benches, who is connected with India, said he should vote for the grant, as it was desirable that our future Ruler should become acquainted with his subjects. But I dispute the policy altogether, because the principle of the Constitution of this country is that the King reigns but does not govern, and the Prince will have nothing to do with the government of India, so far as I can see. If this is to be an educational mission, to teach people how to govern India, send out the Prime Minister. I am quite sure that he wants rest after the enormous amount of legislation which he has initiated, and I am also quite sure that if it would benefit his health both sides of this House would be rejoiced. There is a great deal in his character which would charm the Indians. The imagination, brilliancy, and Oriental splendour of his eloquence would attract them as much as it has the nations of Western Europe. If he would not go—and I do not see why he should, for he knows quite enough—you might send out some of the other Members of his Administration who would benefit—say the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Charles Adderley). He might also be accompanied by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck). At all events, they would on the voyage become acquainted with shipping. That was not the only ground this Vote was put upon; the other ground was what I may call the State pageant theory. Well, if we are to go on the grand scale and pageant theory the sum we are asked to vote is perfectly ridiculous. The Prime Minister said the Prince ought to be placed throughout his travels in a position that would impress the mind of India with the dignity and influence of the station which he occupied. I do not care who says it—I do not believe that for £142,000 you can do anything of the kind.

1505
Why, these Great Moguls and people we have been hearing about to-night would beat him hollow. He cannot equal them in magnificence and pomp with this paltry £142,000; and if they outdo us in magnificence and pomp we shall be doing more harm than good to our position in that country. Sir, we toot India—got possession of it by a mixture of force and fraud—we hold it now by force; but we can only continue to hold it by fair and honest dealing, and not by indulging in costly shams. Who asks for this visit? Some allusion has been made to a Vote for a Royal dowry. But whenever that has come before the House we have had a Message from the Queen brought down to us on the subject. Somebody has said that the Indian Council approve of the visit. Well, they approve of making India pay for it, but they did not suggest it. Is there any feeling in India for it? Has any Indian newspaper said the visit would be a great benefit to the country? We are asked to vote this money on the statement of the Prime Minister that the Viceroy has sent confidential letters to the Secretary of State. Not a shadow or a scrap more of evidence is given us; we do not know when these letters were written, why he wrote them, what he said in them, nor even whom he recommended should accompany the Prince. The House of Commons was never in my experience asked to vote a considerable sum of money on such paltry, meagre, and insufficient grounds. How do we know that this visit is to be of any benefit to India? What proof is there? I doubt whether it will not be a damage to her people rather than a benefit; for with all these shows and processions going on, these Chiefs must make some show, and they will get the money by oppressing and grinding their subjects. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) that taxation and representation ought to go together. That, at any rate, is the opinion of this side of the House. Last week we were in "a great taking" because a million or so of our fellow-subjects were taxed who were not represented—the agricultural labourers. We went like one man into the Lobby in favour of the principle—except our Leaders, of course. Surely, then, we ought to be careful how we deal with the money of these 200,000,000 of people, who are not represented either
1506
here or elsewhere. We know what that people is. We have the experience of that old Indian bill mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney, which I have been told on good authority still leaves a rankling sore in the minds of the Indian people. Although that was but a small sum, they still look upon it as a great injustice. One word more, Sir. Is it wise to bring these Votes before the House? I thoroughly believe that the immense majority of the people of this country are, rightly and properly, warmly attached to the Monarchy. I think it will be a long time before we shall see a statesman sitting down to write a pamphlet not Is the Church worth preserving? but Is the Monarchy worth preserving? But if you can cast a shadow of a shade of dissatisfaction on the Monarchy it is by such Votes as this. ["No, no!"] Well, I hope not. I will not detain hon. Members, for I know they have made up their minds how to vote. [" Divide! "] Those who oppose this expenditure are a very small minority, and it is a pity that their opinions should be shouted down. We have heard the other side patiently, and yet the only persons who had risen to oppose the Vote were not listened to. I do not wish to find fault with the Government for bringing forward this Motion; they were compelled to bring it forward; but let the House act in a straightforward manner, and whether it is likely to benefit India or anybody else, let some vote to save the expenditure of money which, at any rate, it had not been proved would benefit India, and which I am very much afraid will make England ridiculous.
MR. LAINGsaid, the question whether India should bear any portion of this expenditure was a large question of policy; but it had been argued on narrow grounds, as though it were rather a question of special pleading between the two countries. If India were independent, prosperous, and rich, and were represented by an Assembly like the House of Commons, it might then fairly be asked to bear some share of the expense. But India was poor, while England was rich; India was weak, while we were powerful; and India had no representation. Were we not, then, letting slip an opportunity for a great stroke of policy, in asking India for any contribution? He entirely denied the statement of the hon. Baronet

1507
that we maintained our hold on India by force and fraud.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I said that our Empire in India was "acquired "—not "maintained"—by force and fraud.
MR. LAING: Possibly I fail quite to see the distinction—acquired by force and maintained by fraud.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not say "maintained by fraud."
MR. LAINGsaid, he had not the slightest wish to misrepresent the hon. Baronet. He had merely heard the words "force and fraud." He maintained that our Indian Empire was acquired and maintained mainly by the prestige of English character, and the recollection of such men as the Elphinstones, the Dalhousies, the Lawrences, and the Outrams. We had impressed the Natives of India with a sense of our moral superiority in all respects. But now—by doing an action which could be plausibly misrepresented by those opposed to English rule in that country, as shabby, illiberal, and unworthy of a great nation—we should do far more harm than could be repaired by 100 times the amount spent upon our Army. It was on that account he thought we were making a mistake, for the sake of a paltry £30,000, and throwing away an opportunity for repairing past omissions—or rather commissions—in this respect, and for giving grace to a Royal visit which otherwise was so well calculated to produce the most favourable impression on the public mind of India. He was convinced it would be a much more wise and politic measure if, as an act of grace, the Government had come forward, and said—"This is a spontaneous visit, which will probably tend to draw closer together the bonds between the two countries; it shall be done graciously, and no charge shall be thrown on the Revenues of India."
MR. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, he differed very much from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It would have been most unfortunate, and a great mistake, if the Government had been advised to allow the Prince of Wales to make this visit to India, and to have proclaimed throughout the world that India had really no interest in the matter, and ought not to be called upon to bear any portion of the expense.
1508
India was well able to bear the charge, and no nation on the face of the earth understood better the duties of hospitality than the people of Hindostan. He felt sure that if they had an opportunity of expressing their minds on the subject, they would have said that it was their wish that they should bear the expense, and that they would gladly bear the expense—of welcoming the Prince of Wales, with all the honour to which his high station entitled him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had done good service when he said that India was bound in these Imperial questions to take its share of duty and responsibility, and it would be mischievous both in the present, and in the future, if any other principle were to prevail. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) to whom the House had listened with so much pleasure—[" No, no! "]—well, to whom ordinarily the House listened with so much pleasure—had not struck the right chord on this occasion. He had greatly undervalued the advantage of His Royal Highness's visit, simply because it could not be reduced to an arithmetical sum. For his own part, he believed the benefits resulting from it would be felt long after the visit itself had passed away, and that nothing could tend more to diminish those benefits than to insist that India should not be allowed to bear her portion of the expense. With respect to the feeling of the working classes in the matter, he believed that the only regret which would be expressed in this country would be that Her Majesty's Ministers did not, on reflection, think it within their duty to propose a somewhat more liberal grant for the expenditure of His Royal Highness. It would be vain now to argue the point; it would be impolitic to do so; the responsibility must rest with Her Majesty's Ministers. He would, therefore, oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney, and support the proposal of Her Majesty's Government.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 379; Noes 67: Majority 312.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £60,000, be granted to Her Majesty, in aid of the Expenses of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on the occasion of his Visit to India, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876."
MR. MACDONALDsaid, when the Prime Minister had first laid his proposition connected with the Prince's projected visit to India before the House, he (Mr. Macdonald) had felt it to be his duty to protest against the proposed Vote. He now felt it be his duty not only to protest against it, but to ask the Committee to go to a division upon the subject. He should follow that course, because he felt that no real ground had been shown to the Committee for the Vote. It was true that they had been told by the Prime Minister and others that the proposed visit might add to the dignity and glory of our Empire; but he and many others who held a similar belief were of opinion that the visit was not calculated to promote either the honour or the lustre of our Empire. They had been told that it would not be an official visit, but that the Prince of Wales—the Heir Apparent to the Throne—would travel, as it were, in the simple character of a citizen. Now, he ventured to assert, looking at the history of India, at the condition of India, and at what had transpired there a few years ago, that this visit would not be calculated to promote the honour or the dignity of this country. They had been told by the Prime Minister that the Prince of Wales would attend the pastimes and sports of the Chiefs in India. He was not aware what these pastimes and sports were; he presumed they referred to Royal tiger-hunting. If that was so, attendance at each pastimes and sports would not add to the honour or grandeur of the Empire, nor would it promote the object which it was said the visit was intended to bring about. He was as loyal as any Member of that House, but he objected to the Vote most strenuously. During the last debate, and again that evening, he had been told that he did not speak the feelings of a large proportion of the community. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite called out "Hear, hear!" but those hon. Gentle-
1510
men would permit him to call their attention to what had taken place during the brief period of one week, and with that he would leave the Committee to say whether he expressed the feelings of a great body of the people outside that House. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said that he had no right to speak of the working classes, and he admitted that it was not on this occasion right to speak in their name, because the working classes alone did not protest against this Vote, for they had been joined by a great body of the middle class. He was at a meeting at Leeds last night which was called for the purpose of protesting against the Vote, and an Alderman of the borough was in the chair. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh when he said that an Alderman filled the chair; but an Alderman was as high a dignity as an esquire, and Aldermen were elected by the voice of the people. ["No, no!"] He was wrong in this; but, at all events, the town councils were elected by the people, and Aldermen were elected by the town councils. Then, again, at Northampton, a similar meeting had taken place, and at the borough which he with his hon. Colleague opposite (Mr. Salt) represented (Stafford), a large meeting took place last night to protest against this Vote. He held in his hand not only those resolutions, but some from Sheffield, Liverpool, and many other places both in London and in the country, and if another week had been granted before the Vote was asked for there would have been expressed, not only by the working classes, but by a great body of the people, feelings very different from those which had been expressed in that House that evening. The hon. Member for South wark (Colonel Beresford) had said, when the question was last before the House, that he (Mr. Macdonald) did not represent the feelings of the working people; but he had yet to learn that that hon. Member knew much of the feelings of the people generally. Again, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had said that he would like to visit with him (Mr. Macdonald) the borough which he, with his hon. Colleague opposite, represented (Stafford), to try the issue with him whether he represented the feelings of the people or not; but the issue which the hon Member referred to had nothing to do with

1511
this Vote. The hon. Member was in the unfortunate condition of having an idiosyncrasy on a certain subject—
MR. WHALLEYrose to Order, and said he did not make any such proposal or suggestion; but he would repeat what he did say, and that was that he would meet the hon. Member before any body of the working classes and show him that he did not represent their feelings, and that challenge had not been accepted.
MR. MACDONALDsaid, that he accepted the explanation of the hon. Member, though he must say that he thought his ears heard what he had referred to. However, the hon. Member might have gone to the meeting at Stafford last night, and have used that eloquence which he so often resorted to in that House with so little result. Then the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Beckett-Denison) had told the House that he (Mr. Macdonald) did not represent the feelings of the people; but that hon. Member could not know what was passing daily in the districts which he represented. However that might be, as the Prime Minister had given no tangible reason, no sufficient ground whereby the Committee could judge whether this visit to India would be beneficial to this Empire or not, he should call upon those of the Committee who agreed with Mm to follow him into the Lobby, and show to the country that this Vote ought not to be sanctioned.
MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he knew from his own personal experience that the influence of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) with the working classes was not very great. A short time ago the hon. Member went down to "Warwickshire and favoured the working classes there with his views on a strike which was then going on. ["Order, order!"]
THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the Question before the Committee is the Vote for £60,000.
MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he wished merely to show the House of what value the hon. Member for Stafford was as representing the working classes. What he said to the Warwickshire labourers was—"Continue your strike though you make Warwickshire a desert for 20 years." Now, any person who used such language did not represent the working classes.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the hon. Member for Stafford objected to the Vote, and he claimed to speak out against it on behalf of the working classes. Now, it was impossible to deny that there was as much difference of opinion respecting this Vote among the working classes as there was upon any other question. He himself mainly owed his position in the House to the support of the working classes. He, along with his Colleague, represented the largest borough having only two Members in the Kingdom outside London. Owing thus so much to the working classes, he had always endeavoured loyally to defend their cause. But he had never found that the working classes were mean, narrow, or parsimonious. He had always found them to be as just as broad in their views, as generous in their conduct, and just as capable of cherishing lofty desires and aspirations as any other class of the community. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) objected to the Vote on the ground of the Monarchy. Well, he (Mr. Mundella) contended, in opposition to that, that if they were to have a Monarchy at all it should not be a cotton velvet or a tinfoil one of which they would have reason to be ashamed. The Monarchy ought to represent the greatness and wealth of the Empire. He did not believe in a cheap and shabby Brummagen Monarchy. He gave his opinion on the question of the dowries, and he had not heard that he acted wrongly, and though there was no constituency more ready to communicate their views to their Members than his was, yet up to that moment he had not heard one word from Sheffield, or seen anything in the Sheffield newspapers, upon the question or against this Vote, and therefore he believed that the men of Sheffield would do in this case as in others—act on a broad and generous view. At the General Election not one word was said to him about his vote on the dowry question. He did not think that hon. Members who represented large industrial constituencies should come down to the view of the fewest and the narrowest of their constituents. They should have the courage to take broad, straightforward, and manly views of these questions, and support their own views before the working classes; and when they did they would find that

1513
the working classes were just as much open to reason and common sense, and just as much interested in the honour and greatness and dignity of the Empire, as any other portion of the community. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) no doubt represented a large constituency; but his own was three times as great. The Prince of Wales was going to Sheffield next month, and he undertook to say that the people of that town would spend about as much in his reception as the House of Commons was disputing whether it should spend upon the Prince's visit to India. Believing that he represented the opinion of the majority of the working classes, he should best do his duty to his constituents by supporting this Motion.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, he should not have thought it necessary to make any remarks if it had not been that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), with that unctuous delivery with which he frequently favoured the House, had put himself forward as the mouthpiece of the working classes. As the Representative of a constituency which probably numbered 30 times as many inhabitants as that of the hon. Member, and which comprised among its members a very large proportion of the working classes, he (Mr. Ritchie) felt bound to enter his protest against the manner in which the hon. Member for Stafford had professed to speak on behalf of the working classes in reference to this question. At the time of the General Election he had addressed immense masses of the working classes, and in only one case was he asked a single question with reference to matters such as that now before the Committee; and upon that single occasion, when he answered in the same way as the majority of hon. Members would have done the question of whether he was in favour of the grants to the Royal Princes, his answer was received with applause. He claimed to represent a large proportion of the working classes of a great metropolitan constituency. He had presented a Petition from the Tower Hamlets against this Vote, and after carefully going through the signatures he found that out of a constituency, with a population of 350,000, the Petition was signed by only 57 individuals, 15 of whom did not reside in the borough. Another Petition which he was unable to pre-
1514
sent, because it was out of form, was signed by 160 persons. The fact of these two paltry Petitions having been sent in bore ample testimony to the real feeling of the working classes.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, when this matter was discussed a few days ago he ventured to express some doubts as to whether the proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to India was founded on sound public policy; the discussion which had just taken place had convinced him that those doubts were well founded, for no single hon. Member or right hon. Member who had addressed the Committee had gone farther than making some general statements with respect to the good which this visit was likely to produce. He walked out of the House when the question submitted by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) was put to the vote, because he objected to either the people of England or the people of India paying the expenses of this visit until some statement was produced which would convince both countries that it was likely to lead to public advantage. The Committee had received no such statement. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson) had asked for a Copy of the Correspondence which had passed between the Home Government and the Viceroy of India. The Prime Minister did not think it his duty to furnish the House with that information, and in the speech which he had delivered he failed to bring forward any substantial reasons why this visit should be undertaken at all. The hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkaldy (Sir George Campbell) had proffered his support to the Government; but he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was rather suspicious of "office men" in questions of this kind. He looked upon this question not as a question of parsimony or of the amount to be expended. It was rather a question of whether, considering the present state of India, the time was appropriate for any Royal visit to be paid to it at all? The Committee could not lose sight of the fact, prominently brought forward in the excellent speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, that during the progress of the visit His Royal Highness would have occasionally to make stoppages at certain places. Native Princes of India would make an effort not to be outdone by any munificence which he might display. No hon. Mem-

1515
ber would get up and propose that the people of the United Kingdom should pay for the expenses incurred by the Native Princes; but the Native Princes would take care to recoup themselves by putting intolerable burdens upon their already oppressed subjects. He could not forget that this visit was to be made at a time following very closely after an appalling scarcity of food in India, and at a time, too, when the deposition of the Guikwar of Baroda had caused great disaffection in that country—and looking at all these things, and having no evidence on the other side to show that any practical good was to be accomplished by the visit, he felt bound in the interests of his constituents and of the country at large, to record an emphatic negative against the Motion of the Prime Minister. No doubt some gentlemen holding office in India were big with the importance of this visit. It would augment their own self-importance to be enabled to rub skirts with Royalty; but it would simply be an insult and a mockery to the people of India. It had not come home to them as calculated to atone for their grievances or for our past misgovernment. It would tend to develop flunkeyism, and the Indian people would regard it as an insult adding to the injuries we had already inflicted upon them. Whatever decision the Committee might come to it was, at all events, desirable that it should be in possession of the real facts with regard to the feeling entertained out-of-doors. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) was in frequent communication with his constituents; but some occurrences had taken place in his borough which did not appear to have come to his notice. He would read a letter from the Trades' Council of that borough, representing, to a very great extent, the opinions of the working classes. The letter was as follows:—
"My dear Sir,—I am requested to forward you the following resolution, passed at the Sheffield Trades Council in general meeting assembled:—' That the best thanks of the Council be given to A. Macdonald, Esq., M.P., for protesting against the expenditure of a sum of public money for the Prince of Wales's proposed visit to India, believing that the proposed visit would not have any beneficial political effect, and that the expenditure is unnecessary and uncalled for by the country.'
"I have the honour to remain, yours truly,
"M. PRIOR, Secretary.
"To A. Macdonald, Esq., M.P."
That letter he would submit to the careful consideration of the Committee. ["Divide!"] He would not be put down by clamour, but would be heard, as he had been before, in spite of such interruptions. He wished to remind the Committee that a meeting of delegates had also been held at Stafford, representing 150,000 miners, and passed unanimously a resolution protesting against the Vote now proposed by the Prime Minister. For these reasons, he gave an emphatic negative to that proposal.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, who spoke amid cries of "Divide," was understood to say that a feeling of deep disappointment was widely shared in by the Committee, that Her Majesty's Ministers had not thought fit, in spite of the feeling which had been very openly manifested, to propose a larger Vote. Necessity for a considerable increase in the sum to be provided had been clearly shown by a remarkable letter in The Times of that morning, the statements of which no hon. Member had attempted to refute. Whether they were alarmed at the hostile expressions of opinion from some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, or whether they were really averse to the expenditure altogether, it was difficult to say; but this he would state—that the very timidity of their proposals had encouraged the hostile expression of opinion, and he ventured respectfully to point out that they were going the way to render the expenditure undignified on the part of the country and of the Prince who undertook it. Even allowing, for the sake of argument, that the expediency of the expedition could be doubted, the project had gone too far for such a question to be raised, and it ought to be supported with an unsparing, if not a lavish, hand.
MR. LOCKE: Sir, I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the Vote, but simply to ask why the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) has singled out the borough of Southwark as an example of the opposition which exists to this Vote among the working classes. My hon. Friend and Colleague (Colonel Beresford), who sits on the other side of the House, and with whom on many questions I do not agree because we belong to different political Parties, disputed the right of the hon. Member for

1517
Stafford to speak in this House on behalf of the working classes. In that I quite concurred; and, so far as Southwark is concerned, the statement has been amply borne out. I can assure the hon. Member for Stafford that, out of the 20,000 constituents I have the honour to represent, I have not received a single letter of remonstrance or opposition on this subject. I receive a great many letters from my constituents on all kinds of subjects; some of them I would rather not see, others I am always glad to receive; but, in this case, I am bound to state that I have not received one single letter of any description whatever opposing this visit and the consequent Vote.
MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I cannot but think that the Committee has been led off to the discussion of a great many matters that really do not much bear upon the question. There seems to me to be two questions before the Committee. The one is whether the Committee is to give any sanction to or to put any obstacle in the way of this proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to India. That is the question before us, because we are asked, if we decide that the visit may be paid, or shall be paid—we are asked to provide the means; and surely, as we hold the purse, we hold the determination whether the journey shall take place or whether it shall not. Now, I have no objection to admit that if I had been in the place of the Secretary of State for India, or—which is a still bolder figure of speech—if I had been in the place of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), when this proposition was first submitted to me, I should have received it and considered it with some hesitation and with some anxiety. It must be obvious to every person who considers the subject that the visit of the Heir Apparent of the Throne of these Kingdoms to India is a matter of considerable importance to that country, and, it may be, of considerable importance to this. There are questions of accidents to his life and health, and there are many other circumstances which make it very important for us to consider and determine; and although it is quite likely that I might have come to the conclusion that it was not right to object to it, still I should have come to the conclusion with a great deal of anxiety. But I presume,
1518
with regard to this special proposition, that it has already received the consent of the Queen; and we know from long experience, which I hope may be much longer, how intelligent and how prudent is the conduct of Her Majesty in all public matters. We know, of course, from what has been said to-night and the other night, that the proposition has been submitted to the Cabinet, and that it has received their consideration and approval. I think we may conclude that it has the approval also of what there is of Indian Government in this country; and I think the right hon. Gentleman told us the other night, that the Governor General of India (Lord Northbrook) had expressed an unhesitating approbation of the proposed visit of the Prince. If that be so, I should be very presumptuous to put my opinion, even if I had still any doubt, against the proposition now before us. I give up any hesitation I had. I believe my opinion is not at all to be put in opposition to, or in comparison with, the opinions of those to whom I have referred. Therefore I am willing to believe, and do believe—at least I do most strongly hope—that the visit is a wise one, and will tend, in the main, to useful purposes both for England and India. Then, if the visit is agreed upon, what sort of a visit shall it be? The right hon. Gentleman described two kinds of visits—one a great regal or Imperial progress through the different Provinces of India; and the other a more moderate journey, an arrangement to which the Government have consented, and which they proposed. But there is another mode which, for aught I know, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) might like to see adopted. For surely you could not say that under no circumstances should the Prince leave this country, or that, if he left it, under no circumstances should he go to India. Now, unless he goes to India with a single portmanteau and carpet bag, as many Gentlemen in this House might go, it is obvious to my mind that between the various modes of journeying that which the Government has approved and offered to the House is the one which really meets the common sense and propriety of the occasion. If it was any other of the sons of the Queen it would be somewhat different. But the Prince of Wales is the Heir Ap-

1519
parent to the Throne of these Kingdoms, and you cannot, in his travels through India, divest him of that character and that position. A man being Heir to the Throne of this Empire, how much in his position greater than that of almost any other man of whom we know anything? This Empire is greater than all the historic Empires of which we read from the the time of Alexander the Great down to the time of the conquering Corsican. We know that there has been nothing greater than the Empire over which the Prince of Wales at some distant day may be called upon to rule, with the population, wealth, intelligence, and power of these United Kingdoms, with Canada, with the growing Empires and nations of Australia, with the Indian Continent with its 200,000,000 of people, and countless islands, of which none of us could give the exact number. I say that a Prince who is Heir to the Throne on which he is to sit and to govern an Empire like this ought, if he visits India, to go in such State as should commend itself to the ideas, the sympathies, and wishes of the population he is about to see. I am not one of those who believe that the journeying of Princes through subject States is likely to have a great effect on the people. ["Hear, hear!"] I see that is cheered by one or two Irish Members. I think the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said last year, or at all events not long ago, that the Irish insisted upon being a subject race; but the people of India are really a subject race, and I do not expect that the visit of the Prince of Wales among them would make them forget that great fact, which must be constantly to many of them the subject of dissatisfaction and of sorrow. But there are influences which he may employ, there are circumstances which may arise, which may have a beneficial effect upon the public mind in that country. I have not had so much opportunity of knowing the Prince by personal intercourse as many Members of this House have had; but all persons will admit this—that he is of a kindly nature, that he is generous on all occasions, and that he is courteous in a remarkable degree. Now, one of the things which to my mind is always most distressing with reference to our rule in India is that Englishmen there are not kind, and are not courteous, in the main, to the popu-
1520
lation of the country. I recollect in the year 1858, when a Bill introduced by the present Lord Derby for the change in the Government of India was before the House, I took the opportunity of addressing it upon that Bill and upon that change of Government. I addressed myself particularly to this point, and I argued that it was the solemn duty of the Governor General of India to insist that every man, from himself down to the lowest officer—down to the soldier of the rank and file, and the lowest civil officer—that amongst them all there should be kindness and justice in their dealings with the Native population. I believe that the absence of that conduct is one of the greatest dangers to which English rule in India is subject. Now, as the Prince travels through that country he will see, of course, all the great men of the Indian races. But he will come necessarily in contact with many who are not great men, and his behaviour will be observed, and much, I doubt not, in this particular will be admired. The Indians say that the Englishman in India is rude, coarse, and dominant, but that when the Indian comes to England he says that the English are the kindest and most courteous people he ever met. They will find when the Prince travels through India that his kindness, his generosity, and his courtesy will be always distinguishable and always marked, and I shall be glad if it is said hereafter—as it may be said if the Prince keeps before his eyes the great object of his journey—that since the Prince of Wales was in India there has been a following of his example, and that there has been a marked improvement in the conduct of all Englishmen who are trustees or servants of their country in the government of the vast population of India. I rose for the purpose of saying that although I had some doubts, and although it is impossible to say and believe that the journey of the Prince of Wales will turn the current of feeling on great political questions in the minds of the Natives of India, yet I think that in all probability, by his conduct—his personal conduct—his kindness, his courtesy, his generosity, and his sympathy with that great people over whom it may at no distant period be his tremendous responsibility to rule, he may leave behind him memories that may be of exceeding value and equal in influence to the greatest measures of

1521
State policy which any Government could propound.
MR. DOUGLAS PENNANTwished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Member for Stafford had expressed considerable pride and satisfaction concerning certain meetings which had lately been held; but it appeared to him that the account of a meeting held last evening in Trafalgar Square on the same subject might be accepted as a tolerably truthful criterion of the character of the rest. In the report of that meeting it was stated that it was but thinly attended, and that after some extremely scandalous remarks had been made upon the Prince of Wales, the company rapidly dispersed.
DR. KENEALY, who rose amid cries of "Divide!" said, he did not intend to take any public part in the discussion but for the extraordinary sentiment which he heard laid down by the hon. Member for Sheffield, that the working classes were not interested in the result of that great question. ["No, no!"] He begged most distinctly to differ from that statement, and he would give the House some good reasons for doing so.
MR. MUNDELLA: I must rise to Order. I beg to say I said the very reverse of that attributed to me by the hon. Member.
DR. KENEALYsaid, he understood the hon. Member to say that the working classes took no interest in the question—[" No, no!"]—and it was not for him to object to the interpretation which he put upon his own words. When the question was first before the House he (Dr. Kenealy) was not present, and since then he had received from almost every part of Great Britain at least a thousand letters from persons whom he considered to be representatives of the working classes, all expressing their wonder and regret that he was not in the House to oppose it. Therefore, it was a perfect mistake on the part of the hon. Member for Sheffield to suppose that the working classes were indifferent to the matter. ["No, no!"] He had listened with very great regret, and he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) would pardon him the allusion to the introduction of the Queen's name into his powerful speech, because he had always understood it to be the law and custom of the House that, under no circumstances, should Her Majesty's name be
1522
introduced, or should any attempt be made to influence the debates by any allusion to the conduct of the Sovereign. He yielded to no man in his loyalty, and therefore he hoped it would not be considered any want of respect for the Queen that he objected to her name being introduced. While he shared in a great deal with what the right hon. Gentleman had said of the Prince of Wales, he did not think it was a question really before the House. If His Royal Highness were going to India in any representative capacity it would be a different thing; but as he understood His Royal Highness was going simply in his own private and personal capacity, he strongly objected to the people of this country being taxed one shilling towards the expenses. He believed that in the present state of feeling in India consequent on the iniquitous and wicked trial of the Guikwar of Baroda, the whole Mahommedan population were incensed, and he thought they would be more and more incensed, having no representative in the House, if they were called upon to pay a sum of £30,000 for the expenses of the Prince of Wales's visit. So far from the visit inducing those friendly feelings which the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious should exist between England and India, he thought the worst possible time had been chosen to send His Royal Highness there. He did not intend to address the House any longer; but he could not give a silent vote and allow the matter to pass without a protest against what he understood to be the meaning of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrose, and was received with loud and continued cries of "Divide!" which lasted for several minutes. At last,
MR. SULLIVANsaid: If this interruption is to continue, I move, Mr. Chairman, that you report Progress.
THE CHAIRMAN: I beg to point out to the hon. Members that if silence be not obtained, I shall feel it necessary to call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the Bar.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthen proceeded to say that he only desired to offer a few words in fulfilment of what he deemed his duty. As an ex-Member of the Indian Council, and concerned for many years in the administration of the affairs of India, he had given his ap-

1523
proval of the arrangements made by Government. As Member for a British constituency he would support this Vote. He did not exaggerate the importance of the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to India, and if Her Majesty's Government had proposed a much larger sum he should have opposed it. What they had proposed he believed to be reasonable and therefore he should vote for it. What, however, he rose to say was that, having long laboured in the administration of our Empire in India, he thought he was entitled to assert that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had done some injustice to his countrymen in India when he said their behaviour there was habitually unkind and uncourteous. The right hon. Gentleman had in that respect spoken in too unqualified a way; for, as a rule, those who were employed in India as the representatives of this country, whether they were high or low, were courteous and kind to the Natives in the highest degree.
MR. ANDERSON, who was received with loud cries of "Divide!" said, he was sorry the Committee was so very hungry. He did not wish to be forced to move Progress in order that this important subject might be fully discussed, and he promised to detain the House only a moment. He represented a constituency which did not like Royal Votes, and his previous opposition to them had been approved by a very large majority of his constituents; but he wished to say why it was that he did not intend on this occasion to give a vote in the same direction. It was because he did not think this was a personal Vote—a Vote to any Member of the Royal Family. If the proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to India were merely a matter of form; if he simply wished to exchange the shooting of the forests of Abergeldie for the sports of pig-sticking and tiger-hunting in India, he should not, perhaps, support the Vote; but he intended to support it, because he saw in the visit a possibility of securing those advantages which had been so well pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. The Prince of Wales was acknowledged by all who were acquainted with him to be exceedingly gracious and courteous in his manner,
1524
above almost all other men, and being, perhaps, tired of those pleasures to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, and ambitious to do all the good in his power, his visit to India might be productive of great benefit. Entertaining these views, he should vote in favour of the proposal of the Government.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Having had the opportunity of witnessing the manner in which the Prince of Wales was received by the operatives of Birmingham and Warwickshare last autumn, I do not believe any feelings but those of respectful cordiality towards His Royal Highness exist among the great majority of them. There may have existed among the operative classes some doubt as to the intended visit of His Royal Highness to India; but this doubtfulness, I am convinced, arose from a recollection of the severe illness from which the Prince of Wales once suffered, which suggested a homely feeling of economy for his health; but it is clear that the objections raised by hon. Members opposite to the intended journey of His Royal Highness come too late. After the highest personage in this Realm, who stands nearest to His Royal Highness, has consented to his journey; after the invitation he has received from the Government of India; after the Cabinet have recommended this expedition; after the great majority of this House that has just voted in favour of this mission of peace which His Royal Highness has undertaken, and I believe it will prove to be a mission of peace; after such a bidding, it would be inconsistent with the respect which he who will hereafter hold the principal share in the guidance of the destinies of this Empire now to hesitate in accomplishing the mission he has undertaken. I repeat that the objections raised by hon. Members opposite come too late fairly to represent the feelings which are, I am convinced, entertained towards His Royal Highness, and upon the subject now before the House. By these objections to the mere expense of the journey His Royal Highness is about to undertake, the hon. Members opposite misrepresent, I am confident, the feelings and opinions of the great majority of the operative classes of this country.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he had not heard any valid reason given for that Vote, except the one assigned by the right

1525
hon. Member for Birmingham—namely, that the Prince was a man of kindly manners, and would treat the Natives of India in a different way from that in which Europeans were in the habit of treating them. In Ireland they had had two or three Royal visits, and great things had been expected from them by some people; but the agitation for the Repeal of the Union, for Catholic Emancipation, and against tithes, still continued as strong after George IV.'s visit as it was before. Her present Majesty, when she visited Ireland, was right well received; but the people were still dissatisfied, because they were misgoverned, and they still agitated for Repeal, for Home Rule, for the improvement of the Land Laws, and the Fenian agitation had supervened. For these reasons he thought they had no right to expect that the visit of the Prince of Wales would have any effect on the loyalty of the people of India to English rule. The Prince would be put in a false position by being allowed to go to India. Let them not live in a fool's paradise, or think they could throw dust in the eyes of the people. What they ought to do was to govern India well, and to act fairly and honestly in their dealings with Native Potentates.
MR. BURTsaid, he thought that the question had been treated too much as a class question, and he regretted that so much had been said about the opinions of the working classes. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) did not arrogate to himself the exclusive right to speak on behalf of those classes, but other people had attributed that to him. The working classes were very much like other folk—they differed in their opinions on that subject. Some of them, he dared say, were in favour of that Vote. A very large number of them had a very strong objection to it; but the great mass, he believed, were indifferent about it. He would go into the Lobby against the grant, not because the opinions of the working classes were against it, but because he honestly believed that it was an improper Vote. With every respect for the views stated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, he could not admit that because the Government thought that it was a proper grant to propose, they ought to bow to their decision in silence and not take a division on the question.
SIR FREDERICK PERKINSsaid, he would vote with the Government on that occasion, and he only regretted that the amount they asked for was not much larger. He should be unworthy of his position as the representative of the working classes of Southampton, if he did not emphatically deny the serious charge made against their class by the hon. Member for Stafford. It was a libel on their character to be continually imputing to them disloyalty. The working men were thoroughly loyal, and they would never grudge a Vote of money when the dignity of the country was concerned.
MR. MACDONALDrepudiated entirely the statement that he had uttered a word that would indicate that to his knowledge the working classes were disloyal, and he believed there was no people in the world more loyal to the Constitution than were the working classes of this country. He also repudiated the insinuation that he desired that the Prince of Wales should travel through India with a carpet bag. The reason that he had objected to this Vote was that he believed the visit would not be beneficial, but would be prejudicial to the best interests of that country.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 350; Noes 16: Majority 334.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £42,850, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the additional Expenditure under the several heads of the Annual Estimates of Her Majesty's Navy, consequent on the Visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to India, which will come in course of payment in the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876."
MR. MACDONALDsaid: Without any remark, I beg to move that this Vote be not agreed to.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 255; Noes 12: Majority 243.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £58,653, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

  1527
  necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 18: Majority 198.
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved to report Progress. He said that he did not vote in the last division—that on the Naval Vote—and was outside the glass door when it was over. He made the greatest efforts to regain his place in the House, but could not struggle through the stream, and unless he had knocked down at last a couple of Cabinet Ministers, he could not get in the House a moment sooner than he did. An Amendment on the Vote just taken stood in his name on the Paper and had been there for the past two months, on which he was most anxious to speak; but when he got inside he found that the division was called, and he and his friends were deprived of the opportunity of discussing the question. Whether the fault was in the Forms of the House or in the Estimates being so late and the Chairman obliged to hurry through the Votes in a manner which prevented discussion on vital points, he did not know; but he believed his name was not called.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Captain Nolan.)
  THE CHAIRMANremarked, that before the Question was put he might be allowed to say, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that he regretted very much that he should have been exposed to any inconvenience in consequence of his being outside the door of the House at the time the Vote was coming on. The course which he (the Chairman) had taken was the usual one. He called the Vote placed in his hand by the Secretary to the Treasury in the order in which it was given to him, and that certainly, as far as he was aware, without any undue haste. In fact, before he put the Vote he looked to the part of the House where the hon. and gallant Gentleman generally sat, and if he had been there he (the Chairman) would have called him at once; but not seeing
  1528
  him there he did not call him. He might state for the information of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that an hon. Member who gave Notice of an Amendment was not entitled to be called; it was only as a matter of courtesy that he had precedence; but if several hon. Members rose to speak to the Vote the hon. Member having an Amendment on the Paper was almost always called by the Chairman.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not persist in this Motion. He was sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not had an opportunity of making the Motion which he desired, and he always regretted when circumstances of that kind occurred. But what had happened to the hon. and gallant Gentleman might happen to himself or to anyone. He hoped, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member would not quarrel with the Committee upon a circumstance which, upon careful consideration, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would feel had resulted from circumstances over which he had no control. There was really nothing irregular in the way which the Vote was put. He was quite sure the Chairman had shown no partiality, and he would appeal to the Committee whether the Chairman had not always shown the utmost impartiality. In fact, the only irregularity which had been committed was committed by the hon. and gallant Member himself. After the Question was put it was not in the power of any Member to rise to speak; but he must address the House sitting, and with his hat on. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not persist in his Motion, as the occurrence was a misfortune. It was wise to be on good terms with each other with regard to the Business of the House, and it was a mistake to pick a quarrel with the Committee.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would yield to the request of the right hon. Gentleman. He was sitting in his usual place just below that of the hon. and gallant Member at the time the Question was put, and the Chairman put it from the Chair in the same calm and deliberate manner in which he always did when a new Vote was proposed. He saw the Chairman, as he thought, look at him as if he expected him to rise; but as he knew nothing whatever about the

  1529
  Vote, he did not do so, and the Chairman put the Question. The Chairman always conducted the proceedings of the Committee with the greatest possible fairness, and no Member of the House had, he thought, the slightest right to complain of any partiality being shown. He therefore hoped the hon. and gallant Member would see the wisdom and desirability of withdrawing his Motion.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he felt quite confident that nothing which had happened had been owing to any failure on the part of the Chairman in the strict performance of his duty. The fault lay very much in the necessity for pressing Votes of importance in Supply when hon. Members had been fasting up to half-past 8 o'clock and had gone to dinner. Several Irish Members being in that position, and, while anxious to address the House, yet unwilling to do so at a quarter past 8, went to dinner, and were unable to elbow their way back again until it was too late. In the circumstances he could not blame his hon. and gallant Friend if he had lost his temper—for he certainly was a little excited—but he trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would not allow his very just exasperation at the misfortune which had occurred to interfere with the progress of the Committee. The Chairman did his duty always with candour and impartiality, and the misfortune was due to the forcing of a division on the Prince of Wales's Vote, right or wrong, before dinner. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend, having explained his position, would withdraw the Motion he had made, or else it would place him in the false position of either deserting his hon. Friend or easting a reflection upon the Chairman.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYpointed out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not deprived of the power of discussing the subject in question, as he would still have an opportunity of doing so on the Report.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that no person complained of the Chairman in the matter, and that he should be slow to believe any complaint of the kind. What had happened to-night happened whenever there was a crowded division, whether the Speaker or the hon. Gentleman was in the Chair. He would suggest, to prevent the recurrence of such accidents, that an interval should be allowed
  1530
  after a division before a Question was put.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, referring to the remark of the Secretary of State for War, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have an opportunity of discussing the matter on the Report, suggested that the Report should be brought forward at an hour which would make it possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to do so.
  Motion, by leave, wthdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £745,037, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that on a former occasion he asked the Prime Minister whether he was desirous of information respecting a class of persons called Jesuits, and if he could state whether it was owing to the presence of those persons living in Ireland contrary to the laws that this enormous demand was made on the National Exchequer.
  THE CHAIRMANcalled the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he was out of Order in referring to a former discussion. The Question now before the Committee was that the sum of £1,073,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the Irish Constabulary.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he felt he had a right to complain that the Notice he had given to call attention to this subject did not appear on the Paper, and that the Prime Minister was not present to answer him. The Jesuits were an organized band of conspirators, recognized as such by every nation in Europe, stamped and ticketed by Act of Parliament, and this Vote, large as it appeared, was insufficient to enable the Constabulary to preserve the peace of Ireland. He must object to this Vote unless some reasonable explanation were given why so large a body of police was inefficient to detect crime and keep the peace in large sections of that country.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he had to complain of the way in which pensions were awarded to those men who retired from the force through old age or incapacity for further service. The pay of the constables was increased under an Act passed in 1866, and again under an-

  1531
  other passed in 1874; but if a constable who bad entered the force between the years 1847 and 1866, in 1874 had to retire from it, he was awarded a pension calculated on the pay which he received between 1847 and 1866; whereas a constable who entered the force since the pay had increased, and was obliged to retire, received a pension of a much larger amount, though he had not served in the force so many years. Now, anything more unfair or unjust than that could not be conceived. Those who now retired from the force required and ought to be placed on the same footing in regard to pensions. Besides, the constables who entered the force prior to 1866 had 2½ per cent deducted from their pay to form a superannuation fund, to which the constables who had entered the force since 1866 were not required to contribute. He should be glad to know what answer could be given to this piece of injustice, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would not rely upon any legal technicalities, as if there were any, the Government ought at once to remove them by passing a short Bill.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, that this was one of those cases where the Government, in attempting to remove one injustice, had introduced another, as it could not be right that one constable who entered the force since 1866 and now retired should receive almost double the pension of another who entered in 1847, merely because the two men entered the force at different periods. The matter only required to be considered by the Chief Secretary to be put right, and he had perfect reliance on the justice of the right hon. Gentleman that he would attend to the matter.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was a frequent visitor to Ireland, and it was generally remarked there that justice was not done by the new regulation to this deserving body of men. He hoped the Government would be induced to look into the matter.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAalso bore testimony to the strong feeling that existed among all classes in Ireland on this subject.
  MR. BRUENsaid, no doubt great dissatisfaction prevailed upon the subject, and if entertained by the Government would have to be dealt with upon a broader principle. It would be impos-
  1532
  sible to exclude other branches of the Civil Service from participating in any change that might be made.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, there was a taxpayers' view of this subject, and he trusted that the Government would be very sparing in granting any further and unnecessary increase in these pensions. There were now 3,945 constables receiving pensions for doing nothing, and these pensions to the Constabulary of Ireland amounted altogether to £172,000 a-year. The amount had been yearly growing, and, in his opinion, ought to be reduced by a steady reduction of the force itself.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHcordially agreed with what had been said as to the merits of this deserving class of men, and felt it was not unnatural that an opinion should prevail that some hardship had been done to them. This was, however, only one part of a very large question, and if anything were done to meet the views of these men, every other department of the Civil Service might be found to have a similar ground of complaint. He did not think it could be alleged that the pensions granted under the old Acts had not been as large as the law at that time authorized and required; for it should be remembered that the scale of pensions in the Act was a maximum scale, and if a constable's conduct had not been satisfactory he would not receive the full amount of pension. The recent Act had largely increased the scale of pensions, and, no doubt, the men who retired after that Act was passed received an advantage that was denied to those who went before them. When, however, the Government were asked to increase the pensions of those who had retired under a different scale, it was their duty to consider the interests of the taxpayers. It was not their intention to make any such proposal, however much they might regret the state of things which had been complained of.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwas bound to say that he had been unable to trace the connection between the Jesuits and the Irish Constabulary on which the hon. Gentleman had addressed several speeches to the House. He regretted that it was necessary that

  1533
  so large a sum should be voted for the Irish Constabulary; but, believing that it was necessary, the Government were bound to propose the Vote.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that Irish Members did not wish to see this Vote increased, or a larger number of police employed; but they would rather see the Force gradually reduced, and the money devoted to education, or transferred to the Army Estimates. The police of Ireland was a military force for the defence of the country. The men, however, had a grievance. They considered they had been badly treated, and that the Government were ready to do a sharp thing whenever they could.
  MR. WHITWELLurged that the Government should keep a tight hand upon these pensions, which were increasing at the rate of £5,000 a-year.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKErose to move—
  "That it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to cause inquiry to be made into the Various methods of bringing about a juster distribution of political power, with a view of securing a more complete representation of the people."
  The hon. Baronet said: In raising the question of re-distribution of power in Parliament, a strong case may be made by pointing out the anomalies which exist at present; but merely to point out anomalies—although increasing, and increasing more rapidly at this moment than they have been for some years past—is not to make a sufficient case for immediate action. At the same time, while it would be misdirected energy to spend many minutes upon the consideration of the anomalies, it is worth remembering that the last General Election has revealed them once more in a naked and startling form. All over the Three Kingdoms we have seen Members victorious in one constituency who polled from 1–20th to 1–250th of the votes polled by candidates who were unsuccessful in neighbouring constituencies, thus bringing home more clearly than ever to us the fact that a man's vote is a very
  1534
  different thing in its weight and influence, if he live in a favoured village, rather than in a wealthy county or a flourishing town. To give a few instances of this state of things—If we look to the English counties, we find that in North Durham—while 3,000 voters ought, upon a fair system of apportionment of representation, to be a sufficient number of county voters to return by a majority of their number a county Member to the House—the present Conservative sitting Member, though he has through the storms returned among us, was nevertheless at first defeated and two Liberals were returned, although he polled well over 4,000 votes, and, indeed, polled the number of votes which seated his Colleague on a former occasion. In East Kent, the defeated Liberal candidate polled over 4,300 votes. In East Surrey. Mr. Locke King—a valued Member of the last Parliament—polled a number of votes which ought to have returned him to this House, the number being 4,300. In South East Lancashire, the rollicking economist who represented Warrington in the last Parliament, my friend Mr. Rylands, polled 7,500 votes, and yet was beaten. 8,300 votes were polled for the defeated Liberal in the Southern Division of the Western Riding. On the other hand, if we turn to the boroughs the anomalies are much more startling. Why should Colonel Pease have lost his seat at Hull, when he polled 7,700 and odd votes?—4,500 votes, by this majority, bring the number, which ought to be considered a proper one, of borough votes to return a borough Member to the House. In Marylebone, the defeated Liberal polled nearly 7,900 votes; in Bristol, the defeated Conservative polled nearly 8,600 votes; almost an equal number were polled at Oldham by Mr. Hibbert, whose absence is greatly regretted by the House; at Sheffield, a defeated candidate polled nearly 11,000 votes; in Lambeth, the defeated Conservative polled 11,200 votes; at Leeds, a defeated Liberal polled 12,000 votes; at Liverpool, a defeated Liberal polled close upon 16,000 votes; and at Manchester, Mr. Jacob Bright was the defeated candidate although he polled 18,727 votes. If we turn to Ireland, we find figures still more extraordinary. The defeated Liberal at Antrim polled over 4,000

  1535
  votes; the defeated Liberal in Belfast polled considerably over 4,000 votes; the defeated Conservative in Down polled nearly 5,000 votes. On the other hand, the successful Liberal at Dungannon polled 121 votes; the successful Liberal in Ennis polled 115 votes; the successful Home Ruler at Kinsale polled 107 votes; the successful Home Ruler at New Ross polled 120 votes; the successful Home Ruler at Youghal polled 126 votes; and the successful Home Euler at Mallow polled 86 votes. There is one Gentleman sitting in the present House of Commons who polled 76 votes, and was returned. He sits representing his 76 votes on the Conservative benches, where there sits besides him a Member who polled 20,206 votes. The population of Liverpool, which returns this one Member, increases at the rate of 5,000 souls a-year; the population of the village, which returns the other Member, decreases in population at the rate of 10 souls a-year. We have a successful Conservative and a successful Home Euler returned to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by 76 and 86 voters respectively, and one borough Member defeated who polled 18,727 votes. I made, on a former occasion, a statement with regard to these anomalies, which was not challenged, and which cannot, I think, be upset—namely, that our electoral anomalies are greater now than they were before the Reform Bill of 1832. There were in 1832 a considerable number of constituencies which had less than 100 voters each; but, excluding the single case of Old Sarum, the disproportion between those constituencies and the average size of constituencies at that time, and the disproportion also between those constituencies and the largest constituencies that existed at that time, was less than the existing disproportion between the 12 smallest borough constituencies of the present day and the average 4,500; or between them and the constituency of Liverpool. Gatton, which was the worst but one, had 23 houses, and the disproportion between that and the then average was much less than that between Portarlington and the present average. In a speech which I made upon this subject two years ago, I showed the practical grievance which underlies the theoretical grievance that I pointed out. I showed by careful examination of
  1536
  figures, that divisions take place on subjects concerning the interests of the great counties and of the great towns in which majorities in the country are converted into minorities in the House of Commons by the operation of these strange facts. I pointed out that those anomalies were of modern growth, and that in olden times that was the case which ought to be the case again—namely, that a self-acting machinery existed for their cure, which in those days took the form of a Royal Prerogative, now fallen into disuse. I showed how greatly some of the large towns had suffered by the present state of things, and being, I hope, free from any one-sided prejudice, I pointed out how grossly under-represented were also to their detriment the counties of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Middlesex, and Kent. I showed the claims to a special representation of such great centres of population as Battersea, Croydon, Kingston, Richmond, Bromley, Barrow, Batley, St. Helens, and Ramsgate. It will be obvious to all that, great as are the anomalies at the present time, they are increasing year by year, inasmuch as the villages are going backward, when they are not standing still, while the great towns and the manufacturing counties are thriving and increasing more and more. I may mention, for instance, that in the borough which I represent (Chelsea), and which is divided into 13 wards, the yearly increase in a single ward is more than double the total population of each of half of the Irish boroughs. Comparing my Return of the number of Parliamentary electors for 1874 with my Return for 1873, I find a great increase in the already very populous counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Lancashire, and Yorkshire. I find the other counties on the whole stationary. I find a decrease in the borough electors in the whole of Ireland, in spite of the very enormous increase in the city of Belfast; and I also find a decrease in a large number of the small English boroughs. On the other hand, I find, in my borough for instance, an increase of 2,600 electors in the single year, which in London means an increase of 40,000 in population; in Finsbury, an equal increase; in Hackney, an increase of nearly 2,000 electors; in Greenwich, an increase of 1,500; in Lambeth, an increase of 2,000; in Liverpool, an in-

  1537
  crease of 2,000; in Manchester, an increase of 1,500; in Salford, an increase of more than 1,000; in Sheffield, an increase of 2,500; in Southwark, an increase of 1,500; in the Tower Hamlets, an increase of 1,500; in Wednesbury, an increase of 1,500; in Wolverhampton, an increase of 1,000; in Swansea—unless there was a mistake made last year, which I almost fancy must be the case—an increase of 6,000 electors; in Portsmouth, an increase of 1,500; in Preston, an increase of 1,000; and only in three big boroughs was there a slight decrease to set off on the other side. No doubt it may be said that so long as great expenditure occurs at the elections in large boroughs, we shall not be much improving the chances of the poor man if we disfranchise small boroughs and give their Members to the large ones. We shall also, it will be said, remove a certain number of young men of family from the House, and replace them by a certain number of manufacturers. Now, in the first place, the smallest boroughs on the average are not sending to the House of Commons at the present time at all the same class of men that they used to send 50 years ago. You have only to compare the list of Representatives of almost any of these boroughs during the last few years with the list at the beginning of the present century to see that this is so. But I go further, and I turn the argument; for if there were a proper distribution of political power by population, the big boroughs would not be so big as they are at the present time, and the expenses of elections in them would consequently not be so great. In Liverpool and some other towns, there are 18,000 electors to one Member. There are some of our cities—parts of London, for instance—where there is only one Member to every 250,000 of the people; but under a proper distribution of electoral power there would be, on the average, one Member to every 40,000 people, which would be a more manageable constituency, even if no improved method of representation were adopted. Indeed, I may make it a new argument in favour of re-distribution that with a register made conclusive as to the right to vote there is room for frightful corruption by means of personation in the very large boroughs. I had charge of a district at the last election for Hackney, and in
  1538
  working there I came to the conclusion, that in that constituency of 400,000 people and 40,000 electors, it would easily have been possible to have carried out personation on a very large scale. Now, if there were a complete re-distribution of political power, and such an allotment of the present number of Representatives as would give one Member to every 4,000 electors, the constituencies would be more manageable even in this sense, and the very great existing danger of personation would be avoided. But it must not be assumed from what I say that I think the present electoral system is perfect; and the Notice that I have given is not one that points to any plan of reform, but one which, stating the question in general terms, asks for a Commission for inquiry into the various methods of bringing about a juster measure of distribution of political power with the view of securing a more complete representation of the people. I also pointed out, two years ago, that there was no understanding in 1868 that this subject should not be re-opened, and that, indeed, there was, on the contrary, an understanding that partially, at all events, it should be re-opened, and that very speedily indeed. The Conservative Government in 1868 itself actually proposed the disfranchisement of the small Irish boroughs and the increase of the county representation in Ireland. That proposal, however, suffered the fate which many of the proposals of the year underwent. The House of Lords, although they were dealing with a subject in respect of which I think they felt a certain nervousness, nevertheless professed, through their leading Members, that the re-distribution scheme could not last. Lord Granville said it could not last three years. Lord Halifax moved a Resolution declaring the redistribution scheme wholly inadequate, and obtained 59 votes in a small House. Lord Grey proposed to secure 23 more seats from the small boroughs, and was only beaten in the House of Lords by 98 to 86. It is on a suggestion of Lord Grey that I raise the subject once again. After the discussion upon my Motion two years ago, Lord Grey wrote a long letter to The Times, in which he strongly advocated inquiry into the subject by a Royal Commission. He pointed out, with great force and great truth, that while everyone admitted that the anoma-

  1539
  lies were frightful and that something ought to be done to diminish them, hardly any two people agreed as to what plan for remedying them should be adopted. He showed that some were favourable to a mere chopping-up of the constituencies—that, on the other hand, the principle of allowing minorities by means of the cumulative vote, or otherwise, to obtain a share of political power was gaining ground in public opinion—that as regarded this very idea itself, the best mode of applying it was far from being ascertained—that among those who more or less shared the views of Mr. Hare there was a general belief that the difficulties of his scheme were very great, and ought to be examined without delay. Now, there can, I think, be no doubt in the mind of any impartial man, that Lord Grey's statements were perfectly and entirely sound; and, if that admission is once made, it becomes clear that a strong case has been established in favour of inquiry. The summary of that case is this:—That men of all parties are agreed that the anomalies of our representative system are exceedingly great and ought to be abated; that the country is indisposed to sudden and hasty action, and therefore the time has not come for immediate legislation; that, moreover, there exist a number of competing schemes for the removal of the anomalies, each of which has active partizans whose opinions have never yet been sifted by careful and skilful examination. I hold in my hand a letter from Mr. Hare, for instance, in which he reminds me that when the subject of Parliamentary elections was inquired into by a Select Committee of this House, the Chairman refused to take evidence upon the representative system on the ground that it was outside the scope of the already large inquiry. Again, upon the discussion of the Parliamentary Elections Bill, the Chairman ruled out of Order the elaborate Amendments of Mr. Morrison, which, again, would have raised a discussion upon the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, who is to second the Motion that I make, will deal with other proposals, and with the need that exists for inquiry into them, when he speaks, and I will only say of them that a time of quiet like the present is the only time when plans such as these can possibly obtain the impartial and, I may say, the
  1540
  scientific inquiry and treatment which they need. When the Conservative Party is in power, Liberals and Radicals in the constituencies unite, and unite upon some cry. In the course of a few years they return to power, and the war-cry becomes a policy, and it is too late to begin to point out how the reform upon which the country has set its heart could have been accomplished in a better way. The next cry raised will probably be a cry for equal electoral divisions in some form or other, and, as Lord Grey showed, the Conservative Party will only have itself to blame if, by refusing calm and deliberate inquiry now, it should cause an imperative demand for hasty or for ill-considered change. The case in favour of inquiry is so strong, that the only danger which its advocates can run is that of weakening it by repetition. The only question which can be seriously discussed is that of the character of the body by which inquiry should be conducted. The time of Members of the House of Commons is already taken up by a vast number of Select Committees, and while any Commission appointed upon this subject would, of course, contain some Members of this House, it would not need the services of so many as 21 or 23. Moreover there are some of the Peers peculiarly qualified to sit to hear evidence and to report upon those points. By having recourse to a Select Committee rather than to a Royal Commission, we should lose the advice and assistance of men like Lord Halifax and Lord Grey; but whatever be the plan of inquiry adopted, that which I think must be clear indeed is that it should take place at once. The Conservative Party know how the subject of reform was thought to have been put aside for years in the quiet which followed 1860; yet, there are many, even in a triumphant Conservative majority, who, looking both to the future and to the past, are still of opinion that it might have been better for the country, and better even for the Party to which they themselves belong, that inquiry should have preceded the hurried legislation of 1867 and 1868. When the Conservatives carry the majority of the divisions of the great counties of Lancashire, Middlesex, and Kent, and when they hold their own in Yorkshire—when, turning to the boroughs, they carry Marylebone and

  1541
  Manchester as well as Liverpool—they need have no fear about steps in the direction of giving the intelligent voter in the large communities a power equal to that possessed by the voter in constituencies such as those which some time ago I named. A country like England will not long permit the public scandal which our present system must produce:—for instance, such a satire upon representative institutions as the universal admission by the Press, that with Westminster at Motcomb, Shaftesbury is hopeless for a Liberal, and that with Lord Richard Grosvenor at Motcomb it would be hopeless for a Conservative; nor can men of intelligence be expected to put up long with such advertisements as those which appear daily in our leading journals of which the following is a specimen, which I cut lately from The Times:—
  "To merchants retiring from business, and wishing for a seat in Parliament. A first-class Irish estate of 5,000 acres, carrying the representation of a borough in the House of Commons."
  Those must have misread the history of the country, who think that England will tolerate the grievance now any more than she tolerated it in 1832. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, who has never feared the English democracy and who has the magnificent past of the settlement of the lines of the franchise, might well be praised if in the future he should also lay down the principles which are to regulate our dealings with re-distribution of political power. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. FAWCETT, in seconding the Motion, said, he agreed in thinking that it was not only necessary to prove the existence of inequalities and anomalies, but also to prove that such anomalies and inequalities, instead of curing themselves, were increasing. As far as the boroughs were concerned, the increase in the population was taking place in towns at present unrepresented in Parliament, while in boroughs which were, in his view, unduly represented, the population was either stationary or retrogressive. It might, at first sight, be supposed, because there was an emigration from the country to the town districts, that so far as the counties were concerned, the admitted inequality in their representation was diminishing; but a
  1542
  moment's consideration would show that this was not so. In Yorkshire, there were scattered over the country great and increasing boroughs, which were at the present moment unrepresented, and those boroughs were constantly adding their quota to the town population. Many of the counties were in this way liable to be swamped by town voters, so that the county Members would cease to represent the rural population of England. In one division of East Sussex there were about 10,000 electors, and of these no less than 35 per cent derived their qualifications from Parliamentary boroughs, whilst about 10 per cent were living outside the county altogether. In South West Lancashire no less than 25 per cent of the entire county constituency was supplied by persons who had qualifications in the one Parliamentary borough of Liverpool. If the county constituencies should be enlarged, this inequality would largely increase. It was such reasons as these that induced hon. Members on both sides of the House to say that if there should be an enlargement of the suffrage, the present inequalities would be so enormously increased that it would be necessary to have a comprehensive scheme for the re-distribution of seats. There was a great and important distinction between the two measures. To extend the suffrage would be an extremely simple matter; but there could be few things more difficult than to frame a proper and just measure for the re-distribution of seats. This being so, it was much better that the preliminary steps towards such an object should be taken in a time of political peace like the present, than that the matter should be postponed to a time of heat and tumult. There were two distinct schools of thought in reference to this question. One class believed that the inequalities complained of would be best remedied by the formation of equal electoral districts; others thought the remedy was to be found in a system of voting, by means of which, every important section of opinion in a great constituency would have a chance of being represented. To equal electoral districts there were these objections—that they would make the representation of great constituencies more local in their character, that only local majorities would be represented, and that as the different districts in-

  1543
  creased, re-adjustment would have to be constantly going on—a process which would no doubt give rise, as in America, to a great deal of election trickery. In the State of Illinois, a few years ago, the system of equal electoral districts was tried and abandoned, and a more satisfactory plan devised, which was to divide the State into constituencies returning three Members each, and to allow each elector to vote for only one candidate. Cumulative voting, again, had the very serious disadvantage of allowing a great waste of voting power, when a popular favourite had an enormous majority heaped upon him, and also of making it possible for an actual majority to be in a minority at the poll. Now, the purpose of an inquiry would be to discover some means of preventing a waste of voting power, and, at the same time, of giving every section of opinion its due share of representation. When he first entered the House, all of the 16 Members for the Metropolis were Liberals; and the result was the same as if from Notting Hill to Greenwich and from Hampstead to Lambeth there was not a single Conservative to be found. No one could say that that was a fair and adequate representation of London. What he wished to secure was absolute supremacy to the majority, and, at the same time, a guarantee that the minority should have the opportunity of being heard. The Prime Minister, in speaking on this subject last year, attempted to alarm the House by saying that the redistribution of political power would be accompanied by the disfranchisement of boroughs of less than 40,000 inhabitants. But nothing like that was proposed. Instead of disfranchising small boroughs, he (Mr. Fawcett) desired to see them grouped together, with the addition of some of the larger towns which, as yet, had no representation; and, if this were done, the present borough representation would be preserved in all its vigour, the small boroughs would be freed from local influence of a pernicious kind, the present inequality of the county representation would be redressed—the county regaining its distinctive rural character—and, lastly, additional Members would be obtained to bestow upon the larger boroughs and counties. By this means he believed we might make considerable progress towards equality, without the
  1544
  wholesale scheme of disfranchisement which the Prime Minister had hinted at. His object in speaking had not been to advocate any particular system of representation, but to show the importance of the proposed inquiry. The great end of political reform was to interest as large a number of the people as possible in the affairs of the State, and to make that House a true reflex of the wishes, wants, and hopes of the entire nation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to cause inquiry to be made into the various methods of bringing about a juster distribution of political power, with a view of securing a more complete Representation of the People."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I have already spoken this evening, and therefore on this occasion I will not address you at any length. The address of the hon. Baronet, which was well considered, appeared to me to be founded on the principle that there is no feeling at present in the people of this country for any further Parliamentary change; and, under these circumstances, the hon. Baronet suggests to us the advisableness of preparing for the future by the convenient machinery of investigation under the authoritative form of a Royal Commission. I understood the hon. Baronet that the reason he assigns for this Motion is that on previous occasions when Parliament was called upon to consider these questions it was not prepared for the task, neither under the Government of Earl Russell in 1866 nor under the Government with which I was connected. I must say, in defence of my Predecessors, although I did not at all agree to the measures which they produced, I did not see any symptoms of their being unprepared. They appeared to me to be armed with a considerable mass of evidence and with the fruits of great researches; and when I myself acceded to office, and my mind was directed to the consideration of the same question, I must say I found that in the public offices—and especially in the office of the Poor Law Board, which had furnished the machinery used by my Predecessors to accumulate facts and conduct inquiries on the subject—there was a mass of evidence which I believe was quite unexampled in the history of this

  1545
  country; and whatever mistakes may have been made by the Administration which was responsible for the Acts of 1867–8, it cannot be pretended for a moment that those mistakes were due to deficiency of information. So far as I could collect the views of the hon. Baronet, he appears to me to found his demand for inquiry principally upon the existence of anomalies in our Parliamentary Constitution. These anomalies, he says, are universally acknowledged, and therefore, although there may not be a public opinion at the present moment which demands improvement of change, he counsels us that it is necessary to avail ourselves of the interval to obtain the information which is necessary for dealing with them. But, after all, the case of the hon. Baronet on the subject of anomalies does not appear to me to be a very happy one. He says that in 1832 the country determined to deal with these Parliamentary anomalies. Well, to deal with the anomalies that existed in 1832 required no trifling measures. I do not suppose England had ever been, from a civil cause, more agitated than it was in its attempt—in its determined effort rather—to terminate the Parliamentary anomalies that flourished in 1832. But what says the hon. Baronet? He says we have arrived at the year 1875, and, to his great disappointment, he finds the anomalies have increased. Therefore, if we failed in 1832, and in 1867–8, I want to know what prospect there is of our succeeding in the present period? The fact is, anomalies have always prevailed in the Parliamentary Constitution of England. The hon. Baronet will not deny that; no one will on either side of the House; but the Parliamentary Constitution of England is the only Parliamentary Constitution that has ever continued. Such anomalies as the hon. Baronet referred to existed when James I., to mitigate them, summoned boroughs to Parliament, and terminated, without the intervention of Schedule A, the influence of a number of boroughs. Yet the Parliament of England established in that reign and in the succeeding reigns the liberties of England; and it was by Parliamentary anomalies that you founded—at least established—the Constitution of this country to which we are all so indebted. No one can deny that from that period to the present, on the
  1546
  whole, the course of this country has been a course of progress. You have dealt with questions of political liberty and commercial liberty and many other subjects that interest and agitate the human mind, and you have dealt with them by the agency of this Parliament of anomalies. Therefore, when I find we have achieved such greatness by Parliamentary anomalies—and the hon. Baronet confesses that the great Reform movement of 1832 was designed to put an end to Parliamentary anomalies, and that they flourish now more than they did at that period—I hope the hen. Baronet will not be offended if I am not sanguine that the new movement he recommends, in my opinion, may yet disappoint the expectations of this country. The fact is this—that in an ancient country and under an ancient Constitution like ours you cannot get rid of anomalies, which are historical results produced as time goes on by the varying temper and circumstances of the country. What you want is this—when an anomaly is proved to be an abuse you should get rid of it, and that is what you have done. The hon. Baronet appeared to indicate the lines of a new Reform Bill; what are these? We have to wait for it; but it is founded upon three principles—equality of franchise, re-distribution of seats, and representation of minorities. Well, I would say upon that statement that equality of franchise does not require any very great scientific knowledge. If you determine to have equality of franchise you do not require the researches of philosophers to assist you. It is a rough but simple process, and it requires only will on the part of the Ministry and determination on the part of the country. If you come to a re-distribution of seats, that is a minor affair; it is an affair for a Boundary Commission; we do not want a Royal Commission existing for an indefinite period to accomplish that task. If you want England to be mapped out like a chessboard, with a number on every square, I will be bound to say I could attain that result with the assistance of some hon. Members of this House to whom I have appealed to perform similar tasks. We want no finessing either on the subject of the equality of franchise or of a large re-distribution of seats, although the one may require more labour than the other in dealing with it.

  1547
  The other feature of the new Reform Bill—the representation of minorities—is of a different character. The country is not at all decided upon the subject generally. The hon. Baronet will admit that. But there are a great many schemes of which the representation of minorities is the principle, though all varying in the suggestions by which that principle is to be carried into action. Then, to what does this call for a Royal Commission to inquire into the representation of minorities amount? It means to say that a number of clever, thoughtful men—that different schools of clever, thoughtful men—men who, I hope, will not be offended if I describe them as doctrinaires, because that is a title which was once held to be one of high honour among the greatest scholars and philosophers of this century—that they have a variety of schemes, all varying, but founded on the principle of the representation of minorities. They cannot agree among themselves; they do not contend that any of them have created a public opinion in the country that gives a colour to any particular scheme which is brought forward; and therefore they want a Royal Commission to inquire which of those schemes is most entitled to public confidence. That is a proposition which, when brought forward by a man of the ability of the hon. Member for Chelsea, and recommended as he has recommended it, deserves, no doubt, the consideration of this House in debate; but no one can for a moment suppose that that is an indication of a state of feeling which demands the practical dealing of Parliament. The question is not ripe—if it ever does become ripe—for Parliament to consider; and to-night we have really all our old friends, with one exception, in a new face. All those philosophical views of the hon. Baronet, whether they refer to the franchise or to the re-distribution of seats, are part of the old stock of the Parliamentary speculator. The one exception relates to the representation of minorities; and, as to that, the hon. Baronet himself confesses that there is no scheme for the representation of minorities which he can recommend for adoption by Parliament. He says there are a variety of schemes; they are to be found in every Magazine and every Quarterly Review. Why, men set up Magazines and Quarterly Reviews in order to propound those
  1548
  schemes. And we are to have a Royal Commission for the purpose of discovering which of them is the least devoid of practical genius. We are to have the existing anomalies inquired into by a Royal Commission, which if it arrives at a practical result that it can recommend to Parliament for the representation of minorities must lead to very long deliberation. Conceive all this time how the anomalies will be spreading! The hon. Baronet says they are like mushrooms. Notwithstanding Lord Grey's measure and the other changes that have been introduced in the interval, there are more anomalies in our Constitution than ever. And will not these anomalies go on increasing at the same rate? Of course, according to the hon. Baronet's views, they naturally will. The name of a borough of importance, which is not represented, has been mentioned—that of Barrow-in-Furness. That borough has sprung up within a few years, and since there was a Parliamentary Reform Bill. We all know it is a centre of vast activity, intelligence, and enterprize. It is not represented. Well, is it not quite clear that if you go upon this principle of always removing Parliamentary anomalies, you must have, not a Royal Commission of Inquiry only, but a Royal Commission of Parliamentary Revision in the country. I will not say that Commission will be like the Barristers who revise the lists of voters every year, but you must have it periodically revising the Constitution, in order to remove anomalies and to adapt existing circumstances clearly, finally, and completely to the machinery of the Constitution. Well, I much object to that. I think that is a power which, in the hands of a strong Government, might be the source of great peril; and I prefer the older system, which leaves anomalies to settle themselves in time, but which permits the country to grow in freedom, in wealth and in power, to a political system which is to be revised every five or ten years under the influence of the Government of the Sovereign. There is another point which struck me when the hon. Baronet and his Seconder addressed us. It was, indeed, difficult to ascertain upon what ground the hon. Member for Hackney supported the Motion of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member for Hackney

  1549
  objected to equal electoral districts. He objected to the Cumulative Vote—at present the most popular mode of representing minorities.
  MR. FAWCETT: I did not object to the Cumulative Vote, but I said it was not a perfect scheme.
  MR. DISRAELI: The hon. Gentleman says he did not object to the Cumulative Vote, but only said it was not a perfect scheme. Well, but then I thought that the hon. Member for Hackney and the hon. Baronet were politicians who never brought up anything but perfect schemes. I thought the observations of hon. Member for Hackney were directed against the destruction of small boroughs, and if you approve of the scheme of the hon. Baronet, you would suppose he was in the early Parliament of 1832 opposing some Reform Bill that was brought forward by the Administration of that day. I did not understand from the hon. Baronet that he so decidedly objected to the new scheme generally proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney. I think I heard that he was in favour of a Commission, of which Lord Grey and Lord Halifax should be Members. Well, I think that would be a very safe Commission. I do not think so far as I can form an opinion on public affairs, that the Constitution would be in danger under an investigation and scrutiny conducted by those eminent statesmen. But, after all, what is and what must be the practical result of investigations of this kind if they end in an approval of anything like equivalent changes? and, of course, they must be intended in time to lead to equivalent changes, or else the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea would not make the proposition which he has submitted. What is aimed at is to break up the old borough system of representation in this country. Well, that is a serious affair. How much of the character of this country depends upon its system of borough representation? How many of the great deeds which have been accomplished in this country have been accomplished by our borough representation? Is it likely that we should have reached the point which we have attained in political civilization without the borough representation? You may find a substitute for it—you may create equal electoral districts, and a general constituency of of the same monotonous character—but
  1550
  that variety of energy which has distinguished the history of England will, I think, be wanting; and, at any rate, until we can see something substantial placed before us which we can accept as a possible substitute for the present Parliamentary system of this country, I cannot doubt but that the people will hesitate long before they consent to any change. I cannot support the Motion of the hon. Baronet. I do not think there is any necessity for inquiry upon these subjects. Upon two of the great divisions I have mentioned—equality of franchise and re-distribution of seats—I think we have all the information already in our possession which it would be necessary to deal with if action were contemplated. And as to the third—the representation of minorities—I do not think that a Royal Commission on such a question would be likely to arrive at happier results than the meditation of philosophers, the writings of eminent men, and those authors who have given the deepest thought and research to the subject, and who, by the communication and expression of their ideas, excite in the public mind that intellectual controversy from which truth arises, and by which alone truth can be produced. I would not consign this great subject, on which public opinion is not in any way matured, and which is engaging the attention of the greatest authors and the highest philosophers, to the machinery of a Royal Commission. There is no necessity for taking such a step. I ask the House not to sanction it; and, although I am not one of those who pretend that the Parliamentary Constitution of England can remain unchanged—though I doubt not that in the course of time it will be modified by the changing circumstances of the country—yet I would always to the very last, even when I counselled or advised change, keep as well as I could to the old lines. I would not forget the traditions of the country, and I would remember under all circumstances that it is not well to surrender, for what, after all, may be the vagary of philosophers, a Parliamentary system which has raised this country to the highest glory, and certainly is the admiration of the world.
  MR. GOSCHENtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would not think him wanting in courtesy if he said a few words at this stage of the debate. He would have

  1551
  risen after the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea and the hon. Member for Hackney if he had not thought that anything he might have added to their speeches would be surplusage. Under the circumstances, he had determined to wait till some Member on the other side of the House had spoken. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, it seemed to him, scarcely done justice to the speeches of the hon. Members. In the first place, he had treated the case as if it had been the chief object of those speeches to insist upon a Royal Commission; whereas the gist of them was, not that a particular mode of investigation should be adopted, but that a timely inquiry should be made with regard to changes which they deemed desirable. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten a large question which occupied the House not a fortnight ago, and on which last Session he himself made a most important speech. It would seem that the question of the county franchise, with the proposal to admit 1,000,000 into the Constitution, was held by the Prime Minister to be one which need not now be taken into account, although the right hon. Gentleman said last year that that 1,000,000 of agricultural labourers were deserving of the franchise, and pointed out as his only objection to their admission the large changes which must follow the anomalies that would arise if they were admitted. The hon. Members for Hackney and for Chelsea had pointed out the necessity that must arise for a re-distribution of seats when the franchise was enlarged, and in doing so they had only followed the example of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who had pointed out with great elaboration the precise re-distribution which must take place. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had sufficient information before them to enable them to deal with this subject. But he had also understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in 1867, when his Government was approaching the subject of reform, the House had at that time adequate information on that question, and yet the right hon. Gentleman's Government had been obliged to drop within a few weeks many of the provisions which they had added to their Reform Bill. The gist of the hon. Members' speeches to-night was that we ought not to be hurried into
  1552
  another "10 minutes' Reform Bill." There was a celebrated occasion on which a right hon. Gentleman, once a Member of that House, had informed his constituents that a Government Reform Bill had been adopted and dropped within the short space of 10 minutes; and what the people of this country would demand was that the House should not again drift into a question of this kind without the greatest possible circumspection. The speeches of the hon. Members for Hackney and Chelsea had done good service in calling attention to the classes of questions which must arise when further inevitable political changes occurred. Who could say what political changes must ensue when another 1,000,000 of electors were added to those who already possessed the franchise? And was it to be supposed, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that such changes could be brought about without further inquiry? The object of the Motion of the hon. Baronet was to point out that it was the duty of the present Government to lay sufficient information before the House as to the effect of the changes in our Constitution that must occur before long. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the principle of the representation of minorities as though it had not already been introduced into the Constitution. It was, however, a part of our Constitution at the present time, and that principle had been carried out to a certain extent. He (Mr. Goschen) was opposed to that principle, and he was not converted to it by the fact that he owed his position in that House in some degree to that principle. He doubted, however, whether the House had sufficient information on the subject. Had it been ascertained, for instance, what had been its effect in various towns? had it borne good fruit? had it prevented contests when contests ought to have taken place? had it thrown power too much into the hands of election agents? These were all proper subjects for inquiry; and if in the future there was to be representation of minorities, it seemed to him to be all important that Parliament should know how the system worked. Again, everyone would admit that it was desirable to include within the franchise many who were now outside of it; but they would also see the advantage of being able to forecast with some certainty what the pro-

  1553
  bable effect of extending the franchise would be upon future legislation. Parliament had now to deal with an increasing number of social questions, which were more or less complicated, and was often called upon to act as arbitrator between different classes of the community, in addition to having thrown upon it a considerable amount of philanthropical legislation; and it was impossible that their increasing duties could be adequately discharged without further information as to the effect upon such questions which a widening of the franchise would have. He ventured to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that what the philanthropist gave one day to the masses as a gift and a boon, the democrat might probably demand the next day as a right. Parliament had come to deal with questions which affected interests which it used not to touch. Formerly it was considered the duty of Parliament to leave the community to manage its own affairs as much as possible, and to confine itself mainly to the maintenance of order and the voting of the Estimates. Now, however, Parliament entered into almost every condition of life, and legislated on subjects of a different character. Looking at the effect of the lowering of the franchise side by side with the changed tendency of Parliament, the House would do well to inquire what would be the result of its composition of a mere numerical supremacy in every borough and county. Very thoughtful men, although the right hon. Gentleman sneered at them as philosophers, who foresaw that changes must come, considered it desirable to ascertain what arrangements would be suited to the changed circumstances of the time. In his judgment, the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual good humour, treated too lightly the very serious questions raised by his hon. Friend. On one point, however, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think a Royal Commission would be the best body to make an inquiry such as had been discussed. The Commissioners would be few in number, and their political colour might give a bias to their Report. Still, his hon. Friend had done good service by the course he had taken; and, considering that the Motion was not a demand for any particular form of inquiry, but merely an assertion of the principle that
  1554
  inquiry ought to precede constitutional changes, he should have great pleasure in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 190: Majority 70.

CANADA COPYRIGHT BILL. [Lords.]
(Mr. James Lowther.)
CANADA COPYRIGHT BILL. [Lords.]

  [BILL 246.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to enable the consent of Her Majesty in Council to be given to an Act passed by the Canadian Parliament, regulating copyright in that country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
  MR. E. JENKINSexpressed his opinion that a measure of this kind ought not to be introduced until the Commission appointed to inquire into the Law relating to Copyright had reported.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (lRELAND) BILL— [BILL 189.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
LUNATIC ASYLUMS (lRELAND) BILL— [BILL 189.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Amendment of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 118, s. 10, as to payment to medical officers for examination of lunatics).
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHappealed to the hon. and gallant Member not to press his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRUENmoved a new clause, to the effect that the contributions at present given by the Treasury be extended beyond the existing amount.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in opposing the clause, said, there was no statutable law existing with regard to these contributions; and, therefore, if the Government were at any time able to increase them, no clause would be necessary to warrant such an extension as the hon. Member desired.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

REGSTRATION OF TRADE MARKS BILL. [Lords.] [BILL 242.]
(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
REGSTRATION OF TRADE MARKS BILL. [Lords.] [BILL 242.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Eustace Smith.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
  And, on July 19, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. PEASE, Mr. WHEELHOUSE, Mr. ARTHUR BASS, Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. HERMON, Mr. WILLIAM HOLMS, Mr. MUNDELLA, Sir HENRY WOLEF, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK:—Five to be the quorum.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND) ACT, 1867, AMENDMENT [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses incurred by or by order of the Master of the Rolls in the execution of any Act of the present Session for amending "The Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.